Duchess Kate posed for her first-ever British Vogue editorial: stunning or meh?

kate vogue cover

Well, this is actually a pleasant surprise! To celebrate 100 years of British Vogue, the Duchess of Cambridge actually deigned to do an editorial for the June issue. This is Kate’s first editorial for this or any magazine, although (obviously) she has covered major magazines before. Those times, the magazines just bought the rights to photographers’ images, or in certain cases, Mario Testino was called in to photograph the Cambridges and they hold the licensing rights. But this is an honest-to-God Vogue editorial for Kate. And Testino didn’t come near it! Kate was photographed by Josh Olins in Norfolk. There’s no word if the shoot actually went down around Anmer Hall, but I don’t think that’s the case. Everything looks too rustic, and I bet the shoot went down somewhere other than Anmer or Sandringham.

On the cover and in the black-and-white shot, Kate is wearing Burberry and a vintage hat from Beyond Retro. The other shot, with Kate in the striped shirt, the shirt is by Petit Bateau and the slacks are by Burberry. Something nice… I feel like Kate is sending a message by being purposefully dressed-down in these official portraits. She’s putting the emphasis on “being normal” rather than “being fancy and royal.” Something not nice: I feel like they overly Photoshopped the cover shot. And I kind of think the hat was a bad idea, but maybe it was a situation where Vogue was like, “God, the wiglet is really obvious, let’s get a hat for Kate.”

Kate’s spokesperson (POOR JASON) spoke on the Duchess’s behalf to Vogue, saying many words:

“Since 1916, Vogue has been a leading champion of British portraiture. The Duchess was delighted to play a part in celebrating the centenary of an institution that has given a platform to some of the most renowned photographers in this country’s history. She is incredibly grateful to the team at Vogue and at the National Portrait Gallery for asking her to take part. She would like to thank Josh Olins for being such a pleasure to work with. The Duchess had never taken part in a photography shoot like this before. She hopes that people appreciate the portraits with the sense of relaxed fun with which they were taken.”

[Via The Daily Mail]

Eh, I won’t nitpick about the wording. Mostly because I’m pleased that Kate is actually engaging with some style tastemakers, something which Diana did from the very beginning. Diana was very close to the British Vogue team at the time, and Diana actually cared very deeply about style trends and putting together interesting looks, because she felt that was part of her job. Is Kate coming around to that way of thinking about her job?

Also: these photos will hang in the National Portrait Gallery, one of Kate’s (few) patronages. And Kate has just announced that she will be making a trip to the National Portrait Gallery in London to see the photos (of herself). She’ll be going on Wednesday. She’s already doing an event at Hampton Court on Wednesday too. So Kate will be (shock!) knocking out two events in one day.

PS… Kate has also released new photos of Princess Charlotte ahead of Charlotte’s first birthday. We will be covering those photos tomorrow, please be kind and don’t threadjack.


kate vogue

Photos courtesy of Josh Olins/British Vogue.

Related stories

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

241 Responses to “Duchess Kate posed for her first-ever British Vogue editorial: stunning or meh?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. roxane says:

    I actually like it. It’s pretty and rustic.

    • Amelie says:

      Agreed. She also has a maturity in these pix that I haven’t noticed before.

    • Megan says:

      Her hair and make up look really good in the second pic.

    • Becks says:

      I really like these pictures too.
      I want that hat!

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      I like that she is wearing a lot less eyeliner and blush, but I’m no fan of the hat or the eyebrows. The brows are just too much and don’t particularly flatter her face IMO. Overall, I think the pics are just nice.

      • Lucinda says:

        Yes! It makes such a big difference. I really love this shoot and wish she would do her make-up like this more often. It’s amazing how make-up can really change the overall impression a person makes. She shows a mature, age-appropriate, confidence and poise in these photos that I have yet to see any other time. Good for her!

      • Ankhel says:

        Those brows, that hat, the manic grin – she looks like the missing Marx brother.

    • BritAfrica says:

      Thank you!

      She is not a model and cannot be expected to look like one. I tend to give articles on her a wide berth because of the reaction people seem to think a woman deserves. Clearly I fell off the wagon today!

      The dislike for this woman is so over-hyped! She is simply being punished for not being Diana. ‘She has no charisma’……….sorry, where does it say ‘charisma’ is what a member of the royal family needs? How about being effective?

      Princess Anne has no charisma but she is rather effective. But 2 decades ago, she too was being crucified for not being Diana!

      • Melly says:

        What is Kate doing effectively?

      • Maleficent says:

        I agree. Plus, people seem to forget that Diana was incredibly criticized the first decade of her celebrity. Her appearance was just as scrutinized (which exacerbated the eating disorder), she was called frivolous for her many clothing changes (even being the most photographed woman in the world), and she wasn’t considered appropriate in behavior until the end of her life.

      • Jib says:

        Yes, but Princess Anne works.

      • BritAfrica says:

        @ Melly…..Oh, so you know for a fact that she isn’t an effective mother then?? Maybe you should not presume that all you can see of someone is all they are….

        @ Maleficent……thank you – I do remember. The ‘celebrity’ culture is what the royals (certainly Charles) appear to want to avoid after the fiasco of the Diana era.

        It didn’t work because they are not celebs and should not be made to look like one. Many Brits simply hate it when these people appear in these mags looking like everyone is having the same great time that they are.

      • mairin says:


        When Kate married into the Royal Family, she assumed a role and it wasn’t as a SAHM. I’d feel differently about her & William if they had just stated their intention from the beginning to raise their family for a few years. Thry may have even earned some respect for doing that but they didn’t & we’ve been subjected to 5 years of sh*tty exuses & their desperate glomming onto others appearances (*Harry*) to look like they’re doing something.

        Princess Anne is very effective in her role and she too was criticized in the 80s for not pulling her weight because she was ONLY doing 2 appearances a week. And she was around the same age & had 2 young children, just like Kate.

        These two are all flash (literally in Kate’s case) and no substance. They’ve turned themselves into celebrities.

      • BritAfrica says:


        Wow…..spoken like someone who is really invested in their lives….!

      • mairin says:


        I read these boards, yes. So I am interested in what the royals are doing.
        Something we both have in common.

    • Alex says:

      Agreed. Pretty and rustic suits her very well. I really liked the photos.

  2. Senaber says:

    This was a good try, but I’m still bored. Stripped shirt? Check. Jecca style? Check. Yawn.

    • tracking says:

      She has good stuff to work with, but simply has no charisma.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      I don’t understand why she wears a striped shirt so often on her ‘casual’ days either, especially for this special issue/important photo shoot. Nice that she wore Burberry, I definitely associate that brand with the UK.

      I like the jacket!

      • Palar says:

        Yep cos I’m sure Vogue let her choose the clothes.

      • burnsie says:

        I think she wears a lot of horizontal stripes to distract from her long torso. No shade, we all have things we want to de-emphasize, but it is kind of repetitive that she only wears stripes.

    • Maleficent says:

      I will say, I find it boring, especially for vogue. Perhaps I’m just not a fan of the rustic look…I think I just want more GLAM from a royal highness.

    • Dani says:

      Jecca style? Because god forbid two people have the same taste!

  3. bluhare says:

    I’m a shallow human being because I can’t see anything except her eyebrows. I know a dramatic eyebrow is current technique, but don’t they seem like they take over her face? Otherwise I think the black and white one in particular is a nice shot of her.

    • cristine says:

      I cannot focus on anything else than her eyebrows!

    • Alix says:

      At first I was ‘meh’ on the heavy brows but now I’m thinking they give her a more modern look.

      • bluhare says:

        Yes, they’re on trend, but that doesn’t necessarily mean flattering. At least I don’t think so; she has a strong brow without the thickening and darkening, and I think that looks better.

    • Nancy says:

      Yep those are some thick brows. Looks like the cover of Field & Stream.

    • Bridget says:

      I like the brows.

      And the eyeliner isn’t tattooed on!

    • Dena says:

      Yeah. For some reason, the photos are also missing a sense of joy to me. There is no real energy. Re: the cover, if we hadn’t been told I honestly would not have identified the person as Kate.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Dena – I get what you mean about ‘no real energy’ from these pics, is it because comments have been about how she seems stiff at events? I’m guessing she wanted to convey that she is relaxed and the press and the people have it all wrong?

      • Dena says:

        @ Sharon. It’s not that. Although, I can’t put my hand on it. Ironically, when I see photos of Kate @ events her nervousness, insecurities, and vapidness are all on display. You see those things. You can see it as she struggles to stay interested and alert. Sometimes I have compassion for her and sometimes I don’t.

        I think Kate is pretty. You don’t see that here. And it’s not exactly about prettiness. Even those people who aren’t photogenic or as photogenic but who are quirky, funny, smart or interesting radiate that something—behind their eyes or with their smile. I don’t know if the ability to capture that is a skill and/or ability that we should look to the photographer for or if the subject has to reveal (by themselves or with the support of the photographer).

        I don’t know. Perhaps I’m reading too much into a few photos or perhaps Kate is too deep of an introvert to project pieces of herself or it could just be the background and the narrative of a Norfolk country type girl they want to tell. I don’t know. The backgrounds and the (eyebrows) are overwhelming. Perhaps that’s symbolic and it’s on parallel narrative–that she’s overwhelmed, overshadowed, being dulled out, shrunken out but still present? I don’t know.

        Last thing: I really loved the portrait that was done of her (can’t remember the artist) that many people thought was really dark. Different mediums but the painter captured something in her smile and something in her eyes. Something mischievous and private. This? Meh. It’s too flat. No real contrast. And nothing revealed.

    • Original T.C. says:

      Also shallow, I can’t stand the thick brows IMO along with all the brown clothes, it gives her a very masculine look. And yes hello photoshop overkill. Vogue should have gone with Prince George the bruiser!

      But I have no problems with her being on the cover of British Vogue to promote the magazine’s birthday.

      • TyrantDestroyed says:

        I like big brows as long as they are natural. I have friends and family with thick beautiful ones since they were born and they rock this style. Sadly I was not blessed with this feature, mInes are scarced and they’re better styled medium width.
        I’m not a big fan of the big fake ones plastered with make up.
        Kate looks pretty but as a model would look and that’s all. I guess since she is a big fan of her late mother-in-law, this cover and editorial was in her bucket list.
        The statement from PoorJason is nice.

    • Anna says:

      Thank God someone else said it! Those eyebrows are WAY WAY too much. They make her face look really rough. Also hating on brown lips and kinda frizzy hair. I’m shocked, but these photos are making me Kate’s self-styled trademark look of light pink lips, kohl liner and loose waves.

      • MP says:

        I really dislike the cover picture. It’s just so brown; her coat it’s brown, her hair is brown, the background is brownish and there is no color in her makeup. Boring. It doesn’t pop at all and I would probably completely miss it in the magazine rack.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        MP – Yeah, I think the cover a bit too brown too, especially for a June/summer issue.

      • Vava says:

        The timing of these photos isn’t doing her any favors. She can do a Vogue cover shot, but refuses other mundance royal tasks —- that is the real issue. She has become a real disappointment.

    • Seraphina says:

      Bluhare, complete agreement. The eyebrows look way too much for her and are over powering her face.

      And I think as vogue they should have chose a person who is fashion forward and a style changer not a fashion shy woman who constantly makes fashion mistakes.

    • Seraphina says:

      Bluhare, complete agreement with you. The brows are over powering her face. That’s all I see.

      And I’m disappointed they chose Kate for their issue. I was hoping for someone who is a trend setter, a fashion forward thinker. Not a person who is a snooze fest with her fashion choices. I think this is some PR stunt because Wils and Kate have been under attack lately. I wonder how much this cost Jason.

      Bad choice Vogue.

    • teacakes says:

      yeah, combined with the hat on the cover I think the eyebrows are a bit overpowering.

      They’re still strong on the shot of her in the red-and-black striped shirt but there’s more in the shot to balance the brows out. Seriously, she’s not a hideous-looking woman, surely it can’t be that hard to find a makeup style that works on her!

    • Giddy says:

      Bluhare, I hope there’s room for me on your bench for shallow people. I can’t see beyond those eyebrows. In fact, I honestly thought it was Jennifer Connelly. I hope someone helps Kate find her own style.

    • India Andrews says:

      Just because they are trendy doesn’t mean you should do it. Case in point is Kate here.

      Cara and Lily Collins can do them well. Not Kate. Too heavy on her face.

  4. Ramona Q. says:

    She has great eyebrows. I wonder if this editorial counts as a work event?

    • Lisa says:

      Somehow I’m sure she’ll count it as work. Remember she counted her daughter’s birth and christening as work. BTW, funny that they constantly yell for privacy and yet here she is, on the cover of British Vogue. In all her boring toothy glory. I guess the Vogue cover is more important than actually working for her charities. SMH

    • Anett says:

      This shoot took all day. So?:-)
      She doesn’t spend longer than an hour on average at the charities.

  5. Hejhej says:

    The photos are good. She looks nice and the makeup is a lot better than her usual makeup.

    That being said the photos also reveal – IMO – that she has no “IT”. She’s pretty, yes, but also forgettable. Which is fine and like most people, but most people don’t get a Vogue cover or a portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. Again, there’s nothing wrong with her getting that because she’s the Duchess of Cambrigde and the future queen. What is wrong is all the praise she will get for being stunning, historic, etc etc. All the hype is deeply annoying!

    • Anett says:

      That is my problem with this historic shoot as well. Others who got the front page, did something other than marrying a prince.

    • Jib says:

      I don’t think she looks pretty in these at all. There was a softness to her face that’s now missing. Either they didn’t photoshop her or she really does look sinewy because of her weight loss. My thought was “horsey,” as in face, not style. She looks skinny compared to models in these pics.

      • Payapa says:

        Agreed. They photoshopped her face until she looks too masculine. It looks almost like they have merged her face and William together.

      • Feeshalori says:

        When I saw these photos, l had to look twice since she doesn’t look like her usual self. She just looks different and in the second photo, all I can see is teeth.

      • Polly says:

        I think that’s why I like these photos, because they didn’t go for pretty and soft. She looks more mature here, I like the toned down makeup and strong brow. I’d lose the hat though.

    • Tina says:

      I’ve been to this exhibit and it’s really great. The room where her photos are going has some serious heavy hitters in it – Kate Moss, Cara Delevingne – and some gorgeous, iconic photos. Charles’s photo looked slightly out of place, but it was a beautiful shot and he’s not a young woman. The contrast between these photos and the rest of the room is going to be really jarring.

  6. Kristen says:

    I think she looks lovely. I find her to be much more attractive when she’s dressed more casually and wearing less makeup (or made up to look as if she’s wearing less).

    • felixswan2 says:

      I’m surprised at how much I like the photos. I’m usually not impressed by photos of Kate or how she looks, but I too think she looks lovely. Her makeup here is so much better, and she looks relaxed and happy.

      • Vava says:

        I’m surprised at how much I dislike these photos of her, because I tend to prefer her casual fashions. She does look relaxed and happy, I do agree with you there, but to my eye, she looks ………not feminine at all. Angular and harsh. Kate is more beautiful and lovely with more weight on her, but obviously she likes the skinny look, so-be-it, I guess.

      • kaiko says:

        Agree Vava, all I see are hard angles, no curves…masculine and sinewy, especially around the neck and that strong square jaw. But that’s her look. She has a nice smile though, very symmetrical.

  7. Sez says:

    A bit too Autumnal for June, no? That said while I could lose the hat I think she looks great. The eyeliner is no more! The photo of her at the gate is my favourite. I would like to see a full shot of her in the Burberry *gasp* pants though!

  8. Jayna says:

    I love the cover. The browns used, the hat.

    • sophietta says:

      Me too! Love the drama, the hat, the colours (or lack, there of). She looks more interesting here than any other pics I’ve ever seen of her.

  9. COSquared says:

    Holy ‘Shop!

    • Lisa says:

      IKR? Check out the article on the DM on this cover. It’s very scathing and spot-on.

    • Esmom says:

      That was my first thought. It almost looks like a computer-generated likeness of her. It freaks me out a little bit.

  10. Myrna says:

    One would think that VOGUE could give this princess some modern day glam.
    I understand that it’s “nice” to have a natural look, but it’s her everyday boring look.
    Isn’t the purpose of being in a high gloss fashion magazine to showcase one’s inner glam and style?
    It’s GOT to be in there, somewhere…*SIGH*

    • Alix says:

      At least they got her style/title right, which 99% of the media seems incapable of doing.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Yeah, as a woman, I would hope for a ‘glam/fun’ shoot too. Unless we’ll see some in the issue, aren’t there a total of 8 pics? Comparing to Diana’s shoot, where she donated dresses, they slicked he hair back – it was a ‘new/trendy’ look for her and fun to see her a little different.

  11. Krishan says:

    How uninspired. She has no charisma. She’s so skinny that her face is very narrow. All I see on the cover are veneers and eyebrows and hair. In short, nothing new.

    They couldn’t get a photo of her in her office poring over some made-up research about some charity she wants to support? Or would that have been too obviously made-up?

    And ooh, a visit to the NPG? Her annual visit has come up, then. Her other patronages must be very excited to see Kate once this year.

    • cristine says:


    • burnsie says:

      I think my comments are getting stuck in moderation, but the kicker is that a few years ago Kate couldn’t be bothered to do a cover shoot for Scouting Magazine for one of her patronages. Instead she sent a photo for them to use, and she sent a super glam one. Google it – it’s pretty odd

      • notasugarhere says:

        If you tried to send a link to the photo, that might be why your comment got stuck. I remember that scouting magazine. Couldn’t even bother to send a new picture or a photo of her working with the scouts.

    • lily says:

      I agree with you completely! she has no charisma at all, she’ s lazy and that’ s all. Instead of doing some more engagement to boost her image after the flop of the Indiam tour she covers Vogue magazine and shows off goerge wearing a bathrobe during Obama’ s visit. Lazy useless Kate!

  12. Kate says:

    I think she looks pretty. I’m sure it will take the heat off for a minute.

  13. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I’m not even going to read the other comments. Just wanted to say that the clothes were disappointing, but she looked pretty.

  14. Palar says:

    I like it.

  15. Snazzy says:

    I must be a horrible person – so many people here commenting on how nice the pics are, I think they’re terrible. The hat, the shirt, the background, the over-shop of the cover, all of it. It sucks.

    • OhDear says:

      +1. It looks like something in an Eddie Bauer/LL Bean catalog.

      (For the record, I think Eddie Bauer and LL Bean have good products.)

      • Sharon Lea says:

        OMG OhDear, it does look like an Eddie Bauer/LL Bean catalog!!! Or Seinfeld’s J Peterman catalog ha.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I just got my J. Peterson catalog and this would fit in perfectly, lol.

    • HappyMom says:

      I’m with you. Sooooooo dull. It’s VOGUE and she’s a PRINCESS. Dear god-we all have those Breton striped shirts-could she not be in something more elegant?? And she’s not horsey-why is she posed as a Sloane Ranger?

      • India Andrews says:

        I loved Diana’s Mario Testino black and white photos for Vogue muuch better. There…I am a bad person for comparing Kate to her MIL.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      It looks more like something from a catalogue for causual wear than Vogue – and that’s all I’ll say.

    • lisa says:

      i think she looks like a dried up old piece of toast, i dont see it either and i feel badly about that

    • FuefinaWG says:

      I’m not a fan of Vogue but the photos should have been better. She looks like she did her own make-up, grabbed some crap from her closet, and had William shoot the photos. It would have been a good time to throw some British designers on her with stylists firmly in control.
      If this is what I looked like on the cover of Vogue, I’d be pissed off.
      I expect more from a fashion magazine; this is more like Horse Weekly.

    • Reece says:

      I was beginning to think I was alone in my opinion.

  16. moi says:

    extremely manly

    • Olenna says:

      Sadly, I have to agree. I think she’s lost too much weight and it definitely shows in her face, particularly her jawline. The hat, heavy eyebrows and huge grill don’t help. She vaguely reminds me of Jennifer Connelly at her thinnest but without the femininity. I do like the photo of her in the striped shirt, though.

      • Tess says:

        Her weight is a touchy topic on this board – it’s obvious to many that she’s dieted her way down to unhealthy extremes and as you’ve pointed out it does nothing for her except make her look old
        A vogue cover may seem like a coup & the ultimate achievement but I’m more impressed by what royals like Anne and Harry do – and without a lot of fan fair I might add

  17. Amber says:

    First of all, did Liz say no? They couldn’t find any outtakes from a Testino shoot of Diana? Moss and Naomi busy? Secondly, I’m so glad The Precious made it’s way into some pics. We rarely see the thing! I don’t know why Kate’s always hiding it. And third, great timing! And totally on message. With Seward, (one of the few who even bothered reporting on the Cambridges’ anniversary), arguing that poor, frequently uninteresting Kate is an anxious wallflower still struggling to adjust, while coping with the responsibilities and the spotlight of her role as HRH, at 34, five years in. This totally jives with the excuses Kate’s fans give for her and the middle class, stay-at-home, part time royal shtick Bill and Bucket are always selling. Deeming one’s self worthy of a UK Vogue cover, and the centenary issue at that, simply reeks of normalcy and humility, doesn’t it? Privacy and all that? Nothing says “I’m no fashion plate, nor a celebrity, and I’m not here to be gawked at” like a Vogue cover. It’s just what I expect from a down to earth person, still finding their voice because they are loath to put themselves out there by making speeches and such.

    Whoever thought this was a good idea and that they could pass the NPG as a legit justification–Like Kate’s been SOOOO active in her patronage–Should be fired. I wouldn’t care about portraits or if some photos were in Vogue. But a ten page, cover spread for the 100th anniversary issue? Next level. On top of everything else, all anyone’s talking about are her eyebrows, and the fact that she didn’t have time for the Irish Guard but made time for something like this. She’s also making a rare appearance promoting the exhibition by looking at portraits of herself. It’s amazing how Kate constantly finds the most hands-off, cushy and glamorous route in her “work” without fail. Judging by those brows (and judging those brows) I’m guessing this was from Jan/Feb. Just as “Kick The Cambridge” season was in an upswing, having been brewing since last summer. They thought turning into the skid with Vogue would be a nice addition to Kate’s burgeoning image as a vapid, spendthrift, superficial, lightweight? Of course Vogue! (Who can’t relate? What common touch.) We’ll see if there’s even an actual interview. This is worse than Will and Kate expecting us to be charmed by their family-goes-to-ski-chalet-in-secret photos.

    Ugh. I don’t even want to talk about the insipid subtext of this country bumpkin in Norfolk bullsh*t. If you look at photos of the installation these (banal) pictures of Kate are even more out of place in the exhibition than in Vogue. Which is really saying something! A perfect illustration of that dissonance is in the pics themselves. Kate’s a PR concoction. Not an actual clotheshorse or an icon like Diana to justify this. So here she is, looking autumnal and Town and Country “common”, on the cover of UK Vogue, SWF Jecca Craig like it’s 2005. I know this is very blunt and harsh. Nice try. But she doesn’t belong there. I mean it’s not a holy grail. I know the score. I know how Kimye get a cover. But did anyone on Kate’s team ask themselves what are we claiming, accomplishing, and selling by doing this? What’s the conversation? What door are we opening? I also don’t give a rat’s rear about how Kate looks. I’m not going to get suckered in and distracted by that either way.

    • cindyp says:

      Agree with everything you said. Only Kate could make a Vogue editorial shoot boring. Looks like something out of a Lands End catalogue. YAWN!

      • OhDear says:

        Ha, didn’t see your comment before I posted mine (re: Land’s End catalogue)!

        Also agree with what Amber wrote.

    • Zard123 says:

      What a great piece you have written so well put together …
      agree with you on everything ….
      she can do this for Vogue but cannot work on charities ..
      think pictures are awful actually
      she is trying to be something as usual that she is not … she was not brought up in the country side but has always pretended she has been …
      such a dolly head …

      • Llamas says:

        Completely agree. She couldn’t do a 115 year old tradition for service members because kids though she’s perfectly fine being away from them for vacations, movie premieres, sporting events, photo shoots, etc. This makes me dislike her even more. She’s not even hiding her uncaring attitude for actual charity work anymore. She is a pathetic excuse for a patron. If I were her charities I would dump her.

      • Amber says:

        How dare you @Llamas? You forgot shopping! How could you mischaracterize someone like that by excluding their #1 passion in life? She’ll skip out early on work and leave the kids at home to go shopping (or out with her mother and sister). So committed is she. So let’s add “photo shoot” to the list of super important things, (in support of QEII, of course), that the poor wretch that is the Duchess of Cambridge will drag herself away from her children for. Let’s put it above film premieres, luncheons, and galas, but below Wimbledon and vacations, and well below shopping.

    • MinnFinn says:

      +1 Banal is perfect. My hunch is that exhibiting the photos at the NPG was an after thought that created a charitable purpose for taking them.

      On out-of-place scale for the NPG of 1-10, my rating is 10. As long as the NPG is exhibiting JCrew style photos they might as well add the Cambridge France snow follies to their collection as well.

      • Amber says:

        Oh, total afterthought. 10 page, cover spread in an anniversary issue? It’s “Kate’s Vogue cover”. And not for the NPG’s benefit. Most comments here and at the Daily Mail don’t even note the connection with the NPG. Like I said, whoever thought this was a good idea and that the NPG reasoning would pass the smell test, should be fired.

        Know what makes the timing really great though? The fact that this is coming out while Kate’s doing bupkis, after a flop oversees tour, having done nothing prior to that. It’ll also exit the newsstands at the start of summer. A period when Bill and Bucket really don’t do jacksh*t. I honestly think they’re still living in 2011. Like we can’t see through their tricks and are satisfied when they simply grace us with their presence. Doesn’t matter though. There are still people saying she’s not a model or a fashionista and shouldn’t be judged even while looking at her representing a century of faces and fashion on the cover of VOGUE!

    • Vava says:

      hahahha………Amber your commentary is perfection.

      I was rather surprised on my vacation whilst hanging out with two Brits and an American woman and all of them think Kate is so wonderful. “Why do people pick on her, she’s raising small children!” GAG ME.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Really great post Amber! I have the same questions. Now Harry, he is a natural/instinctive and has done a great job supporting and promoting the Invictus Games. He could do the cover of GQ and it would make sense!

    • The Original Mia says:

      Well said. Team ToneDeaf doesn’t get it. This was a incredibly dumb thing to agree to. But in the ongoing SWFing of Diana, par for the course.

      And…to those defending her with “well, Diana & Anne were on the cover”, well…that was when Vogue had some prominence that wasn’t diminished by Kim Kardashian being on the cover.

      • Amber says:

        Anne was also on the cover in ’71 and ’73. She’s wearing the Festoon tiara that was given to her as a gift on the ’73 cover. Royals used to be gifted extravagant things all the time back in the day. Those optics don’t play anymore. Just like Diana probably wouldn’t be able to get away with her clothing budget nowadays. Times change. Things change. You can’t compare generation to generation, or person to person. Context and intention are everything, and specific to an individual. I wouldn’t have cared if Kate posed for Vogue back when she first got married. But now? After everything she HASN’T done? What are they thinking? This makes no sense to me for a number of reasons, but in particular when thinking about the PR narrative Bill and The Hair have been trying to push for themselves. And they know that. Hence the sporty, catalog-ness of the whole thing. She’s trying to have her cake and eat it too, with a cherry on top. I don’t know who this Kate is that we’re being sold now.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Kate reportedly did have a Vogue opportunity years ago, but didn’t do it because of the Queen’s disapproval. So the change of heart now could be to promote her image.


      • lily says:

        furthermore Diana and Anne worked. It wasn’ t Vogue and shopping only. Her life was, sure, bespoke clothes, fashion, luxury life but also engagements, duty, charities.

      • hmmm says:


        “She’s trying to have her cake and eat it too, with a cherry on top. ”

        Turns out that this skinny minnie is in actuality a real glutton.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        @ Freeshalori, I love how in that article it states that she (and William!) “takes her royal duties far too seriously” to consider being on the cover of Vogue, LOL! My what a difference five years makes.

    • lily says:

      Amber bravo!!!!!! I totally agree with you! spot on!!!!
      Kate who has been harshly criticised lately for her lack of work ethic, after the indian tour flopped instead of working and looking prepared during engagement show off her son in a bathrobe and then her heavily photoshopped face in vogue.
      Diana did it, sure but she did after working hard, after taking care of her charities.
      Diana had IT, diana was an hard worker and always looked royal.
      Kate doesn’ t look royal at all,these picture are a huge blah, nbothing special even if made by VOGUE !!
      In my opinion Kate should have done this photoshot only after she started working much harder, doing some enagements where she looked definitely prepared and caring. Right now this photoshot is showing how vapid, vain and empty she is

    • hmmm says:

      I love your rant, Amber and so agree!

      I bet she snapped up the cover when it was suggested, and given poorJason’s brand of publicity, they were of the same vapid mind. Just keep pushing the image. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was KP that sought out this gig. There’s a concerted effort to flood the world with dolittle images of her these days.

      Like you, I wonder about the point of this ridiculous play at importance . Must be to promote her status because it sure ain’t her looks.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      So much yes to what you said. So many ?s too.

  18. Nic919 says:

    While the photos are decent, especially the lack of eyeliner, this is still someone who has time for a vogue photo shoot which goes in the gallery but she had no time to visit the Irish Guards for about an hour.
    She has yet to accomplish anything of note for any of her charities. And she is going to get credit for visiting a photo of herself in a gallery. The vanity level is Kardashian like with this one.

  19. jeanpierre says:

    She looks old and boring.

  20. Bee says:

    She looks like Jennifer Connelly a bit.

    • Myrna says:

      You think?
      I don’t at all…Jennifer Connelly is stunning…

    • Splinter says:

      To me she looks like an older Nikki Reed

    • Olenna says:

      Just saw your comment; agree she reminds me of Jennifer.

    • Canadian Becks says:

      Looks like actress Camilla Belle. Or Camilla Belle’s older sister. Those thick, dark brows make her look not herself. We’ve seen enough pictures of her to know that her brows are not usually this OTT thick and dark.

      And I am *shocked* that she is allowing a picture of herself where she doesn’t have sausage curls, and her Laugh lines and skin has not been smoothed or photoshopped out. The overall look is masculine more than the feminine look that I think she likes to cultivate for William.

      Give her credit…I would have thought her entirely too vain to have allowed this image of herself to get out there.

    • Esmom says:

      I see why you’d say that because the brows are all you see here and that’s generally all I see in tight shots of JC, too.

  21. lisa2 says:

    As someone else said it is uninspired. These are not memorable shots.. especially for an issue celebrating Vogue’s 100 Years celebrating faces and fashions of a century.. that cover doesn’t go with that tag line. Not at all. It looks like Town & Country. Kate is a pretty woman. They could have kept her natural but more upscale. This cover doesn’t say Vogue..and as I said not memorable.

    • Alix says:

      I remember Princess Diana’s first Vogue cover. I kept it on my wall forever, it was so gorgeous!

      • Myrna says:

        Princess Diana was gorgeous and had such incredible style.
        She could wear anything.

        I suspect this princess may have some glamour hidden…somewhere!
        Disappointing that not even VOGUE could find it…

      • GingerCrunch says:

        I’m still mesmerized by photos of Diana! Back in the day, I would pore over any pics I could in People magazine. She had ‘it’ like no other.

  22. Feeshalori says:

    All I see are brows and teeth. There’s nothing outstanding with these photos and I’d expect more from a Vogue cover. And what better incentive to visit the NPG than to view portraits of herself. Such vanity, yet she couldn’t spare the time for the Irish Guards.

    • Chrissy says:

      I guess the prospect of a Vogue cover together with it being displayed at the NPG counts as work for Kate. She is a patron of the NPG and it looks like this cover was arranged as a bribe to pretend that she gives a hoot about the NPG. How convenient! The vanity of this women is astounding.

  23. Betti says:

    They are good shot of her but uninspired. So much for someone who isn’t into fashion and is the blandest clothes horse that ever was. Saying that who’d turn down a Vogue cover.

    R u going to do a post about those Charlotte pics? Kid is cute and def a Middleton.

  24. Antonym says:

    This is how she should style her hair and makeup (I hope they gave her pointers). It looks simultaneously more mature, polished and flattering. The last picture, in the striped shirt, is my favorite.

  25. notasugarhere says:

    She doesn’t have time to do charity work, but she has time to be in a Vogue photoshoot.

    Tells us what we need to know about her.

    • Betti says:

      Yes and u can bet this will count against her yearly engagement total. Work is work even if it’s a modelling gig she may have gotten paid for cuz come on I can’t be the only one who thinks like this.

    • Bella says:

      Didn’t she just do a charity event a couple of days ago?

    • Jib says:

      Amen. And she’s such a shrinking violet, she can pose for Vogue but not pass out shamrocks.

      These two get me ragey.

    • weegiewarrior says:

      How vain. This is the woman who spouts about privacy and then does a Vogue photoshoot. What a hypocrite – obviously loves th glamour of her life while oblivious to the duty of it. Dont know who thought this was appropriate, who does it benefit? Nobody, not even her – makes her appear vapid, shallow and self serving. Though I suppose it would be difficult to find any photographs of her doing anything useful.

      • The Original Mia says:


      • Megan says:

        While I find their obsession with privacy in their personal life over the top, doing a photoshoot as part of her public life is not incongruous with their demands.

        Althoug , if they weren’t going to go high fashion, they should have worked in a message for one of her charities so the shoot wasn’t so blah.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Doing a photoshoot in the midst of the workshy claims and their general failing PR? Tone deaf.

    • HappyMom says:

      And it’s a BORING photo shoot at that.

    • lily says:

      I agree!

  26. sills says:

    I know this is just armchair psychology BS, but I can’t help it: I think she looks like a really unpleasant person. Her eyes just seem so cold and lifeless, her smile with nothing behind it. However pretty her clothes or hair, I can never enjoy a photo of her and that’s why.

    • Andrea says:

      She is a woman lacking substance.

      • Chrissy says:

        Maybe because we know her as a shallow, self-serving, Mummy’s girl spendthrift with a penchant for exhibitionism. Her life’s work was landing Chopper and living the good life associated with her position. She has not one empathetic bone in her body so charity and earning her keep is the furthest thing in her little mind.

    • Melly says:

      Her smile seems forced and her eyes tend not to line up with her expression.

    • kaiko says:

      Always felt the same, and I’ll go one further since this is where I can be bitchy and mean…she looks every inch the closeted basketcase. If you believe the rumors about her, this chick is a serial stalker who has been chasing WW since she was a child, with mother leading the charge. And nothing, even rejection and humiliation, ever stopped her. The facts don’t lie, if indeed they are and not fabricated. I’m sure many are jealous of her, of the royals and their seedy wealth/history-and rightly so, they are a shady bunch. As an American, I am not in any way for or against Kate, she got hers fair and square…but she gives me serious psychopath vibes. Cold and hard. Ok, bitchy rant over.

  27. mollie says:

    What a pretty shoot.
    I can’t find anything to pick on here.

  28. what's inside says:

    I think this was a honest shoot of who Kate really is.

  29. Brea says:

    Love it!

  30. realitycheck says:

    I really don’t like it. There is no sparkle through these pictures. Maybe that’s just her though. This does remind me of jecca craig.

    • Betti says:

      Kate has been SWF’ing Diana and Jecca for years!

      • Chrissy says:

        Pathetic that this 34 year old has no identity of her own so she tries to emulate her dead mother-in-law and her hubby’s ex. I feel most sorry for her kids especially her daughter.

  31. Maum says:

    She looks like an Amish in the cover shot.

    • Timbuktu says:

      She does! I couldn’t put a finger on it. For someone who has such a “hat face” (as in she usually looks lovely in hats, like 100% of all her hats, I liked on her), this is one terrible hat choice! It looks like a man’s hat and does not go with her locks.

  32. Lainey says:

    Can’t see past those eyebrows and photoshop! And no interview, would have been the perfect way to promote her charities. No video camera to document the awkwardness. They would have been able to check it before it went to print and made sure she came across well but no.
    No work in January except a trip to her local church but found time to do a professional photoshoot! #cambridgelogic

  33. Laura says:

    Although she normally looks pretty, in these photos she looks like a man – not attractive. I’m also disappointed that she has time to do a photo shoot but no real work (or whatever constitutes work for the royals.)

    I think there are other people that could have covered the 100th cover of UK Vogue – Annie Lennox (who does a lot of charity work – especially for those living with HIV – and is stunning!) would have been my pick.

  34. Quezz says:

    The personification of safe and booooooring! The royal family made every effort to find the most inoffensive princess they could. They won, yay!

  35. KBeth says:

    I think she looks pretty & I love her fuller, natural brow! I agree the clothes she’s wearing are rather bland but face/hair/makeup…..lovely!

  36. bluerunning says:

    I think the pictures are…. fine. I’m not blown away, but I’m not offended, and she looks… fine. The only nitpick I have is that it doesn’t really say “glamour” to me. I wouldn’t have used the hat, but, again, it’s… fine.

  37. Andrea says:

    I love the striped shirt. But after I read all the comments about the eyebrows I relooked at the pictures and wowsers! Too much brows.

  38. HeyThere! says:

    It all just looks so budget to me?! Where is the jewlery?! The sparkle in her eye?! The ‘wow a modern day princess’?! She has no IT factor, so boring. Soooooo boring. Disappointing boring. Wow, these pictures are a massive let down. It honestly looks like I took them with an iPhone, minus the crazy photoshop!!! I can’t help but look at these pictures and feel like there is nothing inside that head. I don’t get it. I mean, you can be fashionable and have depth to pictures without looking like an old fashioned Royal. I will say she isn’t ugly, that’s not what I mean. Just so predictable, boring and lame. I was really hoping for a rare glimpse of her that looked like she had feeling in her eyes. These could just be a weird, budget catalog advertisement.

  39. Kar says:

    Nobody should ever pay attention to what Liz Jones (or anyone at the DM for that matter) writes, but her article on this ended on a bit of a dramatic note I think, perhaps as if the press are saying that the gloves truly are off now?

    “Kate, who up to now has protected her privacy and that of her children ferociously, has opened the floodgates to the sort of forensic scrutiny her late mother-in-law endured.
    There is no going back. Pandora’s dressing-up box has burst open.”


  40. MizFabulous says:

    I think she looks beautiful and relaxed in these photos. It’s amazing how much younger she looks sans the eyeliner! They did go overboard with the Photoshop, especially with her teeth.

  41. Calico Cat says:

    I’m going to buy a copy right now, I must have it!

    I’m having trouble falling asleep at night. Looking at the cover will help with that.

  42. Em' says:

    While she is really pretty, this is quite underwhelming for a Vogue cover, especially for her first Vogue cover.
    It looks really dated. I feel like it’s 1989 and Ralph Lauren just launched a new ad campaign.
    And what’s with the shadow on her face?

  43. Cerys says:

    The pics are nice but nothing special. She looks quite natural in them with a happy smile rather than a maniacal grin. Nice to know she can give some time out of her hectic schedule to get her photo taken. Although to be fair most of us would jump at being on the cover of Vogue too if we got the chance.

  44. KiddVicious says:

    I like the photos, the subject isn’t very inspiring though. My first thought on the hat was they were trying to distract from her eyebrows. Then I saw the photo without the hat. She’s got some major brows going on there. Is there such a thing as a merkin for brows? They can’t be real. Brow wiglet?

    I do think she looks good. She can be very pretty when she tries…or more likely, when a professional does her makeup.

  45. Kimna says:

    I don’t think the brows are bad. Bold brows are in…and it gives you a feature on her face to focus on as she comes of as rather bland in other pics when there is nothing but plain Jane going on.. I also think if she let people do her makeup more often she would be much more striking and “Royal” looking.

  46. The Original Mia says:

    Boring. She’s royalty. Yet this looks like an ad for Burberry/Ralph Lauren. Nothing exciting or extraordinary about it. We saw this same look in India. Unimpressed then. Unimpressed now.

    Funny…she can make time for a Vogue photoshoot, but can’t devote this much time and more to her charities.

    • India Andrews says:

      And doesn’t want the Irish Guards to expect her annually.

      This woman’s priorities are so backwards.

  47. Noodle says:

    The cover looks like Jecca… I mean Kate is on a safari somewhere in Africa..all so very brown.

    • hardcore fluff says:

      DM comment “Kate is channeling Jecca for Bill”, right down to the hat.
      Strange and sad, really.

    • India Andrews says:

      So true. Kate isn’t the out of Africa type. She is high street, night clubs, beaches, skiing and tennis. The styling is so out of character for her.

  48. Krishan says:

    What’s really funny here is that instead of making her appear modern and busy and interesting, they photographed her in the fields, looking far into the distance as if she had no care in the world. And as always, she is doing nothing. Not even taking a walk in the fields or touching flowers. Just her face. No subtance or meaning whatsoever. And because she has nothing in her eyes nor is she charismatic enough, the pics come out looking dull. There is no story on her face. You cannot tell anything from looking at her. She looks vacant. There’s no warmth.

    These pics make me think of present-day Marie Antoinette at her Petit Trianon: acting up as a normal and simple person but living a life removed from the real world and its issues. Next we’ll be seeing Kate getting eggs from the coop and making her own sausages as if she’s just an ordinary wife at the farm.

  49. littlemissnaughty says:

    Wow, the comments here are … interesting. I know many of us like to rag on her for her work ethic and whatnot but it’s like as soon as she appears on Vogue it’s open season on her looks. The shoot is not exactly glamorous but I think this is actually who she is at heart. She likes being outdoors, she likes to be in jeans and a striped shirt. That’s not a crime. And she’s not filling in for a model, she’s in Vogue because of who she is now, not to model Chanel. I think she looks pretty and her smile is really cute.

    • Timbuktu says:

      I don’t think the open season is really on her looks.
      Brows were probably the stylist’s doing (I’ve never thought her eye brows were too much in real life), as was the hat. Lots of people are also saying that the photos are uninspired. Some criticism is about too much Photoshop. None of that is about her looks, it’s about the photoshoot.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      Most of the comments are about the styling and quality of the photos. Not her looks except for her thinness but I don’t see that as relevant to why these fall flat. A good portrait photographer knows how to capture some of the depth of the subject’s personality. I don’t think she’s super deep but I think there is more to her than what we have seen. She has strong attractive looks that could be captured beautifully but these just don’t. It’s not because of her looks at all.

    • Amelie says:

      ” I think this is actually who she is at heart. She likes being outdoors, she likes to be in jeans and a striped shirt.”

      Exactly…I seem to remember that she was very active in sports when she was in school & maybe this outdoorsy look is what she feels most comfortable with.

      • hmmm says:

        She would have more authentically been photographed as a mall rat or a beach bunny.

    • lily says:

      I ve read many comments saying she looks at ease dressed down with jeans and a shirt. Point is that she didn’ t sign for it: she didn’ t sign for showing up in a casual outfit, she is a royal and even if she didn’ t feel at ease dressed up, this is what she’ s supposed to do ( besides doing her duty that she rarely does). She chased Will, she married him, so why is she always so unprepared and unfit for her role?

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Guys, seriously though. Read through these comments. She looks like a man? Come on. I Don’t see the vacant eyes either. There’s more there than with many many models or actresses I’ve seen on covers. But I guess that’s a matter of opinion. She’s not terribly exciting but as far as capturing her personality goes that’s on point then isn’t it.

    • BritAfrica says:


      IKR?? Pretty weird coming from women isn’t it? I get the ‘she doesn’t do enough work…etc….etc, she does need to address that, but the comments on her looks are just sad. We, women who claim we no longer want to be objectified, are happy to do this to a woman.

      Going by the comments on here, do not marry royalty if you are little miss ordinary, have no charisma, are not pretty, look like a man, do not come across as a glamorous puss and do not have celeb qualities because you will be seen as a fatal disappointment. I thought what a woman looks like should not matter?

      I would rather she/they did not do mags and photoshoots, but that would be wishful thinking!

      • Jade says:

        That’s why I only focus on her and her husband’s workshyness, styling or dressing because she can’t control how she looks without good makeup. And I lay off her weight because I don’t know her. If I married royalty, I’d be the first to admit I’m bland and non-photogenic. No spark in my eyes…I just really don’t like taking photographs haha. But to make up for it, I’ll work like a horse. Something like Anne.

    • India Andrews says:

      Open season on her looks? Well…she is posing for a FASHION magazine.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She is the one who has chosen to make it about her looks and not her work. $50,000 worth of clothing for the vacation to India. Taking her makeup people and stylist to “fix her up” for a photoshoot after the hike they demanded be private-on-work-time. Her obsession with her looks, her pounds of makesup, her hair extensions. She has made the conversation shallow because this is all she has put forward for 15 years – workshy, lazy, and obsessed with her looks.

  50. Pleaseicu says:

    So she has all day for this but not an hour and a half for the Irish Guards and only 20 minutes to sit in at a discussion about suicide? Good to know her priorities are in order.

    And good to see her standing by her public declaration that she’d never, ever pose for a magazine cover or do photo shoots or go for fashion icon status as they are all so very against who she is. Against her values. Against her role, etc.

    • hmmm says:

      + 1million.

    • India Andrews says:

      I was thinking the same thing.

      If it is frivilous and fun Willy and Waity are there with bells on.

    • notasugarhere says:

      This isn’t her first official magazine photoshoot. She posed with the rowing team for Hello years ago as girlfriend-of-prince-does-charity-work. Then she dropped out of the rowing event to go on vacation with William.

  51. cindyp says:

    I was looking at some old photos of the Queen; back in the day she was quite elegant & glamorous. Strapless gowns, showed a little skin, wore all the jewels… Kate is just so dull & uninteresting. Such a missed opportunity to not glam it up & have some fun. It’s Vogue for heaven sakes! They really need some new advisors

  52. Amelie says:

    I don’t really mind the brows. Thick brows is a major trend. They most likely added brow liner to them to make them appear fuller and darker. Reminds me a bit of Lily Collins who isn’t afraid to rock her thick brows. I absolutely hate the pencil thin brows that have dominated fashion for the longest time. Some of us have thicker brows and thicker hair in general all over us. It’s a fact of life.

    Not sure I love the hat though. It looks fine on her but it makes the cover of Vogue look like a hunting or polo magazine. But she looks very natural in these pictures.

    I have to say she definitely appears to be doing more lately. It’s not a huge difference but I feel like I’ve been seeing her face at more events. But then she may disappear for the next three months.

    • Original T.C. says:

      Lily Collins doesn’t just have thick eyebrows that look glued on like Kate’s. Lilly’s eyebrows are well SHAPED and frame her heart shaped face and sparkling brown eyes. They look good and best of all: naturally feminine and enhancing.

      Kate’s look like the thick bushy brows that some men have who can’t be bothered to groom it. It sticks out as unattractive and as I said glued-on. Vogue made the mistake that so many women do of thinking just because other people look good with a style that’s in fashion, EVERY woman would too. No. Stylist all over the world will tell you no.

  53. Timbuktu says:

    I have to agree with the critics. I dabble in photography, and usually I love looking at covers for examples of outstanding portraiture, something to aspire to. Here, I feel like it’s a photo I could have taken myself: no amazing backdrop (and God knows they have access to some picturesque and private settings), the light is very harsh, as if it was taken by someone who couldn’t afford a fill light or couldn’t arrange a sunset shoot for softer natural light. The color palette is just wrong for June, very fall-like. The eye brows are too prominent, the hat is unfortunate, especially on someone like Kate, who usually looks lovely in hats. And the Photoshop is very heavy-handed.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      I posted some similar criticisms. It looks like student photography or a guy who takes pictures of wannabe models to put in their beginners book.

      • lily says:

        I agree. I just can’ t see anything royal at all. no way, she’ s not royal material, she’ s lazyness material

  54. Magnoliarose says:

    I don’t like them and don’t entirely blame Dolittle but I think she may be hard to direct. I think she’s very invested in trying to appear like an earthy aristocrat but it’s just not her lane. But it is her dolt husband’s and his obsession with African colonialism and the old days of the empire.
    The colors do a brunette no favors especially when Kate has pretty eyes to showcase. It should have been a fresher spring inspired look. I am annoyed again at the missed opportunity to showcase her strengths. I think she’s obstinate and not easy to convince that she needs to change her style. The fact that none of the many high level photographers in Britain were involved in shooting this very important photo, that will live in history forever, is a glaring problem.
    Olins portfolio is uninspired to be generous. He had no business or expertise to be involved with this. He was shooting a woman who is not an experienced model. A top model could have elevated this to another level despite his lackluster talent and worked withIn his obvious limitations. This looks very amateur, including the half hearted photoshop.
    This is not her fault.
    Her hair should have been highlighted and should have been shot in plush nature like a garden or inside a room in the palace that showcased taste and art with an interesting juxtaposition of styling.
    We’ve seen the maniacal grin and I think a serious but beautiful look where she looked thoughtful, ethereal and unguarded would have knocked this out of the park.
    But this guy is incapable and his involvement is suspicious to say the least. The magazine should have known better but I suspect there is a story behind this a reason this is so average.

    • hmmm says:

      I wonder if KP approached Vogue, using the NPG excuse, because it *is* an excuse.

      • Chrissy says:

        Bingo! Appeal to her vanity while turning it into a countable engagement toward her numbers.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Something like that I think. I thought about it again and I absolutely think she’s getting bad advice from Hyacinth and Workshy. It’s cringeworthy once the Jecca angle is considered.

  55. KiddVicious says:

    Just because thick brows are trendy now doesn’t mean everyone can wear them. They’re supposed to frame the face not be the major focal point. Her face is too delicate for what she’d cultivated there.

  56. hmmm says:

    I’m shocked. Did she spend less time on this shoot than she would have spent handing out shamrocks? She looks uninteresting, and in the cover pic masculine and unlike herself. She’s photo- shopped out of recognition. All I see is the TOWIE brows and the big, big teeth. Hmmm…perhaps the photographer did catch the essence of her!

    I wonder where this was shot. For January, the light is too golden. Looks a bit more like somewhere warm. I guess they used filters.

  57. Andrea says:

    Am I the only one who thinks she looks unnaturally thin too?

  58. Rae says:


    Besides that, I find the softness of this photo shoot suits her style, but they are very dull. They would look perfect in a suitable magazine, like Country Life or The Lady, but not in Vogue. There is nothing eye catching about them. It is an odd choice for a front cover.

    She’s pretty, but they’ve made her even more beige than before.

    I also agree about the interesting fact she managed to do this but could not do the Irish Guard arrangement.

    Your priorities are showing, Duchess.

  59. ClaireB says:

    These photos are definitely not worthy of the 100th anniversary of British Vogue! I am glad to see her without her raccoon eyeliner, though. That’s a plus?

    Nothing to add that other commenters haven’t already said: How can she make time for this but not for her charities? What do these photos and this cover do for Britain or even for her image? This is not a recommendation for a modern royal family; it’s portraits of a vain woman not adding anything positive to society. And she’s finally going to show up to the NPG again, but only to check out the pictures of herself. While the unflattering, realistic portrait of herself is permanently “out for cleaning.”

    It’s very sad when you think about how much good she and Workshy could be doing. If he were a bit more engaged and interested, we’d all still be interested in him and pulling for his projects and charities. If she showed up looking pulled together and stylish and was interested, we’d read about what she was supporting. Instead, all we have to talk about is what they don’t do.

  60. Starlight says:

    The mail was straight in with a piece of journalism which I can’t source now on Facebook as it was first thing this morning, UK time. The female journalist more or less implied that it was not a good idea. The clothes were very Boden (middle England) waiting for Frodo to jump out in the distance. Anyway it was an interesting article basically saying how can Kate come across as ‘earthy country girl when her public persona is that of London shopper walking out of Reiss. Along those lines anyway, so who is fooling who? Then the journo went on to say that the ‘genie was out of the bottle’ I suppose referring to the mystique now put to bed and unlike Diana the photo shoot was unglamorous and she looked quite ordinary. I suppose implying that if you are going to do a photos shoot and a duchess and not a horsy type and more the high street then GO GLAM
    Wish I could find the piece.

  61. OTHER RENEE says:

    She’s not a model and shouldn’t be judged as one. Not my favorite pics of her (a bit manly as others have noticed) but nice enough.

    • India Andrews says:

      I see this cover and think, “Even British Vogue can’t elevate this plain flower.”

  62. Cee says:

    I don’t read Vogue nor do I care who lands a cover. However I am surprised Kate was styled like this (there is no glamour in these photos) and the photo used for the cover particularly is tragic IMHO. Her face takes up most of it and all I can see are her heavy eyebrows and her ridiculous veneers. Her teeth were fine (you can see them in the photos taken of her while dating William) but now they look like something plastic.

    I would have loved to see her wearing gowns against a rural/countryside setting. Could have looked regal.

  63. Starlight says:

    Oops missed that comment ……..//39 …. The Sun newspaper quoted Dep fashion editor Gabriele Dirvanauskas that Kate’s debut cover was a Royal let down. I wonder if it was glamour and some personality that these fashionistas wanted so so desperately and it came out farmers wife, nothing wrong with that of course I know plenty of glamorous farmers wives. Although of course a few animals would have been an interesting addition perhaps a peacock or two with as you say in something stunning. What made it worse was she is wearing the French style stripy top which she wears off duty on polo days. Obviously not the one she wears on polo days but she must have a drawer full of them just crying out to be worn in a field.

  64. shebug says:

    I think if there’s going to be a future for the monarchy, they need to view it as a service career more than anything else. Kate looks good here, but she doesn’t work even as much as some of the elderly royals. George is in school and Charlotte is now old enough to be left alone with the nanny or Grandma Middleton. Kate needs to find herself a cause, and try to look devoted to it.

  65. Cleo says:

    Both Vogue UK and the NPG deserve better than this catalogue style glorified PR photo op.

  66. Joannie says:

    I think she looks really pretty and very comfortable. I like the photos. Well done,

  67. Rae says:

    Not normally a Kate fan but I really liked this. Casual suits her much better and this styling in particular suits her. When my husband saw it on the news the first thing he mentioned was how overly airbrushed she looked on the cover. Definitely pleasantly surprised.

  68. rosiek says:

    These photos are not regal, not elegant, not worthy of British Vogue’s 100 yr anniversary. I find the whole thing very odd. I find the whole thing much too casual.

    Another mis-step for WK’s PR. British Vogues sales will spike though.

    Am sure this is a dream come true for Kate–becoming a ‘cover girl’.

  69. Anguishedcorn says:

    All I can see is the teeth. So much of the teeth.

  70. Tourmaline says:

    The brows are tragic. To all those saying they’re great because they love natural brows…..those ain’t her natural brows. They’re wax, pencil, and powder are she looks scary.

    • India Andrews says:


      Lily Collins or Cara Delevigne can pull of the heavy brows. Kate looks like she needs to step away from the makeup tray. Sometimes less is more.

  71. Tess says:

    Wouldn’t it have been fabulous to have TQ, Camilla, and Kate on the 100th anniversary of British Vogue?!

  72. perplexed says:

    I don’t think I like the hat. I guess I don’t get why a princess/duchess/royal is wearing a hat that isn’t one of those things you’d wear at Ascot.

  73. Hazel says:

    She hopes people appreciate the portraits? That’s so odd – almost apologizing ahead of time because they aren’t grand, I guess. I don’t know, it’s just an odd statement.

  74. Dangles says:

    Call me old fashioned but but posing for fashion magazines should be beneath a royal.

    • perplexed says:

      That’s what I was wondering about — is it common for royals at her level to pose for Vogue.

      I assume there would have been a Vogue cover for Diana when she was married to Charles, but I thought they might have used photos of her from being in public or one of those yearly royal portrait sit-downs where the tiaras come out rather than for a portrait she personally did for Vogue.

      • Rachel says:

        Diana had four Vogue covers, from my memory, although one was posthumous using a photo taken in 1994, which were all from photo-shoots rather than portraits or pre-existing images. Princess Anne was on the cover of Vogue a couple of times too. So Kate wasn’t setting a precedent by any standards – although her styling and direction is definitely the least glamorous of the royals photographed.

  75. India Andrews says:

    Only Cara Delevigne and Lily Collins can pull off the heavy brows. Sorry Kate!

  76. morc says:

    Too plain, lacks finesse.

  77. HyacinthBucket says:

    Ok, I get it. Not a Disney Princess, no glamour, but a down to earth 21st century woman. Right?

    Kate dearie, you could pull that off, if you were acting like a 21st century female, who juggles kids, a full time job, the school run and is involved in her community. The “sit at home pampered brat routine” won’t cut it.

    Try to be somebody for a change. You’re like an empty canvas, people can make pictures of your face your clothes and it will look pretty, but supremely forgettable. You’re the Pinterest Princess, all beige, brown, pink and blue and color coordinated like a Party Pieces children’s birthday set. You try on different personas for size, because you lack personality. You even photoshop your kids into “cute kitten” style boilerplate babies, whose personality can only be guessed at. That’s not style, woman, that’s coloring mandalas and being proud for staying within the lines.


  78. lisa says:

    i read through all the comments thinking NPG was new power generation

  79. MinnFinn says:

    Cutting off several inches of her hair in December makes sense now. I bet it was Vogue and their plan for this country life photo shoot in January that convinced her to cut the hair. Her very long hair was such a Loretta Lynn the country western music legend vibe. But alas that was not the ‘country’ look Vogue wanted.

    And also, she looks naturally tan. Perhaps they did go to Mustique. As evidenced by their secret skiing vacay in France, they are now very good at covert holidays.

  80. Jade says:

    Her photo is nice and slightly different. But that is not a good magazine cover as it doesn’t pop. It can be one of her photographs at home. This is simply not an iconic picture.

  81. Mj says:

    To me she doesn’t look relaxed
    The photography is run of the mill
    The eyebrows look like caterpillars
    Could have done with a better photographer
    Kate took better photos of her daughter
    Boring …………. To say the least

  82. l_invo says:

    “Strange clothes, that Freddy Kruegers sweater, big black brows, fake teeth, her grin as she loves and the ring that she wears more than Diana did. Katy take it everywhere anytime no matter what clothes she wear. And a lot of photoshop. Not to mention that on the cover she just looks like a guy. Thats not Vogue, it is countryside magazine for rich, lazy, skinny, vanity chicks – for Middletons.”

  83. Zard123 says:

    Mmm… hve read majority of everyones comments and agree wifh them
    what I think is so wrong about Waity is that The Lazy Duo have brought the BRF into a celebrity driven culture which is awful …
    all she does is goes to celeb functions galas, and is always wanting to show off her legs .. its like she plays at dressing up like a barbie doll … Definitely no substance to her.. The Vogue picture reminds me of a catalogue advert rather than for Vogue its so amateur ….
    She should not of done this …