Royalty Thread #7: Do They Get Frequent Flier Miles?

[aftershocks]

That's a lovely bright yellow pop of color on Meghan. It's nice to see her in living color again. The dress is nice and I like her pulled back hairstyle too, with no wispy hanging strands. I hope going forward though to see a little less of her current predilection for midi-length in hemlines. The classic sleeveless look with bare arms and shoulders is reminiscent of some of Michelle Obama's State of the Union power dresses.

http://meghansmirror.com/royal-styl...han-harry-attend-your-commonwealth-reception/

http://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/

And it's a design by a U.S. designer, Brandon Maxwell, for the day after 4th of July!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Maxwell

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...dress-commonwealth-youth-challenge-reception/ Nice pictures, but I'm not sure about this article's thesis; it's true Duchess Meg has mostly worn outfits by female designers since her wedding on public occasions. But at the private Spencer wedding, Meghan wore Oscar de la Renta (unless it was a female designer for Oscar de la Renta fashion label).

ETA:
Okay, the backslit on the summery yellow dress more than makes up for the conservative hemline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dElgvsBUJss

 

[clairecloutier]

What's wrong with midi-length skirts?? I actually like this look on Meghan. Because she is tall, she can pull it off very well. It's classic and elegant. (I admit I'm biased, though, as I generally don't like short skirts. P.S. I mean very short skirts, like mid-thigh and above.)

 

[Lorac]

What's wrong with midi-length skirts?? I actually like this look on Meghan. Because she is tall, she can pull it off very well. It's classic and elegant. (I admit I'm biased, though, as I generally don't like short skirts.)

I agree - with her height and high heels the mid length suits her and she wears it with style. And the Daily Mail pics show the sassy slit at the back of the dress which it so subtle but also very chic and a little sexy. This dress has moved to the top of my Meghan hits list.

 

[skatesindreams]

What's wrong with midi-length skirts?? I actually like this look on Meghan. Because she is tall, she can pull it off very well. It's classic and elegant.

Practical, as well.
With the amount of bending/stretching/getting out of vehicles she does, embarrassing "exposure" needs to be avoided.

 

[aftershocks]

What's wrong with midi-length skirts?? I actually like this look on Meghan. Because she is tall, she can pull it off very well. It's classic and elegant. (I admit I'm biased, though, as I generally don't like short skirts. P.S. I mean very short skirts, like mid-thigh and above.)

Yeah, I don't like very short hemline lengths either, and I totally understand that Meghan wants to be more conservative. Some of the short minis she wore during her Hollywood days, she definitely would not wear again, and that's not what I'm wanting or expecting. I don't even think Meghan looked especially great in some of the minis she wore, but she can carry off just about anything. And in most of her pre-Harry attire she really rocked, including her fab Suits wardrobe, in which the hemlines were medium length and very flattering on her. Since her engagement, Meghan has been feeling her way sartorially, and that's to be expected. In some cases, I feel she's being overly conservative with the hemlines, but she can do as she pleases in that and any other regard. Her latest dress length was definitely fine, and I love the back-slit. That really rocks the outfit and it's unexpected. But the cream outfit she wore with a button top at her previous public event with Prince Harry and QEII I thought was an overly conservative length coming after the maxi Royal Ascot outfit, and the midi cream suit she wore visiting Cheshire with QEII. The Royal Ascot dress length taken in isolation is okay, as is the length of the Cheshire cream suit in isolation. I'm not so sure about the length of the cream suit the other day. Still, it's just my opinion as an addicted Meghan watcher. It's definitely very early days yet.

I'd love to find out what the hemline length was on the gorgeous TofC outfit Meghan wore in June. Many of the midi lengths Meghan has been wearing I think have been fine, including the green kick skirt she wore in Northern Ireland in March. And I loved the Jackie O Black Halo dress Meghan wore during a Commonwealth event. She was stunning in that outfit. During the church service where Meghan appeared with Harry and William, the black suit she wore was lovely, particularly the design of the jacket and the fabric. I did not like the rather maxi hemline length of the skirt. That design comes in a medium length and also in different colors. You can see that suit in the below link if you scroll down to the gallery. I didn't think the length of the suit skirt was particularly flattering on Meghan, but once again she's so gorgeous she can carry off most anything. Her biggest miss to date was the Spencer country wedding outfit that swamped her figure. As I said, the Jackie O Black Halo dress is gorgeous -- it's also in the below link:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...9/meghan-markle-outfit-black-royal/533587002/

