Harry and Meghan court dramas (not Suits)

[ARoseInHarlem]

Starting this thread while I digest the last few posts on the previous thread. I think the H&M saga could be as unsettling for the RF as the Charles & Diana bad publicity in the 1990s, if not worse.

It belonged to the Duchess Vladimir (married to a Romanov/R relative) and was hidden it in a secret compartment. She had a British officer smuggle it to her sons in Britain.

BRF - Elizabeth's grandmother bought it after DV's death. It has removable emeralds and also has pearls that can be attached instead of the emeralds.

The 1930s tiara used better suits the wedding look

That's a terrible photoshop of Camilla there, thisenglishlife!! Camilla has never actually worn the Vladimir tiara.

The Queen has two known emerald tiaras, the Vladimir, which is of a Russian background, but known about for decades and frequently worn by the Queen (so provenance clearly wasn't an issue there), and the Greville Boucheron emerald tiara, worn by Eugenie. It was part of a bequest of jewels made to the Queen Mother in the 1940s by a fabulously-jewelled Mrs Greville. She had bought it in the 1920s directly from Boucheron, so in theory no Russian connection. So, the "provenance concern" story seems not to stack up - unless there is a further tiara in the royal vaults that we don't know about, and it was that one that was the subject of the dispute. Which is not at all impossible - the existence of the tiara Eugenie wore had previously only been speculated about, for example, as it had never been worn publicly by anyone in the family before her wedding. Who knows what else is in the vaults?

For me
A) the tiara Meghan actually wore looked great and as @thisenglishlife said fits better with the overall look
B) if the other tiara has a 'dodgy provenance', maybe the Royals shouldn't have it at all?

@Mummy195

MM has been accused of perjury plenty of times. (that she lied about her not telling her friends). Lots of defamation on her character as well. Looks like only negative opinions on MM are allowed to remain on this thread.

Perjury!! Meghan Markle has been accused of perjury. Mumsnet is not a court. You might like to think about toning your language down and possibly trying to make some sense. I completely understand that you are a mashoosive supporter of Meghan but you are starting to appear a bit over the top

The Queen in Vladimir

It’s certainly very striking

@ButteryPuffin

For me A) the tiara Meghan actually wore looked great and as *@thisenglishlife* said fits better with the overall look B) if the other tiara has a 'dodgy provenance', maybe the Royals shouldn't have it at all?

Agree with A.

As to B, I suppose disposing of it would be as problematic as wearing it.

I love the tiara talk, but all I can think is how utterly heavy they all look! Those emeralds are like gulls eggs. I'm not really a Republican, but do think that's a bit wrong when some children in this country are going without, whether that be food, education or opportunities.
It would be great to say the ones with dodgy provenance could be auctioned off or split up, but the issue is also that they aren't owned by one person, rather an institution/family trust as I understand it.

I think Meghan has nudged him down this rather adversarial path with family feuds and court cases & he can’t get off
Yep, probably agree.

For better for worse and all of that

Meghan and Harry seem to think that anything below billionaire style accommodation is beneath them

Cartesian... you do make some breathtaking statements that you present as facts!
Who said this? Apart from you lol. They've lived in an LA mansion... so what. It doesn't mean that they think everything else is beneath them.

I believe tiaragate happened. I think it reflects in Harry rather than Meghan.

It isn’t included in the pleadings because it’s irrelevant. The suggestion it was to avoid HMQ from testifying is idiotic.

The tiara in question is/was supposedly the Queen Mary’s Sapphire Bandeau, also known as the Maria Feodorovna Sapphire Bandeau.

The central sapphire is a removable brooch. The tiara can be fitted with other central stones, including a large, carved emerald brooch surrounded by diamonds.

Queen Mary apparently bought the tiara at auction in 1921 from Princess Nicholas of Greece, at the same time she acquired the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara, which was also from Princess Nicholas. (Princess Nicholas was originally Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna of Russia).

Unlike the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara, no-one knows where or how Princess Nicholas acquired it.

Maria Feodorovna (the first known owner) is the aunt-by-marriage of both Queen Mary (HMQ's grandmother) and Princess Nicholas.

It is possible that Princess Nicholas was given the tiara by Maria as a wedding present, but no-one knows for certain.

Maria Feodorovna was also the mother of Nicholas II of Russia, which goes some way towards explaining why her son, Nicholas II, and Alexandra’s son, George V, looked so much alike.

If I've attached it properly, the picture shows Queen Mary wearing the tiara with the carved emerald & diamond centre brooch as opposed to the sapphire. It looks very like the style of one that M finally chose.

