Since I’ve been doing wedding-anniversary throwback posts for the royals, I thought I would do my first-ever throwback to the Earl and Countess of Wessex’s 1999 wedding. Edward and Sophie will celebrate their 21st wedding anniversary on June 19th. They married on Juneteenth! Eh, they’re British so it doesn’t have the same connection. Anyway, I can’t really say that I’ve ever paid much attention to the Wessexes’ wedding before now. I’ve never even looked closely at Sophie’s gown. Maybe that’s because… there wasn’t much to discuss, honestly?
The most striking thing about these 1999 wedding photos is how Sophie styled herself to look so much like Princess Diana. The same choppy, short haircut, the same shade of blonde that Diana was doing in the years before her 1997 death. I remember vaguely that Sophie was sort of built up (a little bit) as a Diana replacement, because Sophie is blonde and around the same age and all of that. But I didn’t realize that Sophie was actively looking for the comparison with the way she styled herself. Plus, they just had similar faces back then, right?
Sophie’s wedding gown was designed by Samantha Shaw. It was silk organza and it basically looks like a fuller-skirted slip dress with a slightly too-big silk organza “coat”. I wonder what this would have looked like if it had actually fit. But this was 1999 – bodycon wasn’t really a thing, and people were still wearing oversized or ill-fitting clothing. This was also before everything had to be a princess/mermaid wedding gown. So… small mercies.
The Queen not only allowed Sophie to borrow some jewelry from the Queen’s private collection, the Queen basically made Sophie a whole new tiara. The Queen has some extra diamonds lying around and she sent them to Asprey and Garrard. The official story is that the Queen had “four open scrollwork motifs” which were redesigned into the tiara for Sophie’s wedding day. It’s pretty, honestly. Not so pretty? That necklace. It’s too… something.
Sophie and Edward were married in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, and they got a carriage ride to the castle and all that. People actually came out to wave at the carriage, but… yeah, the whole thing looked *very* subdued. There was no ceremonial state or military aspect to the wedding either, which makes sense. Also: Edward refused to kiss Sophie outside the chapel, even after the crowd begged him to kiss her. LOL.
Photos courtesy of WENN and Avalon Red.
I wouldn’t hate that dress if it was properly fitted. Don’t dig the Diana copycat look. Does Edward really care about Sophie? I don’t actually know much about either of them (lived in Argentina when all this went down and nobody in my circles cared), but I get the vibe that Edward didn’t really want to marry and this was a kinda “oh phew, we finally married off the youngest” wedding. They have zero chemistry. Like Prince Albert and Charlene. I guess it’s good that Sophie isn’t crying…
She married him for his title. I don’t think she would have looked twice at him otherwise.
I get very cold vibes from Sophie.
@Molly – I think they “get on” and have a good partnership.
Edward “needed” a wife and Sophie wanted an excellent match. They both got what they wanted.
They may not be massively hot & heavy “in-love” but they are nowhere near the level of Prince Albert and Charlene’s “arrangement” IMHO.
@Bay – that’s my impression too. They probably aren’t madly in love, and never were, but they have an understanding and they get along and they have two children (who appear to be pretty well adjusted, but who the hell knows). It feels like they both went into the marriage with their expectations clear.
Edward is like Tom in Four Weddings and a Funeral. ” I always just hoped that, that I’d meet some nice friendly girl, like the look of her, hope the look of me didn’t make her physically sick, then pop the question and, um, settle down and be happy.”
But no thunderbolt city for Edward.
Seems like the only way to survive in one of these marriages is to marry for the title and know your place.
My gaydar always pings when i see him.
Same, but I’m not sure if it’s just an elite Brit thing.
Nope…same here. I think they have an “arrangement”, and I would NOT be shocked to find the kids were conceived via IVF. There is not ONE IOTA of love/passion between these two…EVER.
I always thought he was gay because Kids in the Hall used to do excellent sketches which.. ummm… suggested that.
The gossip at the time was that Edward was generally thought to be gay… and then he became the only one among his siblings without scandals or divorce, which was a classy riposte.
Sophie’s dress is very understated, and I remember she was sold as “the RF does not want her to be the new Diana” – so, Diana lite, basically.
Edward had a wonderful vest and tie at his wedding, he wins all the style points for me.
