Thursday, 29 June 2017

Kate Channels Jackie O in Gucci Mini Dress for V & A Museum Exhibition Road Opening!

The Duchess of Cambridge visited the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) to officially open the museum's new entrance, courtyard and exhibition gallery on Exhibition Road.


The V&A Exhibition Road Quarter is the V&A’s largest architectural project in the last 100 years, designed by British architect Amanda Levete. The project has created new public areas and gallery space for London, transforming the experience of the V&A for visitors, and revealing the historic facades of the Museum's existing Grade I buildings for the first time. A new public entrance to the V&A has been created on Exhibition Road, reconnecting the V&A with its neighbouring museums and institutions founded on the vision of Albertopolis, following the Great Exhibition of 1851.


Kate chatting with director Tristram Hunt.


The Duchess received a beautiful posy from Tristram Hunt's six-year-old daughter Lydia.


Apart from the excitement surrounding the opening as director, Mr. Hunt was also a very proud father today.


A smiling Kate met staff before entering the museum.


The project has been in the works for some time and there's been enormous excitement ahead of the unveiling.


The new entrance leads visitors through the historic Aston Webb Screen into the world’s first porcelain tiled courtyard, which floats above a new column-free gallery that will host the V&A’s world-class exhibition programme.


The Guardian describes the £55 million new courtyard "Like a Marbella beach airlifted to South Ken". The article continues "A blinding sheet of white light bursts through the stone colonnade of the V&A, casting a glow across the grey paving stones of Exhibition Road. Catching the sunlight on its 11,000 handmade porcelain tiles, the museum’s new courtyard seems to burn with a molten luminosity, signalling the climax of its most ambitious building project in a century."


A peek inside...


A hidden gem comes in the form of a gaping 1,100 square metre gallery.


Take a look at the project from infancy to completion in this video spanning four years.


Kate toured the V&A Exhibition Road Quarter's new spaces, and heard about the design and unique features of the building.


Kate visited The Sainsbury Gallery which will host temporary site-specific installations for the opening, including immersive sound and light works by artist Simon Heijdens and viol player Liam Byrne, as well as industrial designer Jonathan Olivares’ Aluminium Bench, a twelve-metre long bench which curves throughout the space.


The Duchess attended a short reception in The Blavatnik Hall to meet guests involved in the project's delivery.


Mingling with guests.


Kate signed the guest book.


Kate unveiled a commemorative plaque in The Sackler Courtyard to officially mark the opening. The Sackler is the world’s first porcelain tiled public courtyard.


Kate's visit precedes REVEAL, a free, week-long public festival running from tomorrow celebrating the opening of the new entrance. To celebrate these new spaces, the V&A will be inviting the public to explore the V&A Exhibition Road Quarter’s unique combination of heritage, modernity and technology with a series of events that bring the architecture and collections to life.


The V&A holds the national collection of fashion, one of the largest and most comprehensive collections of dress in the world. Their holdings include beautiful garments worn by 20th-century royalty such as Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Margaret, Princess Anne, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Queen Mary. The museum praised Kate's style crediting today's Gucci dress with demonstrating "the continuing influence of the 1960s." They shared a photo of Kate beside the dress shown below by André Courrèges which epitomises the clean lines and straight cut of the period, and is currently in display in Gallery 40.


More from the V & A:

"The Duchess of Cambridge’s effortless elegance tells a compelling story of British style, one that blends international designers alongside great British labels."

In 2015, the museum acquired a pair of L.K. Bennett Sledge Pumps. "When it became apparent that nude court heels were a wardrobe staple of the Duchess of Cambridge, sales rocketed. The popularity of the shoe showed that emulating royal fashion is a practice unchanged since at least Queen Henrietta Maria’s time. Kate Middleton favoured the high-street brand L.K. Bennett, but customers could pick up nude shoes by George at Asda for £12." Whilst it seems the Duchess has retired her pair - they are very much remember as a signature staple in her royal wardrobe. You can read more here.


Kate looked impeccably stylish in the Gucci Tweed Dress With Web (with thanks to Evangelina). It marks the first time the Duchess has worn clothing by the Italian luxury brand.


Made in Italy, the £1,790 cotton-blend mini dress comes in black and white light tweed with blue and red web trim and faux pearl embellishments that are topped with the label's iconic interlocking 'GG' logo. As of writing, the dress is available in several sizes at Gucci and Net-A-Porter.

Net-A-Porter

More from the product description:

'First developed by Gucci in the 50s, the Web instantly became the hallmark of a cultured club. Here it is used to frame the edges of this knee length dress. The GG pearl buttons are a new signature element of the brand. Made in a light soft tweed.'

A closer look at the garment.

Net-A-Porter

The dress is also available in 'Pink Wool Silk' as shown on the Gucci website.

Gucci

The dress has a very retro, 1960s feel to it - very much embodying the signature style of Jackie O. Bethan Holt reports:

'With its abbreviated length, tweed fabric and neat button and pocket detailling, the shift dress recalls the elegant look which Jackie Kennedy made her own in the early 1960s when she often wore pieces inspired by Coco Chanel's designs. That connection makes sense for Kate who has often nodded to Kennedy's style codes in her wardrobe choices, from her houndstooth skirt suit by Eponine London to her penchant for chic pillbox hats. '

Kate brought back her L.K. Bennett Art shoes today. You might recall Kate wore them for the couple's final pre-wedding engagement in 2011 before the wedding, with a navy Amanda Wakeley suit. The block heel works very well with the style of the dress today.


Another look at the shoes on Kate.


Kate's clutch is a customised version of the Emmy London Natasha.


And accessorised with her Annoushka pearls with Kiki McDonough hoops.


It's wonderful to see Kate embracing a more youthful style of dress. I thought the Gucci a splendid choice for the nature of the occasion. This was quite a formal engagement and because it began at midday it can prove rather tricky to choose a look that works for both the venue and as a suitable 'day dress'. It's interesting to see Kate's love of Italian brands expanding with the likes of Dolce & Gabbana and Gianvito Rossi now firm staples in her closet - will today's outing mark the start of a fashion relationship with Gucci? What do you think of the dress? It's a big win for me. I also quite liked the change in styling with the shoes and clutch not matching.


You can view a video below.


************

Kensington Palace just announced the Duchess, Patron of the Natural History Museum, will attend the opening of the museum's spectacular new Hintze Hall on Thursday, 13 July. The launch event will recreate the sounds and scents of the ocean, to celebrate the museum's new star display – a diving blue whale skeleton suspended from the ceiling. During the launch event the Duchess will meet Sir Michael Dixon and Sir David Attenborough, and tour some of the new Wonder Bays including the blue marlin, where she will meet the curators and hear about ocean ecology and conservation. The Palace described this area as " a subject of particular interest for her."


If you're just joining us, you can view last night's post covering Kate's interview for a BBC documentary marking 90 years of Wimbledon here. Kate chats about her doctor banning her from the tournament in 2013, Carole's crush on Federer and the day Mike Middleton left her feeling "Mortified".


Thank you for reading :)

283 comments:

  1. Rebecca - Sweden29 June 2017 at 12:46

    Kate looks FABOLOUS! So retro mod-ish! I love it! Perfect!! Love love love! This is so right up my alley! She looks super chic and professional and youthful and gosh I'm fangirling! And the block heel with it fits so well. And the non matching clutch and shoes. The hair back but still down. The pearl earrings with the buttons. LOOOOOVE! The length is good as well. It's short as to fit in with the mod look but not so short that it feels inappropriate.

    I don't have much to say about the engagement. It's a fitting standard royal event with not much to say about it, if that makes sense. And the perfect place to debut a fabolous look without overshadowing a charity much. Perfectly artsy!

    She looks 100% perfect, absolutely flawless and I'm in love!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love her dress as well! I wish she had worn her hair in a loose ponytail like she sometimes does, but only b/c I like it that way ;)

      Delete
    2. I agree, she definitely looks fabulous :) It is a very mod look & the block heels add the perfect finishing touch. I'm excited to read about this visit.

      Delete
    3. Your comment=what was happening in my head.

      Delete
    4. Rebecca, you said it well before I had the chance! She looks so fashionable and beautiful as well. Glad to see the shorter dress as she is still young enough to wear this look. Her hair is precious and fresh. Great!!

      Delete
    5. I'm glad you said she looks youthful. A lot of people have been complaining that she's been dressing in a dowdy and matronly fashion lately (including at her sister's wedding). The choice of a label like Gucci and the freshness of such a vivid print signifies a turn in the right fashion direction.

      Delete
    6. I like the dress very much also. I would probably have lengthened it to the knee. I also would have worn the hair in a pony instead of this half down look - I really don't like this hairstyle on anyone at all.
      On a different note I find it funny that Kate looks so different on a day to day basis. Some days her skin is lovely and glowing and other days it is just lifeless. Some days her cheeks are round and plump and other days they are flat. I wonder if she has severe sleep issues. It's almost as if you can tell which days she had a good nights' sleep and which days she did not.

      Delete
    7. Rebecca, you said it! This has to be one of Kate's best looks for me. It's so effortlessly chic, elegant, beautiful and just downright perfect! I really like the block heels too.

      I can understand why there are comparisons to Jackie O's style, it is very retro but I personally don't like comparing Kate's style to any other. I love that she experiments with her clothes now and then and often gives us a few surprises such as this gorgeous outfit.

      Also, I love that she has become an incredible role model for young girls growing up these days. She epitomises elegance and given the fact that almost all of her outfits sell out, she has shown girls just how lovely and stylish they can be while being fully clothed. Well done Kate!

      Love Avee in SA

      Delete
    8. Can vintage be more youthful? I'm not sure, but I love this dress. But I do wish she had worn red shoes to match her bag ... or perhaps navy patent shoes and bag for a summery feel. I also like the shorter length and with her legs why on earth not!?

      Delete
    9. I'm with you, Rebecca, I love this dress! And the shoes and clutch go with it so perfectly! This is an outfit that I'd love to wear.
      I really don't understand what people have against high-waisted dresses, I have several myself. Perhaps they don't fit everyone but they certainly fit Kate!

      Delete
  2. Too boxy and buttoned up! Looks strange on her with these shoes. I think I have just lost interest in her fashionably! Awful mummy hair again. Should have recycled something better. Now, we know where the money flows😄#wealthism

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha!! Actually I think she looks like a 1960's or 70's flight attendant. All she needs is a pillbox hat or cap.

      Delete
    2. I love this dress but close necklines on Kate do bother me. I don't know why as she has a graceful neck.

      Delete
    3. I agree bluhare. This look read more flight attendant than first lady for me.

      Delete
    4. I'm with you, bluhare! It looks inexpensive, too. I detest fake pockets and this one has them in spades!

      Delete
    5. Funny thing is, the classic 60's style is generally minimalist so you could pair an airline hostess hat with a lot of 60's dresses.

      Delete
    6. Ahh... an echo of the remarks made about Carole Middleton.

      Delete
    7. What is mummy hair?

      Delete
    8. Anon 07.22 And your point is?

      Delete
  3. Totally in love with the look. She looks stunning 😊.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Think it's quite short, but obviously she can wear it! And think the colors are more appropriate in winter.love the shoes and the red clutch (are they new?).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sounds like you liked the outfit Rebecca [laughing]. I can almost see your pleasure and it is contagious. I didn't feel that way about it but your enthusiasm rubbed off on me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden29 June 2017 at 13:34

      How did you tell? :P

      Delete
  6. One of her best looks to date for this type of engagement - love that she went with Gucci. Perfection!

    ReplyDelete
  7. She looks fabulous in that b gucci tweed mini girl I love her she looks super chick Love their. Black heels

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Duchess looks beautiful today. Love this look. It's so youthful. That dash of red is uplifting. Her legs are amazing. 0verall.. FAB����

    ReplyDelete
  9. First time she hasn´t matched shoes and clutch...finally!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry that's the one aspect of this outfit that I just can't get behind!:( To me an outfit just doesn't look right if shoes and purse don't match😲😱

      Delete
    2. I love the non matching going on here too. Looks younger and more current imo.

      Delete
    3. Matching shoes and handbag ARE old-fashioned. The modern look is co-ordinating rather than matching.

      Delete
    4. I have one word to say on the subject of shoes and bag ... patent! Imagine red or navy? Fun, young, and summery.

