Duchess Kate wore velvet McQueen & lots of diamonds to the Diplomatic reception

Embed from Getty Images

The Duchess of Cambridge attended the Queen’s Diplomatic Reception last night at Buckingham Palace. Kate actually attended with her husband Prince William, but I feel like no one paid much attention to him. Plus, he’ll take credit for Kate’s success anyway. And no joke, Kate’s whole look and vibe was successful. I often felt like Kate had no idea how to “do” very formal receptions and black-tie events, but like everything else in Camp Cambridge, things eventually snapped into place after seven years of marriage and some competition.

Last night, Kate wore a midnight-blue velvet Alexander McQueen gown with the kind of neckline made to showcase a big statement necklace. I imagine this is bespoke, and it is GORGEOUS. I hope this gets some rewears, because it deserves to be seen again and again. I’m a fan of velvet gowns in winter anyway, but this silhouette is great on Kate too.

Kate paired the great gown with jewels from the Royal Collection. She borrowed the Nizam of Hyderabad necklace and the Diamond Chandelier Drop Demi-Parur earrings. She also wore the Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara, one of two tiaras that Kate always gets to “borrow” from the Queen. It’s not that the Lover’s Knot is her favorite – which is what so many sites claim – it’s that the Queen generally only “offers” Kate certain pieces and tiaras. People were trying to figure out what was happening on Kate’s right hand too – she seemed to be wearing a diamond cluster ring, and no one knows if that too is from the Royal Collection, or perhaps William gave Kate a new ring, or perhaps she bought something for herself.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

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

233 Responses to “Duchess Kate wore velvet McQueen & lots of diamonds to the Diplomatic reception”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Smalltown Girl says:

    Something about this gown doesn’t quite work for me and it’s in the neckline/shoulders. I love the side profile shots and think she looks great, but in the front view shots something is not working and I think it is the shoulders. But I agree the fit of it looks good on her and it works well with those jewels.

    • Fallon says:

      I feel like it’s how close/high it comes in on her collarbones.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        The “V” of the neck should be a bit wider, or she should’ve worn more of a “collar” of diamonds. This necklace needs more “breathing room”, like with an off the shoulders gown (with a sliiiiiiight dip of a “V” into the décolletage. The “V” in this gown looks too “crowded”, IMO.

        Other than that, it *is* a gorgeous gown, color, fit, and cut.
        (Shame the sash and order ribbon have to ruin it lol)

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        @Jan90067-

        I agree. The neckline is too narrow for such a colossal drop-style necklace.

        Also, the shoulder with her signature fussy poof is present, and shouldn’t be IMO.

      • Babs says:

        Grace Kelly wore like nearly identical of a gown and I prefer the fit. It is lower so the collar bone shows. The height if the neckline on DoC is too high, reminds me of something that we be found on a much older woman. Plus too much crowding with jewelry.

        To see the dress I am talking about I just typed iconic black dress grace kelly..does anyone actually know the name and designer of it though. I couldn’t include a link.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Babs, Grace’s is more of what I was saying: lower neckline, and off the shoulder with a deeper “V” neck. Grace’s dress would’ve shown that necklace to perfection.

        https://www.pinterest.com/pin/552676185501887415/

        I also think that Kate should’ve either kept the neckline she has, and ONLY worn the earrings, or deepened the neckline for the necklace. One OR the other, not both. Statement earrings OR statement necklace. Both detract from the other.

      • Vava says:

        ooooo….that Grace Kelly dress is gorgeous. I don’t think Kate has the elegance that Grace did, though – and that is definitely part of it.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Vava, for sure! She doesn’t have that innate “elegance” (or gravitas) to carry it off. Or to carry off the “big gun” jewels. Our Katie Keen is in her element when sporty or casual, not dressed up to the nines. Nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is.

      • Rusted says:

        @Babs Agree the neckline is too “interesting” for a showy necklace – it competes for attention. Notice that Grace Kelly wears the similar neckline with statement earrings and no necklace, which looks perfect.

      • ejodee says:

        I would wear this incredible gown and risk all comments gladly

    • L84Tea says:

      I feel the same way. It’s a beautiful gown and beautiful cut, but there is just something a bit off about it for me right around the midsection up. I feel like she’s swimming a bit in the fabric, like it’s just a tad too big on her.

      Also, Queen Mathilde of Belgium and Princess Mary of Denmark both wore gowns last year with this neckline (Mathilde’s looking the best) and both seemed to fit better than this one.

    • Nic919 says:

      I agree. The shoulders look too square on her and the neckline should sit lower and show more collarbone or shoulder. The necklace is almost too big for the cutout in the dress. The version on Queen Mathilde exposed more shoulder and looked better.

      This dress is also reminiscent of a dress Diana wore that’s fairly famous, except for Diana it was pure 80s style. This is like a pale attempt at copying that.

    • mazzie says:

      Maybe a diamond choker instead? Or something that sits in the hollow of her throat? That way she can still rock big diamonds but it gives some visual space with the neckline.

    • AnnaKist says:

      It’s a weird cut of the neckline. The cut leaves the neckline, front and back, too open, so it seems to be slipping and gaping at times.

    • bananapanda says:

      SHOULDER PADS. Holy hell is she stuck in the 80s. Her shoulders and sleeves are always a NO for me.

  2. Becks1 says:

    I was thisclose to really loving this look, but I don’t like the puffy shoulders on the dress. In the first picture on the post, where you cant see the shoulders, it looks SO much better. I also cant decide whether I love all the diamonds or not. Objectively diamonds and velvet are a gorgeous combination, but I cant decide here – it may actually be too much? But its not like the other ladies are going easy on the bling either, so Kate fits in.

    Anyway I saw last night on twitter that Kate is at 56 engagements for the year (now 57 I guess.) 56.

    • runcmc says:

      I’m curious about how many events William, Harry, and Meghan has now if Kate has only 56! I feel like this was a particularly busy year for Kate so I’m surprised the number is so low.

    • Whatever says:

      Becks 1,
      That amount doesn’t seem accurate. I follow Gerts Royals for engagement numbers, I think that is more accurate but they are sometimes slow on updating.

      There is also another website/ forum that counts royal engagements (I can’t remember the name now) and the last time I checked, their numbers were higher than Gerts because they take more things into consideration when counting engagements.

      • Becks1 says:

        It was in an article with quotes from Scobie, so it didn’t seem that far off for me. It may not be completely accurate, but I don’t think shes going to break 100 this year.