Makes sense, especially if she knew he was hitting the DL before they were married. She gets the title, doesn’t have to feel competitive with a mistress, and he’s not likely to be publicly seen with one of his male side pieces. Honestly, that’s the makings of a successful business marriage.
@Bettyrose, hahah! You are so correct in what you have said. I wonder if she may have side pieces.
Even in early internet days there were rumours that he was gay. And sadly that would not have been accepted. In any case they seem to have a working partnership and while not touchy freely, they also aren’t shooting off dirty looks at each other. I think there is a relationship of respect between them at this point.
In the infamous 2001 Sophie Tapes, she and her company sold access to royalty and Harkin (Sophie’s gay business partner in her PR firm) was asked by an undercover reporter if Edward was gay said: “I’m a firm believer that there’s no smoke without fire.”
I think Edwards gay or bi and the Queen never approved of homosexuality and the courtiers too etc. That’s probably how they keep them in check, the Firm conceals and controls, like after the Rose bush affair. Sophie, from the tapes, looks to have been in on the arrangement from the beginning.
Yes, that was the gossip of the day. She married him for his title, he has his own private life. Win /win. She doesn’t care.
Albert also is many years older than Charlene. He probably did not want his nephew to succeed him so he married to get legitimate heirs. Sophie and Edward are closer in age. Maybe they both wanted children. I do find Sophie on the pushy side now. ANd Edward was polite to the Sussexes and she was not.
I think the shorter hair cut is very flattering on Sophie, her current length not so much.
I remember this, I liked her dress but looking back on it now it’s all very Prince of Thieves looking to me. Shame about his face.
All I can see is her pendant not centered and it irritates me.
Meh couple, meh dress.
She got screwed on the tiara, too. I get new one, just hers, but really? With all the antique ones that are gorgeous?
The fact that she got a new one made for her speaks volumes about her relationship with The Queen – she’s the only royal married in who got one given to her, not loaned.
Fergie’s tiara was commissioned for her by The Queen as well.
So she actually got to keep it?
@noki – yup. Sophie wears that tiara a lot. It got reworked a year or two ago. I have never liked it, but like DigitalU said – it says a lot that it was given to her. Although I might have preferred to have borrowed one from the vaults lol.
I don’t like her necklace though, I don’t feel like it “goes” with the tiara. And I thought her dress was just okay.
@DU, no, Fergie was given a tiara. The reason (given) that Diana was not gifted a tiara was that as the wife of an heir she would ultimately have access to all the tiaras, which makes sense (same rationale would apply to Kate).
Indeed, all senior non-heir married-ins were ALWAYS kitted out with at least one tiara EXCEPT Meghan. I wonder why?
@sofia – Ah i did not know the York tiara was commissioned for Fergie but we all know that Andrew prolly asked Mummy for it.
@Mary oooh good points. Fergie and Sophie got tiaras, Diana didn’t but had access to the Spencer tiara and other royal tiaras and obviously one day would have access to all of them, and Kate also would have access to all the tiaras.
Seems to me she could have gifted one to Meghan. Hmmm.
That’s exactly right. Meghan should have been gifted a tiara as she was essentially in Fergie’s place when she got married. I’m pretty sure Harry was aware of that snub as well.
maybe Liz gave Sophie and Fergie tiaras because they were her daughter in laws. Meghan is her granddaughter in law, would of be nice if Chuck had one custom made for her.
Kate did not get a tiara. Nor did Autumn Phillips, who wore a tiara owned by Princess Anne. Looks like all the women who married the Queen’s grandsons didn’t get one.
@mumbles, Kate would one day have access to ALL of the tiaras and Autumn did not marry a senior Royal. Hence, it makes sense that neither was gifted with a tiara. How many non-heir ducal houses were created with not one tiara owned by the couple? One, the Sussexes’.
Also, in years past, a reigning grandmother or grandfather would often gift tiaras in addition to or in lieu of the prospective parents-in-law.
Sorry, no matter how you look at it, it was a significant snub
FWIW, I think the Sussexes have the only newly created non-heir ducal house as well for which a home was not outright gifted or a very long-term lease not gifted (if one was not already owned). These gifts were also not conditioned on the royals being working Royals. Homes were sometimes also bought for daughters, e g , Anne.
No home. No tiara.
