Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Shoes for George: Kate Shops at Zara

Monday, March 23, 2015

A number of reports over the weekend suggest that Kate has been giving her credit card a bit of a workout. Stories are all well and good, but we do love a bit of photographic evidence around FBTB, if nothing else, for our viewing pleasure. We were gratified yesterday when these snaps of the Duchess were shared on Twitter by @LiveLoveLaughvr. They show Kate shopping at Zara on Saturday!


It isn't clear if Kate was buying, or had bought, anything for herself, but it does appear that the Princess is holding little leather bluchers. The two toned shoes for tots are super precious, although they look like they are for children smaller than George. I wonder if Zara stock, which can differ, had a similar style for toddlers?  Since I suspect that Kate is pulling together a certain little prince's Easter Sunday wardrobe, maybe she feels the soft soles will be fine for the light wear they will receive in two weeks. 

Zara "Leather Blucher" $39.00
Earlier in the weekend it was reported that Kate was out shopping for Easter eggs for her boys, and a third report has her at Trotters where she picked up a more casual pair of sneakers from Start Rite:






Kate was wearing her Zara "Straight cut" coat in a very light, dusty pink...almost ecru. 



Kate favors this flattering piece for off-duty moments, and you might remember that she was first spotted wearing it shopping at John Lewis in January of this year:


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Did you follow the first part of Richard III's reburial yesterday? It was quite the event. A hearse carried the medieval king in a funeral procession that wound its way to Bosworth Field and Bow Bridge before arriving at Leicester Cathedral, where Richard will remain until the funeral service on Thursday.  Crowds were out in droves to watch the cortege, many carrying white roses in tribute to the House of York. 

Visit Leicester Facebook

The entire story about the discovery of Richard's body and the identification process is fascinating. I went to an event last year where the team described the process and it was amazing. If you are interested in Richard III and have not read it, I strongly encourage you to buy Paul Murray Kendall's biography: Richard the Third



It is carefully researched and meticulously detailed. (I think at one point, how many barrels of wine the then Duke of York purchased is remarked on.) Although daunting in length, it really fleshes out the period and presents a rich background into which you can then place Richard, which, I believe, enables the reader/amateur historian to better judge the man and his actions.

Durham Advertiser

Today, Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales will celebrate a solemn requiem Mass for Richard III in the Holy Cross Church, and he will be wearing a priceless vestment:
According to tradition, it was originally worn by the Benedictine monks of Westminster Abbey during the reign of King Richard.
So much fun history this year! 2015 is the lucky number!
Have a lovely Monday!

93 comments:

  1. Do you suppose we'll see George on Easter Sunday (either going to church or they'll release a new set of pics)? It's been ages...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will be interesting to see what happens! George spent his first Easter in NZ and we saw them having family fun, but an English Easter precedent hasn't been set (if there will ever be a precedent/tradition). Do you remember what Will & Kate did for their pre-children Easters?

      Delete
    2. Anon, before the wedding in 2011, William spent it with the Middleton's in Bucklebury. W&K spent it with Charles and Camilla in Scotland in 2012; together in Anglesey in 2013; and in Sydney in 2014.

      So perhaps it's the Middleton's turn.....and a quiet Easter may be exactly what the doctor ordered. :)

      Delete
    3. I don't know, but frankly, I doubt it. I think whatever the Cambridges do will be private. Given how old George is now and how much fun he will have hunting Easter Eggs and the like, it is hard for me to imagine that they will not celebrate with the Middletons. No tradition or "personal precedent" is in place, obviously. They might celebrate with Charles, but my money is on the Middletons.

      Delete
    4. More fodder for the mags/tabloids, then, regarding how much time Carole is spending with George, and how 'poor' Grandpa Charles is prevented from seeing him!

      Delete
  2. Wonder if the new shoes are for the new prince or princess??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They look masculine to me, but I GUESS they could be unisex.

      Delete
    2. what about for one or their godchildren? (or is there just one..? I actually forgot)

      Delete
  3. HM stays at Windsor for a week or so over Easter, so I suppose it is possible the Cambridges may be there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is also a possibility. The Queen would enjoy George's excitement, too. :)

      Delete
  4. @Eva B Good point; Kate, after all, has to plan months ahead for her own wardrobe, so if she liked these unisex shoes, and if the price was right, why not pick them up for the new baby? At some point, before the baby is walking, they would fit.

