I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving and if you’re not wading through the Black Friday deals, come and check in with today’s gossip. These are photos of Duchess Kate last night (Thursday night) at the SportsAid gala in London. You might remember, Kate is a “patron” of SportsAid, which raises money for young athletes. Prince William was not in attendance – it’s believed that he was at home with Prince George while mama got a night out.
Kate wore Temperley and… I do not like this. And I’m saying that as someone who usually likes Temperley gowns and dresses – Temperley is usually girly, feminine, soft, sugary and somewhat conservative, which makes the label perfect for Kate. So I have no idea why she chose this rather plain and uneventful cocktail dress. Kate tried to jazz it up with a red clutch (which just doesn’t work) and black Jimmy Choo pumps, which are probably my favorite part of the ensemble. Mostly, I’m just relieved she’s not wearing those damn nude LK Bennetts.
Us Weekly also had a story about the Duchess and how she’s super-normal:
Kate Middleton is doing motherhood her way! The 31-year-old Duchess of Cambridge is reinventing royal traditions to give her son, Prince George, a normal family life. She and her husband of two years, Prince William, are determined to keep their home a (mostly) nanny-free zone.
“Kate doesn’t want George to be more used to the sight of the help than to his own parents,” an insider told Us Weekly. All the sleepless nights and soldiering through events when duty calls are worth it in order for Kate to spend precious time with her son, said the Middleton family source. “George has given a whole new meaning to Catherine’s life.”
Middleton’s mom routine would appall 19th-century monarch Queen Victoria, who saw her children only to supervise their baths. And it would even come as a shock to her late mother-in-law, Princess Diana, who had to miss William’s very first birthday because of a long-scheduled official trip with Charles to Canada. The duchess’ rules: Her duties cannot take her far from London, and overnight trips are forbidden.
Middleton and Prince William, 31, realize the important of rearing their own son. “They look at their friends and see how they have managed raising a baby while having careers,” explained an insider. “They don’t see why it should be so different for them.”
The goal, said the insider, “is to keep a normal environment around George.”
This part bugs me: “And it would even come as a shock to her late mother-in-law, Princess Diana, who had to miss William’s very first birthday because of a long-scheduled official trip with Charles to Canada.” I feel like someone (“a Middleton family source”) is throwing Diana under the bus in an effort to praise Kate. You can say what you will about Diana in the larger sense, but she was a great mom and she completely (and single-handedly) changed the way the royal family thinks of their parental duties. And Diana was not only a hands-on mom, she managed to do hundreds of charitable trips and events every year. No one begrudges Kate and William this time with George, but I’m side-eyeing the hell out of the royal propaganda effort to make it seem like Kate is so much more involved than Diana.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
The Middletons are ramping up the propaganda. It will backfire. Her hair, btw, is back to shiny black – gray roots are gone.
Why do people act like the Middletons are some kind of a mafia? I haven’t seen them doing anything wrong so far.
I have long given up asking this question here! Esp. Middleton posts!
I think mafia is a bit over the top, but the Middletons get flak for their continuing quest for a crest. Well, a crest with a peerage attached. In my opinion, they use the Daily Mail to float trial balloons (ie, Carole moving into Kensington Palace to take care of George, George being the only direct heir EVER to have grandparents with no titles, the Middletons should get an earldom because Sir/Lady isn’t good enough, Carole wants to go to Australia to take care of George, the Middletons will hang with the Queen at Christmas . . . . .) Nothing at all wrong with wanting all that, but they are certainly the most public of royal in laws.
@bluhare: Actually I think some of what you mentioned is just made up by the papers. Anyone who knows anything about how titles are given out (and for what) knows that getting a peerage is a thing of the past. Very few people even get a life peerage so I don’t think the Middleton’s are trying at all.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, LadySlippers, because I really do think they want a title. The monarch gives them out, and guess who’ll be a monarch at some point. They won’t get one from this monarch, I do agree with that.
bluhare, what does it mean to have a peerage? Other than a title what does it do for a family?
@BluHare: If you think William has promised them one, that won’t happen for years so what’s the point trying now? And that assumes William will ascend and that could be in decades, if at all. They have, however, gotten a huge bump business wise from just being around William which is quite valuable to any business.
And as someone else pointed out, a peerage doesn’t carry the same weight as in centuries past. Only children (and some grandchildren) of the Sovereign get hereditary peerages otherwise it’s just orders that’s usually given out now.
IMHO if the Middleton’s were going to get one — they would have received it by now. Both Charles and William could have pitched the idea to HM and she would have probably agreed to something if Charles and/or William argued enough. And yet, we see the Middleton’s are still commoners.
History and precedent are not on the side of the peerage argument for the Middleton’s
.
LadyD: Britain is a much more class oriented society than the US, at least as far as titles go. The US has a different class system. However, if the Middletons (or more specifically Carole as Michael comes from a high middle/uppper class background) got a title, they would no longer be middle class, they’d be rocketed straight up the ladder and would be due to be called Your Grace (if an earl/countess). That’s what Carole wants. She learnt it from her mother and if the story about she and Kate plotting to get William is true, I buy it.
Also, as soon as they got their crest when Kate got married, they (Carole, Pippa, James) started sporting signet rings on their little fingers, which is an aristocrat thing. (I think. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Lady D: In a real sense, a peerage allows you to sit in the hose of Lords [upper house] and hold discourse on the laws of the land. That means any laws proposed by the commons [the lower house] are subject to your* approval pending the monarch’s signature. Similarly you* can veto or review any laws that are presented to the house.
*Your/you = house of Lords.
In a social sense, being a peer is wonderful for those who still value such things. People are really proud to be made peers and i’m sure gain social advantages of having a title in certain quarters. People like to say that they don’t agree with the system and yet the line of people turning peerages or honours down is negligible. Even Labour supporters who in theory should be opposed to these things on principle.
Finally, What Bluhare said. The Middletons are very class conscious. Uncle Gary said it in one of his many interviews that Carole was always looking to move on UP socially whilst he didn’t really care. There is a story that their mother Dorothy was so uppity around their neighbourhood that she was given the moniker Duchess.
There is also a story that Michael Middleton made enquiries after a COA long before the engagement was thought to be a possibility despite it being speculated upon in the press.
Plus, the fact that they applied for a family COA rather than Kate applying for one for herself. A family COA elevates the entire family and means it can be inherited as opposed to an individual one for Kate. And of course no sooner had they acquired one than they started wearing signet rings.
I have no doubt the Middleton’s would like to advance themselves (most people do want to better themselves); however, the odds are NOT in their favour. Only members of the BRF have gotten a hereditary peerage and it’s been decades since a non family member has received a hereditary peerage. When Thatcher was made a Baroness it was unusual move and she reviewed a life peerage only. That’s why I keep saying that history and precedent are not on their side in this case. If it were a few centuries back, heck even one century ago, it would be way more likely than today.