The more you look at these examples i.e. no tiara for House Sussex, no gifted grand estate, having to reimburse for renovations on a rental that one in their circles would probably consider the groundkeepers cottage, let alone no support for the couple against all the media attacks and within House of Petty, the more you realize how much of a smackdown the Sussexes received. Wow, Petty Betty, tell us how you REALLY feel about the Sussexes!
@feeshalori, 💯
@ Mary : Shortly after the wedding, a story came out that one of the senior royals (rumoured to be Philip) called Meghan the “degree wife” which meant he/she didn’t think the marriage would last more than three years (the time it took to get a university degree). So if the BRF didn’t think the marriage (or Meghan being in the BRF) would last, then that might be why Meghan didn’t get a tiara as a wedding gift.
They should probably change their line of thinking ‘one day so and so will have access to all the..’ the way divorces run through that family its no gurantee might as well just let them choose from the vault if they wish and give an extra tiara to keep as a wedding gift.
@noki, that “line of thinking” is relatively new in that it started with stingy, Petty Betty. In previous generations all married-ins received tiaras as wedding gifts.
I just find it interesting that, in Meghan’s case, the Queen did not follow her own apparent “protocol.”
Pretty sad that the first senior non-heir married-in not gifted with a tiara, in maybe hundreds of years, is biracial.
In 1999, Sophie wasn’t getting an heirloom tiara. Diana didn’t “need” a BRF tiara for her wedding – she wore her own family tiara. Fergie had already divorced the asshole and had kept the jewels she’d been given, including the tiara she’d been given as a wedding gift from Liz & Phil. Suddenly, there were a lot of concerns about “well, what if these two divorce, too?”
Since that time, none of the royal brides have been given tiaras – they are all loaners. Even the women who were born into the family wore borrowed tiaras for their weddings – Zara wore one belonging to her mother and Eug wore one borrowed from Granny.
Anne has a fairly substantial jewel vault of her own and rarely borrows anything from her mother. Chaz has bought Camilla a ton of jewelry over the years and she has a massive haul of stuff that was given to her as wedding gifts and during their first official tour in the Middle East. Kate has a smaller haul of her own from the same sources. Most of what you see – the enormous bracelets, earrings and necklaces belong to the Queen and are on long term loan to Camilla & Kate.
@Liz, I am talking about non-heir, new, ducal house marriages. Before the Sussexes, the last one was Edward and Sophie. I.e., the marriages of sons of a king or queen or sons of a direct heir (Prince of Wales) that are not the next heir but rather brother thereof. Think, the Queen’s father at the time of his marriage, Prince Andrew….
These sons are usually created dukes (except Edward who wanted to wait for Phil’s title and in the interim be an Earl of a made-up county!). This is what I mean by the creation of a ducal house. Under my examples, you are wrong to compare Harry’s marriage to Eugenie’s, Zara and Peter’s. Apples and oranges.
If you are trying to say that the Queen got all stingy on the Sussexes because of Fergie’s divorce over twenty years ago, well that makes no sense either.
The Yorks were gifted outright, as a wedding gift, Sunninghill Park (over 600 acre park next to Windsor Great Park) where a large house was built. The Yorks divorce and Fergie continues to live at Sunninghill. After several years, the York’s home burned down, POST-DIVORCE. Andrew was gifted a long term lease of yet ANOTHER grand home where Fergie lives as well. Oh and yes, Andrew sells the first home in a shady deal for nearly $20 million.
So, what’s your point? Because the Queen can’t stop throwing money at divorced Andrew, whose ex Sarah ran off with a tiara (oh my!), the Sussexes should be treated like sh*t and unlike any other newly-married, newly-created Duke and Duchess? Bullsh*t. You are just an apologist for the Queen’s atrocious, and I think racist, behaviour.
What I’m saying is that the Queen has gotten stingy with everyone (except for Andrew, which is insane in its own right). Yes, she and the rest of the family should have treated Meghan & Harry much, much better and yes, they are at core, a batch of racists.
That said, the lack of a gifted tiara is not a surprise given her history. She doesn’t give tiaras away often and when she gave one to a daughter in law previously, she got burned. She hasn’t given one to Camilla or Kate. She didn’t give one to her sister when she got married either – Margaret bought her own. At her first wedding, Anne wore one that had belonged to Phil’s mother, she didn’t wear a tiara at her second wedding. What I am saying is that, in that context, this particular bit behavior isn’t unexpected. That doesn’t excuse the rest of her treatment and her absolute lack of defense against the overall mistreatment of Meghan and Harry.