BTW, Meghan is average height for a female at 5'7" which is not tall. I'm the same height. I have a sister who's 5'4" and a sister who's 5'10". So yes, 5'7" is average height. Meghan appears to be taller than that because she has long legs and she tends to always wear stilettos at her public events, which brings her up past Harry's shoulders. When Meghan wore flats at the Invictus Games, you can see how much shorter she actually is next to Harry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb8WiwqEMR8
https://globalnews.ca/video/3768900...th-girlfriend-meghan-markle-at-invictus-games

Meghan obviously rarely wears heels in her casual, private life. She definitely seems comfortable in the stilettos though. She's had lots of practice.

 

[clairecloutier]

Well not to be argumentative, but a quick Google search reveals that the average height for women in the U.S. is 5’4”, so yes, Meghan is relatively tall by U.S. standards. Not that it matters really one way or another. The same article says that women average 5’6” in Europe, so Meghan is about the norm there.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321132.php

As to stilettos, I continue to harbor a doubtless vain hope that the younger royals might someday start wearing something closer to Michelle Obama’s favored kitten heel style. Now that would be a fashion statement I could get behind.

in regard to Meghan being comfortable in her stilettos, maybe it’s all relative. At their wedding reception, she & Harry offered frilly slippers for female guests to change into (I saw a picture of this), presumably to offer relief from said stilettos ....

 

[mag]

If Megan is 5’7” then with her 4 inch heels she would be about 5”11” or 2 inches shorter than Harry. I would say there is at least a 4 inch difference in those photos. I doubt Harry is shorter than the reported 6’1”. Also, if you look at the Christmas photos of Meghan standing beside Kate, Meghan’s heels are at least an inch higher than Kate’s yet there is a clear height difference. (Kate is 5’9” so with the difference in heel height they should look fairly close in size.)

I love the dress and I do think it looks great on Meghan. I am just doubting her actual height is 5’7”. Probably it is in the same way David Pelletier is 5’10”

 

[AxelAnnie]

I do not find either the cut or the color flattering on Meghan. Her dresses never seem to fit quite right. It bunches between her bust and waist. And, I think it would be more flattering just an inch or two shorter. I also think a different color shoe would have been preferable. The beige does nothing to enhance the ensemble.

 

[mag]

I do not find either the cut or the color flattering on Meghan. Her dresses never seem to fit quite right. It bunches between her bust and waist. And, I think it would be more flattering just an inch or two shorter. I also think a different color shoe would have been preferable. The beige does nothing to enhance the ensemble.

I think part of the problem is Meghan is very short waisted and doesn’t have a defined waistline. I suspect she is very conscious of not wearing clothing that fits tightly, so the result is a bit of a bunchy look. I know that it is not in fashion, but Meghan would look great in a dropped waist style. Interestingly, Diana was also very short waisted, but had more of a defined waist - or maybe it was just the fashion styles in the 80’s were more flattering to that body shape.

Obviously not this dress, but this gives you the idea:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=prin...7AkIKw&biw=1024&bih=727#imgrc=-UVuG_KJ3MO4FM:

 

[SHARPIE]

I just watched the Harry and Meghan movie

 

[PDilemma]

I think part of the problem is Meghan is very short waisted and doesn’t have a defined waistline. I suspect she is very conscious of not wearing clothing that fits tightly, so the result is a bit of a bunchy look. I know that it is not in fashion, but Meghan would look great in a dropped waist style. Interestingly, Diana was also very short waisted, but had more of a defined waist - or maybe it was just the fashion styles in the 80’s were more flattering to that body shape.

I am very short waisted. I do have a defined waist. I also have hips. I can tell you that sheath dresses of the style of this yellow one simply are not going to fit her. I love the look, but every sheath dress I have tried on in my life does not hang right and bunches up between the bust and the hips. I officially gave up by my early 30s and have not even put one on since. If you are short waisted, those dresses are not made for you. The proportions are off and you are going to get that bunching. She needs to either not wear that cut or have it custom made to fit right.

She would look good in a fit and flare style or A-Line and in any styles that are fitted just under the bustline, and even an empire waist that doesn't have a super full or flaring skirt--all of the above emphasize the waistline (even if she doesn't particularly have one).

