Sunday, 29 October 2017

When Harry Met Meghan & a Pride and Prejudice Country Home?

The clock went back last night and the sun has already set, as I write on this mild autumnal Sunday. Speaking of last night, the first of what I anticipate will be many documentaries about Harry and Meghan aired. When Harry Met Meghan: A Royal Romance began at 9 pm, perfectly clashing with gritty BBC show Gunpowder starring Jon Snow Kit Harrington. Although, I wasn't sure what to expect the royalist in me won out and I wanted to see if any new insights would be offered. There were no groundbreaking revelations (The Telegraph has dubbed it a load of nonsense), however, I found portions of it quite interesting. Katie Nicholl claims Harry had quite the crush on Meghan for two years, telling a friend who later had drinks with Nicholl: "He had a crush on Rachel Zane for two years, he told a friend his ideal girl was Meghan Markle from Suits." The show reiterates knowledge Meghan's longtime close friend Markus Anderson organised a meeting with a group of friends at Soho House on Dean Street.


It also continued to look at the media backlash she endured when the relationship became public. When Kensington Palace released the statement condemning the behaviour of the press, Prince Charles was on tour. Interestingly, according to the documentary neither he nor his office knew the statement was coming.

People who had worked with her parents during Meghan's childhood noted how close she is with them and her. The parts that shone in particular were clips and quotes shared by Meghan over the years herself. I thought this one in particular very striking - summing up the values her parents instilled in her:

"Both my parents came from little, so they made a choice to give a lot: buying turkeys for homeless shelters at Thanksgiving, delivering meals to people in hospices, giving spare change to those asking for it."

The most memorable analysis came from Sunday Express royal editor Camilla Tominey, who shared her views on Meghan's possible future role in the Royal family and the role of a modern princess:

"If Meghan wants to be more independent, then that's no bad thing for the monarchy. Moving forward, I don't think modern working women want Princesses to be seen and not heard anymore. They want them to make a contribution to public life in a very vocal sense.
If you look back to Princess Diana, yes she was a style icon and people followed what she wore and her haircut, but people also listened to what she said on issues like aids, HIV and landmines.
Two is better than one. If they are a united front supporting each other in their own charitable aims and endeavours, trying to gain publciity for them and also trying to carve out their own path, then they will see themselves as an enormous force for good, people that can really make a difference on a humanitarian level."

This echoes the strong views Meghan has on her involvement with philanthropic causes. For her role as UN women's advocate, she shadowed a UN intern for a week to prepare.


Unfortunately, it hasn't appeared on YouTube yet (I will certainly update the post should it become available). For those in the UK, you can view it on the Channel 4 player.


************

As an avid lover of Jane Austen's works, this next story certainly piqued my interest. The Sunday Express reports: "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a gentleman who is in possession of both a good fortune and a young woman he intends to marry must be in need of a suitably elegant country seat. So it is fitting that Prince Harry, who has been house hunting in the Cotswolds, took Meghan Markle to see Luckington Court in Wiltshire, a manor that was used as Elizabeth Bennet’s family home in the BBC’s series of Jane Austen’s Pride And Prejudice, starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle."


The Grade II-listed Luckington Court at Luckington, two miles from Badminton, is currently on the market for £7.5 million via Woolley & Wallis.


Adam Helliker wrote: "Luckington Court, surrounded by woodland and with five cottages, was recommended to Harry by his old chum Thomas van Straubenzee, whose Mayfair property search company, VanHan, has drawn up a shortlist of potential royal roosts. The fact that Harry took Meghan to see the house confirms that he is serious about his future with the actress, with whom he has been going out for 15 months. She is expected to move here from Toronto (with her rescue dogs, Bogart and Guy) after she films her last season of Suits next month. Yesterday Woolley & Wallis, the agents in Marlborough marketing the house, refused to elaborate on the Prince’s visit, although they did confirm that the price has been reduced from £9million to £7.75million as its owner, June Pollock, is keen to move. But another local estate agent said: "Harry and Meghan spent two hours looking at Luckington, although we understand they haven’t made an offer yet." A source close to Harry acknowledges that the Prince "loved" Luckington, which is only eight miles from Prince Charles’s home, Highgrove, but says the search is "ongoing". "They both definitely want to be in the Cotswolds, they prefer it to Norfolk [where William and Kate have a house] and they are looking at a shortlist of properties – not too big or too showy, but obviously with the need for privacy and staff accommodation."


Let's take a peek inside...


One of the eight bedrooms.


If the rumours are true and Harry and Meghan are indeed house hunting in the Cotswolds, the 'Bennett House' would make for one beautiful country residence.


I think Elizabeth and Mr Darcy would approve :)


************

We leave you this timely throwback from Meghan's Instagram on Halloween last year. News of the couple's budding romance had only recently broke. Harry was visiting and Meghan showed her lighter side by sharing a snap of her carved pumpkin.


An early Happy Halloween to all celebrating! As October comes to a close, could November be the month for a certain announcement?

110 comments:

  1. I wish it were Nov! But if a fiancee visa is only good for 6 months, I bet they announce early Jan, with wedding in June (far enough from baby Cambridge#3 to ensure Wm can be best man and Kate can recover). But I wish it were sooner!!
    -Duch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't people like them need to worry about visas, not when the engagement is announced.