      Delete
    5. Patent. Eureka. :)
      Now THAT would really have been 60's. If she could have found those she might have worn them. lol

      Delete
  10. Yes yes yes!!! This look is fabulous!! Whoever put this outfit together needs to do all of her outfits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know it's Gucci but I think it's way too pricey for a day dress. British taxpayers have just been warned about tax rises and possibly even interest rate rises - wearing such an expensive dress and flaunting your wealth seems in poor taste.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster29 June 2017 at 13:58

      I have to agree too Brina - between austerity and now tax raises it seems out of touch.

      I really don't mind Kate wearing expensive clothes - it's part of being royal - and admit to a weakness for seeing new things but this dress is so heavily branded, it just screams entitlement to me. I wish she would find one British designer to use more heavily as Diana did with Walker. Not sure who that designer should be though.

      Delete
    2. Rebecca - Sweden29 June 2017 at 14:08

      I can see that viewpoint. The Queen and Camilla probably wears stuff that cost more but since it's mostly bespoke things it's not a big deal.

      I think this dress is such a classic piece that it doesn't feel over the top to me, but I can see how it can feel a bit out of touch. I think it worked since this was not a charity event per se. But the summer with royals with Ascot and trooping and polo and wimbledon and all that and alot les charity visits makes this season very "light" in general when it comes to royals and that has not fitted very well with the general "climate" in the UK at this time. So I do see the point. I don't think this dress was tone deaf, but I can see why it might have worked better at another time. But I just love it so much that I cannot talk against it :P And it really caters more towards all the people who has screamed that she dresses "Boringly and matronly" so while she looses some points with certain parts she might lure back with this look some people that have started to get bored with her.

      I do think it is very good that the Cambridges will have a tour this July since that month is usually very quiet for royals and them doing high profile work at that time might look rather good after this tougher summer.

      Delete
    3. Julia from Leominster29 June 2017 at 15:51

      I have to confess I've never been of the boringly and matronly school - with the exception of what Kate wore to Pippa's wedding - that was a little too mum-of-bride to me, although I liked the colour.

      I don't doubt for a minute the queen and Camilla wear hugely expensive clothes - but it is less 'in the face' and this dress which screams Gucci, is very in the face. I just don't feel the time was right for it - even if I liked it (which I don't, but I respect your wonderful enthusiasm for it and that of others.)

      I'm not generally a lover of big designer names as a regular on any royal lady. (Maxima's Valentino was a horror in my eyes!) One reason I like Letizia as much as any royal lady clothes-wise is because she stays closely to three main designers and has a very unified look. People say she is not as popular as Kate but that's because of the BRF. If Letizia had married William, the tables would be turned. Because of it's age, pageantry and the long reign of the queen, as well as the Commonwealth and the fact the language is English, the British royal family is unique in the world - although in this media world, I notice more attention is being paid to all monarchies.

      June is by nature a light-weight month and was more so this year by the cutting of some of the traditional events. Wimbledon is very much in the light mode. William and Kate are desperately in need of a hard-hitting July and not just the tour (the recent tour cost expose is likely to bring the wrong attention to that - ditto Charles and Camilla in Canada.) The young royals really need to get out there - the power of youth, for better or worse, has been all too evident of late. People are tired of talk - they want work. As I've said too often, a tour of their native land would be in order and no, I don't see that conflicting with Charles who will presumably be taking on more official type duties - just reminding the country there is a reason for the royal family and that the young royals aren't just hanging about with their rich toff mates in Norfolk - they are interested in the entire nation.

      Delete
    4. I am pretty sure that wearing European brands is a diplomatic move on her part. That said I think that the cost of her wardrobe is ridiculous. Whether or not an economy is in recession. Unless she is getting a 90 percent discount on these clothes the British public have no business whatsoever to subsidize clothing that costs this much. As per my training I am very much a proponent of consumerist economies - they enrich people. So public spending that puts back into the hands of the British public is greatly welcome. But luxury goods put money in the hands of a select few and have no wealth generative benefits. I just cannot in good faith stand behind this kind of spending on the public's dime. I think people should educate themselves on the economics of maintaining the royals.

      Delete
    5. Rosman I agree with a lot of what you said but also realize that spending $3,000 on a dress might seem like a lot (and it is) but she will have that dress to wear for the next three decades or more. So cost per wearing is a good consideration. I don't know how much Charles or Camilla or Sophie or Anne spend on clothes but I have a feeling some spend way more and some less. Comparison to other Royal houses might be a consideration also. Peer dressing. With CEO's that the Royals intermingle with for Royal engagements. Again, peer dressing.

      Delete
    6. The public don't pay for her clothes - Prince Charles pays out of his own money from the Duchy.

      Delete
    7. Rebecca - Sweden30 June 2017 at 15:24

      Exactly anon 12.17. There is a case to be made that the Duchy money is only his because he is royal, so it's a bit semi-public. But it's his "buissness" that he has made profit of and I would not call it public money.

      Delete
    8. Exactly, Rebecca. And that financial sector is part of their historical legacy.

      Delete
    9. Again, how much does Charles pay for his clothes, Camilla's? How much does Sophie spend? Anne? Their peer groups?

      Delete
    10. It does not matter what we think Anon 12.17 and Rebecca. The Duchy is perceived as belonging to the country of the UK. It was "lent" to the PoW to pay for this running costs. That was the legal contract and that is what the people of the UK believe. Poll after poll documents that. Read Claudia's post below. And when the monarchy will be established the Duchy will revert back to the people of the UK.
      It is not Charles private property and therefore the profit of it is technically not his own either.
      The people of the UK pay for the royals one way or other.

      Delete
    11. surfergirl it does not matter what Camilla or Sophie spends. You are missing my point. I think all of their clothing spending need to be slashed to zero. I don't believe that clothing is an expense that should come out of Duchy income. They should pay for their own clothes out of their own PERSONAL income the way all of us do. Whether we are a school teacher or a ceo of a large corporation.

      Delete
  12. Julia from Leominster29 June 2017 at 13:38

    I have to confess I'm not in love with look - using my usual standards:

    Personal taste - I don't love the dress - it just doesn't appeal personally.
    Appropriateness - I'm not a fan of her choosing big European brands over British ones - especially to such a British engagement - but I'm a bit inconsistent - I'm more tolerant of Dolce than I am of Gucci and the family of 'filthy rich' brands it's part of. And I loathe logo things - especially Gucci buttons. Chanel was one thing because Kate was visiting France, although even there, I could have done without.
    Fit - The dress is too short to my taste. I always think Kate looks her best when her dresses come right to her knee.

    So not at all a fan of this look although it is very Kate - girlish and high-waisted. I'm fine with her shoes. The hair is standard Kate. I'm coming to the conclusion Kate and I just have different tastes which is funny because up through the Singapore tour, she just dazzled me. Since then, there have been things I loved and great tours like India but it's been more inconsistent.

    As for the engagement, always enjoy museum visits so look forward to more details.

    Think I'm just having a poor Kate June of late. Didn't love the white lace at Ascot either - fine with the suit at the interview but wish she could show the animation on serious subjects she shows about tennis. But glad that she and William are visiting Diana's grave for her birthday - just did the same for my mum a month back. I think it was good they announced it - poor Diana has been so badly rubbished by the Camilla book, this show of loyalty is nice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate, Texas, USA29 June 2017 at 13:58

      Julia, I have read a couple short excerpts from the book and my heart sank a bit. Why the book (other than to attempt to boost Camilla's image)? It must be hurtful to William and Harry and right at the 20th anniversary of Diana's death. So sad.

      Delete
    2. But using European designers could play into the soft touch/diplomatic relations of Brexit. Just a thought.

      Delete
    3. If everyone has the same reaction that we have regarding the excerpts from that book, then Camilla definitely made a mistake in having anything to do with it.

      Delete
    4. The show of loyalty is very nice Julia and will reverberate worldwide is my hope. (Even to where Charles and Camilla are in Canada.)

      Delete
    5. Julia from Leominster29 June 2017 at 15:59

      Yes, there is only one word for this book and for the woman who allowed cooperation with it. Vulgar. There is no stronger word I can use - and it is how my late mum described her and Mum had her standards - she was a good judge of such things.

      That sums up what I have felt about Camilla's conduct, long before Diana's death, before the divorce, before Charles and Diana's wedding, when she was clearly trying to cosy up to Diana - in those first horribly uncomfortable photos. I was not too far from Diana's age and I thought 'God, II would hate that older married (allegedly) former lover of my future husband trying to grab onto me.' I knew then she was not a nice woman, and I've never change my opinion, nor, in contrary to many, do I think she's good for Charles, whose sense of self-pity and over-entitlement she has encouraged with her flattery.

      It must be horribly painful for William and Harry - faced with this with no good way to answer back. I wish they would simply denounce the book but of course they can't. Instead, their attempts to respond indirectly tend to backfire. There is no good answer it just makes me profoundly sad.

      Delete
    6. Like Kate Texas, I suspect it is hurtful. If I were in their shoes the release of the book at this time would seem petty and contrived. They obviously understand as adults that part of the reason their parents' broke-up rests with the fact that Charles didn't love, cherish or protect their mother because he loved Camilla. As adults people can learn to accept and live with that reality but it remains a hurtful reality.

      This ill-timed release seems blatantly obvious. Because the Queen's years are numbered, this publication is a marketing tool to pave the way for Queen Cam. What a jolly girl she is! (How ironic. She wasn't the only one sick with dread at the thought of marrying Charles.)

      More than that, it is a dreadful intrusion into the natural grief of her step-sons. I agree that it's a good time for her and Charles to be in Canada. However, if she had any RESPECT for William and Harry she would put this sort of book out in 2018. Any other year but this one. When I had a step-daughter I always honoured her mother (whether she deserved it or not). I never made any move to usurp her in any way--most especially in those moments when the little minx would want me to side with her against her mother.

      As I read the book excerpt in the Daily Mail yesterday I was deeply affected by one of the photos (you have to scroll down quite a ways). With today's insight into micro-expressions and in the light of Harry's recent interview, I understood it differently than I did before.

      C&C kneel at the altar in front of the Queen and the other royals. The Q as usual has an enigmatic expression. William with shoulders slumped forward has his head down into the order of service. The look on Harry's face (which is turned toward the couple) is a heart breaking mix of anger and anguish. Nothing like the jolly official photos released afterwards.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4648502/Camilla-felt-accepted-perfect-speech-Queen.html

      However, as life coach Ilyana Vanzant often says, people are messy. https://twitter.com/iyanlavanzant/status/759773068478779392?lang=en

      It's something we must accept about others. Ironically, by attending to their foibles and machinations we can ignore our own.

      Delete
    7. Thoughtful comment as always, Philly. My father started dating one of my mother's best friends about six months after my mother died. And I resented her even though she was a really nice woman and I know she'd had no designs on my dad before my mom died. But if it had been a situation like Harry and William had, I would have been SO hurt and angry. And I think that anger could have built over the years as I grew up and realized exactly what had happened as more came out and as the people involved behaved as if nothing HAD happened. And, 20 years after the fact, tried to blacken my mother's memory to make themselves more palatable.

      My stepmom was always very respectful of my mom's memory. Never did she ever once say anything negative about my mother. And she had known my mother for 30 years so well could have slipped the odd thing in here and there. Never did. That meant a lot to me. This book is horrible, just horrible.

      Yes, people are messy and I like your final comment "Ironically, by attending to their foibles and machinations we can ignore our own." In the New Testament, Luke Chapter 6, Christ cautioned "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you....Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

      I am so guilty of being judgmental. I try not to be and then oops, my fingers fly, I hit 'send', or I react quickly to what someone says to me and I end up saying something just as hurtful. Working on it but I will probably still be working on it in the afterlife. I still say though [smile] that this book is horrible and if I were Camilla I would ring up Penny Junor and tell her to withdraw it, having recognized that putting it out there is a huge error in judgement. I guess issuing a statement saying that the book is NOT endorsed by Camilla would not be "done", would it? Especially if she cooperated on it.

      Delete
    8. People are messy indeed, truer words were never spoken.

      Charles and Camilla married the wrong people, simple as that. And as is usually the case in those circumstances, it was disastrous. If statistics are to be believed, they're in good company with half the population doing the same. It's not the end of the world, it wasn't the crime of the century. They made a mistake. They've been vilified publicly for years, then stood in a church in front of a global audience and asked for forgiveness. I certainly hope I'm never judged as harshly for my mistakes.

      And what about Diana's later affairs with married men? How should we judge that? Julia Carling was a relative newlywed, Diana Hoare was more used to her husband's wandering but was still hurt I'm sure.

