Here are some photos of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at Stewards Academy in Essex today. They went to the academy for an event on behalf of their umbrella organization, Heads Together. They met with children and did some things. Upon their arrival, Essex Lord Lieutenant Jonathan Douglas-Hughes went ass over teacup and William and some other people went to the older man’s aid. While Kate stood back and touched her hair.
For the outing, Kate wore a new frock… meaning, it’s new to us, because she’s never worn it for a public event. Does anyone else wonder if she likes polka dots because they remind her of buttons? Because Kate loves buttons. And she seems to love dots too. This dress is by Alturazza, a label which she’s never worn before, apparently. It retails for £1728, which… seems like WAY too much for an ill-fitting mess that looks like it was “sized up” from kids’ clothing. Since I’m not British, I have a different view of Kate’s “duty” to wear British designers – I think it’s great that she highlights so many British designers, but it’s interesting to me when and where she chooses to wear a non-British designer. Joseph Altuzarra, the designer, is French, American and Chinese and the label shows in New York. I’m generally not crazy about the label, but this is one of the worst pieces I’ve ever seen from the designer.
Meanwhile, a few months back, a paparazzo got some photos of Kate and Prince George out on street outside of Kensington Palace. Kate and George were chatting with some on-duty police officers and the cops let George sit on a police motorcycle. The photos were cute and didn’t seem that controversial. But Kate still complained to the media-privacy board or whatever it’s called. And the board found that the photos were a breach of privacy. I don’t get that at all? They are public figures who were out in public, interacting with on-duty police officers. WTF? The way the press operates in the UK is so strange.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Doesn’t Boden have that print?
It’s entirely possible but Boden would never sell this cut. This is a terribly cut dress! I just … she has so much money and no taste. I would also like to offer her a hydrating serum. Girl, I’m over 30 as well, we need that now. Moisturize, hydrate, and go easy on the matte foundation.
Nah, slapping on Oil of Old Lady ain’t gonna help this chick. I think it has more to do with chronic dehydration from high protein, low carb dieting. Fewer veg/fruit, less water in your system. The week I lasted on Atkins I drank a gallon of water daily. And she’s probably a smoker like her mom, but I base that opinion on absolutely no evidence other than my preexisting mental image of her as a desperate high society barfly before Wm. married her. Notice how at every event she’s offered any kind of food she declines (peanut survival paste), yet readily accepts any alcoholic beverage that floats in front of her face. That’s class, baby!
Wow! BAD skin!
Must need a holiday! lol
This is a essentailly a house coat that would sell for $25 at Target – no disrespect to Target.
It feels like it should be a Boden print, even if this isn’t Boden. I think Boden can be very frumpy, but they appear to be trying to offer more modern silhouettes.
Also, those shoes. Ugh. Nude pumps AGAIN.
She just had to show off her legs, didn’t she?
That’s what I thought too. Exhibitionist, but if that’s what you must be, at least choose a better looking dress. Hate it!
Also, I disagree with Kate complaining to the press. They are just further distancing themselves from the people, with their haughty no one can ever take pictures of our family, meaning their little message of we’re just like everyone else is complete balony. Why even bother pretending?
So do you think everyone who wears shorts or skirts that hit mid-thigh is an exhibitionist? I wear that length because it’s just a normal piece of clothing, like a t-shirt, for warmer weather. Also curious about whether there’s a generational difference here.
Mae, do you work for a conservative family entity? The British Royal Family has a dress code and Kate routinely ignores it.
I think it’s basically that she has a knack for peek-a-boo-biscuit area stuff … and never any slips … so whenever the hems fly up it takes us back to the butt-crack, butt-view, boob-view, nether-region photos.
If I were wearing this dress, which, trust me, I never would because it’s a horrible design (I mean, what is up with that bib-thing in front?), and I knew I was going to be on display and people would be tearing apart my threads, I would put a f*@#ing weight in the hem.
T shirt top, high slit on bottom. Leg show all the way
Well she does have great legs. I’d want to show them off, too.
Me too 🙂 and I love the dress
Well I’m sure YOU would, good thing you’re not the duchess….
Lots of women have nice legs, doesn’t mean we have to show them off 24/7. I’d understand if she had a dress code or was trying to uphold the ladylike traditions of royalty and the queen’s standards…but the chronic camel toe jeggings and short skirts put those assumptions to rest. She wants us to see her bod.
Wait. She’s an exhibitionist for a normal sized slit in her dress but Kim just got tons of praise for her “rockin’ body” while wearing lingerie in public? I’m confused.
One’s a duchess; the other’s a reality star. Though, I can see where your confusion comes from. . . .
Gotta agree with you @Babyswans. Huge double standard here. Both are public figures. The dress isn’t flashy or sexy. It looks like an office dress.
And she has great legs!
Too much judgment on this one IMO.
She has a dress code for work. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Dress code is heels lower than 3 inches, hems to the knee. Spike heels and slit to high-thigh? Against the professional dress code for the Family Firm where she works.
One has a sex tape and got urinated on by Ray J, the other is a on-duty Duchess and future Queen of England. Do you see the difference?
There is no BRF dress code beyond what has been customarily worn by the women who came before her. If the side slit made sense with the style of the dress, it would not be an issue, but it is so random on a dress full of random elements, it it hard to ignore.