Thanks, LAK. I should have waited for you.
What LAK said, everybody!
Ladyslippers: It’s true that history isn’t on their side, so they may make hay while the sun shines because any peerages/honours received now can’t be reversed while HM is on the throne. If or when the system is stopped, they will simply let the ones who already have them die. That’s how they’ve dealt with the hereditary ones.
Further, peerages are still being granted. They aren’t newsworthy and tend to be political appointments. Here is a list of current peers and when they were appointed. As you can see loads of Barons and Baronesses on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Life_Barons_and_Baronesses_in_the_Peerage_of_the_United_Kingdom
of all the peerages granted, this one made my day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Lawrence
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381897/Baroness-Doreen-Stephen-Lawrences-mother-gets-peerage-20-years-racist-murder-son.html
BTW: Thatcher’s peerage was unusual because they wanted to give her a hereditary peerage, but as you know females can’t pass on titles, so slight of hand, Denis was granted a hereditary baronetcy. And surprise surprise Margaret’s title was equal to Denis though not a hereditary one. Their son Mark is the 2nd Baron Thatcher after Denis/Margaret.
@LAK: You attached the list for life peerages rather than hereditary peerages and that supports my statement rather than yours. I think the last hereditary peerage, not for a child/grandchild of the sovereign, bestowed was the Earl of Snowdon’s (and it was for the BIL of the Queen — still a family member). I’d have to dig around to see the last hereditary peerage given out that had nothing to to do with the BRF but it’s been a long while.
As for females passing titles to their children, they absolutely can, the letters patent need to be written in order for that to happen. See the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough, 2nd Duchess of Fife, and the still alive, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma. All were/are title holders suo jure, meaning they held the titles in their own right, i.e. it wasn’t/isn’t a courtesy title. So if they had wanted to give Thatcher a hereditary peerage, they could have since HM can create the rules of inheritance for each title (and some current titles actually DO have wacky rules).
Again, I state very strongly that if William and/or Charles wanted to elevate the Middleton’s, they would have done so by now. In fact, HM has turned over quite a lot of smaller duties to Charles. Even though the UK is still very class-based, I think the trend is to go away from titles to a more equal society.
ETA: A barony and baronetcy are NOT equal. Margaret outranked her husband as she was a baroness and he was not. A baronetcy is just a Sir that’s inherited and is not a peerage. The UK titles of the peerage are: Duke/Duchess, Marquess/Marchoiness, Earl/Countess, and Baron/Baroness.
From wiki:
“Peerages were largely hereditary until the regular creation of life peers began in the second half of the 20th century. The last creation of a non-royal hereditary peer occurred in 1984; even then it was considered unusual. Life peers and 92 hereditary peers still retain the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, though their power is restricted and further reform of the House of Lords is under consideration.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peerage
FYI addressing an earl/countess would not be with ‘your grace’ as that is solely used for duke/duchess (unless a member of the BRF). An marquess/marchioness is addressed ‘the most honourable’ and earl/countess and viscount/viscountess (I forgot them on my list above) are entitled to ‘the right honourable’.
That old reprobate, Conrad Black (ptooey), coveted a peerage so badly, that he gave up Canadian citizenship in order to become Lord Black of (made up) Crossharbour. (Subsequently, he became a criminal in the states who did a lot of prison time, and then came crawling back to the Canada he sneeringly had written off, even though he’s not a citizen and a convicted felon (the happy rich)).
So, yeah, I think there are people (like the Mids) who covet what many of us see as rather silly. It carries cachet in certain circles. It’s not the hoi polloi they care about impressing, it’s their peers and how to elevate themselves into the highest echelons of society. It’s all about ego, power and connexions.
Ladyslippers: We were discussing Peers in general rather than specific types of peers no? I am perfectly aware that hereditary peers are not common. The first thing Tony Blair did as part of House of Lords reform was to banish hereditary peers in 1997.
The Middletons are looking for a hereditary peerage which is rarely granted outside the royals, exception Denis Thatcher. That said, there is no bar to them receiving a life Peerage barring the usual reasons for receiving one since life peerages are still granted.
The last hereditary Peerage outside the royals was the one granted to Denis Thatcher in 1990.
The title inherited by Countess Burma was granted by Special Order*
* will double check the proper name for this and post later. hope you see it.
Females have to get a special order* in order to inherit a title. It’s always an anomaly when they do.
I stand corrected re proper way to address an earl/countess.
Ladyslippers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Thatcher
extract:
“Sir Denis Thatcher, 1st Baronet, MBE, TD (10 May 1915 – 26 June 2003) was a British businessman, and the husband of the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He was born in Lewisham, London, the elder child of a New Zealand-born British businessman, Thomas Herbert (Jack) Thatcher. As of 2013, he is the most recent person outside the Royal Family to be awarded a British hereditary title, which he was granted in 1990.”
regarding Countess Burma, it’s called a special reminder in view of the fact that he had no sons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Knatchbull,_2nd_Countess_Mountbatten_of_Burma
extract:
his peerages had been created by the Crown with special remainder to his daughters and their heirs male.
This is the wording of the special reminder included in the letters patent allowing the daughters to inherit the title:
“.to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne…and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten; and in default of such issue to every other daughter lawfully begotten of the said Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten…”
This means that title can pass from both ladies to their male heirs.If the male heirs of both sisters die out, so does the title. Nothing about female heirs beyond the 2 sisters.
In each and every example you’ve quoted ie Duchesses of Fife and Marlborough, they inherited the titled by special order when it became apparent that there would be no sons. And in each and every case, including the Mountbattens, they are closely linked to the royal family so the order was probably granted based upon sentiment unlike the common garden variety having to petition parliament to get the law changed.
Speaking of which: There was a case recently on this very issue:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/People/article1198158.ece
extract:
“The title, which was granted in 1788, will pass to a distant cousin she has never met because peerages can be passed on only to male heirs.”
Maventhefirst: I have enjoyed reading about Conrad Black. So cravenly showing off his bought title. LOL.
A baronet is not a peerage, it’s an inherited knighthood. Denis Thatcher’s title was Sir and not Baron and in your quote it clearly stated that. So your point once again supports my argument because it also states ‘hereditary title’ which is not synonymous with a peerage. Only peers and peeresses suo jure (dukes/duchesses, marquesses/marchionesses, earls/countesses, viscounts/viscountesses, and barons/baronesses) are allowed in the House of Lords (at present). A person holding a baronetcy/baronetage (called a baronet not baron) is not a peer and thus not accorded that privilege.
