A positive thread on Harry and Meghan (aka Thread 6)

[Mummy195]

@rousette

I'm sure you won't mind that your excellent link gets 'pinned'.

Some of the things MM did before marrying H.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282990766097301504.html

I think the issue is that off the shoulder dresses are fine but only as evening wear. The Queen has worn plenty but not during the day.

Royal Brides do not wear off the shoulder dresses presumably for this reason and also you should have your shoulders covered in Church. Twenty years ago you would have to cover your shoulders to go into St Peter's in Rome, but now they have given up insisting. Hence Princess Beatrice wearing one of the Queen's evening dresses for her wedding but adding sleeves.

I think dark nail polish is again an evening thing. I remember reading an anecdote by a Doctor in the 1950s who was told by a consultant "if a woman comes in with severe stomach pain it'll be appendicitis, unless she has red painted toenails on which case it'll be venereal disease as she'd be a prostitute." Appalling attitude but one that prevailed among certain class at a certain time, to both of which the Quuen belongs.

I think those rules about tights and nail varnish are the rules that nice well brought up girls abided by in the 1950’s. There are good reasons because the focus would be on the nail varnish not the person and what they are doing. I remember being told when young that wearing anything but pearl pink was ‘common’. Likewise tights. Bare legs considered too casual for a formal occasion or work.
Really what did she expect in a formal, hidebound and very public role?

They are perfectly apt comparisons- female flight attendants have well-drawn uniform and make up policies. That's exactly what you were talking about. Compliance is about meeting the ethical standards of your work place. As public figures, royals have ethical standards they are expected to comply with. How about press relations then? All organisations I have worked in have policies around fitting in with the press office schedule, and not doing your own thing with the press, as protection of the corporate brand is paramount. These are not unusual job requirements. Being unable or unwilling to comply with them isn't generally acceptable behaviour for any employer.

Does anyone remember when it was considered declasse if it was obvious your hair was coloured???

I mean- my first year at university people were worried about this.

Sorry - another derail. But speaking of nail polish.

Deary me. Best if I not comment on the nail varnish and dresses etc. I've always thought MM looked the part personally.

OK Serenster I don't have an answer for you. I just can't liken someone marrying into the RF the same as the uniform a flight attendant wears. Or the press relations of an organisation you've worked at, or other organisations.
The RF is unique. Obviously.
Personally I think a wind of change is needed.

I feel like I'm being interviewed for a job myself here
don't think I've got the job

I am of an age where - Man with tattoos = sailor, army or prison. Woman with tattoos = what? there is no such thing! Apart from that song by the muppets.

@BalloonSlayer

I am of an age where - Man with tattoos = sailor, army or prison. Woman with tattoos = what? there is no such thing! Apart from that song by the muppets.

Oh a man with tatts My music guy is m shadows...google him. And have a few. But i am not royal

I always thought MM looked fantastic, I don't really think you could fault that.

Besides, women, including cabin crew, do push back agains ridiculous outdated dress codes likes tights and heels - good for them. I don't think the fact something has been done since the 50s makes it right- quite the opposite in fact. But then, I am a woman in her 50s with a tattoo so should doubtless be burned as a witch

Oh do give over. It's tedious. What am I twisting? i keep getting it wrong? Think you have this time!

Not one person has said that only one colour of nail varnish is allowed
Where have I said that anyone talked of this. I haven't. Where have I put words into other posters writings? I haven't. I politely used the nail varnish analogy in my post as an example. Read my post properly if you are able. I was illustrating a point. Do you get that? There are many examples I could've used as ways the RF needs to change, I chose that one, and there was a decent discussion about this. And along you come with your accusations.

And perhaps you'd like to read my posts on here where I said Harry should have helped more. Here it is... but why don't you choose to ignore that.
"think it was a culture shock for her to be launched into the RF. I believe Harry was possibly at fault for bigging it up, for not thinking it through"

I can only presume you are hoping this positive thread gets pulled by having a go
Positive thread? Open discussion?
It actually was.

