I don’t know why British Vogue’s editor Alexandra Shulman has been doing so much press lately, but this is the second story in a week that we’ve gotten from an interview with Shulman. Shulman managed to convince the Duchess of Cambridge to finally, at long last, speak to some fashion professionals and tastemakers. Shulman also convinced Kate to pose for the June issue of British Vogue – it was a collector’s edition for their centenary and it was a really big deal that Kate posed for her first-ever Vogue editorial. The problem was that instead of the fashion professionals influencing Kate, Kate put her own basic-duchess stink on the editorial, and the photos were incredibly boring. Shulman even admitted as much in so many words, saying that Kate isn’t interested in being a “high voltage celebrity” and Kate is more interested in being outdoorsy in Norfolk (as opposed to working). Anyway, guess what? We weren’t the only ones bored to tears with Kate’s editorial. The issue didn’t sell well!
It took months of planning and intense secrecy and was heralded as a career high for UK Vogue editor Alexandra Shulman. But it turns out that the magazine’s much-heralded centenary issue, featuring the Duchess of Cambridge on the cover, was not the top seller of the year. The long-standing editor revealed in an interview with Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour that more people bought their September issue covered by Cara Delevingne than any other this year so far.
Opening up about Kate’s June issue, she explained: Yes she did very very well for us but actually she wasn’t the best selling issue of the year. But that’s not because of Cara Delevingne it’s because it’s the September issue and everyone wants to buy Vogue for fashion, so you can’t really judge it that way.’
September is the month when people start shopping for their Autumn/Winter wardrobes and its seen as peak season for fashion editors. Nonetheless, it’s surprising that Kate’s cover did not outdo September sales considering it was the magazine’s centenary issue and therefore a collectible item. As soon as the photo shoot with Kate was revealed, brand experts predicted a huge sales boom for the magazine.
The rest of that DM article is just the propaganda that’s always around Kate and fashion, because British editors really, really want Kate to be some kind of trendsetter, because that’s good for their business. But in truth, the “Middleton Effect” is mostly smoke and mirrors – she’s rarely wearing new clothes in season, and she often wears sh-t that years out of date and already out of stock. She has been wearing new stuff lately, although many pieces are custom-made and thus exorbitantly-priced and/or unavailable to the average consumer. Besides all of that, Kate’s actual style is… basic. She’s not a trendsetter, she’s a trend-follower. British Vogue readers instinctively knew this and that’s why the issue wasn’t a great seller.
Incidentally, Irish designer Paul Costello said some critical words about Kate’s British Vogue cover this week:
“I was very disappointed with Kate’s Vogue cover. It wasn’t like Princess Diana at all. She’s still stunning, but they could have done a lot more for the cover. Kate’s not as individual as Princess Diana. She’s not offering the excitement, unexpectedness and vulnerability that Princess Diana did. [Kate]’s her mother’s daughter, and it’s clear her mother plays a very important role in her life, which is good. Kate has a very different background to Princess Diana. Diana’s mother was an aristocrat while Kate’s was an air hostess. She’s very obedient.”
I think it’s unfair to say “I didn’t like Kate doing such-and-such because it wasn’t like Princess Diana.” It’s not Kate’s job to be a carbon-copy of Diana and thank God for that. You can dislike something Kate is doing for another reason that has nothing to do with Diana! But I do agree that Kate isn’t offering much of anything besides being a grown woman who is still clinging to her own mother’s apron strings.
Photos courtesy of British Vogue.
Didn’t sell well because both she and the cover are completely uninteresting.
Seriously – what possessed any of them to think that the cover shot is a good one?
SUCH a snooze, that cover! Amazing to think anyone thought it worthy of Vogue’s 100th anniversary.
Costello’s dumb-ass comments were way out of line. Why should Kate (or anyone else, for that matter) have to be a carbon copy of Diana to sell magazines or be fashionable/popular? The duchess is boring on her own merits, thank you very much.
Her mother is often dressed more interesting than Kate.
That cover photo was ~awful~. And I happen to think Kate is beautiful and there are some stunning photos of her, but that isn’t one of them.
That entire shoot was so boring and I don’t understand why they let Kate call the shots? If she was going to agree to pose for the cover, she should have let the professionals do their jobs and we would have ended up with a completely different set of photos.
I do agree with @Alix above, though – that guy’s comments are ridiculous. Of COURSE she’s not like Diana because she is not Diana!
Maybe William has rubbed off on her or helped plan this. He seems to truly believe he has amazing media insight and a natural gift and instinct for PR. Plus, he loves bossing the media around.
Actually, he wasn’t. You gotta read between the lines. “She’s very obedient” He’s basically saying Kate is just there. No spark, no personality, no individuality; she just is. And she is still clinging to her mommy like a toddler. Bizarre and unhealthy.
The Royal twittersphere is saying Kate’s issue didn’t even come in second place as far as sales.
I find it appalling that she’s described as being ‘very obedient’. It made me wince.
But LAK, she is very obedient. To William. Not to the Queen, obviously. Not to the people to whom she owes some work. Just to Mommie and Willie.
Complete snooze fest. I can see why it didn’t sell. And those eyebrows they did for her were awful.
Cara’s was a September issue. I think KM is boring but it’s unfair to compare Kate’s cover to a September one, they’re always the most important of the year.