      No one knows what happens in any relationship except for the people involved. And then there's generally his side, her side, and the truth.

      Delete
    9. I also hope that William and Harry will take a more vocal stand against this book and further pillory of Diana's reputation. I have been reading whatever excerpts that the daily m has been putting out and they do get me, objective old me riled up. I can't imagine how Diana's sons and friends and sisters react to what is being printed.
      Oh, and while Lord Fellowes did take a stand against Diana while she was alive, he also objected strongly to Camilla. In fact the Queen and everyone else in the royal family acknowledged quite frankly that Camilla's presence in the marriage from the beginning presented insurmountable difficulties. When is someone in the press going to have the guts to state that ?

      Delete
    10. Julie - you are spot on with your comments- I wish she would disappear to Gloucester and stay there. Every time I see her on that balcony I am so cross. Thank you Linda

      Delete
    11. I just read the excerpt from the link that Philly posted. When I saw the look on Harry's face I could have cried, and those pictures of Diana with Camilla. The whole thing is just sordid.

      Delete
    12. Claudia. I hear what you are saying. Everyone does have their challenges, obviously. And, those challenges will most usually always be discussed, judged, bantered about, just like other topics, and by many. But Camilla doesn't have to dredge it all up again and particularly not during Diana's anniversary. Doesn't seem in keeping with her repentance in my opinion. I was very touched by her public repentance and had defended her here before based on that. But lately she seems to be regressing into her old ways and it is noteworthy. Particularly when it is affecting Diana's boy's.

      Delete
    13. Jo, I love those scriptures and thank you so much for including those.x I have contemplated those words before. We are also called to discern situations knowing that in future times we will even judge angels. (yep, it's true.) It is a fine line to walk between discernment, proper judging and emotional reaction vs. thoughtful response and gossip (news not based on fact), and idle words. For we will be judged for every idle word. Sobering thoughts for sure. I guess we just have to let peace be our governor as the scriptures say or ask God to show us where we really are in His opinion on the various topics that come up here and follow His guidance. He knows best. ❤️

      Delete
    14. Maggie - Minneapolis30 June 2017 at 00:32

      I have a question, but I want to preface it by saying that I truly don't mean it argumentatively, I just honestly don't know, so forgive me also if I sound a bit naive right now......So - why has everyone been talking about this upcoming biography like Clarence House sanctioned it and almost planned it (based on how some ppl have been talking about it)? What does it mean to sanction it, if that's what they did? I ask because while yes, I'm aware Penny Junor has always been very pro-Camilla and anti-Diana, isn't it possible that she and her publisher realized on their own that since this year is both Camilla's 70th birthday and Diana's 20th anniversary of her death, the interest level would be esp high for a Camilla biography? And perhaps Clarence House has known about it, but ultimately, I'm not sure what they are supposed to do about a publisher wanting to make as much money as possible? Isn't it the same as why Andrew Morton is republishing a book that has already been published...bc the nature of the anniversary guarantees more attention and thus more money? Again, not arguing at this moment, I'm just truly trying to understand how these things work. Esp bc the biography seems to be very negative about Charles and not just Diana, and that seems to go against what Clarence House would want.
      Also people (not so much this thread but previous ones on earlier posts) seem to think one of the reasons we can assume this biography is with malicious intent is bc Penny Junor is known to be pro-Camilla and anti-Diana, but I find that interesting and perhaps a little unfair given that no one on this blog seems to doubt the accuracy or motives of writers who are known to be pro-Diana and anti-Camilla. It's not bias just because someone has "picked a side" in the War of the Waleses that seems to never end.

      Delete
    15. Maggie - Minneapolis30 June 2017 at 00:46

      Also Claudia, I couldn't agree more. It's the *twentieth* anniversary of Diana's death. That means over two decades have passed since Camilla and Charles both made a huge series of mistakes in relation to their marital lives. Charles has shown a great sense of duty to his country his entire life, and since becoming a royal and despite back problems and being of retirement age, Camilla has acted admirably in public life. If that isn't enough to at least have earned some respect and acceptance as royals, then clearly nothing would ever be. Which means now, as Claudia so aptly mentioned, making a mistake that 50% of the population makes is apparently entirely unforgiveable.
      And let's not forget that William and Harry are not the only ones who had to have their private lives completely aired for the public to see and devour at will due to the media. At least William and Harry were coddled and treated as golden boys because of their childhood....even if she brought it upon herself, Camilla has always faced a huge brunt of the media attention because of her relationship to Charles, and especially, the brunt of the criticism. While yes, the anti-Diana press certainly has gotten out there, it is NOTHING compared to the media and public attention and criticism Camilla has had to face for a long time. Just like unfortunately William and Harry had to deal with their parents' marital problems being very public while most children can at least deal with them privately, Camilla had to deal with her love life and the mistakes she's made being public as well, while most women can at least deal with being the "other woman" privately. And yeah, she used the media to her advantage. So did Diana. So are William and Harry in their stream of basically constant Diana talk over the past few months.

      Delete
    16. Maggie - Minneapolis30 June 2017 at 01:02

      Omg I really need to make sure I'm done before I hit publish :P
      One last thing - imo it's hypocritical and confusing for KP to announce this private rededication of Diana's grave. They don't announce when they will be attending funerals or weddings, and force Park twitters to take down tweets about how George and Charlotte visited to play during a tour. They cannot so extremely guard their privacy and then announce a private event without it being blatant that this is them using the media to make a point. Which, again, makes it even more hypocritical to criticize that same media like every time they give an interview, or to demand such extreme privacy in other cases. So what if there's media interest and/or Althorp was going to be closed? There's media interest in Diana's grave basically every year on her birthday, and also there's media interest in things like George's first day of school date, where they stayed on that ski vacation, future vacation plans, etc. KP doesn't comment on any of that.

      Delete
    17. Well if we're quoting scripture I'll add this:

      "Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

      Honestly I'm not sure when this ugly, nasty tone started permeating the comment section. I'm all for spirited debate and Lord knows on the receiving end of many objections myself, but this outright hatred is something else and most unbecoming.

      Has no one any compassion? Has no one ever made a mistake here? The gang mentality that springs up so quickly thanks to the internet and social media is beyond disturbing.

      The first royal blog I found was the Berks/Bucks blog, truly a fan site which I didn't know at the time. And while the readers and moderator there would faint at any criticism of Kate or the Middletons, they freely let loose on every other member of the royal family, including one person wishing an early death for the Queen. When I asked how on earth that could be published, and questioned a similar stance on Carole Middleton, it wasn't published, obviously ;)

      These people made mistakes. Diana should never have married Charles. Camilla should never have married her husband, Charles should never have married Diana. It was a disaster and it was two decades ago.

      The hatred being spread here is the first thing that has ever brought me down about this comment section.

      Delete
    18. Maggie, you're being much too logical!! :)

      And Claudia? I couldn't agree more. Other than it was more like 25 to 30 years ago. But your last sentence? I give it a standing ovation.

      Delete
    19. Okay I don't like to get drawn into arguments. But I have to point out that every few years Camilla and Charles' biographies get released with plenty of friends talking on their behalf. With uncanny regularity these kind of biographies with liberal bashing of Diana, get released. Biographies by Penny Junor. A well-known Charles admirer who will say anything about Diana to get a pat on the back from Charles. If these books were not getting released no one would have had anything to say. So I think that those harping on about the twenty years should ask C&C why they can't let 20 years of a woman's death be those of silence. Why this need to rehabilitate their images at the expense of hers? DIana at least said her piece while she was alive. It is truly cowardly to wait until she is dead to start ripping her to pieces with untruths and half truths. Camilla's PR rehab could have been done without tearing apart Diana's memory over and over again .. no ? Why this uncouthness and cruelty, really ? What do you say to that ? I am genuinely curious how people justify this other than saying .. oh let's forget about it. Do you have any thoughts on that Maggie? How are the public supposed to forget and move on if C&C keep bashing Diana with no provocation from a dead woman?

      Claudia : I don't know what kind of hatred you refer to. I hear a lot of criticism of character - the same kind that is bestowed on Kate and William liberally when the occasion calls for it.
      I am frankly puzzled when people insist on moving on from this.. Sure we will. When Camilla let's us. Dont you think? I am not a fan of Diana's.. never was. Was too young when she died. But I do realize when I see something wrong being permeated and hence I feel that I need to acknowledge that.
      Of course everyone has made mistakes. I have made mistakes, not of this magnitude though, nothing even close. Forgiveness is given when the person lets you .. when they seem to regret their actions. I am very happy to move on from this and would if Charles and Camilla gave us the impression that they are not proud of what they did. All their actions show that not only do they don't believe they did anything wrong, they actually blame Diana for their own actions. How do you forgive or show compassion when one does not take ownership of their role in a mistake? Charles or Camilla don't have to even step up and say "We made mistakes, we married the wrong people". They could just have been silent. Gotten married and then shut the heck up and done their royal duties. But no, they can't just do that. Instead they will go on and on about how THEY were wronged by the machinations of a 19 year old not so bright virgin bride. Stop publishing trashy dishonest books on a dead woman. Then I will happily move on from this episode.

      Clearly some people have more issues with the idea of infidelity than others, on this blog.. that is amply clear from comments. People view infidelity and people's roles within marriages differently. I think that colors people's view on Camilla's role in the marriage and Charles' actions and treatment of Diana. That is why some people get very angry on behalf of Diana while others are able to see more the "grey" (if there is any).

      Delete
    20. Maggie the reason KP announced it was to send a message to the public that they were standing by their mother's memory. They felt the need to do that because of Camilla's biography. It was actually deliberate and has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy.

      I think that you are completely off the mark with regards to your comments on the Charles and Camilla drama. These are hugely complicated emotions. We can't just write them off with clicks of our keypads. This is history. Of course William and Harry will want the truth to be written. Not some revisionist nasty lies.

      Delete
    21. Julia from Leominster30 June 2017 at 05:24

      First of all, on blogs. I was shocked today to go to another blog I never comment on but occasionally read - thinking it might have comments on Kate's dress - only to be appalled at the viciousness of the comments there (I don't use the word lightly) about William taking his family and Harry possibly, although not certainly, his girlfriend for a re-dedication of their mother's grave on her birthday. I was particularly shocked by the criticism of more than one poster that they had chosen her birthday - having just gone to put roses on my dear parents' grave a short time ago, on the occasion of my mum's birthday, I had no idea I was committing such a faux pas.
      On this biography of Camilla - it is clearly authorised because it contains information given by friends and family of Camilla. We can't say by the woman herself but it seems likely - who else knew Camilla was quaking in her shoes on her wedding day to Charles (Leo roared with laughter at that - not kindly.) Timing is everything I will simply refer again to Victoria Arbiter's statement that whoever chose this time should have their sanity questioned. No one has said that Camilla can't have her biography but there is no tradition of having one at seventy. It is clearly a slap at Diana and the boys. That there would be much mention of Diana on the 20th anniversary of her death was a given - any idiot would know that - and Camilla could have insisted no one cooperate with it, if it was to be published this summer. In fact, it seems a calculated attack on Diana. Given the graciousness that William and Harry have shown to Camilla - it's questionable whether Camilla should have encouraged a biography at all. It would serve her right if they denounced her but of course they can't.
      As for Diana - she's dead. The biography attacks a dead woman who can't answer back as Charles and Camilla supporters have ruthlessly attacked her for the last twenty years - I've had the dubious privilege of hearing some of them.
      So what can William and Harry do? Give interviews praising their mother and their work, saying (rather pathetically when you think about it) how they couldn't protect her (from biographers like Junor) and now announce they are going to honour her by re-dedicating her grave. That's why the public announcement. Would anyone here think it was better to denounce Camilla as a vicious woman as most private people would in this circumstance? It may also be a hint they are making their peace with Charles Spencer who, for their father's sake, they have had little to do with. This book may have made them change their minds.
      It's made me change my mind. I once reluctantly said I would support Charles and Camilla as long as she wasn't crowned. No more. I want no part of either of them. I do believe in the succession but think the monarchy would be better off without them.
      As for Charles and Diana's marriage - we will never know if it could have been a success without the involvement of Camilla because she WAS involved. The photos show it. I'm not going to waste any compassion on her because she deserves none - she made her choices and like all of must live with them -and given she may wear that bad luck diamond on her head someday because Charles put her before his nation - doesn't seem to need anyone's sympathy.

      Delete
    22. Claudia

      Thank you very much wholeheartedly!! I agree and second every words!! People did cast a lot of stones here. We could make a mountain of it!

