Last week, Meghan Markle was baptized and confirmed in the Anglican Church in the Chapel Royal at St. James’s Palace. It was a small, private ceremony with Prince Harry, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall in attendance. No William, no Kate, and no Queen, although Meghan reportedly decided to get baptized and confirmed out of respect for the Queen. The baptism was lead by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who apparently also “guided” and educated Meghan for several weeks about the Church of England. The Archibishop poured water from the Jordan River (water from the royal family’s personal font). All in all, a quiet, dignified and respectful moment. But did you know that Meghan also got some new jewelry out of it??!
During her visit to Birmingham with Prince Harry on Thursday, Meghan Markle, 36, appeared to be wearing a new (and possibly bespoke) diamond cross bracelet that is believed to represent her recent confirmation. The Suits star – who was brought up as an Episcopalian – was baptized into the Church of England in a secret ceremony on Tuesday evening with her fiancé by her side.
The stunning piece is no doubt a baptism bracelet, a popular gift or keepsake to remember the special day often featuring a cross or biblical reference or if for a baby, their name.
Placed on her left arm, the piece of jewelry, which was not worn during her trips to Nottingham, Brixton, Cardiff and Scotland, was stacked on top of another diamond band, the Horizontal Bar Bracelet made from her favorite brand Birks’ Rosée du Matin collection and retails for $925.
True story: I wasn’t raised to be particularly religious, and I still don’t know a lot about the details, habits, customs of various Christian branches. I had no idea that if an adult is baptized in the Anglican church, he or she might get a gift of jewelry. I wonder who gave Meghan the bracelet? Harry? Or Charles? It seems like something Charles would do, doesn’t it? Also – Meghan really wanted people to see her new bracelet.
Also: the latest rumor going around the British press and betting sites is that Meghan’s wedding gown is going to be Ralph and Russo. Honestly… I would much prefer to see her in Ralph and Russo than Alexander McQueen.
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.
What kind of crazy telephoto lenses do people have? The bracelet is so thin/delicate I’m surprised anyone noticed it. But yeah, I think the gift of a cross pendant or something similar is pretty common for confirmations and such.
I don’t really get it — as I have always understood it, the Episcopal Church in the US is essentially the same church as the Church of England — it’s even sometimes called Anglo-Catholic (as opposed to Roman Catholic) — and all the prayers are nearly the same, some are verbatim. And once you have been baptized, you don’t get baptized again, because it’s believed that Baptism is for life. You might get confirmed if you changed from RC to Anglican, but not baptized again. Well, that’s how I was taught as a Roman Catholic child. I’d be interested to hear how the Anglicans approach re-Baptism…is it just because Meghan is becoming a member of the BRF, or is this more usual in England? Or is someone confusing a confirmation ceremony with a baptism?
She may have been raised Episcopalian but never baptized or confirmed (I’m also not sure whether a baptism in the American Episcopalian church would be sufficient for the Church of England, I don’t think so though? I think they are two separate entities in many ways. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.)
Most Christian denominations recognize each other’s baptisms. If she was raised in a Protestant faith, it was probably one that did not do infant baptism and she never felt called to do it as an adult. Now she’s doing it as part of the marriage process for the BRF.
A baptism/confirmation here would be ‘valid’ in the Anglican church as we are all part of the Anglican Communion. A lot of people come to the Episcopal church looking for a spiritual home, but are not too keen on the formalities—for instance, we have an intercession service that is more like a community potluck specifically for folks who want less ritual. She and her mother may have been happy in their church and regular attendees without feeling the need for baptism and confirmation.
A little anecdote.
My mother was Greek orthodox. Father Roman Catholic. They actually had sit downs with both church leaders and their parents to figure how my brother and later I would be baptized. The Roman Catholic priest would recognize my baptism by their own side and the Greek orthodox, but the orthodox would not recognize the Catholic baptism.
Why? Some madness about calendars, religious traditions, and ultimately tithing.
So this all does make some sense to me. Because it doesn’t make sense. If that makes sense.
Also, I have loads of jewelry from when I was baptized. Which is tradition for children and adults.
@FLORC Ha, yes! The Orthodox Church has a totally different calendar, different “feast days” and all that.
My parents were a lot older, and it was a BIG DEAL when she, a Protestant, married him, a Roman Catholic, especially in the 1950s. If I understand correctly, her mom didn’t want her to go through with it. Oh, well!