Qw: if a cover star/concept is popular enough, it doesn’t matter which edition they are on eg the all black issue of italian vogue, July 2008, remains their best selling vogue and a collectors’ item. That edition sold so many copies in the USA, Italy and UK that they had to reprint within 72hrs of hitting the newstands. It may be the best selling vogue of all time which is amazing considering it is in Italian and not as high profile to non-fashionistas as American or British vogue.
http://jezebel.com/5031485/the-all-black-issue-of-italian-vogue-both-a-success-and-a-failure
Sure September and March are the most important covers in the fashion calender, but if the cover star/concept is popular enough, it really doesn’t matter which month they cover in terms of sales because it won’t be limited to fashionista customers. As happened with the all black italian vogue.
LAK, Thank you for the reminder about that VOGUE issue in 2008, I LOVED IT. I bought it immediately , put it on my desk at work at the time and couldn’t wait for my lunch break to go through it with eagerness and delight. The VOGUE all black issue was GORGEOUS, Exciting and stunning. It’s now in my personal library collection of magazines, taken out on rainy days at home, when I want to experience every aspect of my favorite magazines again.
It looks like the photo you’d find in the picture frame you purchased. I’m so shocked and confused as to why kate looks so bland all the time. She isn’t unattractive. She has potential. But the hair isn’t ever quite right, and her makeup is horrible, and sometimes she just looks unhealthy. She’s also not as likeable like Diana or say prince Harry. Ugh. I wish she’d get some media training!
One day a friend of mine was looking at some old photos of me and my sister as a child. She started laughing and she said that you can tell what kind of monster I was from the posing. She barely knows my sister but from the photos she described exactly her type also which was interesting.
In fact now that I look at some of them more (the non posed ones mostly) carefully even I can tell that the pose matches the state of mind I had at that time and…don’t know, it’s the real me there. The guy who said she is obedient, well maybe it came out wrong saying that way but she kind of comes across as bland, ready to obey, simple, scared of who she can be or who she can offend. Don’t know if it’s all her but surely Willy has a say.
Also comparing her to Diana it’s not fair. But she sure can copy some of her best things even if it doesn’t come naturally to her; work ethic, high fashion when needed and stop pretending to be one of us. Diana never tried that as far as I can remember. She was who she was and she owned that and still did a lot of good and touched peoples hearts.
There is a article on the DM stating she chose that picture because she is “not a silent mannequin who puts on expensive clothes.” Apparently there is so much more to her!
Yes, how dare she have a mother who wasn’t an aristocrat? THAT must be why so many women are so obedient.
I can’t decide if I should merely roll my eyes or if that’s an actual WTF situation.
This comment needs a like button.
Then why the heck are she and the Middletons constantly trying to mold themselves into aristocracy !?!? They would turn themselves inside out, literally if they could, to show everyone what blue blood they have underneath it all!! LOL!
The most likeable thing about Kate is that she wasn’t born an aristocrat. Yet strangely, that is exactly what she and her family seem to hate most about themselves.
That made me mad! I mean, I don’t like any of them and I find Kate old looking and not very attractive, but Carole was a flight attendant to start with, then became a business woman, a very successful one at that. Why is an aristocrat better than that, I would like to know..
“Diana’s mother was an aristocrat while Kate’s was an air hostess”.
BURN.
Diana’s mother also left her children when she ran off with another man. How is any of this relevant?
Diana’s mother didn’t willingly leave her children. She left an unhappy, abusive marriage to be with someone else. She wasn’t allowed to take the kids and when she ended up in divorce court, her own mother supported her abusive ex-husband on the grounds that he was the title holder and therefore deserved to keep the children irrespective of his behaviour.
She actually did not. She tried to get custody of them and was denied at trial, in part due to testimony of her mother and in part because their father was an Earl.
LAK – I didn’t know that about Diana’s mother. That actually explains a lot…
@LAK: I know she didn’t on purpose, but she did know that chances were slim to none that she’d retain any custody.
One of the major problems with the Middletons is that they themselves have trouble with their roots. Always wanting to be the top brick in the chimney, posh schools, expensive brand new clothes and accessories, race horses, Coats of Arms and signet rings. Always trying to “ape their betters” and fit in with the posh set, instead of thumbing their noses at all of it and recognizing aristocrats aren’t their betters.
If they stood up and didn’t play these blatant, climbing games, they might be less disliked.
Very well said, nota. They’re disliked because they are fake and obvious while thumbing their noses at people of their own middle class. I’d say Carole Middleton is probably more snotty than the Queen and that’s saying something.
Exactly! And it must be so exhausting to be them, never resting to enjoy their sucess until that blood turns blue.
i never heard that before “top brick in the chimney”
must use it in a sentence today
Nota that is a *perfect* summary! Agree with it all, and yes it must be exhausting.
Lisa I also loved that phrase and am going to try and work it into conversations now, too 🙂
Exactly, people don’t dislike the middleclass because they are middleclass, it’s the constant grasping for what they think the upperclass are.
Lisa, it came from a story about Carole’s mother, Dorothy, and has been running around royal sites for a few years. One of the cousins admitted that she was nicknamed Lady Dorothy and always wanted to be the top brick in the chimney.
@Nota – I think Uncle Gary admitted once that status/class was something that was important to his mother and Carole, a trait that she (carole) has instilled in all 3 of her children.
Carole will not rest until she gets a title for her family.
Hey man, it feels good to be a gangsta! 😉 Cause that’s what these people are. Same for our politicians in DC. Money and power corrupts, end of.
