Hold on to your fascinators, it could be a snarky ride! It's Royal Wedding Day! Wheeee!

[Lorac]

I'm waiting cautiously to see if this is also a fake location.

Could be - though road closures and heightened security does seem to imply they might be there. They have certainly managed to throw everyone off the trail so good for them. I hope they have enjoyed themselves as they must be back now or at least travelling back tomorrow as they are expected to be at the Trooping of the Colour this Saturday.

 

[Lorac]

I think it is notable that the Queen has increasingly been doing engagements in the company of other members of the family in the months since Philip's retirement from public life. She did one with Camilla this week. Are we going to all wax eloquently about their bond and Camilla's inherent specialness?

Yep. I didn't think so.

I agree - there seems to be a push by some observers to try to establish something that has yet to really develop between QEII and the Duchess of Sussex and just because the Queen took her dog so she could spend an evening with her Mother before her wedding does not a relationship make - it was common sense. And as you say the Queen is doing more with other members of the family as she no longer has Philip to support her - and she is apparently very close to Camilla as well.

 

[aftershocks]

I think it is notable that the Queen has increasingly been doing engagements in the company of other members of the family in the months since Philip's retirement from public life. She did one with Camilla this week. Are we going to all wax eloquently about their bond and Camilla's inherent specialness? Yep. I didn't think so.

Certainly it's not unusual for the Queen to go on engagements with selected members of the royal family. HM QEII is quite close to Sophie Duchess of Wessex (Prince Edward's wife) with whom the Queen spends private time enjoying horseback rides, afternoon teas, etc. The Queen also took Kate under her wing early on and they too appeared at public engagements together, just not as soon as a few weeks after Kate's marriage. Clearly, a lot of traditional protocol has been broken with Meghan joining the royal family, but it's happening due to changing cultural realities and differing personal circumstances. Meghan is a very accomplished, independent young woman who has already enjoyed a successful career as an actor and a businesswoman. As a result, Meghan is more comfortable in the public eye right off the bat. Also, she's an American so she does not have close family in Britain, unlike the Duchess of Cambridge. During her courtship with Prince Harry, Meghan was purposefully guided in learning behind-the-scenes, a great deal about royal life and protocol. William and Kate were allowed to ease very privately into their married life in Wales in order for Kate to settle in quietly and to purposely avoid as newlyweds being pressured to rush into full-on royal engagements. William also desired to continue working as an air ambulance pilot for as long as he could.

Why should it be so surprising or unbelievable that the Queen and Camilla Duchess of Cornwall have developed a bond? You know, time passes and relationships evolve. I think genuine respect and caring has grown naturally between the Queen and Camilla. They shared a public engagement just yesterday at Buckingham Palace, and demonstrated an authentic camaraderie with each other:
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...zabeth-puppies-medical-detection-dogs-photos/

Obviously, none of the royals live on top of each other. They all have their separate, private lives (lived in the height of luxury which most of us can only imagine). There are few people they can trust: only very close inner circle friends who are wholly discreet and devotedly loyal, and their family -- other members of the royal firm. The Queen has clearly mellowed over the years, and she's always adapted to changing times. She rules with a firm hand and a light touch.

Nothing changes the fact that it was a sad set of circumstances when Charles succumbed to familial pressure by his elders (mostly his grandmother, his father, and his Uncle Mountbatten) to end up marrying an aristocratic young lady (from a broken home) who was barely out of her teens, and whom he did not love. Camilla, who had a happy British gentry childhood, certainly has some character failings too, but she was never a horrid monster. I don't think Diana actually despised Camilla as a person. IMO, she despised Camilla's hold over her husband. Thus Diana obviously resented Camilla and reflexively disparaged her with mocking references. OTOH, Charles and Diana both dearly loved their sons and were mostly on the same page about wanting to give them a more grounded upbringing than they'd had themselves. The princes are the hard-won gifts and true blessings of that star-crossed marriage.

As a result of their parents' nurturing love (despite the wounds of divorce), William and Harry are very responsible, caring young men who exhibit deep love for both their parents. They honor and cherish the memory of their mother. And they respect their father's desire to be happy in his personal life. They both seem to want him to be happy too. Why wouldn't they? While it's impossible for us to know the exact thoughts and feelings of any of the royals, from all appearances and reports, it seems that William and Harry genuinely get along with Camilla. Perhaps William is a bit more reserved toward her. Reportedly, the Duchess of Cornwall has a delightful personality and a great sense of humor (regardless of divisive gossip about her spewed in tabloids). With Meghan Markle now having joined the family, everything appears to have come full circle in ways that seem to provide healing for the royal firm on a number of levels.

