Princess Kate’s coronation headpiece designer speaks out: ‘It was a tiara’

It’s been a rough few weeks in royal gossip. While there’s plenty to discuss with King Charles and Queen Camilla’s current flop tour, Prince William and Kate have disappeared. The Sussexes have as well, although the usual suspects can’t take Harry and Meghan’s names out of their mouths. But the Wales kids are on their school holiday, and William and Kate use their kids’ school holidays to disappear every single time. All of which to say, the royalist press is getting really desperate for any kind of content, which is why they’re running stories about Kate’s princess jeggings. This new People Mag exclusive is a next-level “we’re desperate for anything about Kate” story though. Remember Kate’s bonkers DIY Hobby Lobby headpiece at last year’s coronation? Well, People has a hilarious interview with Jess Collett, who designed the custom headpiece, at great expense – Kate reportedly spent £32,000 on the headpiece alone. Sorry, according to Collett, it is a “tiara” not a headpiece.

In the world of millinery, designing a tiara for a future Queen is a life-defining moment. That was the task at hand for Jess Collett, the British hatmaker who was chosen to create one-of-a-kind headpieces for both Kate Middleton and Princess Charlotte for King Charles’ coronation on May 6, 2023.

While there was much speculation in the weeks leading up to the big day as to whether Kate would wear something befitting her status as future Queen — guests were asked to wear hats or fascinators to the event, and PEOPLE learned several weeks before the event that Kate was unlikely to wear a traditional tiara — Collett says there was never any doubt in her head what she was creating.

“It was a tiara that I made for the princess, but it was very much based on a piece that I have called ‘The Golden Crown’ — a band of leaves made from gold leather,” she tells PEOPLE in an exclusive interview. Of “The Golden Crown,” which has been on display in her Notting Hill atelier, “When people wear it, and many people have hired it, they always tell me after that they felt fabulous and radiant from inside,” Collett adds.

Constructed from silver leaves made from tulle, the tiara sparkled bright thanks to the tiny crystals scattered amongst the delicate leaves, each one hand embroidered with real silver thread. The striking design was considered a triumph, even by Collett’s children.

“We were at home watching it from the sofa, in my pajamas with my family. When Catherine arrived, I just … even my children went, ‘Oh wow, Mum, it looks really good.’ And you know children are not afraid to tell the truth!” Collett says. “It was so exciting and nerve-wracking, but everything I have ever dreamed of.”

While the coronation was the first time Collett worked with the Princess of Wales, 42, she’s certainly hoping it won’t be the last. “I remember thinking at the time, ‘Well, I won’t have to do this again, because she’ll be wearing the actual crown next time!’ ” Collett says. “But she always looks good. She’s confidant in her style and she’s so graceful — she’s really grown into the role.”

[From People]

As GB News points out, Kensington Palace explicitly said that Kate was not wearing a tiara and that the headpiece should not be considered a tiara. Personally, I think the confusion over what to call it is all because Camilla wanted to be the only woman dripping in stolen jewels. Camilla wanted to be the last horse standing and wear all of the diamonds she could get her hands on. I think Camilla ordered all of the royal women to not wear tiaras or lavish jewels because Camilla is also terrified of having her thunder stolen. As for Kate’s headpiece… I still find it so cheap-looking? It really does look like a fashion-school project, and I think it was really inappropriate for an occasion like the coronation.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red and Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

140 Responses to “Princess Kate’s coronation headpiece designer speaks out: ‘It was a tiara’”

  1. Scooby Gang says:

    Tin foil + Elmer’s glue = 4th grade arts & crafts project. Not a tiara.

    • Eurydice says:

      I imagine it must look much better in person – silver tulle, crystals, silver thread, all crafted by hand – close up I can see an incredible amount of work. It would probably look nice with a delicate bridal gown, but it’s weirdly random with the rest of Kate’s getup – with the cape and the bows and medals and heavy gold chains.

      • NotSoSocialB says:

        I feel like if she left it as one course, the way Charlotte’s was fashioned, it would have been a fine *headband* (?hairband?), but it looks quite ridiculous as is.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, in itself, I don’t think its bad. It could be very pretty for a different occasion, like a wedding. But for this, it screams “Camilla can’t tell me what to do, I’m going to wear a tiara if I have to make one out of tulle and sequins!!”

      • Drea says:

        I bet it looked really nice close up. But materials like that don’t translate at a distance and IMO the designer should have known that.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      People magazine needs to get an effing grip. If your MILLINER, and not your COURT JEWELER, is making your “tiara”, it ain’t a fricking tiara. It’s just a tacky-ass headband made of metallic thread at great expense, at the last minute, a la the movie credits of Monty Python & the Holy Grail.

      When your “tiara” is made by Ralph the Wonder Llama and not Chaumet, it’s not bling. It’s giving school nativity play tbh. And it probably needs to be dipped in more glitter.

      How lovely though, of People magazine to remind everyone how thin skinned Sea Biscuit is, by recalling to our minds how she made every Princess of the Blood and other married-in ladies not wear tiaras because she was so ego-fragile, that she wanted a visual display of her pulling rank on all of them. She thought that made her look better, superior? It did the exact opposite. It showed the world that Sea Biscuit is petty, trashy, undignified, and utterly unworthy of her married rank & title. And she’s been confirming that view every time she’s stepped out in public since.

      • Interested Gawker says:

        “It’s giving school nativity play”

        😂😂😂

      • Miss Scarlett says:

        I also think she did it because HER children couldn’t wear tiaras, so no one was going to.

