Duchess Kate repeats a Luisa Spagnoli suit from 2011, plays cricket in heels

wenn21272120

Here are some photos of Duchess Kate and Prince William in Christchurch, New Zealand today (time difference… most of these photos came out yesterday in Europe and America). Christchurch was left devastated by an earthquake in 2011 and Kate and Will visited the CTV Memorial Park, visiting with the families who lost people. Then it was onto a cricket world cup event where Kate and William gamely tried to play. Kate didn’t even take off her three-inch heels, which is crazy.

Kate repeated a look for this day of activity – this is the Luisa Spagnoli suit she wore in February of 2011, when she and William did one of their first “engaged” appearances at St. Andrew’s, their alma mater. In 2011, she wore the suit with a black turtleneck and black boots. I have to say, I like this styling version, with no t-neck or boots. That being said, is it like “against the rules” for Kate to slip off her heels to play cricket?

They also met with a Maori chief who apparently ordered them to “procreate” and “May you do what princes and princesses have always done and increase your family.” I’m starting to feel sort of bad for Will and Kate on that count – I mean, she JUST had a baby nine months ago and people are already trying to pressure them into having another one. Let them procreate in their own time, people!

wenn21272101

wenn21272095

wenn21272087

wenn21272082

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

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

75 Responses to “Duchess Kate repeats a Luisa Spagnoli suit from 2011, plays cricket in heels”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. The Original Mia says:

    There’s a debate on the royal forums about this skirt. It’s longer. Now, no one knows if she’s wearing a shift under it or if the skirt was lengthened. I like this suit. Looks good on her. Her hair…improvement, but her hairdresser should be fired. You can clearly see her tracks in close-ups of her hair.

    Snarky comment: lay off the Botox, Kate! Her forehead doesn’t move.

  2. HH says:

    This is what I most fear about marriage. After you make the leap to spend the rest of your lives together, people want to know about kids. People just don’t let you take the next time at your own pace. Unless you’re going to contribute to the college fund or be an on-call babysitter, pipe down.

    EDITED TO ADD: I haven’t been married so this is PURE conjecture, but I feel like the fact that society thinks this a natural order to things is one of the reasons people get divorced. Okay we’ve been dating a while, so let’s get married. OK, now that we’re married we should buy house. Now that we have a house, let’s have kids. It seems people follow a trajectory without stopping to think is that next step something they’re ready for? Is it something they want? It seems like people get trapped in inertia.

    • MollyB says:

      Just be prepared it goes like this: When are you getting engaged? When are you getting married? When are you having a baby? When are you having another baby? You’re having A THIRD BABY? Are you nuts?. And then everyone forgets about you and moves on to your younger cousin who just started dating a guy.

      • Tatjana says:

        No one asks about having a third baby where I’m from. One’s okay, two is enough, three is a lot, more than that is insane – that’s why we’re dying out.

      • idk says:

        I think it has to do with how well you are at parenting and managing children. If people notice you are stressed a lot or you complain a lot about how busy you are with your two children, then when you announce you’re having a third people give you the side eye. I can understand why but it’s no one’s business how many kids you have (unless you’re living on welfare, then I get pissed because why should tax payers keep funding your children?). Most people opt for two kids as they are so expensive to raise and educate. Honestly, I think one child is enough lol…but that’s just my opinion.

      • lunchcoma says:

        Exactly!

        Except that it only stops until the kids are in their late teens. Then everyone will start harping about their educational plans, and will start trying to marry them off as soon as that’s complete (unless they marry young, in which case the same nosy people will express horror at the early marriage).

      • HH says:

        @MollyB – LOL! I’m getting myself prepared. I’m 27 and single, so everyone is trying to set me up. I certainly want to be married and have kids, but when I look at the lives of my friends with kids (who are extremely happy), I realize it will all come in town. Kids are great, but they are blackholes of time and money. Both of which I love. HAHA! I don’t want to rush these decisions.

      • Eleanor Zissou says:

        @Tatjana – It’s similar where I’m from too.
        I’m always surprised how in Americathe wealthy have a lot of children, like the Romneys, because where I’m from, the only families that have 4+ children are the poor and uneducated ones.

        But, what do you mean by dying out?

