371 thoughts on “Kate Middleton in Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara for Diplomatic Reception”

1. Why would she repeat the same dress?

   1. Camilla repeated a dress she’s already worn multiple times, so it’s not that odd that Kate would repeat a dress here.

      1. It is about time she started re-wearing clothes she already has in her wardrobe considering she reportedly spent nearly hundred thousand pounds on outfits & accessories for the two tours she undertook this year! I dread to think the bill Charles will receive at the end of the year. The red dress is lovely but perhaps the one by McQueen she wore to the Baftas in 2011 would have been more appropriate – it was same design but in a soft lilacy colour.

   2. Considering her spending budget recently am glad that she repeated an outfit. I do think she looks a little odd being in red and the other ladies are in white but not going to complain about a reuse.

      1. I think Kate repeats dresses more than we think. I think new outfits are premiered at engagements where there is a Press presence and repeats dresses at no press events.

         I, for one, am glad Buckingham Palace released it. It’s a lovely photo of all of them. Kate really looks lovely and red is really her color.

         1. Except the first time she wore this dress brand new was at a no press event. Also, I don’t think there are that many no press events to repeat outfits too. I think Kate mostly wears new clothes to events. She has some great clothes too I wish she would wear again.

            1. Why not repeat a dress? Many people will admire this. They’re not film stars on the red carpet being lent dresses by top designers. Respect and like them for it.

            2. She rarely repeats her clothes and is constantly buying unnecessary new dresses/coats for events when she has many options at home she could have worn. So when she actually does repeat something, I think it is a good thing, though I personally don’t respect or like her for it. Instead, I’m thinking thank god she didn’t just waste another grand of Charles money on an outfit she’ll probably never wear again. And since Charles’s money comes from the Duchy, it’s really the state’s money she’s wasting.

               Also, Kate used to accept freebies and discounts as a royal girlfriend, so if wasn’t against the BRF’s protocol as a royal wife, she probably would borrow clothes like celebrities.

            3. Liza, isn’t the Duchy a private estate? How is the income from it state funds? Just wondering.

               NVM, I’ll go do my research lol.

            4. The duchy is state property created by an act of parliament many centuries ago to pay for the heir to the throne.

               To that end they can’t sell it or make substantial changes without hovt approval. They keep the profits made from it, but it doesn’t belong to them.

               Further, the wording in it’s ownership instrument doesn’t name any specific recipient, it only states ‘heir to the throne’ which allows for smooth transtion between heirs and dynasties.

               The minute we abolish the monarchy, it reverts back to the state.

               Charles is now trying to get it reverted to his family as private property.

            5. @Hera, Charles really wants it in private property? Does he know William and Kate will abuse it if that ever were to happen?

            6. Thank you, Herazeus. In researching the Duchy, I’ve found that “ownership” of the Duchy is somewhat contested ground.

            7. Herazeus,

               Thanks for endlessly pointing out that Charles is trying to co-opt land and resources that are *not* his right. It is the peoples’ right and that is one of many reasons why I have come to despise and mistrust the monarchy.

               Even though I have liked Charles especially for the gardening stuff, this is a mendacious attempt to steal from the people, his loyal subjects. I guess I’m done with him, too- that is so low.

            8. Agree with Maven wholeheartedly re. the Duchy issue. Is the co-opting of the Duchy by Charles kept secret from UK citizens? Is this theft by stealth? If not, why oh why are they not jumping up and down about it? Interesting that all manner of silly things make news– how many guests dine each year at BP – but major plans to steal public resources don’t see the light of day. Memo to useless royal ‘journalists’ (using the term loosely to include anyone who has a twitter account): report THIS, you gormless twits.

               I’m with you Maven on Charles’s greed. Disgusting. As if they haven’t been given enough for years.

            9. Lobbit: I’ve noticed that in the last 5years, when you go to online sources such as wikipedia or even the duchy’s own website, what was stated as clear fact is now written with ambigous language designed to obfuscate. You really have to dig further into the duchy’s website before you find the one line that acknowledges that it’s not private property.

               Same thing with the Crown Estates.

               The BRF website has one line as well.

               What am saying is that what was once glaringly and clearly stated at the top is now tiny and in the small print section of these websites.

               Most people don’t read the small print.

               The websites concentrate on advertising the good works or business they are, and their ties to Charles or the Crown.

               All this serves to obfuscate ownership and allows for it to be ‘contested’ when it is not and never has been.

               Sadly, most people will take this new ‘truth’ as fact and soon Charles or another equally wily member of the family will use it to grab the properties for the family.

               When you learn history ( or read it) about the prince of Wales title, one of the first things that you are taught is how the duchy/ crown estates came about and why.

               ….but like all things in education, curricullum has changed and it’s not taught anymore beyond acknowledging POW as heir to the throne.

               The obsfucation people use this lack of knowledge to make the property ‘contested’. And this has only happened in the last 5 years because the true information used to be widely available even if people didn’t bother to know it, and now it is not and suddenly the ownership is ‘contested’.

               Me too Maven. I can’t believe that this property grab or the attempt is not gaining bigger traction in the media.

               Only people who watch the royals know it is happening.

               I swear people say things like ‘well it once belonged to them because it has ‘crown/duchy’ in the title and the family is ‘royal’.

               The fact that the Queen and Charles argued and won their exemption from FOI requests was reported only in the guardian newspaper and only in a little note.

               The guardian was too busy jumping up and down about charles’s spider notes to pay attention to this action in detail even though they were reporting on it.

            10. Herazeus – one of the things that stood out immediately to me about the Duchy’s official website is the language they use to characterize it – “a private estate established in 1337 by King So and So to ensure an income for the Prince of Wales.” I’m paraphrasing, obviously, but that description is verrrry front and forward on the site and the language and its placement is so deliberate – it’s Charles asserting his right to the Duchy, regardless if that “right” has a basis in law. An obfusication, as you said.

   3. + 1

      The reception is huge yet she looks more like a guest than part of the RF even with a Tiara, which she seem like a fraud/undeserving to wear.
      Cannot spends great sums on ill fitted wear for meet greet occasions, this is one and the Holidays receptions that deserve such spending.

      And she is not with HM FO. Until POW has regular grandparents access to his g/kids- middleton is thankful and appreciate the luxuries, sincere as a RF, listens contribute to the people- behave as a member and perform serious duties (OUT from AH forest); wait-y unearned FO is quite justified! A dedicated HRH Princess Henry may receive before The entitled snowflake.

      1. Harry’s future wife will never receive it if Kate doesn’t as they press would lose it.

         1. The Queen decides who gets her order and if Harry’s wife truly excels in royal duties and charities, then she would give the order to her before Kate. The press and sugars are irrelevant in terms of who makes this decision.

   4. To make her stand out for the official pic?

      What gets to me is not the repeat, but that it has been repeated the following year. Even I wouldn’t do that. She didn’t have anything else in her closets, or is this the only big red dress? Everyone else is wearing subdued colours, but hey voila, no one puts Waity in a corner. Reminds me of other times, like the Jubilee sail.

      1. +1

         HM DoC are very regal, Grand and look the part. km dont have any regalness, presence, its as if she tried on a make beleive royal Tiara /jewels and stood in at the end of a RF photo.

2. And why is she wearing diana’s tiara?

   1. Because the Queen lent it to her to wear.

   2. It was never ‘Diana’s tiara’ to begin with

      1. Diana disliked this tiara because it gave her a headache which is why she resorted to borrowing her family tiara instead for many occasions.

   3. It was never “Diana’s” tiara. It has always been owned by the Queen, and she lends it family members. She lent it to Diana back then, and she is lending it to Kate now. Diana owned very few jewels outright. Even the Spencer tiara wasn’t hers, but loaned to her by her brother. The emerald necklace was also a loan from the Queen. The big exception is thelarge sapphire that she wore in a choker. That was a gift to Diana from the Queen Mother, so Diana owned it. I guess W or H own it now. My guess is William will grab it so Kate can wear it, since it matches the engagement ring, which was also Diana’s. But given Kate’s reluctance to wear big jewelry, I bet she rarely wears it.

      1. I wonder about those gorgeous Saudi sapphires that were a wedding gift. Are they now property of the state? If private, could Harry’s wife wear them, or are they earmarked for Kate? They do match big blue.

         1. Yes, those were also owned by Diana outright. I agree that William will likely make a grab for that set too.

         2. I’d say when splitting her private jewels 50/50 as PoW/HM will make sure of as stated in Dianas will. They will probaly give the choker to one and the Saudi to the other, my bet is William will take the choker as it was QM and it is more famous per say.

3. She looks nice but it looks awkward a bit with no royal order. Wearing the same dress can be taken as one of two ways to me, like she’s cost efficient OR just not trying. Hmph.

   1. Eh, Camilla repeats dresses all the time – even to the State Opening of Parliament. At least Kate switched things up and wore a different tiara and earrings than she did last time she wore this dress. Camilla wore the same jewelry she wore the last time she wore this dress – now that’s boring.

      1. I like these earrings much more than what she wore last time. I wish I liked the dress more. She has so many other amazing dresses. But everyone’s taste varies so maybe this is one of *her* favorites.

      2. WoW you really sucking up abit aren’t you?

         1. Being annoyed at Camilla’s lack of switching things up and saying something positive about Kate is “sucking up”? Heaven forbid I say anything positive about Kate. Off to the Tower with me.

            1. Right on, KMR.

      3. The problem is not the repeat, but she repetas the same dress for the same event. I find this so lame and boring such as her hair style. She looks like a woman in her forties or fifties.

         1. This isn’t the same event she wore it to last year. That was a state dinner for China. This is not.

         2. This isn’t the same event. She wore the dress for a state dinner with China last year, not the diplomatic reception.

         3. As a couple people have already said, this is a different event than when Kate first wore this dress. She previously wore it to the State Banquet for the Chinese president (as I said and linked to in my article); this is the diplomatic reception.

            1. My bad. I misread it then. Thanks for clearing it up. Still, she needed an evening gown with a tiara, and the best she could come up with, was this one. When I first saw the picture of them this morning, I thought it was from last year.

            2. Agreed, Anett. I thought it was the same event.

               Still, it was a similar event so perhaps confusing. She wore the dress to both bigtime events.

            3. Wearng the same dress to the same location and another of HM Reception at BP – give the cheap, lacking effort by lazy km – and undignified. Almost as if repeating to the same event.

            4. Camilla wore the same dress to a white tie function at BP not two months ago. Kate’s repeat is from over a year ago. Why is Kate getting all the negativity for repeating a dress to a similar function at the same venue and Camilla isn’t getting any?

            5. KMR, I too am confused about why people are so down on Kate for this look. I think it’s the best she’s looked in a long while. Just a few weeks ago people/the press were ragging on her about her clothing costs, now she repeats a dress, and now she’s getting critiqued for that.

            6. Hasn’t Kate had a problem with eczema? People have noticed that she sports several bandaids, and some suggested she might have eczema. If so, would this be a reason not to wear gloves? I honestly don’t know, just asking.

            7. If it was a Camilla’s site, I eould have written the same. Kate has done it at least twice, repeating the same dress very early, it is not a big deal, just a thought.

               All year round, she wore loads of new outfits, mainly for tours, at home, she plays thrifty. I think this big occassion with the queen would have deserved something else.

   2. You and KMR said it. She looks nice. Not stunning, but nice.

4. I think she looks good. Good that she didn’t wear something new. Though I do agree that it looks a bit odd that she’s the only one without a blue sash. And of couse her red dress makes her stick out. But overall, she looks good. I saw a different picture of her in the car and I thought “omg, she finally put some lipstick on!”

5. Maybe I sound hateful but I’m just not impressed. Looks nice but that’s it

6. A bright red dress when protocol says in the cream/white/gold families, and no gloves which is also required. Kate looks like she wants to stand out on purpose. Look at me! Gah. It bothers me.

   The tiara is lovely but she wears it like a headband. Otherwise she looks fine if a bit awkward, like she doesn’t belong… William looks like he wants to kill everyone, he always looks so angry like he hates the world. Is that just me? The loathing in his eyes… It’s disturbing, in a way?

   Camilla looks great, warm and well-dressed as usual! I love her bling.

   HM looks so frail and tired, so does Philip. He stands up straighter than William. Yeesh.

   1. Ellie, the protocol really says white/cream/gold family and to wear gloves? Oh shoot, I didn’t know that. And here I thought Kate did well. This isn’t the first time that she has broken protocol on the dress code then. Maybe the Queen doesn’t care that much?

      1. I know the gloves are a requirement. I’ve only seen women wearing whites, golds, yadda-yadda; that is, the royal women. Camilla wore a black and white gown last year. I’ve seen Anne and Alexandra at this event as well and they were in cream gowns with gloves.

         Pics I’ve found of Diana, she’s in white.

         1. Hmm, that’s interesting. Kate’s dress last year was a ice blue/whitish dress. Thanks Ellie. I am shocked the Queen doesn’t require her to wear gloves then. I wonder if she wore red then to stand out due to the fact she doesn’t have the order? Obviously, I am just assuming, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

         2. I wonder if this is a good time to recycle Opening of Parliament gowns, which are white and cream, since no press photos are usually taken?

      2. I don’t think that’s the official protocol, just convention since the Queen has done that for years. Same with the State Banquet – it’s not official protocol to wear white, just the convention now.

         1. I think the White/cream is because of the sash. It means that no matter whose country you wear, it doesn’t clash with the dress. The most famous example of this is Diana, when on a state visit to the Natherlands they surprised her with the Dutch order, which I think was orange….Diana was wearing a pink gown, they clashed horribly!
            I guess because Kate doesn’t yet have anything, she can wear whatever colour she likes.

            1. That’s true for state banquets, but women’s court dress is white.

      3. William looks like he’d really like to ditch the protocol as well. He looks like he’s embarrassed to be caught in those knee britches, the garter and shoes with bows.

         So Kate’s the only one without any awards or badges of honor to wear? And what exactly are the riband and star that everyone but Kate has?

         1. PW looks awful…his suit isn’t tailored properly or something. Love the tiaras.

            1. yes, the trousers seem ill-fitting.

         2. The Riband is the sash over the body, and the Star is the star brooch on the left torso.

            1. Thanks! But do these have to be awarded or earned, like the Lesser George or the family order, and that’s why Kate doesn’t wear them?