Dress code? What dress code? Guidelines or conventions, maybe, but it’s not a code unless someone is enforcing it. Sadly, I think Kate has figured that out…
She most likely has to follow the convention or dress code of dressing as a professional woman given that she represents the UK in some sort of a diplomatic role. I have no idea how anyone could confuse her role with what Kim Kardashian’s role in pop culture is.
That dress is super ugly whether she wanted or didn’t want to show off her legs. Or maybe THAT is why she allowed for a glimpse of her legs — to distract from the ugliness of the dress.
@splinter
And inner thigh.
It’s a weird dress. I don’t like it.
If she’s so worried about her privacy (when OUTDOORS WITH ON DUTY OFFICERS) she is welcome to go live a private life that is NOT paid for by our taxes and/or the land that Willy’s family have commandeered over the years. UGH.
Sorry mate, but you can’t have it both ways. Although, it appears she can.
This makes me even angrier than baked beans being called breakfast beans!
That breakfast beans things has turned into a worm in your brain, hasn’t it? Teehee.
Yes. It’s a little worrying.
Who called them breakfast beans?!
It’s just funny the things that can ruffle your feathers. I get ruffled over little things like this too! Then feel vaguely worried about myself over it.
Gigi Hadid…there was a post on here a few days ago haha
Where did the Hadid sisters come from? How are they famous?
That’s a very high slit for a professional event. Also, the print is not cute and the ruching around the chest and waist looks odd. Not a good look.
I think it would be sorta cute if the slit were not so high. But only from a distance — I think the fabric looks cheap.
Agreed. I like the print, but the slit is too high for the style. Also I’m not a fan of the way the top is cut. And up close the fabric looks cheap. But from a distance (first pic) I quite liked it 😊
Don’t worry. She is obsessingly covering her crotch in every photo.
It has a very 50s housewife look to it, but it’s nice. Just not my style. And that can’t possibly be the real price tag. I’ve seen better at Banana Republic.
Also, I get her hand placement, or rather the idea behind hand placement. However, Kate almost looks like she’s trying to glue her hand/clutch to her crotch. It my be out of nerves, but it’s odd when looking at a series of photos.
Yeah, maybe. I just can’t put my finger on why I don’t like it. Her clothes just never look.. I dunno, powerful? Would I rather see her in smart business attire? A fitted skirt suit maybe? With black pumps?
That’s exactly it, though. Her clothes will never be taken to the next level because she has no presence/gravitas, or anything of that matter to pull things off. She’s worn suits, but doesn’t look right in them. Suits are such “power” outfits and they require someone with a personality that carries them off. Compare the look and demeanor of Kate with Princess Sofia of Sweden who also was a “commoner” that married in.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/13/19/384D6B7700000578-0-image-a-37_1473789718882.jpg
There’s just something different about the way Sofia carries the look. As opposed to it just being a nice dress on her.
@HH- great comparison of kate and sofia..sofia was a risque-nude model pre-marriage..and kate is a perennial flasher
@Elizabeth – I think so many people just assume there is a certain “it” factor Kate won’t have because she’s not born royal and I guess still “new” at this (although I disagree on that point). So comparisons to Maxima, Letizia, even Sophie are refuted. However, the Sofia comparison can’t be denied, IMO. Kate just isn’t good at this…at all. Fashion-wise or job-wise.
@HH: I totally agree- she is not new (she wanted this and waited for this) and I for one have no hangs-ups about only royals having the IT factor….decades of inbreeding has only made them devoid of it instead! But Comparisons to anyone like Letizia, Maxima – all educated, professionally accomplished women – will be grossly unfair…so comparisons to Sofia are bang-on as both are trashy. But atleast Sofia had a job howsoever shady but a job neverthless. And she jumped right into royal work post marriage – no excuses of “learning” , “new to this” yada yada..
Each monarchy is different, but in the Sweden royal family (like most European ones) the working royals family is historical limited to four adults. Carl-Philip and Sofia aren’t supposed to be full-time royals. The two spare siblings (Carl-Philip and Madeleine) are supposed to grow up, go into private life, and only show up for big events or their specific charities.
Madeleine and her husband are doing the right thing. Private home, no title for the spouse, both have outside jobs and he does no royal duties. The hanger-on younger brother and his reality tv wife are trying to rewrite the rules and keep feasting out of the taxpayer trough. No wonder there is increasing anti-monarchy sentiment in Sweden.
Actually the title thing is different for men than for women.
Also as an American citizen, Chris probably shouldn’t hold a peerage from another nation. An amendment is still pending (for nearly 100 years, so it’s unlikely to ever be ratified) that would strip him of his American citizenship were he to do so. If he did accept the title, it would be like Lord Snowden’s, Princess Margaret’s husband. He is the peer, his wife is the Countess, even though he divorced Margaret and remarried. If his oldest son was born of the second wife, that man would be Viscount Linden and eventual Earl of Snowden. I think I got all that right. Someone might want to double-check my spelling, etc.
Kate, Sophia, and other women who marry in take their husband’s title as a courtesy only. When Lady Diana married in, she became Princess of Wales. She became Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce (this allows for the Prince to remarry and thus distinguish between current and ex-spouses) but would renounce the right to the title had she remarried. Her children by that marriage take on the titles from their father only. So equating Chris and Sophia’s (or Kate’s) situation isn’t the same.
This isn’t Princess Anne and either Phillips or Laurence. In egalitarian Sweden that is looking to dump the monarchy, the situations of Chris and Sofia can be seen as roughly the same. Person who marries spare sibling out of the main line. She could have refused a title, kept working at the charity, and never been on the taxpayer payroll.