        It would not include the Pakistan tour though.

        I don’t trust/follow Gerts Royals.

    • Elisabeth says:

      That number is from last year, maternity leave. Including the tour, at this point this year Kate is at about 114 and William is just shy of 200.

      • Becks1 says:

        The article cited the 2018 numbers which were even lower, so I don’t think its from last year.

        Whoever was counting it may not have been counting all the random KP meetings. and the Pakistan tour prob wasn’t counted.

        (and to be clear the number could be wrong, I cant find the link now lol, but I don’t think its significantly wrong. Kate’s visits get a lot of press but she does go for long periods of time with no visits/engagements.)

        Oh I found the article, it was from the Express, so maybe it was just made up. It said the numbers were from the CC but maybe that was wrong.

        The CC itself isn’t entirely accurate either, which is stupid, since it counts some things for some royals but not for others (i.e. all of Kate’s meetings at KP.)

        And sorry for threadjacking Kaiser!! lol

      • Annie .. says:

        I think Kate is close to 130, and William a little over 200.

        The only numbers that count and matter are the ones that are posted on the CC, and that Tim O’Donovan releases his count the first days of January

      • Maria says:

        Why would the ones on the CC be the only ones that matter? They leave out Invictus and other work all the time.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Maria – that’s why I said the CC is stupid, LOL. It leaves out TON of stuff for Harry and Meghan that gets counted for Kate. Every time Kate and William meet with Jason its in the CC.

        But, I think its all we have to go on, so it is what it is.

    • Elisa says:

      I found some stats on writeroyalty.com (no clue how reliable that site is?) and by the end of Nov. Kate had around 120 engagements, William was close to 200 and Charles at 500. :)

      • Nic919 says:

        That site is pretty accurate in that she counts the CC engagements.

      • Elisa says:

        ah, good to know. Andrew is close to 300, so I’m curious who will take over his engagements next year…

      • Becks1 says:

        @Elisa – that was the point of this article with the 56 engagements for Kate (which I think now that @Nic is right, it was probably days worked, not events) – that with Andrew essentially “retiring” there is going to be a lot of work for the younger royals to pick up and Kate needs to step up in a big way at this point.

    • Nic919 says:

      Could that number be how many days of engagements as opposed to the total number? The Pakistan tour added a few and of course she adds in all her meetings with Jason K. She had not crossed 100 until late October or early November and so I think she will be at about 110 – 120 by the end of the year. And that’s with the help of “meetings”. All those articles last year about how this was going to be Kate’s year have really looked foolish. There is zero reason for her not to be at 200 and William closer to 300.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nic – that would make more sense, if someone was just counting the days she worked, not the actual engagements.

        But….that makes her look worse. She worked 56 days out of the year??? lol.

        (and I know some sites do that at the end of the year….break down days worked vs. engagements.)

      • Elisa says:

        From writeroyalty.com:
        Kate did 120 engagements and worked approx. 80 days by end of Nov.
        Charles: 500 engagements and 150 working days
        I guess that makes Charles quite the efficient one. :)

      • Becks1 says:

        @Elisa – well I am never believing the Express again! LOL.

        I forgot about WriteRoyalty – just went and looked and yikes. All the younger royal numbers are bad compared to Sophie, Camilla, Anne, etc. Meghan obviously gets a big pass this year though.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Face it: Charles likes to work and enjoys most aspects of his job.

        If Camilla’s health holds up. I really do not see Chucky slowing down until he becomes King Charles III.

    • Erin says:

      Gert’s Royals puts her count over 100.

  3. Eleonor says:

    Love me some jewellery!

  4. aquarius64 says:

    Nice outfit for the event but Anne still slayed at the NATO reception. As a future queen in the modern Kate still needs to show she brings more to the table than having access to the Royal Collection.

    • Nic919 says:

      She’s not a person of substance and at this point it will never happen. She’s praised for being a silent mannequin and will continue to do so because it’s easy and she gets the white girl points for it. It’s just too bad she doesn’t have an interesting style to make up for the lack of content.

      • Vava says:

        yes. Kate is a disappointment to me. And I don’t like her husband so that’s part of it. But the silent mannequin role she seems to play so well is offensive in the modern world.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        We need to be fair: There will never be another Diana, Princess of Wales and there will never be another Anne, Princess Royal. The mold was broke when those two were ejected out.

        I mean all the above as the highest compliment to both ladies.

        @Vava, Like you, I do not like Cathy’s husband but I really have no animosity towards her personally. In fact, I fell a great amount of pity for Cathy Cambridge.

      • BabsORIG says:

        There need NOT be another Diana, nor another Anne. There only needs to be a Kate duchess of Cambridge or a Meghan duchess of Sussex. They each can stand on their own, on their own merits and solid personal achievements as opposed to trying to be another somebody. Kate and her husband both need to start building legacies that people will look upon and say yes, that is/was the Duke or the duchesses of Cambridge, that is their legacy, that is what their children should be looking to be in their lives. But other than living and breathing, being white and being future future king and princess consort, what exactly have they done with the bid platforms that they have? Even Greta Thunberg has accomplished so much more than these 2 combined and she’s just a teenager..

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @BabsORIG, The Bill & Cathy Cambridge have done NOTHING and have no “It” factor.

  5. Originaltessa says:

    I like when she pulls her hair back. She really is a very pretty girl and you can see her face and it’s not all hair hair hair. Look overall is very regal, but not modern.

    • Becks1 says:

      I like when she pulls her hair back too. Sometime when she wears big necklaces she leaves her hair down, and it definitely detracts from the jewelry. What’s the point of wearing some serious bling if people cant see it? I feel like she is learning that, finally.

    • Green Desert says:

      I like that she went hair up too for this, but I agree…it’s not a modern look. The hairstyle is super dated and matronly, my usual gripes with her style. I know she couldn’t wear a topknot to something like this, but there are other ways of styling one’s hair in an updo that would be more 2019.

  6. Digital Unicorn says:

    For me this is probably her best look ever – she’s styled and dressed for the occasion.

  7. Yamayo says:

    Would have been perfect if the neckline had been v neck- it would have looked very 40s glamorous.
    But the colour and texture are gorgeous for winter.

  8. Sofia says:

    I don’t like the shoulders. Too 80s (am noticing she has those types of shoulders more and more on her outfits).

    Plus the neckline feels really busy. I don’t think she really needed to wear something on her neck. Makes the look too busy.