      Delete
    23. Eve from Germany30 June 2017 at 07:53

      I honestly have been struggling for some time now, trying to stay out of this debate about "THAT" book, but my "therapist side" took the better of me, so this is it: I have to comment otherwise I will start screaming at the top of my lungs - which my neighbours surely wouldn´t appreciate very much, right? ;-))))

      Delete
    24. Eve from Germany30 June 2017 at 07:54

      Ok, I was experiencing problems with the comments section, so here´s the rest to my previos comment:
      I read the first excerpt of "THE" book and, yes, throw me in the tower for that, found it quite "balanced" - at least considering the fact that Penny Junor wrote it, who, in my opinion, is not necessarily "pro-Camilla", but rather "pro-Charles". And with "pro-Charles" I mean almost "in love with him", the way she is talking about him, at least from what I have been able to watch/hear over the years.... She acknowledges, for example, in this book, that HE made mistakes that TRULY were completely the wrong thing to do in the situation. Because of his upbringing, his own "flaws", etc, etc. From what I´ve read, she at least TRIED to show both sides, or shall I say, all three sides?....
      But all of this is not the most important thing for me here. As a therapist and as a "human being" (i.e. without any therapist look on things), I have been working with and be friends with women who were ill with bulimia. I can ASSURE you, I have the UTMOST understanding and compassion for anyone who is suffering from this illness. These people are DEEPLY traumatized, DEEPLY. Usually, they were treated like "objects" rather than "human beings" by their childhood environment (see Diana´s dad who allegedly called her a "perfect specimen" when she was born. A "specimen" - that´s how your wording for your DAUGHTER is!!). They usually experienced NILL stable environment and there was NO-ONE who showed them that THEY as a PERSON mattered. So they started to "ACT A CERTAIN WAY" - in order to "GET A CERTAIN (hopefully positive)REACTION" from their main caretakers. This is why they ALL are VERY good actors and know EXACTLY "what to do and how to behave" once they´ve "decided" you are the one who could make them happy... That´s why Diana turned into a "country-loving", "perfect future wife" for Charles, when in fact, she loathed most of his friends and most of his favourite pastimes.
      Being in a relationship with someone with bulimia, you will experience "surprises" that leave your mouth wide open. They are COMPLETELY unpredictable. Like any other addict, it´s the addiction that is most important. It´s their lifeline. They lie, they cheat, they cut you off in NO time - 2 minutes later they adore you, give you the best feeling you can have about yourself, only to turn everything upside down 2 minutes later. Again, I have the DEEPEST sympathy and understanding. Even as a therapist it is extremely difficult to work with them, because honesty with yourself and your therapist is one of the most important prerequisites in any therapy - and that´s what they are the most afraid of... As a non-trained person, you just go crazy - or you just give up. It´s too strenuous, especially if you are emotionally involved. Charles of all people would NEVER have been able to have ANY kind of "successful" relationship with someone with bulimia, especially as bulimia is most of the times "only" a "symptom", a "coping strategy", so other mental health problems like e.g. depression often accompany it.
      He himself was craving for the same thing as Diana (that´s why they matched so "well" - although, if you are not aware of that, it´s THE recipe for disaster), it´s all "well known", enough articles/books have been writtern about it.
      There is N O "Diana the saint/Charles the sinner/Camilla the devil incarnated" AT ALL in this horrible triangle. It´s the story that became public knowledge about what a childhood with virtually NO emotional "nourishment" can cause later on. Endless, overwhelming misery is your daily "menu" - believe me.

      Delete
    25. Eve from Germany30 June 2017 at 07:55

      And here, part III:
      Camilla is supposed to have had a happy childhood. BULLSHIT (excuse me my French!!). No one with a happy childhood marries a serial adulterer, NO-ONE. It´s impossible because you respect yourself too much to be drawn to someone like that. So the fact that Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles tells you everything and makes her the perfect match for the "triangle" situation. She´s no saint, but she´s no devil either. She´s just another "victim" of patterns set in her early childhood thanks to the experiences she made.
      So, PLEASE, for the love of God, STOP perpetuating the "Diana the saint/Charles the sinner/Camilla the devil" story. It couldn´t be FURTHER from the truth, from REALITY. It´s bad enough, IF we have another round of the "war of the Waleses", this time between Charles and his kids. We don´t have to contribute to that.
      I don´t "blame" anyone for not having the necessary psychological background in order to understand what was happening and why. That´s why I wanted to give at least some more information. So I hope that now at least people who are reading this blog will be able to look at that triangle with a little more objectivity and understanding.
      I do not "support" adultery - but I can understand what happened and how it happened in this case. I just wish everyone involved in that triangle the strength to seek therapeutic help - for your own sake and that of your children who usually will suffer severe trauma as well, should you not adress your own trauma. Diana went into therapy, but unfortunately the fact that she continued her war with Charles and his family and continued to "use" William as her "weapon" to get back at them (imagine your mum makes you "understand" that you are "the better king" because your father is "useless" in her opinion? And you are just a 10 year old?) shows that the therapy had not been that "successful" so far. Had it been, she would have stopped the war - and started her own life. No "flaunting in the sun with Dodi" (of all people!!) in order to get the attention away from the fact that Charles was giving Camilla a birthday party at Highgrove. After a "successful" therapy, you might very probably still feel the "sting" - but you won´t act out on it!!

      Delete
    26. Right, Rosman. Diana never authorized a biography, authorized her friends to talk, and provided any information at all, right? She never said anything bad about her husband at all. There isn't an eyeroll massive enough.

      And yes I think the timing on the book is bad. And yes I think Penny Junor is a Charles apologist. But the rest?

      I usually don't get into discussions about Camilla; however, the invective and outright slurs being tossed around here about her is really disgusting. A whore, a trollop . . . I could go on. But seeing as everyone who criticises Kate is a jealous hater, what are we to think about you guys who are going much beyond constructive criticism here? Things like this said about Kate would not be published, yet you guys think it's totally OK to trash Camilla. It beggars belief, really.

      Delete
    27. Bluhare +1 And thanks a million!!

      Delete
    28. I am with Rosman on this one. I will add, whatever happened more than 20 years ago, what we are discussing is what is happening now. And if Camilla is behind that book, and if that book is raking that old story, exactly on the 20th anniversary of Diana's death, she is to put it mildly,insensitive and stupid. No clever or kind person would do that. Silence would be the best weapon, the one that would have brought them more sympathy and the one that would respect her stepsons unhappiness.
      I'd like also to put some words in defence of all bulimics out there, Eve you make them sound frightful. One of my best friends suffers from bulimia after having been anorexic at school. She is a wonderful person and I have never heard her tell a lie though I saw her everyday when we shared rooms.Yes bulimics want to be loved, but they want also to love and my understanding is that they take this way out of their troubles or their past because they unconsciously prefer destroying themselves to destroying others. Living with a bulimic is definitely not such a difficult thing as you seem to think Eve. Perhaps as you see them only on consultation, you only see that little piece of them, but I assure you the few ones I know, are normal people with their own character and qualities and with an illness not worse than any other illness.

      Delete
    29. Has there not been "hatred spread" about Kate's work schedule, William's work schedule, their expenditures, etc.? I don't think it is hatred at all, right? Just opinions being expressed on all topics. And very emotionally also.

      Delete
    30. bluhare - ah, but Diana is dead no ? When she got her friends to talk about C&C they were alive and could easily (and did) refute what she said. Diana is dead. Don't you think that the dignified thing to do is to put the whole thing behind them and just focus on the future?

      Also, I hope you don't mean me 'trashing' Camilla. I don't do that. Ever. I comment on what is being published and I say that they are distortions and lies. I don't use those kind of words as invectives. Please go back and read what I comment and let me know if I have. Because I take what I write seriously. I am an equal opportunity basher .. ha ha.. I call out all royals when I feel like they need to be. So yes, I criticize Kate when I think she says something silly or spends too much money on her clothes. I criticize WIlliam and Harry when they act like idiots. I also criticize C&C for sanctioning a series of lies against a dead woman.
      I don't know whether readers here lump or bucket people but I don't usually do that to myself. I agree with some on some things and disagree on others.

      Delete
    31. Julia from Leominster30 June 2017 at 17:09

      Diana did, but everyone she mentioned could answer back. She no longer can, nor rationally can her sons. It's ironic that people say Camilla didn't answer back because her supporters have been rubbishing Diana for years in a way I will simply call cruel. Attacking her mental state, and calling her a virtual trollop, even though the only men she is proven to have had affairs with were single.

      But even if Diana was the worst person in the world, Camilla is step-mother to her sons, who have treated Camilla with respect if not affection. A kind woman would see that she is harming them and William's children by doing this. Doing this in a year they wish to be a memorial one for their mother - is frankly egregious. It may explain a lot of their actions - some of which I criticised before I heard about this book - Christmas with the Middletons, the interviews, the mental health scheme - speaking directly against what Camilla followers are doing (using mental health to attack someone and justify harming them). Yet we know they won't speak out directly against their father and step-mother.
      I don't care if Camilla is a whore, a trollop or who she bedded - but I do care that the person who will be consort to the king is ruthless, foolish and mean. And I believe Camilla is all of those things.
      As for this blog, I've always supported everyone being able to speak freely and I still do. I respect those who like Camilla - even if I tend to think they are falling for a cunning press campaign. If I knew an example of Kate being outright mean to someone, I would certainly say so, if I knew her to attack someone's mental health for her own personal gain, I would say so. If she cooperated with a book trashing Camilla
      in a major celebratory year - I would do so. (Although she might be justified in doing so now.) if I knew her to involve herself in another person's marriage, and pursue a conniving friendship with the young wife of her lover I would say so. But I hope I never have to. I don't admire Kate's work ethic, I have heard she was territorial about William before their marriage, but I've never heard of her allowing an attack of another person within her family, especially someone who can't answer back. And I hope I never do.

      Delete
    32. A quick search through the comments in the past several posts will give you a quick refresher on the hatred Rosman. Bluhare mentioned some. I'd be willing to bet money that Charlotte doesn't want her comment section used as a venue to spew hatred at anyone, at any time. Say you don't like someone, sure. Say you have a low opinion of them, give a brief explainer even. But the kind of mean spirited personal attacks, vicious and ugly name calling boggles my mind, considering it's coming from grown women. Attacking her looks, her character, her reputation, her motives. I'm all for skipping comments that don't interest you, but this has cast a terrible vibe over the entire section.

      And, for the record, the trashy books that have done the most harm to Diana in life and death, were largely written by the cast of characters she foolishly drew into her orbit. Unwise decisions (partly understandable) that still backfire. People who continue to cash checks at the Diana bank.

      James Hewitt and his book for starters. Morton, breaking the agreement by revealing she actually dictated that book and republishing it every chance he gets. Bashir, who we now know committed fraud to get that interview, showing her fake bank statements, and continues to get gigs off of it. Paul Burrell, who William and Harry pleaded with in a private meeting NOT to release books about their mother, and he went ahead and did it anyway. Twice. And never passes a chance to reveal more to any tabloid willing to pay.
      Lady Colin Campbell who was a confidant. Her "healing therapist" Simone Simmons who broke every confidence in two publications. Her "astrologer" ... I could go on and on.

      Diana had strong, mature friends, (who have also spoken honestly about her on the record, her strengths AND weaknesses) but when they told her things she didn't want to hear she ran to a rather marginal set who would just agree with her. And I would say that set has betrayed her more than she ever could have imagined.

      And Eve, so well said. I have said I dislike Charles Spencer, but I will agree with one line in his eulogy:

      "There is a temptation to rush to canonise your memory, there is no need to do so. You stand tall enough as a human being of unique qualities not to need to be seen as a saint. Indeed to sanctify your memory would be to miss out on the very core of your being"

      We ALL can be saints and sinners, humans are complex, no need to put any one of us in a compartment.

