Duchess Kate’s Vogue editorial is too safe, wholesome & ‘Boden,’ says Liz Jones


Duchess Kate covers the June issue – the centennial issue – of British Vogue. While I loved the idea of Kate’s first magazine editorial being this significant milestone for a British publication, the verdict on the photoshoot definitely felt like people were overwhelming underwhelmed. One of the first and biggest pieces of criticism about Kate’s Vogue editorial came from the Mail on Sunday’s Liz Jones in a piece called “Is Kate auditioning to be the catalogue queen? The Duchess of Cambridge becomes a Vogue cover star… but Liz Jones dares to say it’s all a bit Boden.” I had to look up the “Boden” shade. I thought perhaps Liz Jones got it wrong and meant to write “bogan,” which is apparently Aussie/Kiwi slang for low-class. But apparently “Boden” is UK-specific slang for “an English surname common in Shropshire and the West Midlands area of central England.” If I’m using the context clues correctly, I think Jones means that Kate looks like a Basic Becky (Becky with the Good Wiglet) from middle-England. Update: so Boden is also a catalog in the UK, so the American equivalent would be “Kate looks like she’s in an LL Bean catalog.” Still, I think the context is that this Vogue editorial looks pretty basic. Some highlights:

Months in the planning. Shrouded in secrecy. The most talented people in the fashion industry corralled for the Duchess of Cambridge’s first magazine shoot. And what a result: the return of the Sloane Ranger in a field in Norfolk. She was photographed for the cover of the historic 100th anniversary issue of British Vogue, and while Kate looks beautiful, and happy, there is nothing ‘fashion’ or even aspirational about the shot: she is wearing a far-too-wintry suede Burberry trench we’ve seen everywhere, a white shirt, also by Burberry, that will never cause retail sites to crash, and a hat, of the sort Camilla might wear to muck out.

…Kate is transformed from statuesque beauty into a parody of Meryl Streep in Out Of Africa. It is too rural, too hunting, shooting and fishing, when we were waiting for something red carpet. A Princess. Vogue editor Alex Shulman says the shoot is ‘a fitting tribute to a young woman whose interest in both photography and the countryside is well known’. The countryside! This a woman whose natural habitat was once the Kings Road, and the inside of Reiss!

The photo on this cover is so wholesome and toothy, it could almost be on the front of American Vogue (whose editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour, must be spitting tacks she was pipped to the post). It’s hard to blame Vogue, as I can’t imagine Kate was easy to handle. I am happy she vetoed Mario Testino (too Hollywood) and Demarchelier (too airbrushed; I’m super glad that in a portrait inside you can see Kate’s wrinkles). But she has baulked at looking in any way sexy or modern. She has also refused to give up her heavy Scouse brow, not toning down the black make-up that’s more Katie Price than Kate Windsor.

Kate would also have called the shots when it came to clothes, not wanting to expose too much skin, fearing she would look too thin. Kate also didn’t want to look too ‘designer’. So instead, for one of the new photos, she has opted for a Petit Bateau Breton top in what can only be called mauve – a pose described by Shulman as ‘beautiful’, but that I can only describe as ‘Boden’… It is all a bit safe, a bit reverential, a bit Wellington boot room.

But here is my important problem. You only grace the cover of Vogue when you want to become an icon and have your ego massaged. You are joining the fashion elite. Like Diana, who wanted to be a mother, a Princess, a charity worker, an everywoman, a pin-up, Kate has sold her soul to the devil that is vanity and elitism, and those fashionistas who judge others only by their BMI. 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.

[From The Daily Mail]

I don’t really get the final criticism unless it’s just supposed to be read as yet another media eye-roll at the Cambridges’ ceaseless cries of “privacy.” Kate clearly posed for British Vogue for a specific reason, which was their centennial issue, and it’s not like people are going to expect her to do regular magazine covers from here on out. I think Kate has done a good enough job over the past five years of limiting those kinds of expectations: just because she does something once, doesn’t mean she’ll ever do it again (for better or for worse). Just because she agreed to one Vogue cover, doesn’t mean she’ll now be a fashion-forward cover girl.



Photos courtesy of the Mail on Sunday, British Vogue.

Related stories

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

211 Responses to “Duchess Kate’s Vogue editorial is too safe, wholesome & ‘Boden,’ says Liz Jones”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lilacflowers says:

    Boden is a clothing catalog.

    • Anett says:

      A pretty nice one!:-)

      • Megan says:

        I have tons of clothes from Boden. I am bummed to find out I am a walking billboard for boring!

        Anyway, here is their US site.

      • Betsy says:

        @ Megan – you aren’t boring, you’re normal. If you were going to be on Vogue’s cover, I bet you wouldn’t wear Boden.

      • Nike says:

        $74.00 for a top kind of blows me away… I’m cheap, though. Most of my clothes come from the local food bank’s thrift shop. When I’m poor-poor, and need jeans or a coat, they’ve provided. When I’m just regular-poor, I wait for a Target sale.

    • missmerry says:

      I like their stuff lol

    • blaugrau says:

      Yes, and she Liz Jones is right, the editorial is cute but plain, not edgy or high fashion, something you find in Boden catalogue, but not in Vogue

      • Christine says:

        My wish is for Kate to wear a Boden dress at the very next event she has. THAT would be edgy.

      • Jib says:

        Except for the calf skin. CALF SKIN??????? Really, Duchess?!?! So much for caring about animals.

        Another tone deaf move, wearing calfskin. Horrible.

    • Pip says:

      Boden is aspirational, yummy-mummy clothing. Women who shop at Waitrose – & who’d like to shop at Waitrose – wear it. Very safe, nothing to frighten the horses. Or the local vicar.

      Their catalogue is hilarious. Each model is named, along the lines of “Tabitha & Orlando & Albert, flying kites on the beach at Holkham”. Sorry. None of this will mean anything to non-Brits but it makes me howl with laughter. So terribly middle-class …

      • missmerry says:

        ew, middle class, how terrible.

      • Pip says:

        I’m the absolutely epitome of middle-class so feel well-placed to mock myself & the rest of us.

      • LAK says:

        Hey Pip, I was in hysterics when I saw the headline. Yep! It was trying for Ralph Lauren, and hit Boden. Mustn’t frighten the horses!!

      • Pip says:

        I’m genuinely not casting aspersions on Boden or anyone’s fashion sense. I’m in no position to judge: I’d happily dress in clothes from Mole Valley for the rest of my life (again, this will mean nothing to any non-Brits!). Boden identified an affluent niche & have targeted it really well – the company’s been a great success.

        I do feel that this woman can’t win though (& that’s coming from a republican). If she’d dressed edgily or in something very cutting edge, there would’ve been mass clutching of pearls.

        Liz Jones is cut from the same cloth as Jan Moir (who wrote the other very critical recent article). No-one decent writes for the Mail.

      • Sixer says:

        Even I know Boden is only aspirational if your middle name is Plonker. And that’s saying something.

        Yo! Pip said Mole Valley. I buy my dog food there!