      • maisie says:

        LOL

        why hasn’t William gifted her with a real tiara? isn’t that a royal tradition?

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        @Miss Scarlett – the kids wouldn’t get tiaras. They might have been eligible to wear coronets?? I mean, they have rank. But as the monarch is their grandfather and not their father at present… I recall photos from when George VI was crowned; Elizabeth and Margaret both wore coronets, Margaret as befit a child of the Sovereign, and Elizabeth as befit the heir presumptive. When Elizabeth II was crowned, Charles was 4yrs old; he actually attended the coronation ceremony, probably at the insistence of Queen Mum who doted on him. Charles didn’t wear a coronet at the ceremony. Neither he nor Anne had coronets when they were on the balcony, either. Might have been a hat tip to modernization? Either that or the royal kids were rowdy and they feared the coronets being used as weaponry.

        @Maisie – Huevo hasn’t gifted Huesa with a tiara for the same reason he’s been stingy with jewelry, period, and gave her a cursed engagement ring almost as an afterthought; deep down, he doesn’t give a fig about her. He was being pressured to marry and she was literally the only one who would’ve said yes.

      • BQM says:

        @miss Scarlett you don’t need a title to wear one. I really doubt that was it. It’s not like Tom would be wearing one anyway. But Laura’s hubby is an Astor along with other blue blooded lineages. There’s definitely a spare tiara laying around somewhére.

      • Yvette says:

        @Miss Scarlett and @Where’sMyTiara … I always thought that ‘no tiaras!’ order was issued because Harry and Meghan waited so long to confirm or decline their attendance and the royal family certainly didn’t want any photos of Meghan wearing one, and absolutely didn’t want her showing up in the Spencer tiara. Otherwise, would Kate have been so brazened in defying their Majesties? It looked like a tiara, and she certainly gave every evil Disney Queen vibe wearing it, too.

        @Where’sMy Tiara … Some noble ‘peeress’ Ladies ‘did’ wear tiaras to Queen Elizabeth’s coronation, including Margaret and the wives of King George V’s other sons. I always thought that noble peers and peeresses placed coronets on or next to their heads at a coronation in symbolic support and loyalty when the Sovereign is crowned. Please see Town and Country article below titled “All the Tiaras Worn at Queen Elizabeth’s 1953 Coronation, with names and photos of the women who wore them.

        https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g43379124/queen-elizabeth-coronation-tiaras-photos/

    • Friendly Crow says:

      This isn’t a slam at the milliner. I’m sure she does lovely work. Charlottes looked amazing and I do tend to believe Kate’s was meant to be worn much lower- along the same lines as charlottes.

      That said. I’ve seen so many items on aliexpress that are better executed and frankly – so much lovelier. Better design and worn properly. No aliexpress shame either. A number of the stores sell original designs and items. It’s just that people know you can buy things for cheap on aliexpress.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        AliExpress is why Tiara Tuesdays were a thing with my old knitting group lol

        People have found fun cheap copies of European royalty’s bling on there. Like Charlene’s ocean tiara, the GBBI of Queen Mary that Elizabeth II loved to wear, even the Strathmore Rose tiara which was a favourite of the Queen Mum for a long time.

        Sometimes it can be fun searching AliExpress and trying to match up their offerings to real tiaras in royal collections in Europe. You can find Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, and Sweden’s tiara collections all represented there.

    • SpankFD says:

      I genuinely thought she wore real flowers. So naive of me to believe the family that released those 80s glamour shots would take the classy route.

    • bisynaptic says:

      One can make a tiara out of anything.

  2. StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

    Straight out of middle earth, Mordor’s excavations plant

  3. MY3CENTS says:

    So Khate, who never puts a foot wrong ,was given an order not to wear a tiara so she went ahead and ordered one , and called it a not tiara? Hmmm.

    • Harla says:

      And wore Diana’s earrings!!

      • Anita says:

        LOL, that she did, @Harla. (ETA I wonder how much that had to do with what she had at her disposal, and how much by design. )
        I mean, I kind of like that she found a way around the ban.
        Not that it worked very well, but yeah. At least someone still had some petty spine left to not completely bow down to Camila.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Ngl, I lowkey loved the clapback of wearing Diana’s earrings to Camilla’s “con-a-nation”. That was a surprisingly clever move, “Brooch warfare”-wise. I didn’t think Huesa had the intelligence to pull something like that off, so that was a pleasant surprise. Although…maybe Ma Midds, whose obsession with Diana led her to groom her daughter for this life, had more of a hand in that?

      • Proud Mary says:

        I’m not sure how “low key clever” that was when everyone knows what Diana jewelry she has, and she did the same thing at Archie’s christening. I have the feeling Camzilla has not stopped punishing KittyKat for that bold endeavor.

      • Nanea says:

        She wore them left-right reversed.

        Try to find photos of Diana wearing them, totally different look.

        That said, imagine tiaras being allowed and Máxima stealing everyone’s thunder with the Stuart tiara, and Leticia wearing the Fleur de Lys. Plus all the other queens and heiresses with their historical pieces. They all would have overshadowed Queen Side Piece of the Left-Behinds, not because of size or carats, but because of posture and elegance. Both of which 🐴 and 🦴 are lacking.

      • Blair Warner says:

        I still hate seeing her in Diana’s earrings. She does not have the presence to wear them. Search for “41st annual United Cerebral Palsy Awards gala” in New York, December 1995, to see.