For what it;’s worth, I think the problem was the shoot selected. Look at that cover. Or the photos within. That’s an October or a November season – not a June one. It was shot in the winter or the autumn, if i recall right, but these are often shot out of season. They should have paid attention to the month the cover would run because no way were people going to be moved to buy a cover selling a season they were getting out of when they’re looking forward to the warmth and promise of summer, in particular. So, perhaps Kate was at fault – but whoever oversaw that shoot definitely was.
Absolutely agree. Totally the wrong colours, styling and setting for a summer issue. So dull and quite dreary looking. Surprised they didn’t show her digging up vegetables or something. It needed colour and chic summer dressing and maybe a bit of bling.
I think I red elsewhere that Kate insisted on things that made the shoot boring: clothes, poses, background. She brought her own clothes, apparently.
In the article that framed the shoot, the editor made it very, VERY clear that all creative decisions were made by Kate.
They approached her and got her, but on all her own terms. From setting to clothes to choice of photographer.
She used her own hair person. The only vogue technician used was the make up artist and all they managed to change in her usual make up was the scouse brows they gave her.
Kate might have invited Vogue to shoot her, but she was in complete control of the entire shoot and Vogue had to take it.
Though it is funny that in true Kate Flasher style, there is a behind-the-scenes shot printed in the magazine, taken from the side during the session where they are photographing her leaning on the fence and her trousers are falling down at the back such that she appears to be her mooning!!!!
But LAK, that doesn’t fit in with the fan fiction of poor little Kate the victim, a fiction which is used to excuse so much of her behavior. Or the fiction that she isn’t interested in her appearance or fashion. Good that the editors admitted the truth.
Then in that case, the fault lies with the editors. Yes, they wanted Kate for their cover, but their main subject is fashion and that is what their readers come for.
As soon as she started dictating the terms, they should have said, “thanks but no thanks” instead of bending to her will against their better judgment.
I dislike the Diana comparisons as a rule, but the reason her photo shoots were better is because she left all of the decisions up to Vogue, FFS!
@Nota, what is the “Kate = victim” narrative? I’ve read a lot of nonsense about her but I don’t think I’ve ever seen her portrayed as a victim?
If so, whoever thinks that is delusional. She a anything but a “victim” 🙄
She is often portrayed as a victim by commenters, here and in many other places. Poor overworked Katie who just wants to be with her kids, should be allowed to be a stay at home mother (with 3 nannies) but not have to work for her perks, hates fashion, hates attention, hates shopping, cannot handle the stress of working 2 hours a week, is completely controlled by William (contrary to the evidence), etc.
Kate is not a victim – she is very much in control and has been for many years. She (and Carole) were always able to get William running back to Kate when he strayed. She likes to play the victim narrative as it fits the SWF’ing of Diana that she and Queen Carole have got going on.
Take a look at Princess Mary of Denmark’s ,Vogue, it was lovely.
Kate’s looked like a dull catalog shoot.
I think part of the problem is Kate, she is not very charismatic.
The entire shoot was dull, Kate’s dull.
Yep, I agree with just about everyone. These photos just look so bleak, and it doesn’t help that she’s bundled up like it’s a cold fall day. People want to see light, flowing clothes in summer.
When Chopper did come back to her, it was for nothing more than sex, she was his own private HO !!!!!!!!
ita
regardless of how boring she is and the article reflects that, the cover doesnt have to look like the human equivalent of dry toast
@L.S.Boston that’s a very good point, and an angle I hadn’t thought of before.
The whole thing was just so “off.”
Her Vogue pics are awful.
They should’ve used the one of her in the striped shirt for the Vogue cover. It’s somewhat less dreary and besides- she’s in her off duty uniform.
That photo of her in the red-striped shirt- if you cover up her smile and just look at the body language – it reads as a person who is insecure – the shrinking posture, looking like the body is trying to fold into itself.
It’s only that wide, wide, ever-present smile that belies that image. I wonder if the sometimes OTT maniacal guffaws, wide-open baring of teeth is a camouflage.
Agreed Canadian Becks. You can tell she has social anxiety; fellow sufferers have noted it on her posts before.
She has absolutely no problem when the people she is meeting are Hollywood stars or Ben Ainslie. Is this a magical version of social anxiety that disappears when she is surrounded by famous people? It is only when she has to show up, act like a grown up, and do something approximating real work that this unicorn social anxiety appears?
Lorelai, example of what I noted elsewhere.
And since when does social anxiety have to appear with everyone? Obviously, it wouldn’t appear when she’s with people she feels more comfortable with and actually wants to engage with: athletes and actors she’s familiar with due to watching them on screen. . . this really isn’t too difficult to parse imo. She doesn’t like interacting with peasants. It makes her anxious, as can be seen with her body language, which is not present in her interactions with people she does want to interact with. Incidentally, I was more referring to her public speaking flubs and the constant need to fidget with her hair. I recognize the behaviour because I also have to deal with social anxiety and no, it does not crop up with everyone. And I made no claims that she should be excused from work because of this, merely noted the way the behaviour looks. I realize there’s an issue in our society where we misattribute behaviour caused by illness to someone’s personality, and she’s not really appealing, but this pattern has been noted on numerous occasions by people who have the illness.
If you’re going to use my comment as an example of something, why don’t you share what that is, instead of passive aggressively noting it to someone else when replying to me? Utterly unnecessary to include that in your reply to me. Please don’t; thanx.
I don’t understand what exactly was he trying to say: that Kate is not Diana? That Kate doesn’t have much of a personality and comes off dull? That her team couldn’t bring out her best features and really messe up ? Or did he just want to say that her mother is a flight attendant and he doesn’t like the Middletons?