      Delete
    2. Eve from Germany30 October 2017 at 15:54

      I´m pretty sure all these things have long been settled....
      Otherwise Meghan wouldn´t move to the UK, no way....
      There have been so many royal brides (and grooms, for that matter) from foreign countries in the past, I´m sure there´s still some good old dusty rule that permits a speedy process for future members of the RF - or maybe an automatic citizenship with marriage... we´ll know soon enough, haha.. ;-)))

      Delete
    3. Meghan is already ensconced on the throne of Harry's life. No one, no how had better mess with that. They would have to get past Harry first. Fat chance of that being successful. LOL

      Delete
  2. The inside of that house is GORGEOUS!!! The BBC P&P is one I still haven't gotten around to seeing *looks embarrassed.* I hope the documentary is put up on YT soon!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zora from Prague29 October 2017 at 20:56

    Oh, Charlotte! The portion about the Bennet's home left me speechless! :) I wonder how many of us here are also fans of Jane Austen's books and various adaptations... The 1995 BBC version is undoubtedly one of the most beloved! Elizabeth and MrDarcy would definitely approve! πŸ˜„ Keep us informed about the latest developments in this direction, will you? Thank you so much for the post and especially for the pictures!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm also a Jane Austen fan & the '95 adaptation is my absolute favourite! Very interesting to hear they checked out the 'Bennett House' :)

      Delete
    2. I have worshipped Jane Austen since I could read. This version is my favorite. The idea of Harry/MM ending up in that house is almost too wonderful to think of!! I can see MM making it just a bit more comfy for dogs and, I hope, toddlers to run around! And she has the greatest group of friends. I bet Harry can't believe his good luck.

      Delete
    3. The '95 adaptation is my favorite also, Kiwi Gal. :)

      Delete
    4. I have loved Jane Austen since I could read and 1995 BBC version is the best one! Thank you, Charlotte, for sharing the story and pictures of so beautiful house. Who wouldn't love to live on such a gorgeous place :)
      Mary from CR

      Delete
    5. The Bennett house...how interesting!
      Wouldn’t it be amazing to see Harry and Meghan in all the famous BBC P&P haunts?!? (Complete with Harry saying: “You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you...” ) 😍😍😍

      Delete
    6. Cute, Carryn. :) I can hear him saying that now.

      Delete
    7. Zora from Prague31 October 2017 at 09:51

      Carryn, πŸ‘! I just have a difficulty over whose voice I can hear here: Harry's or Colin Firth's ??? 😜

      Delete
    8. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
      I agree!!!! Can’t decide whose voice!!!

      Delete
  4. Charlotte. Thank you for taking the time to acquiesce to the royalist in you :) and gleaning some salient features from the program, although the quote about Meghan's penchant for giving came from another source that I hope Katie gave credit to because I have read that exact quote before, lol. Still, the important thing is that Meghan was taught compassion and charity from a young age and by example not just by rote. :) She and Harry were groomed early. Serendipity. :)
    Camilla's take on the power couple pretty much sums up with what many here have been saying and if many perceive that in them then there is a very good chance it will come to fruition.
    Oh, the Cotswolds. Thank you for confirming that. :) Who knew there was such a place? Who wouldn't want to live there? It is idyllic...., sigh.
    And thanks for the peeks...., sigh.
    And Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy...... sigh.
    Only 32 days until the end of November...., sigh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love your comments (and sighs!!!!) surfer girl! πŸ˜‰πŸ‘ŒπŸ»πŸ˜

      Delete
  5. Meghan does some really artful, cute things.
    If you are going to do a halloween photo that one is cute and innocuous. Her two snuggling bananas was very cute, albeit it perhaps untimely. And her posing by the wall that had a very pretty "You are loved" painted on it, and the teacup with the puzzle pieces, Gus or Bogart in a British flag sweater, her kitten shoes/no bad energy photo, The Tig........you get the idea. :)
    Sweetly artful and creative. I hope she maintains outlets for that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love the lace dress photo. Sexy but demure. The dress is cute.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OMG. The house is beautiful. And do five cottages make it "practical" as well? LOL. In a royal sense, yes, I suppose they do.

    Regarding KP's announcement and CH being unaware, IMO, this is only the beginning. Of the two brothers, I think Harry is less likely to play by the royal rulebook. Fortunately, his rank makes it easier to push the envelope ... ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eve from Germany30 October 2017 at 08:32

      Royalfan,I agree, Harry is very passionate and has done, does and will do in the future, things that might or might not be "according to the royal rulebook".
      From what I have seen over the years, Charles himself is very passionate and often outspoken regarding things that are important to him (I remember vividly how many "shockwaves" he was causing back in the day when he spoke out about the "atrocities" "new" architecture was "causing" all over Britain.... It reminds me very much of his father, btw.! And, as many tend to forget when thinking back to the infamous "Panorama interview" of the Princess of Wales, THAT was one of the reasons she thought the "Top Job" would be difficult for him...not being "allowed" to address things clearly anymore that are important to him ..)
      Even if Charles wasn´t informed and maybe not happy about it (which I have my doubts, even HE had to issue a statement - via BP/HM - back in the day when the media broke the story about Diana having spent a night on the Royal Train with Charles..only a few months into their relationship) I guess this is one very "healthy" moment for the parent-child relationship. A sign of children growing up is that they do "their thing" - although it might make you as a parent "cringe" because you see the outcome. If you are wise, you let them make their own experiences and gently help them navigate the consequences (I am myself in this very interesting but sometimes "having to take a deep breath and remind myself to take a step back"-phase with my own daughter...and I know there are many years and "opportunites to show my self-restraint" ahead... ;-)))) ). My feeling is that Charles did exactly that. I might even say that he preferred this kind of action compared to William´s more "passive resistance" against his father/the institution he was born into by postponing and postponing the proposal - JUST to make sure he was doing it "HIS way" and that he was NOT pressurized by the press/his parents, etc. Charles´ reaction to the official announcement (´t was about time")at least showed some "mild exasperation" with his son´s ways....
      So IMO BOTH sons are "pushing the envelope" - in their own way..
      And making these documentaries about Diana and taking on the issue of "mental health" together - I think that is "VERY MUCH" "pushing the envelope"... I agree that Harry´s position makes it easier for him to be more "obvious" in his "pushing the envelope".... It is very interesting to see those two grow up and "carve their own way". I must admit that I was really impressed by Harry´s appearances "on stage" lately. His speeches are lively, powerful and passionate. I wish William could "follow his example" in that area. Still, people are different and siblings have to find "their role" in the family. In today´s days it can only be an advantage for the RF to be able to "appeal" to a variety of personalites and preferences. It only reflects our diverse societies... so good for them!