Life is never easy for anyone and none of us know with certainty what the future holds. But on faith (the evidence of things unseen) I think this latest union and the lovely, intimate touches we saw on display at the royal wedding signify beneficial things and uplifting possibilities. I'm happy to see two young people in love and so passionate about giving back. Yes they are privileged and wealthy, but their success in life has not come easily. I find them both to be inspirational. And of course they are also human and imperfect. They are also humble at the same time that they embrace their larger than life status and the responsibilities that come with privilege. Harry didn't always fully embrace his royal status, but his experiences in the military set him on a more purposeful path, along with his love for Africa and the people of Botswana.

I've heard more eloquent comments directly pertaining to the union of Meghan & Harry (and to their personalities) by guests who attended the wedding than anything Bishop Michael Curry uttered during the ceremony. One unidentified wedding guest said after the reception:

"[Meghan and Harry] have shaken things up and put it down in the right order... This is the way it should be. It is magic. But it starts with the two of them. And the rest is a bonus. I couldn't be more happy for them."

 

[aftershocks]

I agree - there seems to be a push by some observers to try to establish something that has yet to really develop between QEII and the Duchess of Sussex and just because the Queen took her dog so she could spend an evening with her Mother before her wedding does not a relationship make - it was common sense. And as you say the Queen is doing more with other members of the family as she no longer has Philip to support her - and she is apparently very close to Camilla as well.

^^ I recently read a report (unconfirmed of course) that Meghan's dog Guy was subsequently taken from Windsor Castle to spend time with Meghan at Cliveden House the night before the wedding, along with her girlfriends and her mother.

Anyone can perceive what they will about the British royal family. I believe the royals are very conscious of the subtle ways in which to make a statement, without saying anything publicly. Guy visibly seen riding in the Queen's car to Windsor Castle, was not a random coincidence nor a trifle. Obviously, the Queen loves dogs, so that surely has something to do with her taking an interest in Guy. I don't see anyone saying that the Duchess of Sussex is presently as close to the Queen as daughter-in-law Sophie Duchess of Wessex happens to be. But clearly we've seen a number of reports that make sense about the Queen's friendly interactions with Meghan. One such report came directly from her grandson Prince Harry, during his engagement interview with Meghan. Discussing taking Meghan to tea with the Queen and her temperamental corgis, Harry revealed: "I've spent the last 33 years being barked at; this one walks in, and there's absolutely nothing." Meghan added laughing: "The corgis laid down around my ankles." I believe the Queen knows that dogs can be a good judge of people's characters.

Keeping in mind @Lorac, that of course we on the outside looking in will never know most of the intimately guarded secrets, personal interactions, private conversations nor exact details of the daily lives led by this historic, high profile family. The Crown producers unavoidably get so much wrong that I'm sure a few of the royals have watched the series just to let out some hearty guffaws. Of course the Duke of Edinburgh is known to look upon such overdramatic trivia with the utmost disdain. He surely avoids like the plague all the cheesy treacle and scandalous tripe about his family that's fed to a gullible public.

 

[allezfred]

Meghan and Harry are reportedly honeymooning at Ashford Castle in Northern Ireland (an historic castle turned into an exclusive resort).

Ashford Castle isn't in Northern Ireland. And I've been there so it's not that exclusive.

 

[aftershocks]

^^ Oh, thanks. Yep, I see Ashford Castle is advertised online as a five-star resort hotel and spa for anyone who can afford it: https://www.ashfordcastle.com/

It's located in western Ireland then, County Mayo. Apparently, it's also marketed as a wedding/ honeymoon venue. The M&H honeymoon rumor could be just a bit of promotion marketing, similar to the Jasper, Ontario honeymoon rumor, and the Greek islands visit rumor earlier this year.

I've also seen a report that it's Charles and Camilla who are planning to visit Ireland soon. However, trips to Ireland by the British royals are never officially announced in advance. Rumors are always abounding in any case.