    About Start Rite. Love the brand, which my kids wore when very young. Altho I cannot speak for the quality now--its been awhile--at the time they were extremely well-made, sturdy, with great support and generally speaking, actually outlasted their growth.

    Re Richard III, and whether he murdered his young nephews in order to secure the crown for himself, who knows? I do think that Shakespeare had a vested interest in producing plays which would have met with the approval of the first Queen Elizabeth (funding, not to mention that he might have wanted his head to stay firmly attached to his neck), the curvature of the spine, as shown in pics of Richards skeletal remains, was so great (hey, I am not a medical doctor) that I suspect that he WAS a hunchback, as Shakespeare said. At the very least, he would have had uneven shoulders--which brings me up to current times; to wit, HMTQ has, according to one of her dressmakers (help me out with the name, someone; he is the male counterpart to Angela Kelly/Kelley--I confess that I do not follow the Queen closely--).one shoulder which is higher than the other, necessitating a shoulder pad in coats, dresses, etc. Further, Princess Eugenie has had, according to reports, undergone surgery to correct curvature of the spine. All of which leads me to suspect that, at some point, the York and Tudor blood intermingled, and lets face it, interbreeding is the name-of-the-game in the BRF.

    William is the first future king of the UK, in centuries, to introduce legitimate fresh DNA, untainted by interbreeding. And call me a crazy romantic, but, when you mix blue-blooded royal/aristo blood with sound, red commoner blood, you get purple blood--and everyone knows, metaphorically, that purple is the true colour of Royalty.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Richard certainly had a visible deformity, unfortunately. I knew that Eugenie had that procedure, but I did not about the Queen! That is very interesting! I definitely think that Kate has been healthy for the royals, for may reasons. ;)

      Delete
    2. I'm guessing that those little shoes are for the future Cambridge. George is walking and playing and needs more support than those little soft soles would give. And now I'm thinking there is another boy on the way! We're heading into that torturous waiting period!

      Re: Richard III, I have always believed that Shakespeare vilified him to please the Tudors because he served at their will. A great book to read, with a tremendous amount of historical and scientific research in it, is Richard the Third by Paul Murray Kendall. As to the curvature of the spine, the York and Tudor blood did intermingle because the Tudors came from the Lancaster line (the red roses), Richard III from the York line (the white roses), but they all descended from the Plantagenets - AND - Elizabeth of York was married off to Henry VII in an effort to silence the Yorkists because their union produced the first House of Tudor. I don't think Richard III was a saint because the times, being what they were, didn't produce many stalwart rulers. I do believe, however, that Richard had a legitimate claim to the throne and his traitorous cousin, the Duke of Buckingham, put about the rumor that Richard had killed his nephews in the tower so he could usurp the throne. And now, you know my favorite part of British history because I'm sure you were pining for it! ;-)

      Delete
    3. The royals do not interbreed.

      Only the Appalachlans do that.

      Delete
    4. Hi Robin! That is my mom's position, as well. We have argued it often. :) I obviously think it has merit, but if I had to go with one or the other, I think Richard did not protect his nephews, and is responsible for their murders.
      I agree that history has been completely unfair to Richard, but I think that anyone today who still thinks theories are facts is just uneducated. :)
      This is certainly a special week--nice to see him being laid to rest properly.

      Delete
    5. Richard Placed his nephews in the Tower supposedly for their protection. The younger one also Richard had been with his mother under the protection of the Church and she was assured by her brother in law that he would be kept safe.
      He also summarily executed Lord Hastings, who would assuredly have wanted to know where the children were. He was not even given the time for a Priest---serious in those days.

      Delete
    6. Your mom and I would get along well, Jane! It was certainly a violent period of history. I used to think we were so much more civilized but sometimes I wonder about that. We just have better hygiene and technology. That and we've been freed from fashion that weighs fourteen tons!

      Delete
  5. I just love Richard III who looks like Aneurin Barnard in "The White Queen" :)))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was a fascinating guy! I never got past season 1 of the White Queen, but it seemed they were portraying him relatively well in that first season.

      Delete
  6. Those are definitely pre-walker shoes and not for a toddler. Maybe something for the new baby?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Faith from BostonMarch 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM

      That's what Im thinking too annmartina. They look to small for PG. Now, the big question is..... are they boy shoes or girl shoes? Hmmmmmm.