            2. The Queen can award these orders at her will, but usually she only does so when someone has earned them (she is actually quite stingy with them, as opposed to other monarchs who are more open to awarding them out). Philip and Charles were awarded their Garter and Thistle orders due to their status as Consort and Prince of Wales, and William earned his Garter and Thistle orders mostly due to his status as heir to the Prince of Wales, but everyone else had to really earn them. Anne, Andrew, and Edward didn’t receive their Orders of the Garter until they were in their 40s after years of working full time for the firm. Both Sophie and Camilla had to wait several years of working full time to receive the Royal Victorian Order. Harry received a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (a lesser form of the order) in 2015 for services to HM. Diana actually never received the Royal Victorian Order or any other higher order – the only order she received was the Royal Family Order.

               Kate has not received any orders from HM (because clearly HM thinks Kate has not earned any) which is why she does not wear any.

            3. @KMR Good! I’m glad The Queen doesn’t hand them out like its a toy.

            4. Thank you for the explanation. Good for Queen Elizabeth to be stingy in awarding those honors and insisting that they be earned.

            5. An I right in thinking that Fergie was the only Royal wife who never was given an order? I always find that quite strange given how much HM was supposed to adore her and how hard Fergie worked in the first years of her marriage. Her engagement totals were way ahead of Diana’s as she had so much time to fill when PA was away with the Navy. I wonder if HM knew then what we were all later to find out……that Fergie was never going to fall into the Royal way of life? Xx

            6. Fergie’s totals were not way above Diana’s, even when Andrew was away at sea. She was given the original “Duchess of Dolittle” and “Her Royal Idleness” monikers in 1989 for her low number of engagements.

               She did 55 in 1988, half of what the Queen Mum did in the same year. Granted, she was expecting Beatrice that year, but only 55 engagements? Sophie did over 200 when she was expecting Louise (and nearly died during delivery).

               The marriage blew apart publicly before the 5 year mark, the point at which HM usually awards the family order.

   2. I agree with you on everything. Tiara looks like a hairband worn this way and if she is going to wear red, she could have at least worn gloves. The guys had to wear breeches, so if we are going to do court protocol then she needs to wear gloves.

      William looks so crabby in the picture.., maybe he needs a valet to help him wear breeches that fit better. He is a tall guy and it should work on him… Colin Firth is almost as tall and he pulls breeches off quite well.

      1. William in breeches is the reason for Kate’s smile! 🙂

         1. Lol

      2. Colin Firth… be still, my beating heart! William looks knock-kneed in the photo but it’s perhaps the angle of the photo. He should be able to carry off the look but his discomfort/embarrassment won’t let him!

   3. Wow, I had no idea about the protocol of women wearing white or cream, so I am wondering why Kate chose red. I thought the photo of her in the car showed a radiant and lovely Kate. The tiara looked loverly in that photo. In the other ones — perhaps because they were not close-ups, I found the tiara not so va va voom. On Diana, it always looked great.

      While the red dress was pretty, it didn’t wow me — except by its color. I give Kate credit for that radiant look in the car. And, I thought Camilla looked fabulous and HM is sadly, showing her age, but still looked so majestic.

      William’s trousers? Yikes!

7. I think Kate looks nice but I also think she looks very odd woman out. Only one in red, other two in white, no gloves no sash…I thought they coordinated outfits before hand?
   Also when the Queen loans out jewelry is it for a duration? She seems to be wearing the same loaner jewels recently, not that I’m complaining, I’m actually happy to see her in some nice sparkles for a change!
   I loved camillas’s dress the last time she wore it and I still think it’s beautiful this time around!
   Love the Queen’s outfit too plus can’t go wrong with sapphires =)

   1. Sarah, I think she looks odd. I never liked that red dress. To me she stands out not in a good way.

      There’s always something so off about her, as if she didn’t get the memo about the gloves or the color of the dress that the royals will be wearing. She coordinates to the point of blending in with her mother and sister at big events so I don’t understand why she can never look like she doesn’t fit in with the royals.

      And her body language screams tension, giving her a cut out doll appearance. She’s with W so may be that’s the reason.

      1. +100
         …hence no RFO. KM only around the BRF for the glossy PR events and the status of next to or with HM BRF perks otherwise, the middleton common snobbish decades behavior is in full force. After five years km carol behaves as if km has not achieve their goal of the climb to royal-ty.

         Until POW has access to his grandkids, lazy snowflake perform duties/works and serve TQ BRF she is undeserving of HM FO.

         1. @Dolittle, what would be funny is if Harry future wife gets one before Kate haha.

8. I love that they released a photo. It is so nice because it still keeps the reception private, but at the same time lets the public see the royals on such a fancy night! It is nice being let into their world on this annual event. I hope they do it again :). It would be so interesting to actually attend.

   I think all the women look beautiful tonight. I was not a fan of Kate’s dress last time, however, after actually seeing it better this time makes me like it. I also really like how her hair was done tonight. No hair was covering her face and I like how it was wrapped over the ends of the tiara. She looks very pretty tonight and regal! I just wish she would not CC, she is the only one doing it in the photo, lol.

   1. Maybe they released a photo to distract from Harry shenanigans =)

      1. What shenanigans? His tour was rather successful, he was back at work a few days later and in the meantime he visited the woman he is in love with.

         1. Apparently he broke protocol by not going home before traveling to see her. Andrew used to head off on fun trips after tours or engagements and so they put a rule in place that official travel couldn’t be combined with personal travel. And the tax payers are also paying for protection officers to be with him.

            1. He has protection officers with him wherever he is. Harry, because of his service in Afghanistan, is a major target.

               All the senior royals have protection all the time.

            2. I think you will find the protection officers were paid for by the Canadian government.

            3. Marion Cole, actually Harry’s RPOs are always paid for by the British taxpayer no matter where he is, but the extra police protection required when he goes to Toronto is paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

            4. I only included the bit about the officers per the Telegraph article.

         2. Protocol be damned – it’s terribly romantic when you put it that way!

            1. Romantic? More like entitled and wanting a shag.

            2. right, heated and selfish and doesn’t give a damn – romantic, like I said.

            3. Asking others to lie, disregarding taxpayers who can ill-afford to subsidise the little twat might be romantic to some… or just a spoiled douche. You say potatoes… He could kept the romance in his pants for a couple of days, surely.

            4. I think everyone has a different definition of what they consider romantic.

            5. Ok, Jen. He’s a spoiled douchey twat – but a romantic one! Swoon!

               Agreed, katemiddletonreview. 🙂

            6. Jen,

               Agreed. This is an adolescent Harlequin version of ‘romance’. He’s behaving like a teenager.

         3. Couldn’t agree more!

   2. ”I just wish she would not CC, she is the only one doing it in the photo, lol.”

      Besides the red dress, the CC makes her look out of place. I never understand why she must press her purses to her crotch no matter the outfit. It looks even more peculiar when the other women around her stand with arms at their sides (at ease). To my eye, the red dress makes her look distanced and separated from the rest of the people in the photo including her husband.

9. oops, double post

10. This tiara has an interesting history:

    http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2015/12/tiara-thursday-on-wednesday-cambridge.html

    and was Diana’s only in that the Queen lent it to her. It is tradtionally worn by the Princess of Wales, but of course Camilla will never be seen in it.

    1. The only Princess of Wales to ever wear it was Diana and it’s been worn by the Queen and Queen Mary so I’m not sure about this tiara being a Princess of Wales tradition.

       1. You are absolutely right.

11. Btw I can’t help but wonder if it makes Kate feel awkward and a bit of an outsider being the only one without a sash. I would be a bit self-conscious. I am surprised the Queen hasn’t caved yet and given her the order. I thought we would see it this year.

    1. Eh, both Camilla and Sophie were doing these white tie events before they received any orders. And Diana never received any orders from HM apart from the RFO so no sashes for Diana in all those years.

       1. You’re so knowledgeable. Thanks for this. I wonder how HM decides to confer the order…

       2. Kate has been doing these white tie events for a few years now too. Where as Camilla received it after 2 years and Sophie after 5 years. Kate is coming up on 6 and everyone around her has one. So, after awhile, even though she has been going to engagements like this for awhile, I would think she would get a bit self-conscious (especially since she is self-conscious by nature). But come to think of it, I wonder if the Queen only gives them to the generation directly below. It might just be she does it by generation and Charles will be the one to give it to Kate. Just a thought. I don’t know-it doesn’t really matter-it’s just interesting.

          1. @Overit Nah. I think The Queen would have given her one if she worked hard but she doesn’t.

          2. I don’t think HM will be too conerned if Kate feels embarrassed not to have one…..she should be embarrassed that the Royal pensioners are working much harder then she is.

             1. As I mentioned in the previous post, being allowed to borrow the Queen’s jewelleries: earrings, bracelet,brooches, necklace, tiaras, could never make up for not being given the Royal Family Order. Her lack of dedication to royal duties means she’ll never get one. It’s as simple as that.

             2. Maybe HM feels that anyone unembarrassed to frolic about in the nude on a balcony (rooftop?) would be equally comfortable without honors.

                And Kate does look uncomfortable in big bling. Maybe she would feel awkward in orders (no shade).

          3. graymatters,

             “Maybe HM feels that anyone unembarrassed to frolic about in the nude on a balcony (rooftop?) would be equally comfortable without honors.

             I love your wit. Of course, it’s not really shade. LOL

12. Red is her stand out color, remember the passing out of William and her red coat. Her hair does look better but the tiara has no sparkle on her. Kate has no sparkle in her personality and it shows. Wonder how C&C feel about the Cambridge tiara.

    1. I saw side by side pics of Diana and Kate wearing the same Tiara but Diana stands out more and is just so magnetic and alluring to look at. She has elegance and regal and a larger than life aura about her. So hard to explain. We need another Diana. Hopefully Harry finds one.

    2. I’m not a huge supporter of Kate’s but I think the placement and how she wears the tiara catches the light different than the way Diana wore it. Diamonds are diamonds and are going to sparkle regardless of who’s wearing it.

       1. Kate is wearing the tiara like a headband so it’s not sitting as high on her head. Camilla wears the hell out of her tiaras and looks great in that photo

          1. It’s so irritating that she continues to wear her tiaras as headbands.

             The CLK tiara is actually a big tiara and would look amazing worn properly.

             1. I googled images of this CLK tiara, and Diana often wore it like a headband. The Queen too. The giveaway is the angle of side pieces (down toward the ear instead of toward the back of the head) and the pearls that hang out of their arches. The only one who wore it straight on her head, like a crown, was Queen Mary. And the tiara looked huge on her. She must have been a petite woman.

             2. I disagree, JET Texas,

                Just checked those same images. Diana often wore it forward, like the Queen and Queen Mum,not like a headband.

                Admittedly, Queen Mary looks to rock it as a tiara the best, but then, you know, she had those pearls sitting on top which scream ‘ major tiara’.

             3. Maven, I was looking at the pearls on the side, which are falling out of place on everyone, except for Queen Mary, because they wear the tiara tilted up. But you are correct in that Diana and the Queen wear the tiara closer to their face, and Kate wears it farther back on the head.

             4. Jet Texas is right, Queen Mary always wore the CLK tiara upright with the front at a 90 degree angle to the face (as tiaras were traditionally worn then) so the ends of the tiara rested on the top of the head rather than behind the ears. Diana tended to wear it like a headband as well where the front of the tiara was a 45 degree angle to the face and the ends were behind the ears. The CLK is big heavy tiara and wearing it more like a headband makes it seem smaller. While I’ve never seen a photo of the current Queen wearing it, I imagine she wore it somewhere in between (as she normally wears tiaras) particularly since she is a small woman.

                Queen Mary was 1.7m tall and voluptuous; So she wasn’t a small woman by any means which is why bigger tiaras such as the Delhi Durbar circlet (which is huge!) and The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara could be worn traditionally and look proportionate but dwarfed others if wore appropriately. (Look at the photos of Camilla wearing the Delhi Durbar for a difference…)

       2. Sarah. I respectfully disagree. The person needs to bring his or her own inner vibrancy to best show to advantage beautiful jewels. I’ve heard jewel experts say this. Thay’s why Diana with her gorgeous eyes and smile looked so amazing in the tiara and KM looks rather dull in comparison, tiara placement notwithstanding.

          1. I agree. In those side-by-side photos, I look at Diana’s face, because she usually was smiling brightly or looking mischievous. Her face communicated emotion perfectly. When I look at Kate’s photo, I look at the tiara, because Kate’s expression is neutral.

          2. agree. With dark hair I should think tiaras would stand out but on Miss Kate they do not. On the Swedish ladies the tiaras pop, even the poor, disliked cut steel ( which I secretly like a lot).

          3. +1

          4. +1000

          5. I agree that Kate has no sparkle and her eyes have looked dead for a while too but if she positioned the tiara better/correctly, it would hit the light better and let the diamonds glitter. the radiant look might stop at the hairline but they’d still sparkle =)

             1. This makes me think of Tyra Banks saying you need to “smize” (smile with your eyes) on ANTM. Sometimes I wonder if Kate has resting bitch face and hasn’t figured out (or doesn’t want to) figure out to “smize”.

             2. Miss K

                I don’t thing she has resting bitch face. I think she has a resting empty face, or a face full of ennui, when she’s not ‘on’.

       3. I agree. I think the tiara is lovely – my favorite of the three. I’ve seen other royals wear their tiaras closer to the forehead. Maybe it’s her preference.

13. So do you think The Queen will ever give Kate the Royal Order? I personally think she should not receive one until she proves to The Queen and the public she’s a hard worker.

    1. I almost think that Kate won’t get one, but will get it from Charles. Unless she really changes her ways immensely in the coming year, it’s going to be more of the same from her. William has kind of surprised me with the work he’s been doing lately but then the cynical side kicks in and says he’s just upping his numbers for the year.

       I keep hoping and hoping they’ll turn it around and step up. Guess I’ll be doing that when the next year rolls in. I’m tired of feeling let down by these two. And HM probably feels that way about Kate or she would have given her the darned thing by now. At least HM has her standards set on some things and doesn’t bend.