      • Pip says:

        I *love* Mole Valley. It’s the only shop I don’t get grumpy in.

        Today I am mostly wearing Mole Valley fashion :-)

      • Sixer says:

        Haha. I hate all shops. But Mr Sixer likes Mole Valley. Good for boots (and dog food!) Sometimes, they have a cheese I like.

        Today, I am mostly dressed in eBay second hand jeans and a cast-off t-shirt of Sixlet Major’s. He no longer thinks the Darwin fish motif is cool, so it’s mine now.

      • Pip says:

        Cheese?????? CHEESE????? What the ………………? You must live somewhere dead posh. There’s nothing fit for human consumption in the ones near us – although I’m partial to a handful of cattle cake.

        I did find a very nice cashmere jumper there once though.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: what??!!??!! Smelling salts over hear. Stat!! Has the Disney Princess academy taught you nothing?

        Pip: please do not encourage Sixer!!!

      • Sixer says:

        Cullompton branch! They sometimes have a nice local blue that I like!

        Poor LAK. I always make you reach for the sal volatile with my fashion sense. Clothes suck. Everyone knows that. You just put on the nearest clean ones. It’s a rule to live by.

      • Pip says:

        Sorry, LAK, I’m afraid I embraced my inner pig-farmer many years ago!

      • Pip says:

        I live by Sixer’s clothes-ethos too. Although I’m not so stringent on the “clean” aspect – I usually have tomato stains somewhere. Low odour is enough for me.

        Mole Valleys in Wiltshire obviously have a lot to learn :-/

      • Sixer says:

        Eggzackerly. LAK – you must know we live in Welly Land. Where clothes are assessed by how much mud you have on them.

      • Megan says:

        Is Mole Valley a –I forget the correct term maybe council or guild — membership sort of thing?

      • Sixer says:

        Megan – no; it’s a co-operative. Low margin so prices are quite cheap. Anyone can shop there but I think farmers have accounts and get discounts or somesuch. It sells all sorts of stuff, but everything is what country people would buy, including some farming consumables and equipment.

      • bluhare says:

        Ah. So probably comparable to The Grange here. There’s one next door to where I work. Lots of farm supply plus cowboy clothes.

      • Megan says:

        @Sixer – thanks!

      • Pip says:

        A bit like Jax too – are they everywhere in the States?

        Answering my own question: nope, they’re very local to where I used to live (CO).

      • chaine says:

        non-brit here, i have looked at the Boden website as it was on a list of places to buy petite height clothes online. haven’t bought anything from it yet, but the clothes i was interested in looked appropriately middle-aged office-work appropriate–nice, nothing particularly dowdy, but IMO a bit old for Kate. She is a young, slim mom, but dresses like someone who has teen children and bingo wings to hide.

      • BritAfrica says:

        @ Pip,

        Lol….not fair! I shop at Waitrose but Boden? No way! I’ll take Austin Reed any day….


        Hey you, where’ve you been? Hope you had a great BH weekend….

    • Sarah(too) says:

      I would love to look Boden!

    • Miss Melissa says:

      I love Boden. Their shoes are awesome.

    • Priya says:

      There is a Boden USA

    • Nopity Nope says:

      I love Boden too, it’s like British J.Crew. #callmebasic

    • Pepper says:

      I like their stuff for work, but it’s not interesting. It’s not fashion. It’s not Vogue, it’s not even Elle or Glamour.

      The pictures are nice, but they’re mail order catalogue nice, not fashion mag nice.

  2. Sigrid Maelstrom says:

    It’s very UK-specific (as far as I know) – it’s a yummy-mummy catalogue brand:


    Very Kate.

  3. Lisa says:

    Yep and she’s wearing that type of Boden clothing

  4. Calico Cat says:

    You know, if you took the hat in the first pic, put it on her head in the second with the red and black striped shirt, and gave her a spiked glove, she could do some decent Freddy Krueger cosplay!

  5. Seraphina says:

    The Photoshop is strong in this one. And let’s be honest, who really expects boring Kate to be on magazine covers??? For what? Her great fashion sense? Or all those ideas she may have in her head relating on how to use her influence and rank to help bring social awareness of the ills that plague our society; whether on a small scale or globally.

    No, I think we will see none of that.

  6. Thinker says:

    In 10 years people will look at those eyebrows the same way they look at the “big hair” of the 80s, dated and embarrassingly so.

    Otherwise the whole photoshoot is very “Norfolk country gentry.” Very safe, very basic, very Kate.

    • Anett says:

      Very true:-)

    • ShinyGrenade says:

      Hum no. There are people with such eyebrows, like myself, and we don’t care and let them be.

      It’s ok to be natural, you know…

      • bluhare says:

        That is true, but these seem to be a bit enhanced. They are a bit bigger than her normal ones.

      • Wren says:

        Never understood why natural facial features were something that could become passe. Or trendy to begin with. But I’m a savage who plucks the one errant eyebrow hair that grows much too far from its brethren and never thinks of her brows otherwise.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Hers aren’t natural. When brows are natural I think they are gorgeous, but too heavy on purpose looks over the top.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Listen if these were Kate’s natural brows I wouldn’t bat an eye at them– But these are far from her natural brows! They are overwhelmingly made up of brow pencil, wax, and/or powder and not hair. It’s Kate’s bid to look Cara Delevigne-chic, but Cara’s brows are real and not drawn on…

        Look at Kate’s recent trip to India. Her brows did not look like this.

      • Thinker says:

        I never said it wasn’t okay to be natural. And as others have pointed out, there is nothing natural about those dark, drawn on eyebrows Kate is wearing. They’re an accessory, and they will look silly when the makeup styles shift away from heavy brow lines.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      But you can also look at thin brows from the late 90s or super-sculpted brows from the mid 2000s, and see how dated those look. Kind of like cuts of pants, they will date you no matter what.

    • lily says:

      I agree. Kate again got it wrong: she was posing for VOGUE!!!! She doesn’ t look glamorous at all she looks so blah

  7. Anett says:

    I think, it was a good idea not to turn her into a model and give her flashy clothes.

    We got what she is in reality. Someone who loves shopping, country life, family, photography, sport events and don’t care too much about anything else. That is already a list:-)

    We shouldn’t create more expectations or expect any more from her. That girl on the cover is what we get.

    • missmerry says:

      I agree, and I think her ‘lack of charity or caring’ or whatever is a perfect catalyst to not have royal families anymore.

      Because peasants care too much about their royals not doing work or not doing this or that, then stop having them live off your taxes…get rid of them and have the regular people do the charity stuff.

      instead of spending your time being constantly disappointed in these people who are who they are because of what…tradition and who you’re born to?

      • Anett says:

        I love tradition and continuity. So I would miss the royals pretty much. But I get your reasoning.

        This girl could do so much more, somehow she didn’t get the message, I can’t really see her as a queen.

      • notasugarhere says:

        People can think that monarchy is the correct government form for them (not Sixer!) AND still be critical of these two. There are many ardent monarchists who are turning on W&K, not the monarchy but W&K in particular.