@Liz, again, and to beat a dead horse, I am talking about a new ducal house created for a newly married, non-heir, son of a monarch or direct heir. Anne, Zara, the York princesses and Autumn are irrelevant to this conversation.
Yes, the Queen is stingy but her not giving the Sussexes a tiara and home, I think, clearly signals that the Sussex duchy is less-than.
Also, Margaret and Anne WERE both gifted tiaras. Margaret received, as gifts, some of the most beautiful tiaras in the vaults: turquoise parure (21st birthday); Lotus Flower (wedding gift); and, Teck Circle (a convertible necklace / tiara around the time of her wedding). Princess Anne was gifted two tiaras for her wedding: the aquamarine pinecone (from her grandmother); and, the diamond meander tiara from the Queen. Anne had also been gifted a tiara at an engagement. Further, both were/are able to borrow other tiaras.
Finally, it was anticipated that the Sussexes would attend white-tie official events, like State Dinners (Harry had already attended at least one) … Autumn, Zara, Eugenie, Beatrice not.
Not gifting the Sussexes a tiara and home was definitely a first-time exception signaling that it is a lesser duchy.
I also think it may have been a control issue. I think the Queen controls family members by promising much but giving it out in trickles so that if you don’t behave you don’t get the goodies. Here, the Sussexes had housing because of the “good graces” of the Queen. As soon as the Sussexes (in her view) misbehaved, she yanked the free housing. Total b*tch.
Charles bought jewelry from the Alice Keppel (Camilla’s great grandmother) estate to gift to Camilla. I think they will be passed down to her children and grandchildren since they were purchased outright for her.
All my jewelry comes from craft shows and Etsy, so I’m not setting myself up as an expert but I don’t think pearls and diamonds go together. If Edward gave her the necklace maybe then she had too?
And… I read the next posts and see that was the case! Miss Janet, jewelry detective 😄
The dress from a distance looks a bit ok , but awful up close, and what the hell are tho see e poor kids wearing especially the boys ?
I believe the necklace was designed by Edward as a wedding gift.
I remember the same thing! I thought the black and white pearl arrangement was particularly hideous, but I recall that it was announced that Edward had “personally” designed them for his new bride. I don’t think I could have worn them with a straight face, even if the groom had designed them, they are so ugly and clumsy looking. I guess his days as a “tea boy” in the theatre left him thinking he had an eye for such things…he didn’t. It has always been thought that this was a lavendar marriage, and was supposed to put paid to the rumours that Edward was gay, a thought that Sophie vociferously and publicly denied soon after the wedding. It seems to have been a marriage that was mutually beneficial, and was cemented by the arrival of two turkey baster children. I did feel sorry for Sophie though when she had such a difficult pregnancy and delivery with Lady Louise. Props to them that they have eventually grown into the arrangement and mostly live a low profile life, while also performing such royal duties as are required, and that they are generously compensated for by the taxpayer.
The pearl necklace would look great with a white boyfriend shirt, black jeans and high heels. I like the necklace (and would wear the necklace) but it looks to casual for the formal wedding dress and tiara.
Mixed colors of pearls were in fashion at the time, as were crosses that looked more fashion statement than religious, and this necklace has both. Unfortunately for Sophie, neither of those looks have aged well. My guess is that the vaguely medieval look of her coat inspired the look of the necklace. Speaking of the coat, I remember reading that Sophie lost 10 or 15 pounds before the wedding, due to nerves, and that accounted for the coat looking like it was too big. Close up, the coat is quite beautiful with quiet detail. I have to admire that they have the only intact marriage, and attribute it to their low-key life (relatively speaking). And when their nephews, the princes weren’t speaking at the recent church service, it was Edward and Sophie who spoke on friendly terms to both brothers and their wives.
@janice, Sophie did NOT talk to the Sussexes at the CW service. Only Edward talked to them. Sophie blanked the Sussexes.
Ugh that necklace is hideous! But I guess she had to wear it because Eddie designed it.