       ETA: Completely different topic, but do Kate’s teeth look bigger?

       1. Lisa, I thought the same thing about her teeth lol. In that last photo her teeth definitely look larger than they ever have before. She just looks so very different.

       2. @Lisa, at least we all know how The Queen really feels about Kate lack of work ethic. Yeah its obvious she will get one from Charles. What would even be more pathetic is if Harry’s future wife receives one before Kate does.

          1. Do we? If we are true to ourself we can only guess. The Queen earned a lot of resepect over the last ten years but there have always been times when the public complaint about how she interpreted her role, how distant she was, how outdated monarchy is… She did not start out with the amount of charities when she was crown princess. She became Queen at young age ( and I am truly sory for her loosing her father and taking on that role so early) and built up the amount of outings over the course of the years. We admire her for the work she does now and in retropesctive. But she was not at all the public darling she is now for the most time of her reign. We have no idea if she is fine with both of them doing almost nothing. She did not give Kate the order because maybe at this point she does not deserve it but this must not mean that it is not totally ok that she does not deserve right now.

             1. The Queen is master of the public gesture. If Kate is not being given that family order after 5yrs, it signals what she thinks of her work record.

                She has given William orders that signify his status, but she has not given him any personal orders like she has Harry who has the Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian order for his work in the UK and abroad.

             2. @Herazeus, do you think The Queen thinks William and Kate will be good for the monarchy after she passes?

             3. Kitty: i am not telepathic so i can’t divine what she thinks of their stewardship of the monarchy.

                What i do see is that she has gone out of her way this year to make sure thry are seen with her and are the highlight of documentaries about her.

                That indicates that she wants to publicly show her support.

             4. @Herazeus because we know the public is still not as supportive of them like they were in the beginning.

       3. Omigosh! I saw the close ups and it looked like her teeth had grown again! No wonder she spends so much private time- she’s busy tinkering with her looks.

          1. Since getting the veneers installed her face looks out of proportion because of the contrasting thin non-existent lips. When I look at her younger photos pre-veneers, I think she had a pretty smile.

             1. I think she keeps changing the size of the veneers?

    2. Does anyone think KM even cares if she gets the royal order? I’ll bet Carole does, but KM still doesn’t seem to have any sense of what it means to be royal. I don’t think she even cares about it. She has W and a big house and barely does anything.

14. I feel like the picture is cropped strangely. The people are the focus, yet they are so small. The paintings in the back, if they are supposed to have been included, could have been the top of the photo.

    A pp mentioned how Kate wears the tiara like a headband. I am not sure why, but I don’t like that. But she does look very pretty here.

    1. I could crop the HD photo and update the post if you want.

       1. No, not necessary. Just thought as an official pic it would have been more centered maybe? Thanks!!!!

    2. After your comment I went back to look at the pics and on a completely superficial note, all I could see are Kate’s wonky eyebrows in the 2nd pic!!
       Hahaha

       1. That’s all I could see too!

          1. Once you’ve seen them they can’t be unseen!

15. I quite like Kate’s dress. I think she looks lovely. I’m not fussed about any breaches in…sartorial protocol lol.

    Idk what it is but Camilla just seems like such a good egg to me. I love her smile.

    1. Lobbit, I agree with you regarding Camilla — her smiles seem so genuine, and she seems very approachable. I am happy that she and Charles are together. It is obvious that they love each other and enjoy being together.

       And she knows how to rock a tiara!

       1. I agree with both of you. Camilla looks fantastic, and she and Charles seem to be very happy together.

          1. Every time Camilla wears bling, my heart stops. That Boucheron tiara? Not easy to carry off- it is huge, with many, many happy sparklers. On her it’s perfect. Wowza!

          2. Really, Camilla looks more attractive than KM on several levels. Her self confidence, hair, smile, comportment.

    2. Agreed. I’ve like Camilla for a long time. And she has the hair to pull off those huge tiaras.

       1. I’ve only recently warmed to her – I was mostly indifferent to her before. She just radiates warmth and good humor. And I agree about the hair: While I like Kate’s borrowed tiara the most, I think Camilla wears her tiara the best. She looks great.

16. I think this may be the first time I’d rather discuss men’s fashion instead of the women’s fashion! Does anyone know the history behind the breeches? Why do they wear them. I had no idea that white tie even includes the breeches! Every time I’ve seen white tie it’s been traditional trousers.

    Also William’s suit looks like it isn’t tailored very well. It looks liked he took traditional trousers and tucked them into his socks.

    1. It’s British court dress. Here’s a Wiki article about it with the history! There’s also a link to the Windsor garb, the coats C&W&H etc wore at the 90th birthday celebration thingy too.

       1. Hopefully in William’s time, he’ll have knee breeches abolished as a form of court dress for diplomatic receptions, et al! An egregious anachronism in the 21st century. It make them looks so out of touch with their people and the modern world. No wonder he looks embarrassed.
          In regard to gloves, on many occasions, don’t know about this particular reception, Diana didn’t wear gloves, even though Sarah Ferguson – and of course the senior royal women, did. At the time she was often admired for this because people believed, probably rightly so, that she liked to actually make skin contact when shaking hands with people at receptions, on walkabout etc. It was believed to be a fresh modern approach showing her warmth and wish to be close to the people. There’s really something in that. Perhaps Kate has been influenced by Diana’s preference.

          1. Kate barely touches or hugs people when she attends events so the lack of gloves is just ignorance of protocol and not anything more. She is not Diana in any way.

    2. I am interested in the mens’ clothes too. Their shoes with the bows are killing me.

       And if one did not know better, one would think they are standing in The Donald’s living room. sniggers

       1. The opera pumps with bows are pretty common white tie and black tie attire for men. Not weird like the breeches, haha.

          1. The Met Gala 2015 had a white tie theme, and only Benedict Cumberbatch nailed the look sans breeches.

             For a bunch of fame thirsty people, you’d think they would all realise that white tie is uber glamorous rather than fashion eccentric.

             That said, the Asian actresses who were invited nailed the look. Pity western media didn’t spotlight them.
             https://www.dramafever.com/st/news/images/Fan_2015_Met_Gala.jpg

             http://www.fashionwaltz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/0.0.jpg

             1. I used to love the met galas fashion. So many of them don’t dress to the theme any more and just where whatevs. I think 2015 was the heavy on the cutout/nude sheath look.
                Wan’t the actual theme actually Chinese based?

17. I’m not a fan of the dress, but I thought Kate looked lovely. I think this is the first time she looked really regal with the outfit+tiara combo. I think its also helped by the hairstyle. In the close up photo, she looks very fresh, and I’m glad they’ve toned down the eye makeup. But I do think the Halo Tiara is better suited for her than this one.

    1. I also thought her make up looked better than usual. I think she looks quite pretty with the lighter eye look.

    2. I agree Everlid.
       All three royal ladies look lovely. Camilla especially, looks radiant.

18. I want to like Kate’s look tonight but I can’t get over the odd placement of the tiara and the weird style of the top of her dress (especially the sleeves). I love the bottom half of the dress though, it flows out beautifully. I wish the top half was made of a similar material instead. And of course the CLK is a gorgeous tiara, but I think it looked better on Kate last year with her side bangs or maybe it just looks better with more hair in front.

    1. Also, I feel like the CLK is a tiara that one could pull off wearing with their hair down. But I’m thinking generally, not specifically for Kate.

    2. This is the second time I’ve seen a photo of Kate in ‘that’ tiara and nothing has changed. The tiara wears her. Since I have seen so many photos of her husband’s mother wearing that piece, I don’t like seeing her wear it. There should have been more time before it was worn. The blue ring was enough for now. There are other tiaras in the royal collection that she could have worn. I don’t understand why her husband would want her to wear it.

       I inherited some jewelry and two of my relatives told me that certain relatives would be unhappy if I wore the jewelry to events that they attended because the pieces were ones they identified with the original owner. I never wore it around those relatives. But I did wear it with friends and other relatives.

       1. It’s been almost 20 years since Diana died, and about 25 since she last wore this tiara. How much more time should it have stayed in the vault?

          1. I always laugh when Diana fans object to this tiara when the woman herself disliked it so much and complained that it gave her headaches.

             That’s why she wore her family tiara so much.

             1. I personally don’t care what Diana thought of it. For many, even people who are not Diana fans (like me- but I do appreciate the good stuff)) there’s an emotional association.

                I love the Spencer tiara most of all- it’s absolutely lovely.

                Many people remember Diana with some emotion. This is not a bad thing. Not laughable. Considering Diana was a hard worker and it’s sitting on the head of this undeserving air headed wastrel makes it that much more offensive. It’s because it sits on Dolittle’s head that I hate it.

                I think they should have skipped Dolittle and waited for the next generation. I also think it’s Willy who willfully insisted on immediate entitlement, to evoke Diana and to anoint his wife as worthy successor (without the work), just like he did with the Ring of Doom. Willy is totally tone deaf, and both said items come off as a major clang to me.

             2. No one in the public remembers Diana with more emotion or sentiment than the children she left behind. It’s perfectly natural and right that William would want to share his mother’s ring and even the tiara she wore with his wife. I don’t think merit has a thing to do with it.

             3. Lobbit,

                Have you seen how Willy treats his wife?

                Being dismissive of others’ feelings is
                just plain nasty tone policing, a fallacious argument set up to discredit someone’s POV and distract from the point. Sly ad hominem, but ad hominem nonetheless. Major fail.

             4. Ad hominem? OK, I’ll rephrase:

                While I understand and sympathize with those that feel an emotional attachment to Diana and the jewelry and tokens associated with her, I would argue that William is deeply attached to his mother’s memory as well – perhaps more so than any member of the public ever could be. And that’s why, in my humble opinion, it is fitting and perfectly right that he would share tangible aspects of his mother’s memory with his wife. I would say that sharing these tokens is a sentimental gesture that has nothing to do with merit.

             5. Lobbit,

                You make it sound like Willy has had a great love for Kate. It is not evident. So everything that follows, like sentiment, makes no sense. Especially given his behaviour towards her over the years.

                Meanwhile, positing that he’s more attached to her memory than any member of the public still stands as fallacious. That is beside the point and still dismissive..

             6. Done. For you to label perfectly civil disagreement as ad hominem attack is intellectually disingenuous – especially when I took the time to rephrase my earlier comments to assuage your hurt feelings. My entire point – literally the only reason why I replied to you at all is to address your interpretation of Will gifting his mother’s jewelry to his wife. You said that you are offended by Will’s gesture, and that Kate is undeserving of it. I am not dismissive of your feelings on the subject; I am entirely contemptuous of them. Idgaf about the contours of wills marriage – I am talking about the bond between mother and child here. The fact is that, regardless of how you feel about Will, you cannot deny that he has a far deeper emotional investment in his mothers legacy than any fan could. That alone gives him the right to gift the tangible effects of that legacy to his wife. Your notions of merit are meaningless. The ring was his mothers and he came into possession of it when she died. He in turn gave it to his wife. Heirlooms happen. The end.

             7. @ Lobbit: I disagree with you slightly since the tiara is not William’s to give. It’s the Queen’s and she can lend it to whomever she wants. The Queen lent it to Kate, so why shouldn’t Kate wear it? It’s been 20 years since Diana died and 25 since she last wore it, I think that’s enough time.

                @ Maven: I’ve read Lobbit’s comments several times and I don’t read them as ad hominem attacks. Lobbit is simply saying that William would naturally have more of an attachment to his mother’s things than anyone else because she was his mother, and because of this he may want to gift his wife his mother’s jewelry as a way to remember his mother. It really has nothing to do with Kate, but rather William’s memory of Diana. He would gift his mother’s jewelry to his wife no matter whom he married, because it’s not about the wife but about his mother. Stating that is not an ad hominem attack on anyone.

             8. Oh, Maven, I love the Spencer tiara, too! On Diana’s wedding day, she looked like a true Princess. That tiara is surely my fave of the British ones. Although, a few of Cam’s wow me, too.
                I know the tiara belongs in the Spencer Family, but I wonder if any of the women/girls in the present/future lives of William and Harry would ever have the chance to wear it. It, like Diana’s sapphire ring, would make one think of her, though. As if, “only Diana” could wear it and should.” Wrong, but true to many.

                Gosh, Diana had such style!

             9. Katemiddletonreview, I agree. 25 years is more than enough time.

             10. Jenny: Family tiara rules are that only the daughters/siblings or in-laws of the title holder can use the family tiaras.

                 The family tiaras belong to the title holder and their nuclear family.

                 That means Diana could wear the Spencer tiara, but it is not available to William/Harry’s wives or daughters because they are not Spencers.

                 Similarly if Diana had given birth to a daughter, she would not use the Spencer tiara because she would not be a Spencer, she would be a a Windsor.

                 For similar reasons the Spencers can not borrow any tiaras owned by William or Harry despite their mother being a Spencer.

          2. IMO, it’s not so much that the tiara is “Diana’s,” but that she defined how amazing it can look, so any woman who wears it now will be compared. That’s a very tough bar. Diana seemed to radiate her happiness and love for Charles, whereas Kate comes off as posing–it’s flat, while Diana’s pictures just jumped out.

             Again, that is not Kate’s fault that she doesn’t have the magnetic quality that Diana was blessed with, but if BRF thinks plunking the CLK on her head is going to make her a quasi-Diana popularity figure, it doesn’t work. There seems to be an effort, largely by media for sales but BRF does to continue popularity, to manipulate the public using Diana’s memory. People don’t forget how disrespectfully Diana was treated in life and death, so it’s a tough sell, especially when her son is too lazy to read his briefings and won’t engage the public half the time. If W&K walked around in Diana-masks it would be more honest. Kate can totally wear the CLK, it just may be a pretty tiara that’s kind of a shoulder shrug rather than grabbing people’s attention.

             I’m personally glad that the next generations are going to have to stand or fall on their own worth rather than riding HM, or Diana’s coattails. If the monarchy survives, that’s that way it should be–on real effort rather than a memory.

             1. Let me clarify my original point.

                I understand 100% how good Diana looked in her jewels etc

                However, when those jewels are bequeathed to Kate there are several reactions.

                One of those reactions seems to be that Diane so loved those jewels that an undeserving person like Kate ( or anyone else) should not wear them.