        It would be easier to remove W&K and their kids from the succession than end the monarchy itself. The monarchy survived Uncle David, it can survive the dead wood Cambridge branch being pruned.

      • Sixer says:

        As NOTA says, missmerry, there are people in the UK who genuinely believe that party politics should be kept well away from constitutional and head-of-state duties. It’s a perfectly reasonable position and has absolutely nothing to do with deference. I don’t happen to share it but neither do I support combining head of state with head of government as per the US, for example.

      • Tina says:

        Exactly. I am one of them, or at least I used to be until I realised that it only works if the head of state is committed to duty, as the Queen is. William is incredibly lazy and petulant. Either there’s another major constitutional crisis resulting in his removal or we just deal with a lazy monarch. Neither option is palatable to me, especially since once the duty obligation is lost, that’s it. I can’t really see George being committed to duty with William and Kate as parents. Therefore, the only option that remains is a republic.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree with you, but part of me wishes she’d gone against type and done something more haughty and regal. Like photographed in a corridor with a huge gown and jewels.

      • Anett says:

        I could see that happening, maybe for the second time. I can imagine what people would have thrown at her if she had done that now. It is her on that cover. To be haughty and regal, she needs more to do.

      • lily says:

        I agree with you, this photoshot is not regal at all it is so blah. I think, since she has been harshly criticized for being lazy and since to tour to India flopped, she had to do some duties looking interested and prepared ( she’ s always bored and unprepared instead) and then the photoshot. Only then! What is she proving right now? to me she’ s proving that she doesn’ t care about work and her duty but about fashion and how beautiful she is

    • HH says:

      When it comes to fashion, it’s a clear case of schadenfreude. The British Press was the one to make her a fashion plate, when in reality that wasn’t the case. Kate’s style hasn’t changed much over the years. It evolved with her age, but she’s a always been someone who favors basic pieces. The press created and image an expectations that were never going to be fulfilled, and are now gleefully criticizing her.

      • Shambles says:

        Thank you for this perspective, HH. I like it, and I agree. Kate never said she was a fashion girl, people just bought everything she wore because she was such a phenomenon as William’s lady.

      • Megan says:

        Diana was a major fashion girl, as are the Queen and Anne. I think the expectation that Kate would follow suit (pun intended) was natural, despite the lack of evidence to support it. Photos of the Queen and Anne when they were in their 20s/30s are fabulous.

      • notasugarhere says:

        For not being a “fashion girl” she has always spent a great deal of money on clothing. Her personal $2000 blazer to go shopping for lamp shades after spending 30 minutes at a charity event comes to mind. The $12,000 charm necklace. The many pairs of Kiki earrings at $4000-8000 a pair. The three nearly identical diamond pendants at $2000 each. $150,000 on clothing the first year or two of marriage and barely 100 engagements.

        $50,000 for new offensively “ethnic/theme” clothing for the India tour. Most of that will not be worn again. If she wasn’t someone interested in clothing (and didn’t have a shopping addiction), she could have worn some of her extensive existing wardrobe instead of spending all that time shopping.

      • Megan says:

        I don’t disagree that she likes to shop and buy expensive things, but she isn’t high fashion. She buys safe, similar looking pieces over and over.

      • notasugarhere says:

        To me, that means she is into fashion. She is into her safe, boring fashion but she revels in spending loads of other people’s money on the same boring looks over-and-over. By doing so, she chooses to make it about what she’s wearing instead of what she’s doing.

      • Wren says:

        I wonder how much of it is Kate’s style and how much is Wills’ preference. He might not want a fashionable, flashy wife. He might have dictated the style of this photoshoot to play into his idea of their public image. It’s pretty well documented that she does everything to please him, and it’s also pretty common for a man to have a particular way he likes his wife to look. Roll that together and I’m not at all sure if she picks out many of her public clothes.

      • hmmm says:

        The British press may have made her a fashion plate, but it’s Vogue that has validated it. Even though Vogue, along with the NPG especially are being manipulated not for fashion reasons but to promote her status. They are elevating her into the pantheon. by sheer image/optics. Chumps. It’s not liek they will get much return on their pandering.

      • hmmm says:

        Forgot to mention that Vogue validated her fashion plate status *with her consent*. Even though, I’m guessing it’s not the fashion as much as the elevation that matters to her.

      • HH says:

        IMO, when someone is into “fashion” they use their clothing to make a statement and express their personality and moods. I don’t think Kate consciously does this, despite the amount of money spent. I think Kate simply wants to look royal and “princess-y.” She is not trendy, nor does she look to set trends. That’s all fine with me, it’s the press that has overstated her in this regard.

      • Tina says:

        The one thing that I think Kate has done well is that she has avoided criticism that she spends too much money on clothes. She does spend an awful lot of money on clothes, as nota and others have noted, but her frequent “recycling” and generally dull style have meant that no one (in the press or otherwise) complains about the cost.

        I actually don’t think she can do anything else if she wants to continue to not work. Diana was a great ambassador for British fashion and was very fashion forward, but she was criticised frequently for the amounts spent on her clothes, and the only counter to that criticism was that Diana needed to look glamorous because of her work. Kate doesn’t have that (and seemingly doesn’t ever want to), so once she’s criticised for spending too much, it’s all over for her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Tina, she is criticized for spending too much on clothes. When the first year info came out that she’d spent $150,000 on clothes? The $50,000 for the India trip recently? She is criticized for her spending and as for “recycling”? For her few engagements prior to the trip, she wore thousands in brand new clothing.

      • Tina says:

        Nota, it’s mentioned, but not nearly as much as it was with Diana. The Jan Moirs and Liz Joneses of the world are not criticising Kate for the amount she spends, so middle England is not really thinking about it. I don’t think it’s good (either that she spends a lot or that the press doesn’t really talk about it) but she’s being criticised for other things in preference to that, at least at the moment.

  8. Citresse says:

    I thought W&K want their privacy.

    • COSquared says:

      When it suits them i.e. when the media fawns and praises.

    • Megan says:

      They want privacy when they are off duty (which is nearly all of the time). This photoshoot is part of her public, working life.

      • notasugarhere says:

        This photoshoot is useless and serves no point other than to prove how lazy, shallow, and obsessed with her own looks she is.

      • Megan says:

        Since images are part of a show at the National Portrait Gallery, it is connected to one of her charities. That makes it “work” by BRF standards.

      • bluhare says:

        The photoshoot celebrates the centenary of British Vogue. Kate’s a good choice because, like her or not, she is the future of the monarchy.

        Did anyone say Diana’s Vogue covers were useless?

      • Amber says:

        Call me crazy, but considering that Kate barely does a yearly drive-by for the NPG, I think she could make a greater “work” contribution than getting herself on the cover of Vogue and then looking at her photos in an exhibition.