He’s saying that she’s ordinary and dull, but it’s not her fault because she’s from an ordinary and dull background. Bless her heart.
Maybe I’m the only one here but I don’t think she’s pretty, especially when you google her without makeup.
Heh, most people aren’t pretty without makeup. Makeup is there to keep the human population going.
@Apples, agreed! There’s a reason that makeup is a billion-dollar industry. Not many women can look good without it. I look like a corpse without any!
She has very bad skin, just like her sister. Kate smoked, partied a lot and doesn’t stay out of the sun.
I’m not impressed by anything other than how androgenous/manly her face looks. I remember thinking that back 10 years ago. The constant stress, dieting, and bad genes aren’t helping either. But hey shes skinny and rich and titled so it probably all equals out in her mind.
She really has bad genes.
Even during the dating years. I just saw her as OK with gobs of hair, just never got the hype.
Paul Costello sounds like he’s from a different century. I know us Brits have a classist problem but WTF ….
Yeah, I’m going WTF, too. Yike.
Catherine and her husband are so dull and boring. They are Charles and Camilla 2.0. The British monarchy can be happy that Prince Harry exists.
Charles and Camilla are personality dynamos compared to the Do-littles!
I actually think you could have a few laughs with Camilla….Kate – not so much!
Charles and Camilla are actually more interesting. Charles does his horticulture stuff and his conservation/environmental thing and some charities and some of the Queen’s duties. Camilla always looks like she is glad to see somebody when she does charity work. She never looks like she wished she were elsewhere.
Do Princess Ann and Camilla get along? I’d like to sit with the 2 of them and chat. I think it would be a fun and funny afternoon. Might learn some good palace gossip after a few beers too:)
Lady D–I’d love to hear some convos between Anne & Camilla. Anne was apparently gaga for Andrew Parker Bowles back in the day–quite the steamy relationship– but he married Camilla. Both women are still really close to him–supported him when his 2nd wife died of cancer. I think Andrew lives on a house on Anne’s estate. So that history is an added wrinkle. But with their love of the outdoors and the horsey set, I imagine the two women have other things in common.
Now that I think about it… you people are right. Charles and Camilla are really more interesting than William and Catherine and they seem to enjoy their royal duties.
Have to disagree with the original comment. Charles and Camilla always make an effort on engagements to be interested and informed. Even if they are bored they never show it unlike the Dolittles.
I read someone’s opinion that Camilla is one of the worst things to ever hit the BRF. Do regular people on the street in Britain really think so? I actually quite like her so I was really surprised to read that.
@bluhare: Good question. I don’t have the feeling that the people don’t like her when they meet her…
All four of them looked to be having a good time today in Charles’s new-but-looks-old Duchy town. HM, Philip, Charles, Camilla.
As a person on the street Brit, i think people have warmed to her primarily because she gets out there and does her duty to the people without b!tching about it (unlike the Cambridges). She isn’t trying to be another Diana (unlike a certain Duchess who is trying to be like her subtly), she’s just being herself.
It will come to a head one way or another when the Queen dies. Many people don’t mind Camilla if she stays in her lane, but the general public doesn’t know that Charles is planning to make her Queen. That’s when the public’s opinion of her is going to become very clear.
I think the biggest turn off with Kate (and Bill) is the obvious hostility toward the public.
They have stressed so many times (directly and indirectly) that they don’t want any sort of involvement in public life, they have such a defensive attitude that pushes everyone to stop caring. And when they do participate it’s like we should be thankful for the crumbs.
Kate could suddenly become Kate Moss I wouldn’t care. And I don’t care to see the kids either. They don’t want to expose them, then don’t. Making the public feel guilty for looking at their kids once in 6 months is rotten. Making the public feel guilty for intruding in their ‘private’ lives is cheap manipulation.
I don’t think the public needs them and Vogue did not need Kate. Sales proved it. However, the royals do need the public to provide the financing for their perks.
It’s amazing that they are playful hardball when the ball obviously is not in their court.
Agreed about no one really needing them or their whiny attitude. I think its that the British are big on tradition and they view the monarchy as part of that tradition. So there’s this effort to make them happen, no matter how wasteful, or else it would have been dead a long time ago.
ALS: my goodness this comment is perfect!
@ALS, and this is why I don’t want to them to be King and Queen in the future.
So well said in your post …
we taxpayers are putting up with the two drones
vogue cover didnt buy as very very boring that month
Princess Diana was so beautiful and had an aura abput her just loved her there will be noone to replace her .. and Waity Katie can try and copy her clothes but she will never ever be in the same league ..
Is that why Diana is still known as the most glamours princess in the 20th century?
I really don’t understand why some people worship her. A woman who has never accomplished something in her life. Kate never worked, only chased William with her mother for ten years. She can be happy that Tess Shepherd and Isabella Calthorpe didn’t want him because he wanted them and even broke up with Kate once because of that.
I think that Kate should be compared to Diana as a princess because Kate is a princess, too. They were both married to husbands directly in line to the throne and expected to be Queen / Queen Consort one day.
Diana did charity and promoted everything really well. She had the passion and interest for charity and her knack for fashion did help with the promotion.
Kate doesn’t do charity well and doesn’t promote anything really well. She has no passion and no interest for charity and her lack of fashion style doesn’t help either.