Graymatters: in Britain….
1. true vis a vis Americans accepting titles from foreign countries. At best they become honourary title holders as opposed to holding the title properly.
2. Re: Princess Margaret, her husband was granted an Earldom. The 1st creation of Earl of Snowdon. The wife of an earl holds the courtersy title of Countess. Thus Princess Margaret became Countess Snowdon.
3. Women do not pass on titles nor do their husbands take on courtesy titles derived from their titles. Princess Margaret remained a princess because she was a princess in her own right as the daughter of a monarch. Marrying an Earl didn’t remove that from her. As a married woman, she became Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.
4. Earl Snowdon and PM had two kids, one of whom is male, Viscount Linley. He will inherit the Snowdon Earldom when Snowdon dies. Viscount Linley has a son so the Earldom has two heirs currently. It’s always the eldest son of a legitimate marriage irrespective of which marriage he is born. Further son must be born ‘in marriage’. Marrying after the fact doesn’t legitimise the kids as far as title inheritance is concerned.
5. All the children have the courtesy titles and styles of the children of an Earl. Only the eldest son is granted the courtesy title of Viscount.
LAK: Thanks for saying that better than I managed. Do you know anything about the tax issues someone else referenced?
@NOtasugarhere: Chris (Made’s husband) actually refused a title because he is a very wealthy and accepting title would have impacted his tax benefits and he would have to declare his wealth , which now as a non-swedish, no royal US/Uk citizen he is not obligated to. He gets the royal summer at solliden but is not obliged to have public engagements, he does attend to support Madeline. Madeline works for her mother’s charity so thats not really a big accomplishment but she does have gorgeous babies 🙂 Infact all Swedish royal babies are super cute.
We know Chris refused a title, we do not know why. Could be because he is wealthy and he sees the writing on the wall about the future of the Swedish monarchy. Could be he thinks titles are ridiculous. Could be he has a sense of self-respect and wanted as little to do with the royal circus as possible.
Sofia could have refused a title and kept working for the charity she pretended to found. Instead, she took a title, left the charity, and now she and her husband are doing their best to convince people they should be full-time at the trough instead of going out and supporting themselves.
Madeleine works for an outside entity, which happens to be Childhood. I don’t think working against sex trafficking is a bad thing, even if the charity was started by her mother. Better than working as an underage nude model like her new sister-in-law.
@notasugarhere: We know why Chris refused a title – I wrote a very brief reason above.. tax purposes, incase of any trouble in his marriage or with monarchy his wealth is unaffected…that is a safer option than an empty title. Childhood is not an outside entity, Madeline is on the board..how many people with just a bachelor degree are directly hired on the board of executives of any organization? Not slamming the work, the team surely does good work, but Madeline herself said she is a part time worker and fulll time mother. but all of them work unlike Kate-not.
Again, you’re assuming reasons for Chris. As you are not Chris O’Neil, and neither am I, our assumptions about why he may or may not want to be a Swedish citizen or take a title are only speculation.
As a private citizen, his business and his taxes are private as they should be. I doubt that is why he decided not to accept a title. He seems an independent person to me, not someone who wants to tie his future to a flailing monarchy. Marry Maddie yes, be part of the circus, no. A title might also affect the US part of his citizenship, if anyone wanted to push the issue.
Madeleine works for Childhood which is not part of the Swedish monarchy. Started by Sylvia but not part of the monarchy. Madeleine is currently at the UN in New York attending meetings about the issues, not being a full-time SAHM. You don’t have to have a higher degree to be on many boards. Sylvia started the charity, it seems to be being handed over to Madeleine. I suspect it will continue to be the main focus of her work for years to come.
@Notasugar: But I know law and finance so I don’t need to be Chris. If tomorrow I end up falling for a royal I too would refuse a title as I have built up my independent wealth and would not want to merge that with the royal house or make the info public. (also this would depend on the country, rules etc) I would not mind indulging in public service but I cannot give up my identity which I am perfectly ok with without an HRH too….
As for the board thing – being on a board of directors requires qualifications and years of talent and experience, or honorary positions (with equal rights as other directors) are given to wives/daughters./sons etc…just like Madde… Sylvia would never had the pull or resources to start a foundation were she not the queen, I donot dislike the work but facts are fact. I love Prince Harry’s work for the veterans but another ordinary citizen maynot haven been able to pull off Invictus at such a huge scale in such a tiny time frame as PH did…facts are facts 🙂
You can know all the laws you want and what decision you would make. Still doesn’t mean you know why Chris made his decision. As it stands, you are putting words in the mouth of a private citizen. Makes it opinion not fact, which we talk about a lot on here. Hopefully with all your knowledge of the law you understand the difference.
Educational requirements for boards depends on the people who run the organization, especially when they are charity or nonprofits like Childhood. I’ve been on several non-profit boards and I didn’t have higher degrees (or even an undergrad) in the subject of the board. What they need most are people who are willing to serve. More often than not, you are on the board because you someone who doesn’t have experience in the field – because they need outside perspective.
Anyone can start and run a non-profit, I’ve done it myself. Has Childhood become international because of Sylvia is Queen? Likely. Still doesn’t negate the work of the organization or the impact Madeleine has working for it.
