Here are some photos of the royal family going to Easter church service yesterday at Windsor Castle. Missing from the group: Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince William, Prince Harry and Duchess Kate. I don’t see Princess Anne or Prince Philip either (update: Anne was there, I missed her). But Queen Elizabeth was joined by her youngest sons, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex (Andrew and Edward). The Queen was also joined by Peter Phillips, who is Anne’s son, and Peter’s wife Autumn. Autumn is very pretty!
Who else? Princess Beatrice of York was there, as was the Countess of Wessex and her daughter Lady Louise Windsor. Quick question: why isn’t Louise a princess? And why is she a Windsor rather than a Wessex? Surely her title should be Princess Louise of Wessex? Andrew’s daughters are princesses, and they go by “York,” his ducal title. I’m fascinated by titles and who gets to be called what. I still maintain that Kate is not now and has never been a princess, other than “Princess William of Wales.”
There’s also an interesting update on the Beatrice situation. Back in February of this year, the British papers began to note that Beatrice, 26, seemed to be on some kind of extended holiday following her exit from a cushy job at Sony in London. She quit working back in December, and then spent two months going on endless vacations and partying up a storm (or as Will and Kate call it, “business as usual”).
When she was criticized for her seeming aimlessness, Beatrice’s people quickly announced that she had just started a dodgy-sounding “finance” program in America. In the middle of February. Which made no real sense. Anyway, the UK papers now say that Beatrice is “considering” a permanent relocation to America, specifically to NYC. Which is weird, right? Because we were told in February that she had already moved to America. As it turns out, Beatrice “recently completed a finance course at a university in San Francisco” (there’s a B.S. University in San Fran?) and now she’s interviewing for some financial positions in NYC, hoping to move there permanently. True story though: I have no idea when her San Francisco finance course was supposed to happen, because she was photographed in and around London throughout March. Very fishy.
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.
Princess Anne is right there in the 4th photo no?
Princess Anne is in the bottom picture next to her husband.
Here is Anne next to Andrew dressed in a light color for a change . She looked nice.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/05/12/274D406400000578-3026331-image-m-34_1428233381787.jpg
Lady Louise is very pretty.
Lady Louise, is a lovely girl. So is her Mother, Sophie.
Though I am puzzled, why Sophie is still dressing Louise as if she is 7 years old.
Well, I did notice that. I think she’s sort of at an awkward stage, not quite little girl,and not quite teenager. I thought Sophie missed the mark a little, too. I guess it’s hard to let go of the little girl?
She’s just 11 – my 12 year old dresses similarly for church – I really can’t imagine what else she’d wear?
Yes. At Louise’s age she shouldn’t be wearing white stockings. I just hope James doesn’t succumb to the Windsor hair tragedy when he’s older.
It is the black Mary Jane’s and the cut of her coat. Which is odd for her height. And age.
I am just puzzled why at the age of eleven. Louise is not wearing clothes that were designed for a girl that is probably in Jr. High/6th grade(?) by now.
Agree, Gigi, that she shouldn’t be wearing a black dress and heels, but I think she needs maybe a full length coat and not Mary Janes? I mean, she looks pretty, and I prefer that look to something overly mature, but I think it’s slightly too young for an 11 year old.
Wow. She looks age- and church-appropriate, and very lovely.
Hvae anyone considered that Lady Louise might just like this look – in my experience children have very definite ideas of how they want to dress, even at a young age, so I don’t think that it is safe to assume that her mother dictates how she dresses.
Hmm, Arthistorian, no I didn’t think of that, because when I was that age my mother dictated what I wore and I had no choice. But you make a good point.
Let me just say that I think she looks very pretty, which was my original comment, and in no way did I mean to criticize a child for her clothes.
I think this is appropriate for an 11 year old in her position. She’s not going to wear adult hosiery yet, or heels, so what’s she supposed to wear? Exactly what she’s wearing. The nude hose and the heels come during the teenage years.
Here it is I just commented on the Kate thread that I DON’T comment because the conversation is about clothes and now I’m chiming in about Lady Louise, an adolescent (Lord, what is the world coming to . . . 😒☺️).
Anyway, Sophie always dresses Lady Louise like that: Mary Janes, white tights, and smallish coats. I don’t know if that’s only for public events where she wants Louise to look conservative and traditional, if it’s a sense of nostalgia from her own childhood or what. Honestly, and I know this is crazy, but I used to think that Sophie didn’t care so much for Louise because of the awkward way in which Louise is always dressed in comparison to her brother. I know, I know . . . I’m just speculating. I’m just speculating😳
I agree that Lady Louise doesn’t have to show up in sheer black pantyhose wearing 3″ inch heels with a 3″ inch spike, but she is being dressed like a 5 – 6 year old IMO. But honestly, IMO again, none of the women in the immediate BRF are fashion savvy. For example, look at Anne’s shoes (I love Anne). Those shoes remind me of the shoes my Great-grandmother would wear to church on Easter Sunday back in the 70s, clutching her pocketbook in one hand and me in the other.