I remember, too, back in college, my friend’s older brother was getting married and there was a huge dust-up because, although the bride-to-be was Christian, Mom had asked her to get baptized in their denomination (not sure what it was, but the family is originally from India) and the bride-to-be DECLINED. Ha!
Anyway, I think converting/being baptized is a VERY NICE gesture (for Queen Mothers everywhere)!
What she said. I was wondering the exact same things.
We don’t know if she was ever baptized. We’ve always been told she was raised as a Protestant, but many Protestant denominations don’t have infant baptism, leaving it up to the individual to decide as an adult whether to get baptized or not. I agree that had she been baptized already, the C of E would not do it again. As an RC for instance, we have a number of adults who are preparing to join the Church at Easter in my parish. 2 have never been baptized, so they will be, but one of them was baptized in the Lutheran Church as a baby, so she will become a Catholic, but will not be baptized again. Baptism is a one time thing, and even in the Catholic Church it need not be done by a priest- for instance if an unbaptized baby is in immediate chance of death anyone may baptize him/her.
The baptism rules can be weird sometimes and sometimes it comes down to the specific priest and church (for example, my Presbyterian baptism was not sufficient for the catholic church when I was getting confirmed, but my baptism as an infant by my mother was.)
Justme is absolutely correct. The reason one might get another baptism is if there is uncertainty if there was a first one. There is also the requirement that it be in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t matter who it is done by (ie what denomination or person) so long as it is a baptism in that form. Therefore uncertainty about that may also be why there would be another baptism done.
And also jewelry or some kind of gift for the person being baptized is very normal. Even for infants. It marks the occasion so to speak but is not mandatory.
@Marianne. That is right. The baptism must be Trinitarian, “In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” the effect of the sacrament is not by the person administering it but by the Holy Spirit. Baptisms as a Jehovah’s Witness or as a Mormon are not valid in the RC Church – they are just not considered Baptism at all. Mormons use the same phrase but it has a different meaning to them. Their meaning is polytheistic rather than Trinitarian (all three persons as one Godhead).
Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness faiths follow the early church whereas *protestants are following the later ROMAN influenced church ie the catholic church.
It’s no surprise therefore that a Mormon / Jehovah’s Witness baptism isn’t a trinitarian one because that is a Roman influenced tenet of the church which isn’t present in the early church.
*People often forget that Protestantism is actually Catholic-lite because the movement began as a *protest* against the way the Catholic church was practising as opposed to the actual concept.
She was not baptized as a child. Read it somewhere, maybe KP or the Dailymail.
…and what if she’s an atheist?? Or pagan? Do you *have* to be religious to be accepted into the firm?
And then, they handed her a stack of Barbara Pym novels, telling her to begin with Excellent Women and to prepare for the Royal jumble sale quiz on Thursday next.
LOL! I discovered her in my older cousin’s book collection in England. Italian TV was not my favorite, so I would visit and snag books she liked. Also Nancy Mitford’s Love in a Cold Climate. All sorts of British authors and history books. I got so desperate I was reading Victorian melodramas. Not the classics but Anthony Trollope. Then Pamela which is the most absurd storyline I have ever read but then again it was supposed to be I guess. She’s a cousin by marriage and would probably commit harakiri is she ever had to live in America. lol
I love Nancy Mitford. ‘The Blessing’ never fails to make me laugh no matter that i’ve read it numerous times.
Infact i love all the Mitfords, even Diana.
Btw, did you know that ‘Pamela’ is officially the first english romantic novel? Apparently we all have this novel to blame for setting the romantic melodrama template followed by romantic writers everywhere.
‘Pamela’ was originally written as serialised columns. I guess when it was pulled together into a book, no one bothered to edit it properly into a proper book. It caused a sensation during the serialisation because it told a romantic story from the POV of a woman and someone of the lower class no less. A first of it’s kind. Apparently Pamela inspired reading clubs and get togethers and parties were held. Ditto merchandising. And the author was inundated with helpful suggestions from ardent fans across the country as to next chapters.
It is speculated that Jane Austen was inspired by Pamela and other works by it’s author which she loved.
I didn’t know that about Pamela, but I did know some of the older novels were serials but I didn’t realize that one was. It makes sense because when it is put together it is all over the place.