Yes, fashion style does help in such a position as Diana’s or Kate’s. It is not enough, of course. It can be compensated by work ethics. The latter is what the Queen and Princess Anne are doing. Neither of them are fashionistas but they compensate that with work ethics.
I am really surprised that Kate didn’t use the Vogue shoot to give herself a slightly more fashionable image. I get what she tried to aim at: high-born country girl who is so high born that even casual clothes look good on her. You know there are these really upper-class types who still look regal in denim and T-Shirt. Kate is not like them. But she tried for the Vogue shoot. And failed miserably. All she looked like was a Sloaney pretending to like and be aristocratically at home in the countryside.
Here is what Kate could have done: she as a mommy could have tried to impress the mommy brigade with a slightly more edgy and colourful interpretation of the country theme. She could have accessorised with an expensive scarf. Nothing says “upper class” quite as distinctively as wearing a Hermes scarf in the countryside. She could have tried a more interesting background sitting/standing near/under a tree. She could have tried something with horses which might have looked more daring and bold than that what Kate went for. How about posing with a tennis racket to show off one’s sporty side AND promote British Tennis because one is supposed to promote British Tennis anyway.
I am still surprised that Kate doesn’t know the poses and symbols and accessories and branding of upper class (country/sport/style) life nor does she know “interesting”, “passionate” or “personality”. Although she studied History of Art (!).
2nd pic in black/white: bunny lines.
She could have posed with others in British life: tennis players, people from the National Gallery, people from the various charities she has visited, Ben Ainsley and his people, girl guides etc.: one image per group -informal, fun and cheeky. That way she could have shown some personality while promoting her work. The images with the girl guides could have been set in Norfolk. She also joined some women’s association there, right? She could have also posed with people from the charity shop she visited.
And then a few images from her country life in Norfolk: “the private princess in her home setting,” to contrast with the images from her public life. “The Many Facets of the Very Private Kate.” Their people need to work on creating mystique, not just sending them out there in expensive clothes and hoping that does the trick.
Having the whole shoot with just her in Norfolk was incredibly solipsistic. For all the staging of being rustic and pared down, it’s actually a really vain concept. Also, if you’re going to do that, you have to really bring it with the charisma.
Totally agree, Bitchy. I would add these reasons as to why the issue didn’t sell many copies:
–The colors on the cover scream *autumn* but it was the June issue, and issues drop halfway through the previous month, mid-May, so it’s the peak of spring! WTF
–Kate looks much better in spring colors, IMO; the fall colors are too muddy for her and make her look weird/not her best self.
–Her eyebrows are way too heavy for the conventional looks.
–Yes, lovely but boring backdrop. Should’ve been a fabulous, breezy English garden with bright greens, pinks, lilacs, etc.
–If the magazine editor cannot insist on using her own stylists, they should’ve declined Kate. She’s not the professional here.
When Diana did Vogue, Vanity Fair or Bazaar, she looked *fabulous*–a bit more glam than her everyday self, which was exciting for readers to see. This cover of Kate was dreary and meh. Did she buy those clothes at the Gap?
https://www.google.com/search?q=princess+diana+vogue+cover&espv=2&biw=1422&bih=893&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6gKmyzfvPAhUqi1QKHZYPDgkQ_AUIBigB
Thanks for that link. The Vogue cover of young Anne is gorgeous. That’s how you do it. The Kate photos look like they were taken at the mall with a fake backdrop
Alex Shulman needs to go. Am editor in chief with a more dynamic vision is needed to revive this dreary publication.
Hear! Hear!
Exactly, that’s what I also think. How could Ms. Shulman let someone as dull as Kate dictate the fashion for the 100th. She needs to go. That was one of the most boring VOGUE Covers of ANY Country I’ve ever seen and I started buy Vogue as a teenager.
and while were at it, I think Sarah Burton of Alexander McQueen should go too. imo the wedding dress was dull too. I may be in the minority, but I don’t think it was anything special, Princess Grace/Edith Head had already done it better.
I DON’T think Sarah Burton’s designs are on the level of McQueen’s, not what I’ve seen on Kate, anyway.
Am I the only one who thinks Kate is turning into Camilla when it comes to the hair style, clothes etc?
Actually I think Camilla is more interesting & stylish. At least she accessorizes & will wear feathers & statement hats. She also has presence which Kate definitely does not.
It all comes down to the fact that she is a very boring person.
The only interesting thing about her is her husband’s grandmother.
Queen Elizabeth has more charisma than all over children and grandchildren put together.
That’s a stretch she’s a trend follower? No she wears things classic or matronly????
Kate is nothing more than a clothes hanger to me.
The only Middleton I like is Michael. He comes across as a very nice man, her fame hunter mother as manipulative. Jmo.
Her eyebrows are intriguing – but not in a good positive way.
Why would anyone pay for that Vogue issue when you can see pictures of the same caliber in any Sears catalog?
That cover photo is the worst of all their pics. She looks rough in all these pictures but in that cover pic she looks so extreme “dry” and hard faced and even manly. There is nothing elegant, glamorous with Kate.
They tried country chic and failed. Everything is so brownish and depressing.
Kate is the most boring personnality ever. Not only amongst royal families but really amongst all celebrities, Hollywood, politicians, all included.
IMO, she lacks personality, creativity and lead. I get that she went for a low-key-future-queen cover. She could have been low-key but intresting. But she just comes across as boring.
The put James Bay on the cover of the centennial issue of British vogue and are wondering why it was not a best seller?
ROTFL
Kate lost so much weight that she starts to look manlier than Wills.
