Nah, they’d have called him home by now if he was. 
The more I look at the dress, the more I reverse my previous opinion - I now like it; it is graceful and elegant and the veil really gives it pizzazz - IMO
I thought the dress itself was in fine taste and would have been lovely on her had it fit her body.
Head coverings for Catholic women – a tradition that has now been reborn in the form of veiling – has nothing to do with patriarchy. It has to do with covering the hair, given that female hair is considered a “crowning glory,” whereas the attention within a church should be God’s presence, rather than the most attractive features of any woman.
That sounds like a fancy explanation for patriarchy, lol.
@conmama, I see the Dutchess of Cambridge referred to as Kate Middleton constantly in print/on line, and how many years has she been married now? That reference always brings howls of protest in the Daily Mail comments, and yet they persist. Interesting, since I don’t recall Diana being referred to as Diana Spencer after she wed; she was always Princess Di. I predict Meghan will be Meghan Markle in the Daily Mail for many years to come…
Well, if you say the Duchess of Sussex 50% of the readers have no idea who they are talking about. Princess Henry sounds weird, because she is not technically Princess Meghan. They probably give up because the royal family doesn’t use their last names?? Is she Mrs Meghan Windsor? So…back to Meghan Markle
Lol, “Catherine’s full title is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn and Baroness Carrickfergus.”
As for calling her Kte iddleton" https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/09/duchess-of-cambridge-kate-middleton-name-title
Can’t wait for tomorrow’s pics! The newlyweds will appear at the Queen’s Garden Party at Buckingham Palace to honor Prince Charles on his 70th birthday
Poor Prince Charles…do you think anyone in the press with a camera is even going to bother taking a pic of him at the birthday celebration?
Yet “Princess Di” was also wrong. Because she was not a Princess by birth, her correct title was “Diana, Princess of Wales,” not “Princess Diana.” But as with Kate and now Meghan, the media have to refer to people by names that the public will understand.
The only place where I ever see Kate referred to properly is on the royal family’s own social media channels. There’s a certain irony in needing to turn to social media to see people named correctly.
Thanks @lookingforward for the article. That all makes sense and I also think there will be a change when she becomes Princess of Wales. (If William is bestowed the title). It will be easy to refer to her as Princess Kate then.
“The only place where I ever see Kate referred to properly is on the royal family’s own social media channels. There’s a certain irony in needing to turn to social media to see people named correctly.”
Yet the official social media sites also use Kate Middleton and Megan Markle, at least in the past few days.
The dress was not to my taste. I am more of the Disney princess dress bent. If I could have had a hoop under the skirt of my wedding dress, I would have. As it is, I had the biggest, flounciest slip I could find to make it stand out. Meghan’s dress just didn’t look like what I like a wedding dress to look like. Had I been at the wedding and spoken to Meghan, I would have told her she looked lovely, since she did, but my thought would have been that her dress wasn’t as flattering as it could have been and it was way too simple for my taste. I don’t like bling, but I LOVE a big, Scarlett O’Hara looking skirt. It’s just me.
The concept of women covering their hair was derived from Jewish practice. All married women cover their heads in shul and married Orthodox women wear wigs or head coverings whenever they are in public so that nobody but their husbands can see their hair. Christians and Muslims have adopted this practice as well. In Judaism, men cover their heads, at least partially, with a kippah or yamulke, but they don’t cover their hair entirely. I don’t think it’s cynical or rude to say that this practice is patriarchal in derivation since it is most likely men who came up with the practice in the first place.
I started reading this thread thinking of discussing evolution in the British monarchy, the significance of the Royal family having mixed race children to be, the queen’s obvious embrace of Meghan Markle, rank and obligations and remnants of feudal times in the 21st century, what I means to modernize an institution…
I admit I’d never realized there’d be criticism of dresses 
and… .how do you distinguish between make up styles? To me it looks either invisible or “hiding wrinkles”. Actually I thought Meghan very pretty and thus it didn’t occur to me she’d wear any make up :D.
I was struck by the fact she’s the age Diana was when she died. Diana looked so much older to me. 
Meghan looks like the mature woman she is! Heavy makeup would just make her look older was my thought. I think it would have been incongruous for her to try and pull off a foo foo princess dress that a young twenty something at a first wedding could pull off. It will be fun to see if they have kids. What a combination of genes!
I don’t get hung up on the roots of tradition like hats in church. At some point it becomes just tradition and sometimes traditions are so far removed from their origins the practice just has no real meaning. I am not a fan of tearing down those types of traditions.
Her correct title and style after the divorce was Diana, Princess of Wales; before her divorce, it was HRH The Princess of Wales. But the press and public still referred to her as Princess Di.
It would still be technically incorrect. In the UK, any female not born a princess does not use her first name with her title. So if/when William becomes PoW, she would be HRH The Princess of Wales. Similarly, some press refer to her currently as Duchess Kate, which is also incorrect; she is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. Even Wikipedia has it wrong.
Even females who are born princesses, though, still take their husband’s name upon marriage. During her first marriage, and before being created Princess Royal, Anne’s correct title and style was HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips. Margaret, even after the divorce, was HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.
The Duchess of Cornwall is often still referred to as Camilla Parker Bowles even though she remarried 13 years ago.
Unlike the Duchess of Windsor, though, I don’t think any of the current crop is too concerned about these trivialities, and it’s not like we’re going to run into any of them at the Piggly Wiggly.
I’m sure there might be an exception that I did not see, but I’ve never seen them refer to them incorrectly. After her wedding, Meghan, on the official sites, is listed as Duchess of Sussex. But also know that @Queen_UK , while amusing, is not an official Twitter account. 
When/If William becomes King, will Kate become Queen? Is Princess the only title you have to be born to?
I suspect part of why we continue to use the women’s maiden names is because there are no married last names to replace them. At least not that we’ve even been shown. Their names (Kate and Meghan) aren’t unusual enough to use without something else for context. And it feels too casual to simply call them by their first names anyway. It would also explain why it’s more prevalent in the US for them to be referred to as Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, where we have less use of titles in general.
Also, their maiden names are awesome. Middleton just sounds to quintessentially British and Markle so Hollywood.