I love the Mitfords too. They fascinated me after reading Love in a Cold Climate as did others from the Bright Young Things period. They had such an unusual upbringing.
British eccentricities make for interesting stories and humor. It is subtle in some ways.
Liberty / Magjoliarose: in light of the subject of your comments, i thought you might enjoy this lecture by Professor Amanda Vickery. It’s about the the romantic aspirations of the average 18th century gentleman.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KMxEdjB4S80
Nancy Mitford is so much fun to read though, I love her historical biographies – The Sun King and Madame de Pompadour are especially great. I’ll second LAK and say it – I love all the Mitfords too, they’re true gossip legends and great writers.
As far as writers of that era go, has anyone tried Elizabeth Taylor? (Not THE Elizabeth Taylor, this is a different person!) I discovered her via Angel, which basically sends up the Victorian schlock writers but slightly sadly.
Teacakes: Haven’t come across that Elizabeth Taylor, but i am now on the search and going to order as many books as i can find. Thanks for the recommendation 😊😁
@LAK
I love Amanda Vickery. I have Gentleman’s Daughter and Behind Closed Doors. I love 18th-century history because so much happened and the people were compelling. The salacious gossip of that era is dramatic and the women were far from the demure Victorians.The Lennox sisters, Georgiana and Harriet Spencer and the Gunnings were fascinating sisters during that time. I started becoming interested in the diaries and letters women wrote during that time because of Amanda.
You sent me that link once ages ago and it flies in the face of the stereotypes of men during that time.
@teacakes they are great for gossip though I am sure I don’t know the half of it. I have to look for the Mme. de Pompadour biography. My grandmother collects porcelain and Mme. Pompadour had some beautiful pieces Louis XV commissioned by Sèvres.The courtesans were the most interesting characters at the French court but she has to be the most compelling of all.
I have never read Elizabeth Taylor, but I do know OF her because of the movie with Romola Garai.
Magnoliarose: i’ve bookmarked that link because the gentleman who kept proposing to every woman he met is a story that makes me laugh every time.
I love the Georgian period too. It’s the beginning of our modern society though people don’t realise it, including tabloid culture. The Victorians are just so wierd to me. Very inventive, but what a wierd society and era.
Part of the reason i enjoy history is the same reason i come to CB. The gossip. My history teacher in high school began my first history lesson (about Louis 14) with gossip, and i was hooked. It’s amazing how much history you can retain when you look at it from a social history / gossip angle.
Speaking of gossip, Princess Michael of Kent, she of the blackamour brooch is descended from Diane Poitiers, Mistress of Henry 2 of France and husband of Catherine Medici.
I love Nancy Mitford. In my bookcase. I have heard about Elizabeth Taylor’s books; now I am tempted to look into them.
@LAK — one of my professors was a vibrant and entertaining older Irish woman of incredible style, and she employed that method of teaching as well. Fantastic. We learned so much.
PS: Gentleman’s Daughter is a book I found in an old shabby used book shop in Munich near my station one bitter winter day when I was hiding from the sleet and snow, and I am glad you mentioned it. I will have to track down the other title.
Girls gotta donwhat a girls gotta do. Good for her. I hope this Union causes a shake up (in a good way) in the BRF. I read comments from another post about how TQ and PC have hopes to Harr and MM to polish the tarnished reputation. If true, smart business indeed.
Yes, if anyone can save the British Royal Family, it will be one of the suitcase girls from Deal or No Deal. Charles and the Queen must thank their lucky stars that USA network let her out of her Suits season 8 contract so she could repair all the damage to the BRF.
There’s nothing inherently worse about an American actress than the BRF. Grace Kelly saved the Monegasque royals. It’s all BS and acting anyway.
The BRF boasts Andrew. I’ll throw my lot in with the “suitcase girl.”
The hate thrown at MM is unjustified and I do not understand where it comes from other than people focusing on her being an American or her biracial background. Either way, it’s bigotry. Show me where she isn’t pulling her weight and TRYING. Which is more than I can say for others. And yes, Grace Kelly is perfect example. Thank you Tina for bringing that example to the table.
@abbyrose Very true when I got past the laughing. People have such high expectations of her.
+1
But Princess Henry I/w needs to rid of her Canadian stylist. The stylist has no EU Royal experience – look at P’ess Henry I/w in a ‘beret’ (again), at Commonwealth Service.