DeBrett’s is very detailed about all the titles.
http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/what-is-the-peerage.aspx
Yes, the peerages I listed did have special remainders attached to them and that’s the point. Hereditary peerages can be written any way the Sovereign wants
— that was what I was trying to say. There are other women throughout history that have held titles, as well, all due to how their letters patent were created. Some letters patent even stipulate that the 2nd born gets the title. Again, they can be written any which way.
All I’ve been trying to say is that it’s highly unlikely that the Middleton’s are getting an
hereditory peerage as the last hereditary peer was created in 1984 and even then it was unusual. I also think if they would have received a peerage, it would have happened already. Could I be wrong? Sure. But receiving a peerage is kinda a thing of the past and my guess is the Middleton’s know this.
ETA: Life peerages aren’t as highly esteemed because it doesn’t convey the same honour as a hereditary peerage which is what they would want.
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. No, I’ve only concentrated on the hereditary peerages because that’s *the* coveted prize. The rest are nice but not what it would take for anyone wanting to move up in society. So it makes the other honours pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Plus, the other honours, including life peerages, are a reward for a service to the country and/or empire and the Middleton’s have no action or deed that qualifies.
It’s not like in the past when a Soveriegn took cash in exchange for a peerage (i.e Charles II of England & Scotland).
yeah in the top picture she almost seems to gesture “Look at my roots! See? All touched up. Now write something nice about me!”
And she got a cut (well, a big trim) – it looks GORGEOUS. I totally covet that head.
New wiglet, perhaps?
+1. if you look at the DM photos, you can see the new “fall” which begins halfway (where her part ends).
Is it a wiglet or an entire wig? Her whole head looks like Barbie Hair.
I think it’s a old one as we’ve seen her hair look like this many times. So I see it now (for me I look at the lustre of the strands), curled hair around face, is real, everything else is Barbie’s.
FLORC!!!!!!!!!!!! Wiglet wagon, stat!
Yep. Wiglet. very obvious too.
She’s also back on the botox.
Bluhare/LAK/LadySlippers/ and other honorable wiglet watching members.
I took the wiglet wagon to a belated Thanksgiving event. Just let me gas it up!
Bbrrr BBRRrrMMmmmm! Now we’re in business!
Ok. It’s a total wig(let). I Will use volume products and thickening agents in my hair. I will get those terrible blow outs sometimes every 6 months. I have naturally thick hair to begin with. With all of that my hair is neither yoyoing in thickness like hers nor is it parting like hers. Also, my stylist gabs all the time with other stylists on the wig traits her hair has. She has a lovely mane, but it is not 100% all from her scalp.
Florc – LOL. My wiglet or rather weave comes to me via India. 18inches of luxuriant locks that keep my head and neck warm every winter. For the uninitiated, it’s totally my hair. 😉
LAK: GASP!!
And about bloody time, Florc. It isn’t wiglet watching without you. 🙂
Oh ladies
It’s hardly a wiglet watch with out guys too:)
LAK
You’ve admitted your fake hair and are not trying to be anyone you’re not so an uninitiation is hardly a need.
My hair is heavily altered as well. It’s all mine, but blow outs and thickening agents are a must!
I guess it is her own hair. There is a new piece on her making rounds saying she went to a very expensive salon and had a hair treatment for 6 f***ing hours!!! I wonder who was looking after prince Georgie!
http://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/hair/2013120115917/kate-middleton-darker-hairstyle/
But if she were trying to keep up appearances — she would put out a statement that she visited a salon rather than admit to a wig(let). Kinda like her story about the ‘scar’.
What I do not understand, is why the the Royals walking about in pretty clothes, and receiving the adulation, and gifts, that probably everyone would like to enjoy. During their overseas visits, they were treated with the very best everything. I would just call that an amazing social life and really super vacation. Even their traveling to and from events…what’s so hard about that? Why they even get the luxury flights on plans and helicopters. Pampered, pampered, and we are calling it work?
Hi wolfpup!
I wouldn’t want to be under the microscope all the time, but that’s just me. I would like the pampering, though. And I agree it doesn’t sound like work to us peons, but I imagine there’s a psychological cost involved somewhere.
Love the dress, love the clutch
people need to stop calling her kate middleton. that’s not her name (not celebitchy, US weekly)
Well, since I don’t live in England (and no one in the US gives a damn about her title), I’m going to keep calling her Kate Middleton. Sorry!
I love the dress, she looks beautiful! She looks great overall. Motherhood agrees with her!
So would you not call any married woman by her married name or is it just the Duchess because you don’t like her?
@ Lizzie
many celebrities keep their original names after marriage. We still have Jennifer Garner, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jessica Biel, etc. It’s what readers are used to hearing for years.
When Tom Cruise told the people that his wife was named Kate nobody listened either.
And many celebs get nicknames. I mean… Leann Rimes is called Falcor, Meann, the Grinch, single white Female and many more things. The name Kate Middleton isn’t mean. If people call her that because they don’t like her, she gets off easy.
It has nothing to do with married women imo, it has to do with celebrities.
Diana was called Lady Di for years after her marriage. Same w/ Sarah Ferguson, etc. (in fact people call her by her maiden name post divorce and it’s still incorrect). We Americans struggle with titles.
So…should we type Duchess of Cambridge or Catherine Mountbatten-Windsor every time we refer to her?
Such a long name will never catch on with the public, that’s the truth.
Lots of well-known people are called by their stage names or whatever name they are known by. Nobody calls Meryl Streep “Mrs. Gummer”. Gisele Bundchen does not go as Gisele Brady.
Camilla (I think) has ‘earned’ her Duchess of Cornwall title because the world has seen her roll up her sleeves and go to work with a smile on her face. Very few people still harbor really bad thoughts about her anymore.
Once Kate has been Duchess of Cambridge longer than she has been Kate Middleton in the press, you’ll probably see a change. But the press for a long time wasn’t nuts about Kate either. So Kate would benefit from following her MIL’s example in order to change minds and encourage them write the correct title.
LadySlippers: I think Camilla has earned the right to be called the Princess of Wales. That is her proper title. But public sentiment won’t allow it so she has to be known for a lesser title and talks of being called as “just” a Princess Consort when Charles becomes King to drive home the point that Camilla will never live up to the favourite that Diana was. She’s not being pelted with bread rolls anymore, but many people still see her negatively.
It’s why I find it funny when people say William and Kate shouldn’t care about what the public thinks. It’s the same public that still won’t let Camilla use Charles’s PoW title because many of them still think the position was/is Diana’s.
Now there are two DoC: Cornwall and Cambridge. You can’t abbreviate it anymore like my friends and I used to do with Camilla because people won’t be able to tell who’s who.
Agree about Camilla, Sachi. She’s earned her stripes.
