Duchess Camilla debuts an expensive new hairstyle: lovely or boring?

138556PCN_Duchess16

Here are some photos of Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, at an event yesterday in London. She made an appearance to unveil two elephant sculptures which were made to raise awareness about saving Asian elephants. Camilla used this appearance to debut a subtly different new look. Do you see it? I really didn’t until the UK papers pointed it out – Camilla got a haircut! And I think her color is subtly different too. This is apparently her first big hair change-up in years. She was also wearing a lovely and expensive silk dress by Anna Valentine, the designer who did Camilla’s wedding gown. She also had a clutch purse that looked like a “tin of baked beans.” For laughs.

According to the Daily Mail, Camilla’s new look is all part of her “expensive makeover,” which, let’s be fair, has been happening since she married Charles. Suddenly her hair and clothes got a lot better and her jewelry is almost as amazing as the Queen’s. You can read the DM’s breakdown of Camilla’s “makeover” here. Some highlights:

Her haircut: It’s the work of hairstylist Hugh Green, who often accompanies Camilla on tours at a cost of £1,600 a day. The cut might have been the work of the Jo Hansford Salon in Mayfair though, which is where Camilla gets her blonde highlights for about £500 a highlight session.

She gets regular bee venom facials? “Her skin too looks noticeably fresher and plumper than usual, the result, say sources, of regular bee venom facials performed at home by top facialist Deborah Mitchell. Dubbed ‘nature’s botox’, apotoxins trick the complexion into thinking it has been slightly – with the result the body sends blood to the area, stimulating collagen production in the process…Maintaining her fresh-faced look doesn’t come cheap either thanks to the soaring cost of bee venom – £30,000 for a single ounce. No surprise then, that a 50ml pot of Mitchell’s Bee Venom mask comes in at £73.”

Camilla maintains a size 10 figure? She gets her wardrobe tailored to show off her waist.

Camilla has expensive fashion taste: she goes for £18,000 to £27,000 gowns from Burce Oldfield, Anna Valentine, etc.

Camilla’s jewelry: Charles apparently “lavishes” expensive pieces on Camilla, some of which are “heritage pieces” Charles has bought which once belonged to Camilla’s great-grandmother Alice Keppel. She apparently has a vast ruby collection. She also gets to wear the Greville necklace, a five-row diamond piece once owned by the Queen Mother. Camilla’s engagement ring was also the Queen Mother’s – it’s a 1920s piece with a square-cut diamond flanked by six diamond baguettes.

[From The Daily Mail]

God, if I ever got a chance to see everything in the royal jewel collection, I could die happy. I like the fact that Queen Elizabeth takes major pieces out of rotation for years before bringing them out again, but still… imagine you get a chance to go into the royal vault (or whatever) and look at EVERY piece. I would die!!!!

As for Camilla… she looks good. I don’t buy that she’s getting crazy-expensive skin treatments, but I do think she spends a lot of money on clothes, jewels and her hair.

138556PCN_Duchess22

138543PCN_Camilla16

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.

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

160 Responses to “Duchess Camilla debuts an expensive new hairstyle: lovely or boring?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Clucky says:

    You’re next Anna Wintour.

  2. meme says:

    I hate her. I will always hate her. Team Princess Diana forever.

    • Imqrious2 says:

      Scooch over Meme, I’ll join you on this one. And personally, I think she looks like the same, just with a shorter hiatcut. Can’t make a silk purse out of a Rottweiler ‘s ear, as the saying goes!

      • JudyK says:

        Ditto to both of the above remarks.

      • meme says:

        Diana was no saint, but Charles and Camilla made life miserable for Diana from the getgo. They are both wretched.

      • VivienLeigh says:

        Team Diana forever. I agree completely. Unfortunately, Charles wanted Camilla, and he got her. They deserve each other. It will be very interesting to see what happens when the Queen finally does pass away.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        Didn’t even notice a difference! And yeah, I’m team Diana. What she and Charles did was so disrespectful to Diana, and then to marry her after Diana’s death? Ick

      • wolfpup says:

        Diana, Princess of Wales; Queen of Hearts.

      • FLORC says:

        Here we go. Excuse me while I sit on the side without rewritten history and fantasy. No one was to shoulder all blame, but people carry a torch for Diana that she long put out while she was alive.
        This is often overlooked. Much is overlooked and has to be to keep this triangle going. We’re all entitled to our opinions though. If not always in truth 😉

      • Mary-Alice says:

        Of course Charles and Camilla are at fault. Diana was barely out of her teens. What I find funny on this board is how on certain threads, when it comes to relationships, a 20 year old American is the poor victim, an innocent soul, hardly able to take responsibility for his/her own actions, while Diana, who at the time was truly very young and naive, is suddenly an equal to her husband and his mistress who were both much older and far more experienced and very well aware what they were doing. The hypocrisy. For the sake of “truth”, of course. LOL

    • Christina says:

      #TeamDianaForever

    • Sherry says:

      I don’t hate her. I think she and Charles (especially Charles) made very bad youthful decisions that impacted others. I believe (and time has proven this correct) that Charles and Camilla were/are soul-mates. I think when they were together in their youth, Camilla wanted to marry Charles, but even though he loved her, he was living the high life as the world’s most eligible bachelor.