      Delete
  7. I hope we see George for Easter! Maybe a peak of him going to church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me, too, of course! But, I rather doubt we will see him. :( Fingers crossed, though!

      Delete
  8. I think that the little shoes are either for the new baby or to be used as a gift for someone else's child. Goodness, when are we next going to see Prince George? Possibly when the new baby is born? Or perhaps not even then? I like the snatched photo of Kate you have published here, although fuzzy it's better than nothing!!! And, UK sites don't publish such photos, either!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point; she could be buying them as a gift! I guess they could be unisex. They are very traditional and in neutral colors.

      Delete
  9. Re. Medieval History, I recommend 'Wolf Hall' shown recently on UK television (6 episodes), it's available on 'Youtube'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have heard a lot of good things!

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, I missed the first 2 episodes on UK catchup, there are no longer available. (Apparently, Henry VIII first spies Anne Boleyn whilst she was eating 'Maid of Honour' tarts, fresh from the oven, and there was a recent newspaper report that a bakery in London is making them to that original recipe (a closely guarded former Palace secret, Henry VIII got hold of the recipe) and the orders have been pouring in!) So, last night, I tried to watch them on 'Youtube' but they sadly are not available for general viewing. In my determination, I registered my bank card to watch them, (free trial membership for 5 days) then panicked and cancelled my membership!

      Delete
  10. It's great to see the 'face behind the blog' and I must say, Jane, that you look like a model!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! That is very sweet of you to say! :)

      Delete
  11. Faith from BostonMarch 23, 2015 at 4:33 PM

    Thanks Jane for the mention of the book. I just ordered it. It looks great and am excited to read it.

    The cardinal must have be downright giddy that he got to put that vestment on. Nothing like wearing a piece of history on your back. Wow! Im jealous!

    Love these candids of Kate. I know some people are critical about your posting them but I really enjoy seeing them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have been so excited to look at, let alone wear something so cool. :)
      I hope you enjoy the book. It is long, but when you finally get to the end, you really do have a very solid appreciation for the time period, and the man.
      Glad you like them! I love candids, too!

      Delete
    2. No kidding! Incredibly historic vestment. Long is good:-) I have a minor in medieval women's history, so I like to get down and dirty so to speak. I'll let you know what I think after I read it.

      Delete
  12. I too believe the shoes are too small for George. And maybe it's been a long day and my eyes are playing tricks on me, but I see a bit of pale green above the shoe on the left...a sock, perhaps? Green as in a neutral color....and we know Kate likes it. :)))

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pet peeve, I hate velcro shoes on kids. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all have our pet peeves but I think velcro shoes for kids is one of the greatest things ever. It lets really young children put their shoes on independently which is always nice :-)

      Delete
    2. Many don't learn to tie shoes until they are really too old because of so many Velcro shoes. It was always a skill my kids were taught sooner rather than later and I couldn't believe how many of their friends didn't know how to tie their shoes. Stay positive and encouraging and they pick it up quickly. But it does take time and many parents are too busy.

      Delete
  14. Jane can you give a quick run-down of why Richard III was such a controversial king? I might get the book but I'd like to get a general idea of who was this person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon Richard III was such a controversial king because he took the throne away from the rightful heir Edward V who was 12 at the time, and who was also his nephew. He is accused of killing him and his younger brother while they were imprisoned in the tower of London and thus his reputation has been of a child murderer ever since, however there is no evidence to suggest he ever did, in fact Richard was incredibly loyal to his brother Edward IV and the bodies of the boys have never been found. I believe that Richard took the throne because of his hatred of his nephews mother, who would have had control of the country had her son become king. Plus Richard had nothing to gain from the deaths of his nephews, where as Henry Tudor was two steps closer to the throne. I found it very interesting, and have read many books about it, the more I read the more I am convinced that Richard wasn't a bad man at all. I don't know how well I summed it up, perhaps Jane would do a better job of it.

      Rebecca

      Delete
    2. Yes, I think that Rebecca has covered the primary issues. Richard took the throne from his nephew, and "the princes in the Tower" just disappeared.

