“Princess Kate may have been at the bottom of a mountain in Bhutan without a mirror, but when she wanted to know how she looked in a set of earrings, she knew exactly what to do. Beckoning Prince William over to a stall where she’d spotted the jewelry, she asked him to get out his iPhone as she held one up to her left ear. There, with a smile from Kate, William took a shot so she could see how the dark blue dangly trinkets looked. In their own little moment, away from their entourage and security, she pronounced them just right, and snapped them up for 500 rupees (about $7). The following day it became apparent why: Kate wore them for a much-anticipated visit to India’s most romantic site, the Taj Mahal.”
“I’ve seen replicas of princess Diana’s engagement ring in practically every store I’ve been in. Personally, I prefer the diamond/ruby engagement ring given to Crown Princess Märtha in 1929 when she got engaged to Crown Prince Olav of Norway; the ring which was then passed on to Queen Sonja and Crown Princess Mette-Marit I think it’s far more classy and beautiful. I’m actually looking for a ring like that and can’t for the life of me find it!“ – Submitted by Anonymous
I think the reporters are hinting that it was Eugenie’s tiara. I think she wanted Di’s emeralds as an engagement ring and the same thing happened. She ended up with a generic version.
This is the kind of thing you do when you’re extremely desperate for attention. Her fans think this shit is cute, but she has no other way to tell people how far along she is and that makes it pathetic.
Defiantly? I see no evidence of that. We have no idea how they interacted at the reception, where there were no press cameras.
Wearing Diana’s jewelry may be loaned. I seem to recall the huge, aquamarine ring Megs wore in her reception photos was referred to as a loan for the occasion.
Regardless, her wearing her deceased mother-in-law’s jewelry is kind of gross.
Queen Elizabeth lent Princess Eugenie the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik tiara for her wedding day on October 12, 2018.
Margaret Greville gifted her jewels to the Queen Mother when she passed away, who then left them to Queen Elizabeth when the Queen Mother passed away in 2002. The tiara was never worn by the Queen Mother or Queen Elizabeth.
Princess Eugenie’s simple and elegant wedding dress was designed by Peter Pilotto and Christopher De Vos of British-based label Peter Pilotto.
The dress was developed layer-by-layer during several fittings. The designers began with the corset and complex underskirt before moving on to the fitted bodice and full pleated skirt. It features a neckline that folds around the shoulders to a low back that drapes into a flowing full-length train.
The low back of the dress was included in the design at the request of Princess Eugenie, who had surgery, aged 12, to correct scoliosis. The condition causes the spine to bend to one side, and can make the back appear rounded and the shoulder blades more prominent. Before the wedding, the princess said “I think you can change the way beauty is, and you can show people your scars and I think it’s really special to stand up for that.”
The fabric was designed by Mr Pilotto and Mr De Vos at their studio and includes a number of symbols that are meaningful to Princess Eugenie as motifs. A thistle representing Scotland acknowledges the couple’s fondness for Balmoral, and a shamrock representing Ireland is a nod to the bride’s Ferguson family. The other symbols used including the York Rose – a nod to the princess’s family name of York – and ivy, which represents the couple’s home, Ivy Cottage, in Kensington Palace.
Princess Eugenie wore the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara, lent to her by the Queen. The tiara was made by the jeweller Boucheron for British society hostess Dame Margaret Greville in 1919. It was created in the fashionable “kokoshnik” style popularised in the Russian Imperial Court.
On her death in 1942, the tiara was bequeathed to the Royal Family.
The wedding bouquet consists of lily of the valley, stephanotis pips, hints of baby blue thistles, white spray roses, trailing ivy and myrtle. Myrtle has traditionally been used in Royal bouquets since Queen Victoria.
The engagement ring consists of 14 solitaire diamonds surrounding a 12-carat oval blue Ceylon sapphire set in 18-karat white gold. It was created by jeweler Garrard and cost at the time, 28,000 pounds sterling. Diana’s selection of this ring was unusual. It was neither custom-made nor unique and was, at the time of her engagement to Charles, featured in Garrard’s jewelry collection and available to anyone for purchase.
Can someone explain to me how the wife of the sixth in line to the throne outspent the wife of the second in line to the throne in a mere six months and also where is the same uproar that was levelled at the latter k thanks bye
There’s no uproar because if you dare to call her out then her sugars will label you as a racist cat lady. Also like the sugar in your notes say “she had her own money” which is funny because many of the pieces Rachel had before dating harry were from the suits set or loaners, the only ones that weren’t were the creepy stalk your mother watch addressed to herself and the thin bend rings.
By the way can someone riddle me this, if she had her own money before hand why didn’t she at least pay for her own wedding dresses?
Why did she not own a damn thing while living in Canada? Not even half the clothes on her back? No investments? No charities? Not a damn thing.
Oh by the way the only Cartier she owned was the stalk your mother watch with a note from herself to herself, oh and one of those nail rings (which we’ve only seen her in once or twice).
In KATE’s first six months as a married woman, her total spending amounted to £40’500 ($54’000). That’s the woman married to the 3rd in line to be king. And was doing engagements. This included her clothes. Okay.
In MEGHAN’s first six months, not as wife, but as a fiancée +1 day as wife to the 6th in line, she has amassed a whopping £514’330 ($687’000) in JEWELLERY ALONE. And this is only counting her “big pieces”. Throughout the six months we’ve seen her wearing new pieces stacked and mismatched adding up to thousands per time.
The Spencer Tiara for me is the most lovely and perfect tiara for a wedding, with it’s “heart” shaped scroll of diamonds, it’s romantic and feminine. Lady Diana Spencer wore this to her marriage to The Prince of Wales on July 29, 1981, the day she became The Princess of Wales.
She chose this above the Cambridge Tiara that had been “given” to her by the Queen. She often wore the Cambridge, but I read many times, the Spencer Tiara was her favorite.
I believe I’ve heard that the Spencer tiara is lighter in comparison to the Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara. (But I also agree on the look of the Spencer Tiara.)
You also have to add in her half assed apology (I’m sorry if it caused offence rather than if she caused offence) and her repeated racist incidents in the past. There’s no reason to give her any slack given the fact this was the latest in a long line of examples of her being a racist.
Sorry, it wasn’t a blackamoor brooch. Kuriozgirl is correct.
Lainey made an assumption that it was a blackamoor brooch simply because the character was black/of African origin, and it took off like wildfire in the gossip press because Princess Pushy/Princess Michael has said racist things in the past. Lainey did no research – she just assumed. Blackamoor works show the African character in positions of servitude or ridicule (see the article cited above); however, the brooch Princess Michael wore did no such thing. It was simply of an African man dressed in gold and jewels: a king.
It’s simply ignorant of art and religious history and tradition to simply point fingers accusing Princess Michael of racism with the Balthazar brooch. (That doesn’t necessarily mean she isn’t racist; it just means the Balthazar brooch itself is not inherently racist as are blackamoor works.)
Balthazar, as one of the three Magi, has historically always been portrayed as an African – just as the other two Magi have been historically been portrayed as Arabian and Mediterranean. This is a representation of the historical Christian diaspora and the traditional regional powers of the early Christian era. Recall that this is a religion born of the eastern Mediterranean, with connections to the surrounding areas.
A better representation of historical racism in European Christianity would surely be portraying Jesus as a blond or fair-skinned European. Or the fact that in Spain they still portray Balthazar using blackface instead of actors of African descent.
Posting this, just because it gives me an opportunity to post this awesome article from back in December, which I somehow missed. It’s about the royal souvenir business in China.
it turns out everyone wanted Diana’s ring. No one wanted Meghan’s.
House of Brat 