Let’s hope, HRH Henry will be better dressed at Royal duties once she is an Royal – too many pants.
Agreed. I had really high expectations for her fashions and so far, they’re hit or miss, always w a stumble. Looking forward to when she has more ‘help.’
Harry wears pants to his appearances. Why can’t Meghan? She looks great in them.
And I would love to see her in a Ralph and Russo wedding dress – we can debate the cost and who paid and whatever all we want – but her engagement dress from them was stunning.
And I would agree that the bracelet was a gift from Charles, except that we have never seen Kate with one. I would think that he would have given one to her as well. But maybe not?
I don’t think they are close or it could be he didn’t think of it at the time? Or he gave her something else. Idk.
I want to see her in Ralph and Russo too. I have liked some of their creations on the runway. They are Britain’s Haute Couture house so it would be a nod to their standing in the fashion world and a good advertisement for their accomplishment as British designers to be invited to the Chambre syndicale de la haute couture. They have been grand couturiers since 2013 or 14 I can’t remember the exact year.
If it is them then I would suspect they have already started with the dress. It takes a while to do everything by hand.
Kate used to wear a necklace with a cross on it around the wedding and for a while after it. It was said to be from Charles and camilla. It hasn’t been seen in years though.
I heard ‘somewhere’ (ok, ok it was on E! News) that her gown is expected to cost ‘around’ $500k. I hope that is crazy talk. I don’t think anyone could justify that kind of expense right now…
Kate was baptized as a baby but was confirmed before the wedding (I don’t know if there is a confirmation ceremony or not or if C&C would have been invited) so maybe that’s why, if in fact C&C gave Meghan this bracelet.
I wonder if Camilla will give Meghan a charm bracelet like the one she gave Kate? I always thought that was a nice touch by Camilla.
Kate was only confirmed, not baptised. perhaps that’s the difference?
That makes the most sense.
Yes, Ralph and Russo have been confirmed by Vogue France. They say the cost is around €400000. Not sure who is going to pay, but it will be a great boost for British fashion.
I hope not for the Ralph & Russo wedding gown.
I usually dislike their collections (way to much embellishment, sheer and pastels for my taste) but I just googled their wedding gown and holy mother I hated everything I saw.
I work in the same building as Ralph & Russo. I’ll keep my eyes peeled!
If it is them, anything to do with the dress will not take place in that building, it will be kept top secret and planning, designs, fittings etc will take place in a secret location. I actually think that this designer is being used as a decoy.
I am Catholic and all my school mates and I would receive beautiful religious themed jewelry like this for every sacrament. Usually James Avery. That bracelet looks beautiful on her delicate wrists.
As an aside: I keep seeing all these comments that if she weren’t biracial she wouldn’t recieve so much hate. I thought about it a little, and I totally disagree. Lets say she were a lesser known Caucasian American actress, like Anna Lynn McCord or Britney Daniels. I honestly believe the media would go no-holds barred on a divorced white C list actress with divorced parents who were working class. PoC, at times, benefit from being a protected class b/c everyone is afraid to say something controversial. With a white woman, there would be no worries about offense and people would have a field day.
I say this as a woman of color, FYI.
That’s possible, but a lot of the criticism from the British tabloids (the Daily Mail in particular) has been rooted in the fact that she is biracial.
Perhaps. But I don’t think Meghan’d be getting the kind of shadowy whispers about how she’s not worth much from everybody else.
I don’t think it would be the same. There are racial overtones to the vitriol. It can’t be dismissed. I am sure something would be found lacking by Harry’s internet gfs or Kate fans if the actress were white, but I don’t doubt it would not have this sort of tone and pettiness.
A country that was willing to demolish its economy based on bigotry most certainly would react to her skin color. Americans that put a bigot in the White House are no better and are also slamming based on race in some instances.
She isn’t C list. She is considered B list. It isn’t about the three networks anymore. If the show didn’t make money, it would not have been on for seven years.
C list is reality TV stars or straight to video.
Wow James Avery that’s a blast from the past, are you in Texas by chance. I use to have the clasping hands bracelet loved that one.
@AGUK yep, Dallas, TX. Allllll the cool girls growing up got James Avery.