      Camilla was not willing to play the waity Katey game with Charles and went on to marry and start a family with someone else. Charles realized too late that Camilla was the one for him. As he got older, pressure was mounting for him to marry and produce an heir and there was starry-eyed teenager Diana who had real psychological issues and believed all the romance novels she’d been reading.

      Diana looked good on paper. She was young, attractive, came from the right family and the press loved her. She idolized Charles like a One Direction fan girl loves Harry Styles. Charles believed he could have both his true love (Camilla) and his royal-duty wife (Diana).

      I think Diana was disillusioned from her rose-colored glasses view of Charles and went on to punish him in public for not loving her.

      Charles and Camilla have been in love and together (whether married to others or not) since 1971. Their story was the true love story. Diana and Charles was a fairy tale created by the press.

      • JudyK says:

        Wow, Sherry, you’ve got it down pat. Meme was right…Diana was no saint, but, as you said, Sherry, I’ve always believed she was punishing Charles for not loving her.

      • JudyK says:

        You summed it up perfectly, Sherry. As Meme said, “Diana was no saint,” but I agree that Diana was just trying to punish Charles for not loving her.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree too. Diana was lovely, and had charisma oozing out of her pores. Camilla doesn’t have the charisma, although I think she does (when given the chance) come across as quite a warm personality.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        Agree with your assessment, it’s spot on. The whole situation evolved to the point it was toxic……and no one looked good for their respective parts. As beautiful as Dianna was, and as tragic as the situation she found herself was, she certainly had her own manipulations that were quite unseemly.

        Team Prince Harry.

      • Sharon says:

        Diana was used like a brood mare! No one ever considered the emotional pain the family (especially Charles) put her through. He has no right to rule. He has no principles. By the way I heard Camille is a lush.

      • Sharon says:

        Doesn’t her new doo somewhat resemble the hairdo that Diana wore at one time?

      • inthekitchen says:

        @Sharon, that was my first thought too – Diana’s early slightly longer feathered hair style – especially in the first photo.

      • Liberty says:

        Imo, I’m with you.

      • FLORC says:

        Sherry
        Yes to nearly all of this. I’m a little confused on the soul mate comment. Unless you mean Charles and Camilla fit as ideal mates because they understand eachother and know how to be. Not in the way of bettering eachother and being that ideal match.

        Diana was no saint even before Charles. And Charles was no “prince”. And Camilla didn’t even really want him. And all 3 of them had issues and went about things very incorrectly when the proper way was understood. Tempers were high. But they were all adults and no one was the innocent victim. And all got along peacefully. This whole fued is only kept alive by those who blindly believed the propaganda imo.

      • hadlyB says:

        Maybe at first she punished him for not loving her but I think I would be pissed off too if someone married me when I was young and in my prime just to do his duty.

        She probably kept punishing him because he took away years from her life that was not his to take and he did of his own selfish reasons and that was a dick move even if she was bat shit crazy.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She chose to marry him, she wasn’t forced. He didn’t take anything she didn’t give willingly. She had built up a fictional idea of what the Prince of Wales was and how a prince could save her. She put those blinders on herself.

      • notasugarhere says:

        imo, why does it always devolve into personal attacks from you?

        Diana was a part of that set, she saw her parents acting in the same way. Her sister dated Charles and would have told her the way things were. She wanted an escape and she wanted someone to save her. She chose the idea of the Prince, not the reality of the man.

        I think all three are equally guilty and equally innocent.

      • Sherry says:

        RE my “soul mate” comment – I think Charles and Camilla are very good friends and enjoy many of the same things. I think they get along well and have loved one another (in one capacity or another) for over 4 decades. I don’t believe they are the romance of the century.

        My daughter turned 18 yesterday. I believe Diana was only a year older than that when she started dating Charles who was in his 30’s. It is easy for me to see Diana as a naive, romantic young woman who “got” the Prince Charming she had idolized for years, only to discover he was just a man.

      • enike says:

        Camilla was not really into marrying Charles, she was in love with somebody else, who she married.

    • TessD says:

      Yeah, I’m with you on that.

    • BooBooLaRue says:

      cosign

    • JohnWayneLives says:

      Me too. Always hate. yeah I know Diana wasn’t perfect, but man she sabotage their marriage in every way she possibly could right from the beginning.