        To me, the whole thing looked tacky with the oversized fabric headpiece and the cheap satin robe.

      • Proud Mary says:

        Was that clever, Nanea? Or did she make a mistake? Regardless, I mean, what’s the big deal? I think it’s a bigger deal that Camzilla is so thin-skinned that the future queen was barred from diving into the stolen-blood jewels to adorn herself, just so she won’t overshadow her step MIL. And I think this ridiculous clash, and Kate’s crashing Charles’ Chelsea Flower Show appearance, lays a lie to claim that they are all just so chummy, without the Sussexes. (Sorry, I’m not a royalist, so your examples don’t mean a thing to me).

      • CruzMom says:

        They seem so odd with her outfit! I googled the photos of Diana wearing those earrings and wow! On their own, those earrings are gorgeous.

      • Nic919 says:

        If Kate respected the institution and duty she would not have tried to overshadow the Queen consort, a position she might get herself. Kate wearing a petty tin foil tiara just showed how she only cares about herself.

        That smirk on her face only showed how empty she is and how pathetic she was to be so petty. All she has to do is wait her turn. But as someone who had to be told not to walk in front of the Queen regnant, she does not care. The monarchy is stupid but if its main participants don’t respect rank, then why the hell should anyone else pretend to.

        Having class has everything to do with behaviour and dignity, not shiny baubles and kate has still not learned that lesson. Diana would never have tried to outshine her mother in law with sparkly outfits.

    • Megan says:

      The “headpiece” and earrings were a straight up “f*ck you” to Camilla for locking the vault to the royal jewels. Camilla deserved it.

      • ML says:

        “…Kate was unlikely to wear a traditional tiara…”
        This (and the earrings belonging to KC’s ex wife) was absolutely an FU to Camzilla and Charles. KC was caught expressing extreme gratitude to W that he showed up. Knowing this family’s dyfunctionality, I wonder if WanK did this as a surprise. Even Charlotte is wearing a sort-of tiara and she’s not in the direct line to the throne.

      • Gabby says:

        Yes, this is one Kate decision I can get on board with. Stealing Camilla’s thunder.

        I can’t believe she spent 32 grand on the thing.

        Maybe in my spare time I should craft more “not tiaras” for Kate from random things I find around the house. Add some bling-y paint and sell them to her for outrageous amounts of money.

      • Hannah says:

        Not to diminish the complete and utter ridiculousness of K’s *con-a-nation tiara* I think what REALLY stood out for me that day was the sheer absurdity and gaucheness of C&C’s crowns. Those jewels were so fkn ginormous, so ostentatious. They looked 100% fake. Definitely costume jewellery for a theatre production

        But, they are real and they all came from former British colonised countries that were plundered by the British monarchy

        Still looked fkn cheap and hilarious

      • Proud Mary says:

        ML says, “was absolutely an FU to Camzilla and Charles.” Look, I have no dog in this hunt, so I love it when they’re at one another’s throats, as long as they leave the Sussexes alone. But help me understand how, KittyKat is one minute giving the finger to Charles, and next minute they’re telling us she’s his favorite child.

      • Ree says:

        Totally agree with you Megan. I thought Kate looked pretty.

      • Tessa says:

        Too bad Keen was not nice to meghan. She played the mean girl.

    • Monlette says:

      A cosplay tiara.
      I had assumed the reason she and William were late was because he was shouting for her and Charlotte to take them off, and she shouted back they were wearing them or they were not going.

  4. Harla says:

    A bit off topic but I wonder if some day, when the Wales kids are older, will we find out that WandK don’t actually spend the kids holidays with them but continue to pursue their individual “interests”? There’s something about their obsessive privacy and need to have people think that they’re all about their kids, that just doesn’t ring true for me, something is up and I’m wondering which kid will spill the tea?

    • AMB says:

      It’s early for speculation, but I hope it’s George – it would be great to see him break the “heir has a miserable life” cycle that family seems to have. At this point he seems least likely, though.

      • Tessa says:

        William seems to be treating George more special. And William could be badmouthing harry and Meghan so George can overhear.

      • Cassie says:

        My goodness haven’t they both deteriorated in appearances since the Coronation .

        Unbelievable .

      • Proud Mary says:

        George is the heir, he’s going to fall in line, unless he’s another abdicate. I vote Louis.

      • Deborah1 says:

        @AMB – The most likely would be Louis, the new Royal Spare and rebel.

      • Tessa says:

        Charlotte comes after George in line of succession. She would come before Louis

  5. Lady Esther says:

    I’ve always believed that of course Kate didn’t “go rogue” and fashion herself a headpiece without full coordination with BP, especially considering Sophie and Charlotte sported their own versions from the same designer. Kate’s not that gutsy or stupid. I think the design was good (Roman laurel wreath of victory) but the execution was terrible, it looked cheap in photos/videos. Handmade is fine, looking like your local craft store product is not…

    However the real story here is why Kate was “ordered” not to wear a tiara? It can’t be because of Meghan because it was known far in advance of the coronation that Meghan wasn’t attending. Why couldn’t Kate, Sophie and Charlotte wear tiaras from the royal vault? Made no sense to me but then again neither did a NEW bespoke carriage for Charles, so….

    • IdlesAtCranky says:

      Why no tiaras?

      Because Chuck is petty and vain and insecure, and paranoid about being “upstaged.”

