Will she or won’t she?

Written right before Prince Harry took a wife


Oh, the suspense is building.

Some people can’t even sleep at night because the question is so opened ended.

The debate is being waged around the world.

And no one . . . I mean no one . . . will have the answer until May 19.

The question, of course, is this . . .

Will Meghan Markle wear a royal tiara when she walks down the aisle to marry Prince Harry?

The mystery is so great that the Associated Press actually dedicated an entire investigative piece on the matter . . . and it ranked right at the top of world issues being displayed on the AP wire Wednesday morning.

Not joking. I would never joke about something so serious.

For those of you who might not know, the amazing Prince Harry is about to take a bride and the woman of choice is Meghan Markle who is a 36-year-old American. She is an actress, but she seems to be pretty down to earth . . . despite the fact she starred in some fantastically frivolous Hallmark movies that I relished watching.

She is stunningly beautiful but she also appears to be actually quite normal.

She really is the person I think I always envisioned for Prince Harry. He likes normal.

But even though she is American . . . and seemingly normal . . . she is still expected to adhere to royal protocol with some wiggle room for her own tastes.

So that’s where this mystery comes from when it pertains to the tiara.

Will she wear one of the tiaras belonging to the royal family or will she go the less fussy route?

Oh, can you hardly stand uncertainty of it all?

The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Queen Elizabeth II, Harry’s illustrious grandma, has “hundreds of tiaras squirreled away in locked vaults and a royal tradition holds that the queen will let Markle borrow one of these sparkly heirlooms. There’s no shortage of diamonds in the queen’s collection, to say nothing of rubies, sapphires and emeralds. One tiara is designed so that its emeralds can be replaced by pearls . . . depending on the rest of the outfit, of course.”

Well, heck, don’t we all have a tiara at home on which the emeralds can be replaced by pearls, so it will be matching what we are wearing?

Then, I have learned, is the pressing problem that if she doesn’t wear a sparkly tiara on top of her head on the big day, she might be viewed as being disrespectful to tradition. Apparently, tiaras have been kept in aristocratic families for generations, passed down to wear on special occasions. I’ve never worn a tiara, but then again my family has never been called aristocratic.

As I sat, riveted, reading the AP story, I learned more. Tiaras were “the height of fashion in the 1920s and 1930s, when affluent British women would often wear them to royal galas or fancy banquets, but British society changed drastically after the destruction wrought by World War II. The grand court life that preceded it was never fully revived. The 1950s in Britain was a time of rationing and scarcity, not the best time for opulent displays of jewelry worth more than a small house.”

Then, somewhere along the way, the royals started to bring back the tiara . . . encouraging the adornment on special occasions. I just bet they realized they had so many in storage, they felt they were going to waste.

And when the royals started bringing them back, fashion houses in London started producing them for the common folk as well. Well, commoners with money . . . the AP says the House of Garrard can make you one for a starting price of $115,000.

But back to the question at hand.

Will she or won’t she be wearing a tiara on that big day?

For the fashion experts who believe she will wear a tiara, there becomes a new subcategory of debate . . . what type of tiara will it be, from the Queen Mum’s collection?

I’m not kidding . . . this is big, intense stuff.

One fashion guru speculates that she will walk down the aisle “in a striking tiara with Russian roots that features 15 interlaced diamond circles set off by large pearls. It is known to some as the Vladimir tiara because it was hidden in a vault at Vladimir Palace in St. Petersburg during the chaos that followed the 1917 Russian Revolution.”

That’s a lot of historical pressure to literally put on one’s head.

“Then there is the Oriental Circlet tiara, favored by the Queen Mother, which is designed with diamond lotus flowers and wraps nearly all the way around the wearer’s head. It was made for Queen Victoria in 1853 with opals to set off the diamonds, but the opals were later replaced with rubies.”

I think the fashion expert missed the mark on that one . . . I don’t think any woman today would want to wear something that big wrapped nearly all the way around her head.

“Another option is Queen Mary’s Fringe Tiara, which Elizabeth wore when she married Prince Phillip in 1947 as the nation struggled to recover from the destruction of World War II. That tiara was first worn by Queen Victoria in 1839.”

So many options.

At least the investigative writers, researchers, fact finders and fashionistas agree on one thing . . . she will not wear the tiara that was worn by her soon-to-be-sister-in-law, Kate, when she married Prince William seven years ago. Because that would be just plain rude.

Whew! At least there is something that we know for certain!

I could care less if she wears a tiara or not . . . but if she does, I will admit I do have one hope that would make me smile on the big Royal Wedding Day. Wouldn’t it be so cool if she wore Princess Diana’s “Spencer Tiara” (it came from Harry’s mother’s family, of course), which Diana wore on her wedding day so many years ago?

I could get on board with that.

So for another month, the conversation will continue about the tiara mystery.

Will she or won’t she?


Thanks for reading this article.
JMWNews.com content is free and never behind a paywall.
We believe in trustworthy, local journalism that is accessible to everyone.