    But other than that she looks good

  9. Scal says:

    I’m feeling cranky so the shoulders are wonky. As is the Botox face.

    Color and styling and the jewels(!) are great. I’m always happy to see that tiara, it’s so pretty.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      I *did* notice the forehead wrinkles are back. Our “I’m feeling a bit broody” Katie Keen is cutting back on the Botox. Could the re be an “announcement” in the New Year?? Of course, dears, this would mean her long awaited for initiative would be pushed back as well…natch!

  10. olala says:

    Can we have post about Swedish royal family at Nobel prize ceremony. There were some serious gowns. Victoria had one that i thought was crazy and something you will never ever see anyone from BRF wearing it

    • L84Tea says:

      Those gowns were AMAZING. Madeline and Sophia absolutely killed it.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Madeline and Sophia looked GORGEOUS…Victoria…the color was glorious on her, but OMG THOSE SLEEVES!!!!! 😂😂😂

      • L84Tea says:

        Yeah, Victoria looked like she had a blanket tucked into her dress. Too funny!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @L84Tea, I thought Victoria looked modern, high fashion and regal at the same time.

        Pulling off modern, high fashion and regal simultaneously is not easy and very few can do it.

      • L84Tea says:

        @BayTampaBay…I bet Rose could do it…

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @L84Tea, You are sooooooo correct. “Rose Who?” could easily pull it off. I think Crown Princess Victoria’s dress would look spectacular on “Rose Who?”. Sorta like the cover of a romance novel.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I loved Victoria’s black and white Nobel gown – it was just so over the top Dramatic!

        And Sofia is really good at making her tiara versatile with the different gemstone setting – here turquoises.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Both of Victoria’s dresses were fashion disappointments for me, but I read they were chosen for reasons. The designer of the black-and-white dress is Eritrean-Swedish, and the Peace Prize was given to the Ethiopian PM for work ending fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The red dress, which I cannot like at all, was from her wedding dress designer. The pussy bow was a nod to a former member of the Swedish Academy and her work with the #MeToo movement.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota, would please post a link to the red dress? Thanks!

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        Thanks for that information, @nota. I liked the black dress for the fashion, not so much the red with the pussy now. Knowing it was a nod to the movement makes it me like it a little bit more.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Site won’t let me post links. There are photos of Victoria in the red Pär Engsheden gown on the RoyalCentral and RoyalWatcher blogs.

  11. Kate says:

    She looks beautiful

    • hunter says:

      I’m very pleased for her as a Royal with all her ribbons – whatever they are for – it’s proper recognition for her service.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The RFO was for putting up with William’s affairs. The timing is too convenient to be anything else.

  12. Annie .. says:

    Given that poor Sophie was stuck with an 7gly tiara for a looooong time, and that Diana was only loaned the CLK in all her years as a royal (and the Spencer tiara, but that one was a family tiara) Kate was lucky that she was given access to 3 tiaras in only a few years.

    • L84Tea says:

      I actually wish Kate would wear the Lotus Flower tiara more often because it’s so stunning and so underrated.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Camilla is the lady who can really rock a tiara!

    • Bookworm says:

      The Spencer tiara is my favorite. Too bad no one in the RF will ever wear it again.

      The Lotus is pretty but I did not like the Cartier tiara Kate wore at her wedding. It didn’t even show up, as if there was too much veil or something.

      Meghan’s wedding tiara was stunning and the perfect match to her simple gown.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The Cartier Halo Scroll Tiara is really lovely but it shouldn’t be worn with a veil. I think it would show up really well on Kate’s dark hair if worn singly.

        I’m not very keen on Meghan’s wedding tiara. The art deco frame is lovely but the centre piece is an older brooch that the tiara was made for and the two styles just clash IMO.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I was hoping for Queen Mary’s Lozenge Bandeau for Meghan at the wedding, not the one she ended up wearing.

  13. Chrissy says:

    The last time she wore this necklace, she had her hair down hiding the necklace. It was a major fail. She looks much better with her hair up for formal events. The dress, meh! The neckline and sleeves are very Eighties. Velvet is nice but I see it as black and not midnight blue. (shrugs)

  14. janey says:

    well presumably she wasn’t too busy working on her early years initiative to slather herself in diamonds and make small talk for a bit.
    I like the neckline but not with a necklace, one or the other.
    I would (cheekily) like to think the new ring is from big willy after the Rose scandal this summer. His way of apology.

  15. Jess says:

    This gown looks so good on the side UNTIL you see the front. It made her look more boxy than she actually is.

  16. Marjorie says:

    I don’t think she looks good, or well.

    • Vava says:

      The makeup is bad.

    • MellyMel says:

      Same. Not sure if it’s the makeup or if she’s just tired, but it’s something with her eyes.

    • SKF says:

      I think she is beautifully dressed and adorned but looks worryingly underweight and strained. She has a look about her which I recognise from my friend who was hospitalised several times with anorexia. It’s concerning.

  17. minx says:

    It should work, but something is slightly off with the cut.

  18. Eenie Googles says:

    Sculpted shoulders/neckline would work with a bare throat but with a big necklace it’s wayyyyy too fussy and “Miss America 1986.”

    Love the dress but the necklace was a terrible choice.

  19. Maria says:

    LOOK I AM THE FUTURE QUEEN, THE EMBIGGENING IS WORKING!! is what this look screams to me.
    If that is a new ring I doubt William bought it. He didn’t even buy her eternity ring for her.

  20. Iknow says:

    Umm… The dress is nice and I think would look great on a woman of a certain age. Kate isn’t even 40 yet. The dress is dated to me. You could drop Kate next to Nancy Reagan and no one would know she’s from 2019. The necklace is doing way too much. The dress could’ve gone without it.

  21. Beli says:

    I like the velvet, but there’s something about the shape that is off for me. I feel like it ages her?

    Love all the bling though (thank goodness her hair’s up so we can see it!)

    • BellaBella says:

      Some people have charisma and some people don’t. In my eyes, Kate does not. And the dress is wearing her rather than her wearing the dress.

  22. Lisa says:

    She looks nice here! Somewhat related, the tiara that the Queen wore is the one that I thought the Meghan tiara story was about, and not the one that Eugenie wore. The story was that Meghan was told she couldn’t wear it bc the provenance couldn’t be established. The story of the tiara is really fascinating if you’re looking for some reading. Basically the last Russian Grand Duchess escaped and snuck out and sold her jewels, which Queen Mary bought. She had some of her emeralds made into the removable drops you see. There are also pearl drops which can be wore instead, Diana wore the tiara that way at least once. It can also be worn “widowed” with no drops. Apparently these tiaras are redesigned a lot over the years. Anyway, not sure if the Meghan story is true at all, but this is what came to mind bc the way the jewels made their way to London was a bit murky.