    • M.A.F. says:

      OMG. Diana/Charles/ Camilla. Jennifer/Brad/Angelina. Does this argument ever freaking end?

    • enike says:

      It´s not like Diana didn´t know from the get-go, that Charles is in love with Camilla….. it was not a surprise for her (given her well documented doubts before the wedding, exactly for this reason)

      I like Camilla more than Diana, Diana was a rebound for Charles – unfortunate situation for all of them, but I would not say, that Diana was not aware of this

    • Suzanne says:

      Grow up. Stop being so judgmental. Charles and Diana were basically an arranged marriage. Diana was a lovely girl with LOTS of emotional issues… Granted she was a devoted mother and royal…but that doesn’t mean she was a perfect wife or human being. Let it rest. Charles is much happier now…the children have accepted Camilla and all is well in the kingdom.

  3. Tough Cookie says:

    I think she looks great and I love the purse!!

  4. Darkladi says:

    She looks kinda the same to me, but I always liked her. Girlfriend played the long game

  5. Kiddo says:

    I can’t tell the difference.

    • minx says:

      I can’t either, at all.
      She looks fine. When you reach a certain age you know what works for your hair.

    • suziekew says:

      Yeah, I was like “new hairstyle? Where”. I don’t see any difference….a modified 80’s Farrah Fawcett do. Didn’t like it then, still don’t.

      • belle de jour says:

        Right? I see a small difference (length, sides calmed down a bit), but it would go a bit towards modern if the ends were straight… or even turned inwards towards the face vs. that outward feathered flying wing flip.
        One observation from Vidal Sassoon has always stuck with me: his assertion that a technically sophisticated precision haircut – fitted to a face, and executed perfectly – was best left to itself without curling or further fussing.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I can tell in the top picture. It’s very subtle, but if think it’s an improvement. Her hair always makes me think “frowsy” although I’m not sure I can define that word. But it looks a little sleeker until she gets out into the wind. Then it looks like it used to.

      • Kiddo says:

        I want to change my screen-name to ‘frowsy’ now. I never heard that word before, but I hear it in a German Accent, lol.

      • belle de jour says:

        @ GoodNames, Kiddo: Agree 100% re ‘frowsy.’

        What an an excellent word. I keep thinking it might be a good name for a seventh dwarf… or a bunny rabbit action team, like ‘Thumper & Frowsy’… or the shady ‘other’ woman’s name: Frowsy Strumpet.

      • Bermudagirl says:

        “Frowsy” is from I Love Lucy – they described Lucy as a “frowsy” redhead and Ethel as “dishwater blonde”when they stole John Wayne’s footprints

    • bluhare says:

      It’s about 1/16324 of an inch shorter, and less fluffy. And a bit blonder.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Me neither. Shrug.

    • khaveman says:

      It’s maybe a little shorter, but not new — looks like the same style she has always worn. It’s OK for her.

  6. wendi says:

    She looks good but I don’t see a significant change with her hair. What impresses me about her is not her clothes but how committed she seems to be in terms of her royal duties and she appears down to earth and genuine when she’s out meeting people. Pssst… Hey Kate, are you taking notes? It’s not about the dress, it’s about what you do and how you treat people. Just sayin’ 😉

    • Casi says:

      Right. So if it’s about what you do and how you treat people, then instead of beimg “waity,” Kate should have married someone else but had an affair with William, made sure William’s wife and her husband knew about it, allowed William to be her metaphorical tampon, divorced her husband, and then ultimately married William anyway after his wife died. But she makes lots of public appearances after her children and stepchildren are grown and out of the house, so all is forgiven, Camz!

      Clearly Kate played this all wrong. Take notes, Mrs. Middleton. Pippa could still do it right!

      • notasugarhere says:

        All three were guilty in their own ways, including Diana who didn’t love Charles as a man but loved the idea of a prince who could save Cinderella.

        It has been almost 20 years since Diana died. It is possible to honor the work she did, accept she was a flawed human not a saint, and let her rest in peace.

      • bluhare says:

        Did you know DIana would call Camilla when she was home alone and say things like she hoped nothing would happen? (Can’t remember exactly but they were along those lines). Diana also came within a hairsbreadth of being charged with harassment (her position stopped it) for calling the home of an ex lover up to 300 times a day and hanging up or breathing and hanging up?

        Speaking of how you treat people.

      • wendi says:

        My comment is not based on what went on in the past prior to her becoming a royal. Camilla has done a pretty good job of rehabilitating her image and appears to have a good work ethic and as I said before, is committed to her role and what it entails. So, yeah, “Clearly Kate played this all wrong” — Kate is in a completely different league from the royals who actually work — Sophie, Anne, Camilla , etc.