I think Camilla should absolutely be called Princess of Wales but I think she’s still the one asking to be referred to as Dss of Cornwall.
I read on here last week about Camilla being pelted with bread rolls and thought it was a joke. I didn’t like her much in the beginning, but never would I dream of displaying such crass (and semi-violent) behaviour. She has grown on me and I now have a lot of respect/admiration for the lady. Can’t believe she was actually treated like that.
Lady D: Camilla being pelted with bread rolls/food, people screaming abuse at her in the street is absolutely true. it made the news. i remember being so shocked and i’ve never forgotten it.
Biographers say that Camilla grew so afraid of the public that at one point she placed herself under self imposed house arrest.
I remember the first time Charles debuted her in public,, officially, which was after a party at the Ritz, she was visibly shaking even though by then Charles and Diana had divorced.
LadySlippers: she’s asking to be called Duchess of Cornwall because Camilla is not so arrogant to just ignore public sentiment and start another brouhaha with the press by wanting to be called the Princess of Wales. She has every right to ask to be called that, but the public’s opinion is still strong and negative. Some are indifferent nowadays but the bile always comes back out when Camilla is in the picture.
As LAK mentioned, Camilla has been treated so cruelly by strangers. I’ve read people say they can “never” forgive her for what happened to Diana, as if they had any say on the matter and were personally affected and involved.
I’ve read people writing death wishes about her, wishing her ill, hoping her family gets harmed. That isn’t just something that was limited on the internet. People really took it to the streets to harass her.
Again, it’s funny to me when sycophants cry about Kate being such a victim of mean people on the internet when they most likely have no idea what hatred, true hatred, really means and what it’s like to experience it.
They should ask Camilla, because the things said about Kate on here and other websites are actually very tame and kind compared to the abuse heaped on Camilla for years.
Camilla has absolutely earned her PoW title. That woman made some bad choices, but so did Diana and so have all of us. She’s remained poised in her role while having eggs tossed at her, death threats, and even mobs shaking the car she was in screaming at her. In all of this she focuses on her social responsibilities and does not tarnish the BRF. If anyone should be bitter it’s William and Harry. And both boys have spoken out on how they love that makes their father so happy and they enjoy her in their family.
And as another poster said. Kate will be referred to as Middleton until 1. She’s been married longer than she’s been in the tabs as Middleton. 2. Until she’s earned her role.
She’ll be Kate Middleton forever. She was known for over a decade as William’s girlfriend, Kate Middleton, which adds to it. Plus in this era of clicks and search engines, stories will continue to be published with “Kate Middleton” in the text so that the stories can be found more easily by robots, spiders, etc..
Let’s wait and see if she break tradition and decides not to send her son to boarding school.
Both William and Harry went when they were about 8.
God, that must be horrible. I can’t imagine going trough something like that as a kid.
Isn’t that (sending your children to boarding school) some kind of English tradition? I read a lot of Enid Blyton’s books when I was little, and I always had the impression that it’s what the Brits did. 😀
Wouldn’t know, I’m from Croatia. Even private schools are very very rare here ( and thank God for that,we do not need them).
I can’t imagine doing something like that to my kid. My entire family had a meltdown when I went to college that was an hour away.
Genuine boarding schools are few and far between now, and those that do offer boarding generally also have day pupils too; I went to an independent (private) school and boarded for about a month whilst my parents were out the country, but otherwise I was a normal day pupil.
Eton and Harrow are boarding only, i.e. pupils are always in residence apart from during long leave (holidays). However, if they have the permission of their house master they’re permitted to go out with their parents at any time assuming they don’t have any commitments at school.
Boarding schools aren’t for everyone and they can sound quite archaic, but the short time I spent boarding was brilliant; the boarding house I was in always took us somewhere on the weekend, we had movie nights and scavenger hunts around the school at nighttime and there was a great sense of camaraderie. It takes a bit of getting used to, but it feels very natural after a while. I also knew some people who lived within 5 miles of the school, but chose to board during exam time to minimise distractions.
Pastoral care in boarding schools is taken very seriously. The notion that boarding schools are victorian is…victorian. It hasn’t been the ‘sending away’ option that it used to be for decades now. Boarding schools offer day or weekly options and even if the parents don’t take up those options, the parents are free to visit their kids whenever they want as long as it doesn’t disrupt their child’s routine.
And as a full time boarder, i will say that it is the day students who had trouble adjusting to school life simply because alliances are formed as a result of the various after school activities which they aren’t present to attend. And the camaraderie and mutual support amongst the students is amazing.
I would be grief-stricken to lose my child at that age, and I wouldn’t be surprised if my child ended up harboring feelings of abandonment. Not a system I would ever support, but that’s me.
I’m pretty sure they were day schools though, they came home every night. Which was scandalous at the time as well. They didn’t pack them off permanently until they both went to Eton.
Update: Apparently a compromise was made, and they came home on weekends.
It wasn’t a compromise. They were simply weekly boarders. Weekly boarding has always been available to everyone particularly if you start boarding at a very young age.
It’s not that tragic. I know people who boarded at a young age and they have all turned out fine and happy without any issues. I personally think if the child is happy- and that’s the most important part- then why not?
i started very young and i have no issues [i hope]. My school life was very Enid Blyton-esque. I will give my imaginary children the option though perhaps i will wait untill they are teens. let someone else deal with the hormonal drama!!!!
Kate went to boarding school too iirc.
When Will and Harry were born, upper class and titled kids wen to boarding school at age 6! Diana (and Charles) kept their sons in day schools in London until they were 8 or so. That was breaking with tradition at the time.
Good for her for doing this event, with or without William. Maybe (as many on CB say) she’s just upping her charitable appearances because she and Will are about to go on a big, long trip, but regardless, I’m impressed. It does seem that she’s been pretty busy since having George. On another note, I hate that dress. It’s wrong on many levels. And on another note, I read the US article. I’m a Kate fan, but I could see through the propaganda. Such silliness.
Thanks for “soldiering through,” Waity. Pffft. For the love of God, do something about that hair! Hands off!!
Does she have the same publicist as Jennifer Aniston? That “soldiering through” bs is on par with Aniston’s “conquering the Oscars'” f*ckery. Come to think of it, isn’t Duchess Kate one of Aniston’s hair idols? I guess it takes one wiglet wearing hairlebrity to recognize another, huh?
I wish she would get a haircut. A nice long bob would look great on her.
So agree. This haircut is for a very young woman, and if you aren’t one, it ages you.
Not necessarily true. My hair is super long, I’m 42 years old & I’m still mistaken for a 30 year old.
The long hair has become her signature style. At some point, she needs to adopt a shorter look before this one begins to seem like a desperate attempt to hang on to her youth. But Tammy’s point is well taken. If she can maintain those lustrous, long locks, it could work in her favor.