    • Maria says:

      Oh I didn’t see your comment! I just posted a similar one about the Queen’s tiara – I also think the Vladimir one was the one in question. Seems a little questionable to deny Meghan the tiara on that basis then bring it out, if the story is true, but we ARE talking about a mother who protects her rapist son, so there’s that.

      • Lisa says:

        I think the story was that she wanted to wear it but not that it was offered, like she saw a picture and requested it and was told no. Yeah the story seems BS like most stories around the wedding. I think it’s too high profile a piece for Meghan to wear and too big for her, the one she wore was perfect. Obviously the Queen wears the Vladimir so no issues with “provenance”. But either way this story came out before Eugenies wedding, and then when Eug wore her tiara it became like Eug was spiting M or there was a fight around the tiara etc.

    • lanne says:

      Grand Duchess Vladimir’s tiara isn’t Meghan’s style at all. Also, b/c the Queen has worn it many, many times, it wouldn’t likely have been offered to Meghan. My guess is that the tiara story is total b.s. made up by courtiers. No tiara really fits the description in the Royal collection, and the “provenance” story was a way to add some hasty justification for the weird tack of “we offered her a tiara and took it back.” I think racist courtiers just wanted to paint Meghan as uppity.

      • Maria says:

        I commented lower down – I think it is also made up except for the fact that Meghan and Harry’s wedding color scheme seemed to be green; also while Meghan likes minimalist pieces in everyday life I wouldn’t have seen this tiara out of place at her wedding.

    • dynastysurf says:

      Diana never wore the grand duchess vladimir. She pretty much only wore the CLK or Spencer tiara, and occasionally one of her chokers as a headband.

      • Becks1 says:

        I just googled and found a picture of Diana in the GDV tiara (no drops.)

        But, I also found pictures of Kate wearing it, which has clearly never happened, LOL, so maybe it was all photoshop.

      • Navywife says:

        If you google Princess Diana Vladimir tiara, a picture of her wearing it pops up

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The GDV tiara was purchases from Grand Duchess Helena, Princes Nicholas of Greece and mother of Marina, Duchess of Kent by Queen Mary.

        Grand Duchess Maria Pavlona (the elder) aka Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerinwas was wife of Grand Duke Vladimir and mother of Grand Duchess of Helena if I recall correctly.

      • dynastysurf says:

        the GDV is very much a Queen Elizabeth only tiara and she does not share – Diana only wore those two and the chokers. I’ve seen the photo of her in it as well, but it’s always linked back to pinterest – definitely just a wishful thinking photoshop thing, nothing she’s actually done. Gotta hand it to the tumblr stans though, they’re normally the ones making those tiara photoshops and they’re incredibly convincing sometimes. It’s a bit scary.

      • Penguin says:

        She never worn it, it’s always been one reserved for the Queen. There are a lot of photoshops out there though

      • BayTampaBay says:

        There are photoshops of QEII wearing the GDV tiara with every color and type of stones imaginable (such as sapphires) depending on the color (such as rich blue velvet) of her dress. These pictures must be photoshopped because the only pendant drops of the GDV tiara are pearls and emeralds

    • Your cousin Vinny says:

      I think the Vladimir tiara would have looked drop dead gorgeous on Meghan for her wedding day. The colour of the emeralds would have looked amazing on her. He dress was simple enough to pull it off, too.

      On a different note am I the only one who winces seeing people wearing these heavy earrings? How do their ear holes hold up from all that weight and strain? In my younger years I would wear dangly earrings and I feel they dragged the piercing holes too much so now I can only wear lightweight studs. It’s a shame because I love statement earrings.

      Does anyone else have this problem?

      • dynastysurf says:

        I’m the same way – I have a few pairs of gorgeous beaded earrings I bought from local artists when I was working on a reservation in Minnesota, and while they’re amazing works of art, I can only wear them for a few hours at a time because they get so heavy after a while. And they’re only glass beads – I can’t imagine how much earrings like Kate’s must weigh.

      • penguin says:

        They tend to have wires that loop over the ear and support, as well as the standard post

      • Susan says:

        None of these fancy jeweled earrings are pierced earrings as far as I’m aware.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I would really love to see a picture of the Grand Duchess Vladimir wearing the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara.

  23. CrystalBall says:

    Personally, I find the neckline of the gown too narrow to accomodate the large necklace. In some photos the gown is touching the diamonds which really detracts from their luster. As for the gown itself, the color and cut of the top half summon images of sports team jackets with her big yellow ribbon (for good behaviour) pinned on. It appears almost as if the gown was chosen explicitly to show off her ribbons. As fof the lower half, there isn’t much to say about it, very plain, much like a cosy dressing gown. Is any one surprised she doesn’t seem to repeat evening gowns? I wonder if she will ever wear them again – remember the red one from a few years ago, worn when the president of China was visiting?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I like the evening gown Cathy wore to the Rose Hanbury Rocksavage Cholmondeley party.

      Rose Who?

      • Becks1 says:

        LOL @Bay! I don’t think we will see that one again, ha. And that was a re-wear.

        I don’t think we have ever seen her rewear something from a BP reception like this. She has some formal gowns that she has reworn in general, but never anything from something like this, I don’t think. But, its only very recently that we have started getting pics from this particular event, usually its just a guessing game as to what she is wearing based on car pics.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1, Hopefully EACH will have a car boot sale and “Rose Who?” will donate the Valentino and Cathy Cambridge will donate the Jenny Packham. You and I can pick up these dresses for pennies on the pound, give Kaiser and CB three weeks to draw a paying crowd of patrons wearing Tinfoil Tiaras then proceed to have a CB single elimination trivia smack-down challenge over the British Royal Family. Winner takes both dresses! LOL! LOL!

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay I am laughing so hard. Count me in!!

  24. Sam says:

    It’s a customised version of a 7k+ dress, interesting the price wasn’t the first thing brought up unlike any thread involving Meghan

    Something’s off about the neckline and it reminds me of one of Diana’s dress but she looks nice

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Cathy Cambridge always looks nice no matter how awful the outfit because all of her clothes are custom tailored to perfection.

