I'll start with the easiest bit to answer – Elizabeth attended Invictus in an official capacity as an ambassador for the Invictus Games and Invictus Games Foundation. I imagine that she would not have posted any photos without approval from Invictus and from Harry himself, and I think what she wrote was eloquent. Do I think it might have set a better tone to post photographs with the athletes? Of course, but she has done that in the last day or two since the initial photo with Harry. It's classic PR to get people's attention first and then hit them with the meaningful content once they're listening. I don't think we can fault her for that, and while none of us know her personally I think it's safe to say she wouldn't break royal protocol for an Instagram post.

As for the Meghan angle, it's easy to see why people believe the Queen and senior members of the Royal Family would prefer Harry marry Elizabeth (or someone like her); she is a well-liked English-born A-list celebrity who doesn't need Harry to make her more famous, she has the pedigree, and she has been friends with Catherine for 20+ years. Meghan by contrast is American, divorced, and to say she's B-list would be generous – that's not even beginning to touch the racism that often accompanies criticism of Meghan as a potential bride for Harry. But if Harry really is gunning to marry Meghan, qualifying the rumours about Elizabeth with a response only hurts her in the long run, and makes a narrative like Harry chose her "over" Elizabeth, which obviously isn't true. I think it's pretty evident that she's great friends with all three (William, Catherine and Harry), and nothing more.

On that note, things will get interesting when Baby Cambridge #3 arrives. Elizabeth's name has been floated as a potential godparent before, but if Meghan and Harry are married before a christening takes place perhaps they will choose to honour her as a godmother instead. I don't think having two celebrity godparents will be something they want for their kid in terms of the public narrative, so it will in all likelihood be either/or – if Meghan and Harry aren't married, bets are on Elizabeth, but if they do get married then I think it's safe to say not picking Meghan would be a bit of a diss to her.

That Vanity Fair article was fucking INSANITY and classless and I can't believe Meghan showing up at Invictus like that all smiles after such an awful breach of privacy for the BRF, not to mention that it was just a really poorly written article and Meghan herself should be upset about it. She's an absolute nobody who's only on the cover because of him, and yet she calls herself a big feminist?? Am I the only one who thought this was stupid?? At least they didn't sit her next to Elizabeth Alton in that audience box, that'd've been one step too far.

This is a no Meghan Markle shade space, but with that said, we did our usual research and found the following:

Elizabeth's dress appears to be this one by Erdem – a neat bit of sartorial diplomacy, given that Erdem Moralioglu is Canadian by birth but based in London. Everyone I've asked seems to think her blazer is the Pagoda by Smythe (also a Canadian brand, and a favourite of the Duchess of Cambridge), but it was a black blazer and we just can't confirm 100%. No shots of her shoes, so no word on those. Her earrings appear to be diamond, possibly anchor-shaped? I put in an ask to her publicist to see if she can confirm.

UPDATE: Elizabeth's publicist said the following: "The earrings are a custom G. Collins & Son design commissioned by Ms Alton's father as a gift."

THESE GOONS ON GMA!!!

"Michael is one of those people I'll go out of my way to go the cinema to see, because I just love him as an actor."
"Which is very nice, and I've got to say, I know she hates compliments but El's my favorite thing in this movie. She's only doing X-Men because I vouched for her, everyone thought she was terrible."