And yes, a lot of the criticism has racist overtones. But that’s moreso from commenters and robots in the comment sections. I think the media has been fairly tame. If she were white with a father questionably living in Mexico and a social worker mom I think the press would be calling her trailer trash or a cracker. I believe a lot of the reserve is because she is a minority. Also, the questionable divorce and leaving her dog behind… white liberals and feminists would’ve GONE IN on her by now. Just my opinion tho.
What’s questionable about her divorce? The fact that she has one? The heir to the throne and his consort are both divorced due to their adultery with each other. Times change.
Meghan comes from working-class parents/background, so I do think if Harry had chosen a white actress from a similar background, the tabloids would have been cruel, too. Anything nasty that is said about Kate is brushed off as gossip… but if anyone says anything snarky about Meghan, they are labelled a racist. That immediately shuts down any valid criticism, which isn’t good, imo.
The problem is there hasn’t been any valid criticism yet because we don’t have enough of a pattern of behavior to criticize objectively. Sure clothes but nothing else except exaggerations by people looking for something to criticize.
Kate has been on the scene for a long time. 17 years is enough time for people to form an opinion. That is the difference. She’s new and still unknown. She hasn’t been given any time to grow into her role and see how she does over time. No. It is just snide comments out of nowhere.
There have been racial overtones and craziness before they got engaged. After they got engaged. Now that the wedding is nearer it is worse. Now predictions it won’t last.
It wouldn’t seem racist if it seemed fair. But it doesn’t a lot of the time.
I’m too young to remember the early Kate days, but I guess the same type of vitriol was said back then. There was probably a multitude of predictions stating they wouldn’t make it past 5 years or so! In the near future, when Meghan has settled into her new role and carries out multiple engagements, I think we’ll still see the word racist being used against commenters/royal watchers. Royal reporters have already seen the backlash when they’re simply trying to report on Royal news & events. That’s what I meant, I wasn’t talking about the DM/Tumblr crowd.
I see Guest.
I don’t remember the early years for Kate either, so I don’t know how she was portrayed. If she was attacked, then it was unfair too.
The DM and Tumblr loons have set the tone in that way, so it has made legit discourse much harder. They have over shouted decent discussions.
@magnoliarose, Kate wasn’t treated well in the early years (Waity Katie, doors to manual etc). It was unpleasant, but it was nowhere near as ugly as this is. And it’s worth mentioning that the DM, in particular, places its own loons in the comment sections and lets them fly. (I have no idea about tumblr, I’m old, that place confuses me).
I just want this wedding to be here.
I’m not surprised by the bracelet, cross-themed jewellery as a gift post-first communion/confirmation is fairly common even among the Orthodox . It’s usually something small so Meghan’s in line with that.
Very beautiful bracelet and it suits her delicate wrist. Lovely all around.
British creators for her wedding dress seem unavoidable but Ralph and Russo may not be the wisest choice given the still recent controversy surrounding the cost of the R&R dress she wore in her engagement pictures. It’d probably be cleverer to stay away from that brand for a couple of years and come back to it later, once everyone’s forgotten everything about it. And better keep the cost of the wedding dress “low”. Of course, it’s a royal wedding so the price tag will be eyewatering anyway but if her dress is more expensive than Kate’s… Oh boy! That “cool and grounded” image will be blown to smithereens.
No matter what dress she wears she’s going to get torn apart by the same groups. Girl could buy a dress from the 99 dollar rack from David’s bridle and the crazies would still trash her.
I replied up thread that some media outlets are talking about the cost already, and it does seem like her bridal gown might be more than Kate’s.
What sounds a bit odd to me is the statement: “Meghan chose to be baptized in the Anglican Church out of respect for the Queen.”
Typically one elects to be baptized, convert or join a particular faith based on their own beliefs and not out of respect or obligation to a third party. But whatever, the Royals are different, I suppose.
@Evie, I believe the its said like that because Meghan did not need to be baptized to marry Harry. Like baptism was NOT a requirement for the wedding but she CHOSE to get baptized in respect and recognition of the head of the church HMTQ. My belief is most of the reasons are left unsaid as they are not obligated to disclose every single detail but thats simply the bones of it.
If Kate showed up is buy into this whole bff narrative being pushed. She has the time. The has the ability. Just not the desire to attend. Not a bad thing. Just counters all the stories coming out on this.