      Delete
    2. Eve, I believe that both William and Harry's personalities are good for their roles within the Firm.

      Regarding "pushing the envelope", yes, sometimes genes play a role. And sometimes *life* has a way of pushing us forward. I think W&H are well aware of Diana's experience both within the RF and as a public figure and they tend to be protective of their "better half". :-)

      Delete
    3. I agree, rf. It is truly decidedly at the heart of those relationships in my opinion.

      Delete
  8. It was a very passionate, if not primal, intervention on Harry's part. I don't know that anything could have stopped him from making that appeal, except, maybe, the Queen. (not that she would have wanted to).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Charlotte,
    Thank you for the lovely article and Meghan photos.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Regarding engagements and duration periods for visas, isn't there some requirement that a princess of the realm (which, like Catherine, Meghan would become on marriage) become a British citizen? That timeline might also play into the future engagement/wedding timeline.
    There's also the matter of religion. I can't recall whether or not Meghan is Roman Catholic or not. Autumn Phillips chose to switch. I don't know that royal brides are forced to switch in this era; however, some of matters of doctrine and the Church of England (of which the Queen is head) might be sticky wickets. None of these matters can be simply rubber stamped or royal sealed without some credible evidence of sincerity and so on.

    The romance of the "Bennett House" house under consideration is almost too over the top, but I'll take it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Royal brides do not have to switch religions. This all changed with the new Succession to the Crown Act, introduced before Prince George was born.

      Delete
    2. Were you concerned about Kate's religious sincerity when she got confirmed only right before her wedding to William? I somehow think you were not, even though Kate had shown no "credible evidence of sincerity" when it came to religion unless you count going through a religious rite so she could marry her husband in Westminster Abbey as "credible evidence of sincerity". If that's your bar, then I don't understand the point of your comment at all, as that bar is sitting on the floor.

      Attending Catholic school in the US does not make one a Catholic. It makes one a Catholic school pupil. Being a practicing Catholic is not a requirement to enroll, although it does give precedence over non-Catholic applicants.

      Delete
    3. Great comment Bluhare! It was confirmed in the Vanity Fair article that she is not Catholic, but it shouldn't matter regardless. I also wonder why one would be concerned about either Meghan's or Kate's religious sincerity but not William's. He is the future Monarch and head of the Church of England, and yet outside of Christmas, when he is visiting HM in Scotland, sometimes Easter and an occasional engagement there is no evidence that he attends Church (and plenty of evidence to suggest that he doesn't attend unless obligated). Why is it more important that the potential wife of the 5th—soon to be 6th— in line be a devout member of CoE but not the actual heir?

      Delete
  11. There seems to be a church on the property next to the main house. If that is a public church that might present some privacy/security issues for Harry and Meghan and their children. William and Kate have a community church on their property in Norfolk but they re-routed the access to the church to give their home more privacy/security. Harry's, being right next to the main house though makes re-routing any public access road still rather ineffectual for privacy and security.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some good points, Philly, particularly in sorting out how to raise their children. Of course their children will be raised in the Church of England but what will be truth to them on certain points of faith might be a sticky wicket. Perhaps a heart to heart conversation with Peter and Autumn might be helpful for them, along with the first, and most important option of prayer. Peter and Autumn have most likely crossed some of those bridges already. Praying for them that they always manage to discern the truth. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tammy from California30 October 2017 at 16:20

    BEYOND romantic!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tammy from California30 October 2017 at 16:28

    I am wondering: is that a little chapel on the property?

    ReplyDelete
  15. πŸ‘’πŸŽ©, Speaking of country manors and being "to the manor born", hold on to your hats, lol. Wait for it.......
    Harry and Meghan are royal cousins. πŸ‘ΈπŸ»
    Yep. Meghan's father's lineage meets up with Harry's lineage going back to 1480 to a Bowe's, making her father's lineage and that of the Queen Mum intertwined apparently and not just barely. Even the Bowe's estates and Streatlam Castle are involved. In 1632 the Bowe's lineage splits and Thomas Markle's side goes to America and helps found Nantucket, Massachusetts and Harry's side continues up to and through the Queen Mum and beyond.
    Not to mention Meghan now also has in her heritage a very pretty blue coat of arms through Gordon Markle, Meghan's paternal grandfather's ancestor Abraham Merckel, (1630-1698) from Alsace (a region on the borders of France and Germany). The beautiful blue coat of arms has a golden feather in the middle with a pretty golden fleur-de-lis on either side of the feather.
    Who knew? lol. Markle, Merckel, hmmm. I do hope more information surfaces about all that.
    Sadly, Streatlam Castle (County Durham) was demolished in 1959, and in my opinion, for no good reason. urrrg.
    There is a nice family tree diagram in the article referenced.
    So Meghan may have faint genetic pinings for this "new" life she is entering. Come to find out it might not be totally "new" at all. πŸ‘ΈπŸ»
    I truly hope she does make an exception and that she reads the Daily Mail article. She and Harry will be amazed and have a good giggle about it no doubt. She might even pursue the information further, although I have a feeling that the Palace will have already gotten there before her. lol

    The Daily Mail, Marcus Striven. "Harry and Meghan are Cousins....", 10/28/17

    I included this from the previous page as I think the topics dovetail quite nicely. πŸ‘πŸ°πŸ‘‘