The necklace reminds me so much of the one I had to wear as a junior bridesmaid in my aunt’s 1998 wedding (except mine wasn’t real pearls or gems). So I think this design was of the times.
That tiara is not good.
With all the amazing jewels the BRF has stored in their vaults, ole Queenie sure is stingy about sharing isn’t’ she?
Sophie’s tiaras genuinely suck. I don’t like a single one (think she has two).
I hope Charles will open the vault and let his sister-in-law borrow a decent tiara
Sophie’s tiara all look hideous. Her wedding tiara, yes, cobbled together. And that aquamarine tiara reminds me of a cyclops. To be the Queen’s “favorite” and not get ONE decent tiara. Screw that.
I agree completely. I’ve never liked the wedding tiara. The two center elements are literally piled on top of each other, and they don’t look integrated at all. I’ve seen Sophie wear two different aquamarine tiaras, and I assume Seraphina is referring to the one with big, upright, rectangular-cut aquamarines. I never fail to dislike it. Seraphina’s comment made me laugh.
The Queen has a thing about tiaras. They don’t share the tiaras in the BRF. Sophie was on the low end of the totem pole because she wasn’t going to be a working Royal. So, they had to save all the good tiaras for future more important Royals essentially. It’s a silly rule. Sophie received another tiara that looks similarly cobbled together, but her third tiara is quite pretty. She deserved something decent since she was constantly being sent to all the Royal events in Europe. Her first two tiaras looked even sadder when she was surrounded by all the continental royals.
@Ainsley – do you know if Sophie owns all three tiaras? She has the aquamarine and then what else? (I’m googling as I type this, lol.) But are they all “hers?” I know the wedding and aquamarine are.
I agree that her tiaras look sad when she is with the continental royals.
@Becks- her one good tiara is called the Wessex Aquamarine tiara. There’s nothing on who gave it to her. It’s more than likely the a Queen had it made. I was wrong about the order she received them in. She received that one second. Her third is The 5 aquamarine tiara and on loan from the Queen. She also apparently once wore a loaner from outside the family. Probably what prompted the purchase of the second tiara since borrowing jewelry from jewelers is frowned upon.
Good article on it all -https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g32305373/sophie-wessex-tiara-moments-photos/
This is so spiteful that she got this cobbled together franken tiara. And I just looked up the other two and those are horrid too.
I assume that vault has HUNDREDS of tiaras no?
That we know of, and know haven’t been gifted, dismantled, or sold, about 21 or so. And there are about 6 to 8 more that we haven’t seen in decades and don’t know the fate of.
I would recommend looking at either The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor’s Jewel Central section or The Court Jeweler’s Tiarapedia for more information. Not just if you want to know more about this topic, just as a general life choice. Though I must note that the creator of ROoSS has shuttered her blog, so it’s really only good for reference.
She used to be called “Diana’s chain store sister”.
🤭
Good to see the bridesmaids are wearing tights and their hemlines are super long 😊
How she managed that without Kate there telling her what to do, I’ll never know.
LOL
She’s had the tiara reworked so it looks a lot better. Sarah Ferguson got a new tiara. It was pretty. Speculation that Beatrice would wear it on her wedding day if it hasn’t been hocked to pay off her debts.
I had always heard rumours that Sophies tiara was thrown together from cast offs because the queen didn’t want to get burned giving away one of her own tiaras if the marriage didn’t last.
No idea if it’s true, but it definitely doesn’t look as nice to me. I feel like Sophie always gets stuck repping the royal family at euro royal weddings, she should have something nicer.
The necklace is super fug and I dislike her dress immensely
Beyond fug. It looks jarringly cheap compared to the rest of her. I think the earrings are very pretty, but that necklace needs to be turned into an ankle bracelet for day at the beach. Just imagine all the people who had the chance to ‘compliment’ that necklace on her wedding day.
The tiara is cobbled together from broken brooches. Looks it too.
They are Queen Victoria’s “broken brooches,” so, there is that. As ugly as the tiara is, maybe Sophie was happy to get something of some historical significance.
That tiara is just so tragic. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Queen actually had an input in the design because QEII has an infamously black thumb when it comes to all the tiaras she’s had specifically designed for herself. They are all fug – The Brazilian Aquamarine Tiara, the Burmese Ruby Tiara, that sapphire tiara. That woman really has no “eye”.