As to the underlined, I think you may be on to something. But someone needs to explain to her that there is a difference between properly fitting and too tight. It reminds me of taking boys to get costume pants fitted for a play during the baggy, saggy pants trend for young men. They all fussed and moaned about pants that fit them properly being way too tight.

 

[mag]

She would look good in a fit and flare style or A-Line and in any styles that are fitted just under the bustline, and even an empire waist that doesn't have a super full or flaring skirt--all of the above emphasize the waistline (even if she doesn't particularly have one).

I agree with this, but this is a silhouette that Kate wears a lot. It is possible that Meghan doesn’t want to look like Kate part 2 - which, given the comparisons already being made, I can completely understand.

 

[centerstage01]

Looking forward to the christening of Prince Louis tomorrow! Especially to see what kind of hijinx Prince George and Princess Charlotte might get up to.

 

[MsZem]

Looking forward to the christening of Prince Louis tomorrow! Especially to see what kind of hijinx Prince George and Princess Charlotte might get up to.

It's not a Swedish royal christening, so that will probably be limited - but the cuteness factor will be right up there!

 

[PDilemma]

I agree with this, but this is a silhouette that Kate wears a lot. It is possible that Meghan doesn’t want to look like Kate part 2 - which, given the comparisons already being made, I can completely understand.

Eh...I have yet to see any that are in Kate's favor. Some Meghan fanatic was off on Twitter in response to an article about the Christening that Meghan is such a hard worker that she'll be back doing engagements the day after she gives birth and will take no maternity leave. Which is utter complete and asinine nonsense. The UK in general has better maternity leave than the U.S and has laws protecting jobs and providing for pay that allows women to take up to 37 weeks with at least partial pay and 13 more unpaid if they wish. Royal moms have always taken a six month leave generally appearing only at family events (Kate at Harry's wedding, the baby's Christening) and major royal events like Trooping. Meghan will get and likely take the same six month leave from public engagements that Kate has had with each baby.

Generally, there has been a gross double standard both from royal watchers and the media toward Meghan and Kate and Meghan has been the winner. Kate pushed back a stray curl of hair at her first Armistice Day appearance and was crucified in the press. Meghan has attended engagements wearing the messy bun style that I regularly see high school girls do in 15 seconds with one elastic in the middle of class and it was praised for being "relatable" and "a breath of fresh hair". The "What Kate Wore" site regularly has people ripping Kate for nonsense like a hem they feel is not perfectly sewn and the same people are running a "What Meghan Wore" site that had comments about how that mess at the Spencer wedding was "modernizing the royal family". If Kate went out in that way too big dress, there would be calls for her to be drawn and quartered.

Then there was the wedding dress designer nonsense. They were raving on the MSNBC wedding broadcast that I saw about Meghan picking a female designer for her wedding dress and how this was one of the ways that she will "change" the British royals. Except that all of the following royal brides had a female design their dress prior to Meghan: Princess Anne, Princess Diana, The Duchess of York, Autumn Phillips, and The Duchess of Cambridge. So in terms of "comparison", Meghan got credit for changing something that didn't need changed--femaie designers have been more common than male for over 40 years of British royal weddings. There was a big fuss made in the press that this sheath dress was the first Meghan has worn from a male designer. Yet, off the top of my head, I can name more female designers Kate has worn than male. And the Queen's own dressmaker is a woman. All the other royal women are wearing many, many designs by female designers but it is being reported as if Meghan has changed something.

In short, if she wears a dress with a similar design or cut to something Kate has worn, the most likely result is that the press and her fanatical following will declare that she has revolutionized the monarchy, British fashion and the world in general by wearing it because no British royal woman has worn that style before.

 

[mag]

@PDilemma, there is a lot in your post! First, remember when Fergie come on the scene? The whole “breath of fresh air, modernizing the monarchy” crap? Tabloids are just recycling. I highly doubt it bothers either Kate or Meghan so I wouldn’t let it bother you. Both appear to be mature adults who understand that kind of garbage is part of the job.

As to the “What Kate/ Meghan Wore” sites, I love the fashion information and commentary and just scroll by the trolls (much like here!) The admins on both sites are very respectful and Susan (What Kate Wore) seems to be very knowledgeable. I haven’t read enough of What Meghan Wore to garner an opinion as yet.