Can’t say I’m surprised. The pictures are nothing special and Kate is one of the most uninteresting people around. I wouldn’t have considered buying it.
I flipped through this issue at my local B&N, and as we are all saying, didn’t find any of the pictures fun, cool, interesting. I thought I might actually buy it as a keep sake item for my royal collection, but put it back. That’s when I noticed none of the issues had sold and it was 3 weeks into the month.
For this to be the centenary issue, you’d think the die hard fans of fashion would have been buying it too, so really there is no reason this issue didn’t sell well.
Looking through the pictures (which I could have taken with my Galaxy 7), one thing pings my Spidey Sense: she has styled herself to look like Jecca Craig. From the cover photo with the hat and Kenyan safari look (Jecca has dressed in that style when going casual), to the “I’m just a simple country girl who’s more at home in the wilderness than on the High Street” feel of the rest of the photos, all I can see is the poor man’s Jecca Craig.
THAT is what this Vogue cover is about for Kate – why else would she have agreed to do it after previous attempts early in the marriage failed? Anna Wintour wanted her, and had she accepted, she would have been made to look jaw-dropping stunning. Instead, she chose this look and refused the help of the stylists on the shoot – all to live her fantasy of being Jecca for William in print. “Look, darling, I can be whatever you want me to be, just love me!”.
Jecca is William’s true love (Isabella and Tess Shepherd were hard crushes, IMO), and he has carried a torch for her well into his marriage with Kate. The difference is that Jecca is no Camilla, hanging on as the third person, so Will has to use every chance he gets to be around her sphere. He even proposed to Kate in Kenya, where Jecca is from and her family has a wildlife conservatory and previously a cattle ranch.
Everyone talks about how Kate SWF-ing Diana, but honestly? I think she’s more SWF-ing Jecca Craig every chance she gets (when she’s not dressing like a middle-aged 1950s British matron, that is): you can see it in some of her style choices, but she fails at it because she has no sense of style of her own, and you see it throughout her time in the public eye:
– Post-graduation from St. Andrews up until the breakup (then she went with shorter skirts and deeper necklines to lure Will back);
– The first two years of the marriage;
– And recently with this Vogue cover
I think that, every time Will pulls away, she trots out the Jecca clonewear to try and entice him back to her.
The Jecca Craig cloning is not new, others have commented on it at various times throughout the years. But yes she’s a poor man’s Jecca – the long hair, clothes and super thin frame. She’s made herself into his type – many of those he’s been involved with all had a similar look.
Yes, the imitation Jecca-Look she did for the Vogue cover was a bit unnerving. I wonder what William thought when he saw it?
So William wanted Jecca not Kate?
Anna Wintour is American Vogue. This was British. Not to mention, Wintour’s taste leaves something to be desired too.
Anna Wintour edited British Vogue in the 80s. 1985-87. Dynasty Di years. A very American asthetic which speaks to Anna Wintour’s taste. Diana’s updates every few years coincided with a visit to British Vogue either directly bacuse they were going to shoot a cover or simply to update her style. She met lots of other fashion editors eg Liz Tilberis who also helped her update her style from time to time.
That still would have had no bearing on Kate’s cover from 2016.
Bridget: apologies, i got the wrong end of the stick. I thought you were talking about Diana.
that’s a fascinating insight. I didn’t notice it myself, but it rings true for me. It’s a VERY telling detail, isn’t it?
Whenever I see that cover, I think of two large, brown caterpillars crawling across Kate’s forehead.
I will never understand why they did that to her eyebrows.
I wonder if they were trying to do statement eyebrows like Cara’s?
Cara’s face is stunning with her large brows.
Somehow Kate’s face looks dull and sort of mannish with the combination of weight loss, hat and caterpillar brows.
I also think Kate’s hair looks weavy on the cover, She wouldn’t let VOGUE do her hair I think she used her own hairdresser. I think VOGUE would have given her a sleeker look.
That green hat doesn’t serve her well, in my opinion. Bad choice.
Had to get that off my chest. It always bothered me for some reason.
Lainey says a green hat in Chinese culture means you are bring cuckolded. Add that to the Jecca Craig cloning and this cover says more than Kate would like it to.
I can indeed confirm this.
In the Mandarin & Cantonese language (spoken by 1.2 billion people), the words for “green hat” sounds just like the words for “cuckold”. For this reason you won’t ever see any Chinese man wear a green hat.
The Chinese also don’t want houses, cell numbers, or car plates that have the number “4” because the sound of the word is similar to the word for “death”. They also covet the number “8” in those very same houses, CEO, numbers and car plates, as it sounds just like the word for “fortune”.
That hat brim flatters no one. I was surprised she acquiesced to the magazine shoot- as insular as they are.
The shoot was so borinf I’m not surprised. Also she’s not as popular as to make people go out in droves and buy whatever her face is on.
Apologies to you if you already know this but the interest in her stems from a 2 or 3 episode documentary behind the scenes on BBC where this guy was trying to follow the whole idea of fashion,interest and the challenges of new media and he seemed non ‘fashion savvy’ ..it was very entertaining and showed some of these priveldged upper class women behind the scenes..not as bad as they are shown with the Tatler doc..but the background was from my perspective that Schumann jerked him around about what was going on as she lined up the Doolittle cover and then admitted the whole act and scene of them discussing cover photos was a lie..
So perhaps now there is more interest by some in how well that thing really did…if any of you can get BBC iplayer it was quite fascinating
Two things made me laugh out loud: “basic-duchess stink” and the way Waity poses with Big Blue. I bet she never ever takes that thing off.