You’re so right. They look dated and without any chance of becoming classic designs. So many royal jewelry sites lavish a ridiculous amount of praise on the Queen’s collection. I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who thinks this.
While the Royal collection of jewels is impressive in terms of its size, it isn’t in terms of aesthetics. Especially when it comes to the tiaras. The Vlad is just too big, which is not unusual for Belle Epoque tiaras as women had a lot of hair then and wore it in huge pillows on top of their heads.
I don’t get the praise lavished on the Girls of Great Britain Tiara – it is very basic and not really that interesting a design. Neither do I get the love for the Strathmore Rose Tiara. It is an awkward combination of a laurel leaf and a floral tiara. The tiara that Meghan wore isn’t very good either. The art deco architecture of the piece is quite lovely but the style clashes with the centerpiece brooch it was designed to hold, which is a very basic and not that flattering design. Aesthetically, it is another mess like the Strathmore.
The Cambridge Lover’s Knot is all right but personally I think it is a bit too tall and the bows are rather twee. Aesthetically, the Danish Perle Poire Tiara is superior IMO. The best tiaras are the art deco ones: the Halo Scroll, the Lotus and a sapphire on that hasn’t been seen since Princess Margaret. The Boucheron Honeycomb was great in its second incarnation but then the Queen Mother had to go an tinker with it, adding little spikes on the top and thus ruining the stark geometric outline. The emerald tiara that Eugenie wore is lovely as well. There is also a fringe tiara – and you can’t really go wrong with that shape. The Oriental Circle is lovely as well.
In terms of aesthetics the Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Greek and Spanish RFs have better tiaras.
Her hair isn’t like Diana’s. Diana’s was more feathered, even at its sleekest, and Diana’s highlights did not have this kind of dimension. It’s more likely a conservative take on mid-90s Meg Ryan.
That short cut was definitely inspired by Dianna, and millions of women had it in the 80s. I thought it looked as good on Sophie as it did on Dianna. With that said, I don’t deny that Sophie’s looks and hair did remind a lot of people of Dianna, myself included.
Did she really think if she cut her hair like her she would be the next Diana, no Diana had perfect full lips, nose that sets her apart, innocent eyes, she was a beauty, and a personality to boot!!! She was unforgettable. You can’t cosplay that.
I thought Diana was downright gorgeous after the divorce. No more palace intrigues with Chuck or the courtiers. She looked more at peace
I think Sophie’s really pretty in a classic way. I thought Diana was striking more than pretty – she definitely had star quality and the ability to wear clothes – but feature-wise I don’t think she was superior to Sophie. She did look
vastly better once she stopped wearing the blue eyeliner.
Slightly off topic, but since you mention Juneteenth and the brits, it just reminded me of how the London money market was the biggest backer of American southern slave labor. Even after they abolish slavery in the UK, the British elites were still making money off of slavery.
@ Thea : Former history degree person here – do you mean the abolition of slavery or of the slave trade? They happened at different times I believe. I’m not sure how money can be made off of slavery if it has been abolished. Not being rude – I just don’t understand your comment.
Edward looks like a perfect blend of Harry and Wills (although friendlier than him).
I hate that tiara. It looks exactly like four pieces of jewellery soldered together.
You’re right about slavery enriching the financial markets of London. And it enriched the aristocracy.
She was definitely doing a bit of a Diana clone look back then. Edward could have been handsome but the best thing one can say about the Windsor men is that they don’t gain too much weight in later years. Her jewelry is a bit of a mishmash. The necklace isn’t very pretty and the cross keeps shifting off center. The design of the tiara looks like she has two little ears sticking up, and looks like snowflakes, which is weird for a summer wedding. The dress looks a bit medieval in styling. It’s ok but nothing memorable and doesn’t fit very well, especially in neckline and shoulders.
I’ve known Sophie since before the wedding.. And this is the deal. Don’t be too unattractive, ivf a couple of kids, pretend there’s a marriage, enough work to pay for the 50 room 52 acre property and the title. She was pr. Not that hard. And marry a gay prince. But that’s not hard either. She’s done it for 20 years
One of the reasons she’s QE fav is she successfully married the gay son and had kids., and because of their precarious financial situation she’s made herself the Queen fav. Easy for a smart woman. Now she’s playing the same game with dumbo Kate. Easy