Finally, how the relationship between Kate and Meghan unfolds will be interesting to watch. Obviously it is hard to tell from photos, but I would argue that Kate and Savannah Phillips have a friendship and bond. From what I know, the come from similar family backgrounds and have kids similar in age. Kate didn’t appear to have a whole herd of girlfriends prior to her marriage so forming relationships inside the Royal family with Savannah and I suspect Zara certainly makes sense. Meghan, on the other hand, appears to have a herd of girlfriends in place. She comes from a very different family background from Kate and is also at a completely different stage of life. While the “fab four” will probably do a lot together, I don’t see Kate and Meghan being besties in their private lives.

 

[Vagabond]

I am just doubting her actual height is 5’7”. Probably it is in the same way David Pelletier is 5’10”

At the risk of turning the subject of this thread to figure skating, I think Pelletier might actually be 5'10". https://www.avenueedmonton.com/April-2015/A-Modern-Family/

 

[PDilemma]

@PDilemma, there is a lot in your post! First, remember when Fergie come on the scene? The whole “breath of fresh air, modernizing the monarchy” crap? Tabloids are just recycling. I highly doubt it bothers either Kate or Meghan so I wouldn’t let it bother you. Both appear to be mature adults who understand that kind of garbage is part of the job.

As to the “What Kate/ Meghan Wore” sites, I love the fashion information and commentary and just scroll by the trolls (much like here!) The admins on both sites are very respectful and Susan (What Kate Wore) seems to be very knowledgeable. I haven’t read enough of What Meghan Wore to garner an opinion as yet.

Finally, how the relationship between Kate and Meghan unfolds will be interesting to watch. Obviously it is hard to tell from photos, but I would argue that Kate and Savannah Phillips have a friendship and bond. From what I know, the come from similar family backgrounds and have kids similar in age. Kate didn’t appear to have a whole herd of girlfriends prior to her marriage so forming relationships inside the Royal family with Savannah and I suspect Zara certainly makes sense. Meghan, on the other hand, appears to have a herd of girlfriends in place. She comes from a very different family background from Kate and is also at a completely different stage of life. While the “fab four” will probably do a lot together, I don’t see Kate and Meghan being besties in their private lives.

Kate does have friends. She just never blogged about them. They have a number of friends they attended St Andrew's with both male and female. Those friends are around but it has been a quiet thing. I do think that you are right about her and Autumn and judging by the polo photos from last weekend plus Trooping, it would appear that the kids are around each other with some regularity.

Kate has been torn down from the beginning. She never got this worshipping treatment. She was torn down for her difficult work situation while dating William. She was in a no win situation. Any job she had was attributed to using her position and disrupted by paparazzi. Working for her parents was judged to be not working. Meghan has been played up as being "the most educated" person to marry into the family, yet Kate has a Master's degree so she is actually more educated than Meghan. Meghan is praised for having an independent career. Something Kate never really had because she met William in college and her situation as his girlfriend basically prevented it. She is being torn down, essentially, for the "misfortune" of having met the love of her life when she was young. And really, in the grand scheme of things, she has never made a misstep. And she didn't give an interview with Vanity Fair about dating William or put pictures of bananas on a blog. Had she done either, people would have been calling for her head. Yet it makes Meghan a heroine. I find it tiring more than upsetting.

And Meghan rubs me the wrong way for other reasons. The fact that she was in a relationship with someone and they were living together at the time she went on the "blind" date with Harry is really questionable to me. The whole bit in the engagement interview about having no idea who Harry was not believable. And she still strikes me as very fake. She also needs to get out of the habit of looking straight at the nearest camera.

 

[MsZem]

Kate has been torn down from the beginning. She never got this worshipping treatment. She was torn down for her difficult work situation while dating William. She was in a no win situation. Any job she had was attributed to using her position and disrupted by paparazzi. Working for her parents was judged to be not working. Meghan has been played up as being "the most educated" person to marry into the family, yet Kate has a Master's degree so she is actually more educated than Meghan.

I've seen bitching about both duchesses. Typically by different people, of course. I don't know either of them personally, but they strike me as accomplished, intelligent and committed to public service.

The Duchess of Cambridge does have a Master's degree, but it appears to be an undergraduate masters. The Duchess of Sussex and Autumn Phillips also have undergraduate degrees, from Northwestern and McGill respectively.

There are non-British royals with graduate degrees: Queen Mathilde of Belgium (psychology), Queen Letizia of Spain (audiovisual journalism) and Princess Mako of Japan (museum studies).