        @Bluhare – Diana’s Vogue covers promoted Diana and her image. Wasn’t one for the wedding, while most were in the 90s? So I can’t even tenuously claim that she was ostensibly promoting the monarchy. That was also decades ago. Times have changed. And Kate is not Diana. Although, and I don’t mean to pick on you, but it is funny how the Diana and Princess Anne comparisons came out of the woodwork for something like this. But use them to make a point about Kate’s work ethic, her lack of accomplishments, or her lack of “it” in Diana’s case– Well, that’s just not fair.

        And all of this is exactly why the future is already looking to be in sad shape.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There is already one portrait of her in the National Gallery, the truthful one that showed her smug look and unphotoshopped. The NPG doesn’t need her JC Penny / Bodens catalog shots.

        This pictorial is ridiculous PR, especially in the midst of their “leave us alone we want to be normal but spend $4 million a year on our lifestyle ” attitude. If they worked hard, if she was known for working instead of for her boring and expensive wardrobe, her on the 100 anniversary cover would still be silly. Even HM would have been a better choice.

      • bluhare says:

        I give up. I really really do. When everything is negative all the time you lose me.

      • hmmm says:


        She’s promoting an image (inspired by poorJason, I am sure), finding ways to elevate herself. Everything is negative because *she* is negative. She wants to detract from her negative numbers where ‘work’ is concerned and elevate herself to be beyond work. Two negatives make a positive. Check your imagination for the possibilities. This is a running theme/motif with her and her PR, how to get out of work and yet still be worshipped, Hence, all their efforts are aimed towards that goal. Now she’s moved from justifications to pure image.

    • Jib says:

      There are ironies wrapped up in ironies with these two.

      I made a comment in the Daily Mail that she can do this photo shoot, but not the Irish Guard, and it got almost 1000 likes. People don’t like that she disrespected the military. In my view, this is the event that will define Kate forever, much like the tampon comment defined Charles and the toe-sucking defined Fergie. But this is worse because it’s the military and then she was caught getting her hair colored instead.

      I’m still amazed at the lack of thought that went into that decision and I don’t think it’s something she can recover from. As much of a jerk Wills is, I don’t think he’s done something quite so offensive – yet. He’s said offensive things, but her’s was a biggie. And as someone on another blog pointed out, if they are trying to improve their PR, perhaps a shoot in a top fashion magazine isn’t quite the way to do it.

      • Chrissy says:

        Well said, Jib. I agree about her disrespect of the military being her calling card from now on. I don’t think she’ll live it down either, especially with her work-shy attitude.
        The Doolittle PR is a disaster and, to tell the truth, I look forward to the next take-down. They are shameless in their disdain.

      • Jib says:

        Yes, Chrissy, disdain is a good word for it. They just can’t seem to muster up the energy to care for anything outside of themselves. I think Harry knows that, and I’m sure the rest of the family does as well.

        These two deserve all the bad press they get.

  9. MissBee says:

    Boden is a catalogue, much beloved of the middle class, for me it is very safe. People won’t point and stare at your clothes if you wear Boden. That is where the fashion shade is. Ms Jones, is a notorious fashion writer, all anxiety, debt and utterly unaware of her actions cause and affect.

    • tmc says:

      I disagree. Boden is NOT LL Bean. It has a bit of sass, a little whimsical, try for upscale, although the outfits she is wearing there are more LL Bean or Abercrombie & Fitch, than what I see in the Boden catalog!

      • HappyMom says:

        Definitely. Boden clothes have great colors, and a little bit of pizazz. What she’s wearing is actually more LL Bean-totally staid.

    • Coconut says:

      Came here to agree with these folks on the #9 thread! The key with Boden is the whimsy and frequent bright colors. This shoot is no Boden. Ralph Lauren, yes.

      I loved it when Diana’s photo shoots showed another side of her. These photos of Kate are essentially the same old same old.

      • Vava says:

        Reminds me of Ralph Lauren as well – and I like Ralph’s designs. I don’t mind Kate’s clothes in this photo shoot, I just think the timing of this is rather unfortunate for her, considering the criticism she’s had for not working. There are better people to put on the cover of British Vogue’s 100 year birthday edition.

  10. lowercaselois says:

    I like it. The layout looks like a Ralph Lauren ad.

    • mp says:

      I was thinking Boden is like J Crew. This looks like a J Crew ad.

      the photos are cute. I would have died to wear J Crew as a kid with no money, but yeah, this stuff in Vogue? which I always thought of as aspirational, whimsical fashion? From British Vogue, which has given us so much fashion history? for its 100th year?

      I am scratching my head….

  11. Talie says:

    I think it’s a fine editorial, but if you want glamour….French Vogue and American Vogue are the most high profile editions to offer it. Anna Wintour would’ve had her team do something spectacular with Kate.

    • als says:

      With all due respect, I think it’s time to let go of Anna Wintour’s spectacular reputation. Vogue America has not been aspirational or inspirational for a while. More so, Wintour has become a promoter of the Kardashians and everything they stand for. Period.
      I think she explained this direction by saying that she was giving the people what they wanted, she wanted Vogue to integrate the current trends. She forgot to mention that there were days in which Vogue created the trends.
      When she offered a great Vogue product her reputation as a tough, exclusivist woman had something to stand on. Right now, Wintour’s high standards just look hypocritical.

  12. COSquared says:

    At least Liz hasn’t forgotten that you’d more likely to find her on King’s Road than trawling througi the countryside in tweed. However the line about Emma Watson turning into a “disshevelled slut” was nasty.

  13. SilkyMalice says:

    Meh. We knew someone was going to write something derogatory about the photo shoot. Next.

  14. Susan says:

    She looks great, she’s always dressed up, nice to see her in regular clothes.

  15. Nope says:

    I’m not a fan of Kate Dolittle, but can we just have a pic of this Liz Jones? A recent one, I mean, just to appreciate what this lady’s definition of “stilish” looks like?”

  16. perplexed says:

    “But here is my important problem. You only grace the cover of Vogue when you want to become an icon and have your ego massaged. You are joining the fashion elite. ”

    I thought this point was interesting. I hadn’t considered that.

    Diana lived up to her fashion icon status so it never seemed strange to view her in that capacity. But I can’t tell if Kate is great at that sort of thing. I don’t think she dresses horribly or anything like that, but I can’t tell if people actually care THAT much, in her case, as to what she chooses to wear.

    I do think the cover is bland for a princess. Maybe that’s what everyone mens by “safe” but they can’t use the word bland so they’re stating this criticism another way.