      • bluhare says:

        I merely pointed out how Diana could treat people and said so in my comment. I said nothing about excuses or blame. Don’t put words on my keyboard. Thank you.

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        This all day long.

        Imo
        Why does Camilla have to be attacked by raising Diana up to sainthood status? It’s like a Jolie/Aniston thread in that way. Someone will always praise one by trashing another when it shouldn’t be mentioned.
        And Diana did know about the affair protocol. She chose to publicly out Charles affairs and attack his mistresses and suspected mistresses on a public stage.

        No one was innocent, but often on Camilla threads she’s remembered as being pure and evil Camilla coming in to make life hell for her until her death. Which is just not supported by an unbias view of history.

        imo Diana’s sins wouldnt get trotted out at all if that door wasn’t opened to begin with.

      • bluhare says:

        Snarkweek, you addressed me and my comment personally. You did not say my comment was typical. You do not know what I think about this whole thing, but I’d bet my last keyboard key I’m a bit more unbiased than you appear to be on this topic.

        This post was rude and condescending, as was your initial response to me.

      • bluhare says:

        And furthermore, my comment was FACT. Look it up.

      • Suzanne says:

        Geez…do you have a personal stake in this matter? These kinds of triangles go on all over the place…some are publicized…some not. Either way…don’t you think Charles is much happier now? Diana knew what was going on…she married him anyhow. Her bad!

    • Betti says:

      Yes. Both of his wives took/take their public duties seriously. Kate, well we all know how she feels with public duties. It interferes with her gym, shopping and beauty schedules. If she did as many public events as she does shopping trips she’d be right up there with TQ with numbers.

      I like to new ‘do’ and the thing i like about her is she comes across as genuine and interested in the people she meets when she’s out and about. There is a warm quality about her.

      • wendi says:

        It interferes with her gym, shopping and beauty schedules.

        Exactly!!!

      • M.A.F. says:

        She goes to the gym?

      • bluhare says:

        MAF, MAF, MAF. The gym goes to her! 😉

      • wolfpup says:

        Where is Dame Snarkweek anyway? I miss her, now that you bring her name up, bluhare. Snarkie, Snarkers…I hope that you were using that name in good faith. I’d like to hear from her again.

        I see the situation with Diana as follows: Diana, in the book that she ghost-wrote (Her True Story), saw herself as a victim. There are those who think that she should have known better. One can’t argue with Diana at this point, but this was her own perception, and perhaps why other’s believe it as well. Those who feel that she should have been more sophisticated in understanding that there is no such thing as love and commitment, or that she wasn’t in love with Prince Charles (she thought she was), really are arguing with the Princess herself.

        Charles and Camilla just are. They are what they are, and the British public is stuck with it, for good or ill. I have no respect, but neither do I have any desire to punish them in any way. It’s over. They had very bad judgement, perhaps this is what all three are accused of. But they do deserve the simple human dignity that allows for errors and repentance – although I do not see them as being repentant at all – they merely justify their behavior. Oh well, none of my business. And they just get on with it. Charles and Camilla do have other things to recommend them, and consequently, that could be the main focus, at this point.

        I don’t believe that Diana would wish for us to carry ill feelings, nor is it comfortable. Life sometimes does not support our dreams; we grieve, and let go, moving on. This always takes time, effort, and a certain gentleness.

      • tammy says:

        wolfpup, very beautifully stated.

      • Liberty says:

        wolfpup, I love what you wrote.

        My issue: I don’t think any of them are “evil” — I just think Charles and Camillla were playing the games of their age, class and particular mindset, and it was tacky to pull Diana into their dark pool and assume she could float.

        I think Diana was one of those “in love with love” girls who fell for a prince after growing up a lonely girl reading romance novels her step-grandma penned. I think once she realized the reality, her emotional issues were more pronounced. And as they say, the biggest cynics were once the ones who had the most hope. So she went clumsily and cynically on from there. Issues, throwing herself into work and kids, emotional turbulence in that stilted weird Gray Man world. Yes, also acted wrongly harsh re the relationship with her issues, with those press calls, personal calls, etc. perhaps. But the heart is a funny beast, isn’t it? Some will take things calm and coolly. Some bleed.

        But it doesn’t mean she wasn’t in love with him. It doesn’t mean she fully grasped the games (even though her older sister turned down Charles). Fine that Charles and Camilla were soulmates who found each other again (though there was that divorce-called-off report in latter 2014, eh?) and Diana is gone. But I will foever question those who are certain an 18 or 19 year old romantic teacher’s aide had a cynical, worldly 40-year-old’s grasp of Dynasty-level love and sex games among the royals. Not at the start.