 

[Frida80]

Kate was obsessed over after her wedding. She was on the cover of every magazine and most time William was never pictured. Everything about her was pour over. Her shows, hair, hats, dresses, everything! I remember her coming to the states and being lauded for everything. It's just been seven years now and people are used to her. And thats ok.

Meghan is the new kid and that's why people are focusing on her. That doesn't mean people don't like Kate. In fact she's benefiting. I've heard nothing but positive things about her in the media, as the more elegant and poses princess in comparison to Meghan who keeps breaking "protocol."

The fact is there is this horrible need to obsess over the BRF. But that goes 1000x when it's a princess closer to the throne. I think it's easy to over look Harry beforehand. He was in his brother shadow big time. Suddenly he gets serious and boom. Ridiculous. At least they plan on focusing on their causes.


BTW, Meghan broke up with her boyfriend in May long before she met Harry. Don't believe all the headlines from these cheap tabloids.

 

[mag]

At the risk of turning the subject of this thread to figure skating, I think Pelletier might actually be 5'10". https://www.avenueedmonton.com/April-2015/A-Modern-Family/

I have stood next to David Pelletier. He is not 5’10”.

 

[ballettmaus]

Eh...I have yet to see any that are in Kate's favor. Some Meghan fanatic was off on Twitter in response to an article about the Christening that Meghan is such a hard worker that she'll be back doing engagements the day after she gives birth and will take no maternity leave.

That would be nothing to admire her for but something that she should be heavily criticized for. (I don't think she'd do it, just saying because I think that anyone who makes a comment like that and means it as an admirable thing is an idiot.)

 

[PDilemma]

BTW, Meghan broke up with her boyfriend in May long before she met Harry. Don't believe all the headlines from these cheap tabloids.

The timeline of her and Harry's relationship has never been clear and pretty reliable sources have indicated that she was still living with the guy. Both had plenty of resources to move on in terms of living arrangements if the relationship was over. Sorry, very questionable.

As is the "I knew nothing about him". Someone on another forum explained that she doesn't follow the BRF and thus "knew nothing about him" then reeled off more facts about him that Meghan claimed to know. Also reliable sources have said since that she was actually obsessed with Diana as a teen if not longer which makes it even more unlikely that she knew nothing about Harry. That mixed with the banana post when rumors came out (sorry to anyone who is thought it was cute, but I thought that was pretty distasteful of her) and the Vanity Fair article, it felt a bit like she was hedging her bets--if it didn't work out, at least she maximize the publicity when she had the chance.

Kate was obsessed over after her wedding. She was on the cover of every magazine and most time William was never pictured. Everything about her was pour over. Her shows, hair, hats, dresses, everything! I remember her coming to the states and being lauded for everything. It's just been seven years now and people are used to her. And thats ok.

.

In the U.S, yes. In the UK, she had the derogatory nickname "Waity Katie" and had been torn down in the media for years and that didn't suddenly change with her marriage. Additionally, she has been derided as lazy frequently first for her complicated job situation while dating William,, then for supposedly not having enough patronages or engagements and later for taking time off due to HG as well as for her maternity leaves (which likely inspired the "Meghan won't take any maternity leave!" nonsense).

 

[Frida80]

The timeline of her and Harry's relationship has never been clear and pretty reliable sources have indicated that she was still living with the guy. Both had plenty of resources to move on in terms of living arrangements if the relationship was over. Sorry, very questionable.

As is the "I knew nothing about him". Someone on another forum explained that she doesn't follow the BRF and thus "knew nothing about him" then reeled off more facts about him that Meghan claimed to know. Also reliable sources have said since that she was actually obsessed with Diana as a teen if not longer which makes it even more unlikely that she knew nothing about Harry. That mixed with the banana post when rumors came out (sorry to anyone who is thought it was cute, but I thought that was pretty distasteful of her) and the Vanity Fair article, it felt a bit like she was hedging her bets--if it didn't work out, at least she maximize the publicity when she had the chance.



In the U.S, yes. In the UK, she had the derogatory nickname "Waity Katie" and had been torn down in the media for years and that didn't suddenly change with her marriage. Additionally, she has been derided as lazy frequently first for her complicated job situation while dating William,, then for supposedly not having enough patronages or engagements and later for taking time off due to HG as well as for her maternity leaves (which likely inspired the "Meghan won't take any maternity leave!" nonsense).