      • Silas says:

        So, I want to be fair about this. Kate has worn plenty of badly tailored and awkwardly fitting pieces. Her early Emilia Wickstead pieces were badly made. And Kate’s habit of raising the waistline to make her legs look longer ruined the proportions of many of her dresses.

        *And* Meghan has issues with having her clothes properly fit. Either too tight or too loose. And just as I think there’s disordered behavior with Kate, I think there might be some personal struggles there with Meghan as well. I have sympathy for both women.

      • Sam says:

        That wasn’t my point.I don’t care if she tailors them to make her legs look longer or if they are fitted to perfection.Some people here are all about optics when it comes to Meghan so its very revealing no one is batting at eyelid at the cost,especially when it’s customised= more expensive.I know if it was another duchess,the cost would be 1st thing mentioned

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Sam, I get your point. However, we could go on all day about how unfair the Daily Fail is to Meghan and the Daily Fail will probably will not change.

        @Silas, You are correct. Kate has worn many ill fitting outfits. However, IMPO, Kate has really steeped up her game in the last three years to wear more “polished” looks. These looks are mostly fugly but very “polished” with the result that Kate always looks “good” but never “stunning”.

  25. Maria says:

    So are we going to discuss the Queen wearing the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara, which I personally believe was at the center of Tiaragate with Meghan? (another story I don’t believe, but the details were that the tiara was of Russian origin so Meghan wasn’t allowed to wear her tiara of choice so I believe the Vladimir was the one in question, not the Greville tiara Eugenie wore…but I could be wrong)

    • Becks1 says:

      You and Lisa a few comments up mentioned this…..

      I love the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara (I don’t like it without drops, but the emerald and pearl drops are both gorgeous.) I just wanted to say that, lol.

      BUT I don’t think this was the tiara Meghan wanted. First, if the provenance of the tiara and the emeralds was such a concern, why is the queen wearing it all the time? (as she wears it frequently.) Second, I don’t think this ever would have been offered to Meghan. The Queen does not share tiaras. And third, this just does not seem like Meghan’s style. We have seen Meghan in some bling, true (those gorgeous diamond earrings she wore on the south pacific tour!) but overall her jewelry preferences seem to be more minimalistic. There is nothing minimalistic about that tiara.

      That’s all just my opinion of course, I could be wrong, since the history of the tiara could be seen as suspect, but I just don’t see Meghan wearing it.

      • Maria says:

        I think the “provenance” is only an issue if Meghan wanted it, if you know what I mean.
        But I do think of it as made up. I only disagree with the idea of it not being Meghan’s style. Meghan’s everyday jewelry is minimalist of course but the color scheme of her wedding was green and I wouldn’t have been surprised if she had wanted something like this.

      • Lisa says:

        The story I believe was that she said she wanted it, but was told she could only choose from a list of what was offered. Like she was googling tiaras and didn’t know the protocol of how it is chosen. The provenance sounds like an excuse given for the real reason. I coooulld maybe see this happening with anyone, bc who the hell knows Tiara protocol lol. I could see her saying oh I like that one bc there aren’t tons of pics of the lesser known tiaras from a cursory glance, and then realizing that’s not how it’s done and happily choosing from the ones offered when she tried them on. Obviously this is purely speculation, most stories seem fake or super exaggerated from one passing comment. I don’t think the tiara is her style either, but it was her wedding day, a royal wedding, and a global event and she needed to look the part and bring scale/drama. Her veil for example did that and was definitely not minimalist! I could see her considering the Vladimir as it would make sense for the occasion/setting

      • notasugarhere says:

        I agree, Becks. This isn’t Meghan’s style and it would never have been in the offing because Betty doesn’t share.

      • windyriver says:

        @ Becks1 – Agree, can’t see Meghan being interested in this tiara at all. Not just because of the size, but also the style. It doesn’t have the delicacy of something like the CLK, for example, which to me is a much prettier and more interesting design, and more in keeping with what I sense is her style. As you say, it’s one the queen wears, so not likely to be offered to Meghan.

        I could see her possibly being interested in the tiara Eugenie wore, which seems more suitable size and style wise, and similar to what she did wear. But it seems out of character for Meghan, new to the family, to fight over a tiara with a “blood princess”, or anyone else. Possibly it was offered at first, and chosen, then Andrew pitched a fit because of Eugenie, and Harry got angry when it was withdrawn. Then someone floated the idea that it was all about the much grander Vladimir, to make it seem like Meghan was grasping and pretentious. Or maybe the last sentence is true, but that there was ever a clash over a tiara is made up.

        @Lisa, an interesting thought re the grandeur of the occasion. But the veil was supposed to be the big deal, with the representations of the Commonwealth nations, and such a fancy big tiara would have distracted from that. IMO, if she really wanted to bring scale and drama, she would’ve chosen a much more elaborate dress.

        Speaking of distracting, Kate should have passed on those earrings in favor of something simple, if she wore that necklace. They distract from both the necklace and the tiara.

    • Mego says:

      Are we still believing a story about Meghan pitching a fit about a tiara?

      • Maria says:

        Of course I don’t think she ever pitched a fit. I think it’s perfectly possible she may have seen a picture of the Vladimir and innocently and off the cuff asked if it was available and then was told no, and I’m sure she was fine with this. I think the embellishing happened from there from racists and petty leaks from other members of the RF.

    • Onlyashes85 says:

      So tiara gate:

      Let me start by saying I don’t believe Meghan pitched a fit about anything. I think there’s a spin on the story. I think it was deliberately leaked to make her look bad by someone petty.

      Personally. If there’s any truth to this story at all, I think it’s along the lines of this:

      I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Eugenie had an emerald tiara less than six months after Meghan got married and that there was an emerald tiara in question. And her tiara was similar in size and shape with Meghan’s. And, obviously, it’s gorgeous. And totally Meghan’s style. What I think happened? Eugenie already had to delay announcing her engagement because of Meghan and Harry – the nerve right? Then Meghan got to choose her tiara first. And the York’s/namely Andrew threw a fit.

      I think he’d absolutely be outraged and arrogantly put off that a “foreign outsider” was allowed to choose her tiara before Eugenie. He And Fergie already wanted her to have a similarly sized wedding because of her station and blah blah blah.

      Do I think that TQ would clumsily offer Meghan a tiara meaning to ever take it back? Nope. Do I think that if Andrew pitched a fit and wanted it for Eugenie that her majesty would relent? Yep. I sure do.