      Delete
    33. Thank you Rosman @ 17:06. I very much agree and am glad you said that. :)

      Delete
    34. Eve from Germany30 June 2017 at 19:16

      @Natacha: I understand your point. I had to give a very "condensed" summary of characteristic symptoms and behavioural patterns in order to not make an even lengthier comment than it already was... One of my friends had been bulimic for years and even though I sensed that she wasn´t as happy as she pretended to be I did not find out the whole truth until the day her husband called me out of sheer despair and asked me for some advice since he knew about my work.
      I do not judge anyone, especially since I was once suffering from anorexia, the two illnesses have a lot in common. You become an expert in covering up, and, OF COURSE, you also have loads of times when you are just "normal" (if "normal" exists at all..). It´s a secret illness - and, if I may say this, it´s a difference whether you live in a boarding school environment together with other girls the same age, or in a "love relationship" with someone much older than you. It´s a whole different story, believe me, because of the different dynamics. I´m glad your friend obviously was able to share her problems with you. Very often you feel you just can´t share this with anyone (see Diana) because you feel so bad about it (and yourself). My friend was hiding it from her husband for years! When he found out, lots of things suddenly "made sense" and he was desperately trying to make her go see a therapist, to no avail.
      In the end, they both agreed to couple´s therapy (that´s when her teeth started to fall out!), and it came as a huge shock when her husband found out how much he had been (unconsciously) contributing to her illness. I can´t go into too much detail, but believe me, he told me a lot of incidents that reminded me very much of what we heard about Diana and Charles at the time.... She is much better now and they managed to grow stronger as a couple which is wonderful. In the end they decided to go to couple´s therapy because of their children whom they both loved very much and who suffered due to everything that had been going on... But they were not Charles and Diana, had a different background and of course, didn´t have their public roles and the spotlight those two had to cope with....

      Delete
    35. Rosman, when I was talking about you specifically I said your name. When I was speaking more collectively I used "you guys". This particular string has been almost kind compared to others, and I'm very glad Claudia said something about how ugly it's become. Diana *is* dead but there are plenty of people around who can refute Junor's book if it's not true.

      The fact is Camilla will be queen consort one day, assuming Charles outlives his mother, whether she is called that or not. Therefore, she's deserving of a biography. Will I be getting this one? Probably not. I will, however, get one from a more neutral party when it comes out.

      All of this is none of our business. Diana made it everyone's business by giving Andrew Morton her tapes. And, frankly, I don't see any one of you criticising him for exploiting her memory to make money. Just Junor. Both of them are doing the same thing but because one of them is about Camilla that turns her and the author into something Machiavellian to read some of you. It's been downright ugly and I've skimmed over most of it.

      I think Diana was amazing. She was ahead of her time, and did her damndest to wake the royal family up. But that doesn't mean I believe all her recollections. As Claudia said, there's his side, her side, and what actually happened.

      Delete
    36. I'm not going to say a lot on this because I've defended Camilla before and have gotten a bit tired of discussing this situation. I do feel that she is being judged too harshly and that what happened is often regarded as a black and white story, one in which Camilla is the evil witch.
      So I will only say that I think the heart wants what it wants and, to quote Nietzsche, "There is always some madness in love."

      Delete
    37. Julia 05:24-et.al .--I am bowing, cheering, if not genuflecting. I am breathless! No mincing and tip-toeing around. She plows right through to the heart.
      (I especially enjoyed the Leo reference. He sounds like my kind of guy. I can hear the snicker, followed by a hearty guffaw. I picture him as a cross between David Attenborough and Julian whatsisname of Downton Abbey fame. With a little Prince Phillip tossed in for spice)

      Delete
    38. See I agree with you up to a point. I also happen to share the view that technically all of this should not have seen the light of day. Many of Diana's interviews and obviously the whole Morton business were mistakes. BUT given that she did put it out there (and there were justifiable reasons for her to put it out there in the public sphere to protect her access to her sons), and given that before she died both C&C played an equal media war with her - having their friends say things about her mental health, fighting fire with fire.. I would have thought that her death would have put an end to all of it. The woman was killed in a car accident ffs, leaving behind two young sons. She got her comeuppance, if you want to see it that way. They could have left it at that.. called it even, declared themselves winners because they got to live and see her sons grow up while she got to die.. and called it a day. They got to have the love story and she got to die. Why was this not enough for Charles and Camilla ? You tell me.. ?

      Because, knowing whatever little about people I do, I would imagine that when two people wait for a long time and get to be together they are usually so overjoyed that they can't be bothered with the small and petty stuff. But not Charles and Camilla. Why not enjoy the newly found happiness? Why go after a dead person's reputation? They could have retold their own love story in a much more classy, compassionate and humble way. They could have taken ownership of their roles and admitted it was a combination of unfortunate factors.. and reasonable people would see it for what it is. Bad circumstances, a relic of an institution, hugely insecure people, over-inflated egos and at the end of the day ,.. just poor judgement, mistakes been made. Many people would see it for what it was and left it at that. But they did not stop at that. These biographies go after Diana in an unnecessarily brutal way.

      bluhare I know that you think that many people don't like Camilla or Charles because they cheated their beloved Diana. That is not the reason I get riled up by these books. I was not enraptured by Diana. I get riled up because I think that they show sides of their characters that I don't like very much. The reason I find Camilla and Charles to be more machiavellan than Diana about the whole thing is because they did not leave it alone. They had to have the last word. And I find that these actions show sides to their nature that I would rather not see. And I do agree with Julia - it is cruel beyond imagination, what they are doing to William and Harry. They are damaging his sons, his grandchildren and by extension the institution itself.

      Delete
    39. surfer girl, you said this:

      Has there not been "hatred spread" about Kate's work schedule, William's work schedule, their expenditures, etc.? I don't think it is hatred at all, right? Just opinions being expressed on all topics. And very emotionally also.

      I will remember you said this. You don't think the *incredibly personal and insulting* things said about Camilla are out of line. When things get hot about Kate, I will remind you that comments are just opinions and nothing to get worked up about.

      Delete
    40. Bluhare +1

      So calling and insunating that Kate is a whore, trollop, etc. is opinion expressed emotionally. Fine by me too.

      Delete
  13. Kate, Texas, USA29 June 2017 at 13:54

    Perfection! Kate looks fabulous! I love the look from head to toe!

    I tried to publish my comment just a minute ago, but had tech issues. I hope it doesn't post twice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kate from Texas, :)

      Nice to hear from you. I love the classics and this is definitely Iconic Gucci.

      Delete
  14. Pardon my ignorance, but who is the man that Kate is greeting in the first photo? I've seen him accompany Kate numerous times before...is he some kind of royal official?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean from Lancs29 June 2017 at 18:11

      I think he's the Lord Lieutenant of Greater London, or the deputy.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that, Jean :)

      Delete
  15. Eve from Germany29 June 2017 at 14:15

    Sorry, not my style at all. I absolutely dislike all these dresses that have their waistline ABOVE your actual waist. It always looks either as if you were wearing maternity wardrobe or you´ve grown out of that dress. The colours are nice, just the combination of the pattern and the pockets, plus the faux pearls - my great-aunt used to wear dresses like that in the 70ies - and she looked VERY old-fashioned even back then! I like the clutch matching the red in the dress, and the shoes - but that´s about it.... This kind of dress makes her look like a school-girl or a grandma back from the 70ies... makes me longing for Diana´s Catherine Walker dresses back in the day... So effortless chic and stylish.... sigh....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia from Leominster29 June 2017 at 16:05

      I'm with you Eve and share your sighs.

      Unfortunately some of the Walker clothes since Catherine's death have become quite mum-of-the bride, but they have not done badly with Kate - that charming blue lacy coat, the red coat and little grey dress from Canada, the green coat she just wore for the Irish Guards...she might do worse than turn to them more regularly. (There have been a couple I didn't like - that green coat - but that's true of every designer.) Their evening clothes are simply amazing, far more sophisticated than Packham - although Kate might do worse than using more Packham too. And there are enough young English designers she could vary her look with without going abroad.

      It almost feels to me like there has developed a disconnect between Kate and her position. But I hope not.

      Delete
    2. I agree! I like the idea of the dress and a lot of the detailing, but it looks too small on Kate. It's not pulling, but it is a bit high waisted and the shoulders seem too narrow. Also the pockets seem a bit high and just contribute to make the bodice seem too small.
      Love the shoes, though!

      Delete
    3. While I certainly understand your opinion, dresses with higher waists are a preference for some women (myself included). I believe Kate always looks nice in dresses with a higher waist and I understand why she favors them much of the time. I favor them because they work best for my body type and they make me feel beautiful and comfortable. I would imagine that Kate feels the same way and feeling confident and comfortable in your clothes is most important. There is nothing wrong with high-waisted dresses. It is about personal preference.

      Delete
    4. I much prefer this dress over 99% of the Catherine Walker clothes I've seen. I'm all for Kate wearing British clothes but not Catherine Walker, please! The grey dress was great but that's the only Walker piece I truly like.

      Delete
    5. Rebecca - Sweden30 June 2017 at 20:40

      I think there is a place for both. I like that Kate does the traditional royal coatdress Catherine Walker style and then also LK Bennet and Jcrew casuals and then a Gucci high fashion piece and then back to some more uniform coat and nude shoes. I think there is a spot for all of it.

      Delete
  16. Thank you Charlotte for the post. Really like the Duchess's look today, very chic and professional. And what a dapper gentleman to meet her. The little girl was very pretty too, in the yellow dress with butterflies. Looking forward to the rest of the post. And Charlotte thank you also for the Wimbledon post, most enjoyable. I do enjoy the tennis.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think Kate looks fabulous.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Isn't this a professional 60s look?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden29 June 2017 at 14:54

      Very much so, in my book. And I LOVE IT! (If anyone has missed that...)

      Delete
    2. Sixties, yes, but more for daytime socializing than for professional wear.

      Delete
    3. I like it too, may be as a reminder of an era. Another reason, it is a refreshing change for Kate. That is, as long as she will not frequent the style, and will wear similar items just once in a while.

      It was not a professional look? Was it because many women did not work in brick and mortar environment? Women who wore Chanel and/ or Gucci suits and dresses carried day time socializing may be while administering their estates, families, businesses and social aspects of society.

      Delete
  19. Amazed at the stark contrast of opinions. As a Mississippi US girl and a follower of Kate and not a subject, I can understand the differences and respect them. At some point in time, we'll all love what she wears! Lol!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden29 June 2017 at 14:56

      It always amuses and amazes me how differently we can see things looking at the same thing. Isn't it wonderful? :)

      That is why I never say things are "ugly" or "awful" or anything like that. Because they simply are not. They are not to my taste at times, and that is 100% ok. It's not me who's wearing it.

      Delete
    2. Julia from Leominster29 June 2017 at 16:07

      Very true Annette, and I believe it comes from the different ways we perceive Kate - whether we see her within her role, or as a princess to just enjoy. And there's nothing wrong with that.

      Delete
    3. Rebecca - Sweden29 June 2017 at 17:10

      I think that might be part of it Julia. But I think it might also be age/generation. Not as in "ugh old people think this" or "you just think so because you're too young to know better". Just that different looks read very different in our minds based on our experiences. Because as you know, I see Kate within her role and as an ambassador, but that doesn't rule out the "Princess just to enjoy" part. I think both parts in a package is what makes royalty so successful. They are a mix of diplomat (having a president) and celebrities (the glitz and glamour) with added deapth of tradition and stability of them being there. So I think a balance between the "doing duty" and "PR princess" is what is needed. I don't think they have fully nailed the balance (nor do I think there is one way to totally make the balance right since we all view things differently). Don't know what I'm trying to say really. My ramblings ran away from me once again :P

      Delete
    4. What you said made perfect sense, Rebecca and it was very nicely said also. :)

      Delete
  20. Very sharply divided opinions on this, huh! I like it: retro and youthful. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think I am in the minority on this one but I just don't care for this look. Kate has the ability to look so sophisticated and regal at times, but this dress misses the mark. The high waisted cut makes it look girlish and the skirt looks far too short. To me it looks like a dress for a teenager. For a dress that expensive she could've done better in my opinion.

    That being said, I do like the bag and shoes, just not the overall look. But Kate is gorgeous regardless 😊

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this assessment! And will give her credit for mixing up the shoes/clutch! For some reason, many of us would love to see some "sophistication" in her choices, but she does tend to stay in "girlish" / "youthful" territory - oh well, that is her choice - and it seems to run in her family.