                In the case of this tiara, that reaction makes me laugh because of the disconnect or is it amnesia or lack of information about Diana’s own feelings toward this tiara.

                I sincerely doubt Diana would care what happened to it because she strongly disliked it and never hid that fact.

                Further, before it landed on Diana’s head, it had been languishing in the vaults since the 1950s which indicates that the Queen also disliked this tiara.

                Whilst William might think he is bestowing a beloved tiara family heirloom on Kate from HM/diana, it seems he is sorely mistaken because neither woman cared for it.

                That is the basis of my amusement.

                Where the ring of doom is concerned, my objection to Kate wearing it is borne from the fact that it symbolises an unhappy, toxic marriage and wasn’t given out of love to the original owner. I’m superstitious about jewellery and if it were me, i’d never accept such a ring. I wish that Kate had insisted upon the same and received a brand new ring or a ring without such toxicity.

             2. @Herazaus, kind of makes me happy Harry Didn’t keep the ring or give it to his future wife. Harry should give his future wife an aquamarine and diamond ring. Aquamarines are so underrated and its such a pretty blue color.

             3. @ Herazeus,

                I agree in full. Every time Kate wears the tiara, I would argue that she gets more negative than positive; even here, she doesn’t look bad but why conjure up any comparisons to Diana? Kate really needs to create her own connection (if possible) with the public while defining her post-marriage identity and the worst thing she does is flash the ring constantly, closely followed by SWF Diana outfit choices to events.

                I think the public still has a lot of unresolved issues with Diana’s treatment, continued after her death by the BRF, and twenty years on, it’s not even close to over. That doesn’t mean that DIana didn’t create some of her own problems, but I personally was disgusted that they didn’t protect her more even if she didn’t want it. And what happened after she died was a disgrace until HM finally got it together. It’s just the way it is–HM &DoC can dismiss it, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be gone. So fine, put the CLK on permanent display and have Kate wear others if she does. She should wear the Oriental Circlet since Kate looks good in red (like HM will let that out-hah!). Or keep her with the Lotus and Halo. This is really about the public perception and not Diana because you’re right, she probably wouldn’t care. I really don’t think the public by and large feel Kate is worth what she costs to be a “Princess of the Realm” and I largely agree with them.

             4. I think that’s where part of the problem lies. People are going to compare Kate to Diana no matter what. Everyone loved Diana and it wouldn’t matter whether it was Kate or another girl. Whoever Will’s bride is would be compared to Diana.

                Kate perpetuates the problem by copying Diana’s fashion choices. Every outfit she wears, there’s a similar outfit that Diana wore. Same with every piece of jewelry she wears. My gut says she does it to purposely draw the comparisons to Diana. She’s probably hoping that by invoking a similar image to Diana, some of Diana’s magic will rub off onto her. Only problem is, the comparisons show how lacking Kate really is.

                As for the public and their unresolved issues with Diana’s treatment. Kate isn’t dumb. Well, at least Carole isn’t. She’s calculating enough to use that to her advantage. Diana made it clear that the BRF didn’t take care of her. Will hates his family because of that. By constantly telling everyone that the BRF takes care of her, she knows that Will won’t go away and the family will continue to take care of her so as not to piss Will off. And if the BRF decides to do otherwise, they look like the mean ones.

             5. I appreciate the clarification, Herazeus. It all makes a lot of sense.
                I, too, believe the ring is bad news. Imagine if Diana’s ring had been an opal- the superstition is they bring ill fortune, and lose their lustre when their owner dies.

19. Would LOVE to know about the portraits on the walls if anyone has info.

    1. Me too! Anybody shed some light on that?

    2. Emperor Frederick and his wife, Victoria, aka Queen Victoria’s Vicky. 🙂 They were a great love story that ended tragically. Both died horrific deaths of cancer, and Vicky was very, very alone in Germany; only 16 when she got married to her ‘Fritz’.

       1. Thank you for sharing.

    3. Friedrich III, King of Prussia and Emperor of Germany + his wife Victoria (daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha)
       They were the parents of the last German Emperor Wilhelm II

20. Well, Camilla takes the cake here- She looks like a million bucks!

    I think someone said something naughty under their breath, methinks the DoE, and William is trying not to laugh. I bet he made fun of Will’s bunchy breeches. That guy has nothing but trouble finding a pair of trousers that fit properly, what I can’t figure out is with all his time and resources, why??

21. Someone suggested on another site that she wears the Queen’s bracelet instead of the royal family order due to the ivory thing seeing how we only seen that bracelet during tie events, personally they seem to be grasping for straws.

    All I know is the Queen is stingy with RFOs

    Personally, I think kate looks nice and I don’t mind that she’s wearing the CLK tiara, more than enough respectable time has passed since lady Diana has died, it’s not like the tiara belonged to her it was loaned by the Queen
    Though I sill think she could have attended her charity events instead of canceling

    1. I agree with you. I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Kate would only wear the Queen’s wedding gift bracelet at a function which called for that type of bling, which are white tie functions. Hence why she would only wear it to white tie functions.

       1. People giving excuses as to why Kate has no orders are kind of funny. Kate hasn’t earned it, period.

          It’s not like Kate as a lot of bling to herself so HM loaning things out isn’t odd at all. Kate’s taste is Kiki McDonough, not real gorgeous jewels.

    2. I don’t interpret the Queen loaning Kate her engagement bracelet as the Queen really wants to give Kate the RFO but has not over the ivory issue, but I do interpret the Queen loaning Kate her engagement bracelet means that she has good feelings towards Kate.

       1. Are you sure about that?

          1. I am as sure about it as anyone other than Queen Elizabeth II can be.

22. Palace is getting nervous. They want to reinforce the idea of William and Kate as the future king and queen. I think that’s why they release a picture like this.

    1. That’s been evident since the ‘workshy’ headlines earlier this year.

       Since then, WK have been placed front and centre near HM at royal events, documentaries about the royals, Balmoral pap strolls with HM etc.

       HM is covering them with her mantle to dispel any negative perceptions and to give them gravitas and positive public image.

       1. Good luck with that (on some fronts, anyway).

          1. I know, right. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so downright pathetic.

             HM is protecting them due to their position.

             The smirk and the hatred in William’s eyes says it all. I think if he has it his way, there will be nothing like this. All tradition gone, no media access, and the monarchy will collapse due to no support because he’ll live in his ivory tower showing at the mean evil plebs and press who killed his mother.

             1. Reminds me of that time he and Kate seemed to have had a massive case of the giggles as he was processing into St. George’s Chapel for the Order of the Garter ceremony. No respect or honor for tradition or duty from these two slouchers.

       2. Instead of covering them with her mantle she should make them work! I’d respect her more

       3. I imagine HM is doing what she can to preserve the BRF – her family legacy and whatnot. Can’t say I blame her – WK have become so unpopular! Whether or not they’re deserving of her protection is another story (lol).

          1. @Lobbit, I truly do fear for the monarchy after The Queen passes.

    2. It is interesting this photo was released after the supposed story of Prince Andrew sending a letter to HM concerning his daughters. Could there be any possibility this photo is to reinforce the pared down royal family?

       1. I thought about that, too.

    3. Don’t think it worked.

    4. Multi-generation pictures are kinda a thing with royals and I can see the Windsors posing for this picture as them adding to that tradition.

       1. Also, the opportunities for such multi-generational pictures are diminishing so it may also be a very conscious effort to document the remaining years of the Queen and Phillip.

    5. HM is doing what she does best: playing ostrich. The woman has no backbone. If she were doing “what she could” to preserve the RF, she’d make these two WORK.

       1. She has backbone when it comes to raking in the cash, and conspiring to get more for her family by any means possible while keeping the peons in the dark. I think she just covers for her family, and places its preservation and rapaciousness above the realm and her subjects- pretty well, everything. In essence, she’s a con artist.

          1. @Maven, I don’t believe that. I think she indulges William too much and I bet William always pulls the Diana card. I can see The Queen and Charles liking Harry more. Well maybe not recently.

23. I guess we now know why Kate has been awol these few months, she looks ‘well rested/ alive’, a sure sign of botox application.

    1. Yup.

    2. I saw that too. IMO the botox look isn’t a good look on anyone.

    3. Very shiny forehead in the car arrival photos.

    4. They also usually use a heavy dose of photoshop on her…
       Does she not notice how off her eyebrows are??
       I think a poster her saw her an event, can’t remember who?
       How does she appear in person? Anyone who has seen her.
       I like how Camilla has her wrinkles. I love a face with character.

24. (Haven’t read comments yet.) Hmm, what’s missing here? Sash, sash, sash, sash sash, order, order, order, order, order. Number 6? Number 6? Your order is missing. LOL

    I do not like the tiara on Kate. She does nothing for it. And as some have mentioned before, because of lame positioning, the side pearls swing away rather than sit forward. Seeing Diana’s tiara on her just makes me dislike her more. I don’t mourn Diana, but I do find the wearing of it a smack in the face because it was an iconic piece, very Diana. There is nothing remotely regal about Kate. As Lola on her blog pointed out, she looks like she wandered into the picture by mistake.

    I never realised how big her forehead was- looks botoxed to the nth degree to me.

    Ugh, this is the only piece that makes my stomach curl when I see it on her, I feel so strongly about it. She is so, so, undeserving and an affront to all that was noble.

    1. I feel like people critique when Kate looks tired or her face is a bit droopy and then critique when she’s had too much botox. Sometimes I feel like she’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t when it comes to this type of thing.

       1. I think many people would back off from commenting on her looks if she would work more, and talk more. We literally have nothing else to talk about with this woman since she does so little.

          1. I know I would. I don’t really comment on how blah Victoria’s hair is becuase to me she’s a hard worker (in the Royal sense) and seems to take her job seriously.
             To me Kate’s haggard look is systemic to something bigger. Whether it’s emotional, physical or both. Someone in their 30s doesn’t normally change from how she looked on her wedding to how she looks now, a mere 5 yrs later, without something going on.

       2. You may be right. I don’t comment on her haggard looks because I don’t care, although sometimes I’m shocked at how awful she looks when she’s not photoshopped. But I do comment on all things ‘enhanced’ and to me her forehead does look huger. It’s the aesthetics that interest me. So, I wouldn’t tar everyone with the same brush though I understand your frustration

          I agree with JET Texas as well. And let’s face it, she is not particularly likable.

          1. Maybe her hairline has changed? That would make her forehead look bigger, too. I know a few of my friends lost a lot of hair after having kids

    2. One of the things that set the royal family apart from celebrities is that they didn’t mess about too much with their looks, i.e., no plastic surgery, aged pretty naturally, kept their bat ears. It helped people identify with them, and emphasized that they had longevity.

       Now Kate has adopted all the celebrity tricks. It’s a shame, but maybe the result of our looks-conscious times.

       1. You nailed it Fifi. I thought the royal family was above the botox and etc. It actually makes me sad that Kate does it. It would be nice to see someone in her position not cave to what society deems as pretty. It would send a good message to women. You can still have wrinkles and be pretty. I feel like Kate is striving for perfection instead of relatability

          1. I guess it would be nice to keep things natural, send a message about aging gracefully. At the same time, it’s got to be difficult to have your looks slated by millions of strangers online. I was on another forum recently and was shocked to see a thread called “pictures of Kate looking old!” That’s a lot to take, especially for someone like Kate, who seems pretty self conscious about her looks.

             1. It would be horrible being judged so publicly. There’s something to be said about aging gracefully – being healthy, taking some exercise, minimising skin damage via limiting tanning, smoking – but it’s also about being happy in your own skin too. The Botox will only last so long.

    3. Maven, Do you think KM even cares about having the order or sash? It’s awarded for service and she doesn’t care about service or work. She has what she wants: W, the manor, shopping allowance and a room for her mum. I don’t think she even would understand sash/order relevance within the BRF.

       1. I think she cares because she wants to fit in and cares about her position. She might not do the work, but likely still think she deserves it through her marriage.

          1. *Thinks she deserves it.*

             As with everything else in her life, with as little effort from herself or by the machinations of her mummy.

          2. “But I had 2 babies! Do you know how hard it is to stay in shape and raise 2 kids?!” – Kate

             Deserving it and actually earning it are 2 very different things.

25. I love the colour of the dress but hate the sleeves. It doesn’t look formal enough for the occasion with what looks like T-Shirt sleeves.

    1. I do agree that the sleeves are a little awkward. I remember the ice blue dress she wore last year also had these short sleeves.

       Overall I love this dress though. Some are saying the red may be attention seeking by Kate, and perhaps it is, but regardless, red is a really beautiful color on her in my opinion. Her skin tone pulls off jewel tones well.

       1. I think it is called cap sleeves and is indeed intended to look formal. I have seen many prom gowns (expensive ones, by sherri hill…) with that kind of sleeve and they look elegant.

          1. I think it is just great for occasions where you just don’t want long sleeves but a sleeveless dress where you could see the shoulders would be too informal/inappropriate.

             1. It used to be, Edwardian times, that sleeveless was more formal, and was kept from looking too bare by the above the elbow gloves. As you aged you had to find strategies to cover up more. Formal dinner wear was more covered up.

                Also, long gloves and tiaras used to be the rule (remember Barbra Streisand complaining to the Queen about it?). Those gloves when leather, were a nightmare. They would stretch out as you bent your elbow, and start sliding down, and you had to take them off to eat, or unbutton the wrist and tuck up the hand part. Now the Queen makes do with tacky fabric ones. Thank goodness they aren’t worn much anymore.

          2. That’s it!! (snaps fingers) I couldn’t figure out what I didn’t like about this dress, it’s because it looks like a prom dress and makes Kate look like she’s playing dress up. Phew! thanks M for helping me clarify what was bugging me!

             1. You are welcome!
                Maybe that is her new style to look younger – a prom dress 😉

26. Camilla and Bruce Oldfield are a really good mix – he creates a nice, long line look which is regal but flattering, and has some really nice couture details, like that beading on the front. I’ll also give her props for carrying off that tiara which in terms of scale and weight must be like wearing a bejewelled truck tyre

    1. Camilla looks radiant and so approachable. I agree that her dress looks lovely. The tiara seems to be made for her haircut!