ETA:
Hmmm ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mEM4mMlDYE

 

[taf2002]

I don't believe that the public acceptance of Camilla by the Queen & by William & Harry prove anything. Those 3 also froze her out for years. Frankly, I don't understand why Sarah Ferguson is still paying for her indiscretion which happened while she was separated from Andrew, & Camilla is given a pass after years of adultery which started when she was a young bride. Sorry, I don't like her. Maybe I'd feel differently if she was just slightly attractive. OTOH she's with Charles who isn't slightly attractive either.

 

[aftershocks]

I don't believe that the public acceptance of Camilla by the Queen & by William & Harry prove anything. Those 3 also froze her out for years. Frankly, I don't understand why Sarah Ferguson is still paying for her indiscretion which happened while she was separated from Andrew, & Camilla is given a pass after years of adultery which started when she was a young bride. Sorry, I don't like her. Maybe I'd feel differently if she was just slightly attractive. OTOH she's with Charles who isn't slightly attractive either.

True. I'm gonna try not to be too judgmental but I can't say I completely disagree with you, especially not after being reminded of Camilla's and Charles' good old, bad old days (I recently viewed a documentary on the star-crossed life of Dale 'Kanga' Tryon, the forgotten former mistress of Prince Charles, who was involved in a love triangle with Charles and Camilla before Diana entered the picture). The documentary is linked in the main 'royalty' thread.

Despite being notoriously sloppy at housekeeping, and having a huge thing for men in general and a wily fascination for royalty (due to a famous ancestor of hers having been mistress to King Edward VII), Camilla is still not a horrid monster. She's never been considered that attractive of course, although in her youth, men found the way she looked at them magnetic and sexy. I'm getting this from recent biographies of Camilla (in which people who knew her in the past have spilled the beans).

By this point, however, I think the Queen and the royal family in general want calm, peace, and good p.r. Prince Charles is going to be King, although at this rate he won't reign for a long time. And it's looking like Camilla will become Queen Consort, something she never considered would ever come to pass when she gave up in the 1970s (waiting for Charles to grow a backbone) and married Anthony Parker-Bowles. Camilla is a product of her life and times. And she's also a very savvy person. She generally played by the past unwritten rules regarding British upper-class extra-marital affairs. Although there were the famous 'love conversations' between Camilla & Charles captured and publicly released, there were no pictures of Camilla being indiscreet.

Fergie, on the other hand, is bawdy and fun-loving, but not very smart. I've heard that Prince Philip doesn't like Fergie, and so it may be mostly him who is not very forgiving.The younger generation of royals appear easy-going and forgiving of the older generation's faults I suppose because they feel it's important to get along and get on with moving the firm into a new era. Prince Harry is reportedly close to Princess Eugenie, so that's likely one of the reasons why he invited Fergie (her mother) to the wedding. And it's not a secret that Fergie and Prince Andrew have reconciled and are close to each other. Fergie obviously will also be at her daughter Princess Eugenie's wedding in October.

 

[screech]

IMO Charles was not an unattractive man in his youth.
https://ca.hellomagazine.com/images/stories/2014/04/01/000/127/025/gallery_5_3.jpg
He looked good with facial hair (and definitely resembled his younger son much more with it...)

I don't think that Camilla is some horrid troll. I do think that Harry and William have warmed up to her, and they seem to be genuinely happy that their father is happy. I don't think that they hold the resentment that much of the public seems to. I've also heard that Camilla is one of the friendliest and most welcoming members of the royal family. She's also been married to Charles for 13 years now...

 

[Japanfan]

IMO Charles was not an unattractive man in his youth.
https://ca.hellomagazine.com/images/stories/2014/04/01/000/127/025/gallery_5_3.jpg
He looked good with facial hair (and definitely resembled his younger son much more with it...)

I don't think that Camilla is some horrid troll.

I think both Charles and Camilla are rather average looking people. And I'm sure they are beautiful to each other.

I also think that Harry and William are rather average looking.

 

[aftershocks]

Well the Windsor royals are all fairly normal looking except that inbred genes can lead perhaps to pronounced features that may not seem attractive like close set eyes, hooked noses and large ears. I think Prince Charles is a genuinely kind and intelligent man but he was very sensitive as a child and he suffered a bit from his parents' absences which meant he never bonded with them closely. He was mostly raised by his grandmother, the Queen Mum. Also, his Uncle Mountbatten took him under his wing, but Mountbatten was a wily, deceptive, manipulative character with hidden indiscretions. In any case, Mountbatten was very instrumental in paving the way for his nephew, Philip Mountbatten, to marry Princess Elizabeth. And since Elizabeth was also strong-willed and determined to have Philip for her husband, it was bound to happen anyway. But Mountbatten's political maneuvering helped. Philip was not well-liked by royal courtiers and members of the British government because of his background and his raw, no-nonsense strength of character. Even Princess Elizabeth's parents were slow to accept him.