I vote for a pixie!
She should at least get bangs. I think she would look good with a full fringe. I like the colour. Darker hair suits her.
That’s the conventional wisdom. In some cases long hair really does “drag” the face down. but all too often this “wisdom” is nothing but a thinly disguised attempt to “castrate” women – and usually BY women.
It’s as if women weren’t allowed (again, by other women) to profess their own femininity, and the sexuality that goes with it, once they are past, say, forty – or once they become mothers.
So, in reality, I think you’ll find that, often, the opposite is true: long hair can make you look much younger.
Perhaps Tammy is the exception that makes the rule. I should have said that it ages most people, as I think it does Kate. It pulls down her face. She would look younger and fresher with shorter hair, at least to her collarbone.
Wow, Mel, do you really think that’s what I’m doing? I love women of all kinds, including beautiful, vibrant, sexy women who are older – my age – or beautiful, vibrant women who are younger. I love to see beauty in women of all ages, and if a woman in her 40s or fifties looks great with hair to her waist, then she should go for it if she wants. Obviously, you can’t fit everyone into one mold. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been walking in New York, for example, and have seen a woman who looks 25 from the back because of her hair and clothes, only to be shocked when she turns around. And saddened by the fact that this woman thinks her only beauty is in looking young, and that she is losing her power and femininity by aging, when she would be so much more beautiful and powerful if she put herself together as if she loved the mature woman she was. The fear that’s behind age-inappropriate dressing and styling is sad to me. A woman is more than how young she looks. Some of the most beautiful women I know are over fifty, including my mother, who is 83.
I think most women of a certain age who have long hair and think it makes them look younger are fooling themselves, but obviously there are exceptions. Clinging to the same look forever might be a sign that you have lost sight of who you are now.
Longer hair makes me look younger too.
But it’s not the only thing. I have no wrinkles or much else that gives away my age.
Bravo, Mel!!!! Awesome comment.
Problems with the hair: it hangs in her face, she yanks it back out of the way, shoves her hands through it, then stretches the hand out to shake hands. She’s been photographed multiple times just holding her hair on the top of her head with her hand while doing the “see, this is my EMPATHY face and head tilt” look. At times, when she bends over, the hair even falls into other people’s faces. Basically unprofessional and untidy when she knows what will be expected of her (shaking hands, bending over, etc.). If she wants it long, just tie back the front in a half-up-half-down to get it out of everybody’s way.
The hair might be pretty and all but when I see it hanging down on both sides of her face like that all I can think about is a cocker spaniel. I’d love to see her try something different, I bet it could be really cute.
Yes! Or, how cool it would be to have a princess with a pixie?
Um, Diana had very short hair most of the time.
I don’t want her to change her hair, ever. Talking about the wigs and wiglets is the most entertaining thing about her XD
Ditto.
I think she has cut it recently; it looks maybe 4-6 inches shorter to me.
Personally, I don’t care what she does with her hair but I think she may be one of those people who don’t look great with short hair.
Oh, that remark about Diana irked me, too. Missing your child’s first birthday would be sad for the mother. I seriously doubt a one year old would understand the significance. I would tread very carefully around the comparison if I were Kate.
Agree, it’s sad to miss the first birthday of your child, but probably more for the mother than the kid.
Exactly!
It’s not kind and it will backfire on her quickly.
Why does Kate have to tread carefully on that comment? She didn’t say it. And she probably isn’t even aware of it.
I think it means that she might want to watch what her people put out there, if it was her people who said that.
Right. Bluhare said it better than I did.
My grandmother would have worn this dress (with a darker underlay rather than white/nude). The purse is just so…Valentine’s Day. I agree with another poster that this hair is doing Kate no favors. I have no problem with women over 30 rocking long hair but Kate looks older than most 30-somethings and the weight of her hair drags her face down.
Kudos to her for being a more hands-on Mom – if that is true – than most royals. I do think it’s ridiculous to compare her to the one-of-a-kind Diana though.
truly, with all their money, she couldnt afford to be dress herself better. tsk.
Don’t care for the dress but she is always appropriate and lovely.
I love the dress and the shoes. The clutch and the hair are wrong.
I’m slowly warming up to her.
The dress is beautiful but not for cocktail party. It looks more like a day dress…
“she is always appropriate and lovely”. Thanks for the laugh. Please note the appearance last week with the inappropriate-too-short dress flying up in the wind. As that has happened multiple times, she is either dumber than a post or a dedicated exhibitionist.
What i never understand by statement that she is ‘always appropriate’ is why anyone would think that William or any member of the family would marry someone inappropriate. hell would freeze over before a member of the royal family brought home a Jordan type.
It’s a given that anyone they marry is appropriate. When they are not appropriate is when we become pearl clutchers.
LAK: They sure got a big wake-up call with Sarah Ferguson, didn’t they? She was pilloried from the word “go” for her in appropriateness, and boy, didn’t she prove the naysayers right…?
Those wiglets are doing Kate no favours. In the third pic above it’s even more obvious. I hate when a woman’s ears poke through her long hair. Maybe it’s just me, but it looks as if the ear has very obviously separated the wiglet from her own hair.
Is it true that William and Harry came home from boarding school at weekends? There is a very famous photo of Diana, with arms wide open and a huge, excited smile, just before she enveloped the boys in a warm hug. I seem to remember the papers saying she was so excited because she hadn’t seen them for months.
Yes, Diana was tireless and committed to her charity and social work. Since her boys were away at school, this wouldn’t have been such a burden, as some people like to make out, but I’m not taking anything away from the late Princess of Wales.
There were a bajillion photos of Diana hugging her boys, but their homecomings from school were kept private.
This isn’t my favorite thing she’s ever worn, but it’s cute and I like the shoes and clutch. I also like the new hair color.
Whether or not you think Kate should do something different with her hair, I hate the comments these posts always attract about how having long hair over 30 is always a terrible idea. I know a lot of professional women in their 30s with long hair, and none of them look unkempt or older than their age.
I think the dress is absolutely lovely (though not the best choice for her complexion and colouring), but her choice of shoes, and heels especially, is off – as usual, I might add.
In the interest of fairness I’d also like to point out that Diana did some horrid things as a mother – such as emotionally extorting her children on more than one occasion and needlessly burdening them, especially Wills, with her own emotional distress.
BUT… we all make mistakes, even (or especially) parents, and I have no doubt that she loved her children dearly or that she provided much warmth and joy to them.
The twaddle about Catherine’s super-duper “modern” ways is just that. Twaddle.
And I doubt it is particularly endearing her to anyone.