I found an old article from the daily mail in 2011 that lauded her to the high heavens at the expense of Nicole Kidman.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ddleton-A-waist-Nicole-Kidman-look-dumpy.html

I still find any rumor that she was living together with her ex very dubious and the source that said she was obsessed with Diana was her former best friend that also bashed her multiple times and sold old videos of Meghan as a child. She’s not a reliable source at all. Meghan didn’t say she knew nothing about him, just that she didn’t know much. Which is very believable because the US didn’t give a darn about him. William was a heartthrob, but only obsessed people would know many details about him. I only knew about Kate because around 2009 tabloid start making up stories that they had gotten engaged and put them on the cover of US magazine and such. Barnes and Noble was my second home at the time, so I couldn’t miss it.

But Meghan? She’s was a working actress, which is an incredible time consuming job. She just didn’t have the time to research and obsess over an English prince that not even tabloids would focus much on. I mean he only made international headlines three times. The swastika incident, being deployed, and being photographed naked. It makes perfect sense that Meghan, would have little knowledge of Harry as compared to people living in England.

Yes, Kate has gotten some bad press. But that’s not Meghan’s fault. It’s the fault of a public that was desperate to replace Diana with Kate. And it was very unfair. I applaud William and Kate’s decision to maintain privacy and to gradually enter the spotlight, allowing her to get used to the pressure slowly without the horrible experience that Diana had to go through. Polls show that 94% of people have a positive image of Kate. Not to mention, I believe that her popularity combined with Williams may have saved the monarchy. She’s been poised, elegant, and sophisticated since day one. She’s managed to bring back the romantic element of royalty without any of the scandals. It makes since that scandal obsessed publications like Dailymail were eager to cast shade. Unfortunately for them she’s been a class act and there is nothing they can do about that.

 

[taf2002]

The timeline of her and Harry's relationship has never been clear and pretty reliable sources have indicated that she was still living with the guy. Both had plenty of resources to move on in terms of living arrangements if the relationship was over. Sorry, very questionable.

If the timeline has never been clear then why are you so sure she was living with the guy? And why would anyone be so intent on fixing Harry & Meghan up if she was living with someone? The fact that someone fixed them up tells me that both of them were free.

It appears that you want to believe any distasteful rumor about her. I don't care either way, your (or my) opinion will never rock her world. But if you don't know for a fact something is true then it's just unsubstantiated gossip.

 

[Vagabond]

I have stood next to David Pelletier. He is not 5’10”.

Athletes are measured for height and weight at the start of the Olympics, and Sports Reference uses these measurements rather than self-reported ones.

Sports Reference says David Pelletier is 5'10" or 178 cm. I can also point to at least one study that concludes that judgments of others' heights are biased toward the height of the perceiver.

Given the choice between official Olympic measurements and your perceptions, I'll go with the official measurements. YMMV. :shrug:

 

[SHARPIE]

@Frida80 that link to the daily mail article just takes me to some Amazon gift card spam?

 

[aftershocks]

Well not to be argumentative, but a quick Google search reveals that the average height for women in the U.S. is 5’4”, so yes, Meghan is relatively tall by U.S. standards. Not that it matters really one way or another. The same article says that women average 5’6” in Europe, so Meghan is about the norm there.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321132.php

As to stilettos, I continue to harbor a doubtless vain hope that the younger royals might someday start wearing something closer to Michelle Obama’s favored kitten heel style. Now that would be a fashion statement I could get behind.

in regard to Meghan being comfortable in her stilettos, maybe it’s all relative. At their wedding reception, she & Harry offered frilly slippers for female guests to change into (I saw a picture of this), presumably to offer relief from said stilettos ....

Yeah, Meghan may have donned a set of more comfy footwear for the duration of the wedding reception. We don't know if she donned similar slippers to those she provided to female guests. Serena Williams wore sneakers. Heading over to Frogmore House with Harry in her gorgeous Stella McCartney after-party dress, Meghan appeared to be wearing shoes with a lower heel, but we didn't get a good look. In my previous post, I meant Meghan looks very comfortable walking in stilettos as she's surely had a lot of practice throughout her career. In her more casual outings pre-Harry, Meghan has rocked great flats from shoe designer, Sarah Flint. And in her recent off-duty polo outing, she was wearing sandals. I've followed Meg's sartorial wardrobe on Meghan's Mirror site ever since it was started by the same ladies who created What Kate Wore. They have a photo feature on Meghan's shoe closet (the photo had been posted by M on her Instagram during her pre-Harry days). Wearing stilettos definitely brings Meghan's height up into the tall range for females. So once again, that's probably why she's viewed as being tall.