      Delete
    2. Zora from Prague29 June 2017 at 20:23

      I share your opinion of today's look, Katherine. Not a fan but I like it more in the videos than in the photos. Kate does look comfortable in it and I understand her choice thanks to the picture of her next to the short red dress.
      What an interesting project the new courtyard is - thank you for adding the video about it, Charlotte, as well as for the whole post! (Somehow, I just can't imagine walking on porcelain...! :)

      Delete
  22. ADORE this look- the whole of it. Go Kate!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Love it:) She looks wonderful in it and it is beautifully made. I bet the texture in person is fantastic. No problem with the price.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I rather like the design of this dress, the fabric and colors and geometric structure. But it is a bit short and short waisted, and intended for someone as flat chested as the model. I do like the shoes with it, and Kate's beautiful earrings. The clutch is too large. Kate's hair looks as if she did it herself. She used to wear it pulled back lower, which looked very nice on her. All in all, a fresh look which could use a little tweaking.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think she looks great. I wish she'd take a few inches of her hair length and maybe keep it straight? (straighter?). I like her hairstyle today, I think I'm just tired of the curls. Loving the dress though.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I really like the dress but I do not think it suits Kate. The bodice is too condensed (not a good word I know) - It gives a very constricted look making the dress look too small. It just does not work on Kate.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Like Annette said, surprised at how polarizing the look today. I'm in the love it camp and could see myself wearing it if I had a spare 3k USD laying about. Love the mod vibe, shoes, hair and all. Also like that she brought back her pearl drops, we haven't seen them in awhile.

    Bluehare you made me laugh with the image of a flight attedent. I can really picture that with her highlighting that the nearest exit might be behind you.

    Julia- good point about the three new outfits in a row with the current news reports coming out from U.K. I can see how that would look bad in the current climate.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Love it! I'm so glad to see her out of A lines, which are too frilly feminine for me. And the block heels look more comfortable and work-appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I prefer straighter silhouettes on her too. I've liked only one or two of the A lines she has worn for the same reason you stated, Amy. Love the block heels with this dress as well. Really nice look.

      Delete
  29. I am not sure the clutch is suede. Actually one of the few quibbles I have is with the clutch, it looks a bit inexpensive to me. Something is a bit off with the look of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another blog is pretty sure it is a suede clutch. I am going to backtrack and blame the off look to the photography, the website photos of this style clutch were much nicer, the color also looks better in the larger photos and not the close ups so guessing in person it is a pretty true red and a lovely soft suede.

      Delete
    2. Laura in Canada29 June 2017 at 19:00

      I agree Ali...I think it might be a red fabric but doesn't look like suede to me. Hopefully Charlotte will ID it soon!

      Delete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I do like the dress a lot, I agree it's a little high waisted and too short. It looks almost like the dress was made for a person who is substantially shorter than Kate, and Kate just squeezed into it.

      Delete
  31. I love this dress, it's very Jess from New Girl. It's shorter than the lengths she's been sporting recently. Tweed isn't my favorite, as it looks heavy, but what a fun color combo and retro feel. As for her hair, well, you know me--always wishing for the long curls of the early wedding days haha!

    ReplyDelete
  32. love the look. even tho the dress itself has red and navy piping/trim i simply CANNOT believe that Kate has finally ventured into a separate color for clutch and shoes. and they're not even the same material! FINALLY!!! keep it up Kate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden29 June 2017 at 17:13

      I know right! That's some pro-fashion accessorizing right there! (And I'm one of the people who have no issue at all with her having a royal uniform with nude shoes and coat dresses. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate her "slaying" as my contemporaries put it!)

      Delete
    2. Right? I saw the Navy block heels and recognized them but didn't realize the dress had Navy web - in photos it looks black. So surprised that she made the choice and happy that she did. Two thumbs up!

      Delete
  33. It's exciting to see her mix up her accessories. I'm glad she went with differently colored shoes and clutch instead of precisely matching them. She's taking more risks.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I love this look and applaud the mix of colors with her accessories. We expect a princess to dress the part, so designer clothes are part of the deal IMO. The only exceptions I have are 1) the dress is a bit short. She can't bend down gracefully to accept a posy if she's worried about the back view and 2) I usually like the half up/half down style on her but the bump up in the back makes some photos look odd. She can also have different barrette placement to create volume on top, if that is what she wants. This just accentuates her forehead, and at 35, the wrinkles start here! Lovely look, lovely Duchess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you stated how I felt about this look as well. She looks every bit a duchess as she should. I agree that the dress is just a tad short and would love to see a picture of her hair from the back. I am not really a fan of this half up/half down look and while she looks great, think there is a little bit of fuss at the back that could be avoided with this dress that already has pattern and texture.

      I think the retro look of the dress is very appropriate for the occasion. It goes to the "literal dressing" or as we know it the "Kate thing" that she does when she attends events. I feel she gives thought to what the event is about and gives a nod in her own unique way. I also think Kate does a great job of mixing high end with some recycles from her closet, i.e. the shoes are a great pairing for the style of the dress. She is mixing it up lately and experimenting somewhat which nice to see. cc

      Delete
    2. CeCe, a "Kate thing" it was, I think. Even the museum lauded her for representing the 60's so perfectly with her Iconic Gucci dress today.

      Delete
  35. LOVE!!!!! This outfit is fabulous!!!! Go Kate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too! LOVE this look!!So chic and stylish!!XOXO

      Delete
  36. Love the dress but not the accessories, the air stewardess shoes and bland clutch are just not doing it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Charlotte I hope you won't mind if I make a couple of quick points on royal finances, which seems to be a hotter than normal topic here and elsewhere lately.

    * The largest expense of maintaining the royal family is still unknown to the taxpaying public, the cost of round the clock security for the Queen and senior royals. Educated estimates for the cost of that security push the total cost to the public purse to almost 350mil.

    * The Duchies are not "private" money. The Duchy of Cornwall is used by Charles while he's heir and Prince of Wales, to support his family and their royal work. It is under the constant purview of the Treasury, and Charles is *required* to submit detailed accounts of how the money is invested and spent. Though the Duchy is also used to support the heir's children, those KP expenses have never been detailed, but lumped together as "other expenses." There are many people in all quarters, of all stripes, who think this is not in keeping with the Treasury guidelines, and that any Duchy money spent on royal households should be more specific to make sure it's being spent wisely. Here's one explainer: "The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838 gave the Treasury a role to ensure that actions taken by any Duke when managing the Duchy cannot compromise the long-term value of the estate... The Duchy’s annual accounts are laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords so that Parliament can be satisfied that the Treasury is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities."

    * Though the majority of Brits consistently respond in polls that they want the monarchy to continue, it changes if the poll reminds them of the public cost. A poll one or two years ago (15 or 16 I think) asked "should the royal family be publicly funded?" Only the Queen and Charles received anything close to a clear enough majority (I think it was 68%) William, Kate and Harry barely crossed the 50% mark, the "lesser" royals barely registered at all. With ONE exception, Princess Anne, as everyone acknowledged what a hard worker she was and that she always does her bit to represent the country. Another reason being out there working is so important.
    An overwhelming majority thought everyone else should get no public money at all, from the Grant or the Duchies. Why Charles pushes the "streamlined" approach.

    These other family members are often called the royal hangers on :) and polls usually find the public have no interest in supporting them. Have the monarch and one heir, but the others have to find another source of income. The hangers on line was heard often in my house, my father used to say at any balcony appearance, "Well the hangers on are out to do their duty before lining up with their hands out!" My mother was not amused :)

    Sorry Charlotte this went on a little more than I thought, but just some more food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - Minneapolis30 June 2017 at 01:50

      Careful, Claudia, or you might be accused of wealthism!
      Sorry couldn't help myself, because I just caught up on that thread on the Kate Loves Wimbledon post :P
      In all seriousness, I really hope people don't actually think wealthism is/should be a thing. In the earlier thread, it was equated with even racism, along with sexism and such. We don't need "isms" for groups of people BECAUSE of their privilege. The reason racism, sexism, etc. are terms and concerns is because those are groups typically not accorded equal rights, respect, privilege, etc., as the other part of the population. They face bias against them. For wealthy people, life is constantly about facing bias FOR them. Of course yes, people who have privilege will face others who will be jealous of that. But people who have privilege, specifically in the instance of wealth, get tons of freebies like free Mustique villas and really cheap luxurious cars (even though ironically they are the only ones who can afford these things to begin with) and access to famous people and influence with politicians, etc. And even if they face jealousy, 90% of the same people who are jealous (count me in - I'd love freebie luxurious vacations) are also people who realistically, would probably make a bigger deal of and show more respect when meeting the Cambridges, vs a random someone. The jealousy doesn't even really hurt them lol, bc those who are jealous usually are so because they recognize the privilege of wealth, and that's why they want it too. So I'm not sure why we would need an "ism" or really any sort of concern that they are facing bias against them. And equating it with things like racism and sexism is incredibly demeaning and misunderstanding of those issues.
      Sorry, not quite about Claudia's post here, but thought it was relevant enough and I just really wanted to say something about this 'wealthism' business because it really bugged me.

      Claudia - interestingly, the other royals outside of those most directly in line from the throne also do not have their expenses in detail for the public. It's unfortunately only the Queen/Prince Phillip and Prince Charles/Camilla. That seems very convenient for the BRF to me, and even if they don't release details for everyone, is it really too much to ask that we see where taxpayer money goes specifically when spent on at least Kate and William, as the wife of a future king and a future king. Or maybe the brightline is that if you still have taxpayer-funded security and housing, then your public spending should be made public in detail? The lack of detail is precisely why the idea of "wealthism" scares me so much. If trying to hold those with the most power and money accountable is impossible for those without similar amounts of wealth, then basically a vast majority of the general public cannot ever hold the royal family accountable. Again, very convenient for the BRF, and anyone else trying to maintain as much power and money as possible.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the facts Claudia. We need to change topics, I agree.
      And coming to the 'wealthism' topic, I have to say I was astounded to read that. I did not wade into it because I didn't have any time to login after that.. but I will say that we need to be careful of not putting people into buckets and questioning their opinions simply because we don't like them. People are justifiably questioning the worth that royals provide the UK. That has nothing to do with their own personal financial situation. Please just speak to the opinion and not the motives behind the opinion, because if not, you will land up with a president like our current POTUS.

      And by the way Philly how do you know what kind of personal wealth we do or do not come from ? Not all of us live paycheck to paycheck, you know. I found your assumptions about posters, and the monumental cheek behind your classification of posters to be absolutely positively obnoxious. They say more about your own heart and narrow mindedness than they do about posters. Don't make assumptions about people's financial situation. You will be surprised and feel quite silly if you knew the truth about many people who read blogs and comment on them!

      Delete
    3. Maggie, really well articulated thoughts on the subject of privilege. Thank you for that. And I hope that those who were all gung ho about wealthism understand what you wrote. Truly comprehend it. Not just read it.

      As for the disclosure rules. The reason Charles and the Queen are the only ones disclosing is because they are the only ones who pay for everyone else - nobody else has to. This is what they elicited from John Major's government when the latter asked for disclosures. So technically they are supposed to disclose every single expenditure related to every single royal as they are fiscally responsible for them. But they take advantage of the lack of any rules regarding disclosures in order to keep things as less transparent as possible. And you are correct in pointing out what it does to accountability. The common person cannot hold the royals accountable to anything because they don't have information. This is exactly what authoritarians do - they block access to information for those who have no access to power. We are seeing that happen in the US as we speak. We are having access to press conferences blocked. We are seeing leaders not answer questions. The more you keep people in the dark the more you can protect whatever it is you are doing and of course, your privilege.
      Of course there are some people who will think that is totally fine - they think that anyone who asks for accountability is a jelly hater and suffers from 'wealthism' and the royals and authoritarian politicians should have an unbounded leash. These are the same people who likely will vote for authoritarian questionable political candidates, by the way.

      Delete
  38. Sandrine (France)29 June 2017 at 17:26

    Kate is just amazing !!! This outfit is fabulous !!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Basing my opinion solely on how I think she looks (not on cost/appropriateness of hugh end designers, etc), I think this is a fabulous look. I love it from head to toe. Hair looks great, dress is super cute and mod, love the block heel with this type of dress. She looks perfect to me. I saw a pic of her on Facebook before I read this post and I stopped and went "Wow!". This look is right up my alley.

    ReplyDelete
  40. As usual -- stunning. The epitome of a future Queen!

    ReplyDelete
  41. I enjoyed reading about the V&A museum.Charlotte, you always put such wonderful background into your posts. Kate is always beautiful, but I do have mixed reactions to this outfit. I also prefer her hair down, or in one of her ponytails. That said, she looks delightful.
    As I mentioned in the previous post, Saturday will be such an emotional time for William and Harry. I am so glad they are having this rededication for their beloved mother, and will be surrounded by Kate, the children and Diana's family.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Laura in Canada29 June 2017 at 19:09

    Well I just love this whole look. Fresh, young,...youthful...but polished and put together for a work event.