      • Rachel says:

        MollyB you are cracking me up!

      • Ronia says:

        Environmentally-wise having many children at this point is not good anymore. It is estimated the planet’s population will reach 10 billion in less than hundred years and the resources still available will not be able to support it. Which means wars (in fact they are expected to start much sooner). I recently had to read some scientific reports on the issue for work and I was quite shaken, to be honest. I didn’t realize we were so far into trouble but it seems we are and few people realize it just like I didn’t.

      • bluhare says:

        I never got asked any of those and we don’t have any kids!

      • Francesca says:

        It’s called making conversation. People ask other people these dumb questions all the time. Don’t take it too seriously, peeps.

      • mayamae says:

        @Eleanor, I think the Romney’s large family has more to do with their religion than their wealth. I always find the wealthiest to have fewer children, and I’ve always attributed it to them being less influenced by their religion. Obvious exclusions to this are the Romneys and Kennedys.

        Sometimes smaller families are just common sense. I remember thinking on a visit to NYC that it was odd that I never saw a parent with more than two children. Then I realized that for people living in the city, being limited to two hands places a limit on the number of children you can corral on the busy streets and subways.

      • Sarah says:

        Lol @mollyb exactly right. Except my in laws are Indian so there’s not really a limit!

    • T.C. says:

      Well this was by a ‘Maori chief’. I’m guessing it’s his job to wish health, happiness and lot of children on couples like traditional cultures all around the world but I could be wrong.

      Plus seriously that is pretty much 90% of Kate’s job to produce an heir and a spare or two. Don’t forget the royal women that were flat out killed or set aside for not doing their making babies duty.

      • me says:

        So basically William did not had a choice did he? He was basically told since birth that he will marry and have children. What if he didn’t want to marry or have kids? What if he didn’t want to be the King. What if he didn’t want to marry until much later in life? What if he was gay? I mean does the Monarchy not think of these things? What if Kate had fertility issues can couldn’t produce an “heir”? What then? Do they adopt or do they force William to divorce her and find another bride? So many questions !

      • bluhare says:

        me, that’s pretty much it. You’re born as the heir to the throne and your life is mapped out for you. Even Harry has more options than William does.

      • LAK says:

        ME: The BRF already has a fail-safe insurance policy should William prove unable to take up Kingship or didn’t provide heirs himself. The ‘spare’, always exists for this very purpose. In this specific example , Harry. The Queen’s own father was ‘the spare’ and as it happens, turned out to be a very good King though he was never prepared for it unlike ‘the Heir’ David who abdicated.

        Further, William now has an heir, so again, if he should remove himself or abdicate, PGtips is up next. If William doesn’t produce a spare, and PGtips proves unable to take up Kingship, then Harry is up, then Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie etc and so forth per the line of succession.

        What the BRF never lack is heirs to pick up where the last one left off.

        It’s an interesting study to see that many Kings and Queens in British History were ‘spares’ and or further down the line of succession. They are also the most memorable for colourful reigns.

      • bluhare says:

        Hey, LAK!! Isn’t it strange that the spares who came on board turned out so well. I can only think of the most visible now, but Henry VIII, Elizabeth I for starters!

      • mayamae says:

        There have been times that the reigning monarch has not had heirs and yet they didn’t murder their wife or divorce them. The path to Victoria’s throne is an example.

      • me says:

        @LAK

        Thanks for the info. So let me get this straight, if William and Kate were not able to produce any heirs, Willliam wouldn’t be able to become King? Or what if William wanted to become King but didn’t want to have children? Is that allowed?

      • mayamae says:

        LAK, I know it’s probably been rehashed many times regarding Anne being absent in the lines of succession when Beatrice and Eugenie are present. I know things are differentiated by gender – for instance, even if Anne wanted her children to be considered royals, they are less “valuable” than her younger brothers’ children. Thank God the law’s been changed to allow for first born child, regardless of gender, to be heir. Too bad that isn’t retroactive to all living members. Not that I think Anne necessarily resents her position – although she seems to like being a royal pretty well when it suits her – who to not curtsy to, etc.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @me,

        Even if William failed to reproduce he’d still be in the line of succession and rule until death. The previous William (William IV) is a great example of that — so is Charles II (as are plenty of other English & Scottish rulers). A lot of kings stayed married to their wives even when their spouse was infertile — Charles II had numerous illegitimate children but stayed married to Catherine despite her inability to provide him with legitimate children.