      Do I think Andrew would be petty enough to leak that story not long after Eugenie’s wedding, and Harry and Meghan’s pregnancy announcement? Uh yea. I do.

      So I think if there was a kerfluffle. But not because of Meghan or Harry.

      I’m going back to my coffee now.

      • I agree with Onlyashes85. There was a story that Eugenie’s wedding was planned for July but she was forced to ‘step back’ as Harry’s wedding took precedence. I can see Andrew (and Fergie) pitching a fit about everything because Andrew does not step back from any one or any thing willingly. He was the one that pushed and got the Queen to change protocol so that ‘blood’ princesses outranked Kate when she married into family as the entire group of Yorks did not want his girls to have to curtesy to Kate. By all accounts, Beatrice and Eugenie were especially nasty to Kate when she came into the family. I think Eugenie has grown to be a better person, but I don’t think the apple fell far from the tree when it comes to Beatrice and her vendettas and grudges. She is definitely her parents’ daughter.

      • Becks1 says:

        @onlyashes –

        I think your theory is spot on. I don’t think Meghan pitched a fit or anything, but I can believe the Queen offered Meghan maybe 5 tiaras or so, Meghan picked the one Eugenie wore (which would have gone lovely with her dress and all the greenery at the church and the pictures in the green room at Windsor), and when Andrew found out he pitched a fit. Maybe he was just ticked that Meghan got to pick first so he lied and said Eugenie wanted that one, or maybe Eugenie did genuinely want to wear that one all along and was disappointed when Meghan chose it.

        Maybe Meghan was disappointed, maybe she shrugged and was like “okay, i’ll live and I’ll just pick another diamond tiara to wear” but I don’t think she threw a fit or tantrum or anything. BUT its an easy enough story to spin to make it seem a way bigger deal than it actually was.

      • Maria says:

        I agree. And the more I think of it the more I think the rumors about it being the Vladimir tiara may have been an attempt to show how “presumptuous” Meghan was for wanting a tiara that the queen frequently wears.
        IF it was the Vladimir tiara I think she probably just asked for it, was told no, and didn’t much care and was fine with it.
        If it was the Greville tiara, I can see the queen offering it to her then refusing it when Andrew pitched a fit and claimed it for Eugenie- and that would make the stories about Harry getting angry over the situation VERY plausible and not out of line for him at all (the stories about him “hitting the roof” etc) and he went to see the queen about it (where the ridiculous “THE QUEEN WARNED HARRY ABOUT MEGHAN’S TIARA GREED” headlines probably came from) In either case, I can’t see Meghan getting worked up over the tiara itself.

      • Lisa says:

        Maria I could definitely picture this, and gotta say the idea of two grown men having hissy fits about tiaras gave me a good laugh. Damn, these people are ridiculous. Imagine arguing over which priceless diamond tiara YOUR woman (daughter/wife) gets to wear, when there are a lot of OTHER priceless diamond tiaras available?? Imagine this being a real “problem” in your life? 😂😂😂

      • Candikat says:

        This is exactly what I think happened. Eugenie had “chosen” the emerald tiara but either hadn’t communicated that yet or hadn’t formally “claimed” it for her wedding. So it was accidentally offered to Meghan, who chose it too. Eugenie probably said something like “oh actually that’s the one I already chose” and Meghan was disappointed (who wouldn’t be?) but didn’t pitch a fit. Harry may have been indignant on her behalf, and said something like “Meghan should have what she wants on her wedding day” which of course got translated to “What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.” But they (the Queen, the courtiers, whomever arranges this sort of thing) likely felt kind of bad and hastily found a similar tiara for Meghan to wear, equally lovely IMO, and that was that. I’m actually skeptical that Andrew was even involved in this particular disagreement.

      • Marie says:

        Considering what we know of Meghan from her long time friends and co workers, she is not someone that would throw a fit. She is always described as nice, kind and respectful from those close to her. I HIGHLY doubt she would throw a fit in front of the Queen over a freaking tiara. The tiara she did wear was perfect for the wedding, it matched her style perfectly.

      • Bookworm says:

        Eugenie didn’t have to delay anything for Harry and Meghan. She was with that guy for 6 – 7 years so had plenty of time to corral him before Meghan was even introduced to Harry.

      • Maria says:

        Lisa – to be fair I don’t think Harry OR Meghan pitched a fit over the tiara. I think IF Andrew made a scene Harry was probably pretty annoyed that he was throwing his weight around to try to “shut” Meghan out of the choice for her own wedding day, rather than being upset over the tiara itself. I’m sure Meghan didn’t care either way and was fine with it. Given that Andrew doesn’t like Meghan and has probably leaked other stuff about her I wouldn’t be surprised if the tiara issue was from him, and he instigated it.

      • MariaS says:

        Totally agree with your theory onlyashes85

      • Nic919 says:

        The blood princess thing was because Anne didn’t want to curtsey to Camilla when Charles isn’t there so the change was done well before Kate entered the family.

        I think the theory behind the tiara situation makes sense.

    • L4frimaire says:

      Looking at both tiaras, I think that story was utter nonsense. Even the Eugenie one doesn’t look like it would go with Meghan’s wedding look and the design is very heavy, and the pointed top looks like those Tudor head dresses. The actual tiara she wore suits her delicate features more and the clean lines of her dress . Neither of those emerald tiaras would have worked. Whatever the real story is, the speculation seems way off when seeing the actual head pieces.

  26. Lala11_7 says:

    Meh.

  27. DS9 says:

    The gown works for the occasion, fits well, and her accessories are on point.

    And yet, I don’t like it.

  28. yinyang says:

    I saw this on dailymail. Ahahaha why does she always pose like that for these types of events, eyes wide looking like a deer caught in the headlights, does she think it makes her look princessy and enduring? hahaha its so obvious and wierd.

  29. Ib says:

    Her eyebrows are…rising up her face

  30. Ib says:

    Also the ring (and earrings) are part of set gifted to the queen by the saudis during a state visit in the 80s. The queen has worn the ring before, during 80s/90s Saudi state visits, and the earrings were most recently worn by Sophie at trumps state dinner

  31. Becklu says:

    She looks lovely- I know the sashes and ribbon are a big deal so she has to wear them but they ruin the look.

    This is a McQueen gown that is out now although the one you can get in store has lace cut outs on the side and I can’t see the queen allowing it to be worn.

