Meghan’s royal in-hair-itance

Grazia (UK) - - 10 Hot_Stories -

THERE’S BEEN A lot of fuss about the tights; Meghan’s flesh­coloured, librarian tights, that is. But you’re all look­ing in the wrong place, be­cause the way to tell she’s joined The Firm isn’t by her du­bi­ous choice of hosiery. It’s by look­ing at Meghan’s hair. It’s changed. Gone are the messy buns. Gone is the dra­matic side-sweep across one shoul­der, which she favoured in her Hol­ly­wood days. In­stead, as shown last week, Meghan’s opt­ing for a more sub­tle, more duchessy ’do – hair down, blown into loose curls at the end. And if it looks faintly fa­mil­iar that’s be­cause, well, it is. Kate did the same in 2011 af­ter she mar­ried Wil­liam. Out went her long, straight, un­styled locks. Sloanesville! In came more pol­ished, bounc­ing curls.

In many ways the royal hair – heir? – trans­for­ma­tion makes sense. These days, they don’t shake hands and kiss ba­bies wear­ing a crown (too heavy, too im­prac­ti­cal, too Tu­dor), but they still need to look re­gal. They still need a crown­ing glory.

The Queen did it in 1957, as shown in the sec­ond se­ries of The Crown, when she lopped her shoul­der-length bob into a more ‘tidy, sen­si­ble’ style, which Philip sup­pos­edly dubbed hel­met hair, but which she still sports to­day. As did Princess Anne, who drifted about with her hair down all ’60s and floaty un­til she started of­fi­cial en­gage­ments aged 18 and up it went into her trade­mark bee­hive. It’s un­clear whether it’s ever come down since…

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.