Ditto Harry’s work with Sentebale. Being royal doesn’t mean it is going to become a going concern. They stumbled a lot in the first few years and it looked like Sentebale would fail. With time and experience, which doesn’t appear out of the blue even if you’re royal, you can work hard and be successful.
Chris said in a joint interview shortly after the wedding that he didn’t accept a title because his work is important to him and he couldn’t have continued, as a Swedish royal, in private business.
Ill fitting dress and the flasher has returned with a vengeance. Both are looking rather tanned – guess they’ve had another ‘private’ holiday in prep for the gruelling Canadian tour.
Re: the cut. Kate has an obsession with altering designer clothes using a sub par tailor that’s why they all look like cheap knockoffs. For that price it shouldn’t ruch at the top. I don’t mind the print or colour but as usual she makes it look like it came from the Boden sale.
That slit is so inappropriate for a public event, her hair is a mess. What is wrong with her?
So much. Both of them need to be patients of mental health programs, not patrons!
chronic case of NGAF?
As I understand it, they were on private property when the photos were taken and they were not engaged in public duties.
Personally, I think tough cookies.
But I think the code was broken, in that the photos were private in the sense that the code means private, and in that the magazines presented the story as it takes four protection officers to look after and entertain George but really, the officers were only filling in time while they waited for another royal to arrive by helicopter, and it was *this* royal that they were tasked in looking after on that shift.
Technically, I think, the ruling is correct.
Generally speaking, I think it was petty to complain about it and if these twits weren’t so useless at their jobs, all the articles written about them would be sickeningly sycophantic. So it’s all their own fault and they should stop whining.
They weren’t on private property.
They are standing outside the gates of the Palace.
Plus the officers are clearly entertaining George whilst Kate laughs with them. One picture has George on an officer’s bike parked outside the gates.
If they want the level of privacy they crave, they shouldn’t have chose to live in a palace that’s mostly a public museum and situated in a public park where the minute they exit the parameters of their private spaces they are immediately in public space.
Further, plebs and high status individuals alike have no expectation of privacy in public spaces. It’s the one law without exemptions to anyone, and it’s the one law WK keep trying to get special exemptions for themselves instead of seeing it as an opportunity to overhaul so that rest of the public can benefit as well.
Honestly if they are this obsessed with privacy, they should have gone to live at BP and it’s 40acre walled gardens that aren’t open to the public, NOT KP.
I won’t argue with any of that!
I do agree that law (no one has any expectation of privacy is a public place) needs to be overhauled. The advent of social media has created a generation of twits who have no boundaries who think its ok to film/take photo’s of people minding their own business having a picnic in a public park and then upload it to the internet so that its used for ridicule. This has happened to me and many other people i know and even if you ask them to delete it, there is no law to make them. This is why i also HATE selfies with a passion – as quite often people pretend to take selfies when they are actually taking pictures of people behind them so that they can post it on social media with smart ass comments to get attention from their friends.
If i am in a public place i should at least expect not to have photo’s/videos taken of me without my knowledge or consent.
@Betti – Would you have all historical photos removed from textbooks? Most of those images were taken without knowledge and/or consent of the subjects, and they are widely circulated.
^ History books are completely different. You can’t be “tagged” in a history book, people can’t look at the geotag of a printed photo and know exactly where you were and when, there is a significant amount of time that passes between a picture being taken and being published in a book due to the nature of the process so people with stalkers would not have to worry about having someone keeping tabs on them like they can in social media, it isn’t being published to ridicule the people pictured, up until recently photography was not free so you were more likely to be photographed at an important event or on a special day and probably would look nice for the event vs anywhere and everywhere, you had to use an actual camera so it was hard to camouflage your intentions like you can now. If you were in the foreground you at least had some idea you were being photographed, most people in history books are deceased or look much different than when the picture was taken so there isn’t the same possibility for embarrassment or other negative unintentional consequences, you could also go to court if it was that important and devastating to you.
An eighteen year old in Australia had to hire an attorney because she has been begging her parents for YEARS to take some 700 photos off the internet. She doesn’t want people to Google her name and see her naked and being potty trained among other things.
Someone else wrote into Slate’s advice column because her sister-in-law insists on posting photos on Facebook everytime they go somewhere or do something together and adds her name and details of where they were. A few years ago she had a stalker and he used social media to figure out her schedule.
There was that model who felt so entitled to take and post personal, private photos she was completely taken aback by her follower’s criticism. She posted a photo of an older, heavier woman nude, going into the shower in a locker room so she could mock her body. At least she faces six months in prison.
So it is getting a little crazy. You should be able to expect somewhat considerate publication (especially if they are going to identify you by name as well) and common decency if you politely ask for a photo of you to be removed without expecting all photos without signed consent form to be destroyed.
Super agree @Lindsay and @Betti.
It sounds like another of their deliberate bait-and-switch games. Playing in the garden at the Governor House on the Australia tour, in plain sight yards from the press pack. Then complaining about photos being taken. Here they’re deliberately recreating W&H playing around with the police (Diana photo op). Daring the press to take pictures, and complaining when they do.
William is trying to ban all photos of them in public places. That privacy doesn’t exist for anyone else in the UK, why should it exist for them? Wonder if he’ll complain about the photos taken of the helo, dog, nanny-and-son also?
They were on private property according to the link in the article:
The IPSO committee said that the photograph had been taken when Catherine and Prince George were thought to have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy.’ It went on to say: “They were engaged in a private activity; the images had been taken while they were on private, protected land where commercial photography is prohibited; and no permission for the images to be taken or published had been sought or obtained.”