In any case, I think it helped for Prince Charles to marry and have children with Diana rather than having offspring with Camilla. In her youth, Camilla was not considered pretty, but she had an attractive charm, a sense of humor and an earthiness that attracted men. She looked somewhat better in her 20s. Diana had a large nose, but it somehow looked just right the way it was positioned in her face. She was exceedingly lovely and charming, more-so than either of her sisters. I think Prince William takes after Diana in looks and smile, though he was a bit more handsome in his youth, and he had more hair then. Prince Harry too was rather more cute in childhood and in early young adulthood. He's looked scruffy with the beard in recent years. But since he's been with Meghan, Harry's hair and beard are looking a lot trimmer and neater. And he also seems to be more settled, happier and confident. Harry resembles Prince Philip somewhat as he has grown, especially his eyes and nose. Plus Harry's got magnetic charm. And I think many find royal princes attractive because of their status and prestige as royals.

Below is a picture of Duchess Meghan and Prince Harry riding in a carriage during today's Trooping of the Colour ceremony in honor of the Queen's birthday (her actual birthday is in April, but officially celebrated in June). The royals will be appearing on BP balcony soon. Meghan and Harry look well-rested and happy. Meghan has an even lovelier glow. They must have enjoyed a great honeymoon together!
http://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/

More pics on balcony of BP for the aerial display. Meghan is glowing, and she and Harry def look like they soaked up some sun on their honeymoon:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfPzKsVVAAARI6V.jpg
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjzeUpOhK9Q/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjzczRlBmdi/?taken-by=when_harry_met_meghan
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfP92A0X0AAF3rA.jpg:large
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6...-trooping-the-colour-carolina-herrera-design/

 

[IceAlisa]

I thought Meghan looked beautiful in the pink off-the shoulder dress and hat but apparently this was a breach of protocol per Twitter. I know nothing of the dress code for this particular occasion or such occasions in general. Someone please confirm? Deny?

I love that she recycled the hat from a few weeks ago but with a different look with the hair down.

 

[skategal]

I thought Meghan looked beautiful in the pink off-the shoulder dress and hat but apparently this was a breach of protocol per Twitter. I know nothing of the dress code for this particular occasion or such occasions in general. Someone please confirm? Deny?

I love that she recycled the hat from a few weeks ago but with a different look with the hair down.

Off the shoulder dresses are against protocol apparently.

 

[IceAlisa]

Off the shoulder dresses are against protocol apparently.

Thanks. I think hers wasn't that off the shoulder, just a little. Plus she is so far removed from the throne now, can she be cut some slack? Or do you guys think someone will have words with her about that?

 

[made_in_canada]

I’m certainly no Royal insider but I have a hard time believing that she was allowed to appear in a dress that broke protocol. Trooping the colour is a pretty major royal event and I’m sure her outfit wasn’t picked without someone giving an ok somewhere along the way.

 

[JJH]

As far as I can tell, the only individuals who are sniping about the off the shoulder dress are random zealots on twitter whose ire has been inflated by various newspapers because everything Meghan Markle, Duchess of Suffolk, related gets clicks and sells papers.,

 

[IceAlisa]

I think it would do the Monarchy some good to allow Meghan a little edge. I think it's a very pretty, yet dignified ensemble

 

[screech]

Diana wore one shoulder and strapless dresses fairly regularly, and Kate has worn off the shoulder dresses too at events (not Trooping) in the past.

It's not like her boobs were hanging out. But god forbid she show her clavicles!! I thought she looked classy and professional. And personally liked her outfit better than Kate's puffy shoulders.

On the topic of Kate - I know she must be working out often with a trainer, but she looks fantastic, after giving birth just a month and a half ago.

 

[Skittl1321]

Meghan would never have been allowed on the balcony if the Queen didn't approve. We wouldn't have known as she would have changed.

 

[aftershocks]

I thought Meghan looked beautiful in the pink off-the shoulder dress and hat but apparently this was a breach of protocol per Twitter. I know nothing of the dress code for this particular occasion or such occasions in general. Someone please confirm? Deny?