      He was Prince Not Particularly Charming for decades, while people liked and respected his mum and dad and idolized his lovely, incredibly popular wife.

      He finally dumped Diana and got with his side piece, only to have Diana die and again “steal focus” from him — forever.

      Then his sons grew up. WillNot and Can’t aren’t much of a threat, even though Can’t is constantly trying to grab the lion’s share of UK and world attention.

      But the love lavished on Harry and Meghan seems to have literally broken his brain. It’s Diana all over again, except now Chuck is older, and sicker, and does not have the energy to compete.

      So he acts out in the stupidest, most self-destructive ways.

      Let’s spend millions on a Big Hat Party during an economic crisis! Let’s tell the world my beloved son isn’t worthy of a home in the UK! Let’s brief frantically against the mother of two of my grandchildren! Let’s snap and snarl at children in public!

      Heck, just the simple petty vanity of telling the women of his family that they may not wear tiaras, the traditional marker of the aristocracy at formal events, is really quite mild when stacked up against his more egregious idiocies.

      Queen Elizabeth was clearly a pretty lousy mother, but at least she maintained public dignity and decorum. Her eldest son seems to have learned little from her except for how to attempt to control his closest subjects, his family, with a grip of iron.

      Thankfully Harry, at least, has chosen to break free.

      • Megan says:

        Tiaras are evening wear for married women. I don’t think the tiara ban was outrageous, but not letting the other royal ladies (and men) wear any Crown Jewels was so petty and greedy on Camilla’s part.

      • Becks1 says:

        it was petty and greedy which is why it made me laugh. Like it was such an unnecessary power move on Camilla’s part (or Charles, but I think it came from camilla.)

        The tiara ban in itself made sense to me – they didn’t want the other royal women wearing tiaras for whatever reason (thunder stealing, since some of those royal houses have GORGEOUS tiaras and women who know how to wear them well; the whole “modernizing” thing that didnt’ really play out, etc) so I think it would have been “against protocol” for Kate to wear a tiara while actual queens who were invited did not.

        But the tiara ban is not the same thing as a ban against all royal jewels which is what was super petty on Camilla’s part. But I laughed at it.

      • Jais says:

        Did Camilla also ban all royal jewelry for the guests? I didn’t realize that or maybe didn’t remember. Wow. Camilla really was insecure and petty. But at the same time, so was Kate. None of the royal guests were allowed to wear a tiara either but Kate couldn’t take the idea of not standing out and so had to have a tinfoil tiara one made. Imagining what the other royal guests were thinking when she walked in(late!) with that fabric tiara will forever make laugh.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Jais I just think she’s slammed the vault door pretty hard. It might not be an outright ban (I was surprised to see Kate in the strathmore rose tiara last year, which hasn’t been seen in public in decades) but she’s definitely keeping the big guns for herself. I feel like in most other royal families, the woman in Kate’s role and even Sophie’s would have been given some significant jewelry to wear at an event like this. But Camilla apparently wasn’t down with that lol.

        The reason why I think Kate’s tiara was embarrassing for her and not entirely the eff you to Camilla that some think (even if it was meant as such) is because the other royal women also weren’t wearing tiaras so by wearing a tinsel and tulle tiara made by a milliner, Kate just ended up looking – well, cheap, and also very look at me.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        @Megan – during QEII’s coronation, the young Queen’s ladies in waiting/attendants in the procession wore not tiaras, but a headpiece very similar to the one Kate Middleton had fashioned for Cluck’s con-a-nation. I suspect the milliner in charge of that little art project had used those as a basis for the one she wore. If you go back and look at the video and photographic footage of QEII’s coronation, you can see how alike in design they are – meant to look like laurels or similar. Lady Susan Hussey wore a coronet.

        By contrast, the ladies of the aristocracy (notably absent from Cluck’s con-a-nation, because he didn’t even want to be upstaged by *them*), all wore tiaras. At the moment the crown was placed on new monarch’s head, every lord and lady of rank placed their own rank’s coronet on their heads, including Princess Margaret. The ladies would place their coronets on the occiput of their heads, behind their tiara. We didn’t really see this with KFC’s shambolic ceremony because he wouldn’t let the aristos participate.

        Arianne Chernock, professor of history at Boston University, gave us a view into why barring the aristocracy from the coronation and the general dumbing-down of the whole ceremony by KFC was so disturbing and a sign of the instability of Cluck as a person, and his coming reign:

        “Once you take this kind of ceremony away, you are left with this family that we know almost too much about,” says Chernock. “The royal family needs these moments to connect them to their very particular past and to provide justification for the monarchy’s continuation.”

        The chief contrast between his investiture and his mother’s: Chaz made it all about *himself* and his old grey mare. Elizabeth made it all about the *nation*, and leaned more heavily into the religious aspect of the event, as befitted her own deep spirituality. Chaz did not put his best foot forward from the beginning of his reign. His entire raison d’etre is one of selfishness and arrogance, and this was what was on full display in the runup to the Clowning and of course, in everything that’s followed since.

    • Berkeleyfarm says:

      Well, Charlotte wouldn’t wear one, because Charlotte is under 18 and them’s the rules (you will hear a lot of Tiara Rules but that’s one of the actual ones). And the Brits are weird about loaning out tiaras within the family. I don’t think Kate “officially” owns one that’s all hers (Sophie and Anne do, and the York girls have access to Sarah’s tiara), so she’s dependent on Camilla, the current mistress of the vault.