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eve from Germany31 October 2017 at 08:54

      surfer girl - funnily enough, this seems to be the case with ALL royal brides lately!! Kate was also linked to the RF - through the Middleton side of her family. I sometimes wonder how that can be.....
      I wonder why Meghan says that her father is Caucasian because that´s what you would usually say if your father was born there, otherwise you would say "of Caucasian origin" or "Descendant of Caucasian immigrants". His ancestors must have emigrated to the US a long time ago because his father´s name is "Gordon" which is neither German (which the DM claims the name "Markle" is originally coming from) nor Caucasian, so he seems to be born in the US.
      Very interesting, but somehow I have my doubts here about the DM story.... Sorry, surfer girl.. ;-)))

      Delete
    2. To provide balance and more insight into Meghan's heritage, David Jones in the Daily Mail did a nice piece, "How Meghan Markle's Ancestor, Wisdom, Escaped the Shackles of Slavery", 8/14/17. His info on Thomas's origins might be in dispute now perhaps though since a formal genealogy has been done, although there may be Dutch and Irish branches. I hope more info becomes available about Wisdom and his ancestors and family. That would be so very fitting. What a nice and inspired choice for a name. As we know, wisdom is the principal thing. :)

      Delete
    3. Eve,
      Here in the U.S. it is often on forms when we are where asked to fill in ethnicity: Caucasian if we are "white". It was that way since I was a child. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to also see on some forms the option "white", but the option Caucasian was the standard for many years and is still used today.
      As for the veracity of the DM article, I did find the genealogy family tree hard to argue with. And as for the German connection, finding out if Thomas' grandfather Gordon had Abraham Merckel in his ancestor should be easy enough to verify. Also, just because Thomas's grandfather was given the first name Gordon, to me doesn't have any bearing on his heritage as it is only a first name not the last name. Immigrants don't always stay within their country of origin's name database for first names. Sometimes they choose first names that are different perhaps to make assimilation easier or perhaps the name just rings a bell with them. :)

      Delete
    4. P.S. Eve, the article did say that the Bowe's branch divided around 1632, with one side venturing forth to help found Nantucket, Massachusetts and the other branch continuing on in England. So Thomas' family/ancestors have been here for awhile. :)

      Delete
    5. P..S.S. lol. (Eve, I don't think the article said or intimated that Gordon had been born in Germany. Only that Gordon had as an ancestor way back in the 1600's a fella named Abraham Merckel.) :)

      Delete
    6. Eve, I responded to your text earlier but it must be lost in space, lol.
      First of all, the article did say that Thomas Markle's Bowe's ancestors migrated to the U.S. in 1632. And Thomas' grandfather, Gordon's ancestor, Abraham Merckel lived (1630-1698). So it didn't say Gordon was newly a citizen of the U.S., nor Thomas.
      And as with Kate's genealogy, there are graphic family trees done as illustrations of the data. The family trees are fairly indisputable in my opinion.
      If Kate's had been in dispute I am sure Burke's Peerage would have been all over it. As it was, they confirmed it. And when you think of it, how serendipitous was it also that Kate's grandfather had flown with Prince Phillip and that Kate had been personally awarded that achievement award from Prince Phillip a year before meeting William. So serendipity does happen. :)

      I feel Burke's Peerage will do the same with Meghan's family tree. And as I mentioned, I would like further info on the Abraham Merckel connection myself, although I don't doubt that it exists. That will probably all be cleared up once the engagement announcement is made.

      As for the Caucasian thing. Here in the U.S. when the forms ask for ethnicity, there is a box listed as Caucasian, sometimes it just says white.
      It has been that way since I was a child. So for Meghan to say her father is Caucasian is not unusual at all even though he and his recent ancestors have lived in lived in the U.S. all of their lives. Hope that makes sense. lol

      Side note. Charlotte, if my other responses to Eve are in the waiting-to-be-published bin and are not lost in space already, lol, this response could take their place, if that's okay with you. Less duplicates that way. Thanks.

      Delete
    7. Eve from Germany31 October 2017 at 18:44

      Oh dear, surfer girl, I didn´t know that in the English speaking areas of this world "Caucasian" is a synonym for "white Europeans"!!! I thought it meant that he was originally coming from Caucasia which is a region in Eastern Europe.... That´s what got me so confused.... Now, of course, it all makes much more sense... (that´s why I love these blogs, there´s always something new to learn!!! :-))) )
      I don´t question Burke´s Peerage et al, it´s just... my family tree on both sides stops somewhere in the 19th century, my mother´s is a bit "longer" because some of her ancestors were quite "well off".. so how can it be that they have all the data on Meghan´s family on both sides? I mean, they weren´t all rich or privileged or noble families, who tend to keep track of family trees, etc.
      So do you all have data on your ancestors dating back centuries over in the US? I´m just curious, that´s all.
      Here in Germany it´s rather difficult, too many wars over the centuries where churches (which were often used for birth certificate data "storage") were destroyed or people just not registered properly...
      So I´m just surprised that both in Kate´s and now Meghan´s case, people could actually go back so many generations to find relations to the RF, with obviously reliable data available... Quite stunning, actually..... I´m super interested in history, so that would be "heaven" for me to have such data available for my ancestors... I only know that some emigrated for religious reasons to the US, but came back when religious freedom was granted to them here in the south of Germany... And one ancestor wanted to emigrate to the US, but his ship couldn´t leave the harbour because WW I broke out on that day... so some "ties" to the US.. interesting, isn´t it? ;-)))

      Delete
    8. Eve. Yep. My family has done genealogies for both sides of our family in detail back for many generations. The family members who did the bulk of the work were retired I.T. people and history buffs so it was a labor of love and right up their alley. There are whole networks of genealogy "geeks" and they help each other find info. They go to old cemeteries and look at the old tombstones. (yikes. I know.) They love that. And they know how to access the military records they need. It is quite a passion. I admit I have not read the genealogies clear through. My bad, yeh. They are very thick and there is more than one. lol On one side of the family the genealogy was just augmented with current info as it had already been ongoing and kept up meticulously for many prior generations. It is pretty neat stuff and the recent generations have left more detailed and personal information so it is a real blessing to get to know them in that way even though they have been gone for awhile. I definitely have to be in the right mood to delve into it though. :) I never thought about it before really. I guess I just thought everyone has their generational genealogies. What you do know about yours is really neat. :)
      I had to google Caucasia to find out where it is. Now I want to find out why they call the "white" population of the U.S. Caucasian. That seems pretty random doesn't it?