27. Botox.
    Teeth look larger than usual.
    Poor choice in dress – she should have worn any of her cream, white, or pastel gowns. I know they are not required, but she should have worn gloves.
    Tiara worn as a headband…ugh.
    William looks smug and pissy.

    1. So how did Diana wear the tiaras?

       1. Properly.

          1. touche

28. Well I’m scared of the monarchy after The Queen passes.

29. PA has issued a statement about rumors surroundingt Bea and Eug. I knew the tabloids were making things up for a slow news day. I’m glad things have finally been addressed. I always think that The York always knew their place in the royal family. I think they would understand things better than anyone
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzQFTFjUoAAwqBg.jpg

    1. And unlike Jason/Harry’s emotional verbal outpouring, this note is concise and to the point.

    2. Now that is how you write a statement. Concise and to the point. You know what their message is. Jason/KP needs to take some pointers.

    3. I guess the days of “never complain never explain” are truly over. I think fergie had a stop bullying my daughters post as well. Considering that these are young women in their mid to late 20s, it might come better from them.

       1. I think something had to be said directly.

          These girls have been bullied relentlessly since they were teens. It ebbs and flows over the years, but recently it had become ridiculous because most of what was being written was made up nonsense which people believed.

          Everything from those ‘holidays’ to Andrew wanting titles for his daughters’ husbands.

          No matter how often you explained to people, even on this blog, that stuff was either a lie or an exaggeration, people still believed it or felt there must be some grain of truth. People refuse to believe they work or have charities. Comments on articles about them are so abusive it’s ridiculous. People have started to use the term ‘princess of pork’ a riff on the cruel nickname given to Fergie by the tabloids ‘duchess of pork’ because she had gained weight. The often used ugly step-sister meme used about them. The TV show ‘ the Windsors’ that depicts them the very opposite of who they are. Their public image is completely tarnished and they have never, ever done a thing to deserve it except be born to two disliked people nor have they been given any space to create or do anything of their own that warrants any type of tabloid moniker. The saying apple doesn’t fall far from the tree doesn’t apply here. Never has.

          Beatrice has released statements over the years defending herself and no one paid any notice. It continued unabated.

          At some point, the parents had to step in. And since this Andrew saying it, on BP headed paper, that means it’s BP saying it argo the Queen saying it.

          Maybe the press will back down and stop baiting the public.

          1. I would have given the Andrew letter a pass as it involved him too. I didn’t read that article but did find the headline humorous. The fergie statement did them no favors. I get that parents want to protect their kids from hurt and general evils of the world but they are now adults and need to fight their own battles. It compounds their issues IMO.

             1. …..but they have. Including as recently as this summer asking the ipso to step in when the DM wrote a horrid story with bikini pics inviting the public to mock B.

                The DM lost that case and had to publicly apologise – apology was posted within the past fortnight.

                And this week wrote the article about how their father was wanting titles for their husbands which drew more public anger and mockery.

                If B asking the media to stop and or explaining why she doesn’t have a job doesn’t work, if using official vhannels doesn’t work, time to bring in the big guns even if said big guns are your parents.

                The media will mind their step this time because this is an official letter from BP.

                Nevermind that it is written by Andrew, it comes with tge weight of BP which means the Queen.

                Perhaps they should start suing the media into submission as William has done.

             2. If it were my children I would have responded sooner. These two women have done absolutely nothing wrong. They were raised to be working members of the royal family & out of the blue they were cast aside. They may have flitted from one job to the next, but I have as well and most of us will over time. We either are exploring or have explored what fits us best.

                They are two wealthy, royal women and going away for a weekend on a luxury yacht should give no one cause to complain & attack them. They aren’t supported by the British public & therefore what they do is their own business and yet the public has decided to attack them at every turn. I dare anyone, as a parent, to stand by & let their children go through half as much as these two young women have.

                So what if they dress in a way that we perhaps wouldn’t? My daughter does as well. If they aren’t rail thin like Kate, really who cares? They are healthy women & shouldn’t have to be continually self-conscious & body shamed.
                I made a comment on Twitter that these two women have held their heads high no matter what the circumstance, as well as working hard & doing more volunteer work which is more than Kate ever did. Guess what happened? I was attacked because Kate is ah-ma-zing.

                When my oldest was 13 a group of girls wrote her a letter, telling her how horrible she was, and she should kill herself. These were military children on a military base. Want to know what I did? I contacted every single parent on their & only one thought it was a bad thing and helped with it. I then caught one of the girls attacking my daughter outside. I went out there & told her to go away and we couldn’t wait for her to move. Her father then came over and attacked me.

                Bottom line is that as a parent I will never, ever allow anyone to bully my child and I will never, ever allow my children to bully anyone else.

                Beatrice and Eugenie shouldn’t have to tell people to back off. They don’t have protection and they are not supported by the public. The only problem I see with the letter is that the Queen should have come out and put an end to it, not Andrew. She should have clarified to everyone what their positions are within the family and that they aren’t supported by public. I see that as the only way to put an end to it. She didn’t have to say that a photographer may “accidentally be shot” or that “attorneys are working day & night to put fires out”. Rather these are the positions that the girls hold within the royal family. Right now it appears as if lines are blurred & that they are being thrown under the bus to take the heat off of two grown individuals who refuse to pull the weight that they should considering they are supported in a luxurious manner for which they have no accountability.

                Why can Will and Kate threaten to sue or sue the press because of their “private” time and Beatrice and Eugenie can’t?

             3. SpringsMom

                I applaud you for supporting your daughter, but those awful bully girls must have pretty poor family lives to think their behaviour is acceptable. I hope that your daughter has well and truly moved on.

                I think you’re right. The Queen might have said that B+E are much-loved granddaughters and family members, and while they generously offer assistance to us at various functions, they are private citizens and are not supported by the British public. Please respect their privacy as you would want your own respected. Short and sweet.

                You have alluded to what I feel is also happening: that the girls (also Harry) are fed to the wolves whenever W+K need to feel good about themselves and/or stuff up. But again, the head of the family, needs to deal with this internally. If I were her, I’d also make sure that everything from KP PR also had to be approved by her office before release.

          2. Do you think this statement, well written as it is, is a mistake because now if a lie is not responded to, people will think it is the truth?

             1. BP has responded to stuff in the past. Not often, but it does. Ditto CH.

                Eg a few months prior to Brexit, BP responded to deny a story saying the Queen backed Brexit that was widely covered by the media.

                They will go silent again.

                KP is the palace that responds to every little story.

          3. The term ‘throw under the bus’ is often invoked when a BRF member wants to deflect their own poor performance or is simply jealous of another family member. Am I imagining it, or is more of this sort of thing happening from the KP end? As well, the Middleton family spreads mischief due its proximity to power and its long-cultivated media contacts.

             I agree that royal reporters invent spurious claims and bully; both are unacceptable by any standards and done for purely self-serving reasons. But the BRF also needs to get its own house in order too, and stop leaking. Also, work often and hard.

             The royal-focused press corps and BRF is in a very unhealthy relationship; it’s far too ripe for abuse of the public who do not get frank and fearless reporting. Journalists take sides dependent on their primary source of gossip; they become media puppets, nothing more.

          4. Really, I feel no sympathy for the Yorks. They have so much money and unearned privilege, while living off of taxpayers (subsidized by Andrew, getting apartments in state-owned palaces)- if all they get in return is a little bit of false articles in the media and people justly hating them for being spongers, then the Yorkies have it better than many. They have to put their big girl pants on and deal with it! If they don’t like it, then they need to move off of the public dole, earn their own keep, and live as private citizens- the lies and public hatred of them will drastically reduce, or stop.

    4. Also wanted to add that the Yorkies officially became joint patrons of the Teenage Cancer Trust today. This is a charity they have been working with since they were teens.

       https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/09/stop-bullying-our-family-duchess-of-york-urges-media

       Fergie asked the media to stop bullying them. We shall see if it happens.

       1. https://www.teenagecancertrust.org/about-us/news/sarah-duchess-york-hrh-princess-beatrice-and-hrh-princess-eugenie-pay-festive-visit

    5. Awww, man, what’s been done to the Yorkies has been beyond cruel. I bought it even though I like the Yorkies, and now feel totally ashamed.

       I want to know why they are such a target of disinformation. Kudos to daddy (PA) for setting us all straight with that very strong and protective statement..

       1. People dislike their parents so are willing to believe the negative stuff about them. Also, the Yorks get thrown under the bus to make William and Harry looks good, and are an easy target because of the negativity toward their parents.

          1. They also do themselves no favors. Back when I read DM articles, there was one about Eugenie having little people (don’t know what the correct term is now, no offense intended) play dwarves to her Snow White themed party. Bea and her injured guest from playing with the ceremonial swords. Her holidays may be legit but people don’t want all her vacays flaunted. WK and I’m sure the rest of the royals, take jaunts but they have learned the art of discretion.
             They may not be paid directly from the Royal dole but I’m sure their lifestyle is subsidized from Andrew and he is.

             1. I agree, although I think the vacation publicity was the fault of Dave Clark.

                I just wish these two would get some good fashion advice. Too often they are fashion victims. I think Eugenie is the best looking younger royal, and Bea has a sense of fearless style; they just need some direction.

                And they need to stop being Fergie’s props at every event. I know they love her, but she is using them. You all are right, a lot of her unpopularity rubs off on them.

             2. The press was always ready to report every single thing they did negatively.

                Seriously these girls could have found the cure for cancer and the press would report it as a negative thing.

                That’s the narrative they were given.

                Whether they kept a low profile or not.

                As an example, let me tell you about Harry’s year as written by media biased the Yorkie way.

                “We can reveal that prince Harry has been on holiday for most of 2016.

                He carried out only 2 engagements in the spring before taking another month long holiday in Florida where he visited some Invictus events and partied with friends for a month.

                After that, having done no work and only 2 engagements since January 2016 he was seen working officially when he joined the royal family at Trooping the colour.

                Prince Harry who hasn’t worked since January 2016 has gone on holiday to Africa where he is on holiday for 6 wks.

                We can reveal that Harry, who hasn’t worked since January 2016, but went on holiday to Florida for a month in May and Africa for all of the Summer is back in London and was seen out partying with friends.

                We can reveal that Harry who hasn’t worked since January 2016 has acquired a new GF that he has been secretly holidaying with every month since he came back from his 6wk African holiday and prior to that month long holiday in Florida.

                Prince Harry, who hasn’t had a job since January 2016 finally has a job. He is on a 10 say tour of the caribbean.

                Following his 10day tour of the caribbean, Harry has taken a holiday in Toronto. He has previoysly holidayed every month in Toronto since September after he came back from his 6 wk African holiday and before that his month long holiday to Florida.

                Prince harry carried out only two engagements in the since January 2016.”

                Get my point?

             3. Herazeus, I’d love to read that article in the press, with follow-ups on Kate and William. Imagine the pants-wetting that would ensue… (chuckle).

                I said further up that this is driven by the BRF itself, not just the press. I’d suggest the press takes its lead from the BRF. The internal narratives set up – Wales’ kids = good; York kids = bad – can only damage those not first in line. And it’s ridiculous. William is an oaf because he has never been accountable for his actions. Damaging others doesn’t make him better, it just damages others.

             4. I’m not saying there isn’t media bias against them. It also doesn’t help when their antics are reminiscent of their parents.
                It sounded like Bea was taking matters into her own hands about some of it and I’ll reiterate that having fergie jump in doesn’t help their cause.
                I’ve also been a harsh critic if Harry lately as well
                On a post a couple days back I talked about how the Royal reporters are too invested in Willaim and Harry and the memory of Diana to do any real reporting on them but only seem the spread pro propaganda for them. That they’ll snark about them on Twitter but then write a positive article in the papers. And that they’re trying to sell Kate as Diana 2.0 that she’s such a humanitarian and style icon. Beloved by all.
                Believe me, my eyes are wide open. For all of them

             5. Sarah: Your comments prove my point. Per your own comments, ‘their antics seem reminscent of their parents’. The reason for that is because the press wrote them to seem that way and that perception is so strongly created that it colours your seemingly open mind when reading about them.

                It’s a media mind trick where every article is written in a way that invokes the parents like a ghostly spectre such that even though you are open minded, you can’t help thinking about the parents as you read and attach their qualities to the girls.

                And for good measure every article about the girls contains a paragraph that reminds you that the parents are awful, in case you missed the subtle hints.

                And after close to a decade of the media doing this to you, any article that pops up about them, true or fanfiction, will be treated as truth or an approximation of the truth.

             6. “every article is written in a way that invokes the parents like a ghostly spectre”

                Wouldn’t you say that the same thing happens with William/Kate/Harry and Diana? The only difference is that Diana is beloved and Andrew & Fergie are hated.

             7. So Eugenie didn’t have dwarves at her party? I actually like her and am a little turned off her by that. And if that didn’t happen, why let that go?
                I’m a nurse and find bea’s antics with a sword worrisome on many levels. You wouldn’t believe how many accidents I see by people goofing off. His injury could have been so much worse. More people could have been injured as well.
                I didn’t need the media to sway my opinion on those antics. Regardless of who their parents are/were I’d think poorly of those decisions. For the people that do dislike them becuase of who their parents are, I’m saying these actions don’t help them.
                I get that people want to like them almost becuase they aren’t liked by many people and for some it’s a genuine like. I just don’t think any of the younger royals are completely blameless for some of their antics andthey are no longer of an age for such childish antics.
                I also understand for many people there is little in between in their feelings with them. You’re either for or against and little in between. I was starting to like Bea more now that she was just focusing on charitable work but her antics with the sword put her back in the con column for me and as I stated before, I do generally like Eugenie. So I guess that makes a both? I am strongly in the category that neither should be working royals tho =)

             8. KMR: Yes.

                The difference being that WH have been given the space to create their own personas such that the ghostly spectre of their parents doesn’t have as strong an influence on the reader.

                Sarah: So what if she had dwarves/ little people at her party? She hired them from an agency. Do you also object to the Wizard of Oz films or any entertainment show that hires little people?

                At least she didn’t engage in a dwarf tossing competion like Mike Tindall/England rugby team did.

             9. Sarah: It’s fine to find their actions distasteful if you judge said actions on their own merits rather than tying it back to the parents.