    I love the look but all the jewels are a to much however, I would do it too if I could. And it seems to be the trend with the guests

    This dress is extremely on trend. I know people think it’s dated but it’s not, the 80s are a big trend right now (I know I work in high end fashion). Now personally I’m not a big fan of the trend over all, but I think this look is stunning and I wish she could have one the original because it’s amazing.

    Also wow on the necklace just wow that’s amazing

    • JC says:

      I agree with you about the sashes and ribbons. I know that they are a huge honor and are important but…

    • Sharylmj says:

      I was going to ask about the Sash – it’s some kind of honor? she looks like she’s gaining some credibility and has been given some honors from the Queen? is that correct?

      • Becks1 says:

        She’s gotten two honors. Maybe 3? One most recently this spring, I think it was the royal Victorian order (not sure the exact wording), which is generally thought to be her prize for the Rose situation.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Looked at the dress online and the dress looks much better with lace inserts. The lace inserts give the dress much more shape due to the fabric contrast making it look less like a high-end bespoke bathrobe.

  32. Mego says:

    Kate is looking very surprised in these photos. Thin and surprised.

  33. TheOriginalMia says:

    The dress was lovely, but the choice of necklace was wrong for that neckline.

  34. Slacker says:

    Maybe this her present for staying after the Rose Hanbury debacle?

  35. L4frimaire says:

    We must live in opposite land because I absolutely hated this look. The dark gown makes her complexion look sallow and the silhouette does not flatter her shape. It actually looks too long. All that heavy crusty jewelry along with the ribbons and medals make her look weighed down. I’m also not a fan of that tiara, which she always wears. I know it was Diana’s but it’s so big and heavy looking. She looks so matronly in that outfit. For some reason I thought she attended it solo. Didn’t realize Will was there. He really is an afterthought.

    • I agree. I think the gown is ok. I like the fabric and the simplicity of it, but the neckline and shoulders are pure Kate input and — I’ll bet — not designer’s first choice of how to style it. That said, she looks like a cartoon of a Disney princess to me. Not real and not herself, but some matronly image of how the Queen, Queen Mother, and/or Queen Mary would have dressed at her age. Not quite as fussy as them, but she is getting there. She looks about 50 here to me.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If Lee Alexander McQueen where still alive, Kate WOULD NOT be wearing his clothes. This is the type of dress and styling Lee Alexander McQueen hated.

      • Becklu says:

        Nope the neckline abs shoulders are 100% they way the dress was done- the change was that the lace cut outs were removed.

    • Becks1 says:

      I didn’t hate the look, like I said above, but I said on Twitter that only Kate could take black/navy velvet and lots of diamonds and make it….not work.

      Re: the tiara though, she doesn’t have much choice. .That’s the biggest one she’s been loaned. I don’t think we’ve seen her in the lotus since she was loaned this one. She can only wear what the queen offers.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        i think the McQueen would look great on Camilla if it were more navy blue rather than midnight blue. Cammie could rock that necklace easily.

      • Le4Frimaire says:

        @BayTampa Agree. I think this dress would definitely look better on Camilla, especially with a choker or less cascading necklace. It would suit an older woman better who fills it out more. At least she looks like she’s doing her job well at this reception and working the room.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate has wide shoulders and this style never does her favours, which is why it looks off. If we look at the one shoulder dress she wore at the BAFTAs it works much better because it doesn’t add to her already square shoulders. While she is thin, she constantly dresses incorrectly for her body shape. Either she doesn’t have a mirror or honest stylists, but if she ditched the shoulder pad 80s look she would look a hundred times better.

  36. HK9 says:

    The thing for me is the necklace and the neckline don’t work as well as they should. I’m from the school of get dressed and take one item off to get perspective. I wouldn’t have worn the necklace because it’s too much for me, but then again, I don’t know what I’d actually do if I had access to the Queen’s jewel collection.

  37. Deedee says:

    Between the tiara, the drop earrings and the necklace, it’s all too much for me and takes away from the dress. I think she needed to forgo the necklace.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Has anyone but me taken a good look at the emerald necklace QEII wore to this Diplomatic Reception?

      • notasugarhere says:

        It looks like the Greville Emerald necklace with previously-unseen enormous drop emeralds attached. Part of the amazing jewelry gift that belongs to her personally, not to The Crown.

  38. GM says:

    Clicked on the Daily Fail’s article about this event to see if they even mentioned the price of Kate’s dress… a big NOPE. I guess they only reserve that for the American biracial duchess. I’m rolling my eyes so hard. Ugh the double standards are so infuriating!

  39. SJR says:

    Thanks to the previous poster for the Grace Kelly pic link. What a gorgeous woman!
    DoC looks great and I still say the BRF has the best jewelry ever, its the only reason to become involved with that goofy family, IMO.

  40. 2cents says:

    Kate is wearing a black dress….???? When a certain Duchess wore black to her engagements the British press roared that it was an outrageous breach of royal protocol. What happened?🤔

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The dress is midnight navy blue not black.

      • Susan says:

        Yes, the same as Diana’s iconic midnight blue velvet gown (the one that just failed to sell at auction). It was intentional by Diana that she didn’t wear black while on engagements (part of expected tradition I understand) and midnight blue was the closest she could get. So I assume that Kate is doing the same thing by using midnight blue.

  41. Dee says:

    It’s all wearing her instead of the other way around. Meh.

  42. Basi says:

    I think Kate thinks she’s being engaged and paying attention when she has her eyes like that but to me she looks crazy.
    Someday we will learn what is really going on behind the scenes. I do not think things are OK.

  43. BabsORIG says:

    I like Kate but… I find her and her husband both meh, they both are very bland. I thought they would entirely dominate the headlines since the Sussexes are gone but I guess I was wrong. Gown is a so so fit IMO but again it’s Kate we are talking about here. She somehow manages to make everything she wears look bland even when she’s dripping in diamonds. The diamonds are to die for so I’ll give her that.

  44. RoyalBlue says:

    They certainly have her dripping in diamonds to demonstrate her superior status. Were these plundered from India or taken from South Africa per chance?

    • LucyLee says:

      I doubt if there is a purchase receipt

      • L4frimaire says:

        They catalog the provenance of all their jewels. Think the necklace was from India, from Hyderabad from what I googled. They know which parts of the empire their baubles were “ gifted” or plundered from.

  45. S says:

    I don’t like the shoulder on the dress. There’s something wrong with the look, but I can’t put my finger on it.