      It was a day event, but they’ve got precedence for tiaras at day events (the last coronation/formal Openings of Parliament). I think it was definitely Camilla wanted to shine.

      It was cute to have a mother-daughter coordination but Kate’s headpiece had a BIG profile – similar to a number of the Big Gun tiaras in the British vault. I think the headpiece looked nice but it was obviously a tiara sub and whooee the cost.

  6. Kingston says:

    I find it…….interesting, tht the headline of every thread referencing the racist, unaccomplished, faux-cancer dicktim is always given her title: “princess.”

    The same courtesy is not granted to Princess Meghan.

    That’s all.

    • Megan says:

      The traditional title for the consort of the Prince of Wales is Princess. She and Meghan were both appropriately titled Duchess before the queen’s death, as was Fergie when she was married to Pedo Andy.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        Still she’s not entitled to be addressed as Princess CHRISTIAN-NAME. She’s called Princess Kate as a courtesy. The correct address is Princess William. Diana should have been called either the Princess of Wales or Princess Charles. Nobody kvetched about it bc it sounds strange. A lot of people have begun calling Meghan PRINCESS MEGHAN bc she IS A PRINCESS. Nobody’s gonna call her Princess Henry. Although she is a Nigerian Princess in her own right. Seems nobody can admit a biracial married in is a princess.

      • Friendly Crow says:

        Meghan is a princess titled in her own right by her four adoptive fathers – kings of Nigeria.

        If they strip away Harry’s and Meghan’s titles – they can easily go by Meghan’s Royal Nigerian title.

      • Kingston says:

        Thank you! @809Matriarch. This is exactly what I meant by my post.

    • Proud Mary says:

      I know it’s her title, but I agree with you.

    • Berkeleyfarm says:

      The Brits pretty much stand alone in the European royals these days by not referring to married-in wives of princes as Princess Given Name.

      Mind you there is a lot more squawking when “Princess Meghan” shows up in “print” even though now that she has been gifted her own title it’s actually correct. She and Catherine are both “princesses of Great Britain” on their marriages as their children’s birth certificate says but the royal duchy was seen as a higher title.

      as a note when I was young and naive I lived in the UK and Princess Michael was in the papers a lot. I thought “what odd parents she must have had” and learned about the strict form of “taking the husband’s title” later.

      • Nic919 says:

        It’s silly but when all the Catherine not Kate people pop up the real answer is that Kate will never have her name in a title unless she makes it to Queen consort. Everything else is made up or the divorced version.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      I prefer Meghan being called Madame Duchess or Princess Meghan of Nigeria. Though I will refer to as Duchess of Sussex. Like keeping the UK out of it a bit. Meghan, as an individual, has always been more than someone within the BRF.imo

  7. Wow she over paid for that head piece. It looks like some inexpensive trim material you get at Michael’s or Hobby Lobby.

    • Liz -L says:

      I think it was her subtle attempt to overshadow. Look at me the younger more fashionable consort with a cool
      more modern take on headgear.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      Weirdly, there is actually precedent for the headdress design that Kate wore to Chaz’s Shiny Hat Party. I believe the milliner who crafted it referenced the headdresses worn by the non-titled Dames who comprised the majority of QE2’s ladies in waiting at her coronation. The only lady in waiting that wore a coronet that day was Lady Susan Hussey, the unabashed racist who once asked a charity worker “where do you *really* come from”, and who was supposedly dispatched to “help Meghan” integrate into her royal role.

      • Eurydice says:

        The Dames were all wearing the same style dress, which fit in with the headpieces – it was part of a design plan. What makes Kate’s tiara even more of a weird choice is she’s not a lowly Dame or a lady-in-waiting.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        @Eurydice – bingo! As the new Duchess of Cornwall/Princess of Wales, she should have been wearing crown jewels befitting her rank. I know the PoW has a specific-to-him coronet; since many are made PoW before they’re of age to marry, there hasn’t been, that I can tell, a special Princess of Wales version. I think the Princess of Wales would wear the Coronet of the Child of the Sovereign, because that was what was suggested by people on the tiara blogs, that the Sussexes would wear (they being the only other Royal Duke/Duchess in their generation) at Cluck’s con-a-nation, before Cluck dispensed with all that.

        So Kate got her digs in on Camilla, while still harking back to the investiture of QE2, with a headpiece that echoed the previous coronation. And Elizabeth’s ladies in waiting were echoing headpieces worn during Queen Victoria’s coronation by *her* ladies in waiting. The milliner did a good job, digging into the family tradition and coming up with something appropriate, even if it looked clownish next to what we’ve seen of the actual bling the BRF has and were expected to wear on the day.

        A lot of folks really expected Kate to repeat the Cartier Halo tiara. That tiara was worn by Princess Margaret at her sister’s coronation.

      • Nic919 says:

        Seeing as how the men didn’t wear coronets either, the women didn’t need silly little fake tiaras. Charlotte had a nice head piece as a little girl but Kate was prancing around thinking she did something when she only looked like the evil queen in Snow White.

    • Hypocrisy says:

      Exactly the point I was going to make.. it looks like a Michaels craft project.

  8. Tessa says:

    Kate makes those weird look at me expressions at the coronation

  9. bitsycs says:

    That thing is ugly and cheap but the pic with her next to Sophie highlights how stupid a traditional fascinator looks with those robes though. I think Kate’s thing is quite a bit better, but they all should have been wearing tiaras or at least some type of more formal headpiece with those robes.