      First, who had the greater claim to the throne, Lancaster or York, is a little complicated and requires its own discussion, so let's put that aside for the moment and only consider after Edward IV, who should have been king? His sons, if everything was to follow traditional patterns. So, Richard did take the throne from his nephews. The boys were declared illegitimate after someone was able to successfully rule Elizabeth and Edward's marriage invalid.

      Was Richard part of that? Did he support a push to invalidate the marriage so he could claim the throne? I don't think we know. Did he feel that given the instability of the realm, a strong king was needed? I don't know what his involvement was, and even less his motivations.

      I do know he was always a good and respected man, a loyal man, an excellent administrator, with sound judgement. I believe, though, that Richard either killed his nephews, ordered their execution, OR, most likely, he knew it would happen and just let the inevitable play out. It is very hard to rule a kingdom with legitimate heirs standing so closely by, and those boys would soon be men and challenged his throne. They would have caused trouble for him for the rest of his life. It was Richard's duty to protect them, if he wanted them to stay alive, since many men would have wanted them dead. Since they did not survive, he is responsible, wether he himself did the deed, or whether he just turned away and let it happen.

      This does fly in the face of his character of earlier years. Nevertheless, I think we see from his reign he has changed. The Battle of Bosworth field did not have to be fought where it was. Richard could have waited for a time and place, better suited to his strategy and strengths. He did not. He rashly engaged at Bosworth, his men were slaughtered and he was killed. As a king, or any leader who commands the loyalty and trust of other men, he was honor bound to protect the lives of his men to the best of his ability. Richard cast aside that responsibility and betrayed every man who had sworn fealty to him. Frankly, I think it was shameful. And it was very much out of character from the man we knew before he became king.

      Ultimately, no one can say for sure, because we are essentially judging a soul, which none can do. But, I think circumstances do not look good for his innocence. Even if he did;t order the murders, he did not protect the boys. This is in very sharp contrast to another, and more powerful man, who did protect his royal nephew. John of Gaunt could have easily done away with Richard II and ruled the kingdom, as he probably was tempted to do. But, he remained loyal to his brother Edward, and to his brother's son.

      Anyway, amazing how the course of history can often rest on one man's strength of character.

      Delete
    3. I do not believe Richard had anything to do with the two princes - who were never found. I think the Duke of Buckingham had everything to do with their disappearance. He played both sides in the Wars of the Roses. As Constable of England he had complete access to the Tower. He also had more to gain from their death as he was truly invested in the cause of Henry Tudor. It just doesn't make sense that Richard would kill those boys. The elder, Edward, was suffering from a horrible bone disease that he would most likely never recover from. And why would Richard III risk killing the boys while they were still so well remembered? He would have ruled for many years in their stead as it was. As to the Battle of Bosworth, I think Richard was not thinking clearly at that point. He had lost his wife, two of his children, and his brother, and had been betrayed by his cousin all in a two year period of time. At his lowest point Henry Tudor made his play for the crown. History has been most unkind to Richard III as it's filled with rumors and deceits that have become accepted as facts. Sad. I'm so happy to see him having a proper burial and am grateful the Archbishop of Canterbury will join Roman Catholic archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, at the burial. Turns out the former is descended of the Yorks!

      Delete
  15. Maybe the shoes were for another baby. I can not imagine buying shoes for my unborn child even if I knew the sex. But those shoes would not work for George. Are we even sure this is a pic of Catherine...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely, it is Kate. But, you are right. The shoes can't be for George.

      Delete
    2. Interesting thought. But, Kate is a savvy shopper, and sometimes buys clothes & keeps them her closet for several years before we first see them publicly. So, p'raps she decided to buy the shoes for her next child before this particular design was possibly discontinued etc. Or, is this idea too far-fetched??!!

      Delete
  16. Great post Jane. Made my coffee moment this morning. Sorry to jump in with this very shallow question but... Is she wearing a scrunchie??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't really tell, but Kate wears scrunchies a lot in her off time. Maybe her hairdresser has recommended them to take care of her gorgeous locks. :)

      Delete
    2. P.S. Not a shallow question at all, just the frivolity we love to gather and chat about. :)

      Delete
    3. I do think it is a scrunchie, supporting my theory that many British things are stuck in the 80s (or earlier).