Long live the Queen😜
My 11 year old wouldn’t be caught dead in that outfit. She would want a small heel. I would say that if Louise were on the smaller side, , it would be difficult to find age appropriate clothing, but she looks tall to me. I wouldn’t even think shoes like that would come in her size. Perhaps it is different in the UK and that look is acceptable.
It’s the Mary Janes. The rest of the outfit would be just acceptable at her age if she had a more mature looking shoe. At her age, I still wore colored tights, but had graduated to low-heeled pumps.
Lady Louise’s outfit looks like it was stashed away somewhere since the 80’s.
I know she is still very young, but dressing her like this? A few decades ago there was not much of a choice of formal wardrobe for that awkward age where you are not a small child and not yet a teenage young woman.
Nowadays there are so many cute choices I would not do this to a daughter of mine.
That dress on Louise, though, looks suspiciously like a Dolce&Gabbana print. It’s hard to tell without seeing the rest of the dress — it also could be Laura Ashley! — but there’s always the possibility it’s a bit more haute than we think it is (although I’m skeptical whether Sophie would spend money on couture for church.) Here’s a dress in that print on Kiernan Shipka: http://tomandlorenzo.com/2014/03/kiernan-shipa-in-dolcegabbana-at-the-2014-paleyfest-mad-men-panel/
Either way, that coat needs to go.
It makes me feel better that Sophie and Edward just sort assumed their daughter could fit into last year’s coat.
Are these standard mary janes? In some pictures they look like orthopedic shoes.
OMGosh, Dena! I swear I was typing the same sentiments about how and why Sophie dresses Louise, but I gave up because I couldn’t put it into words without sounding too harsh. You’ve said it much better than I. I really hope presenting her to the public is not just an afterthought and that Sophie is just firmly conservative in how she dresses her. Also, I hope we’ve seen the last of this ill-fitting coat. She wore this one when she was much smaller.
Olenna, I’ve been wanting to say that for ages but didn’t want to come off as if I were that Sophie doesn’t love or even hates her daughter. Louise always looks so awkwardly dressed to me, though. And I do wonder about their relationship.
Glad to know I’m not the only one who has thought about these things.
And other times, she’s been photographed in blue jeans, t-shirt, and trainers. This is Easter Sunday with a family that dresses up and wears goofy hats. I don’t see her outfit as being out-of-line with that.
Going by Mountbatten-Windsor or Wessex is optional. Louise isn’t a Princess Louise because her dad is, though royal, an earl not a duke. I doubt King Charles will make his niece and nephew Prince/ss(“slimming down” and all that jazz). I’m quite shocked that I know almost everything about Europe’s royals,yet, as a Zulu person, I don’t know the names of the Zulu king’s wives.
Nope. The Wessex children are legally Princes/Princesses because they’re the Monarch’s grandchildren through the male line. The only grandchildren entitled to these titles are William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James. Concessions were made for William’s children because it looks like TQ will remain monarch for a while. Unless the same concession is made for Harry’s children, they will be known as Lady and Lords (supposing he is created a Duke, not an Earl).
The Earl and Countess of Wessex decided their children would be known by the courtesy titles given to the children of Earls. There is no such thing as Lady X of Wessex, the correct use is the paternal surname ie. Mountbatten-Windsor.
Wow. I feel extremely American. I have NO IDEA what that was all about, but I appreciate your explanation.
Cee is correct. Sophie and Edward opted to have their kids referred to as if they are merely the kids of an earl. Legally they are prince/cess.
Edward will eventually be the Duke of Edinburgh (the title currently held by his father). As a result, upon his marriage to Sophie, ER specifically created the title “Earl of Wessex” at his request — apparently because he loved Shakespeare in Love (Colin Firth was Lord Wessex) and it’s tradition for the monarch’s son to receive a title upon marriage. As a result, there is another “real” Earl of Wessex whose title has been passed down through the traditional lineage. (Note: I only remembered the “Shakespeare in Love” part of this story b/c I thought it was kind of bizarre at the time. The rest is from Wikipedia.)
What @Cee/@Julaine said.
Chickadee: there was a first creation of ‘the Earl of Wessex’ title from before 1066. This current version is the second creation. As you mentioned, Edward saw it in the movie and rather liked it and voila!