  7. *North*Star* says:

    She’s had this haircut before.

    *yawn*

  8. lisa2 says:

    I like her.. I think she always looks very put together. She seems like a nice person.

    and she wears the hell out of hat.

  9. Zip says:

    Wow, so much money spent and she still looks like a grandma.

    • Nikki says:

      Well, she IS a grandma! There’s nothing terrible about being a grandma at her age, is there?

    • Delta Juliet says:

      Well, in all fairness, she IS a grandma. If she was trying to look 30 she’d look stupid.

    • MinnFinn says:

      Zip – +1 No excuse for Camilla given Charles’ wealth, for looking like a rich schlumpadinka when she could look fabulously chic and age appropriate like Helen Mirren. And Helen Mirren is the same generation just 2 years older.

      • Liberty says:

        …but body type and posture are very different when you compare the two women. Helen has a longer neck, and stands up straight like the former model she is, has average shoulders and thus has a more elegant, smooth visual line that is easier to dress.

        Camilla is not quite as fortunate and so we see a sort of broad-shouldered slump, ill-fitting jackets not doing much for the neck, and the sort of droopiness that speaks of a need to reassess undergarment sizing and fit, esp if you have her larger chest plus larger shoulders. My great-grandmother, who designed gorgeous clothes in Europe and then the US after her marriage, used to say she could only do so much with the needle and fine fabrics if the client couldn’t carry herself well. I think Camilla has more of a swingy sporty walk/stance that also fights hard with more floral-feminine clothing choices (prints,pastels, flippy skirts). She somehow looks much better in her country clothes.

  10. dibba says:

    Don’t care for her. Her behavior while Diana was married to Chuck was reprehensible.

    • FLORC says:

      Her charity work is inspiring. She doesn’t have to and yet she makes it personal.

  11. perplexed says:

    That looks like the same hairstyle she had before.

  12. Green Is Good says:

    I like the dress but that jacket kills the look. No bueno.

    • belle de jour says:

      Yep. That jacket is ill-fitting, frumpy, and all sorts of wrong for that dress.
      Reminds me of those women of a certain style era who think white sandals and shoes ‘are summer’ and ‘go with everything.’

    • bluhare says:

      totally agree! The fabric should have been softer and less tailored and a different color.

    • Mary says:

      Agree. The dress may be pretty, but the jacket takes over and ruins the look.

  13. bettyrose says:

    Rich person gets expensive haircut.

  14. Katie says:

    I think she looks lovely and classic. I adore princess Diana but I can’t hate Camilla. She’s a tough cookie.

    • wolfpup says:

      What a tawdry tale they provided the world. We should thank them for that. I wish that Diana could have stuck around for a better ending. It could have been engaging…

      • Betti says:

        Diana would have found her happy ending – i think after the divorce she was living out her 20s, having fun with different relationships (nothing wrong with that). She just kept picking the wrong men.

      • Katie says:

        I do wish Di had lived to get her happy ending as well. I’ve read so many books about her and the saddest part is that she was right on the cusp of fully become who she was meant to be. She was so very powerful in her life and could and could have been even more so.

      • wolfpup says:

        I fully agree, Katie.

      • wolfpup says:

        Despite her very human flaws, “Diana was the very essence of compassion, of duty, of style, of beauty. All over the world she was a symbol of selfless humanity; a standard bearer for the truly downtrodden; a very British girl whose concerns transcended nationality; someone with a natural nobility who was classless, and who proved in the last year that she needed no royal title to continue to generate her particular brand of magic.” (Charles Spencer’s eulogy) For these reasons I believe that Diana will always be remembered with great fondness.

  15. PunkyMomma says:

    The haircut is very reminiscent of Diana’s cut during her engagement to Charles. And no way she’s a size ten.

    • *North*Star* says:

      Apparently British sizes are much different than American sizes.

      • MerlinsWife says:

        A British size ten is smaller than an American size ten.

      • *North*Star* says:

        I thought it was the other way around. When Beatrice was tagged as a (British) size 10, people explained it was equivalent to an American size 16.

        That not true?

      • LAK says:

        British sizes are 4 sizes down from american sizes therefore if B is tagged as a UK 10, it translates as US 6.

      • bluhare says:

        Not true. When I tried my US size number over in GB I thought I’d gained a monstrous amount of weight. Then my mom said I needed to remember British sizes are different.

      • Suze says:

        I don’t know how clothes are sized in Britain, but in the US sizing is 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc. A size 6 is only 2 sizes smaller than a size 10.

        If British sizes are 4 sizes smaller than US sizes, a US 10 would equal a UK 2.

        I don’t know that you can translate that way. Women’s clothing sizes in the US are all over. In my closet I have clothes in size 6, 8, 10 and 12. And they all fit.