        If William (or anyone else) had been gay or not wanted to marry — it would depend on how the Palace choose to manage that info. He’d probably still be pressured by various factions to marry (not always by The Grey Men, the press is equally bad). But whether William (or anyone) would succumb to the pressure depends on the person.

        What LAK is saying is there is a clear Line of Succession that goes on for miles — the BRF is rare in that case. Other Royal families do not have a Line of Succession that goes into the 100′s much less the thousands. Even though they don’t act like it — they are secure in knowing there is someone to fill the Sovereigns shoes.

  3. samra says:

    She looks lovely. I like her hair like this, but honestly i kinda miss baby George. LoL

  4. Loopy says:

    If she does have another baby that will probably be it, in recent times the royal family members have only been having two children.

    • mayamae says:

      I know that Charles and Diana only had two because they soon despised each other, and Andrew and Fergie’s marriage ended not long after the second was born, but it is suspicious that Anne and Edward only had two children – it’s like they’re following a rule book.

      • LadySlippers says:

        It’s now pretty common for people to have only two kids.

        Anne’s marriage was on faulty ground like her two brothers but I suspect all three would still have stopped at two regardless of the state of all their marriages.

        Edward and Sophie struggled to have the two they had due to numerous fertility issues.

  5. Kali says:

    The skirt is an appropriate length, her hair is (partially) up out of her face and no wedges in sight? I’m considering this a win for the Duchess. I’m choosing to believe that the red and black is a nod to Canterbury “colours”.

  6. T.C. says:

    It was a memorial so I can’t be mad that she took off her heels, Wills is still in his dress shows too while playing. I think she looks nice, respectable. Appreciate the longer skirt for this event. She looks cute playing cricket too! Do more sports event Katie.

  7. idk says:

    Is it someone’s job to keep track of what outfits she has worn before? Just seems ridiculous.

    • wow says:

      Some people make their living that way. Part of the job of a Stylist/Dresser, which they claim Kate doesn’t officially have (lol). I read that her Secretary or Personal Assistant has also taken on the job of helping her dress on this tour. I feel that is because they don’t want to pay the additional fees for a real Stylist. Luckily, Kate’s outfits have been good for the most part.

  8. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I like it. She looks pretty.

  9. lunchcoma says:

    I don’t know why she wouldn’t wear pants and dressy flat shoes to an event like this. She looks a little silly on the field in that outfit. But, whatever. It’s pretty enough.

  10. Ronia says:

    Oh my God, it’s a straight skirt!!! I can hardly believe my eyes! Now I can’t help but wonder why this outfit wasn’t the one for the arrival in Wellington. It’s still red, it wouldn’t fly in the wind, and to add – it would have showcased the brooch much better! P.S. Heels for cricket? Never ceases to surprise me.

    • T.C. says:

      “Christchurch was left devastated by an earthquake in 2011 and Kate and Will visited the CTV Memorial Park, visiting with the families who lost people. ”

      I cut her much slack since she went for a respectable event, a memorial service. If she then took off her heels for the cricket part she would be criticized for looking too casual. Will is also in his dressy shoes but no one else is pointing that out.

      • Ronia says:

        I wouldn’t critisize anyone for wearing appropriate clothes and shoes at an event. I can’t be responsible for other people’s opinions. As about William, I think it’s pretty obvious that there is a huge difference between men and women shoes but I’d definitely prefer him to change as well. Kate is not unknown for such weird choices and it’s not her first time. Volleyball in 10-inch wedges, heels stuck in grass at sports event, etc.

    • Ayre says:

      That’s interesting! I don’t think it looks strange at all. I think in the post-Sex-and-the-City world high heels have been normalized into the mainstream. I don’t wear them myself, as I suffer from topple-over-itis, but I know plenty of professional women who wear heels all day erry day. Add a pair of ballet flats and some running shoes and its the whole shoe wardrobe.