I agree that H is the main problem. It's sad as his mother's touch with people but he seems spoiled and entitled with no self awareness. Obviously a lot of the difficulties with M are cultural but it is ridiculous that a woman of her age and education wouldn't be able to recognise that and allow some time for everyone to adjust.

The Queen refers to (Angela Kelly) as her second sister and approved her book The Other Side of the Coin

I admit I was really surprised by that; Anne Glenconner's written one too, about being a Lady in Waiting, though I don't know if that one's authorised

When you think what happened to Marion Crawford it seems at least some things have changed - and not before time

Totally beside the point, but if my legs are tanned in summer, I could get away without tights at a formal do. Any other season of the year, forget it. Mottled blue-white legs are not a good look.
One can imagine that anyone hailing from California, where things are a lot less formal anyway, might think WTAF about such a rule, and Meghan being bi-racial with a beautiful skin-tone particularly so.

I don’t think the real fall out was about children’s tights. Or even a tiara. (The Vladimir). It’s about Meghan not being able to make her mark in the RF. She was, effectively, being trained. Being advised. Being asked to go along with people who knew how The Queen wanted things. The dress wasn’t really off the shoulder. It was just a wide boat neck. It’s a non argument . But Meghan's reforming zeal was. The Queen wasn’t going to agree to monetarising the RF. Duty is everything to her and until she dies, that’s the way it is. Meghan simply couldn’t wait and Harry couldn’t wait to get away. So they went.

Can Mumsnet read our private messages then? Really? (if thats true, then I had no idea, is that usual?)

I imagine on any site like this the owners can read any part of it they want to. Whether they should be reading messages not published on the site but intended to be personal is another question

In the other hand if someone were using dm's for illegal purposes the owners could be held liable.

The persistence of the tiara story is interesting as the tiara MM did wear was absolutely perfect for her dress. She also seems to favour very clean, elegant things which the tiara is - it would seem a natural choice for her.

Wow, Meerkat, I had no idea......................

Omid Scobie is shouting on Twitter that tiaragate did NOT happen and the DM are lying bastards.

@callmeadoctor
Yes, MNHQ have been clear about the fact that they can access private messages, also known as direct messages. They are also clear about the fact that they can delete them, and say that the recipient requested the deletion.
It's Justine's site. It's free, so you are the product. MNHQ can use your posts in whatever way they want to.

Omid Scobie is shouting on Twitter that tiaragate did NOT happen and the DM are lying bastards

Okay, so now I'm confused; I've no intention of reading his wretched book, but thought someone said an account of Tiaragate was actually in it?

Or was that someone else's attempt at fourth form writing?

He just says that Angela Kelly dragged her feet over the wedding hair mock up and loan of a tiara! So the blame is now on Ms Kelly. The dreaded Royal Household vipers!

The crossover between family and Firm seems to have fed into the dress code problems. If your gran says they don't like your nail polish then you're unlikely to change it. If your boss says you're representing the company at an event and there's a dress code, you're more likely to comply. We had a family business growing up. Although as a teen, I'd often wear clothes my parents didn't approve of in my free time if I was working I'd check if I was supposed to wear 'uniform' iyswim.
There are lots of reasons behind some of the RF dress codes and decisions from respect in a Church to dubious provenance of gems.

What is so ridiculous is that this has got into the public domain. The RF just keeps quiet and gets on with it. It’s hardly a big deal that Angela Kelly didn’t snap to it when Meghan wanted her to. She’s the Queens dresser and designer. She was helping Meghan and most brides would have been grateful for the help, whenever it came. The frustrations of MandH are laid out in this book but from most people’s perspectives they look petty and very spoilt yet demanding. I rather suspect the Royal Household wasn’t sorry to see them go and wouldn’t expect to be named like this. (Speculation and apologies for that but it’s my opinion)!

I don't think the dress codes were the issue for Me and H. I think they believed that they had new enlightened ways of doing things and making money and an important global message of change and were being held back by a stuffy traditional institution.