@Mel, The complaints about Diana’s parenting were really ‘cooked’ up by Charles’ camp to create bad press for Diana and better press for Charles.
If you read anyone around her that was fair (Ken Wharfe for example) you’ll see that it’s not true.
LadySlippers
Could you please provide a link regarding anything about Charles’s PR trying to paint Diana as a bad mother. I know the story as been told, but would love to learn the behind the scenes stuff. If there’s no link I completely understand.
Diana was a troubled girl and woman. Tissues under the door aside Diana was not stable and that could easily have translated to William. I do believe that William was ashamed of his mother at her time of death too over the Dodi bit.
@Florc: Oh gosh, during the 90’s both sides were slinging so much mud it made people dizzy. Charles himself didn’t do it but his camp did….. Penny Juror was a big one in Charles’ camp (still is)… A lot was ‘leaked’ to papers (even Camilla was discreetly calling papers)…. I’m trying to think of others that were in Charles’ camp and I’m drawing a blank. There were a decent number but Diana had such a head start and was so much better at PR than entire Charles’ camp that his camp was often drowned out by Diana’a moves.
Both boys saw their parents screaming at one another for years. And when they weren’t screaming it was fairly tense — Charles & Diana really brought out the worst in each other which was such a shame. I think seeing that is far worse than tissues under the door. Diana (as stated by Ken Wharfe and other fair biographers) was the one to tell the boys the ‘bad news’ but often William had already seen it in the papers (unlike Harry, William actively sought out info about his parents).
I’d have to do a bit of research to pin down names. I’ve been a Royal watcher for quite some time now and I know a lot of stuff but have to research the specifics like sources.
I know William had a fight with Diana before her death as he hated her courting publicity. Not sure I’d go so far as ashamed but I don’t know. I know they all were to meet as it was her turn to take the boys and supposedly the boys were excited to see her again. But from what I’ve read the boys (especially Harry) weren’t all that nuts about the Fayeds (per Sarah Bradford).
What in the world is that girl wearing in the last photo?? Seriously — she knew she was going to see the Duchess and that’s what she wore?
I thought the same thing; girl wanted to be a ballerina when she grew up!
She was excited to dress up! I think it looks… fun!
I don’t like the dress. The black section is too small in comparison to the lace section. It makes for odd proportions.
I agree. There’s something off about it. I like the back better than the front.
I don’t like it either and it looks like my nana crocheted it.
I’m sure Kate Middleton is lovely and everything she’s supposed to be to William and the British royalty, but I can never warm up to her style. Yes she has worn a few lovely gowns and pieces (That creamed lace outfit for the Jubilee will always remain a favorite), but I just don’t find her stylish or a global style icon as much as the media claims she is.
However, I can deal with it because no one really expected any major media outlet to NOT call the future Queen of England and wife of Prince William anything less than stylish.
I think she does a pretty good job (usually) of balancing stylish and appropriate. She really can’t wear cutting edge fashion because of who she is. Diana had more flair, but she could also go terribly wrong sometimes. Kate seems to stay on the safe side. I like her style a lot, but I like timeless clothes more than I do cutting edge, and my very trendy friend says my clothes are pretty, feminine and boring. Ha! Maybe that’s why I like her style?
It’s interesting you’re saying that because most of what she wears, I would wear too but I don’t know…. Maybe she doesn’t pull them off for me? Or her makeup? Or hair which I find shiny, healthy, but basic? I can’t put my finger to it. But her whole look put together rarely works for me.
I wish she’d change her makeup a bit or cut her hair (even if the media would talk about it ad nauseam)
I wish she would change her hair and makeup, too, but I said that up thread and was accused of trying to “castrate” her and all women over 40, so I’ll just agree with you in a whisper.
I see what you’re saying, though. Maybe she could add some interesting details to her outfits. Everything is very “expected,” says the fashion plate over here. Lol
Agree, GoodNames. I like her style for the most part (except for the pleats, buttons and this dress!). She dresses conservatively, but it’s mostly timeless stuff that isn’t fashion forward, but neither is it frumpy.
I’m always castigated by fellow Brits when i say that Samantha Cameron always gets it right. Conservative and edgy though it’s a conservative sort of edgy rather than being truly edgy.
And even though she always wore head to toe Dior, i always liked Carla Bruni’s interpretation of conservative dressing for a first lady.
As much as i adore Michelle Obama, i can’t stand her dress sense. I know she’s put her high powered career on the backburner so she’s dressing smart casual more often than not, but i wish she would not be so twee. That goes for all grown women who dress twee.
LAK, I agree with everything you said everybody.
Love Samantha Cameron and Carla Bruni’s style.
Wish Michelle Obama would not dress like Mindy, though I love the look on Mindy herself.
Love love love SamCam’s style. Carla Bruni looked a little too stiff and ‘in costume’ in my opinion but it showed a respect and an effort. Agree with you on MO.
Re: Carla. You are so right. I always felt that she was treating it as a role in a play of her life and therefore required a costume to go with it which would be removed as soon as she was finished with the play. And lo behold, she has.
The underlay never works in a black eyelet dress. This dress is just screaming for a light, summery colour like white, powder blue, pale pink, or lavender or a wintery colour like gray. Black seems too severe for such a dainty design and it looks kinda cheap as a result.
Her hair and makeup look good. It seems she had some cosmetic treatments done (a bit of botox and some fillers) since her eyes and face aren’t as saggy as in the Poppy event 3 weeks ago. I think she looks really pretty here.
What I don’t like are the heels. 5-inch heels and she was talking to a woman in a wheelchair and she was standing straight as a rod and looked like a giant. The photo looked awkward.
To me she looks so different from the haggard woman a couple of weeks ago, almost unlike herself. She looks photoshopped again. Her cheeks look awfully plumped up. Her brow is so smooth. And that hair- no way a good stylist could make the grey haired flat mess from Poppy Day that full with just a blow dry. She looks as if most of her hair is a wig.
Gad, I can’t imagine wearing any sort of wig unless I was balding. Ugh. How many women in their early 30’s wear that much of someone else”s hair? There is artifice and then there is artificial, and she falls into the second category.
Many ordinary people as well as celebrities people wear wigs/weaves/full head extensions.
What’s amusing about Kate’s wig[let] use is her denial which is ridiculous since it’s a normal practise AND we can see it on her head!!
Maven – I think it’s botox and cheek fillers and more weight loss. She’s fast approaching her 2011 weight and her face is close to looking gaunt lately. Look at the photos of her at the Poppy event and she still had some flesh on her cheeks and jaw, her face was rounder and wider.
Now her face is all angles again. I don’t think she’s losing weight just from taking care of her baby. I think she’s back to extreme dieting and exercising to lose weight as much as possible and in as little as 2 weeks.