The committee further went on to say that The Express and OK! denied that this photo showed the Duchess and Prince in a ‘private interaction.’ The defendants stated that the officers were on duty when the picture was taken. They simply wanted to give the public the opportunity to see how the younger members of the royal family: “interacted with public servants, particularly when the officers had been ‘commandeered for a three-year-old’s entertainment’.”
I love the last sentence
Lindsay, when you see the pictures, it’s very clear that they are not on private property, but outside the gates.
The motorbike the boy is playing on is very clearly parked outside the gates.
Unfortunately for them, the Palace they live in is a public museum situated in a public park that is open to the public. The building itself is open to the public all year round and their apartments are situated closest to the public areas of the palace AND the park.
The minute they exit their private spaces, they are immediately in public spaces unless they wish to cordon off a zone around the palace that can be designated private.
Currently, there is only a wall and those gates separating the private and public spaces and despite the article, the pictures show that they were very clearly standing on the public side of those gates in full view of passers-by.
Just repeating what the link says. Apparently the IPSO disagrees. I have very little sympathy for them though. They create this mess by hiding the kids away. They are the very definition of public figures and the public that pays for them has the right to see them when they deign to come out of hiding. This wasn’t like her French nude photos, she was well awear of the potential for people to see them and to take a photo. Also, if the police were waiting on a royal arriving by helicopter it is a reasonable assumption the press might be there. This is just part of PW deranged strategy with the press, no matter how little sense it makes on the outside he seems to believe he is “winning” despite the fact it is a symbiotic relationship.
The IPSO disagrees because this is the royal family. Any complaint they make is upheld no matter how trivial.
If you think this was an impartial decision i have a bridge to sell you especially because these pictures were widely dessimated in mainstream papers yet only 2 outlets were censured.
Sometimes you have to protest every violation of a code, or you lose your right to have it enforced. So it could be just something they’re advised to do to prevent establishment of a precedent.
….but they do not protest every violation of code. In this case, they only complained about 2 outlets running the photos and those 2 outlets were censured. Yet many other outlets also ran the pictures and were not censored.
There have been several instances where they have violated their own privacy or allowed paps to take pictures in situations that could have been seen as private situations. No complaints and exclusives to favoured outlets.
If they were consistent about violation of privacy eg zero tolerance in the manner of David Cameron and Gordon Brown, this complaint might be reasonable, but how is the press to know what is acceptable and what is not where the principles keep the target moving and on occassion arrange invasion their own privacy and that of their children?
@looty, i agree with LAK. They don’t complain at everything and its usually done with they are getting a hard time in the press – its a diversion tactic. There has been instances where Queen Carole has been papped with George (at the Zoo etc..) and there were no complaints about invasion of privacy, then there was the Polo match shots where Kate was snapped running around after him, again no complaints.
It looks like a dress from 1940s. The slit is weird, it doesn’t add any value to the dress. I want to see Duchess Kate in Vivian Westwood. I remember the other day Princess Eugene wore red dress from Westwood and it look sooo good on her. I wish Princess Eugene could give Duchess Kate some advice on fashion.
I think Eug got that dress several years ago when the Duke of York hired a stylist for his daughters. Bea also got some great dresses then. I don’t know that the designer would look all that great on Kate, since a corset style top wouldn’t do much for her.
Westwood designs are too edgy for Kate. I’ll be very surprised to ever see her in that designer, even though some of her garments are truly masterful (imo).
Is she getting thinner again? I have a feeling that she’s wearing the smallest size that 1940s housewife-gone-wild dress comes in and it’s still bunching and wrinkling all over.
She looks thinner to me, too, and rather haggard.
She’s always looked like that – the press have just stopped photoshopping her.
The dress is not great for all the reasons discussed here.
But what about the shoes? Ay yi yi, they hurt my eyes and don’t even go with the dress. What the what?
It looks like a house dress Hyacinth Bucket might wear.
You know who else loved polka dots? Diana. Coincidence? No.
She has at least three other polka dot dresses. Why another piece of ugly new clothing? Is that the bribe it takes to get her to show up for an hour?
I think this looks sooo much like a Diana dress. It’s a geek-chic-sexy dress, not appropriate for this event and I’m sorry, she doesn’t pull it off.
The comparisons can be creepy.
Getting way too much of an 80’s vibe with those sleeves.
I hate her style.
I do too, and yet I always look hoping somehow she’ll come up with something worthy of the time.
If you ignore the fact that she’s a member of the royal family and completely disregard any financial considerations, she looks fine. She’s basically a SAHM who does a few hours of charity work a month. The fact that her dress doesn’t fit quite right and really ought to be lined (especially with that slit, which I’m not wild about but it’s better than what May was wearing last week) isn’t that big of a deal.
Factor in the royal aspect and she looks rumpled and weirdly racy. I say weirdly because with the low v-neck and slit it should be sexy, but on Kate it’s just… not. Factor in the financial aspect and she does way too little and spent way too much on that mess of a dress. And beige pumps again? Wouldn’t Kate’s fashion rules have dictated black pumps and clutch? Is she trying to be creative?
The photo thing… stop whining, Cambs.
Sorry. Maybe I’ll be nicer after some caffeine. I didn’t sleep well last night. It makes me cranky.
Not cranky. You’ve got it exactly right, I think.
It’s not sexy because girlfriend has no curves. I’ve seen plywood with more shape than that.