FYI: just before 1066, England was divided into several different kingdoms one of which was the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Wessex. The first English Earl of Wessex, for whom this title was created, was the most trusted lieutenant of then King Canute. His name was Godwin. On Godwin’s death, his son Harold inherited the Earldom. When King Canute died as did his heirs, the ruling council voted for Harold to become King. This King Harold (better known as Harold 2) was conquered by William the Conqueror at the battle of Hastings in 1066 thus creating England.
The Earl of Wessex title has therefore been *dormant with the crown until it’s current creation. I think it’s an interesting development that a title from before England existed was used. Sets a precedent, don’t you think?
*i’m not sure if dormant is the right word for titles that revert to the crown after the last appropriate title holder dies where they can be revived at any time, but I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.
LAK – extinct titles pass to the Crown. These are titles where there it is certain there are no heirs. They can be recreated but need new letters patent. Dormant is when they think there *might* be heirs but they can’t be traced/legitimacy can’t be proven.
The Vikings made a few attempts to reinstate the Danelaw post-1066 but they really came to nothing. But one of them did get one of the coolest phrases/names in English history given to it – the Harrying of the North. I feel someone (me) in this country should find a conversation to slip that phrase into at least once per day!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
Thank you Sixer.
So that’s where that particular phrase originated!! I always use ‘Harrying’ in a sentence in broader terms to convey similar sentiment of what was done to the north.
Isn’t English and History marvelous.
Ps: i’m still showing off about the sheep wars. Keep em coming.
I’m sure I remember reading that Princess Anne had elected for her daughter to be known as Lady Zara rather than Princess because she didn’t want her to have all the attention associated with a Royal title? Whereas if what you’re saying is true she would never have been entitled to one in the first place?
The Princess Royal was there, along with her husband Vice Admiral Lawrence. As well as Prince Philip. The Queen and Prince Philip arrived separately from the pack that walked to church. In many of the pictures I saw yesterday Ann was front and center, leading the minor royals. The Wales family is almost never present for Easter Sunday. I believe the POW and the Duchess of Cornwall usually spend Easter in Scotland. Don’t know why or when this became a tradition but I know for a fact that they haven’t appeared with the Royal family at Easter in Windsor since long before Catherine joined the family.
As far as Lady Louise Windsor is concerned, her parents decided at her birth that their children should be styled as custom for the offspring of an Earl, not that of the grandchildren of a monarch in the male line. Officially, she IS HRH, Princess Louise of Wessex, however her parents were astute enough to realize that times were changing (after all Sophie does have a background in PR) and there was little likelihood of her or her brother having an official role in the family Firm and wanted to give their children the freedom to have semi-private lives.
Yep. C&C are at Birkhall, Hazza is in Oz with the Cambridges being….well….*crickets*
re Lady Louise, her father is the Earl of Wessex. When he married, the Queen said that their children would be referred as earl descendants, rather than as princes or princesses, so that’s why she’s a Lady.
IIRC, when Edward and Sophie married, and ER gave him the Wessex title, the agreement was children would be styled as children of an earl, not of a prince of the blood royal. Hence “Lady”.
I’m more interested in whether or not Windsor Castle staff strike over low pay of less than the Living Wage, on top of being made to perform extra duties without pay. I will positively stink of schadenfreude if they do go on strike.
I happen to love Anne’s Easter Outfit. I could pass on the shoes but I feel that is nit picking.
I think Anne is very attractive in her way.
Yes she is one of those women who are considered rather plain for most of their lives, but age into very handsome and/or pretty elderly ladies.
i thought she’s very pretty when she’s young, in a regency, court-lady kind of way. i suppose the publicity pictures were airbrushed in a way (according to the norms of those times), but she’s still so pretty and elegant.
http://s531.photobucket.com/user/StixezRightClickez/media/PrincessAnne.jpg.html
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmr1j2SfXA1qb6k7po1_500.jpg
kindof like her mother, the Queen, who is very pretty when young: her heiress days and esp. coronation day (she’s pretty enough that all those stonking diamonds can’t even compete/never stole the show–i mean the coronation necklace itself could swamp peasants like me).
and i think as she grows old, her posture and visage clearly reflects who she is: a no-nonsense talker, hard-worker and utilitarian. i always think that she’s a WYSIWYG kind of woman.