    • Megan says:

      I think the robes are what looks stupid. They look like they are in a high school marching band.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        My hs marching band never looked that trash. Neither did the color guard, for that matter.

      • Berkeleyfarm says:

        The robes are actually the traditional robes for their orders. High school marching bands are the cheap knockoffs of these.

      • sunnyside up says:

        I think the robes for the order of the Garter are impressive but these look more as if they come out of a dressing up box.

  10. Chaine says:

    From the front view, where you can’t see that it’s more of a headband style, it always reminds me of the elaborate swim caps from the 1940s, like something you’d see in an Esther Williams movie.

  11. Draadje says:

    I have zero problems calling it a tiara made of fabric; however I don’t think the execution was as successful, especially in combination with the garishness of her robes. Too much shiny in my opinion. I’d have made it less voluminous.

    Also: USD 32,000?!!! She’d be better off having paid for a traditional tiara. WTF.

    I do find it interesting that this lofty and special family with Kate “not putting a foot wrong” Middleton would do her utmost to skirt the request / rule her Queen made and wore a tiara anyway.

    • Deborah1 says:

      @Draadje – Let us not forget that Kate refused to curtsey to Camilla at the Coronation. That gave off some pretty bad vibes in itself.

      • Friendly Crow says:

        Ong she did?!? Holy shit how did I miss that ….

        And while we all thing that William put Kate in the hospital during her coma months …. What if it was another individual who perhaps was drunk and reliving these moments.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        @Deborah1 that part was so hilarious. I had to actually go back and rewind. “Did I just see what I think I saw? OH YES I ABSOLUTELY DID LMFAO”

        People in my socials were laughing about that for days

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate is also generally awful at doing the curtsey for Charles and prior to that the Queen. It is always a half ass bop that suggests she didn’t take an etiquette lessons.

        Meghan did an amazing one at the queens funeral putting Kate to shame.

  12. s808 says:

    £32K for that???? Katey girl, you were scammed.

  13. Digital Unicorn says:

    It was widely reported at the time about the no tiara rule but we all know Katty and Ma can’t help themselves. K has a long history of stealing attention from others on their big day. She and her family openly disrespect the tax paying public and the RF and get away with it.

    Karma will clap back some day.

  14. Eurydice says:

    I can’t help thinking of Amy in the Big Bang Theory:

    “Oh, it’s a tiara! A tiara! I have a tiara! Put it on me! Put it on me! I’m a princess and this is my tiara!”

  15. Jjp says:

    32k for that tacky headband? If that doesn’t say “Let them eat cake”, what does? They already have plenty of tiaras, maybe Camilla should take some of the blame for not letting buttons wear a tiara, but Kate didn’t have to go out and find the most expensive headband on the island.

  16. Amy Bee says:

    As we suspected she was pissed off that she couldn’t wear a diamond tiara so she wore a floral one. If Meghan had done this she wouldn’t have been given the benefit of doubt and the press would have bashed her.

  17. Sue says:

    I think the tiara is pretty. It was the Superman capes that put me off.

    • Jais says:

      You know what? I think it’s pretty too but it looks like a fabric tiara. For a coronation for the king of England. It was out of place and kind of a silly costume for the occasion. And an obvious attempt to steal thunder from Kate after Camilla’s petty tiara ban. All the other royal guests followed the ban but Kate didn’t. Although, Camilla and Charles looked like they were in silly costumes too so they all looked silly.

      • Sue says:

        All very silly. Those red white and blue cape costumes look like something I could pick up at Spirit Halloween for $29.99.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      The non tiara is only pretty in an arts & crafts situation with middle schoolers.imo Hard agree that those dumba$$ robes are something you could pick up in a Spirit Halloween store. They are so ugly and nonsensical.imAmericanopinion. They look like the idiots they are. So much for modernizing the monarchy.lol

  18. Interested Gawker says:

    😂😂😂

    O.K. dear, it’s a tiara if you say so.

    That was comedy gold on Catherine’s part and highlighted the worst decision of the coronation, to ban tiaras. That would have extended coverage of the coronation at least an extra week to cover ‘who wore what’ in the serious bling but Cam was to jealous to allow it.

    • Friendly Crow says:

      Honestly – the whole coronation was so badly planned out. It was a huge f you to the entire UK.

      Firstly – Charles didn’t invite the aristocracy. You know. The wealthiest people in his country who are pretty much the only ones deeply invested in keeping hereditary titles and powers in place. Why would he need their support?!? Dear god, the man is thick.

      Secondly – there was non stop whining about bell ringers and needing volunteers etc. The entire coronation should have been about the monarchy giving back to the UK. All hands on deck for months before hand. Non stop visits to charities etc with social media linked to show people where they can find resources in their area and where they can donate to.

      Thirdly – Charles may hate it but people tune in to these sorts of things for the same reasons they tune into the Oscar’s. The clothes and the bling. It would have been so easy to spin all of the European royals showing up in their best looted finery as them paying homage to KC and QCC and to the UK as a whole. Blah blah empire. Blah blah respected. Etc.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Let’s not forget the weird a$$ video KP put out about getting ready for the coronation and then showed up late.

  19. Kittenmom says:

    I think it’s funny that the designer’s presumably young children loved the “tiara” – that should be a sign right there that it was over the top tacky.

    I thought everything about the look was awful that day – the cheap and cheesy headpiece, the horrible choir robes, even Kate’s face. LOL.