She dresses like the stereotypical Sloaney/SAH Chelsea wife. If you hang out in the Kings Road pubs and cafe’s you will see women who are just like this – except they pull it off better.
Kate goes between dressing like her mother to trying to copy Diana (albeit subtly).
I’m fascinated by this term “Sloane” that I always hear about. Just out of curiosity, could you describe a typical sloane and what they normally wear?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloane_Ranger
Think preppy, Yuppie, WASP
@graymatters: good call on weirdly racy.. she chooses to wear this on a school visit!
And that man who fell gave her the flowers bouquet and she doesnot even pretend to help him when he fell.. terrible manners and utter ignorance
She also doesnot know still, how to clap: https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail/status/776734754007818240 😐
And she is only staring at William in the video, not engaging with kids – its creepy
WHY DOES SHE CLAP LIKE THAT?! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Are royals also supposed to clap different? William’s clap also had a slower pace. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some odd rule. But Kate looks like she’s having issues with putting her hands together period.
I’m on the hunt for more videos. (I may or may not have also watched that one twice just for a good laugh.)
ETA: I’ve found more videos. What a splendid day.
@HH: enjoy!
Its a middleton thing..even Pippa claps weirdly.
She doesn’t even put a hand out, as others did. Just clutches that purse.
What kind of seal flipper flapping is that she’s doing?! Egads, she looks like a simpleton who has no eye-hand coordination learning to clap for the first time!
She is an exhibitionist. She can’t go a few weeks without showing off body parts. Horrible little dress. And I agree about her haggard looks. She looks way way better with a few more pounds on her yet she insists on being this weight. I think she has some huge body image issues. The insistence on being stick thin with the constant showing off of her amazing body – this is not normal behaviour of a happy engaged housewife who is in love with her life !
Definitely ‘twee’. Until she hires a professional wardrobe stylist, she’ll always be twee.
Altuzarra has so many better, elegant and sexy (for those who want them) dresses than that horror. I love his dresses but blue, polka dots and a bib effect? Could this be any more juvenile?
Sometimes I think Kate wished she had long legs. Also that dress is not cute and boring.
Yep. She is very awear of her odd proportions, possibly fixated.
Yeah I have noticed it as well.
What happened to Hughes? (I haven’t yet caught up with DM)… and a ha!!!… we can see for sure Kate uses her hair as a security blanket given her reaction to Hughes….. and as far as spots, is Kate, as one woman show attempting to bring back the so-called glamour girl days of spots a la Diana mid 80s? We’ll know for sure if Kate shows up wearing spotty socks with stilettos..incredibly frightful especially if she continues to smile as the big bad wolf around small children.
What is that? She dresses like she is in her 60s. It reminds me of something from Talbots that she had altered to show off her legs for the 658th time. Why doesn’t she wear her hair up or out of the way? That would drive me crazy.
almost 2000 pounds for a weirdly cut dress. wow. you can get a wonderful tailor-made suit for that kind of money. i don’t get it. what a waste.
Terrible cut on that dress, but she probably chose it because of the high “flasher” slit on the side. Girl just has to flash. I’d like to know if the slit was added or was part of the original design. One nice thing I will say–it’s a beautiful shade of blue.
The slit is part of the original design. I checked. A few celebs wore that dress last spring, Olivia Wilde, Jessica Jones (Marvel premier).
This fabric is cheap viscose and nylon. With Kate’s clothing allowance plus staff to care for her clothes, I would never wear cheap fabrics again.
I think this may be the ugliest dress I have ever seen. Even if it fit her properly it would still be fug.
About the press complaint, the royals keep moving the goalposts about private vs public, just that W+K have taken it to another level and dont have the subtleness of the other royals
Its fine, it will come to bit them in the butt. They live for the World and not for God.
At least William wore a tie.
This is likely the smallest size they make – and it is positively swimming on her in the chest and sleeves. She looks slightly muscular and frail at the same time. I do wonder how family and friends haven’t noticed how small she has gotten.
Ugh,the dress looks like an awful 80’s pijama.
I thought the same. What an ugly nightshirt.
Would have been “twee” without the slit, for sure.
There are no redeeming features to this dress at all. Horrible and with how short her legs are and how high that split is we’re lucky she didn’t end up flashing her rear again.
Just saw a group of 4 pics on Rebecca English’s Twitter page and OMG the difference in Kates face when there’s no photoshop is shocking. She looks so old in the unphotoshopped pics.
I cannot believe the price tag is for real! As for flashing maybe she is saving up for Canada OR mybe she flashed and thats why that poor old gent fell down so bad 🙁
She looks very tanned also and her reactions are always weird. I found this great gif http://66.media.tumblr.com/f41c28dc1b7b15e736cae3031efdc6bf/tumblr_o8tfyzHXkL1r3innio4_250.gif
There’s a pic on there of her and William and they both look so bored and smug and above it all.
I am finding the Kate posts to be a nice escape for myself from the Trump situation. Kate provides me with something humorous to read while I’m drinking my coffee in the morning.
That dress – I guess I don’t mind the print, but the strange ruching in the front is really ugly. For a woman in her position, the side slits on the skirt part are too high, but this is predictable, we’re talking about Kate here. The hair looks like a helmet, could she add some more hairspray? 😉 LOL. Accessories do not work with the dress, but again – those are predictable too. If she had any other attributes, then fashion would go by the wayside, but she’s shown time and time again that she really has very little to offer other than trying to impress us with her appearance…………….and it isn’t working.