One is so BROWN. Honestly, she just kind of looks like a turd. And now that we know Kate styled this shoot all by her HRH self, we can finally rest easy in knowing Essence of Brown is Kate’s true style calling card. Way to go, Vogue – lowering the bar one step at a time, all over the world (see also: Anna Wintour).
The darkness of the brown, dark, dreary look also makes her teeth really stand out… the effect is like a still photo from a horror film.
So this just proves to me that she’s not as popular as the media likes us to think, and that “Kate Effect” is not true.
I think the media knows, but they hope it’ll change with a lot of PR and pushing her.
None of the photos are showstoppers, but why did they choose the absolute worst one for the cover?!
I have an off topic question, does William and Kate have everything for free? I mean when they go on tour everything is free. If they got to s restaurant is it free of charge?
They probably eat free at the new Duchess of Cornwall pub in Poundbury, UK.
I mean when they go on official tours they have airfare, cars, hotels/governments houses all for free but I mean ion private. When they go on vacation is their hotels for free and going to Michelin restaurants?
It looked like a fun outing today. I’m not sure why there is a statue of the Queen Mum smack in the middle of everything though.
I think W&K should have been there for the unveiling of the Queen mum statue. Hmm, planning to sneak away to Mustique?
@Citresse, well why was Harry not there?
lol
I remember in the run up to the wedding, a TV program went to Kate’s hometown or village in Berkshire. The show couldn’t get a interview with any of the Middleton’s but what they did do was get interviews with locals who knew and saw the Middleton’s. These people who worked in the village. The show had interviewed one delivery person (not on camera) who said ALLEGEDLY all the Midds ladies were being sent racks of clothes from designers, stores from everywhere. What would happen is Kate’s items sent to her would be returned, saying she could not possibly accept, but ONLY those addressed to HER were returned. Allegedly after that stores , designers got wise and would send things addressed to the other two ladies who lived there, but some of the items inside were meant for Kate, but since her name wasn’t on it, they weren’t for her. Wink Wink. Of course this is all alleged.
Anyway look at how sometimes Kate and Carole and Pippa will all wear similar dresses , similar looking clothes or the same dress,* or they use to anyway.
Kate is known to like a bargain and will haggle. Will is a notorious cheapskate, so although they are supposed to pay their own way when they’re not working, they probably mooch off of someone much of the time.
@graymatters, so they mooch off of others. But I mean do hotels and Michelin restaurants have free of charge? What about regular clothes?
They pay their own way…. unless they can convince someone else to carry them. Does that make sense? Officially they are as responsible for those bills just as much as we are for ours. The gov’t pays for tour-related clothes and travel. Also lodging and some food, I think. The host country picks up the rest of food and lodging as well as additional security. When they’re at home, Charles pays for William (and his wife) and Harry as far as work expenses go (clothes, staff, office-type stuff). He paid 4 million pounds last year alone. The gov’t paid for the renovations to KP. Officially, William pays for all other expenses incurred by him or his family; that would include “hotels and Michelin restaurants [and] regular clothes” but he often asks to stay at other peoples’ houses as a guest instead. For instance, they stayed in Vicount Linley’s house in France instead of going to the Paralympics, they recently vacationed at some psychiatrist’s chateau in France, and they were at some rich friend’s of a friend vacation house in France for that ski week. And that’s just the little I know about them in France!I suspect that some of the 4 million finds its way into his private life as well.
She is desperate to be the country girl like Zara (the real deal) who had an article in a monthly country magazine this month unfortunately she doesn’t know one end of a horse and has never milked a cow or got her hands dirty digging vegetables out of the vege patch, noting the remark made at Chelsea flower show ‘babe we have lots of those’ Box being a prominent bush at all Statley homes.
Maybe it’s because Cara is incredibly attractive while Kate is average-looking at best.
Part of the problem with Kate’s Vogue issue is that there’s no mystique. There are constant leaks about her, her life, her style, everything. Why buy a Vogue cover that’s just more of the same?
Why did vogue even choose her for the cover? She has a mistaken reputation for being fashionable. My sister works at Reiss head office, and she said they get calls from press after Kate wears something of theirs. They tell them it’s no longer in stock because you know it’s from a few seasons ago. And the British press will put in the paper it’s sold out because Kate wore it!
I think the issue with why it didn’t sell is because she is not fashionable. And I understand that it is difficult to be dressed appropriately for her position and be fashionable, but a LOT of women manage it. Look at FLOTUS, girl has amazing style. She was the wrong choice for the cover.
Even if vogue had the freedom to put her in whatever they wanted she would have looked uncomfortable in anything she didn’t pick.
I also don’t think it’s her responsibility to sell vogue magazine. She needs to do consistent events for charities and the royal family and actually look like she wants to be there for something other than being photographed there.
You hit the nail on the head. I always shake my head when I read that something ugly she wore immediately sells out. Now I know why. Why would anyone bring their own clothes for a Vogue shoot?? I avidly follow her on this blog; it fascinates me that someone in her position with all the resources & money always looks so dowdy. No matter what the occasion, she never reads it quite right. A fly up dress with her hair flying all over the place for an outdoor event. The awful tailoring to show her legs. The formal looks that are never elegant. She really needs a fashion intervention.
I think Kate is a beautiful woman. I also think she doesn’t trust anyone’s opinion other than her Mother & her sister and since she’s not naturally stylish she is easily led down a ‘dowdy’ path so to speak. I think she’s so concerned about people leaking information, she’s decided to close ranks rather than getting people who are actual professionals and will make her look good.