                We give celeb children that benefit of the doubt, so why not the Yorkies?

                The problem is uniquely the Yorkies.

                Look at every single royal family in the world. No matter the opinion of the parents, each successive new generation is given the benefit of the doubt on their own merits. If they mess up, no one ties it back to the parents and if they do well, people accept it as their win rather than outright refusing to accept it on the basis of the bad opinion of the parents.

                As KMR reminds us upthread, the media invokes Diana with William or Harry, and for a long time the positive Diana association worked in their favour. Since 2011, they have been allowed to show their own character and that has been judged on it’s own merit despite the constant Diana mentions.

                The Yorkies are not being given a chance. Their public image is so trashed that hiring entertainers for her party is a worse move for Eugenie than Mike Tindall who played a drunk game tossing similar type of entertainers.

                Eugenie has been in steady employment since she graduated and that makes no difference to people.

                Beatrice has been in work, albight more shaky than steady, but again no dice with people.

                They have both undertaken charity work since they were teens. No dice.

                And it all goes back to the black hole of parental hatred where people refuse to believe that these parents did one good thing.

             10. William and Harry enjoy being sons of the next king, with ongoing privilege guaranteed until death or collapse of the House of Windsor. Their positions demand their personas be developed for public consumption.

                 Zara and Peter have managed to transition to private endeavours without incurring anything like the press wrath reserved for the York girls. Neither Z nor P have titles and I’m wondering if by and large they have been consciously steered away from royal life, apart from family occasions? Louise and James are young though they are being taught that they will create and fund their own lives, with E + S having chosen lesser titles to help ease this transition. Both sets of parents have accepted that their kids would not be working royals and adjusted expectations accordingly. Andrew has differed from Anne and Edward in this way. I’m not sure why.

                 Bea and Eugenie are in a different boat to Zara, Peter, Louise and James. First, they enjoy princess status. Second, their parents are problematic. Third, their public personas don’t need to be developed in the same way as William and Harry’s, simply because they are not children of a future king. Is it as simple as the girls being torn down because of their parents? I’d certainly believe it to a good extent. I wonder if the York parents have simply not heeded the advice from the Way Ahead group of some two decades ago and kept assuming/ insisting that their daughters would have royal roles and privileges, regardless? And this is what animates the public’s ire?

                 It’s great that the girls are involved with charity work, though it has often crossed my mind that they are creating de facto working royal roles for themselves beyond what is expected or desired and may be disappointed if nothing eventuates. Meanwhile, Eugenie seems to have carved out a niche, with a happy private life, but I wonder about Bea? She’s had a stinker of a year and I don’t blame her an inch for needing some space to decide what’s next; for her sake, I hope she decides soon. Press nastiness is one thing, but I still believe both girls are regularly thrown under the bus by larger family interests when it suits, and that is something that can only be addressed by the BRF.

             11. Jen: Peter has truly grown up outside the spotlight and rarely exhibited any desire to be in it. Design or good parentage? We shall never truly know.

                 Zara was problematic in her late teens/early young adulthood.

                 She was fame thirsty and did things that created press frenzy around her.

                 Lots of press articles about her during that time frame of her poor choices, poor judgement including poor public behaviour that included drunken brawling with her boyfriend.

                 Only after she met Mike Tindall did she pull herself together. Was it Mike or self awareness that changed her public behaviour and focused her Olympian goals? Perhaps. Mike was already in the world beating England rugby team when they met whilst she was barely making a dent in any equestrian activity beyond attending races, being horse mad hanging out with a horsey set, and that might have influenced her motivation and discipline to her Olympic ambition.

                 Some articles of her poor behaviour are still up eg

                 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-taming-of-zara-phillips-557799

                 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-18456/Zara-brawl-boyfriend.html

                 Btw: i realise that i’m attributing her change in focus and ambition to a man which makes me a hypocrite given my very strong feminist sensibilities, but the fact can’t be argued that her entire focus changed once Mike came into the picture.

                 The use of their privilege as grandchildren of the Queen is often overlooked.

                 Zara was initially accused of getting sponsorship on the back of being the queen’s grand daughter. Lucky for her, her talent eventually caught up with the sponsorship.

                 The frequent paid interviews to Hello magazines by both Peter and Zara where their royal adjacent status is more imporyant than their achievements.

                 The fact that Zara and Peter live rent free in homes on Anne’s property Gatcombe in a deal similar to William’s Anmer Hall situation with all the taxpayer paid improvements and security.

                 Peter is a sports agent whose one client appears to be only Zara…..yet is thriving.

                 That recent kerfuffle over the fee he would be paid for arranging the Queen’s jubilee lunch after the contract was awarded to his company out of all the submitted bidders – it wasn’t a blind bidding process.

                 Finally, Zara has access to the best horses in the world. The Queen and her contacts like the ruler of Dubai, have some of the best horses in the world and run very successful breeding farms/programmes.

                 Not to mention the glaring elephant in the room of the cost of Zara’s career. Eventing is one of the most expensive sports to indulge in. More expensive than Polo. Zara may be down to earth, looks normal etc, but she is indulging in a rich people, elitist sport that very few people on the planet can afford to participate in.

                 All of this said, Zara has been allowed to make mistakes in public and then allowed to develop her career without media hounding her about it every step.

             12. Thanks for the comprehensive overview of Zara and Peter. I realise that both are shielded from financial realities though really, would any relative of the BRF be living on their own steam? They’re not the most talented lot. Even so, neither Zara nor Peter had expectations of a royal role. I’m still wondering why Andrew has pushed this so hard and for so long when there was a well-oiled precedent there? Has he fueled his daughters’ expectations?

             13. Hera, despite 100% the mainstream media telling me that Willaim and Kate are the exalted ones, I was able to deduce on my own and through other outlets they are not in fact as wonderful as they are portrayed.
                 I think I’m able to withstand the subliminal anti York propaganda and make my own judgements of them despite their parentage.
                 Are most of us not products of our upbringing, for good or bad? It’s the quintessential nature vs nurture argument. They’ve made poor and questionable decisions as did their parents. Are they mutually exclusive or more a product of their environment?That is for people to decide. Even if people find the behaviors similar doesn’t mean they can’t like them.
                 I don’t agree that their problem is uniquely their own. i’d say that king Felipe of Spain has had to prove that he is not his father’s son and I believe Leti really gets a lot of grief in the Spanish press.
                 I will say that I wish the Royal reporters would actually report on William Kate and Harry instead of spewing pro monarchy propaganda. If they were political reporters would they be more honest in their reporting? The times of protecting them is over. These aren’t the same times of FDR getting protection from being photographed in his wheel chair or reporters not mentioning JFK’s indiscretions.

             14. Jen: Anne wasn’t blessed with second sight in her decisions for her family. She had the examples of Princess Mary and Princess Margaret, not to mention centuries of all the daughters of titleholders to show her that their status and that of their children diminishes with marriage unless they marry higher status. They are automatically cadet members of their families.

                 With sons, it’s not as clear cut and fortunes can change even in adulthood where the lesser sons suddenly become the heirs.

                 Andrew and the public were told by HM and rest of the court for decades that B and E would be working members of the family.

                 No matter what has been written about the way ahead committee, it wasn’t made implicitly clear that Andrew and the girls would be cut out until 2010. Any suggestions that they were asked to relinquish their titles is false. It was thought better that no more titles be created rather than remove the ones already given. Thus Edward and his children received lesser titles.

                 The original aim of the way forward committee was to improve yhe royal family’s standing after the disasters of the 90s and especially the low of Diana’s death. The idea was to make them less elitist and more egalitarian. Edward and his lesser titles were a PR recommendation to that end.

                 And I strongly suspect that if Andrew and Fergie had been popular members of the firm, any suggestions along those lines would never have come up.

                 The 2002 Jubillee showcased the top line members of the family.

                 The idea of a reduced monarchy was started as a cost cutting exercise in the mid-00s. What started as a conversation about general cost cutting eventually turned into reduction of working members of the family as the most effective way to cut costs.

                 By the end of the decade, privileges had been removed from lesser royals eg rent free homes in Palaces and 24/7 taxpayer bodyguards for every single member of the family like the Kents, Gloucesters etc

                 For Andrew and his family, since 2010, all taxpayer privileges except for the St James flat have been removed from B and E. We are told Andrew pays for it at market rate which we can only take at face value since there is no transparency for entire family. A different discussion.

                 B and E graduated from university in 2011/2012.

                 In the past 4/5 years, E has been in continuous employment whilst B has held 4 jobs.

                 Until George and Charlotte were born, they were 5 and 6 in the line of succession which put them in contention as councillors of state and beholden to the monarch/parliament.

                 Being so close to the throne, they’ve attended family events and some charity, but not to extent that people think they can’t walk away.

                 Meanwhile the press keeps running a commentary about their father pushing them into the spotlight because they are doing those family events.

                 It’s ignored that they belong to a family that is all about status and order of precedence such that when they attend those events, they walk according to their status and order of precedence which happens to be very close to the top and not a desire to push their way into the spotlight.

                 Eg at garden parties, if they walk behind William, but in front of Anne, they are being pushy when everyone is simply following protocol.

                 Perhaps they should turn down requests to help with thise garden parties and all other such events so that the public can stop seeing them altogether because as long as they are so close to the top of the line, attending these events will always make them visible.

                 That said being so close to the top, the press can’t talk about them like they are regular joes. Zara and Peter are so far down that there is absolutely no chance in hell that they will ever be on the throne unless parliament makes the kind of seismic decision as the one that brought the Hanoverians, ranked 51, to the throne.

                 B and E are close enough that it can happen – see Victoria who was 6th in line.

                 Goong back to your original question, the time to cut them off should have been when they were children as they have fone with James and Louise.

                 However, they are currently walking a line that is more private than public, but the public andbmefia talks about them as if they are walking a public life like William and Harry.

             15. Sarah: don’t make me laugh. Spanish press has been horrendous to Letizia, but no one thinks or says that Felipe and Letitzia are corrupt.

                 Felipe is doing what he can to change the perception of the monarchy as corrupt and has cut off his sister to that end, but he himself isn’t tarred with that brush.

                 Further, JC and the sister were caught being corrupt. They aren’t being wrongly accused.

             16. And Harry dressed as a Nazi.

                 Bea and her “injured guest” were playing around and it was an accident. As I said when I read that I literally snorted diet soda through my nose because this is exactly what my husband and I would have done at her age.

                 Their vacations are private and it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of them, because they aren’t working royals. Will and Kate hide their vacations and flaunt them right after avoiding as much work as possible. They are paid extremely well for a few hours of work each year. Their vacations should be disclosed because they are working for the British public.

                 If Andrew is paid additional for his role as a royal and he chooses to give it to his daughters that his business, but he doesn’t have a Duchy that directly belongs to the public. From my understanding he is supported directly from the Queen.

                 The girls needs to be left alone. Period. No if, ands, or buts. It’s End of Story.

                 I really, really hate the fact that they are continuously attacked and then Kate and Will are held up to be some role model of discretion, when those two have never did anything that should be used as a role model. Kate & Will behave as an antiquated version of the monarchy where they live off the public and hide away, shirking duties, and it’s “off with their head” if anyone questions what they do.

       2. For once I say kudos to Prince Andrew. It needed to be said, in defense of his children who get so much crap for no good reason. The media’s always done this and especially lately since Kate’s married in–they’re the dumpy porky Yorkies, you know, who don’t work and Kate’s Jesus 2.0!

          I agree something must be said but what happened to being quiet? Huh. Anyway, I feel for B&E being raked over the coals for pretty much nothing. They don’t take taxpayer money; they do their jobs; they do their thing; if they wanna go on holiday sure, it’s freebies or they can afford it themselves. None of my business. The hatred for these girls and pitting people against hem because of their parents is disgusting.

          1. Absolutely. I am beyond sick of how the York girls get treated, and how they both put in quality time at several charities which gets completely overlooked by the media or only featured to make fun of what they are wearing. Granted, they need to talk to Sophie to get some healthy clothes advice–she’s come a LONG way and looks terrific a lot of the time. PA has been a pig about his personal behavior but he’s always shown he loves his daughters and will step up for them. He really needs to get married again rather than hang out with people who act like complete animals and there he goes, acting just like them instead of using some sense. JMO

    6. I think it’s rather funny how he capitalizes “Members” of the royal family and then, later “Granddaughters” of the queen, as though those are proper formal titles on their own. Andrew is just so pretentious and haughty. I don’t think Beatrice and Eugenie are at all though.

       1. I picked up on that too. Proper nouns enjoy capitals. Words that are common and where there are many – members and granddaughters – don’t attract a capital letter.

       2. Actually, the ways he capitalizes it is correct in formal writing, much the way Member of Parliament or Member of Congress is capitalized in British English.

          1. But they are proper nouns and apply to job titles and occupations.

             A common noun – daughter, club, ship – is generic, a general type of thing or person and uses lower case, unless the word starts a sentence.
             A proper noun is a proper name – Princess Eugenie, Aunt Emma, Air France – with specific names or titles, attracting the upper case.

             I think Andrew is incorrect. He is creating titles where none exist eg ‘Granddaughters of The Queen’ and ‘Members of the Royal Family’. The various UK newspapers interpret his statement with differing spellings: The Guardian uses lower case for all (and I think is technically correct); the Daily Mails uses lower case for ‘granddaughters’ and ‘members’ but capitalises Queen and Royal Family; the Telegraph hedges its bets and uses lower case for ‘members of the Royal Family and’ ‘Members of the Royal Family’; The BBC uses lower case ‘members’.

             Interesting. I guess it depends on which Style Guide a business uses.

             1. KP has done that in the past, too, where they capitalize words that don’t seem like they should be capitalized.

                Interesting that those papers changed the capitalization. If I were to write about it, I would quote it exactly as Andrew wrote it. The same way I don’t correct the spelling and grammar errors in KP’s statements. Because I’m quoting them directly.

             2. It’s a curly little question to nut out. I checked out capitalisation of nouns generally and found that it was quite the thing in the 17th-18th centuries in England, but was never standardised and fell from fashion, Americans did it till the 19th century. Germans, though, still capitalise nouns.

                I couldn’t reference the formal British English to which Liilibet referred though am interested to find out. I’ve come across elderly folk who have capitalised what they deemed important words and wondered whether it came from a particular type of education or era. It’s certainly not accepted practice.

                With the variations in each of the papers and BBC, I’m supposing there is a house style that is adhered to, much like academic style guides. Like you, I’d err on the side of quoting exactly, with quotation marks, but insert (sic) to indicate something amiss.

                The KP people litter their work with so many errors, grammatical and spelling, that I’d dismiss anything that came from that source. They are just careless and not particularly literate, as Rhiannon has mentioned on more than one occasion.

          2. I think that you may be right. I’m often, as an American, surprised by some of the things that are capitalized by press releases or even in the British papers. There may actually be differences in convention. Maybe someone else more knowledgeable can speak to that?

30. Why is Camilla’s sash on her right shoulder? Shouldn’t it be on her left shoulder so she can pin her order to it?

    Yes, Kate really does look like the odd man out here.

    1. Camilla’s wearing the Royal Victorian Order, which goes over the other shoulder. The rest (bar Kate) have the Order of the Garter sash.

       1. Ah, thank you!

    2. Camilla has a different order than the others. Different orders are worn on different shoulders. The Order of the Garter (HM, Charles, Philip & William’s) is worn over the left shoulder while the Royal Victorian Order (Camilla’s) is worn over the right shoulder.

       1. is the Royal of the garter the one that only allows so many people in?

          1. Yes, the Order of the Garter only allows 24 members. But there are special Royal Knights which don’t count toward those 24 members. The Queen and royal family and other monarchs who have received the Order of the Garter are Royal Knights.

             1. Wow, if you think about it, nowadays this is all rather silly and irrelevant except, I guess, for aristos.

             2. Maven, it keeps up the illusion of being ‘special’. We all invent awards to elevate in some way.

31. OT perhaps but perhaps not. I have read about ‘astroturfing’ which has always meant to me fake grass or fake lawn. Now it means liars/tweakers in the service of someone looking to rationalise their clients’ behaviour and make them look good, spread out among the naive .

    Would the likes of Jason send out astroturfers to sites like this especially since he seems to rely on social media for feedback?

    1. I think they do it for the DM comments.

    2. It’s done for the reasons you state. People glance at the DM comments, for example, see a particular narrative get traction, and accept it without thinking further. Sad indictment of the education system not to demand that people think critically and not accept whatever old tosh is dished up.

       1. My question remains- would they visit sites like this? Is it mainly about bait click? I understand it exists but why?

          1. I’s about shoring up a seamless narrative by minimising the impact of any dissenting views.

             A comments section can be moderated to weed out nasty things but can also be stacked to minimise negative comments. This effectively sees the majority opinion agreeing with the thrust of the story – “Kate and William modernise the monarchy, so hard working” – and the negatives seen as few and wrong. Sadly, many people go with the dominant view, if expressed often enough.

             It’s all just propaganda to keep the status quo.

             1. Great explanations!

                Thanks, Jen, and Herazeus. I finally get it. Seems kinda empty and pointless to me but what do I know? Hard to imagine the character of those who get paid to spend their time doing this. I see no difference between them and trolls.

32. Of course much of the discussion here is comparing Kate to Diana, because her use of Diana’s jewelry invites that comparison. I wanted to add my opinion on why that comparison fails.

    I don’t dislike Kate as much as many of the posters here, but I think I know what Kate is missing that Diana had in spades — mystique. Look at the photos of Diana in that tiara. She has a Mona Lisa smile that makes you wonder what she is thinking. You know that there is substance to her beyond what you can see.

    With Kate that is not the case. She does not project any mystique. There is nothing about her that invites you to use your imagination. She does not appear to be thinking anything you’d wonder about. Her life consists entirely of the routine of being part of the BRF. There seems to be no passion for anything. She has no past, she has no future, other than the routine that is her life.

    I think all of us wonder why any person would be content with that. A life that is essentially without passion. People might say that I’m jealous for criticizing. If I’m jealous it’s because of Kate’s opportunities, which she seems intent on squandering on passionless routine. She has one of the biggest platforms in the entire world. She needs to step up to the plate and use it.

    No one wonders about Kate. There is no mystery. I think that people know by now that they have seen (literally and figuratively) all that there is to see.

    1. Inviting discussion and critique is not jealousy; it’s an intelligent form of unpacking stories to understand them better, to ascertain truth.

       I’d agree that Kate presents as passionless and simply incurious. Her temperament appears to be one of compliance and passivity as long as she is ‘looked after’ on a grand scale. She worked hard to become and stay the royal girlfriend; after that, not so much.

       You’re so right: what a magnificent platform Kate has at her disposal. It’s a shame she chooses to waste it. But helping others has never been part of her life experience or temperament. Additionally, she is married to a man who also shares those attributes, plus is hugely resentful of his role but equally unable to perform elsewhere (EAAA, RAF, Cambridge course, university). I would bet my last dollar that Kate takes her lead from William as to the very minimal workload she undertakes.

       1. I think that the aristocracy/monarchy in general worked because of its mystique. People knew that those classes were different, and were left to wonder exactly how. Kate is a commoner. She had a regular middle class upbringing. Her past is entirely unmysterious to the public. I think that in that sense, marrying a commoner may have been a mistake on William’s part. Common people were mysterious and intriguing to him, but they do not hold the interest of the public.

          Kate almost seems like a product that was made to fill her role. People don’t have a sense of her humanity.

          1. @Kimberly, I don’t think its really that. I think a lot of people were hoping for another “Diana” in the sense of a charismatic, magnetic charm who would be loved and adored instantly. But Kate is boring and dull.

             1. Kitty, I think that mystique is part of that charismatic, magnetic charm. Mystery is part of what draws people to someone — the desire to find out more about them, the desire to follow what they are doing. Kate has played all her cards already. People have stopped expecting anything new from her. There is nothing to discover about her except what she wore last. We hadn’t seen all that Diana had to offer by the time she died, and people were still interested in her. People wondered what it was like to be Diana. I think far fewer people imagine that Kate lives in a fairy tale.

             2. @Kimberly I agree. Its no wonder Diana had a larger than life fame that is so rare that the only person I can think of who had that was MJ and people still are interested in him. He too had a magnetic charm and was charismatic.

          2. Kate was definitely brought up to seek an aristocratic lifestyle. ‘Product’ is a good description. William tried and failed to attract a girl from his background.

             Being a ‘commoner’ isn’t Kate’s problem; it’s her abject laziness and self-absorption. Diana’s aristocratic background didn’t make her loved; it was her empathy, warmth and generosity of heart that did that.

             ‘Royals’ are neither inherently superior nor interesting because of birth; they are ordinary people born to extraordinary circumstances. Luck of the draw. They award themselves all manner of ribbons and bows to set themselves apart from ‘commoners’, continuing historical traditions, and thereby keeping mystique alive. The larger question is, apart from the familiarity and comfort of tradition, why do we need to exalt them in this day and age?

             1. + 1000! Well said.

          3. To add my two cents, I look at Kate and I see our prom Queen, cheerleader and I’m going to try really hard not to offend anyone here, as I see nothing but intelligent and inquisitive people on the board here. They are the one’s who marry their high school sweetheart and work at the local pizza parlor. Prom queen is all they will ever have.

             Kate doesn’t have the elegance or grace that I expect from royalty. If they are to be treated better than us, then I expect them to behave better than us. She behaves like a cheap tart so many times and as someone who as Caroline Stanbury stated, “I’m not here for your amusement, you are here for mine.”

             If she is to be given so much, then I expect so much more out of her. Dress appropriately, do not flash, and work extremely hard. Her red dress, which looks very pretty on her, sets her apart as someone who is going to prom and not a state dinner. Couldn’t she have found something that made her look as if she belonged. I think people want someone who can relate to the common people, but exude an exquisiteness that Diana oozed every moment of every day.

       2. @Jen so now its more than obvious William does not want to be King.

          1. I think Williams demands deference and endless perks, and the perpetuation of that means becoming king, should a monarchy survive to that point. If not, he’s in a tough spot: having to live from his own private wealth without the peasants’ contribution.

             1. @Jen He is in a tough spot, but honestly I don’t see a monarchy William will inherit anyways once The Queen passess.

          2. I feel like even if he does want to be King, he won’t get the chance. The Monarchy is on very shaky ground imo.

             1. @Lobbit, oh yes I agree and its going to be worse once The Queen passes.

             2. I’d agree there, Lobbit. Too many other things happening in the world to leave establishment icons untouched.

33. I am actually surprised by how many people don’t like Kate’s look this time. I thought she looked the best she has looked in a long time. Don’t get me wrong, she still needs to up her work load, but as for the appearance this time-I thought she looked great! I also had no problem with Kate wearing this tiara and the way she wore it. I know I am in the minority, but I saw no issues with the way it is situated on her head. Everyone has different head sizes, so maybe it rides lower because she has a smaller head? I don’t know much about tiaras, but they aren’t really adjustable right? Maybe someone who knows more about tiaras can tell me more because I don’t really see how she could get it to sit up on her head more. And I am really curious, so thanks to anyone who responds

    1. It depends on the tiara. The Leuchtenberg Sapphire Tiara is actually incredibly flexible because it’s made of 11 separate sections, so the circumference can be adjusted at will. It actually lays flat when put in it’s box. Other tiaras are very rigid and cannot be adjusted at all. As far as I am aware the circumference of the Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara cannot be adjusted, but the placement on the head can – whether it sits more toward the face or the back of the head, and the angle at which it sits.

       On Kate, the tiara looks like it sits more forward toward the face, but one also needs to take into account that Diana had those big fluffy bangs and Kate does not. So the tiara may be placed on the same part of the head and the bangs may make it seem like it’s placed differently but it’s not actually.

    2. Tiaras can be sized to fit the head. Some are made up of various pieces such that you can add or subtract details according to whim.

       However the overall size and placing of the tiara can make or break the result on wearer.

       Some people look better with the big tiaras, others do not.

       As an example, this is Camilla in her family tiara. Her daughter looks better in it.

       http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/21/25D6B2C200000578-0-image-a-106_1424479896573.jpg

       http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C85fwjYVWRM/Vmo1NyQc1AI/AAAAAAAAFyE/-h2J3JT32LQ/s1600/Cubitt-Shand%2BTiara%2B%2528%2529%2BLaura%2BLopes%2B1.jpg

       1. I’ve been thinking about tiara placement (okay having my dream of wearing one). I think Mette-Marit often uses the headband placement on the few occasions when she wears one. Do you think it has something to do with neck issues and the weight of the tiara?

          I think Kate needs more of an top of the head updo and perhaps more hair in front, like Camilla’s daughter, to get the tiara upright. Queen Mary had a lot of hair on top, and the fringe to help. All my dream tiaras are light and flexible, and the jewels always hang straight.

       2. Thanks so much 🙂

       3. Camilla’s daughter needs to brush her teeth with some whitening toothbrush.

34. The red gown is flat out boring. It has no pizazz or sophistication and as usual like many of Kate’s clothing choices it has that little girl/woman look she favors. Not a fan of the prissy short sleeves.

35. Even though Kate is wearing a tiara, she simply doesn’t look royal. She doesn’t look like she fits in with the rest of the picture.

    Could it be that the Queen is holding off giving Kate any honors because she believes that Kate and Will may get divorced? She might know something we don’t. I have read that the Queen waited to give Sophie honors and awards until she knew that Sophie’s marriage to Edward was really secure.

    Kate looks like Kate. Repeated dress, same makeup, clutching the clutch bag. But the placement of the tiara throws me off. I like the tiara against Kate’s brown hair but the smallest pearls aren’t dangling properly. She is wearing it more like a headband.

    As others have commented, William looks like he is about to laugh. Didn’t he do the same thing when he was made a knight of the garter and Kate also laughed at him? It’s like they think this is all a joke and they don’t have any respect for any of it.

    1. It wasn’t when William was made a Knight of the Garter, it was many years later. He was made a Knight in 2008, but it was 2014 when he and Kate laughed at the feather on his hat while riding away from St. George’s Chapel in a carriage.

       http://katemiddletonreview.com/2014/06/17/kate-and-sophie-watch-order-of-the-garter-ceremony-prince-george-attends-first-polo-match/

       1. Ah thank you for the link with the video in it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kate and William were making jokes just before this picture was taken just like they were back in 2014. I think William thinks anything ceremonial is a joke. And Kate is the same way.

36. Kate is just so vacant. There’s nothing in her eyes or any of her body language that communicates anything but disinterest. The dress is ok but the tiara looks so flat on her head. It has no sparkle. It looked the same in the arrival photos – flat. On some of the sugar sites they’re lauding Kate for wearing red to blend into the background and leave the focus on HM and Camilla. Nobody wears red to disappear. Especially if you’re going to be standing next to someone who oozes contempt for everything and everyone around him.

    I absolutely love Camilla for being able to wear a haul of jewels like that and doing it willingly. The Boucheron Honeycomb and the Delhi Durbar tiaras are two of my all-time favorites. HM looks white, as usual.

    1. The walls aren’t red, though. So I don’t understand where they’re coming from in saying that Kate blends in with the background. Unless they’re talking about blending in with the carpet, but most of Kate is against the cream wall in the photo.

       1. I think it’s another sugar sunshine enema. They worship the ground she walks on. Kate can do no wrong. Just sugars grasping away at nothing.

       2. I think they consider being just far enough off to clash with the red carpet as blending in. It was amusing, for sure.

    2. Um yeah. No one wears red to blend in. And I don’t think Kate thinks that way.

    3. They are supposed to arrange what they wear, thus subdued tones to go with Camilla and HM but of course Kate wants attention, same as Kate on the flotilla the only one in BRIGHT RED because it’s all about her.

37. When did Wm become so unattractive? It’s like I woke up one day and suddenly saw a completely different man.

    1. It’s oozing out from the inside. William presents as an unhappy and conflicted man and it shows.

       1. Agreed. A happier, fulfilled Wm would make for a more attractive Prince.

38. Upstream on December 9, 2016 at 1:19 am I wrote:
    ”Since I have seen so many photos of her husband’s mother wearing that piece, I don’t like seeing her wear it. There should have been more time before it was worn.” I didn’t realize that it would feed so many posts about that tiara. I’ve read them all and took time to consider and explain why I don’t want to see KM wearing it.