  17. Jb says:

    The coat retails for around $7,000. The stripy shirt is less Boden (catalog) – they tend more floral. But it looks like a catalog shoot. Someone put up the Princess Anne & Diana covers — that was interesting…

  18. vauvert says:

    Too many issues with that cover, starting with… man is she Photoshopped to bits, almost to the point of being unrecognizable on the cover. Maybe they left the wrinkles in but they changed her face a lot.
    The makeup is terrible – all you notice is eyebrows and veneers, the colours are too washed out and dreary.
    In fact the whole shoot is kind of dreary and as many have said, feels very autumnal, which is weird for June.
    Kaiser says she is happy with Kate being one the cover but i don’t get it at all. She is not a fashion plate or a design conscious woman – which in and of itself is no crime, obviously, but in what way is she relevant for the magazine’s historic cover? Other than her title, she is not known for anything – not her various interests, or sparkling wit, let’s not even talk charity work or patronages. So why exactly is she the face of British Vogue? I think that’s the point Liz is making, really.
    And if the choices we see are Kate’s own… wow, talk about boring. This is the equivalent of the beige room we saw last week with decor straight out of Lamps Plus. Again, nothing wrong with being un-stylish or unfashionable. But then either let some experts style you – for magazine covers in particular – or don’t do it.
    All I see here in addition to a sad lack of style is someone who is terribly deluded. Just like Will thinks he is a PR master, Kate thinks she has this fashion bit covered, but she doesn’t. Like in all her other half assed endeavours, she comes across as unprepared, woefully immature and out of place at the grown up table.

  19. morehappygilmore says:

    Liz Jones is mad as a box of frogs; and fairly unpleasant to boot. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about Duchess K; but i’d never let anything that Ms Jones says sway me in my thinking.

    Other than that, I love Boden. I buy lots of their clothes for my children.

    • hmmm says:

      Even a stopped mad clock is correct twice a day.

      The personal attacks on the author in defence of and distraction from the narcissism and vapidness of this lazy loser is fascinating and kinda predictable.

    • Janis says:

      I agree, hmmmm. I agree wholeheartedly with Liz Jones. Kate has done nothing to earn this cover. She dresses in blah clothes her mother could wear. She’s lazy, dull and predictable in every way and she’s an unremarkable underachiever without her own personality or sense of self. Her only accomplishment is stalking her now husband until he had no other option but to marry her or be called out as a cad. There’s nothing interesting or fascinating about this person but let’s but on the 100th anniversay cover of British Vogue. SMH The truth hurts and Liz Jones simply saw through the Doolittle’s PR BS and outed the underwhelming Duchess for what she really is.

  20. HK9 says:

    I think Kate looks good. She’s given up the heavy eyeliner for this shoot and for that I’m grateful!

  21. teacakes says:

    Yeah I despise Duchess Bland and her bland Vogue cover but I despise Liz Jones’ misogynistic, mean, middle-of-the-road “fashion writing” more.

  22. The Original Mia says:

    It is boring. There’s nothing magical or extraordinary about it. Nothing that sets her apart from any other brunette. I do find it hypocritical of her and William that they agreed to this when they are so insistent on being private, different from the old monarchy.

  23. notasugarhere says:

    I’m amused by all the attacks on Liz Jones, many from newer posters who are clearly Middleton fans. Don’t like what a fashion editor writes about a bland fashion photoshoot? At least Liz Jones shows up and does her job.

      • morehappygilmore says:

        Gosh. I didn’t realise it was a CB law that you had to be an old poster who agreed with all the other old posters. Otherwise you’re only allowed to post to ‘amuse’ (how condescending) the old posters.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There are many lively discussions on here about royals, from all points of view and attitudes. Sometimes there is an obvious influx of new people who criticize anyone who criticizes KM.

        They tend to come in waves. Some attack other posters (using words like jealous, haters, misogynists, leave her alone, stop writing about her if you don’t like her, etc.), and leave in a huff.

        It comes in waves and I find it amusing and interesting. It means Kaiser, the CB site, and the informed posters on here are having an impact.

    • Lucrezia says:

      I dunno. Liz Jones gets hate-mail by the sackload. So it’s quite probable that some Liz-haters who couldn’t care less about the RF will be drawn here to say that Liz is a nutter.

      • Pip says:

        I’d agree with all of this, Sundae. Especially “bilious” – fabulous word.

      • hmmm says:

        I’m confused. Why would anyone come on this site just to point out that Liz is a nutter?

      • Guesto says:

        Liz Jones is a poisonous troll and that she has fans who think criticism of her on here is – and can only be! – generated by Kate Middleston-love is hilariously in keeping with the delusion that Jones excels in.

        And that she happens to make a reasonably valid point about this Vogue cover/article doesn’t change that one iota.

      • Lucrezia says:

        @hmmm – I’m confused by your confusion. Take the recent thread about about Trump saying Lena Dunham is a B-list actor. Do you think that everyone in that thread who said Trump was a nutter was a defensive Dunham-fan? Of course not. His name on the article drew in plenty of people who couldn’t care less about Dunham. Same principle here. Sometimes people want to talk about what was said, sometimes they want to talk about who said it.

    • Megan says:

      Maybe LAK or Sixer made the point a few weeks ago that plenty of people read columns by the likes of Liz Jones and Jan Moir and the fact that they are in open revolt against the Cambridges speaks to the complete failure of William’s PR strategy. Pretty much every move they make these days is attacked. They need to bring in a skilled team STAT.

      • hmmm says:

        Every recent move Workshy Willy and Dolittle made is tone-deaf, arrogant and defiant. The critiques are valid. But frankly I’m not applauding the reporters. It seems that they can be bribed (not necessarily with money) and display an embarrassing amount of toothless petulance. Move over, Willy..

      • Sixer says:

        Exactly, Megan. It really doesn’t matter how trashy we think these columnists are – and I think they are trashy. The point is that they speak directly to the very constituency that is most likely to be royalist in the UK – right of centre voters (they write for right of centre newspapers); older people (the older you are in the UK, the more likely you are to support the BRF); people who do not get their information online.

        If *these* columnists have their pitchforks out, this is bad news for the royals. Like ‘em or loathe ‘em, they are the opinion formers in the royalist demographic. That’s the point.

  24. Who ARE these people? says:

    She may not be fashion-forward, but she’s certainly left-hand-with-the-ring forward.

    • Olenna says:


    • aurelia says:

      Yep, all I see in these photos is all the things shallow waity is about: big blue out in centre, thick fake hair, faked up eye brows and fake teeth. Oh and her beloved country where she likes to hide out and do nothing.

    • Megan says:

      In fairness to Kate, big blue is so ridiculously large and awkwardly shaped, it just makes itself known. It would be nice if William would give her a daywear alternative so she can reserve what is obviously a cocktail ring for appropriate occasions. It looks especially silly in this rustic photoshoot.

    • cp says:

      I think maybe if she wore the ring more nonchalantly, as if she were accustomed to wearing a large piece like that, and if she seemed to really love it, it wouldn’t stand out as much. She seems to mostly wear small jewelry, thin necklaces, tiny earrings; she can’t carry off wearing such a big stone.

  25. Ally.M says:

    I really can’t take anything seriously written by Liz Jones, she’s a nutcase, a joke, and I’m not a Kate defender.

    I live in Shropshire and never heard ‘Boden’ used as slang but maybe I move in the wrong circles, perhaps it’s used by the upper class/fox hunting crowd.