      Delete
    4. Are scrunchies completely out of vogue in the States? I love the light but friendly tone of the blog/comments, fantastic! I've never really worn a scrunhie, but purchased a couple YEARS ago!!! Are they popular (or were they at one time) as they don't break the hair like bands might do?

      Delete
    5. I'm not a hairdresser, but would like to tend Kate's locks if I was qualified as one.......

      Delete
    6. Saw in a newspaper today that £2.5 million was spent on the reburial of Richard III, there was some criticism of this......

      Delete
    7. "I'm not a hairdresser, but I would like to tend Kate's locks if I qualified as one...."

      LOL That made me laugh!

      Delete
    8. Oke, so a scrunchie it is. I am SHOCKED! Is this normal in britain? I know scrunchies are hot and happening again, IF matched with a fun and youthful outfit. In this combo (the classic and extremely safe mommy style with coat and suede boots) it just looks ridiculous in my eyes! Ohhhh, SATC anyone? ('She's not from New York, she must be from Alabama'). I am with Carry. Kate is falling hard here in my eyes so please tell me this is totally acceptable where you come from!

      Delete
    9. Scrunchies can be pretty innocuous if they blend in with the hair. They are also very gentle on long hair. Yes a sky high ponytail with a bright red scrunchie might be off but not sure that her scrunchie looks "awful". You do not have that many options to pull hair back. You could use a clip which tends to limit where the ponytail can be placed on the back of your head and also they break the hair if tight enough to be secure, you can use a rubber band and then wrap hair around it, fine but if you are running around it tends to come unwrapped and look unkempt, just use a plain black rubber band, or put a ribbon around, which tends to look pretty young. I have long hair and am always looking for good options.

      Delete
    10. Scrunchies may not be a fashion statement, but I don't find them offensive. :) She's 8 months pregnant, shopping, and dressed in nice coat and boots. I honestly don't have a problem with this casual look.

      Delete
    11. It is like the high shine pantyhose Kate wears, during the day no less! No one wears those anymore except for evening. High shine pantyhose are way, way out of fashion. But Europe is a wee bit behind us in such things....

      Delete
    12. I had a very temporary night job at one time which involved shelf -stocking products in a very busy drugstore (as I believe you call them in the USA?), so I became quite familiar with the hair accessories! There are 'Goody' bands (USA product) which are not supposed to snag the hair, as well as other brands, rather than having to resort to the wearing of the scrunchie (So, why does Kate use them, perhaps she likes their appearance?) By the way, Cressida Bonas, Prince Harry's former girlfriend, was much maligned for wearing scrunchies by the 'British Style Brigade'!!

      Delete
    13. Would none of you other posters like to 'have a go' at tending Kate's locks, in theory, at least?! Maybe I just have unfulfilled ambitions to be a hairdresser, though......or at least to try it till the novelty had worn off etc. & the reality of the difficult/tiring work at being one had hit home.

      Delete
    14. Well, Kate isn't the only one to wear those pantyhose. :) This is Queen Maxima from earlier this week... (scroll down)

      http://royalista.com/94530/maxima-played-the-drum-in-concert-with-children/

      Nude legs may be "in" these days, but in my humble opinion pantyhose are for the legs what foundation is for the face.

      Delete
    15. Liz,

      Your hairdresser comment was so cute, that's why it made me laugh! Kate has such great hair, it would inspire one to want to be a hairdresser!

      I do wish she would go back to a darker color though, that was my favorite.

      Delete
    16. I meant "bare" legs. :)))

      Delete
    17. Royal fan-

      High shine pantyhose were my complaint, not pantyhose in general. High shine pantyhose are out-of-date and aging. I agree that most look better with pantyhose, but not high shine. Although Kate could certainly get away with a good moisturizer on her legs and nothing else. Many in the media have discussed Kate and Pip's obsession with the high shine, no one can figure it out

      Delete
    18. Europe is always behind??

      Good Lord, America, stop thinking you're the centre of the world :D

      Missy

      Delete
    19. I agree at anon 9:12. Kate would do better using one of the great leg "make up" products out there now. Those nude pantyhose are archaic.

      Delete
    20. So I am harsh on the scrunchie, but (inconsistently maybe) I don't mind the pantyhose on (my) queen Maxima! Her legs look nice and shiny but not too shiny. But then, she is from Europe, so she must be a bit behind. Oh no, she is actually from Argentina, which is (South-)America. And she lived in New York before meeting Willem-Alexander, so where does this leave her in fashion terms Missy?