      Delete
    9. LOL, surfer girl, "pretty random" - that´s what I thought back in the day when I first heard about it, at school, and that´s obviously why my brain declined to memorize it (rather unusual for me - those who know me sometimes are quite irritated about me remembering almost everything they´ve ever done or said... ;-))) ). Because after I had done that google search I slowly started to remember, I must have been 15 or 16 when we had the US as "main subject" during our English lessons and we learned about "ethnicities" in the US. I remember how I found it so strange back then.. LOL, funny, how a brain sometimes works, isn´t it? :-)))

      WOW, I was pretty impressed about what you know about your ancestors on both sides... I guess there really are more records about people than here in Germany... Mind you, back in the 19th century, we were just a "bunch" of rather small principalities and kingdoms - not even a "unified" nation like today. And directly after WWII, the foreign troops destroyed everything that had a "nazi-swastika" on it - which was literally every "official" document (even schoolbooks were destroyed, as my mother told me).... I guess a lot of information just got lost with it...

      Delete
    10. Sad about all the destruction, Eve. But happy that freedom prevailed, yeh. I was reading a little about the beautiful little country of Slovenia. I was astonished at how much war has happened so many times in that seemingly tranquil landscape.

      Delete
  16. yep. right next to the main house.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just got a picture in my mind of George, Charlotte, baby Cambridge and Harry and Meghan's hopefully soon (after the wedding) coming baby (babies) all growing up and playing together. sweet.
    Add Pippa's hopefully soon coming babies and even miraculously her brother's babies and voila'. beyond sweet. 🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼 :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Speculation about who will do Meghan's wedding gown has already started. Could it ever be anyone except Jessica Mulroney???? I think not. lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First things first, SG. What is your guess on an engagement ring ... ruby, sapphire, emerald, or ... ? My first choice would be an emerald followed by a ruby. (Me thinks that Kate has the sapphires covered!)

      Delete
    2. good question, rf. I have thought back to the photos I have seen of Meghan and no particular
      gemstone stands out in my mind. I don't remember seeing her in any colored gemstone.
      I was trying to remember if she had mentioned a preference in "The Tig" but I don't think so, although I just caught her blog on the tail end of it's existence. So, to me, it is anyone's guess. I know that some wouldn't want this, but I very much hope it is comprised of stones from Diana's collection. I think Meghan is easily loving enough to allow Harry that should he want that. I think she would feel honored to be a part of what would be a daily tribute to Harry's mom. I do know that I am SO eager to find out. lol
      What do you think, rf?

      Delete
    3. sorry. didn't see your choices, rf. Upon reflection, I also think an emerald would be my first choice for her and then a ruby. I think an emerald would be beautiful on her.

      Delete
    4. Eve from Germany31 October 2017 at 17:02

      Remember my suggestion for a tiara? (http://www.tiffany.com/jewelry/items/fancy-intense-yellow-diamond-tiara-30752171/statement)
      There are some lovely little sparklers from the same yellow diamond collection going with the tiara (http://international.tiffany.com/engagement/rings?trackbgfm=nav).... the yellow would be a perfect fit for Meghan´s hair and eye colour as well as her skin tone... plus it would be something a little bit special, I mean, how many brides have yellow diamonds as the "main gemstone" on their engagement ring? ;-)))

      Delete
    5. awh, gee. I guess a yellow diamond would be okay, lol. OF COURSE it would (if it came from Diana's collection. She must have had some canary diamonds laying around somewhere.) :)

      Delete
    6. P.S. (an emerald would still be my first choice though. I have already pictured her in a beautiful emerald, lol.)

      Delete
    7. Speaking of tiaras (so glad you brought one of my favorite subjects up, Eve, lol.) Will Meghan wear a tiara for their wedding I ask hesitantly knowing that if she doesn't I will be more than disappointed and sad and probably will text about it for days and days and you guys will finally in no uncertain terms tell me to give it a rest, lol. hmm. She just has to wear a tiara. Has to. But what tiara? :)

      Delete
    8. SG, I suggested an emerald because I suspect that Harry will follow William's lead and give his future wife one of Diana's pieces and I am pretty sure he would have more to choose from among emeralds (vs. rubies). I, too, think that an emerald would be stunning on her and it would not create a comparison/competition with Kate in the sapphire department or remind us of Sarah's ruby and diamond ring.

      Eve, I looked at the links and I have to say that it would look lovely on Meghan. Have you seen Maxima's? Although, for the record, I like your picks better! :-)

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3301698/Battle-royal-engagement-rings-Duchess-Cambridge-Crown-Princess-Mary-Princess-Charlene.html