  26. Amber says:

    To me the last paragraph is the most important thing, and what I said yesterday :D Kate’s not a fashion girl, not a cover girl, not a celebrity–Then what the hell is she doing on a majorly, significant issue of a fashion magazine’s cover representing a century of faces and fashion? (And I don’t understand why people are *shrugging* and saying “Well, she’s not a fit.” Then she shouldn’t be on there.) They’re trying to have it both ways. For one example, how many times have you seen people say that we shouldn’t criticize how Kate dresses because she’s not a fashionista? Well, 1) Since the “Kate Effect” is her only alleged contribution to society, I think critiquing that is fair game. 2) She’s on the cover of Vogue! I also think it’s naive, and just what they want you to think, to say that she ONLY did this because it was a special occasion. BAH-loney. I bet she jumped at the chance and no one thought past it. Which is beside “a” point. Because most importantly, it’s terribly bad timing, given her image and the criticism that’s been building since last summer. And as @hmmm said yesterday, this is a play at importance, that Kate in no way has earned. It gave me whiplash seeing that centenary headline, and that pompous “HRH The Duchess of DoLittle” title, (like, *smug* “Need we say more?”), juxtaposed with those eyebrows and the country bumpkin cosplay. This is who she is? A bland, catalog ready, yummy mummy, still dressing like a 2005 Sloane Ranger? Why do we care? That’s all Kate’s brought to the table? That’s all she can bring? The thing that ‘s lost in Liz’s particular brand of BS, is that she’s absolutely right that you don’t do this unless you’re announcing something about your status and expecting us to view you in a certain way. Again, Kate is NOT a real icon, (and certainly not remotely stylish, as evidenced by this freakin’ spread). She does not belong there. And it smacks in the face of everything they’ve tried to sell us on about The Cambridges. So Kate’s too shy, too humble, too insecure about her status as Duchess and still struggling with the pressures of/and the spotlight. Kate can’t give a good speech! But she’s cool being a Vogue cover girl? I also missed the Diana thing yesterday. But I think Liz (is a bit off) and a few of the commenters yesterday are pretty dead-on about that. It’s another play at being all-things-Diana, and being “all things”, like Diana. Diana actually was everything Liz described her as and then some. Kate can only pose and play pretend. She always takes the laziest, most superficial, unmerited route. I don’t care about the BMI, elitism stuff. (What, Liz!?) But Kate is absolutely telling us that she’s The Duchess of Cambridge and someone worthy of being on that cover. What to do with that? They’ve opened a door and a few windows, while a storm is brewing at that.

    • vauvert says:

      Agree with everything you said. Covered a few similar points too, the part that irks the most is the hypocrisy. She’s so “normal”, and they are just “learning their job” (in their mid-thirties) while taking care of their “young family” (along with a full staff, and what a slap in the face of the taxpayers who support them by commuting to full time jobs, paying for child care so these entitled twits can afford to do the opposite) – but… wait, here’s a historic Vogue cover. Perfect for a woman better known for fashion faux pas tan being a style icon. (Big eye roll). If you are oh so private, a Vogue cover (that you are not a good fit for) is nothing but a vanity project. And then the utter gall of counting “work hours” and “an engagement” to go once a year to the NPR to view your own photos. This woman is just oblivious. To everything.

      • notasugarhere says:

        vauvert, I was just thinking this. Mathilde, Maxima, Letizia. They all became Queen Consorts a decade or so into their marriages and roles (13, 11, 10 years). They all got married, had children, are raising those children, and are now Queen Consorts in that time span.

        Can anyone see W&K in the monarch-and-consort roles 5 years from now?

        There are those who harp on the heir-to-the-heir nonsense, as if they know how long either HM or Charles will live. Because anyone thought Diana would die at 36. It could be any day now for any of them.

        W&K refusing to do the job now, gaining work experience and learning what not to do? Pretending they can step into the main job without any practice or training (note their ongoing idiocy when either opens their mouths)? It only makes the inevitable worse, just like hiding their children away will cause even more trouble later.

      • Amber says:

        @Vauvert – It takes so much time for me to leave my long-winded comments and get dressed that 20 others have been posted by the time I hit submit, lol.

        Btw, I didn’t mention it–Imagine, I actually deleted something from my post–But I totally agree with you ^^^ that Kate probably thinks she is very stylish. I think someone mentioned the other day how odd it is that she hasn’t gotten any better. (And that’s leaving her work output out of it, just meaning sartorially.) I think she dressed better back when she was still mixing in high street brands before she became this 24/7, bespoke designer monster. But it’s weird how she’s treading water. It’s not like she’s in her 20s in the 80s. (Although Kate’s styling is straight out of the late-70s/early-80s sometimes.) The continental royals are all more stylish with their own set of challenges in some cases. (Like Letizia.) So it isn’t the position, conservatism, or a lack of choice either. You’d think Kate would’ve settled on something by now, figured it out, and stopped dressing like her mother or how “sporty” artistos dressed in the early aughts.

  27. OhDear says:

    I think the photoshoot is bland, too, but that was probably what they (meaning Poor Jason and co) were going for – that while she’s the Duchess of Cambridge, she’s still a nice, down-to-earth girl (woman). Jones’ critique would have been more effective if she discussed how “You only grace the cover of Vogue when you want to become an icon and have your ego massaged. You are joining the fashion elite.” more and in relation to Kate’s (and lack of a) work ethic instead of going on about how basic she thinks the photos are.

  28. Betti says:

    I don’t have an issue with the cover and shoot itself but that fact that she has time in her ‘hectic’ schedule for this, as opposed to her charities/patronages and the Irish Guards! If you have time to spare a day for a photo shoot then you have time to spend more than 20mins promoting a cause thats, allegedly, ‘dear to your heart’ such as the fly by children’s mental health visits they’ve done.

    TQ and other family members have done shoots like this before, they don’t get flack because they have pretty full schedules and fulfil their obligations. This is another example of how her vanity (other than William) is the only things she cares about.

  29. L84Tea says:

    What in the world is going on with her eyebrows???

  30. I’m sorry, she VETOED Patrick Demarchellier!? Mario Testino!? Look, those guys have reputations as being…er…”difficult”…but they know how to shoot a fashion editorial. Show me a Demarchellier editorial that looks like the inside of a Boden catalog……can’t find one? Exactly.

  31. Shambles says:

    Theory time. This has nothing to do with my feelings about Kate and any of the justified or unjustified criticisms of her. I’m just interested in why they may have chosen to style this shoot the way they did, and I have an idea as to the reason.

    Not only is this the 100th anniversary issue (and I can understand why they chose to put a future monarch on the cover, speaking to the centuries of tradition that the monarchy represents), but it’s also Will and Kate’s 5th anniversary. She and the photos are styled like she’s on safari in Africa, and Will proposed to her in Africa. Maybe the styling and the colors of the shoot are a nod to that as a way to honor their anniversary as well?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Kate won’t be a monarch. That’ll be William’s role. She’ll be the Consort.

    • Betti says:

      Ahem, the ‘alleged’ proposal in Africa. The very one that was oddly exactly the same story of how one of his friends got engaged a few months earlier, which incidentally was printed in society columns (and has now been whitewashed). Not to mention the fact that EVERYONE was taken by surprise and he didn’t tell his own family until an hour before the press release went out. Her family seemed to know before his – she let that cat out of the bag during the engagement interview.