  20. Fifee says:

    It reminds me of Napoleons gold laurel leaf crown which speaks volumes in my mind.

  21. kelleybelle says:

    Are real tiaras held together with elastic string? And why has so much time passed that you now have to bring this up?

  22. Jay says:

    Yeah, I think this was a case where going simpler and subtle might have served Kate well – if the leaves/ flowers were reduced by half, it would have made a much nicer effect in my opinion. With the multiple stacked rows of flowers, it starts to look cheap.

    If she wanted to “show up” Camilla, I think rather than competing with the real crown jewels, she might have showed restraint and taste and made her MIL look tacky by comparison. Instead, she spent a ton of money to look like a parody version of the queen.

  23. Monc says:

    I can’t believe that feathered-hair troll is wearing the crown… wtFF?!

  24. VilleRose says:

    I guess I’m the only one who was impressed by the craftmanship of the fabric tiara lol. Some of you are saying you could have done the same with some glue and paper but I am not gifted in the arts, there’s no way I would be able to come up with something remotely resembling what Kate wore on her head for the coronation. I think she should have simplified the design of the fabric tiara though and made it look more like Charlotte’s. It was too much when tiaras had been explicitly banned. I do find it amusing she decided to defy the no tiara rule, whoever it was imposed by and got around it by making a fabric one. However it was very “look at me look at me” considering there were other royal women from other countries and none of them wore any tiaras either.

    • Eurydice says:

      Not the only one, as I posted above. Not only thousands of crystals, but stitched on by hand – incredibly delicate work which would have taken skilled workers hours and hours to do. Maybe people could make something out of craft paper that would look similar in a little photo on their laptops, but it would definitely not look the same in real life.

      • LDMiddx says:

        I am sure it is beautiful close up but I don’t know why something like this would be chosen for a public event when what is needed is an adornment which looks as impressive from a distance as it does close up.

        It was so ridiculously incongruous with everything else – the rest of Kate’s and the others’ ensembles and the real crowns being worn by C&C. The thing just looked cheap by comparison (despite its huge cost to taxpayers – thanks Kate) and so whatever point she was trying to make by wearing it, she herself looked cheap.

      • Eurydice says:

        @LDMiddx – I totally agree that the headpiece made no sense, given what she was wearing – nor did it make sense as an historical reference because it was worn by ladies-in-waiting in the past.

        It just annoys me when people denigrate the work of artisans. I see that a lot – “Oh, I could do that in 10 minutes with a glue gun and some toilet paper.” The answer is “No, you can’t. You need years and years of experience plus hours and hours of patience. And, even then , you probably won’t get paid what you’re worth because people think anybody can do it.”

    • Nic919 says:

      Says a lot about Kate’s style that she made a hand crafted headpiece look cheap.

  25. Henny Penny says:

    That article about William and Kate carrying out some Christmas “coup” and this one redefining that silly art project as a “tiara” lead me to believe that Charles doesn’t have much longer to live and that soon, very soon, we will get to watch the complete undoing of Camilla Parker Bowles. I can’t wait.

  26. Jaded says:

    The coronation really was the beginning of the end of Kannot and Willnot. First, they were late, holding up and upstaging Chuck and Cam’s arrival. Second, Kannot defied the “no tiaras” directive from Cam and wore a tackyass headpiece that looked like it was part of a cheap Halloween costume. Third, she refused to curtsey to Cam. The evil looks Chuck and Willnot exchanged as he pledged his loyalty and kissed his father’s cheek were hilarious. From that day forward there’s been an ever-increasing gap between the two houses. I imagine Chuck is giving Willnot enough rope to hang himself once he shuffles off his mortal coil and number one son takes over to run the monarchy into the ground.

  27. Saucy&Sassy says:

    I have an idea. Why don’t the members of the brf stop trying to stab the backs or one upping the other members and do some work. Geez, these people spend way too much time figuring out ways to dis another family member than they do on any of their engagements. And, get rid of those ridiculous costumes.

  28. bisynaptic says:

    I wonder whether she got permission from KP to call it a tiara?
    BTW, FWIW, a tiara IS a headpiece.

  29. Iheoma Nwakpadolu says:

    The problem is not the ‘tiara’ but the very busy outfit it was worn with. Two lines of the crystal leafs would have been okey and remove the stupid peak!!!

  30. L4Frimaire says:

    The worst thing about that “ tiara” is the astronomical cost.

  31. Lulu says:

    It was a tiara, and now Camilla has publicly said they understand if Kate doesn’t feel up to joining the family for Christmas. Camilla does not forgive or forget.

  32. Dee says:

    The whole outfit looks too busy, costumey and tacky. Kate would’ve made more of a statement if she’d gone with a simple chignon, small pearl earrings and some natural looking makeup. All this cosplay says to me is she and Camzilla are cut from the same petty cloth.

    • kelleybelle says:

      She has never known how to wear jewerlry tastefully or properly, or for the right occasion.

    • Chrissy says:

      LOL! Kate has never done subtle – her hair is her life, she always overdoes the makeup (hoping to hide her bad skin) and “the gaudier the jewelry the better” is her motto (remember the vagina necklace?) She looked very try-hard on that day.