      • profdanglais says:

        British sizes are one size larger than American ones. A UK 10 is a US 8.

      • LAK says:

        Suze: I meant numbers. Size 10 UK is definitely size 6 US.

        You take the US sizing and subtract 4 numbers.

        If in doubt you look at the size chart on Net-a-porter.com 🙂

      • Liberty says:

        LAK is correct. At least in ready-to-wear, a UK 10 is a US 6. UK 12 is a US 8. UK 8 is a US 4…. etc.

      • M.A.F. says:

        @Suze- the reason why you have 4 different sizes is because the clothing companies do that on purpose to get your business. If you wear a size 4 pants at the Gap but were to go to H&M and realize you are size 8 in their pants, you would continue to go to the Gap because you are two sizes smaller. Same thing with Small, Medium, and Large. At one store you are a medium but at another you are an extra small. The clothing companies have been called out on this in recent years.

    • hmmm says:

      In no way is her hair cut reminiscent of Diana’s. Why is Diana dragged into everything?

      I like Camilla. She is pulling her weight. I would love to hang out with her. I would not have loved to hang out with Diana, and I really was impressed with her at the time.

      • LAK says:

        Hmmm: I agree. Diana’s hair before/immediately after her engagement was a pageboy cut. That was the fashionable haircut at that time because of Joanna Lumley’s character ‘purdey’ in the TV show ‘the avengers’. This hairstyle was nicknamed the purdey and like the rachel 15yrs later, was very popular.

        Camilla has had a version of the purdey with side dish of Farrah Fawcett for decades. It suits her. Not everything she does is about Diana.

    • Carmen says:

      Size 10, are you kidding me?! If she’s a U.S. size 10, I’m a size 2.

      Now if you’re talking British sizes and UK sizes run smaller than US sizes, that would make her a US size 14, which looks about right.

      The haircut is okay. The jacket is terrible. It does nothing for the dress and it doesn’t even fit properly. She has zero style sense.

  16. Murphy says:

    Its only like an inch shorter, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

    But whatever, Camilla always looks great.

  17. Nikki says:

    I like her, and she usually looks pretty well put together. This jacket is in characteristically BAD; the opening in front looks like it’s too small, and gaping open at the fasteners. As for her hair, she still kept the width at the eye level, whereas it’d be much more youthful and flattering if she got a bit more volume and lift on top. Look how fabulous Helen Mirren looks with top volume: much more flattering to older women. But she’s experimenting, and that’s good. It’s an improvement from just too much pouf!

  18. Krista says:

    Hair is amazing. Clutch is amazinger.

  19. Dena says:

    I like her. I really do. She looks nice here. As far as the subtle makeover, I want whoever is doing it to please make sure that Camilia has better bra. She and a lot of the Windsor women are sort of saggy. I say that as a deep-chested woman myself. The chest globes don’t have to ride shotgun but they don’t have to drag bottom either😄. I’m just sayin . . .

    • Dena says:

      Just thought of this . . . perhaps Chatles took her aside and said “Look, if you are gonna to be my woman you have to step up your game. I can’t have you looking like a bag woman when we are out together. I look good and I want you to look good.”

  20. kc says:

    How is it different? She looks the same to me

  21. Angel says:

    Calling BS. It’s been awhile so someone had better set up to trash Camilla. New hair cut ($1600 my a$$) the rest seems like what she looked like before.
    Most of her jewelery was the queen mum’s, I don’t pay that close of attention but all the jewels were recognizable as family/crown pieces – ‘lavishes’ indeed.

    • Kori says:

      She has a good deal of the Queen Mum’s but Charles has bought her a lot of new pieces. Some with historical connection (Keppel) and others are new and unique. I think it’s nice. And the Quern has lent her 2 amazing tiaras. But check out the Royal jewel. Sites–Camilla has some real brooch game.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She has also received large pieces from Middle Eastern rulers. If it looks over-the-top and a modern design, it is probably a gift from a Middle Eastern monarchy.

  22. lem says:

    anyone notice how her diamond ring (engagement ring?) looks almost identical to Jolie’s? Jolie’s is still a bit more art deco but they’re very similar.

    • *North*Star* says:

      The ring was the Queen Mum’s but I’m not sure anyone’s dated it (I think there’s a pic of her with it in the ’80s).

      • Kori says:

        Yes it belonged to the Queen Mum.

      • *North*Star* says:

        I knew it was the Queen Mum’s but I was trying to establish a date from when the ring was originally created, ie is it Art Deco as @lem queried. All I know is it was the Queen Mum’s but not sure when it became hers, hence my comment with her being seen wearing it circa the ’80s.

    • bluhare says:

      I will be able to tell you after I get my copy of The Queen’s Jewels. My bookstore should have it this weekend, but I think this ring is part of the collection a Mrs. Greville willed the Queen Mother.