      Delete
    9. Eve from Germany1 November 2017 at 06:46

      Uhh ohh.... I might be in the minority here, but I sincerely do hope that Harry is NOT giving Meghan anything that belonged to his late mother (God rest her soul...).. I am still cringing inside every time I think back to William and Kate´s engagement appearance when it became clear that he gave her his mother´s engagement ring... I do understand his thinking, don´t get me wrong, but it is the ring of a woman who was DEEPLY unhappy in her marriage and died a horrible, untimely and useless death... even the selecting of the ring was not really very "happy and meaningful". She had to select the ring herself from a selection of Garrard´s (if I remember the jeweller´s name correctly)..and just chose the biggest and most flashy one (very understandable, she was very young and very excited). I mean, how UN-ROMANTIC is that? I´ve spoken to some men about that experience - choosing the "right one" for your (hopefully) future fiancΓ©e, imagining her eyes opening wide, LOVING it (again, hopefully), the excitement, the fear ("What if I´m getting it WRONG?!!"). Although very often filled with a lot of uncertainty and "Angst", they wouldn´t trade that experience for ANYTHING in the world...
      IMHO your engagement to your partner means opening a NEW chapter, starting a NEW "union", a NEW family in many cases. You can give your fiancΓ©e or later, wife, a special piece of your dead mother´s jewellery collection as a gift, but the engagement and wedding ring should be "yours two only", if you know what I mean. ESPECIALLY, if that marriage the engagement ring stems from, was SO unhappy and SO doomed....
      You can honour your dead mother in so many ways.. but IMO the engagement ring should be something between just you and your partner..to symbolize YOUR union...
      That´s why I love the idea of the Tiffany`s tiara and ring so much. It would suit Meghan´s very own beauty so much, PLUS it´s "American", so a nice nod to the country she was born and grew up in - which she will now have to leave in order to be together with her love... it has nothing to do with the past, but very much to do with them now, with Meghan HERSELF, who will wear it (hopefully) for the rest of her life.... And Charles Tiffany was called "the King of diamonds" in his days... so a nice nod to the RF, too?

      Delete
    10. I've been reading the Duchess Kate blog for forever and now this one. I feel more of an interest in Meghan than Kate these days because (names aside) Meghan reminds me far more of myself. I may comment here more often in the future, but for now I just wanted to say that Eve, I LOVE those yellow diamonds and I think they'd be perfect.

      Delete
    11. Eve. I understand what you are saying about the ring for sure. I had had those same hesitations myself. But the more I thought about it the more I thought of new beginnings for those jewelry pieces, symbolic of new beginnings, otherwise they could just be buried amongst bad history and never "cleansed". And I think Kate received her ring knowing that nothing William could have given her could have meant more to him and so it it was a poignantly sweet honor for her and an exquisite declaration of her special place in his life. But I do understand your perspective.
      And pertaining to a new tiara for Meghan I am all for it. :) And a canary diamond tiara would be stunning, stunning and more stunning on Meghan. She's so artistic that I hope she would get to help in the design. Her having her own tiara just seems so right. Kate wearing heritage tiaras yes, she's going to be Queen and the keeper of the bling one day, and she now has the Iconic Diana tiara already. But Meghan is a new chapter in royal history, and needs a fresh tiara, in my opinion. I so hope she gets one. I had hoped that Kate would get a new tiara but now I am glad that she didn't because I think Kate might have worn that one to the exclusion of others.

      Delete
    12. Welcome Kate from Ohio and thank you for stopping by :)

      Delete
    13. About gemstones, rings, and tiaras -- I'd love her engagement to just be a diamond - no colored stones. I feel like there would be too much comparison with Kate (or Diana/Sarah) if Meghan gets any colored stone, especially a ruby (like Sarah had). So, I'd love a big, huge, honking diamond :) A huge center stone with some side stones. Her first engagement ring was a diamond, so maybe that's her preference as well.

      As far as tiaras go, I wouldn't mind if Harry buys one for her at some point, but for the wedding, I'd like something clearly from the BRF. The queen lending her something from the royal vaults would (IMO) signal QEII's full support of Meghan and of the marriage.

      I'd love to see her in the queen Mary fringe tiara, but a more likely one might be the Strathmore Rose tiara since that one hasn't been worn in ages and could become "Meghan's" tiara. I can't imagine she'll wear one that Kate has already worn (and she's worn quite a few at this point), or that she'll wear one that the queen regularly uses. Maybe the Vladimir tiara would be nice because it's interchangeable with the emeralds and pearls. That would give Meghan some different looks for future tiara events.

      After the wedding, I'd love to see Charles gift her with some jewels, the way he (reportedly) did for Kate. I'd also like Meghan to be gifted more of Diana's jewels and more of whatever jewels Charles might privately own (from the queen mother, etc)...my reason for this is that she'll have access to much fewer jewels than Kate will get in time, as the consort. So, I'd like Meghan to get a nice supply of her own (or 'her own for life') jewels to wear for various events. I'd also love for her to get access to Diana's emeralds...but just not for her engagement ring.

      Delete
    14. Eve, I understand what you're saying, but from **William's** perspective, I don't think he associates the ring with negative "baggage". He adored his mother and this was her ring; he associates it with the love and affection he feels for his mother and, IMO, this makes it an extra special gesture on his part.

      And, as I have stated before, it was an engagement ring intended for a future queen...and now it *will* be worn by one, rather than collecting dust in a dark vault.

      Delete
    15. Eve from Germany2 November 2017 at 05:59

      Kate from Ohio, I´m glad you are joining us in reading this wonderful blog AND commenting!! What you´ve said resonated deeply with me... I´m older than Meghan, but somehow I find myself "gravitating to her" more and more as - like you - I somehow feel "closer" lately to Meghan than to Kate - and I don´t mean that as "one is "better" than the other"!! We all wonder and surely are looking forward to seeing how Meghan will carve her role in the future.. Personally, I´m terribly excited to see it unfold!!

      Delete
    16. I had thought Jessica Mulroney to be a stylist and not a designer. (?)

      Delete
    17. Pam. I think she had some involvement in bridal something, a show, consulting......, not sure what.

      Delete
    18. Yes. Welcome Kate Ohio. lovers of diamonds welcome here, lol.