    I think dresses like this are good choices for Kate. She doesn't "mix and match" very often but intends to go for a "one piece" outfit. That can be boring if the dress or coat dress is monotone and with little detailing. This dress with the multiple colors, the pocket and button detailing and the trim has some "pizazz". It allows Kate to stick to her "one piece" formula but is still interesting.

    What I am most impressed with today is the styling....I will admit...at times I think the styling for Kate is just slightly off. But today the block heel shoe are the right pick for the dress ...and while I love matching purse and shoes ....for a day work event like this ...I thought the "coordinated" but not matched purse and shoes was the right call.

    I will also agree with Julia from L....I hate shoes/clothes/purses that have big giant designer logos. More then once I have found shoes that I would have purchased in a heart beat if not for the designer logo on it. But I am okay with the buttons on the Gucci dress. For one the Gucci logo is not obviously saying "Gucci"...you would have to know alot about designers to recognize it as their logo. Secondly they are very small and understated on the buttons...so I am not so offended by them.

    Overall...two thumbs up from me.

    ReplyDelete
  43. ILoveElephants29 June 2017 at 19:56

    I love the color combination of this outfit, I like how she is wearing more clothes by luxury designers lately.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I love today's look! I'm much prefer shorter dresses on her, and her hair is just beautiful today. I also thought it quite interesting that V&A shared their purchase of the Sledge pumps, since we haven't seen them in a while (maybe since Australia/NZ?) I loved the Sledge pumps and would like to see them back on the Duchess.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I like the 60s look and empire waist. My body type also calls for a lot of empire waist dresses. I think her look is refreshing. It's nice to see her out and about finally. I'm looking forward to more frequent engagements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mindy, I prefer the empire waist as well and would prefer it for my dresses.

      Delete
  46. Cara, Australia29 June 2017 at 21:28

    I love this look - it's fun - and suits the venue, considering the iconic clothing on exhibition.
    Cara

    ReplyDelete
  47. Earlier in spring I needed a new outfit to a theatre visit. At the store I was told, this year blue and red are a huge trend, if they are worn together, so it is quite possible that Kate's shoes and clutch are matching, from another point of view.
    Great coverage again, Charlotte! Thank you for your tireless efforts!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Loving that museum acquired a pair of the L.K. Bennett Sledge Pumps. The V&A website says they are currently "in storage." I wonder if Kate brought them out of retirement if they'd go on display...

    ReplyDelete
  49. So glad to see her purse and shoes not matching! However, that said, I would have paired the dress with a black leather shoe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have preferred black to navy, too. I actually thought she was wearing black heels, initially.

      Delete
    2. Rebecca - Sweden30 June 2017 at 09:17

      I LOVE that she wore navy. It's a bit more unexpected and still matches the look since the piping on the dress is red and navy!

      Delete
  50. I typically like new additions to Kate's wardrobe and I do feel this dress is right up her ally. The shoes are the right shoes to wear with this dress. So I applaud her style for this event.

    What I find interesting is that the museum put out that image of the red dress to her current styling. I'd be surprised if that is something they did "on the spot". I wonder if Kate's team provided a couple of options to the museum given they wanted to leverage their inventory and create buzz on style. It's possible they knew that they would be able to come up with a match but I wonder if there wasn't planning in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elle, I definitely think it was a "Kate thing". Even the museum lauded her for epitomizing 60's style with her Gucci classic.

      Delete
  51. I read a small article that said that W & K went to a parents' night at George's new school last night. I wonder if any photos will emerge from that, taken by a fellow parent. I would have been SO tempted even though it would have been wrong. Comments have emerged that the other parents thought the Cambridges were relaxed and charming. Oh and George was there as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie - Minneapolis30 June 2017 at 00:18

      I bet the parents would be afraid of angering the Cambridges and would instead want to do everything possible to suck up to and become friendly with a future King and Queen consort :P If Kate or William saw them taking pictures, there's no chance their own kid would get to have playdates with future King George haha. Wouldn't be surprised though if later on, some pictures get taken of them dropping off George and stuff.

      Delete
    2. You're probably right Maggie. But unless cellphones were banned that night (and every parent loves to snap their child with his/her new teacher) there could be photos of them in some Instagram albums :)

      Delete
  52. Maggie - Minneapolis30 June 2017 at 00:15

    I think this look was an overall win for Kate. It's honestly a little too girlish in terms of what I think a 35 year old Duchess should wear - a little longer would have been nice - but even so, it's nice to see Kate mix up the accessories a bit by not making them all the same color, and the color coordination of everyone around her wearing navy while she has some bright red is something I like as well. And the engagement is fitting for her given her degree in art history.
    Do think her hair isn't doing her any favors - imo it's too long and when they keep it so flat without any volume, I think the length drags her face down even more. Also I wonder if the girlishness of the dress wouldn't stand out to me in a bad way so much if her posture were better - I find with some younger-looking outfits especially, posture makes a huge difference. I also was a little surprised and dismayed to see her not only wear another new outfit from a famously expensive designer, but in this case, even make it a debut moment for her wearing Gucci, which means it stands out even more than it would otherwise. Given the national climate and the fact that the royal expense report just came out and points out that the Cambridges chose a private jet over the Eurostar to go just over to Paris, and given that she just wore two brand new bespoke McQueens including at Ascot which already embodies serious wealth and class differences, I thought a repeat would have really been appropriate here. It's not like she's repeated much this year anyways - which is fine, just feels a little tone deaf given everything happening lately. And if wearing new, why not pick a British designer, so when the V&A even tweets about her fashion choice, it isn't championing an international brand?
    Also I know this is unlikely but wouldn't it be funny if the museum's LK bennett shoes were actually Kate's? :P They got them in 2015, and she stopped wearing them around 2014 (I think). And given how much they were a staple in her wardrobe in her very first few years as a Duchess and royal family member, her actual pair are kind of a piece of history haha, especially given how much she was known for them.
    Anyways, I'm ready to see Kate more frequently, and more importantly, at some more engagements that require more of her. May and June were both so light, and most of the few engagements she did do were mostly ceremonial or still don't seem to require much preparation or time. I'm honestly still a little disappointed she didn't do more in response to each of the terrorist attacks, but probably better not to open that can of worms again here :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Francesca (Germany)30 June 2017 at 00:48

    @Admin: A question not concerning todays post (btw I like the change of style. She could mix it up again more often. :))

    Could you maybe update your G+C section if there is a break in between Kate's calendar and you find the time to do it? The last post there is from mid 2016 and I just love to see pictures from the kids close together so you can see the development. There weren't so many occasions where we could see the children but they have grown so much already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Francesca,

      I keep intending to get to it, so thank you for the reminder. I will most certainly get it up to date over the next week. I want to update several of the other pages too and in a much more timely fashion :)

      Delete
  54. Maggie - Minneapolis30 June 2017 at 01:05

    I'm going to say something I know will be super unpopular and is guaranteed to get a lot of criticism here, but it's been on my mind for awhile now.
    With regards to Princes William and Harry's mission to protect their mom's image, I think this is what the Queen meant about less soul baring. Not less focus on Heads Together, but less using Heads Together and every other opportunity to make everything the trio does this year (slight exaggeration but you get my point) about Diana. It's wonderful that they shared their feelings, and how that showed it's okay to talk about your mental health, but they talked about Diana's death enough a few months ago to achieve that point. And I'm not saying they can never bring it up. But the last week leading right up to Heads Together barely discussed things like children's mental health or maternal mental health for example, two things Kate had been focusing on for a quite a while (well children's mental health at least) - that last week was all about Diana. And since then, it hasn't been about Heads Together much, but still tons of interviews and such all still about Diana. I respect and admire their feeling of duty to protect and honor their mother's name, but it seems a bit to have subsumed a feeling of duty they should also have to their country to serve it. Why not spend more time during these interviews talking about things like the problem of male suicide, etc.? I think that's what the Queen meant by less soul baring - less using public duties as public therapy sessions, and more actually serving the public. This is just my opinion of course, and I know I'm about to get a ton of criticism for this post lol. If I sound callous, I do apologize. I completely understand the seriousness of this anniversary for the princes; but the amount of Diana discussion has just felt like a lot to me lately, and while they are absolutely welcome to do it privately as much as they want/need, I dunno, publicly maybe it could be a bit different.
    Also for those saying this biography is an obvious attempt to prop up Camilla's image since she might be Queen Consort soon - well.....yes....why is that bad? Even if you're not a Camilla supporter, if you support the monarchy, I don't see how you can ignore the importance of making sure Camilla and Charles are accepted once the Queen dies. Otherwise the monarchy will die with her. This is why they have PR offices - they are supposed to be made to look good. Realistically, every time Prince William and/or Harry talk about their mother, they are encouraging more criticism of both their father and step-mother, and frankly, hurting royal family unity and its overall image and likelihood of survival. Now I'm not blaming them for this - it's unfortunate that there is a tradeoff between promoting their mother and helping the BRF, but it's not their fault that the BRF does indeed deserve blame for how it treated Diana. But that also means I don't think it'd be entirely fair to blame Camilla at this point because there's a tradeoff between promoting her, the wife of a (in all likelihood) soon to be future King and member of the royal family, and promoting Diana as well. It's just as unfortunate, and ironically, if people would move on and "forgive" Camilla enough for her actions while Diana was married to Charles, then promoting Camilla would stop automatically being about hurting Diana's image. Because if we would all stop tying her to actions of two decades ago, then it would stop being about Diana, and Camilla could just be discussed in regards to the merits of her actions as a royal family member for example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah Maryland USA30 June 2017 at 01:45

      Couldn't have said it better myself!

      Delete
    2. I actually do not think they have done this as much as the press has spun their comments. When you read their interviews, actual responses etc, it is quite a bit off from the way the press spins it:). I also wonder why so many think the latest book is a book that was done at the bequest of Camilla and with her direction? There is no way, if she is as smart and calculating as so many present her, that she would be so stupid to send the book out now or have it be one that makes Charles out to be such a .... Sorry, I think this is just an author making hay while the hay is good. Again Kate looked wonderful, love this dress, love that she is going higher end.

      Delete
    3. Maggie it is bad because it paints a dead woman in a bad light based on lies. Dead people can't contest what is said about them. It is also bad because it completely ignores and disrespects the feelings of Diana's sons who also happen to be Charles' sons. It is bad because it shows that Charles would rather play PR games than think about or talk to his sons about Diana.
      C&C would have had a much better chance at PR if they focused on their devotion to country and duties. Choosing to bash Diana is backfiring heavily. People are *angry* about it. This was a huge miscalculation and may prove to be costly.

      Delete
    4. Have you read the book, Rosman? If you haven't I don't think you can say how the book paints Diana. I've read the same serialisations and I don't think they've been that bad. That being said, I don't think it was cricket to publish them now. After August would have been much better.

      Delete
    5. Rebecca - Sweden30 June 2017 at 20:38

      Yeah, without taking any sides, it was not clever (or very clever depending on your view) to release it this year.

      Delete
    6. I haven't read the book bluhare but I thought that the serializations were biased.

      Delete
  55. I really love this dress, but I too agree with others that it seems a bit small on Kate. A little high waisted, a tad bit short, just off a tiny bit overall. I love the style, the colors, the pattern...nice choice for today. I like the shoes as well, and the pop of color with the purse. I really love her hair today....a nice half up-do. Thanks Charlotte as always :)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Love the outfit! Not sure the event was exactly what needs to be heard in the U.K. Press right now but everyone must carry on.... a thought on the Charles/Camilla story.... perhaps we should consider that they are the true love story and perhaps look at the Diana and Charles story as a classic example of why bullying your children into matches doesn't work in the long term no matter what children come out of the union. Erininnyc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This project was primarily funded by private donations. Hopefully, not by foreign interests, but likely so. Iconic London landmarks are slowly being bought up by non-Brits.
      It was not that long ago, at least in royal circles, that arranged marriages were the norm and 'love" matches a happy coincidence. All Charles had to do was give up his place in the succession and the arranged marriage to Diana would not have happened. He and Camilla could have wedded years earlier, once she had divorced her husband, and they could have lived happily and quietly at High Grove or wherever. He wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. So to speak. The woman and the crown and acceptance.. Doors 1,2, and 3. I find the fact that he was unwilling to sacrifice his ambitions for his love decidedly unromantic. Camilla must realise this and it may be a driving force behind any attempts to assert her position in the RF, whether her personal goal was to be Queen or not.

