Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sounds dysfunctional.  Most daughters rush to their father's side in the case of a heart attack.  I certainly did.

Share this post


Link to post

The DailyMail coverage of Meghan Markle has been horrific. I'm shocked at the open racism in their articles.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, canbelto said:

The DailyMail coverage of Meghan Markle has been horrific. I'm shocked at the open racism in their articles.

I wish I could say that I'm shocked, but lately there has been so much open hostility based in race that the element of surprise is pretty much gone for me.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Mashinka said:

Sounds dysfunctional.  Most daughters rush to their father's side in the case of a heart attack.  I certainly did.

What's weird is that the major concern seems to be who will walk her down the aisle now. We can only hope that Mr. Markle doesn't suddenly take an unexpected turn for the worse and die on Meghan's special day. That'll look good.

Jayne writes:

Quote

As it turns out, the Dad and half siblings are the the Carrabosse branch of the family.  The mom and her friends are part of the Faerie branch. 

I'm not sure that judgments like that are called for (?) She's close to one parent but not the other, a common situation. My understanding is that Dad is a retiree living in reduced circumstances. Hardly surprising that he would be overwhelmed by the nature of the attention suddenly being paid him. The problem here lies not with the Markle family, who didn't ask for this, or Meghan herself.  If she had the poor judgment not to invite all her family to the wedding, regardless of personal feelings, if only to maintain peace and have them in a place where they would be easier to keep an eye on, providing that sort of advice is what experienced courtiers and private secretaries are for. Not to mention her intended. If she didn't know better, Harry should have done. What a mess.

Share this post


Link to post

A week or two ago I read in a newspaper report, but don’t remember which one, that the Palace courtiers had advised her to invite her whole family but she refused. It said she only wanted the people she wad “close to” at her wedding. 

Share this post


Link to post

She has every right. It sounds as if she's been estranged from her father's side of the family for a good part of her life. Not uncommon among broken homes of blended families. Now whether she should have prepped her father a bit more or booked an earlier flight for him so he could be under the protective security of Kensington Palace is another matter. 

Either way, it's an unfortunate situation and I hope Meghan and her father aren't permanently estranged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, canbelto said:

She has every right. It sounds as if she's been estranged from her father's side of the family for a good part of her life. Not uncommon among broken homes of blended families. Now whether she should have prepped her father a bit more or booked an earlier flight for him so he could be under the protective security of Kensington Palace is another matter. 

Either way, it's an unfortunate situation and I hope Meghan and her father aren't permanently estranged.

It's not uncommon among unbroken homes of unblended families, either.  Ordinarily, no, you would not necessarily be or feel obliged to invite estranged family members to your wedding. This is not an ordinary wedding and there are factors beyond private feeling involved.  If Olga 's information is correct (thanks Olga) people in a position to know tried to explain that to Markle and failed. Live and learn.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, dirac said:

What's weird is that the major concern seems to be who will walk her down the aisle now.

I agree.  As previously stated there is a precedent in royal marriages for the mother to do this.  Strangely no one has put forward the person most appropriate:  Earl Spencer.  The British public would be ecstatic if their beloved Diana's brother stepped into the breach.

Share this post


Link to post

A decision has been made and Princes Charles will stand in for her father.

Of course not all Brits are euphoric about royalty and it's worth remembering this event will be costing the British taxpayer big time.  Some eye watering details.    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44154438 

Share this post


Link to post

I’d be interested to see if Prince Charles stays on as patron of the Royal Opera House or if he will give the patronage to one of his children when he becomes king.   

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Mashinka said:

Why wouldn't he stay on?

It’s been reported that as he takes on more of the queen’s duties  (and presumably some of the Queen’s and Prince Philip’s own patronages) , he won’t be able to devote as much time to the patronages he already has and has already been trying to transfer some of them to William and Harry

Share this post


Link to post

So I watched most of the replay. Markle looked happy and lovely but I didn't care for her dress. Too plain and I don't think it fit her well. It looked quite boxy in the body and the arms. Plain can be quite beautiful but this should have been more fitted. The tiara was beautiful. I have to admit that her hair was driving me nuts - the thick wisp that came undone on the left side of her face and that ended up sticking out behind her ear. Hairspray, honey! But, she and Harry looked very happy and I wish them a good life together!