      Delete
    19. inthekitchen. I agree about Meghan wearing a tiara for her wedding from the vaults, on loan, from the Queen and for the reasons you mentioned. That is paramount I think. An absolute must.
      But then a beautiful canary diamond tiara from Harry subsequently would be very special. She can always work with the Queen later to mingle in historic ones also. Never too many tiaras I say. :)

      Delete
    20. Ok...well I’ll join the conversation then-as I love all things jewellery!!!!
      IMO Harry and Meghan won’t use gems πŸ’Ž from Diana as William and Kate have already done that, and I get the feeling that Harry is keen to “do things his own way” and not follow in his brother’s footsteps!
      And I think I’m with Eve on the topic of Diana’s engagement ring-although it was a sweet and well-meant gesture on William’s part-I think I would rather have seen Kate’s own taste and preferences for an engagement ring...and hoping we will get that opportunity now with Meghan!
      It is so fascinating to see what is chosen-shape, size, colour, settings-solitaire or not...so many many ways to say a bit more about yourself-jewellery is such an intensely personal thing-I hope she chooses something she loves!

      Delete
  19. That's a beautiful house but Won't Harry be gifted a country house like William was ? Or is that only for the "heir" ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rhea. He might be gifted one for sure. The Queen takes good care of her family. She is very generous. :) I think though that if Harry wants to live in the Cotswolds (or wherever) and the Queen doesn't have a property there, I think she would buy the property of Harry's choice.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the Queen does take care of her family. And rank does not determine the real estate involved. Just compare the country estates of Charles, Andrew (upon marriage) and Edward.

      Delete
  20. I hope not.I don't like Jess style and she doesnt design wedding dresses

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear you Anon. I am not a gung ho fan of Jessica's style either and I know she doesn't design wedding gowns per se but I think in this (very grand and historic) circumstance she might. At the very least
      I think she will have some very considerable influence in the choice Meghan makes for her wedding gown. She may help her design it through an up and coming British designer. Her stamp will be on it somewhere though I think, for sure. :)

      Delete
    2. I agree her influence is going to be there but i hope not in the wedding dress or the wedding,in fact in none of it would the ideal but i doubt that would happen.Think her daughter would be a bridesmaid definitely.

      Delete
    3. SG, if she wants to play it safe, it may be a British designer; after all it would be trickier to criticize one of your own, lol. Or she may want to walk into Westminster Abbey while waving the American flag. Who knows... Time will tell.

      Delete
    4. rf. She is going to have a lot of important choices coming up. (ie, like all those on the list I included a page or so ago and then some). Hopefully, she'll be given an advisor from the get go. Kate had Mr. Pinkerton and Rebecca. (I sure do miss Mr. Pinkerton.)

      Delete
    5. that's what I was saying, rf. A British designer, hopefully an up and coming one, and one that will allow Meghan and Jessica (and Meghan's mom) to have some input into. Kinda like Diana had input into the design of her gown and I think the designers were sort of unknown prior to that, yeh?

      Delete
    6. I agree with others that she should choose a British designer, and an unknown one at that :)

      Delete
    7. I'm sure Meghan will have input, SG. Is there a bride who does not? ;-)

      And yes, Elizabeth and David Emanuel were not well known and the commission was a surprise. They also designed the black gown that Diana wore for her first royal engagement.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/films/2017/08/01/3238003-Filer-Princess-of-Wales-Princess-Grace_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq2MfxYBFyJ_71J1uDNKnZO-xxajWwnrlt5CkSJHzyTxY.jpg

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4801020/Diana-dress-century.html

      Delete
    8. Eve from Germany2 November 2017 at 06:06

      Surfer girl, David and Elizabeth Emmanuel were quite unknown to the wider public at the time, but very much regarded as "up and coming" designers (they were featured in Vogue quite a few times back in the day). They had more or less just graduated, but their graduation show was well noticed in the fashion business... Plus, they were already quite well known as "bridal gown designers". I have their book on Diana´s wedding gown "A dress for Diana" which gives quite a good insight in their "early days".... And Diana - according to them - was TOTALLY FREE in choosing her gown, there were absolutely NO "guidelines" given from the Palace....which was somehow very daunting for them all!! :-)))

      Delete
    9. There you go. :) So the girls Meghan, Jessica and Doria will have a ball. :) Meghan is altruistic in her thinking so finding an unknown British designer is probably first on her mind. What fun it will be. We shall see and probably only post wedding though with all the gown secrecy, lol.

      Delete
  21. My goodness that home is quite different from her childhood home and current rental in Toronto!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes that happens when you marry the fifth or sixth in line to the throne of England. It does have certain perks. :) I think she will make it as gracious and homey as her previous abodes though. 🏑🏰

      Delete
  22. Harry is in Chicago today to speak at a leadership conference. I hope he stopped to visit Meghan or will on his way home at least. Before we would have had photos of that but not now and, that's a good thing. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eve from Germany31 October 2017 at 18:52

      surfer girl, apparently KP had to make a statement that Harry would NOT fly to Toronto, but return DIRECTLY to the UK after that conference. Apparently this had to be done to avoid speculation on Harry "wasting" taxpayer´s money for "private business"... But maybe Meghan flies to Chicago.. or maybe she´s already on her way to London? (hope, hope, hope, hope!! ;-))) I´m getting more and more impatient here, honestly...can´t they hurry up? I need some good news and lovely photos and interviews and sparkly rings and beaming faces.... Come on, Meghan and Harry, GO FOR IT!! ;-))) )

      Delete
    2. Hmmm. I wonder if this was planned with a slight detour in mind? ;-)

      Delete
    3. Eve, so I was not alone. :-) This is a very proactive move on KP's part and reflects how much care is being put into this "role out".

      Delete
    4. thanks for the info, Eve. :)

      Delete
    5. party-poopers KP :) (Juuust kidding.)

      I agree, rf. they are playing by the book now. serious stuff. and, when, exactly in November does "Suits" wrap up filming? Anyone know?