      • *North*Star* says:

        Cool.

      • bluhare says:

        I’m getting a used copy (too cheap to pay almost $100 for a new one). I just hope it’s not LAK’s old one. I’ll be forever trying to get the drool off. 🙂

      • LAK says:

        Oh if it is my old copy, which I can’t find anywhere in this damned (excuse my french) house, i’m hunting you down to get it back!!

        Mrs Grenville’s jewels….le sigh. I need to start befriending rich, bejewelled dowagers who can bequeath me drool worthy jewels. This ring is definitely part of the Grenville Jewels. And it’s a superb example of art deco jewels.

      • bluhare says:

        I’ll make you a nice cup of tea when you get here, LAK. Just remember. My hands are not yet cold and not quite dead. 🙂

      • notasugarhere says:

        If it is the Leslie Field one, there are several used copies on Amazon (UK) for less than £20. Amazon US has some. Abebooks has 5-6 used copies for under $15. Condition varies. Time to go shopping.

      • LAK says:

        B: now that I’m nimble on my feet, a visit to your house is on the cards….

        Nota: I love abebooks. It’s amazing what you can find on there.

  23. Lola says:

    #TeamDianaForever

  24. bondbabe says:

    I don’t see much difference in the style–maybe a little less “fluffy”??

    And what is up with the blue/green blocks outfit on the person standing next to her?!! Are those hospital scrubs? Yikes!

    • Citresse says:

      Me too. It still looks like the “bad Farrah Fawcett” hairdo just less volume.
      And I don’t believe Charles ordered Camilla spruce up her look. He seems to like the plain, tough look in a woman so as Diana got more beautiful, polished and stylish, he rejected her even more.

  25. Allie May says:

    She does look pretty. I will say that although not a fan of hers. Love the clutch- nice to see she has a sense of humor.

  26. LAK says:

    This is cobbled together from many other articles written over the years. I guess DM wanted to write about Camilla’s new hair so they came up with regurgitated information from other articles.

    Also, she’s not a size 10. She’s a 12.

    I love the current trend of using making ordinary things into clutches. This one is by Anya Hindmarch if anyone is interested.

    • bluhare says:

      I think it’s great she’s got a good enough sense of whimsy to carry a little bag like that.

  27. Carol says:

    Very sweet that he bought jewelry that once belonged to her ancestors. I was s big Diana fan until she started using her boys to manipulate Charles and the press. I like Charles and Camilla together.

    • *North*Star* says:

      He didn’t buy it for her, he was left it by the Queen Mum after she died. He has spent quite a lot of money on other things though, she has a lot of new bling.

    • MinnFinn says:

      Alice Keppel and the King were adulterers. So If Charles really bought some of Alice Keppel’s jewelry for C, it indicates that they do not think their own adultery or that of their great great grandparents’ is shameful or regrettable. I would hope that C & C would not purchase reminders of the pain and suffering adultery caused for the families in 2 different generations.

      • LadyoftheLoch says:

        This. Wasn’t there also a story about Camilla flirting with Charles in the early years and announcing, “My great grandmother boinked your great grandfather the King, so how about it ?” (paraphrasing). And so it began. I think they’re secretly proud of themselves for going the distance and behaving the way they did, despite the trail of tears and destruction they wrought.

        Alice Keppel was a courtesan. Fancy name for an upper-class wh@re. Not something to be particularly gleeful about, I shouldn’t think.

  28. cujokay says:

    I like the hair; hate the dress.

  29. Tracy says:

    Camilla’s an adulterous Rottweiler who played Diana for a fool. Team Diana all the way.

    • wolfpup says:

      Playing Diana for a fool was the most offensive thing about the Charles and Camilla affair.

  30. buzz says:

    She covered that pretty dress with a jacket!

  31. Suze says:

    If you want to spend your life hating Camilla and perpetuating “Team Diana”, I won’t get in your way. It’s your emotional energy.

    It’s probably wise to remember that all three were sinners but it was Charles who held most of the power, at least in the beginning, and he sinned the greatest.

    Personally, I just don’t care. It’s ancient history.

    Cams looks better than she did when she was younger, even if I can’t see too much of a difference in her hair.

    • bluhare says:

      Amen. I don’t know why you have to hate one if you like the other.

      • wolfpup says:

        That’s right…we just hate what they did. Diana was characterized as immature; but exactly how do we characterize full-on manipulation of an innocent? Of course, Charles and Camilla wouldn’t be guilty of manipulating in today’s world; how exactly have they changed? Diana drew anger to herself because she hit the roof, as a woman scorned, whereas lots of women would fall in this category, and found justified. However, the Princess was supposed to keep her mouth shut!