      Delete
    21. Fabulousdaan, Maxima looks great in my book.

      Delete
    22. Anon, you mention that you wish Kate would return to a darker hair colour: sorry, I must admit I don't agree with you here; I think the lighter shade is more flattering.

      Delete
    23. Re high shine pantyhose. I get what you mean but truly doubt anyone but the wearer knows. This seems to me a bit much. Come on...

      Delete
    24. Fabulousdaan,

      I was responding to the original commenter about the idea that Europe us behind. I was saying it is stupid :) from your light sarcasm I understand you thought I was making a statement, while I made my intention clear with question marks.

      Missy

      Delete
    25. Fabulousdaan, Missy was being shocked at the Europe us behind thing. Maybe your comment was directed to the same poster Missy was talking to.

      Camilla

      Delete
  17. Very sad for the loss of life by the crash of the plane in the French Alps, including 2 babies and schoolchildren who should have had their whole life ahead of them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just read though the comment feed on this post, and I have to ask: how many fan blogs/fashion blogs out there can host a healthy debate on medieval history right alongside speculation about baby shoes and scrunchies? My guess would be not many! THIS is why I love this blog so much!
    -TMM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here, here!

      Delete
    2. Totally true, i love the mix as well! For me as a non native, another objective is to learn english. For example i thought one writes 'hear hear' when you totally agree. Since Liz is actually from London, I will adopt her spelling from now on!

      Delete
    3. Oh dear, Liz from London will dislike me immensely but hear, hear is correct Fabulousdaan. In Liz's defense I must say that auto correct often makes a mess
      of what Im trying to say. In this thread , I
      published an entry where to was
      supposed to be too. Tres embarrassant!

      Delete
    4. I completely agree - no matter how you "hear/here" - this is such an entertaining space. Scrunchies v. non scrunchies; Shiny pantyhose v. no hose at all; and the speculation about the guilt or innocence of a king who lived and died in the 15th century. What a wonderful group! Although, I have to say that I believe we here in America are the ones who are behind in the fashion forward world. Unless it is casual wear, most of what we see was probably seen in Milan or Paris first. We just put that American touch on it. Maybe Kate will bring back the scrunchies. If she does, we should go back and read these posts again! ;-)

      Delete
    5. On no! How embarrassing! I wrote 'here' instead of 'hear'!!! My only defence is that I was exhausted! Apologies!

      Delete
    6. Oh no and i indeliberately emphasised it! Sorry liz! One does funny stuff when exhausted, don't we all. Like putting on scrunchies ;)

      Delete
    7. Yes! Glad you pointed it out, though!!! I really enjoy this blog, it's lovely to have one's comments posted (even where they are full of errors!) I used to try and post comments on another blog (I mentioned this before) but they were rarely 'published' by the blog writer. It was very disappointing, I once wrote quite a long analysis of something or other relating to Kate, but it did not see the light of day!

      Delete
  19. Love, love Pippie's pics today in the DM of her in glasses, not the outfit, but the glasses and hair, are on point. She looked great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too! The glasses looked so cute on her!

      Delete
  20. @Jane and Robin. Your interesting and opposing views are intriguing. I am no expert on Richard III, but, I would like to raise two points. 1. *Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.* (So saith someone much wiser than myself.) In other words, as Richards prospects improved, his integrity might well have taken a downward turn. 2. Whenever a death of someone of note occurs, particularly if it be that of powerless children or of a popular individual, sympathy is aroused, accusations, theories, and suggestions of conspiracies follow. Look no further than the deaths of JFK or Diana. This generally has the effect of obscuring the facts of the case. Whatever Richard may or may not have done is almost certainly unknowable and unsolvable this late in the day.

    What we do know is that Richard assumed the responsibility of protecting two boys, and we know that he failed to do so. But we don't know why he failed. Perhaps someone who worked at the Tower turned traitor; certainly, no one could expect Richard to personally guard the boys 24/7. Or perhaps,,,several other scenarios spring to mind.