  11. LucyStarr says:

    I thought I read somewhere they were supposed to change into less dressy for the cricket event, but got behind schedule so they showed up dressed as they were?

  12. skeksis says:

    I could never do this. All the public smiling? I am not cut out to be a princess.

  13. bluhare says:

    FLORC, I don’t even think we need the wiglet wagon for this one. Wiglet!!!!!

  14. vylette says:

    I love the dress. The red color looks lovely on her. She really is looking happy and carefree. This tour is bringing out the best in her!

  15. L says:

    There’s video where Will accidentally chucks the ball near her head. It’s clearly a accident, but she reacts with wagging her finger at him. I much prefer this sporty competitive side of these two.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10764514/Royal-tour-Duke-and-Duchess-of-Cambridge-take-their-sporting-rivalry-to-the-cricket-pitch.html
    Even the pictures of the finger wag are hilarious.
    http://instagram.com/p/mw35eENPMi/

  16. SoCal says:

    My eyes hurt looking at that bright red suit. I wonder if William thought it too bright as well lol. She looks better in pencil skirts, more “royal” IMO. Ditch the flimsy fabric a-line dresses/skirts and no more crotch shots because of the wind; problem solved.

    Speaking of crotch shots….anybody else annoyed by the way she walks with her clutch bag glued to her crotch? I don’t even see why she needs to carry it. There are pictures on DM that show the clutch under her arm as she is accepting gifts from the crowd. Where is Rebecca Deacon? Shouldn’t she hold the clutch bags while Kate is greeting crowds? They have become an unnecessary accessory.

  17. Belle says:

    Did I miss a post here on CB of the teal dress and hat? I guess the dress was a teal version of the same dress Kate wore in pale pink to a garden party a while back…. ? I remember liking the pink version well enough, but the teal color is amazing!!

    Oh, as for this outfit… Eh, it’s ok. Clearly a better option in the wind! I saw the discussion somewhere else about the ‘longer skirt’. Seems this was originally a dress, but was clearly shorter last time she wore it. One of the photos of her throwing the ball shows that it is definitely a skirt now… with a longer hemline. So, either she had also purchased a skirt, knowing she would need a longer hemline at some point, or (as I believe) the dress was altered to be a skirt.

    I really like her hair this way… Pics at DM showed a lovely knot kind of design in the back. I really liked the ponytail the other day, but I doubt we’ll see that very often. At least it is off her face with this ‘partially up’ style!

  18. lenje says:

    I can’t help giggling about the Maori chief ordering them to “procreate”.

    :D :D :D

  19. Jocelyn says:

    I love that suit but hate the heels. She looks really pretty overall here though. She seems so much more relaxed during sporting events than formal dinners and the like. I wish she would go to these more often.

    • Curious Cole says:

      I was thinking the same thing: we only see genuine smiles from Kate when there’s a sporty aspect. She does seem far more relaxed than ever before, and William’s more comfortable with showing her affection, which is nice.

      But she refuses to ditch the idiotic heels and hanging hair! Lovely diamond brooches and earrings completely obscured, and those are the only jewelry pieces we’ll get to “see” on this tour :-( She tripped in those wedges whilst touring a vineyard, why not commit to a sensible heel height now?

  20. KateBush says:

    Possibly my favourite outfit of the tour so far. She looks great! She played cricket in her heels because they were running behing schedule and didn’t have time to change.

    The tour has been fun, I’ve enjoyed watching the news/reading these posts to see what she wears every day. I think she’s developing a bit more personality and confidence also. Love the fun Kate!

  21. Cersei says:

    Pencil skirt and heels on a sports field…SMH. Anyway, the suit was only just “cute” a couple a years ago with the black turtleneck, but even then it was not fashion forward. Now, it’s just a boring suit. And, maybe it’s my eyesight or the heavy makeup, but she’s looking a bit old here and the hairdo is not flattering to her forehead. I like her hair pulled back, but this is not a good look.

  22. Tiffany says:

    Girl so thin now that jacket looks big on her.

  23. Rosehip says:

    I liked how she wore the outfit a couple of years ago. It had a younger look, that suited her then status imo. The way she wears it now looks more grown-up, ladylike and elegant, and suits her role better as a wife and mother. I’m glad it got a second outing.