      The engagement story is just like everything else about them – fake. Its sad that Harry was surprised to see her wearing his mothers ring, which was his. The story is that William just took it and gave it to her without asking Harry first.

      • Shambles says:

        Whether it was fake or not, that’s the story they presented to the world. That’s what they officially went with, and I was just trying to say that the styling in the shoot could be a nod to that. I don’t know whether or not everything about Will and Kate’s relationship is fake, and I don’t really have any interest in commenting on that. Honestly, the romantic in me wants to believe that these two at least do love each other (you can still be in love and be utterly sh!t at your job), and I think I see love between them, but that’s beside the point. That’s why I tried to make it clear that my original post had nothing to do with my feelings about Kate, and that I was only trying to theorize about why this photo shoot was styled the way it was.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        That is low to grab the ring. Wow.

      • Betti says:

        @Shambles – i didn’t mean to imply that their relationship or feelings toward each other are fake but that they fairy tale love story/they are normal like us BS that they keep shoving in our faces is. The engagement story is just another example of that. I’m a romantic too but its a bit low to steal someone else’s story, rather than just be honest. They clearly do care about each other, they’ve been together for 15 years so there has to be something keeping them at each others side.

        @Magnolia. That’s what the gossip flying around at the time was saying. Apparently both boys were given a choice for a keepsake; William chose a watch and Harry chose her engagement ring. Am sure he wanted it to give to his someone special but now can’t as Chutney can’t help but flaunt it around like the trophy she thinks it is.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Unfortunately it’s believable. He seems to have grown into an unpleasant petty man. Shame on him.

      • perplexed says:

        Where did the story about William taking the ring from Harry come from? Just curious because the gossip is interesting.

      • aurelia says:

        Carole the stalker would have told kate to ask for di’s ring. So willie took it from harry who it was left to in di’s will. Then williw made up the stupid lie that it wasn’t left to harry at all, just the first son who got engaged.

    • nic919 says:

      Prince Phillip is the Consort and he set up the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, which help youth around the world. Prince Harry, who will never be monarch, has set up the Invictus Games and Sentebale, and has done it despite only being 31. What the hell have Kate and Will done on a similar scale in their 34 years?

      The time for excuses is over. No other 34 year old is allowed to pretend that they need time to “get used” to their job.

  32. Deedee says:

    Wow! Weren’t we all just saying that the one thing Kate needs to do is step up and get her face on another fashion magazine (sarcasm).

  33. Starlight says:

    If Kate was on front of Boden then we would all say she looks like a Biden yummy mummy but she is not on Boden she is in Vogue. In the late 80s and 90s there was a company called Racing Green Infact I think I read Diana used to buy the slim beige trousers in that catalogue and then Boden showed up mid 90s as it was similar and it was all stripy petit bateau jumpers and safe middle England country meets town or visa versa for that comfortable look outside the private school gate next to your land rover discovery. Hmm! So Kate went safe with her choice and perhaps that was deliberate and to be expected. I do think though that wearing clothes similar to Boden is yesterday’s news there are too many great fashion shops to give yourself individuality in London which can portray a country meets town look and produce a wow factor.

    • Guesto says:

      For me, it’s not the Boden vibe that’s the problem – Boden has some great stuff – more this shoot just emphasises and reflects her risk-free, bland, dull, going nowhere personality.

  34. Magnoliarose says:

    I thought there had to be another story behind this lackluster shoot. Again this proves she and Workshy have poor judgment and are misguided in their attempts to control their image. Who in their right mind would decline a world class proven photographer for an anniversary photo to be hung in such an esteemed museum? So what if they are difficult, the point was the result not the experience. She never has to see them again if she chooses but this shoot is for keeps.
    I shall ignore the shade on American Vogue because it deserves some but somewhere in the world Ralph Lifshitz is screaming “Nope!” about the comparisons to his brand.

    • msthang says:

      I was thinking beautiful Clotilde kind of except she is not even remotely as pretty as Clotilde, does that make sense????

      • Magnoliarose says:

        YES! Perfect style for her and she could pull it off. Elegant and chic but appropriate.

    • Jib says:

      And I’m sure the photographers are thrilled to have it publicly known that this Do-Nothing vetoed them because they are difficult.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        I agree and for them to leak this means that there are ruffled feathers around. Another mistake.

  35. d says:

    I’m glad the eyeliner situation was fixed; it’s about time. Theme colour-wise, it’s an odd cover for a spring issue, but oh well. I would have gone with more spring-like surroundings…I mean, keep the clothing, but how about some flowering apple trees or something? Have some colour! It’s a really uninspired choice on part of the photographer and magazine, unless there was shade in it by deliberately beige-ing everything. Otherwise, I think the clothing choice is what Kate is comfortable with, style-wise and it would be smart on the part of her and everyone around to NOT attempt the style icon/fashion-plate persona or whatever of Diana, because that’s just not who she is. I think that was an attempt on part of the media and PR people anyway, trying to make something more than it was, which is typically second nature of most of it. I also suspect William chose Kate for her ordinary-ness, for lack of a better term, and that’s what makes him happy and I have a feeling she’s pretty ok with that too. I think the absolute very last thing he’d want would be someone like Diana. I don’t know…sometimes I think the pile-on is a bit much with respect to the work aspect, but I also think William also just doesn`t want to happen to Kate what happened to his mother. All this is about what *he* wants, not the public, not the royal family, not the media, but him. And she follows along because what else is she going to do. I don’t know…the constant criticism has gotten tiresome.

  36. Alexa de Vere says:

    I don’t know anyone who reads Liz Jones. She is certifiably unstable (by her own admission). You should google her and read her other stuff. She is top notch Weird.

    This photoshoot is very dull. Alexandra schulman has been trying to get Kate for years and it’s al just a bit of an anticlimax. I wonder if there will be some amazing editorial shots or even an interview? The one where Kate launches herself as an international charity heroine who will stop at nothing to bring world peace.

    Johnny Boden, who runs Boden, has a mantra that he never ever wants his women to look sexy or edgy. Everything has to be just nice and a threatening. Boden used to be the absolute bees knees for yummy mummies on the school run but they’ve had to edge themselves up a bit in recent years to make themselves remain credible. Their stuff is cool though and washes beautifully. Their kids’ stuff is coveted in the uk something chronic. There are whole Facebook pages devoted to selling it on second, third, fourth hand.

    • hmmm says:

      ” don’t know anyone who reads Liz Jones. She is certifiably unstable (by her own admission)”

      How about not promoting the crazy in women. It was done with Diana, it is done here. I don’t ever, EVER hear this as a justification for ignoring a message from a man. It’s such offensive propaganda, I have no words.

      • bluhare says:

        hmmm says:
        May 2, 2016 at 2:12 pm
        For me the problem is that this shoot is pointless and narcissistic.

        Narcissism can be a mental disorder.

      • hmmm says:


        “Narcissism can be a mental disorder”.