Share this post


Link to post

I had to work (ugh) but did see some of the coverage and thought she looked beautiful and radiant. I loved the simple silhouette of her dress. And they look so happy together. And I loved the scene of Meghan's weeping mother, as well as the diverse wedding guests. This was in many ways one of the most revolutionary of royal weddings.

merlin_138381543_d33daf92-3d38-4011-b6f0

Edited by canbelto

Share this post


Link to post

I like the dress a great deal -- the lines are quite lovely, and the neckline is especially flattering.  I agree about the wayward hair, but it's a very popular look nowadays.  I also thought her mother looked great.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, ABT Fan said:

So I watched most of the replay. Markle looked happy and lovely but I didn't care for her dress. Too plain and I don't think it fit her well. It looked quite boxy in the body and the arms. Plain can be quite beautiful but this should have been more fitted. The tiara was beautiful. I have to admit that her hair was driving me nuts - the thick wisp that came undone on the left side of her face and that ended up sticking out behind her ear. Hairspray, honey! But, she and Harry looked very happy and I wish them a good life together!

I tend to agree. Simple classic lines are very nice, but it did look needlessly heavy and boxlike and not terribly flattering.  The loose wisp of hair was a bit distracting -- to her as well, since she kept having to brush it back and as you say, it ended up untidily behind her ear.  The tiara/bandeau was indeed a lovely piece of vintage jewelry.

Music choices pleasant to the ear and sensibility, excessively modernized liturgy not so much. Congrats to the obviously happy couple. (Although it did strike me when they got to the "for richer, for poorer" part that Harry and Meghan won't have to fret much about the latter.)

Quote

God the father blesse you.  God the sonne kepe you: god the holye gost lighten your understanding: The lorde mercifully with his favour loke upon you, and so fil you with al spiritual benediction, and grace, that you may have remission of your sinnes in this life, and in the worlde to come lyfe everlastyng. Amen.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I loved the dress: it was meant to look constructed and of a piece with some of her other choices.  Her mother looked amazing, and I loved the color of the Queen's coat and hat.

Edited to add:

I'd missed most of the news, and just read in Anthony Lane's article in The New Yorker that Markle's veil was embroidered with the national flower of each nation in the Commonwealth.  And I loved the contrast of her second, reception dress:

https://www.today.com/style/meghan-markle-stuns-2nd-wedding-dress-day-t129378

One of the tabloids near the checkout of my local QFC proclaimed that she is pregnant and thrilled to become a mother, lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Thrilling to hear a gospel chorus sing "Stand by Me" at St George's chapel – and Rev Curry's stirring address touching on slavery in the US. Especially so after the recent Windrush scandal and all the suffused racism of the Brexit.  Wedding dress was Givenchy, great name and house from the days of Audrey Hepburn and "Love in the Afternoon" and "Funny Face."

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Quiggin said:

Wedding dress was Givenchy, great name and house from the days of Audrey Hepburn and "Love in the Afternoon" and "Funny Face."

Although the dress was indeed from the house of Givenchy, the designer Clare Waight Keller is actually British.  Read about her here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-44188750/royal-wedding-2018-meghan-s-dress-designer-clare-waight-keller-from-givenchy   

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Quiggin said:

Thrilling to hear a gospel chorus sing "Stand by Me" at St George's chapel – 

They were marvelous. And, they were all marvelously dressed. Anyone know where they were from?

I did love Markle’s second dress and her mother’s. 

Share this post


Link to post

I also love Markle's second dress, way more than the first one. I love the concept of a very simple dress focused primarily on a fine fabric, but as others have said above, it seemed poorly fitted around the neck and arms and was not flattering. 

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the previous comments on tge great music, great sermon, great bandeau tiara, and slightly ill-fitting dress.  The soprano’s solo during tge bride’s walk was delicate fireworks.  

Regarding the dress, I did not mind the lack of ornamentation, but a lot of American girls got married in similar sheath dresses with boat necks in the late 1990’s (the anti-merenge audrey look) before the sleeveless, glamorous beading look took off (argh).  

St George’s is a smaller chapel and a giant cathedral dress would not have worked.  There was a long car ride to the chapel and I wonder if that contributed to the wrinkled fit?  

Share this post


Link to post

Also, if you can find the youtube replay without commentary, it is a completely different experience!  It feels like a normal wedding with more expensive cars and clothes.  So nice not to have obnoxious commentators ginning everything up.  

Edited by Jayne

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×