I don’t really care if she has a little botox and tweaking here and there. A lot of ordinary women get the same things done.
What I don’t like is the constant media play about how she’s so busy and hands-on with George that she hasn’t got time for anything else. She’s been caught shopping for clothes a couple of times since he was born, so clearly she has time to do other stuff. She’s coloured her hair and her face looks “new”, so this PR spin that she’s always taking care of George and she couldn’t attend a charity event is so silly.
Sachi
She’s such a pretty girl. More so I think in her Uni days because she was a normal weight.
And why can’t her fans and PR just be fine with her having fake hair? You can still admire her knowing she’s not as perfect as an article and picture claim.
Florc – it’s for the same reason why that artist who painted her portrait was being called a crock and people were like, “Off with his head!”
The sycophants can’t accept that Kate is Photoshopped to death and her wrinkles, pock marks, and dehydrated skin are a part of her and that’s fine. Not everyone has perfect skin and complexion. Not everyone has thick, shiny hair and we’ve all seen the photos of Kate from 5-7 years ago and her hair was very thin.
I find it even more hilarious that many people are always trying to defend Kate while also negating the parts that she hasn’t erased/changed. They are in love with her image and not what and who she really is.
So Kate must always be 100% real and awesome in looks and personality and character, and her ‘sugars’ just clap their hands over their ears and pretend they don’t understand any criticism and they “don’t get the hate. Kate is perfect.”
Sachi
Well said!
For the rasons listed I think her fans are more in love with the image tha he really is. A human with flaws. To think she doesn’t have imperfections is unbelievable.
Not a great dress, I agree. The sleeve length makes it look quite matronly. Her hair looks much better than it has recently. Looks like she got a cut and went darker on her color, which was much needed. As far as the Diana stuff, everyone knows Diana was a great, hands-on Mum, and that’s why her boys adored her. There’s no evidence whatsoever that a Middleton family member made that comment (pure, wild speculation), and I didn’t read it as throwing shade on Diana. I’m sure Diana was crushed that she had to miss his first birthday, and that comment doesn’t suggest otherwise. The stresses of royal life “got to” Diana, who was pretty emotionally frail, and that’s just one example of many, I’m sure.
Uh, on the Diana missing the first birthday thing….you have a whole year to tweak your schedule (not counting the pregnancy time) to arrange to be present for your first kid’s first birthday. That’s just my take on it.
Not to defend Diana (I was never a fan) but I have done scheduling for prominent leaders in D.C. The amount of hoop jumping required was mind-boggling even for the most mundane of meetings with participants who were all located not just inside the Beltway but within a mile or two of each other’s offices.
Now imagine trying to schedule an official state visit with the added complications of overseas travel, official ceremonies, etc. on top of juggling different schedules, needs, preferences, egos, etc. I once had to deal with the wife of a prominent governor who was coming to D.C. and wanted to get on my boss’ calendar. You would have thought I was dealing with the Queen of England. “The First Lady would like to know if she may meet in the morning. The First Lady has asked if you could provide chilled sodas for her guests.” Oh. My. God. And she was just the spouse of someone elected to office who wanted to chit chat about some initiative for an hour. I have no problem believing at the Princess of Wales level that coordinating a state-sanctioned trip would be exponentially more headache-inducing from start to finish, with little wiggle room for changes.
That dress is awful. Why am I still surprised when she wears fugly dresses? The shade on Diana was low. Im assuming that was the Middleton pr and William had no part in it
If it’s coming from the palace it means that William knows about it.
But most important, why would the Middleton’s say anything without William’s stamp of approval? I don’t think they would which is why I think William is behind anything we think is a Middleton leak.
I don’t think the palace communicates via US Weekly 🙂
Im assuming its them cos they have always been leaky, even during the Waity Katie days
@Sisi: No SJP doesn’t! Lol. But US got the comments from either a real source or they made it up. And William has shown he’s not afraid to go after someone when they cross him. So it kinda points to a real source or it’s made up and with William being so aggressive makes any made up story sound more legit.
Are these comments/ quotes showing up anywhere else? Preferably a more legit paper?
In Kate’s defence, if she’s nursing, she probably doesn’t want to be away for too long.
(Diana was only able to nurse William for about three weeks and Harry, I think, she was able to get to six weeks. So not long for either)
.
That was short and to the point (get it??), LAK!
lol.
Here between family festivites so i’ll make it quick..
This article is a load of BS. Her PR tries too hard to sell an image to us that her actions directly contradict. It’s insulting. I’m not saying she’s a bad mom who leaves George with the nannies while she shops and lives a vapid existence. I am saying it’s hard to swallow that she keeps George in a bubble of normalcy. Kate and William have no grasp on what that means. Only what normalcy means within their privileged upbringing. That doesn’t translate to the average tab reader.
And this throwing Diana under a bus certainly did not come from any palace source. In articles Kate only seems to be written in a positive light after attacking someone else. Her image just can’t be supported on its own and look good. Maybe in time, but not yet. She hasn’t done enough.
And yea… it’s a wig(let). Like Kate if you want guys. She’s no trailblazzer and helping those less fortunate, but she’s not directly kicking homeless people out of her path. She’s just being sold to us as a false idol of sorts. She’s fabricated. She has flaws, but we’re suppose to believe she’s flawless. Diana had extreme flaws, but that showed her beauty.
Happy family time fellow CBers! Stay warm and enjoy the food:)
All this talk of how women who are “older” shouldn’t have long hair is offensive. It’s like we’re being forced to relinquish our femininity once we get to an age where society deems us nonsexual and used up. I’m almost 40. I have gorgeous, bright red hair (yes, with about 15% gray now throughout) that goes down to my lower back. It feels good, it’s very pretty, it’s thick and had great body, and I love it. I’m never cutting it. Especially just because I’m supposed to (?!) due to age. That’s the stupidest damn thing I have ever heard. I think old ladies with long gray or white hair look amazing. It’s a very symbolic thing, too, to cut one’s long hair off due to age and age only. It is a traditional symbol of our femininity (not that it is THE representation of femininity or that short hair isn’t also feminine!!), and the expectation that we chop it off is almost like an enforced and shameful symbolic retirement from womanhood (in the eyes of the male-dominated society, that is…and yes, women play into supporting that male domination every time they make these comments toward older women)…what’s worse is that so few people see this. Yet, I cannot even tell you how many, many times I have heard comments (nasty, rude comments) about how this lady or that lady should really stop trying to “act young” and should get short hair. Bull. Shit. So much bullshit.
That said, if any woman wants short hair–more power to them (I had a pixie cut about 20 years ago and I loved it so much)!! Leave women alone, for Christ’s sake. It’s their hair. Short, long, in between, bald–it’s each woman’s choice and hers alone.
To each his own, themummy. Long hair does drag down some people’s faces, and not others. Some people look awful in a short haircut, some people look great. Tomato, tomahto.
Just because you aren’t trying to look young, doesn’t mean others aren’t. And opinions are just that and are not directed at you and your hair.
Yes
Everyone seems to be comparing themselves to Kate. She’s a working mom like they are. She has thick hair like they do. They don’t do this so Kate doesn’t either.
Would admitting she’s flawed and makes cosmetic adjustments to her appearance really be such an insult?
Amen. And spot on. It all depends on the woman. Not everyone is trying to be or look young. Some, like me, just really enjoy their ‘crowning glory’ for all the reasons you stated, and more. And yeah, femininity rules.
Amazing that some women can be so offended that older women don’t follow the patriarchal pattern and society’s expectation, and that some women actually really don’t care when they get to a certain age about those expectations. It may be lonely at the top but it surely is liberating. It’s lovely to wallow in who one is.
A wonderful, thought provoking comment.
As for Waity, her problem is that the hairstyle no longer suits her and it’s always, always in her face.
the mummy, Agree with everything you said. This coming from another long haired natural red head! Who says after thirty one should get a poodle cut and wear flowered polyester dresses.
Good grief. Wear your hair the way you want to – whatever choice you make is purely a personal one. Long or short hair – these choices are sartorial and individual and have nothing to do with subverting societal expectations or being brave or staring down the patriarchy.
No one really cares that much. I find it hard to believe that IRL that people are going up to women and telling them to cut their hair.
The old “cut your hair after forty” advice hasn’t been bandied around since about 1975 . And it was a short term trend that only ran about 50 years because historically all women from youth to death, had long, long hair (women only really began to cut their hair in the 1920s).
As far as the duchess goes, I don’t care if she grows her hair down to the back of her knees. I just want her to clamp it back off her face so it doesn’t blow around like crazy at events. It would also help her to keep her hands off of it and her mind on her work, not on fiddling with her ‘do.
I hate this dress. It is purely ugly and I have no idea why she would choose it. It also doesn’t appear to fit that well. She seems to be in some kind of funk lately, clothes-wise.
@Suze,
You think the pressures stop at a certain age? See you on the other side and then we’ll talk.
Maven, I am on the other side, believe me.
I am putting myself on a time out on discussions about the duchess’ hair. It’s obviously pushed me over the edge. I just wish she’d stop playing with it in public, regardless of length or style.
Everyone is probably off this thread now, but I just wanted to say that I wish I had never remarked that I think a shorter haircut would make Kate look younger. Not because I don’t believe it, but because that opinion was twisted to a meaning and purpose never intended, in spite of my lengthy explanation of what I was actually trying to say. I love this site, but this has happened to me once before, and I have seen it happen to many other people, when you make a comment, it’s misinterpreted, you explain, but people continue to pile on and beat you up for something you never meant in the first place. It’s exhausting. Everyone is entitled to disagree with my opinion, but please don’t credit me with motives I don’t have or ideas I didn’t express.
I hear you- and quite frankly, it’s the exception rather than the rule that long hair on someone who’s older than 40/45 is aging. Has nothing to do with politics/patriarchy/etc just the simple fact that the hair attracts the eye down, which tends to exaggerate gravity’s work on facial structure. Whether hair is thick/thin etc.
That being said- if you are in love with your long hair, regardless of age, rock on!
Exactly, thank you.
GoodNames, I still love you. And I totally got your meaning. That meaning comes with three olives too? Oh good.
*sigh as balance is restored to the world*
Aw, Good Names, I hope my post wasn’t a pile on. I certainly hope you check back to read this. I really didn’t mean it that way at all.
I tend to think lots of us take these hair length posts way too seriously. It’s just hair – wear it long or short or whatever way you want. It’s all good.
And I understood your post about the Duchess to mean that *IN HER CASE* a change of pace, hair-wise, might not be a bad idea. I didn’t take it as a battle cry in the hair wars at all.
Thank you, dahling Lady Slippers and Suze – I wasn’t referring to either of you, but you are very kind to make sure. Suze, you are funny – I didn’t mean to sound a battle cry in the hair wars – lol. I will stay out of it in the future! Thank you both. xx
1. granny style dress
2. her hair looks super!
3. this time a professional did her make-up. Good decision!
3. her posture is bad… really bad.
Date & inappropriate for a night event. She should have chosen something else. The dress if perfectly fine, if dated, for a day even, but not a night. Also…cease with the shade being thrown at Diana. Why is it that in order to prop up the Duchess of Dolittle they must tear down Diana?
I don’t believe that Kate is raising the baby all by herself without a single nanny, not including Carole. I don’t believe the reason she won’t work far outside of London is primarily because of the baby. I was kind of surprised that she wore a knee-length dress that wasn’t flapping around in the night wind. I wouldn’t be too surprised if at 40, she still has this same hair-style that requires constant touching & pulling it out of her face while talking to people or making short, awkward speeches or while standing in the wind, & always using it as a link to her youth when she’s not getting any younger. And if the point of the US Weekly article is to show how different (& better) she is as a mother than Queen Victoria & Diana, then that’s a low blow.
I kinda like her dress. Atleast its appropriate and not flying about showing her nether regions ti the world! But the clutch could go. She looks better with her hair tied up. Like her last appearance. The hair around her face makes her look sort of untidy. Just my opinion
So is no one going to bring up the fact that she is completely under dressed for a black tie gala? Everyone else were in gowns with updos, then there is Kate looking like Kate…
Lol But as Vylette pointed out above, at least her dress wasn’t flying up, exposing her nether regions to the world. Any time her dress isn’t doing that is progress.
Yea
I don’t like the dress on her or in general, but it is appropriate and pretty enough.
I think Diana would be shocked at how little these two worked before they had a kid.
The dress is just ok for me but her legs look lovely. LMAO at the insinuation her hair is a wig. Good grief!
I actually really like that dress – it’s something I’d wear. I don’t see the problem with propaganda about what a good mother she is. Honestly, she probably is a good mother. I think she gets more help than this story lets on, but family and domesticity have been her only influences and only goals, so why wouldn’t she be an attentive mother?
I don’t see the point of bringing Diana into it, though. I mean, Diana was a poster child for the 1980s “super mom,” attending events while pregnant, dictating a degree of normalcy while still adhering to royal demands . . . Diana may have known only great wealth in her life, but she didn’t have the support of a family like Kate’s, so the comparison will never be a fair one.
I’d be willing to lay money down that both Diana and Kate were good mothers, and both had an equal number of nannies.
And there’s no shame in it.
Kate looks drab and boring as per usual.
It just sounds like she is looking for more excuses not to work.