  46. Well-Wisher says:

    What is the price of the bespoke gown? Where are the specialists to estimate the cost of the jewelry? The outrage for the new diamond ring?
    Or
    Part of the one-sided competition?
    Levenson ll is a requirement at this point.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      All of Cathy’s jewelry, except her engagement ring, are loaners from the Royal Collection or QEII’s personal collection.

  47. Lili says:

    It’s strange ale these diamonds yet she doesn’t spark..

  48. MsIam says:

    Kate’s wearing ALL the diamonds for sure, lol. Nothing really exceptional about this gown but maybe it looks better in person? And like others have said, not really liking the shoulders on this dress, they look too squared off from the front.

  49. The Voice says:

    It’s like they said, “Wear all the diamonds! All at once!” Too much going on and the dress doesn’t show off the necklace enough.

  50. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    She looks “off” and has for a while now. I think it’s her too-thin frame and the manic look in her eyes. I suspect the manic look is how she was taught (by the royal courtiers) to appear engaged, so that’s not her fault. But the choice of gown and jewels are just too much on her, and it ages her terribly.

    I also HATE to see members of the royal family wearing their “orders” and “awards” (and that is not targeted at Kate specifically). We know these people do next to nothing, yet they give themselves awards whenever they feel like it. So when I see them wearing it, it’s like a slap in the face to real working people.

  51. Andrea says:

    Her facial expressions look manic. Is it from overdone fillers, botox?

  52. Thea says:

    Not to threadjack or anything, but I hope all the uk celebitches vote today!

  53. Flying fish says:

    The top of the dress is to structured and does not work especially with the necklace.

  54. dynastysurf says:

    I’m a sucker for this necklace, but I don’t think it works here, honestly. Too much going on with the necklace/earrings/ring combo. This needed either one of her smaller, all-diamond tiaras, or a pearl necklace and earrings to tie it all together. She’s worn the pearl and diamond choker previously worn by Diana and Queen Alexandra’s pearl and diamond necklace before, either of those would have looked nice here if she wanted something with provenance. Or the asymmetrical more modern pearl necklace she wore during the visit to Paris and the tour of Germany and Poland. Despite the fact that it’s all white-stone jewelry, the all-diamond look is too busy and clashes with the diamond and pearl combo on the tiara, imo. Pearls this major are hard to match unless you wear more pearls with them – and since the tiara is the statement piece, everything has to work with that. These jewelry choices really don’t.

    Unrelated note, would love to see some of the other lesser-worn pieces in the vault reworked as drops for the CLK. Just imagine it with sapphires or emeralds or possibly some of the turquoise jewelry QEII has that we rarely see – it has the potential to become an incredibly versatile piece. Even that weird ruby flower fringe necklace she wore that one time and never wore again – reworked, those stones could make stunning drops for the tiara if it’s going to remain a piece she wears long-term

    • notasugarhere says:

      1) Kate lacks the creativity to change anything about the tiara and 2) she would never alter Diana’s signature (and hated by Diana) tiara. It would spoil her Diana cosplay and Diana-associated PR.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Sofia of Sweden is really getting a lot of versatility with her art deco palmette tiara by changing the gemstones in the top settings – she’s worn it with the original emeralds, with pearls and now turquoises as well as without extra stones. I hated that tiara when I first saw it but since she has had it put on a new (and better fitting) armature and changing up the top gemstones, I’ve come to appreciate this tiara a lot.

      • dynastysurf says:

        Sofia’s tiara at the Nobels was actually what made me think of this lol. I know Kate would never do it for a variety of reasons, but maybe if Charlotte wears it one day, we can hope. She seems to have the attitude to pull it off. I hated Sofia’s tiara at the wedding but it’s become such a versatile piece, and so perfect for a woman in her position – big enough to wear to formal events now, but small enough it can be passed down to daughters/daughters-in-law in time and it wouldn’t feel huge as a starter tiara for them, but also not so tiny it looks silly like Madeleine and Victoria’s first tiaras.

  55. Lory says:

    I love the velvet but her entire look is too severe. It could be the fabric on her very thin frame drowns her, and either the hair up, makeup, Botox or all of the above make her look at least 10 years older.

  56. Flying fish says:

    And, those awards on her person! What for? She has done nothing to deserve any awards…

  57. yinyang says:

    Just wanted to say good for Meghan avoiding this circus. Stay out of the limelight, Meghan. Let W&K take the rise and fall, they’ll have only have themselves to blame.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Neither Harry not Meghan are high enough in ranking to even be invited. This was for senior royals only.

  58. Jules says:

    She looks great… elegant and regal. She looks like the future queen. Good for her!

  59. Beech says:

    She didn’t need the necklace. A necklace of that size is suitable for a maton/grande dame. It’s her youth and beauty that she brings to the occasion.

  60. Missskirrtin says:

    Being young and slender she could work any beautiful gown. She always looks matronly and dark.

  61. sammiches says:

    It’s a Disney villain dress.

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      yes, yes it is…and such a sweet smile…seems so fake to me…like Missskirrtin says, she looks dark….oh the villainous ooze must find its way out,…

  62. JanetDR says:

    It’s not perfect but it’s a darn good approximation! It is the most regal thing I have seen Kate wear.

  63. Sarah I the first sarah says:

    I feel that Kate is being glammed up, and also regaled up, hence the jewels and ribbons. I feel the look is meant to remind people that she is in line to be queen after Charles and his Rottweiler.

  64. Mignionette says:

    She looks like she is cos-playing Camilla, a woman nearly twice her age and not in a good way. The red dress she wore a few years ago was a much nicer and refined yet youthful look.

    It’s like she is trying to be as invisible as possible. There is nothing ‘Regal’ about this look as her stans like to lament. She just looks staid and almost like she got lost in the ‘dress up’ pile…

  65. Miriam says:

    @Maria although not confirmed by major blogs yet last engagement tally was at kat:117, Will:163,Harry:158 ,Meghan:73(doesn’t includ private meeting BTS work for vogue, smartworks..)

    We’ll get a clearer picture closer to end of year/next year but it seems that ALL are lagging behind (baring in mind Meghan’s been on maternity leave).

  66. Picopink says:

    I think she looks like a queen.

  67. shells_bells says:

    I think the necklace is way too much with this neckline. Other than that, she looks great.

  68. Jolene says:

    It’s the Queen Mary’s Lover’s Knot tiara based on the Cambridge tiara. The CLK tiara does not belong to the British Royal family.

  69. Maria says:

    Neckline doesn’t give enough room for the necklace.