        Realistically, Diana and Camilla will always be linked, because they shared the same mealy man who would be king. There are some things in life for which there are no do-overs.

  32. tnay says:

    I really admire those who can tell the difference between this do and the last. I cannot.

    • LAK says:

      It’s the same hairstyle, except that it’s shorter and blonder. The shorter length has removed the fluffy, pouf it had taken on.

  33. tnay says:

    That is one well paid hairdresser though!

  34. MBP says:

    She looks a bit Mary Berry now 😀

  35. Fan says:

    I miss Diana. That’s all I can say.

  36. boredblond says:

    I think she looks fine, but I’m not British, nor did I ever have any interest in Diana, so maybe I just don’t get the venom..

  37. Snappyfish says:

    Diana was in love with becoming a princess. Who could blame her? Once she got the crown she found the fairytale never existed

    • Citresse says:

      I think she knew the fairytale never existed prior to the wedding. Let’s face it- Diana and Charles both wanted to back out of the wedding but couldn’t, so they decided to make the best of it though it failed. They were both pressured to fuse the Windsor line with Spencer.

  38. I have no problem with Camilla, but this “new” look is basically her old look a wee bit shorter and maybe a hue blonder? It’s really no different. I think it works for her, but I have always been of the mind that no matter what kind a “makeover” you do with your hair and makeup, if you are going to pair it with a jacket that screams “madame” (to quote Michael Kors), a frumpy calf-length skirt and matronly heels, you may as well not bother. I know these royals have a dress code to adhere to, but would it KILL them to try something a little more modern? They always seem to get the proportions funny….that jacket hits her in the wrong place, and the way the closures are styled makes it look like they are straining to contain her, even if they’re not. Even if is is a £18,000 jacket, the overall effect is still Dress Barn.

  39. Betti says:

    It’s Trooping the Colour today – Waity is there.

    • Citresse says:

      Yes. Kate’s dress looks a bit Quaker. But nothing wrong with that. Just a retro country look that’s all.
      George looks quite adorable from behind the window with his nanny.
      Good show!!!!

  40. jwoolman says:

    Diana had some wonderful qualities, but she also had weaknesses. But mainly she was far too young and hardly knew Charles. It was an arranged marriage with pressure from both sides. Charles’ family needed him to provide an heir and a spare, and Diana’s family was foolish enough to encourage her to be the incubator. I can see why Charles felt no obligation to be faithful, for him it was a business arrangement like so many royal marriages are, and he was behaving like his ancestors in the same situation. But he hardly knew Diana either. As the older person, he really should have realized what a terrible idea it was for them to marry and that such a young woman very likely would indeed expect faithfulness, that she would expect a different sort of husband than he planned to be.

    But what’s done is done. If everything hadn’t happened exactly as it did, Harry and William would not exist and neither would George and Charlotte. Diana has been dead for a couple of decades, it is time to let the past go and judge according to how everyone has behaved since then. Diana herself, as she matured, was becoming more accepting than her fans of the current reality.

    People like to sneer at “Waity” but Kate actually knew William well for many years before they married. That’s a huge difference from his mother’s situation. Theirs is a marriage of two adults who knew each other rather than an arranged marriage. Waiting was exactly what was needed.

    • wendi says:

      Waiting was exactly what was needed.

      Okay, maybe in terms of waiting for William, but wtf is she waiting for in terms of doing a meaningful job in her role as a royal and actually working?

  41. dorothy says:

    The undisputed star here is the blinged out baked bean purse, let’s be real!! Until today I’ve been Camillas number one hater. And harers gon hate, but today Camilla attempted and I think suceeded in multiple layers of SHADE..(lash back forthcoming? Yet to be known, this was supremely subtle) And magnificent!!!! she did the Carole Middleton hairdo but in a blonde demure (almost princess diana!) style, and she says to us watchers “oh you want common? I’ll show you common , look I’ve got a faltulent baked bean purse I fought with the Queen to let me carry! Its all the rage with you peasanty Katie Lovers , right? I’m common! Im blingy! look at my proud common smile! Old Royalty won’t dress like THIS!! I’m Young Old Royalty! I’ve thrown out my weight skirts and food shall never again pass this lips! Do you loooove me now?” (aka “I’m thirsty.”) Fecking brilliant..THIS is how she shagged -married up the social ladder -then snagged – a Prince. I think Prince Charles married a veritable Austin Powers! Yeah baby! Rock that blingy flatulent-y bean purse and Maroon 5 smile!

  42. Mook says:

    Nasty old hag, no amount of paint and powder will hide the fact she is a pig. An OLD pig who did her best to destroy a young woman’s life.

  43. Liberty says:

    I’ve said it before and will say it again: Dame Edna.