Not to be argumentative about the height issue, but I'm 5'7" and that's an average height. If you are looking at statistics in the U.S. or anywhere else, there's surely a range. I consider anything from 5'2" to 5'4" to be on the short side for females. 5'5" to 5'7 is average height, while 5'8" to 5'10" and higher is tall for females.

Ya know it's all relative anyway, particularly as the U.S. population's physical characteristics, migration patterns and nutritional habits are constantly changing, so statistical surveys regarding height are not necessarily that hard and fixed. And you're right that it doesn't matter much anyway. I love Mrs. Obama's kitten heels. Now Michelle Obama is definitely a tall lady. I can't wait to see the photo ops of the Obamas with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

ETA:
Yeah @mag, I have also suspected that Meghan might be somewhat under 5'7", maybe just over 5'6" perhaps. And I'll fess up that my height after I stopped growing was at 5' 6 & 3/4", but rounding it off makes sense, as 5'6" is not accurate and the actual measurement would be too lengthy to put on a driver's license. Most people round off I'll bet. And unfortunately with bone loss as we age, we lose height...

Uh perhaps David Pelletier is just over 5'9"

Looking forward to the christening of Prince Louis tomorrow! Especially to see what kind of hijinx Prince George and Princess Charlotte might get up to.

Anticipation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBNC2NygU9g

Just hours away now.

Reportedly, the Queen and Prince Philip will miss Prince Louis' christening due to a busy week ahead. This was agreed upon in advance. Prince Louis' six godparents will attend along with immediate family, including the Middletons, Prince Charles & Duchess Camilla, Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan:
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-louiss-godparents-revealed-ahead-of-christening-11430873

 

[aftershocks]

... I suspect she is very conscious of not wearing clothing that fits tightly, so the result is a bit of a bunchy look.

Meghan wore a lot of close-fitting clothes on Suits and she looked fab.
https://www.express.co.uk/pictures/celebrity/14650/Meghan-Markle-Suits-fashion-Rachel-Zane-pictures

I agree re the fact Meghan is short-waisted without a well-defined waist. I love all the hemline lengths she wore on Suits. Of course, it was her character's wardrobe, but Meghan said her own personal style became a bit more polished and sophisticated during her work on the show where she met so many wonderful designers. It was on the Suits set where Meghan met designer Roland Mouret and stylist Jessica Mulroney.

It would be interesting to see how a drop-waisted style might look on Meghan, but she's not as tall as Diana, even though she has long legs. And as you mentioned, styles are different today. Although the yellow dress hemline is okay, it's obvious that Meghan feels the need to go more conservative than her fans are used to seeing her formerly both on Suits, and in her personal life. She's feeling her way sartorially now, and hopefully she will not continue wearing such longer lengths in her public outings. I think the hemline lengths she wore on Suits were much more flattering. Obviously, she will stay away from the too short minis she sported with such confidence in the past.

Here's Meghan's style evolution in a gallery put together by Elle:
https://www.elle.com/uk/fashion/celebrity-style/articles/g31266/meghan-markle-style-file/?slide=1

Meghan's look #42 reminds me of this iconic Diana look:
https://www.popsugar.com/fashion/Princess-Diana-Black-Christina-Stambolian-Dress-43635808

Meghan's photo shoot for Splash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLBz24mhs8
Meghan's fashion tips conversation for Reitmans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgreGrTL7R0

Interesting Megyn Kelly roundtable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03UG0RDkT18
Here's the original Men's Health Meghan video they were discussing
https://vimeo.com/71461172
Meghan with a Men's Health staffer discussing the burger grilling details
https://www.facebook.com/MensHealth/videos/meghan-markle:-the-ultimate-guy's/10159602134975207/

Photos from Sharp, sexy but not risque -- and yes she had no inkling back then of ever marrying a British royal:
http://sharpmagazine.com/2016/05/13/meghan-markle-is-one-smart-lady/

Belated TMZ useless take:
http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/01/meghan-markle-lingerie-photos-sharp-magazine/
Prince Harry said when asked on their engagement day that he knew Meghan was The One when he first met her. Obviously, he didn't waste any time asking her to spend five days with him in Africa under the stars, which apparently sealed their mutual commitment to making a long distance relationship work.

 

[aftershocks]

As is the "I knew nothing about him".