    I did follow the procession last Sunday, and could not believe the turnout. Personally, had I been a citizen of Leicester, I would not have joined in, particularly if it meant taking young children along. There is just not enough evidence to prove Richards innocence. No wonder the Queen is sending an emissary, Sophie of Wessex, rather than go herself to Richards funeral. Its called hedging your bets.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  21. Those shoes definitely seem for another baby boy to me...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Commenters have written here that they don't like Kate's 'high-shine pantyhose'. I didn't actually realise that her tights were shiny/glossy etc. (I thought they were matt finish, if that's how you can describe them, the photos of Kate that I've seen prior to reading this information didn't suggest to me that her tights had a sheen). I'll have to search online if the British press have commented about this.

    ReplyDelete
  23. People have written about certain items being 'out of fashion' but there is no such concept, really. Designers are continually using styles from yesteryear (or merging/adapting previous designs etc.) to create new collections, these designs then influence the cheaper, mass-produced products that fill the high-street stores, creating 'trends' or 'fashions' but various people can make a style very popular or they themselves 'transcend fashion'. (like Helena Bonham Carter) In Britain, many people don't follow the fashions that are 'on-trend', there is a lot of individuality in the way that many people dress, and Britain is quite proud of its creative industries.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am so sorry but I think it's maybe time to make that general statement of mine about some of Kate's style after reading all the comments about pantyhoses and scrunchies:
    I, too, do often think of Kate as a little bit out-of-style sometimes. I am not in my teenage years either, but I definitely try to avoid some serious 80ies and 90ies looks that just seem pretty dead to me. For instance I am not a huge fan of the dress/skirt and boots combination she tends to do a lot. Actually I find it so very 90ies, it is like watching FRIENDS episodes all over again. The same goes for shiny pantyhose in general, as already mentioned. I also don't think of the boot cut legs as very modern, but she seem to have give that a rest anyway. Especially when she wore that a couple of years ago, together with a belt and a blouse, she looked like Cowgirl, just awful to my taste. And what's with the bold printed dresses in her last engagements? Besides some kind of light flowery print, no one (!) wears full-prints anymore. I do like it better, when she has polka-dots or little geometrical designs on her dresses.
    For a younger, more modern style, when she's off-duty, that would be still acceptable in her position, I would recommend more oversized tops that also work well as cute dresses with some elegant and special-looking tights.
    And pleaaase cut the boots. Ugh. Hate those boots.
    All in all I should maybe mention, that I love her dresses and coats in general very much, because they are muh more often timeless and elegant.
    Anyone with me, though? I'd love to hear your opinions.
    Much love
    Alice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate was wearing boots almost constantly before she became engaged. Someone wrote at the time that she could have well ended up wearing them underneath her wedding dress! She is wearing them a bit less than she did before her engagement; I suppose because she doesn't feel they are smart enough to wear ALL the time. Re. floral prints, from my experience of Italian taste, that's not something they like, the same for the French. It is seen as a British thing. We also decorate pottery/wallpaper/curtains with floral designs! Also, sofas etc!!!! (Even carpets!) I remember seeing British floral china available in France. I guess USA style tastes are not dissimilar to those of the French/Italian/Spanish: clean silhouettes re. clothing. However, obviously, not everyone in the UK is a fan of floral items, I suppose the merchandise available caters for all tastes, here! I have visited Italy several times during the winter months, and all the women I saw were wearing more or less the same design of coat, and in the same shade (black) and they all wore leather boots. It's not like that at all in Britain. Also, in Italy, they consider that trainers (sneakers) should only be worn whilst playing sports.....

      Delete
    2. I've been amazed to see Kate wearing rather worn suede shoes & boots to engagements, (doesn't look very 'professional') but the British press hasn't been critical, I suppose they don't want to be barred from special press opportunities, & private meetings that are held with members of the royal family (for instance, they met with W & K privately either just before or after the engagement photocall) etc. It's all rather parasitic.....

      Delete
  25. Jane, I had a question about Kate today and I knew you were the expert who could answer- and then I came to the comments of this post to find a lively debate on the very topic I'd been wondering about! The Daily Mail article on Kate's engagement today mentioned her "bare legs." Does Kate always wear pantyhose at engagements?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there! I don't think her legs were bare. She does have some high-shine stockings that pop out a little more, so whens he wears stockings that are sheer, it can appear she is bare-legged, but she isn't. I don't think I have seen her at an official public engagement without stockings, unless she is wearing an opened toed shoe.

      Delete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!