Princess Margaret wore the sapphire version in the 50's & early 60's. It's not been seen in public since then (cold war, etc.).

@thisenglishlife

If the plan is speeches, voiceovers production, making documentaries, etc (as speculated recently)... that would allow work at an 'older' age.

People keep talking about speeches. The point of a speech is that you need to have something to say. An expertise, a wealth of experience, something that people will be interested in enough to want to pay money to hear you. Barack Obama has been POTUS. Hillary Clinton has held high office. Bill Gates has founded Microsoft, made billions and is now a philanthropist. What have either M or H done that would make them worth listening to? And let’s be realistic. To give them the lifestyle to which they aspire they’re going to need huge numbers of people paying a great deal of money on a regular basis. Sure, they can trot out the soundbite of the day but neither of them appear to have an in-depth knowledge of any subject that’s likely to hold the attention of a high-powered audience who have handed over a lot of dollars to be there. I just can’t see it happening.

Someone upthread made a sneery comment about frugal Kate - but the reality is that Kate and William behave in a less grand way, despite being direct heirs to the throne

I've just read a DM article about William popping down to his local for a cider and a plate of chips dressed in his best M & S jumper. I am not a massive royalist, although I'd keep them in a vote, but I must say, he got this just right. After the awful lockdown and the potential continuation of months of awfulness, that article put a smile on my face so different to the shockers that are coming out of LA.

On the subject of tiaras there is a very flashy aquamarine tiara with a ginormous aquamarine at the centre. This one hardly ever sees the light of day which is a great shame. Only the Queen wears it AFAIK. With a magnificent necklace to match.

I’ve just been watching a programme about Fergie and Andrew. Meg could always make adverts for TV if she’s pushed for cash??!

Thank you goldierocks, it's fascinating.

I always assumed there were only two tiaras of Russian provenance, the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara and the Greville tiara (that Eugenie wore). I never knew about the Sapphire bandeau, or rather the story that it was bought at the same time as the Grand Duchess Vladimir.

So it wasn't Eugenie's tiara that was the point of contention then.

Maria Feodorovna was the wife of Tzar Alexander III of Russia. She was the mother of Tzar Nicholas II who was killed by the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. Before marriage she was Princess Dagmar of Denmark. She was the sister of Queen Alexandra, wife of King Edward VII. It’s no wonder their sons, George V and Tzar Nicholas looked like each other. They were cousins.

Grand Duchess Vladimir was married to a brother of Nicholas II. After the revolution, she escaped from Russia to Paris but was never reunited with her jewels which had been removed from Russia with the help of a British art dealer, Bertie Stopford. He and a Russian aristocrat removed them from her former palace under the watchful gaze of the Bolsheviks. Her jewels come to London but the Duchess then died in Paris.

They were left to her daughter, by this time a Greek Princess, who then sold the tiara to Queen Mary. Queen Mary inserted the Cambridge Emeralds where pearls had been and these are interchangeable.

Only three people have worn this tiara. It’s original owner, Queen Mary, and The Queen. I guess Meghan wasn’t going to be next.

Oops. After all that: Grand Duchess Vladimir was married to a brother of Alexander II. (Not Nicholas II)!

Re the speech. My father in law is not a good speaker. But there is a tradition that both fathers speak. So I asked him would he like to speak and he said he would, and if I would write it for him.

He had 3 lines. He was comfortable with that & felt he had done his "job" as father of the groom.

The same could have been done for TM.

It's hard not to think that Meghan was keen to keep her father offstage as he might damage her brand.

I am sure that this, my Coronation, is not the symbol of a power and a splendour that are gone but a declaration of our hopes for the future, and for the years I may, by God's Grace and Mercy, be given to reign and serve you as your Queen.

If Meghan had done her homework rather than thinking she could”hit the ground running” she would have saved herself a huge amount of grief.

@Mummy195 MM has been accused of perjury plenty of times. (that she lied about her not telling her friends).

Care to link the accusations of perjury? Being accused of lying about not telling her friends about the letter isn't perjury, as the statement wasn't taken under oath. Further, that would be one time, as it pertains to one incident.

Looks like only negative opinions on MM are allowed to remain on this thread.

If you are referring to you suggesting lack of impartiality, your statement was not about MM. If you are referring to linking a post that was deleted under threat of litigation, that also had nothing to do with MM.

Frankly after today's posts from mummy about the upcoming court case issue, I don't see anything they state as credible.