Meghan said, "Because I'm from the States, you don't grow up with the same understanding of the royal family. While I now understand there's a global interest, I didn't know much about him and so the only thing that I had asked her when she said she wanted to set us up was, 'I have one question, well is he nice?' Because if he wasn't kind, it didn't seem like it would make sense..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wW2oLfsHMc

Now that may seem disingenuous to some people. It makes sense to me. I followed Diana and the royals, but over the years, I wasn't following either William or Harry very closely as they were growing up. And not living in Britain, we in the U.S. don't hear as much about the royals on a daily basis as people in Britain do. Plus, it's possible to know who the highest profile people are in the British royal family, but that doesn't mean you actually know everything about them, if you haven't spent time reading everything that's been written. Meghan has surely been too busy with her career and with living her life to have spent time reading about a famous person she had no idea she'd ever meet. Just because Meghan admired Diana PofW as a teenager does not mean she was ever fan-obsessed with either of Diana's sons. The fact is as a result of Meghan's work on Suits and her circle of friends in Toronto, she ended up meeting Misha Nonoo and Violet von Westenholz who both knew Prince Harry personally. Also, Meghan's dear friend, Markus Anderson (who had formerly introduced Meghan to Misha), was acquainted with Prince Harry. Markus helped accommodate Meghan's and Harry's first meeting at Soho House London to ensure their privacy.

The indiscreet revelations by Meghan's former friend and project manager, Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne, certainly indicate that Meghan was excited to meet Prince Harry, but who wouldn't be? That doesn't mean she wasn't interested in finding out about his character. And she couldn't have known that they would hit it off and become close as quickly as they did. Meghan actually had a lot of things to reflect on and decisions to make and things she sacrificed in order to marry her prince. In a situation like that, I think it's crucial to know yourself, to trust the person you are in love with, and to have no illusions about the upsides and downsides of life in the royal family. Obviously, Meghan felt it was worth it, but I don't think she felt that way for only the obvious reasons of uber wealth, privilege and status. She's actually in love, and she actually is interested in serving others through humanitarian work. So it all came together in a way that to me seems like fate. But you've got to be a strong-minded, self-confident person to take on such a life. Those are qualities that both Duchess Kate and Duchess Meghan possess.

Yes, we don't know all the nitty gritty details about exactly how M&H's first meeting came about, nor are we likely to find out. They aren't going to reveal everything to us. Enough is being made up and exaggerated and/or mistaken about what has been revealed and gossiped about. I can see why some people assume Meghan is fake due to some of her 'actor-like' mannerisms. When you are in the public eye, as part of your profession, you learn how to put on a 'face,' but that doesn't mean Meghan lacks sincerity. In fact, all of the royals know how to put on their public face too, out of necessity. It comes with the territory. So Meghan fits in quite well with the royal firm in that respect, as in many other respects. She strikes me as a tough cookie with a resilient shell and a soft center.

It's certainly not unusual to meet someone and to feel the spark of attraction and then to bond over similar interests. For anything further to develop, it takes time getting to know each other better and developing mutual trust, which means opening up to each other and shedding the public face. It's just that when you are a Prince of England, this process involves developing a relationship on a totally different and more complicated scale. Harry had learned from his previous relationships, and so he made certain to do everything possible to protect his privacy with Meghan so they would have a chance to really know each other and to be comfortable together before the paps and tabloid media hit. They were fortunate to have been able to keep everything under wraps as long as they did.

We will never know who M&H truly are on a deep level because we will never have the opportunity to get to know them privately, unless any of us happen to cop an insider job at KP, eh. And even then, staff is not close friends and family. One thing we do know (especially if you watched their wedding ceremony), these two are really into each other. I believe as Meghan said in Vanity Fair "We're two people in love..." Oh and btw, Meghan gave that interview with the blessing of Prince Harry and the royals. It was a trade-off for her not having been able to do any promotional interviews for Suits once she began dating Prince Harry. Her producers were very understanding even though speaking to the press was part of her contract. The problem is reporters would have bombarded her with questions about her dating Prince Harry, so that was a no go. The VF interview served two purposes: to help promote Suits' seventh season, and to begin the roll-out of introducing Meghan to the British public, in advance of her appearing with Prince Harry at the Invictus Games in late September 2017. Meghan actually responded to only a few questions about Prince Harry, but the VF interviewer slanted the published interview to focus more on Meghan and Prince Harry rather than on Meghan and Suits.