        It can also be a set of traits. I don’t get the point of this. Does it have something to do with Waity’s mental health?

      • bluhare says:

        I don’t know, hmm. You said that you don’t like women promoting the crazy, and you had just made a post referencing narcissism, which is , at its extreme, a mental disorder. I just found it ironic.

      • hmmm says:

        Narcissism as a trait does not make one crazy. Misinformation is not helpful.

      • bluhare says:

        That is really ironic as posts here can be full of misinformation! You just speculated about her having a trait that at its extreme can be damaging to both the person and the people around them with absolutely nothing to back it up.

        Look, we’re all entitled to our opinions here, but it boggles my mind how a centennial Vogue cover makes a person a narcissist.

    • LionessRichie says:

      Hi Alexa,

      May I ask if you are a (former) Boden employee? I’m curious because I used to work for them until recently and I can’t remember Johnnie expressing anything along those lines. Perhaps a long time ago but in 2014 the company has decided to change directions and make the clothes more aspirational and stylish and thus more attractive to a modern, younger clientele (as you also mention).

      But yes, the Boden image remains wholesome but looking sexy, feminine and edgy is no longer something to be avoided. In fact, these qualities are embraced while keeping the whimsical, bright patterned fabrics the brand is known for.

      • Alexa de Vere says:

        It was in a Sunday times style mag interview – I remember reading it on the bus in London so it must have been 2009 or 2010 when I still lived there perhaps?
        He was specifically talking about flashing loads of flesh I think. He didn’t like that idea of supposed sexiness. I love Boden, I’d wear it all the time if I could, especially the shoes!
        Anyway! Would be the last person ever ever ever to call out the crazy in women- ive only just been able to stop taking medication for pnd (although it’s early days still) so I know first hand about how difficult it is to suffer with poor mental health. However, if you read Liz Jones’ stuff you will soon see she shames women in all sorts of ways all the time (including herself) – she doesn’t need me to do it for her!

      • LionessRichie says:

        Hi Alexa,

        Sorry for the late response! And thank you for pointing out where JB made those comments. I must admit that I had no idea and I’m surprised he said that so openly and bluntly!

        Yes, I love Boden shoes myself! Being so close to everything they create is one of the many aspects I miss about working there…

        Anyway, I wish you well on your way to healthiness after the PND. :-) xx

  37. Mixtape says:

    Boden is a non-heritage British brand selling heritage-style clothing for less. That’s pretty much Kate in a nutshell–the non-royal new royal providing palpable royal-lite for the modern crowd. It would not have been proper or very Kate to do an avant-garde, high-fashion shoot. In addition, it would have looked ridiculously dated within ten years. I’m not always the biggest Kate fan, but I think Vogue UK got this one just right.

  38. vespernite says:

    Dull..dull…always Your Royal Highness of Dullness!

    • Joannie says:

      Funny that you say that considering there are more comments about her than almost anyone. Or is it that everyone is sucking on a lemon? Lol

      • vespernite says:

        I mean her style is dull…obviously her being a royal we can’t help but watch and comment. But I don keep hoping she will step up her fashion. She is too young and pretty to dress so matronly.

    • Bella says:

      Haha I know this cracks me up. Everyone going on about how dull she is, yet every post generating 200+ comments!!! You can’t make this stuff up.

  39. MinnFinn says:

    She could have promoted Vogue’s 100th year in a different way that would have gotten Vogue and NPG just as much marketing value from her participation as this cover. I agree with several posters here that this is a vanity project.

    And what a huge surprise to see her on the cover given her PR messaging. She reportedly does not want to be known as a clothes horse or fashionista but her behavior does not support that claim FX 1. here she is on the cover of a top fashion magazine 2. she spends easily $50,000 per year on clothing but only works about 50 hours per year 3. a lot of her things come from McQueen and other high fashion clothes and shoe designers

  40. Feeshalori says:

    An interesting commentary in the Guardian questioning the relevance of the Vogue pictures in an art gallery:


  41. Amelie says:

    Had no idea Boden was even British but I have heard of it because coworkers of mine have raved about the fit of the clothes. Both of them have wider hips and have said that the clothes are made to fit all body types. So looking too Boden does not sound like a huge insult.

    And I agree with the hunting/fishing vibe of the shoot. I mentioned it in my comment on the last post.

  42. Me Three says:

    Gotta say I don’t get how just because someone is the daughter or a rich person or, in the case of Kate, happens to be married to royalty, they automatically become “fashion icons.” I’ve never thought Kate was anything but a moderately pretty girl who married up. Icon is not a word I would use for her as far as fashion and, even if she started wearing really original pieces, she’d still be just a rather bland looking woman. That said, I have to say, I don’t think this woman can ever win. No matter what she does, says, wears or works at, it’s never enough. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I feel a little sorry for her, although from what the Brits on this site have said, she’s worked hard from the time she was just a little girl to become a member of the royal family.

  43. Cleo says:

    The Vogue editorial and NPG ‘portraits’ are a triumph of PR over art.

  44. Snapdragon says:

    She looks like the Hamburgler in that hat.

  45. Hazel says:

    I think KP is still trying to sell Kate to us as a photography expert–not just as someone who takes better photos than us plebs with ordinary smartphones & digital cameras, but as someone vastly more knowledgeable in the art of photography.

  46. MLouise says:

    Just a note that Harry REALLY made the Invictus games a ‘thing’ in the public eye. He was yesterday in Canada with the Prime Minister Trudeau to advertise the games which will be hosted in Toronto next year. Interactions with two head of states within days . Now I want to attend the events next year. He really does a good job.

  47. Lucy says:

    I hated the shoot before, but if the infamous Liz Jones hates it, it can’t be too bad!

    I am genuinely in shock that anyone still employs that vile deranged woman.

  48. Starlight says:

    I suppose if Kate had worn glorious gowns beautiful jewellery and the photographer happened to be Mario Testino and then the photographs were in Kensington Palace we would say she was copying the Diana PR all those years ago. So the fact she has gone so far removed from that and ‘ordinary’ Home Counties fresh faced mummy me thinks she was trying to express she doesn’t want to be anything like Lady D and wanted the world t give her a fresh identity. One that was away from the high street, glamour and glitz. I think she could be a chameleon changing her persona each decade so you will never know the real duchess.

  49. paddyjr says:

    It’s not a bad shoot, it’s just not what I would expect for British Vogue’s centennial issue. I guess they wanted the senior female royal, which happened to be Kate. I just don’t understand the Ralph Lauren Safari collection vision of the shoot. I was expecting high-glamour royal or a simple artistic piece. Something to really celebrate and be a statement issue. This is any country-living magazine/Ralph Lauren catalog and, with all the airbrushing/Photoshop, could be any fresh-faced, milk-fed 30-something. Also, the clothes would have looked out of place on anyone in Vogue, IMO.

  50. carolind says:

    Surely the most interesting part of the photoshoot was Lupo? I am pretty sure I read it was done late January.

    Kate is obviously very proud of her engagement ring which is so not her usual style but I would have hated to be given a ring with such unhappy memories.