@lower-case deb Yes, I should have specified I agreed with GoodNamesAllTaken too (Clarified to say: she wasn’t unattractive–but since I’m an 80s kid I only ever knew her as an aristocratic frump–and yes those photos of Anne are lovely!) I do still think the Windsors start off attractive (I even find teenage/20s Charles kinda cute, I mean its not like he could help his ears), go through a “somewhat plain” phase in their middle years (at least by conventional beauty standards) and then age back in to attractiveness. And this is where I can actually approve of their conservatism; I get the impression they don’t mind looking their age (albeit aristocratically) because chasing youth is undignified (unless you are Andrew, and he chases youth a different way).
Has anyone read about Bonas’ interview? I’m dying to discuss it.
The one in the Daily Mail?
I really can’t understand the Bristih fashion when it comes to hats…. Are those considered nice and fashionable , the blue one with the feathers reminds me of a nest.. May God forgive me…
I personally love it. Here in my part of the USA its either really causal or over the top dressy but really trashy dressy — people think they are celebs but dress with a beer budget and act like they are reality tv stars. ugh.
ok…now I’m trying to figure out where you live…such a funny characterization!! …Jersey Shore?
For me, a hat has to actually cast shade on your face, it can be fashionable and still protect you from sun damage,..
If you want feathers and lace, fine… but it has to be a hat, not a mini hat…
https://www.etsy.com/pt/listing/162146394/derby-hat-church-hat-dress-hat-black?ref=market
http://www.becauseclothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Style-Women-Hats.jpg
I’m with you Solanacae! Sometimes I see ones that are ridiculous. Beatrice wore one that looked like a pretzel to Williams wedding
Yes, they do look like pretzels, right… I couldn’t find the word to describe them.. you did, thank you…
I remember seeing the pretzel shaped one on Beatrice at the wedding. The ugliest facinator I had ever seen. I don’t know why they wear them, but thankful it’s something we don’t do
Same here. But those facinators – very few of those look good imo ( yet I’d be totally embarrassed to wear it anywhere other than a costume party) and even fewer look good wearing it.
Kaiser, the greater SF area of course has many colleges, from the world renowned to lesser known but still academically strong and properly accredited.
But In the world of BS colleges, SF is better known for its questionable holistic health institutes; there is however ample WiFi if she needed to attend clown finance college online.
Bettyrose
Are you saying because Bea has chosen to go to a school that isn’t world renown it’s a sign she doesn’t take her academic and career choices as serisouly as if she went for a name brand college?
I chose my university because it offered things others didn’t that made the difference for me.
Or did I read this all wrong and by BS you meant Bach of Science and not BullS
FLORC, no I was responding to Kaiser’s question about “BS schools in SF.” I took that to mean ones with marginal accreditation and questionable academic terms. But I carefully worded my post to indicate the many lesser known but just as academically strong colleges in the region.
The Queen should send a memo to the Kardashians on how to dress properly for Easter church services.
Ugh, Anne would have made such a great queen. Makes me sad.
I”m sure the women are “fashionable” for the ocaision but to me in middle America, they look rediculous.
I wouldn’t wear those dresses or hats, but I think they look fine. Of course, I read the Kartrashian thread first, so it’s nice to see some church-bound people who don’t look like they dressed to be swinging around a pole, or fished their oldest moth-eaten T-shirts off the closet floor.
lol…. ” like they dressed to be swinging around a pole”…
Is it a royal rule that the girls, including Kate can only wear the most basic, boring, plain pumps in the shoe store?
No, it’s not a rule. No to open toed shoes is a rule though. I think shoe style is a fine line. Sometimes people just go for comfort and to match outfit. They limit themselves imo.
For goodness sake Sophie buy poor Lady Louise a new coat!! – she has been wearing that pink coat since she was 8 or 9 – she is wearing it at the Christmas church service in 2012 when it came almost to her knees! Get the girl some clothes that fit.
I also wonder why Sophie and Edward are rarely seen in public with the boy (Viscount Severn)? – he is 7 – almost 8 – and surely old enough for the church service.
Also I think that Sophie herself should lose the dead bird hat
Where is their son? He is never present at public events. Perhaps he has a medical issue that disallows him from public events.
Lady Louise always dresses like the poor cousin.
He was at Gatcombe horse trials and Commonwealth Games last year, Trooping of the Color and Jubilee events, etc. It goes back to the public vs private debate. He is not a public figure, nor is Louise. Sophie and Edward are not required to trot them out so the public can see them.
Louise could probably fit into one of Sophie’s coats at this point, which might last her through a few more growth spurts.
I make the same mistake about forgetting to buy new coats for my kids. I shall use this picture of Lady Louise for ammunition the next time I make this error.
Seriously, look at how these younger women are dressed and people STILL want to shade Kate and her wardrobe choices? Those two women look ridiculous. The loopy hats, the cheap looking prints and colors. The entire ensembles are so budget and tacky looking.
i wonder about that too. why can’t they look to their Eurocousins. e.g. Crown Princess Mary of Denmark–always stylish, always professional, and hardworking to boot. or Queen Letizia, who can work wonders with her tight budget (helps when you have one hunk of a husband as additional arm candy too btw)
another is Grand Duchess Marie Theresa of Luxembourg, always dressing to her body, always appropriate but never dull.
even though i sometimes think that they can either swing between too-avant-garde and too-matronly, both Queen Mathilde and Queen Maxima are always within the line with their quirkyness.
tbh, i never really get why the Brits feature in most fashion blogs (like GFY) when they are sooo boring seen-one-seen-all, and there are so many amazing fashion to be had on the continent and beyond… the Queen of Bhutan omgggg…
yeah, it´s a “british thing” IMO. They either look frumpy, dull or excentric to me. I adore the excentric ones, that shows character.
The royal women here on the continent are the stylish ones, the british royals and aristos have their own “island style” which is often basic or silly.
Wallis Simpson was a dreadful woman in some ways but omg that woman had more style, elegance and innate panache than the entire rf combined.i would give my eyetooth to afford bespoke reproductions of her entire wardrobe.
Imo
Agree. Horrible lady, but amazing style. Some of the most unique and stunning jewelry as well as outfits.
Oh yes, she had style and a jewellery collection to make Liz Taylor green with envy. She wasn’t the nicest person but knew how to rock an outfit.
I LOVE this piece:
http://www.delivermediamonds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/article-1334499-0C47CB30000005DC-67_964x547.jpg
I actually like Sophie and Beatrice’s outfits, particularly B’s coat. B is well known for wearing stand out fasinators and why not – makes a change for the same old boring ones everyone else wears.
Lady Louise and her brother James are not called princess or prince simply because their parents CHOSE not to. They are on the record as saying they wanted to give their kids a chance at a normal a life as possible. All grandchildren of the sovereign are allowed by law in the UK to style themselves “His/Her Royal Highness” but the Earl and Countess chose not to. It has absolutely nothing to do whether Edward is a royal Duke or not. Again he was offered a royal dukedom upon his marriage and declined, preferring the title he has now.
First, everyone looked nice and appropriate. I like Beatrice’s shoes. In fact, i like her whole outfit. Love Autumn’s cape!
Second, I’m not gonna comment on Louise’s clothes cuz that just may be her style and I say why put her in kitten heels and mini peplums if she doesn’t want to be in them. But good grief get her a new coat! It’s clearly too short for her. Then again, maybe she’s going thru a growth spurt and they don’t want to spend the money just yet esp with summer coming.
That happened to my friend. She bought her son a bunch of shirts, pants, etc, a whole new wardrobe, at the beginning of the school year and by November he couldn’t fit any of them. She had to buy him a entire new wardrobe again. It wasn’t funny because of the expense but it was because what else can you do but laugh. We keep telling him to stop growing but he refuses. *sigh*
Who is the guy in the yellow hoodie with QEII?
The Dean of Windsor, The Right Reverend David Conor.
Ps: i’m assuming that ‘yellow hoodie’ you mean the yellow Bishop’s vestments?
LOLOLOL.
There may be some protocol on how Louise dresses.
I remember in Anne of Green Gables she had
To be a certain age before she could wear long dresses.
White stockings and brown Mary Janes with every dress at every event?
Exactly this! In America too, even as recently as the mid-twentieth century, you weren’t supposed to start wearing long dresses with your hair down until after you made your debut.
Wasn’t it that you wore short dresses and your hair down while you were a child? Once you were old enough (18?) you put on long dresses and started wearing your hair up.
Didn’t Anne and Diana (Anne of Green Gables) comment on another girl because she wore her hair up early at a ball? The miniseries quote:
“DIANA: In three years, I’m going to wear my hair like Alice Bell. She’s only seventeen and I think she looks ridiculous. I’m going to wait until I’m eighteen. My, my. Doesn’t Gilbert look dashing tonight? “
At first, from the pic’s I believe Autumn was preggers. However, then saw the video and decided not…b/c in the video, she is clearly drunk
Her husband has to pull her into church by her coat sleeve.
(PS I like peas)
thank you
also – my friend Alli hates peas and anything green
thank you
Where is this video you speak of? link please!
She looks drugged.
I also have trouble keeping all these royal titles straight.
Someone said that Lady Louise’s title is of Windsor because it resorts back to Edward’s original “surname”, but Princess Beatrice is of York, not Windsor, despite her father originally being of Windsor too, or so I would assume as he’s Edward’s brother?
My head hurts a bit…