According to the British "Daily Star" reported on February 22, Kate Middleton and the Queen have repeatedly violated royal rules because they often wear fur. The royal family must currently comply with a 700-year-old rule prohibiting members of the royal family from wearing fur. Meghan Markle, by contrast, is very disciplined in this regard, and no one has ever been found wearing fur during her time as a member of the royal family.
The royal family has several strict rules, from dress to diet, which can be said to be many rules, some of which are abolished, but some have been retained. The Fur Law of 1337, enacted by King Edward III, forbade all people, including the royal family, to wear fur. But there are exceptions, as reigning monarchs are required to wear fur at the opening of parliament.
In recent years, queens have switched from wearing real fur to faux fur. According to Angela Kelly, the Queen's royal dresser, the Queen stopped wearing clothes made of genuine fur in 2019, and all clothes use artificial fur. Even some of her old clothes with real fur had to be changed to artificial fur.
Princess Kate and future Queen Camilla also violated this rule, with genuine fur in their coats and hats. In 2016, Princess Kate was seen wearing fur at Christmas, and Camilla's fur hat was also strongly resisted by the public, and he had to re-purchase a series of artificial fur hats. At the same time, Meghan has never been photographed wearing fur, but it does not affect her long-standing fashion feeling popular.
During her days as a member of the royal family, Meghan was praised for advocating sustainable fashion, especially during her royal journey to Africa with Prince Harry.
Harry is currently battling the Home Office over police security at London's Royal Court. Prince Harry wants to return home from the U.S. with his children, but his lawyer told the high court on Friday that he does not consider it safe under the current security arrangements. Lawyers also said Harry's private protection team in the U.S. did not have sufficient jurisdiction overseas and did not have access to British intelligence information needed to keep his family safe. Judge Swift's hearings are ongoing, with a written judgment to be handed down later.