@vava, do you think William and Kate live for the world or live for God?
The Cambridges live for their country house, rich friends, and expensive vacations. Only a small part of the world, and a smaller part of God.
KItty, I have no idea.
@graymatters, I am very confused because I do not think they attend Sunday service unless the presence of The Queen.
Kitty,
That’s what I was alluding to, in part. Will seems to want to do/be seen as good, but he really doesn’t want to put in the effort. It often appears that any generosity of spirit appears after his standards of living are questioned/threatened.
I have known a lot of church goers who aren’t particularly pleasant people and conversely some of the most generous, kind, trustworthy people in my life are agnostics. So his lack of Sunday service attendance is more evidence of his lacklustre approach to duty, given his future role as head of the Anglican church,
Eyeliner back with a heavy hand! Overall, not a good look.
@GrayMatters, Good thing I am the only one who sees it that William and Kate live for the world. Which is ironic since William one day would be head of the Church of England.
You always sound so jealous of her.
Yeah we’re all just jealous haters here, as well as being cat-loving, lesbian, truck driving, fat and gnarly old spinsters (have I forgotten anyone)? Lmao! Jealous! Love it!
Is that man OK?
My first thought on the dress was that it looked very ’70s polyester. Then I saw the wrinkles in the sleeve, so now I’m thinking poly blend Target housecoat like @Anna said. That little bib thing in front is not doing her any favors. Looks like her ribs are protruding out.
She does have nice legs.
Again, she’s clutching at her royal biscuit. She needs to attend a deportment school in order to learn how one’s body language could improve one’s image/act like a royal, not a nervous school girl.
second: that dress is so fug. it looks cheap and ill-fitting as you have all commented but also, matronly & aging. She looks so good in creams, navy and deep reds. She has all that money, where is her perfectly fitting Chanel 2 piece suit?
I think the dress is very cute and she looks great as usual. She is considered the most influential when it comes to fashion and whatever she wears sells out very quickly. That doesn’t sound like she dresses inappropriate and tasteless to me. Perhaps it’s just all the envy coming from the comments on here.
Hi Carole 😀
we are all oh-so-jealous!
Yes. It’s quite obvious. Women are so transparent when they are jealous. The kitty comes out…..claws and all. Lol
Do you think that everyone who criticises Ivanka Trump or Chelsea Clinton is just jealous? Like it or not, Kate is a political figure, and political figures get criticised. (I will absolutely grant you that attractive young women are criticised in more unfair and sexist ways than others, but she’s not treated any worse than Ivanka or Chelsea).
Kate is also certainly not “the most influential” when it comes to fashion. People who are influential fashion-wise are muses like Daphne Guinness, Alexa Chung, and yes, in her day, Diana. Not boring-arse Kate, who does naff-all to promote British fashion and very little charitable work.
So you and Kate’s pal Joannie here must be jealous of how clever we are since you are criticizing us? Right? According to your logic. 🙂
Yes, desperately so, of a wiglet wearing, gurning eejit with horrible eyeliner game married to a petulant toddler!
As many of us said, it’s a fine dress for someone else. At this price point, though, I doubt they’ll be buying it. Some of the stuff she wears is nearly sold out by the time she wears it and a fair number of her clothing choices are not emulated. You’re right to note that she has the global platform to be hugely influential, though, and we saw that in the public’s reaction to Issa and Seraphina brands.
I did look at Hobbs, LK Bennet, and Seraphina websites when she wore clothes from these places. I also liked that she was a celebrity who seemed to bring back that old-fashioned appropriateness of dressing — at least some of the time.
I don’t see much envy here. Frustration that she could be better, perhaps. To promote more UK and Commonwealth brands, to be a better spokesperson for her country and causes, and to not allow personal idiosyncracies (long torso, which makes the skirt slit ride uncomfortably high on her thigh, long hair which gets in her face, etc.) to overshadow her work.
Graymatters – my reply to joannie was sarcasm 🙂 but perhaps she didnt get it.
And Kate is said to buy clothes and wait for a year or so to wait to wear them to an engagement as she dislikes others wearing what she does…. Funny how her tiny brain works..atleast she can claim to be a fashion icon owing to her lack of work ut even there she fails. Except Issa and seraphina where it has been alleged that both she and the middleton women get freebies from the brand for promotion.
Given her flashing, bad posture, I doubt anyone is jealous or frustrated. Its appalling how someone can be so high up their horse!
Well then pay attention to her causes and not her hair or clothing. Simple.
@joannie, well its kind of hard to do since she is not known for her causes than her fashion and clothes and its entirely her fault.
She is the one who has chosen to show up in another new $2000 outfit for one of her RARE work outings. Difficult to make it about the work when 1) she barely works and 2) she chooses to make it about her wardrobe.
Joannie..her causes??!
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahha
Causes she barely pretends to support and barely shows up to
excuse me but I must repeat
hahahhahahahahahhahaha
He only cause is show off the ring at every given opportunity..which one must admit she does rather creepily well.
I had hoped we were above the “you’re just a jelly h8ter” level of discourse.
Will you give it up? Kate will never be your friend, even though all you do is defend her from “jealous” women. And it’s not nice to call people jealous, name calling is what you accuse others of doing.
Irony, thy name is Joannie.
Sarah – Its probably Carole commenting under different names ha!