  33. Nerd says:

    People magazine have been real royalists for years now but their uptick in articles about Kate are excessive and annoying. They are so desperate to write about her that they write anything as if it is true and the rest of the world can’t see. Just because the person making it calls it a tiara doesn’t mean it’s a tiara. We knew the moment she stepped out that it was a coat hanger with Hobby Lobby embroidered flowers on it. The obvious metal seen in the top photo makes it look like a school project that would be boxed away only to be found years later. I guess if she was going to convince someone to pay $40,000 for something like this she has to call it a tiara to justify it. Charlotte’s headpiece looks better and more appropriate because it looks like something a child would make and wear for any occasion. Kate looked somewhat ridiculous because it looks childlike and doesn’t go with all of the other ridiculous stuff she has on.

  34. Ilsa says:

    Wow, just realizing the extent to which I’m a trashy basic- I think it’s beautiful and that she looked great.

  35. Mayp says:

    It’s funny that while the article mentions that Kate has never worn a hat by this designer it fails to mention that Carole Middleton stiffed her when she dumped the dress and hat designer days before Kate and William’s wedding.

    Long story short, unbeknownst to the designers, Carol had a rival dress made from another design house and dumped this hat designer, who had completed the hat already, and the dress designer and allegedly did not pay either of them. It was so traumatizing for the dress designer who was dumped that she quit the business, (traumatizing because she got a lot of hate), and this hat designer’s business suffered greatly.

    • tamsin says:

      That’s Trumpian behavior. He is known for not paying. So Carol has a pattern for stiffing suppliers later when Party Pieces went belly-up. Not an upright, honorable family or even a nice one.

      • Mayp says:

        No doubt, @tamsin. It also came out a while ago that the Middleton’s even stiffed Kate and William’s wedding cake maker! I think they thought that they could get away with it, and that providing things for the wedding would be lucrative enough for the suppliers so they wouldn’t complain (lucrative in terms of bolstering their reputations).

        I am also reminded of the clothing designer that supplied Kate with a lot of free clothes during her relationship with William before the wedding. She was upset that she wasn’t invited to the wedding (or asked to design her wedding dress), and KP later lied and said she had been invited (which was easily disproven because KP had released the invitation list), but her having complained came at a great cost. Her, previously flourishing, business went bust as well. You griped against the Middletons at your peril!

  36. QuiteContrary says:

    What is that donut on the shoulder of Kate’s robe? And that massive gold, vaguely star-shaped thing? Liberace would have thought it was too much.

    Who really cares if it’s a tiara or a headpiece? Taxpayers should be annoyed as hell that it cost the price of a car.

  37. Over it says:

    I think Kate tin foil school project was perfect for her . She is tacky always showing her ass and the leafy foil fits right in with her .

  38. yipyip says:

    I don’t care what the stylist says, that headpiece is NOT a tiara.
    It looks cheap and tacky.
    If ya gonna have a flaming, huge, useless, complete waste of money on a Coronation, than do it traditionally.

    Jewelry! Bring out the hoards and hoards of outrageous jewelry of the BRF!
    Diamond, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, ropes of pearls, all the ill gotten Royal jewels. Get them out, give us a show. Not that thing that looks like a craft project.

    Diana famously wore the Spencer tiara, even tho it did give her a pounding headache for the day, and she was a perfect, picture-book Disney princess. IMO. Diana even made that huge pile of fabric fir a wedding dress look good.
    Kate is no Diana, in any way.

  39. vpd4 says:

    It’s ugly.

  40. Cathy says:

    Kate “graceful”! Stomping in and out of rooms at KP is not graceful. Being so late that you arrive after the King who is being crowned is not graceful either.

    This article wasn’t so much about Kate’s tinfoil mess but a promotion for the designer’s “golden crown”, which you can hire… you got that? Did you? You can hire a gold colour version of Kate’s tinfoil mess. But then we don’t do royal adjacent promotions do we? That’s only for the Royal Court of Montecito and Portugal, right?

  41. TN Democrat says:

    I could have homemade something cuter and less cheap looking for $100 (or less). Lort. I don’t understand the sycophant behavior of the press towards Keener. They used to have teeth and call her out on her laziness and wasteful use of tax payer money. She spite spent the equivalent in 40 k US dollars for that cheap looking tacky mess. The press should have put her on blast. If Meghan ever wore anything that cheap looking to spite the King/Queen, the media meltdown would be never-ending.

  42. Pork Belly says:

    At £32,000, they should hire out The Golden Crap for Halloween and such and give the proceeds towards building homes so that Baldilocks has something to show for all that performative yapping about being the one to solve homelessness.

  43. LDMiddx says:

    Rule of thumb: milliners make hats, jewellers make tiaras.

    That really was not a tiara. And it looked so incongruous and ridiculous with those heavy robes she was wearing.

    • Mayp says:

      It was a wannabe tiara.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Thank you @LDMixx. Thought I was confused about millinery’s & jewelers. Apparently, writers of these articles are. Don’t care what anyone says. That whatever on her head was fug. Though, I’ll say, a trick or treater wore something similar tonight with her plastic gown and she looked cute.

  44. Beverley says:

    Wow! That’s a lot of coin to drop on something that gives middle school stage costumes. Why haven’t the British people gone ballistic at this news? Or do they reserve that energy only for the Black duchess?

    I can only imagine the outrage and consternation had Meghan spent the same amount of taxpayers’ money on trite defiance of royal orders.

    • Iolanthe says:

      The Queen had tiaras and crowns of every shape, size and description . So it was petty of the side piece not to allow a head piece to be borrowed . Especially since Kate ended up spending a fortune on a Tiara not Tiara anyway, looking like an extra in Quo Vadis . Charlotte’s looked age appropriate and pretty .

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment