Linda Kennedy
There’s a Royal controversy striking not at the heart of Buckingham Palace, but a bit further down, in the gusset.
‘Meghan Markle bucks Royal protocol by shunning tights.’ – declared Daily Mail online, before opining on the pins and shins that challenge the monarchy.
The shunning took place when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle recently met youth delegates to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in an unusually balmy London. Harry’s sock selection went unrecorded. Her lack of tights did not. There was no ‘tell-tale satin sheen’, the editorial pointed out.
How, a commoner may ask, is Royal legwear protocol made clear? A parchment, ‘Her Majesty’s Pantyhose Policy’? Or a committee of Royal equerries on tights?
There is ‘an unspoken rule’, the Mail clarified. It doesn’t say – but actually does – that Royal female legs are to be covered by nude tights, a barrier between posh flesh and commoners’ eyes. Like most class barriers, it’s subtle yet crucially important. This one is denoted in denier: at least seven and better 15. The Duchess of Cambridge is a hosiery heroine, never exposing her unsheathed calves. Other Royal females also toe the line on tights.
‘Lese majesty’ is causing harm to the dignity of a monarch. ‘Legs majesty’ is my allegation the Queen’s silent insistence on tights is less about decorum and more about concealment of varicose veins – the one time Royals don’t want to make a thing about blue blood.
Nude tights are difficult to keep run-free, especially with dogs around. Perhaps there are ladies-in-waiting dedicated to hosiery, who approach their Royal mistresses dangling glossy nylons with a reinforced gusset, after being up at 6am checking for ladders. But getting rid of them would be a saving from Palace costs. And, in one move, make the monarchy more chic.
Nude tights are naff. Aside from this, there are a number of explanations for Meghan’s reluctance. She is possibly too busy; one could spend days in the tights section of a store, hunting the right combination of opacity, size and toe durability, only to realise you’ve approached the checkout with a footsie.
Perhaps she is saving the planet. Everyone is about reducing wrapping these days. Tights are human wrapping.
Curtseying in tights could well be constricting. Or it may be the belief she has the right to choose, and it’s a question of her tights human rights.
But, really, isn’t this an opportunity for the zany new generation to show their sense of humour? Royal males have form with leg wear. Henry VIII wore tights. In France, so did Louis XVI.
The couple could host a Shakespearean costume party, and leak photos of Harry in tights and a cod piece.
Or shape their calendar to offer a sarcastic photo opp. There must be a fashion start up that makes tights.
Or be seen exercising together. For this occasion, Harry should wear man tights, the compression ones for fitness.
Royal protocol faces a test. Is it truly willing to modernise, as tan tights are from a previous generation – Gen 15 Den?
Will Meghan be brave and defy the Queen, or give in and wear nude tights? It’s a guts or garters situation.
And if she yields to pressure, I at least hope she starts her own hosiery company: Meg’s Legs. British Royal Tan will become the new American Tan. Her tights’ brand will sell out, creating a thriving export market, and a reputation that Britain is a nation built on nylons.
Failing that, there’s a strong chance the bad English summer could be her saviour. Rain and cold have their plus points. Trouser weather.
No Comments