Why does she just stand there watching instead of trying to help?
People take care of Kate
She plays the snowflake so well, people forget all the stories about her steely controlling nature, bullying of the Yorks, and prickly princess attitude reported from behind the scenes. In that way, William did find a woman who has some of his mother’s qualities – if only the lover-of-attention and Master Manipulator parts.
@notasugarhere, Diana was never a manipulator.
Diana was the biggest manipulator in the royal family – Queen and Charles included.
Can you please explain @notasugarhere?
Diana was a huge manipulator. Someone who understood how to play on people’s emotions to get what she wanted. Wasn’t always successful because it frequently blew up in her face, but if you want to see a good example of her being manipulative, google her panorama interview.
Look at her styling in black, pale, sitting in a pale room, black kohl round her eyes looking tearful and sniffing throughout the interview as she tells the world how awful Charles and the royal family are.
I still shudder when i see screen grabs from that interview.
Agree- Diana was the biggest manipulator of the royal family. Anyway, as for Kate, I looked at the DM video and it seems she heard a commotion involving Hughes because she briefly turned her head in that direction, but then went right back to speaking to one of the staff.
@Citresse how was Diana a manipulator?
I believe in terms of manipulation by Diana, the most damaging (at that time) to the Windsors, was the release of the Morton book, Diana, Her true story. It turned out Diana had embellished and outright lied throughout some of the book to gain public sympathy and win the war of the Wales’.
And perhaps to a large extent, Diana used to book to get out of her loveless marriage. She was tired of living a lie and who can blame her? I also think Diana was in denial by stating repeatedly she didn’t want a divorce from Charles. However, by the end of 1995, the Queen had enough and ordered a divorce.
I do believe Diana cared very much about her charities and she worked very hard but I also believe she was a complex character. She often ended up complaining and suffering long term with regard to situations she herself created so in that sense she was often her own worst enemy.
The hate tho… I love her and I wont wait until another star endorses her like SJP did to kim before I validify her style!
Anyone who does not tend to an elderly person falling off (and it was a bad fall of 180 degrees) can be the most stylish in the galaxy but would still be lacklustre to me. In Katenot’s case, she is lacklustre anyway!
She’s back to flashing her legs. A very unflattering dress that does her no favours. I wonder what designers think when they see her ruining their designs. I suppose the fact the dress usually sells out compensates.
Fair play to William for going over to help the man who fell. Any other British Royal, except possibly Harry, would have carried on with what they were doing.
Harry would help the man if he was there, also do you really believe in the whole Kate Effect?
I’m not sure. I personally wouldn’t buy anything worn by a celeb or Royal but there are a lot of fanatical Kate fans out there who might.
No I don’ t at all.
England has had a very hot September so the Amner poolside tanning has obviously been a much to do thing. I don’t like the high slit in the dress. With the high heels it looks – a bit um well should I say .. Anyway looking forward to the Canada tour, can’t wait to see how she manages to keep George in check.
Starlight, other than the initial reception, Kate would like ridiculous attempting the high slit dresses and high heels during the CDN tour. I’ve travelled through northern BC and Yukon and it’s rugged territory indeed. My guess is she’ll dress much like she did during the hike on the Bhutan tour. My other guess is we won’t see much of the children since the plan is for them to stay with nanny at govt house, Victoria. Though, I suspect there will be a photo call in Whitehorse with the children.
And of course William will demand his “privacy days” since the CDN tour is pretty much a taxpayer funded vacation like so many of the Cambridge’s previous tours.
What I get annoyed is both she and William do the bare minimum of her and lack work ethic but get away with it. NOT FAIR!
Kate is also massively ignorant. I was so angry about her disrespectful visit to India(since I lived there then)…replying “Gosh, how interesting” to mothers with undernourished or very sick children…to flashing at the memorial built for people killed in Taj hotel terorrist attacks.. It was disgraceful and any other person in a diplomatic job would have been transferred to a hell desk before they could blink their eye but Kate not gets away with it.
I appreciate in this visit atleast William was alert enough to help the old gentleman,
….beautiful posy…love me some Kate clothes to tsk n ah over….George is a minor…no -one should be taking photos of kids without permission…that goes for all the children in the country btw….its the law…
Perhaps it should be the law, but it isn’t.
This is what tells everyone that they are not serious about this issue. If they were really outraged with the lack of privacy and all instances of what they deem intrusion, they would lobby for the laws to change that you can’t photo / publish children under a certain age without parental consent. But they don’t. They only complain when the photos point out how much they don’t actually work or aren’t flattering.
Can we talk about those stunning earrings and necklace?? Gimme!!
Too bad it’s almost invisible under all that hair….
It looks like a hospital gown.
hahahhahahha
thats actually an astute observation
THAT’S IT!!! I’ve been racking my brain trying to figure out where I’ve seen that pattern before. Hospital gown is SO IT! I mean the blue is even the same exact color as a hospital gown
Why was she doing that weird goose-stepping walk?
Oh god. I finally had the time to watch some of those Kate videos you guys have been linking and alluding to, where she is so incredibly awkward. You were not exaggerating!? As weird as her smiles and faces are in photographs, her behavior live is even more cringe-worthy. The clap? The constant need for affirmation from William? It’s a festival of awkward. I had no idea.
The videos are truly cringeworthy. I thought this was her charity and yet she didn’t make a speech just left it to William. Kate really is an UNFIT PRINCESS.