She actually is very beautiful in person and charming. She’s not trying to be anyone other than who she is.
Well except for the posh accent she never had until five years ago.
I’ve heard the exact opposite from people who saw her in person. They said she had Bad skin it looked rough, Pock marked, they said and she looked way too thin and nothing special about her. Also her hair looked ratty in person the day they saw her, like all damaged in need of a good condition , nothing like the luxurious locks in photos, but maybe her weave wasn’t in that day?
Oh for heaven’s sake, I’m sure anyone who works for them signs a iron clad non disclosure agreement. She has help, she doesn’t clean the house or cook every meal. Not following the logic that she chooses to look dowdy b/c she’s afraid a real stylist would leak all her secrets??
The people who I’ve seen online who have been said to help her with her style are complete lightweights. London has some of the best stylists/make up artists in the world so yes, I really do think on some level she’s made a choice to follow a particular path. One phone call could get her out of the style purgatory in which she currently resides.
They must have known from the point of photoshoot that this was going to be worth it only for the value of the coup they pulled off in getting her. And that is still worth something, to be fair. The photos were so dull and odd, looking nothing even like Kate, yet stil not stylish or cool – this was bad enough that Kate porbably won’t choose to do it again. So Brit Vogue will likely still have the ‘honour’ of saying they are the only ones to get such access to the future Queen.
I watched a Brit programme on Vogue while they were doing all this 100 year anniversary stuff and it was amazingly sad just how seriously so many of them take all this stuff. Like Vogue in America – they have a similar character to Grace Coddington in Lucinda Chambers – these women that have been around forever and remember when it all used to be much more fun. She was the only one there that seemed to genuinely enjoy what she was doing and have any sense of fun about it. I mean this was a programme THEY wanted to do and the lengths they went to lessen access was nuts. They even went so far as to mock up fake 100yr anniversary covers and discuss them to great details in order to hide the Kate photoshoot details. Most of these people need a serious stick from ass extraction.
Kate is nothing like Diana and that’s why the Royals let William marry her. They didn’t want another Diana to steal the spotlight and cause lots of problems. Kate is pretty but she’ll never be a fashion icon.
Good point! Diana by far outshone Charles. It was an enormous problem in their marriage, and it made Charles feel extremely put out because of the attention Diana inadvertently got. In addition to that, she wound up not being the meek quiet sort to toe the family line either. So I’m 100% sure that the reason why the RF gave their blessing for the relationship was Kate’s quietness/relative lack of individuality. She’s not really going to go against them and drag their reputations down, nor is she going to overshadow William.
A, I don’t think they ever gave their blessing, Chopper didn’t notify HM, in fact she wasn’t told much before it was announced ,Harry let out a bunch of expletives, they just had to go with the flow because it was what Chopper wanted and he was coerced into the marriage, he about had to, Love lola had written several months ago she thinks their was an abortion.
I hate this photoshoot gdi. But, from the time I first saw this photoshoot and now, I did have a bit of a perspective adjustment so to speak? I’m not wholly familiar with the British class system and how things work with the aristocracy vs commoners and what not. But it was pointed out to me by a friend that a lot of British aristos/royals really heavily aspire to the whole “country living normal life” pastoral aesthetic? Like, if you look at the whole Sloane Ranger group from yore, their fashion shtick for a long time was wearing their country/riding digs out in the city. So like, on the one hand, while I hate this cover, I have to ask–if it were someone of an aristocratic background (similar to one of the Duke of Rutland’s daughters) who did a cover like this…would they still face the same backlash? Or would they be automatically thought of as glamorous, even if the whole shoot isn’t, because of their background?
Then again (and this is me just musing here), none of the aristos ever aspire to be “normal” or push that idea as hard as Will and Kate do. Like, they always have this implicit acceptance of their place in society, which is what I think makes the difference. They never really reject the privilege or position or try to act as “normal” while taking advantage of their good fortune the whole way. So that’s what pisses me off about W&K, personally. You’re not fooling me ffs. I know your family, and I know your titles. Heck, I know how rich Kate’s family is. You’re really going to convince me that you’re not regal at all, simply normal?! Really?? Then wtf are you a royal for? Even the Queen goes riding and spends 3 weeks a year in Balmoral doing country life things, but at the end of the day, she shows up for the opening of Parliament dressed up to the nines, because she’s aware of her position and knows what sort of public image that entails. That’s your work uniform. And when you don’t wear it because you don’t want to do the work out of some misplaced sense of thinking your audience wants your normalcy over what they asked you to be there for, then you’re doing it wrong imo.
But at the same time, this intrigues me about the Waity Kaity thing too. Again, women who are born or descended from aristocratic families (see the Sloane Rangers from before) rarely hold a steady or permanent job in their 20s. They get a degree, do a bit of this, do a bit of that, learn to be a bit more polished, then they get married and settle down. I know it sounds old fashioned and terribly out of date, but that’s by and large still the accepted norm in many ways (there are ofc lots and lots of exceptions). You’re not going to meet an aristocratic girl who’s a doctor or an engineer, lmao. So to me, that’s not any different from what Kate did in her 20s, but I do wonder if she would have been subjected to the same treatment if she’d been from an aristo family or if she’d still be thought of as Waity. But then I look at the flak the York girls get for Beatrice taking 18 vacations in a year and, well, maybe it’s not so different after all.