I love that she recycled the hat from a few weeks ago but with a different look with the hair down.

It's not the same hat. If you examine photos closely, you'll notice that Meghan's hat for TofC has a shallower, flatter bowl and a narrower brim on the low side, in addition to the flair of the up-tuck on the high end of the brim.

There's been a lot of talk about the styling of the Duchess of Sussex's bespoke Carolina Herrera outfit on the Internet (it's been discussed in the general Royalty thread on FSU too). ITA that Meghan looked quite lovely and the color suited her very well.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Meghan's boatneck bodice look, despite all the entertaining chatter. (The top encircled her shoulders while revealing a bit more shoulder blade area than her wedding dress and the plaid blazer she wore in Wales did). Someone posted this 2011 Trooping of the Colour BP balcony pic on another royalty chat site. Sophie Countess of Wessex looks stunning in this Getty images pic. I especially love, love her hat! (OTOH, Sophie looked awful in what she wore at this year's TofC -- she should hire a stylist for consistency in her choices)
https://www.gettyimages.com.au/even...-down-the-mall-during-the-picture-id115873173

There was a nice shot of Sophie on the Getty images site, but it's hit or miss finding it. So here's a better look in this article; scroll down to see the Countess riding in an open carriage with Lady Louise in 2011:
https://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/201108095904/sophie-countess-of-wessex-style-fashion-makeover/

Meanwhile, I'll bet there was no widespread discussion of 'Sophie's choice' in 2011 being inappropriate. The color and styling of Sophie's 2011 top is quite similar to Meghan's outfit yesterday, only Sophie's generous V top shows a slight but seductive hint of her cleavage.

As others have noted, there's no strict royal protocol these days against what Meghan wore to TofC. In the other general royalty thread @SHARPIE discussed dress code rules for Royal Ascot, coming up next week. But, as we all know, rules are made to be broken, or at least bent.

ETA:
There was no hullabaloo about Sophie's cleavage in 2011, but still no let-up of fuss over the Duchess of Sussex's lovely expanse of shoulder blades: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...l-protocol-dress-neckline-trooping-the-colour VF doesn't realize the hats Meghan wore at her last two public outings are different.

Obviously, Meghan will never please all of the people all of the time. But she pleases Prince Harry and she's accepted by the rest of his family as well as by many in the British public and around the world. Apparently, there will always be negative and jealous naysayers out there ready to pounce at the slightest perceived peccadillo. This ridiculous sniping over the skin Meghan showed at TofC is such a huge tempest in a teapot. She looked gorgeous and sexy, so the pearl-clutchers are beside themselves.

 

[aftershocks]

We knew Meg & Harry were planning a trip to Australia & New Zealand later this year (as part of Invictus Games in Australia). Now that exciting first official royal engagement abroad as man and wife has been announced by KP:

https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1005947981554704384

ETA:
Here's another news site (a podcast) for those interested in British royal news (with royal reporters Emily Andrews & Omid Mio Scobie):
https://onheir.podbean.com/

Per Omid: "The Duke & Duchess of Sussex have managed to cultivate this tight circle of friends around them [in addition to tight security from RPOs] who have kept things close to their chest... There's been no leaks or sightings of Harry & Meghan [in regard to their] honeymoon..."

Emily Andrews offers fascinating insight into how a royal tour is organized via staff and security vetting prior to the visit taking place (e.g. the upcoming all-day visit to Cheshire/ Chester by Duchess Meghan and HM the Queen on June 14). From her insider sources, Andrews claims that the Queen was initially going on the Cheshire trip alone. Andrews further speculates that it was KP who asked BP whether Meghan could join the Queen due to Meghan being eager to jump right into working on the Queen's behalf.

Hmmm, I wonder whether this report might have been purposely put out to lessen the view that the Queen herself is somehow giving Meghan special consideration by including her so soon on such a charming excursion, complete with sharing an overnight ride on the royal train? The truth of how Meghan got the nod may lay somewhere in the middle. For all we know, the Queen's planned trip came up in conversation during one of Harry's and Meghan's visits to BP for afternoon tea with the Queen, which may have resulted in Meghan's invite. Certainly, the Storeyhouse Theater opening being on the itinerary has some connection (coincidental or otherwise) to Meghan's former career.