      Delete
  57. Regina (Austria)30 June 2017 at 08:54

    I have got a very mundane question: does Kate wear tights with her outfits. From the pictures I can never tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes she does but ultra-sheer ones. They cost a pretty penny which is why they look so invisible.

      Delete
    2. Regina I have always wondered that as well. Wish somebody would ID the brand and maybe share, there are times I would love a pair like that. cc

      Delete
  58. No criticism at all Maggie, I understand what you are saying and your point is well made, well said about Camilla being judged by the merits of her actions as a royal family member. Here are my own thoughts.

    Monarchy is about history, what monarchs did publicly and privately. Henry the VIII is remembered for his wives, Richard the III for the princes in the tower, George the II (or is it the III) for his madness. Did they do other things. Of course. But that sticks out in history.

    What do we/will we remember about Queen Elizabeth? That she served a long time. That she had great dignity. That she never publicly commented on anything even as scandals and sadness swirled around her--her uncle's abdication, her sister's sad love affair with Townsend, Diana, and a whole host of political issues. Doesn't mean we don't know about those issues though and how she handled them. And we form our own opinions about that. We read about her history, we watch movies like The Queen and The Crown. And we form our opinion about those events from the books, from media. Even QE II has realized that. From time to time she has allowed documentaries to be made about her family life--I remember one years and years ago when her children were in their teens--and then there was last year's interviews in connection with her 90th birthday.

    As historical figures, Charles, Camilla, Diana, etc., will go down in the annals for what they did, good and bad. To form an opinion of them--and history becomes alive, becomes memorable, when we form those opinions--we study what others around them said about them or about the situation. It is nothing new to have sons, daughters commenting on their parents to keep that memory alive or to mitigate what is being said about them. Granted it is a new event in Royal circles though. Although when you think of it both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I had to fight for their mother's "standing" as royal wives or they could not have been monarchs. Henry tried to illegitamize Mary and Mary tried to do the same to Elizabeth. Quite publicly.

    And disagreement about historical figures is nothing new or nothing terrible. Am I in the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth 1 camp. Do I sympathize with what happened to Duke of Windsor (although history has shown he might have made a terrible king anyway.) For those of us who love History (you can probably tell it was my major in universiry), It is how we make sense of history. I may change my opinion of Camilla as the years go on based on what she does in the future. Ditto I may change my opinion W, K & H, current political figures. I have changed a lot of my opinions over the years :) But what she and others did two decades ago will always be there in the background. It will fade as the years pass, become less important is Charles' reign is a good one, but right now, in historical terms, 20 years is not a long time and C & C's legacy is still evolving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wow, Jo, that was amazing. Thank you. :)

      Delete
  59. Cute tidbits about Michael & Carole in the other post! I loved reading those :)

    ReplyDelete
  60. Here we go again :)

    "Is everyone aware of the Load More button below the comments? You need to keep clicking it until it disappears, in order to see all of the messages. It appears when there are 200 comments, and continues in 50 message increments until the current number is reached."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank-you, Francis. It is so frustrating to see comments from those not aware of this. It is like shouting in the wind, once comments go over 200. They can't see us. Awful!

      Delete
    2. I think there is a group of people who do not read each and every comment so such a reminder won't help much (although I really like it, and appreciate it, Francis:))
      It might be a good idea to post this reminder, or the sentence written by Charlotte at the end of every post if it is not problematic.
      :)
      Have a lovely weekend :)

      Delete
  61. I really like this look on the DoC. It looked fresh, crisp and streamlined. No dowdy frou frou! She has such a slight figure she seems to drown in all the fabric of her long A-line dresses. I agree with those who would have preferred a ponytail. Posted by Ozblossom.

    ReplyDelete
  62. So happy to see Harry accompanying the Queen in presenting her "Young Leaders" awards. The photos of Harry smiling (and looking ever so handsome) accompanying a very happy and smiling Queen very much help to offset recent headlines about Harry.
    Like photos of the Queen driving Carole around Balmoral amongst headlines that there was a rift between them, so these photos of she and Harry both smiling frequently and having an enjoyable time are a testament to a savvy Queen. The "Young Leaders" awards are such a positive beacon to those who would step up to make a positive difference in the world. More kudos Your Majesty.x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surfer girl, I loved the videos of the Queen listening so intently to the young Australian woman about her charity initiative and then Harry "interviewing" the three women about how they've enjoyed their visit to England. Have to say that lad is charming!! I think if I had those blue eyes twinkling at me I would forget what to say. I haven't seen a video of Harry's speech yet, will look for it.

      Delete
  63. After all the sad posts on Camille and Dianna, I went back to the first post by Rebecca to lift my spirits again . It is so sweet and you can feel her excitement about Kate and the event as well. Then I remembered why I love this blog so much! Thanks to Charlotte as well for all she does!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca - Sweden30 June 2017 at 18:35

      Haha, you're welcome :P

      And I haven't waded in to the Diana/Camilla stuff. Frankly, I'm a bit tired of it. But it's a part of the royal history and people (clearly) have strong feelings on both sides. But not something I wish to hash around in again and again.

      Delete
    2. I'm tired of it as well. I agree that it's a part of royal history but for many people it seems to be very much a part of the present as well, which I respect but it isn't for me.

      Delete
    3. So what should we talk about, Becks? I plan to read the sovereign grant this weekend. I can talk finances after that! :)

      Delete
    4. Perhaps the info below will contribute to further brighten moods. :-)

      Anyone interested in mental wellbeing? Rebecca? :-) One of the Heads Together follow-up projects WKH have been looking into - the one William mentioned in British GQ - will come into being.

      from/based on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/06/28/teachers-every-school-country-receive-special-training-mental/

      Over the next three years some 3,000 teachers and other school staff covering every secondary school in England will be given special training / will receive practical advice on how to recognise issues including depression and anxiety, self-harm, and eating disorders and how to deal with pupils' mental health problems. The programme is backed by £200,000 in Government funding and will be extended to primary schools by 2022.

      Caroline Hounsell, the lead for the Youth MFHA in Schools programme who has been working with Government officials to develop the initiative, said that Prince Harry opening up about his mental health was "absolutely intrinsic" to re-igniting public debate on the topic.

      "If Price Harry struggles, then people think ‘It’s ok if I can’t cope’. I think it’s really helpful – it sends a really clear message,” she said. “It did loads for men’s mental health. Here is a guy who served in the armed forces, and comes from a very elite environment – it shows that if it can happen to him it can happen to anyone”.

      She said that in the past year, thanks to Prince Harry and other high profile figures speaking opening about mental health, interest in the topic has “sky rocketed”. Dickie Arbiter, the Queen's former press secretary, said that Prince Harry and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge "have done for mental health what Diana, Princess of Wales, did for HIV Aids - create awareness and remove stigma".


      Glad British GQ is continuing to publish content/following up on mental health just as they said they would do http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/fathers-day-why-dads-need-to-focus-on-mental-health :-)


      Finally, I came across these

      15 Surefire Ways to Brighten Your Mood by Melissa Deuter, MD

      It’s your job to regulate your emotions, even under stress. ... So how can you re-regulate when you’re feeling lonely, cranky, or down in the dumps?

      1. Take a walk 2. Spend time in nature 3. Pray 4. Meditate 5. Call a friend 6. Read a book 7. Breathe 8. Run in place 9. Visualize 10. Take a nap 11. Burn a candle or incense 12. Listen to soothing music 13. Make something — paint, draw, or sew 14. Go to a bookstore or public library 15. Eat

      The tips above are further detailed in this article
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-deuter-md/brighten-mood_b_5865532.html

      Melissa Deuter is a MD Teen and Emerging Adult Mental Health Specialist
      www.twitter.com/MStenDeut Melissa S. Deuter@MStenDeut
      https://www.facebook.com/melissadeutermd

      A psychiatrist, writer, Medical Director Psych Urgent Care and advocate for MH needs of teens & emerging adults, she also has a blog filled with interesting posts at melissadeuter.com e.g. http://www.melissadeuter.com/news/2017/3/13/gratitude :-)

      To those who expressed an interest in changing things up a bit mental wellbeing-wise in the US: As Ms. Deuter is from San Antonio, TX, and is "on a mission to overhaul (the) mental health care system", maybe she is (one of) the right person(s) to team up with to improve things?

      Annette, I did as you did. :-)

      Delete
    5. Well, Rebecca, they're still arguing whether Richard III killed his nephews. I imagine the Diana/Camilla/Charles story will be seen somewhat like the Catherine/Anne/Henry VIII saga. Lots of comparisons. People will be talking about it for many years to come, but I do think it will calm down once the anniversary is over.
      It is a shame Diana could not be memorialized in peace by her family.

      Delete
    6. I think you should entertain us with numbers, bluhare, because after reading some comments here, we gonna find out that royals do not cost money to the public and the Duchy is....! LOL

      Delete
    7. Francis. Thank you. W,K,H are changing the world and in an honest, caring, good way. It is befuddling to hear people saying they should shut up. Que lastima.

      Delete
  64. Eve from Germany30 June 2017 at 20:55

    On a lighter note: Does anyone look forward to that documentary about Wimbledon as much as I do? I sincerely hope I can watch it somewhere - it must be so much fun! The Duchess being so open and sharing stories (I mean, that "crush" her mum has on Federer? I couldn´t help it I had to imagine Carole "mooning over him" - with her husband being maybe not so amused!! I truly had to have a good giggle about that story....) - plus all the tennis stars (Björn Borg was MY favourite back in the day!!) sharing stories as well - I admit I am strongly hoping for some lighthearted minutes to enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  65. In general I really like this look but I am wondering why Kate consistently chooses necklines that are not only high, but incredibly tight, almost look nooses. This dress would have been that much more retro-chic with a slightly lower scoopneck. The tight necklines give her an unapproachable, slightly severe look. It's very much a recent thing too.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I am not into fashion as are many of the bloggers but I felt Kate looked very smart and appropriately dressed for the occasion. The dress fitted her very well. the event was not that interesting but charlottes information was once again well worth reading.
    Changing the topic like some of your other bloggers I am fed up with the utterings from both W & K about Diana and feel they have overdone their personal interviews in magazines on a number of topic I very much hope there are no more in the pipeline they both need to shut up I would think the anti monarchists are feeling rather happy. It has been said that Diana's wonderful legacy is her two sons at the moment I would question that. both are caring young men but not only Diana but also Charles as we know from the Princes trust is a caring person.
    I have been impressed with Prince Harry until that unfortunate very damaging interview hopefully he will have learnt his lesson and will concentrate on his charity work which he is genuinely passionate about he is also on record as willing to seek advice when representing the Queen. I can well understand the dreadful trauma he has suffered from losing his mother and being made to walk behind the coffin at 12 years old but I wish he would stop mentioning so much of Diana.
    William I have considerable doubts about the future of the Monarchy depends on William & Kate. I do think Diana's influence in using him as a pawn in her fight with Charles has had an impact on William an impressionable young boy he will be a better King than his father could have possibly led to the arrogant attitude he sometimes displays he also overdoes the I am the same as you and the hugging of women scenario. He needs to step back and behave a little more as the more senior royals. In this respect Kate has got it right but like everyone else says needs to widen her interests and undertake a lot more engagements. Unfortunately William has far too much of a liking for the women invariable from photographic evidence from receptions and other black tie events spending most of the time flirting with attractive women & rarely speaking to the men. He has been caught out twice the hunting trip & ski trip behaving in a disgraceful manner for a married man.
    I was surprised in the interview with the GQ when he said how important it was to him to have the stability of his family referring to Kate & the children his actions certainly don't help such stability. For the future of the monarchy I feel that it is essential the Cambridge's marriage survives I would hasten to add that I think that at the moment it is very strong but William needs to curtail his womanising antics and partying ways and a great deal will depend on how they approach becoming full time working Royals.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Annette and Rebecca, I totally agree. My sincere thoughts and prayers are with Prince Harry, Prince William and his wife and children, as well as the other family members, as they re-dedicate the burial site of Diana, Princess of Wales.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are most welcome! Constructive discussion is always encouraged but off topic or hateful remarks will not be published.

We ask you use a name when posting (a pseudonym such as the name of a royal you like or anything you wish). If you do not wish to use the sign in options, simply select the "Name/URL" option on the drop down menu and insert your name, and if you wish the country/state you're from. You can leave the URL blank.

If there are a large number of comments, it is necessary to click the 'Load More' button at the end of the comments section to see the latest additions.