      Delete
    6. "good news, lovely photos, interviews and sparkly rings" welcome here anytime. :)

      Delete
    7. Surfer girl: Rick Hoffman, who plays Lewis Litt on "Suit", just tweeted on October, 27th, that they are currently filming episode 14 of season 7. There should be 16 episodes in season 7, so that could be a hint that "the end is near".. Although very often episodes are NOT filmed in chronological order, but it seems to be the case with "Suits", at least Rick´s tweet sounded like it... But it could be very probable that, considering the circumstances, they filmed Meghan´s scenes earlier in order to enable her to prepare her move.... at least I hope (again, hope!!) :-))))

      Delete
    8. Just found a good link, confirming my thoughts: http://cartermatt.com/272302/suits-season-7-updates-filming-timeline-hopes-season-8/
      So they are currently filming episode 14, with episode 16 just being written (hurry up!!). That might mean, though, that we could possibly have to wait a little bit longer for our announcement... Maybe it´s really going to be just before Christmas?

      Delete
  23. gee, thanks Eve. :) so neat that that info is available. yeh, it does sound like a just-before-Christmas announcement is the most realistic. at least we know what's going on with the filming now. :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have wondered if William & Kate minded their country home being so far from Charles's and the Middletons' homes. I have also wondered where Pippa and her husband have a country home (assuming they do!). And now to hear Harry is looking in the Cotswolds, might there be a chance of William & Kate moving closer? Or are they pretty much stuck with Anmer (not to say that in a bad way, of course...)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pam. My take on that is this. :) Since Amner is on the Queen's Sandringham estate and was loaned or gifted to William and Kate, I doubt that they will relocate their country home. The Queen and Prince Phillip most likely love having them so close and I am guessing that that is reciprocal with the Cambridges.
    If they desire another country home (I doubt they do) they probably realize that there will major residence shifts once Charles is king and then William, so I think they are stationary for now. Plus, Amner had considerable renovation done including securing measures and they have it set up with pool, tennis court and the Queen's stables are next door.
    I did have a thought that perhaps the Cotswold info about Meghan and Harry could have been done as a favor to boost Thomas' realty company. And even if they do want to live out in the Cotswolds they would be close to Charles and Anne. And their apartment at Kensington Palace would make them close to the rest of the family when in London. Plus the hood at the Cotswold is brimming with aristocrats so they wouldn't get lonely. :)

    Surfer Girl (My name thingy disappeared so I will have to redo it, lol.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SG, I'm with you; I don't believe that W&K will relocate. Perhaps H&M will find something closer to W&K so that the cousins can enjoy frequent play dates. On the other hand, it's not like W&K could not accommodate H&M for weekend visits or vice versa.

      But to be perfectly honest (and I know you will believe me! LOL), I don't see Harry looking for a home a stone's throw away from Highgrove. I just don't.

      Delete
    2. Me either, rf. lol. But I think the Cotswolds are big enough for the both of them (i.e., Camilla AND Harry, lol).

      Delete
    3. Yes, SG, perhaps the Cotswold information was just publicity for Thomas as you suggest is a possibility. That home, Luckington Court, does seem to be a bit in the middle of things and not very privately located, at least not enough for a Royal of Harry's stature and popularity. (I looked at the satellite view on Google maps).

      Delete
    4. Royal fan, may I ask why you are always implying Harry and William have a bad relationship with their father? It may not be the closest relationship, but nothing they have said or done has indicated they want nothing to do with him. I think a certain portion of the public who was very connected to Diana will always form visions of what they think royal family relationships are like. The truth is, we just don't know and it's wrong to make assumptions based on rumors and such. At the end of the day, whether you like him or not, Charles is their father and they seem to love him at least in that capacity.

      Delete
    5. 16:35, the answer to your question is a simple one...because I believe it to be true.

      W&H are aware of Diana's circumstances while she was a member of the RF. And it isn't a stretch to suggest that their father had the ability to change said circumstances by making different choices. Sadly, his priorities were elsewhere and this continued after Diana's death, at a time when the boys needed him more than ever. Instead of concentrating on his role as a father and actively preparing the boys for the future roles (something Diana had started to do and surely would have continued), he was more concerned with preparing Camilla for a spot on the balcony.

      I'm sure the boys have a relationship with him at some level (I actually hope they do), but I have a difficult time imagining that their knowledge of how their mother was treated (both directly and indirectly as a result of sanctioned character assassination - something that continues to this day), hasn't taken some of the "warm and fuzzy" out of the equation.

      And it isn't difficult to imagine how William (and Kate) felt when the stories about Charles not getting to see his grandson because of the Middleton's made the headlines. Familiar tactics/goal ... different target. My two cents anyway.

      Delete
    6. Anon @ 16:35. I hope this doesn't seem butinsky in any way, but I have thought that if Charles and William, Charles and Harry, Charles and Kate, Charles and George, Charles and Charlotte, Charles and William and Kate and the children were often photographed together throughout the year, that would do immense good for the monarchy. I honestly think that, in spite of varying schedules, that they could and should make that happen. I do not understand why it hasn't. It leaves a huge void in public perception, in my opinion, and leaves room for unnecessary speculation. Plus the photo annals of history would be much richer for it. Hopefully Catherine Quinn or the media liaison being hired to cover maternity leave at KP will quickly and surely address that. To me it is a blaring and obvious need.

      Delete
    7. ...possibly few photos because the ones that were published were often awkward...the balcony shuffles? the very awkward, attempted Charles-William hug-greeting at a recent military memorial event? These pictures could have been purposefully selected to slant opinion or they could be representative of the status of the relationship. Plus, Charles is apparently not a touchy-feely type of guy and might feel ill at ease when placed in such a scenario. It seemed an obvious set-up to me.
      Internal family relationships are tricky and complicated-difficult to assess from within at times; nearly impossible to judge from the outside.
      I agree, SG. A cordial Father-sons appearance would be great PR. I do think W&H are not great at faking it for the sake of appearances only. At least not something as soul-involving as one's feelings for a parent.

      Delete
    8. IMO, the awkward photos speak volumes and the "balcony shuffles" are indicative of the rank/popularity "concerns" within the Firm. Not on W/K/H's end, to be clear.

      Delete