    I think the tiara should have been retired for PW’s generation. It would be an option for Charlotte and those of her generation (1st cousin once removed.)

    That tiara is associated with Diana for a great many people over a wide age range. It was ‘the’ tiara for the Princess of Wales. I know that Camilla wears jewelry that Diana wore and I recognize it every time she does. But it doesn’t have the recognition nor the impact that the LK tiara does. The LK tiara recalls her life: marriage, the birth of the sons, her many official appearances at galas, as well as the world-wide tours of a couple whose relationship was slowly deteriorating as time wore on. Images of her wearing that tiara were widely used in articles about her tragic death.

    When I see KM wear that tiara I don’t think how pretty it looks on the head of a dark-haired woman. I think why would a son want to remind his father of a dead wife — since that son has already used the dead wife’s ring as the engagement ring for his wife. It seems an act of retribution for the failure of the marriage between his parents. I’ve read that there is much symbolism in the clothing and jewelry of monarchy (even in modern times) and this tiara rings that bell for me.

    I’ve had enough exposure to that type of behavior within families that were changed by divorce. Adult children continue to act out long after the event, involving their spouses and children in an event that is not of their marital experience or history. I also know children that chose to move on, making the parents’ issues (and the family fall-out) something that will not control their lives.

    I can’t imagine why KM would agree to wear this tiara knowing how freighted it is with association to her dead MIL. I don’t know her thoughts about it, who may have encouraged her to wear it and if she understands how it may be perceived.

    Lastly, I would think that PW could have sprung for a design and construction of a modern tiara for his wife. Something that could artfully express the BRF in the 21st century — a tiara that would highlight his wife and marriage as a symbol of a generation that looks forward for the nation. Instead he and his wife look backward 100 years. It seems as though he doesn’t want to do the groundwork needed to establish credibility — as his father has done.

    1. “I can’t imagine why KM would agree to wear this tiara knowing how freighted it is with association to her dead MIL. I don’t know her thoughts about it, who may have encouraged her to wear it and if she understands how it may be perceived.”

       Kate wears Diana’s engagement ring as her own, so I don’t think it bothers Kate that much. As a matter of fact, if Kate could wear more of Diana’s jewelry she would.

       1. Perhaps you are more perceptive of KM’s attitude than I am. When someone is driven to achieve a particular position no matter the cost, the perception of those outside the sphere of desire does not matter.

          1. I agree. KM doesn’t have the intelligence to be discerning about history. She and Carole have been on a full throttle mission to gain entry to the BRF. Now that they are there, they don’t have any idea how to adapt to becoming royal. Instead it’s about continuing to shove Carole into the mix. They’ve marginalized Charles from their life (courtesy W’s vitriol) and put their Party Pieces spin on royal affairs. Just get the ring and the tiara.

             Carole, W & K are in their very own echo chamber.

             1. @Indiana, don’t think its smart to alienate Charles.

             2. @Kitty, I know! But that’s what W and Carole seem to be doing. I keep harping about that People magazine about Carole, but it was such a brrazen dig at Charles on how Carole was the primary grandparent and how she managed the household, raised the kids, had a farm themed setting for the kids. The article was typical Middleton schlock and very disrespectful towards Charles. I’m thinking Carole is hoping Charles isn’t going to be king for too long, so she’s poring all her dervish like energy at W, who will give her a title. It seems like a very perverse strategy.

             3. And considering so many Americans worship Diana and hate Charles, it’s playing to that demographic as well. Why they spend their time courting the ridiculous People magazine and not engaging with British media is beyond me. William’s hatred of them?

             4. Maybe William is setting up for when he leaves the monarchy (either through his own abdication or the fall of the monarchy as a whole), so he’ll have a friendly place to exile to: the U.S.

             5. Read an article recently on how Charles would throw his then teenaged sons under the bus, in order to gain positive father of the year headlines for himself. This was after Diana’s death when the Royal family, especially Charles, were hated by the public. Charles also did this in order to pave the way for Camilla’s acceptance to the public sphere. Evidently, the first time the 17yr old William met Camilla-details of their meeting ended up in the press. William was understandably furious with his breach of privacy, ESP in what must have been an awkward meeting of your dad’s long-term mistress. Obviously the accurate details of that meting could have only come from Charles. Maybe being sold out by his own dad could be one of many reasons why William seems to have a distant relationship with his father now? Maybe this is why William seems to be enthralled with the ” close knit” Middleton family?

             6. I’m sure it’s one of the many reasons William seemingly hates his own family.

             7. @Red Tulip, I understand but Charles fiances them. Charles whether you like it or not is also the grandparent.

    2. Well, it’s certainly an item that provokes intense feelings. I would have erred on the side of leaving it while memories of Diana’s association with it were still strong. Skipping to Charlotte would have been a sweet gesture.

       The LK does not suit Kate; she is simply diminished by the memory of Diana wearing it. Goodness knows what she and William were thinking. The ring and now the tiara; it’s a little morbid. For Kate, it’s a prize, I guess; makes her feel special. Can’t see William parting with his own cash to buy jewellery.

       1. Jen, KM wears the ring and tiara as souvenir-like tat. Hand posing to show off the ring. Not bothering to learn how to place the tiara so that it’s perfectly aligned. She’s being directed by her grasping mother and W who hates everything. He might get a thrill out of KM’s clumsy blunders that could irritate the queen and Charles.

39. I mean, the thing is, the Queen is the one who lent Kate this tiara. So the Queen must feel it is appropriate to do so. I just assumed it was because this is the “Cambridge” Lover’s Knot Tiara and Kate is the Duchess of “Cambridge”. I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing. But the engagement ring plus the tiara is a bit much for people. I have always been of the opinion that Kate should have been given Diana’s engagement ring as a cocktail ring, to wear occasionally if William wanted to give Kate something that belonged to his mom. But Kate always poses to show off the ring even if it means she has to hold her hand at an awkward angle so in my opinion it looks like she is really proud to wear it.

    Slightly off topic and I have not read all of the comments on the thread, but I have read that Diana left Harry more jewelry than William because she knew that William’s wife, as future Princess of Wales, would have more access to jewelry than Harry’s wife. I had read that this included the emerald jewelry that Diana was given by Charles shortly after they married. Remember the emerald choker that Diana wore as a headband once? That plus dangly emerald earrings that I have always loved.

    Does anyone know what happened to Diana’s jewelry? And I don’t mean the Spencer tiara, I know that belongs at Althorp. But what about Diana’s gorgeous sapphire and diamond brooch that the Queen Mother gave her? The one she would wear as a choker that matches her engagement ring? I always thought that if that still existed and no one sold it, Kate would want to wear it since it matches her engagement ring.

    I actually think it is time for Kate to wear more jewelry, but she doesn’t seem to wear it properly. As a Duchess, I would like her to wear more brooches and get at least one pearl choker necklace. Camilla has some gorgeous ones. Maybe William should ask Charles for advice on what to buy Kate? But William does like to ask advice for anything so I am not holding my breath.

    I would love if Kate invested in some nice pearls, nice brooches to add sparkle to her boring coats, etc instead of buying horribly overpriced and dinky little pieces of jewelry.

    She has one acorn brooch I really like, and acorn earrings from her wedding day I wish she would wear more. But she needs to advice on how to wear big jewelry, particularly tiaras, because the Cambridge Lovers Knot Tiara doesn’t seem to sparkle right on her head and I think it is because it isn’t positioned properly. The Swedish royals know how to rock a tiara.

    1. The emerald choker Diana wore on her head was a loaner from HM – it originally belonged to Queen Mary. So that went back to HM when Diana divorced.

       1. But what about the emerald earrings? I watched a documentary that said Charles gave Diana emeralds but Diana didn’t really like emeralds so the documentary said that was one of the signs that Charles didn’t really know his wife.

          Do you know what happened to her sapphire brooch that she would wear as a choker?

          1. I think that documentary would be unfair to brand Charles for not knowing she disliked emeralds. Really, how many times does that come up in conversation, even when you are royal and/or wealthy?

             Andrew gave Sarah an emerald engagement ring. She rejected it, because the emerald was flawed and she wanted a ruby instead. Does this mean he didn’t know his wife either?

             How many other men would be tarred and feathered for picking something sparkly and expensive for their wives – but assuming any color sparkly gem would be fine?

             1. That’s why I would want to pick out my own jewelry.

    2. Well I was hoping Harry would get the huge Sapphire choker.

40. Is it really true William is a cheapskate?

    1. Well, he’s never bought her a thing. The eternity ring? Kate bought it herself after the media went on a yarn about how it was a present from William. Same with a pair of earrings she bought after Charlotte was born; oh, so romantic, from William, but they said nah, she came in and got them herself. He’d whine to the owners of the Mustique villas he was too broke to go on vacation there, could they let him stay for free! He uses taxpayer money to go on holidays to Kenya, elbowing his way to a meeting with government officials to write it off when there’s no reason for him to do it..

       1. @Ellie I never knew about this!!!!!! That is so sad. Does William even love Kate? I have a better feeling when Harry gets married(hope its not meghan) He is going to be a better husband than William and shower is wife with all kids of jewelry. I kind of feel sad for Kate but she did want this and its shocking after 5 years she still has not
          perfected her role.
          Off topic but I read the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester live in Apartment 1 in Kensington Palace and it has 21 ROOMS!!!!! I feel like that should be for Harry when he has a wife and kids. I mean he is a senior royal after all and its the second largest Apt. at Kensington!

          1. W&K’s Apartment has 20-something rooms, though some have said 50-something (maybe that includes staff quarters in the basement and attic? I don’t know). I know they chose that apartment that was being used by HRP for exhibitions and the like and demanded it, when it wasn’t even available because it was the largest apartment at KP.

             I think about 20 rooms would be average for the larger apartments? Private rooms, then more formal rooms where you host people; and staff quarters, as well. And for W&K there’s a granny flat for Carole at KP as well as at Anmer, I think. At Buckingham Palace the Queen has less rooms than those two!

             1. @Ellie well apparently Apartment 1 has 21 rooms and its three stories while WK have four stories, and elevator and has larger space. But come one I think Harry should have the 21 rooms.

       2. Well, actually William did buy her a Cartier watch back in 2014. While it was billed to the press as an early anniversary present, dates and circumstances point to it actually being a guilt gift. Feb 6: William is pictured with Jecca on a hunting holiday in Spain. Feb 14: Kate is first seen wearing the watch to open the ICAP Art Room. April 29: Kate and William’s wedding anniversary.

          No way was it an anniversary present, given more than two months before the date. Why do that? And funny that they didn’t try to pass it off as a Valentine’s Day gift–maybe that just didn’t occur to them. No, it must have been a present from William to try to sooth Kate over his jetting away with Jecca.

          The watch was estimated at $5,950. If I were Kate, I’d have demanded something costing much more. Of course, she did get that holiday to the Maldives the next month.

          1. If I were Kate, I would have demanded something more than a watch. I would’ve wanted diamonds. Lots of diamonds.

             1. Yeah, seriously! Buy me a tiara and parure, Willy, then we can talk…

                I’d read she bought the watch herself but I’m happy to be corrected. 🙂

          2. @Lizzie, I thought she bought that watch?

             1. Hmmm….haven’t seen anything that said that Kate bought it for herself, just that William gave it to her, but I’ll look again when I have a chance. If it wasn’t a guilt gift maybe Kate felt she deserved to buy herself a special treat to make up for William’s trip with Jecca? It did have a sapphire specially inset into it somehow, supposedly to coordinate with Big Blue, and that sounds like something your husband would have done as a gift, not something you’d request for yourself–at least I wouldn’t, but then again, I’m not used to buying such things. One article even stretched it to make a Diana connection–that because Diana loved Cartier watches so much that that’s the reason William chose it for her.

                Oh well, whether he bought it or she bought it, I believe it was bought because he royally screwed up.

             2. @Lizzie, I think its hilarious William is stingy with his own money but not with others.

             3. Lizzie: a blue sapphire is a brand marker for cartier watches. Very few of their brand lines don’t have that sapphire.

             4. Ah, thanks for pointing that out…I thought some of the articles implied that it was specially made. Cartier isn’t exactly a brand that I have great familiarity with lol.

             5. Lizzie: a tiny puzzler regarding William giving Kate the ring of doom as a nod to his mother THEN buying her a new watch ( assuming he did) .

                Nevermind the who got what debate between William and Harry. Let’s set that aside for a minute.

                William was Diana’s confidant. He was old enough to know what she valued and why. Therefore, when he chose her watch as a keepsake, it wasn’t as random or as unemotional compared to the more publicly known ring.

                It was well known that Diana took to wearing her beloved father’s cartier watch after his death. That was her own keepsake of him, so William choosing the watch over the ring has always made more sense to me, given their differently close relationship compared with her relationship with Harry.

                Fast forward a few decades, He gives Kate his mother’s ring, which wasn’t as beloved as the watch and then buys Kate a new watch rather than hand over the more sentimentally precious watch.

             6. Where does Kate have money to buy her own Cartier watch? She is born and bred moocher and she probably mooched off of public money to “buy herself” this watch.

41. I just saw this article, with side by side photos of four generations wearing the Cambridge tiara, and was struck by something in the photos. Both Queen May and Diana both had bangs, which made it so they could wear the tiara further forward. And the Queen has a much smaller forehead, which also makes it possible to wear it further forward. But Kate has a much more prominent forehead. Wearing it so far up on her head would mean having it literally sit on her hairline. I’d venture to say that all of her tiaras will look like headbands.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4016108/Kate-dons-Diana-s-favourite-tiara-Duchess-wears-Cambridge-Lover-s-Knot-Royal-jewellers-Garrard-1914-Queen-Mary.html

    1. I mentioned somewhere above that I thought Diana’s bangs and Kate’s lack of bangs were throwing everyone off in terms of the way Diana and Kate each wore the tiara. I’d guess they probably wore it in the same spot on the head but because Kate doesn’t have bangs it looks more forward than it did on Diana.

       1. Kate also wore this tiara last year & I think she looked better plus her evening gown wasn’t red so she looked more presentable. But still without the Royal Family Order she looked so “naked”.

Comments are closed.