Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Kate's Wimbledon Tribute in Red Armani

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Last month Kate was a one of a number of guests featured on BBC's documentary Our Wimbledon. The Duchess of Cambridge's interview is very close to the end, likely by design, and is another fun insight into the "real" Kate. Although pretty short, inn many ways, this is probably her most relaxed and most personal interview to-date, because she truly is deeply passionate about tennis and always has been. To hear her discuss the sport and reminisce on her pre-princess experiences with the game is really a fun insight for fans. 

Among other things, Kate remarked that Wimbledon inspires young people, and inspired her to get involved in tennis. Although I don't play really well, I do play tennis and really enjoy it. I took it up initially when I was in high-school because Kate played...and everyone knows what a dedicated Kate fan I am. :) I remember how excited I was to see photos of Kate playing tennis while on Christmas holiday with her family. She sued the paparazzi photographer who took the shots, but gosh they were so fun to see, and pushed me even more to take lessons and to play the game. And I bought a grey repliKate sweater, natch. So, Kate was has been promoting tennis for years, even when she didn't realize she was doing it! 

Catherine of England FB

I sped through the program, watching the highlights, although if you have time, it looks well worth watching in its entirety. I was interested to learn that the Members' Lounge is transformed every year into the Royal Box where the royals host their guests and, of course, sit at Centre Court. The seats are added specifically for the tournament. I know my die-hard Wimbledon fans will be nodding "duh" but it was news to me!

Sue Barker, the host, interviewed Roger Federer who commented on the Cambridges. He said, "It adds even more prestige to the tournament, seeing Princess Catherine there, seeing Prince William. Who knows, in the future, maybe we will see somebody of those people giving the Wimbledon trophy as well. That would be beautiful I think."

Link below with Thanks to Cara W. for sharing it with me on Facebook!

Kate kicked her bit off by revealing an obviously badly kept secret--that Roger Federer is her mother Carole's heartthrob. She quickly followed that comment by remarking that Roger knows that, too.   The familiarly with which Kate made these reflections highlighted her Cinderella story. Because Carole is socially acquainted with the tennis great, of course, who attended Pippa's celebrity stuffed wedding in July. I just love this whole Middleton family story. 

Growing up, Kate said her family watched Wimbledon and it feels "a quintessential part of an English summer." I like that she then pointed out nothing has changed at Wimbledon, "everyone is still there in their whites. Wimbledon still looks as amazing as I remember it." It is good to hear her pay tribute to continuity and tradition, since her family is in the business of continuity and tradition. Some things should always stay the same--the British Monarchy's traditions and Wimbledon. 

Kate described the first time she went to the championships. She said she queued up on People's Sunday or Monday. She got in quite late, but happily "play went on quite late, and I managed to get to see some."

The princess still sounds disappointed to have missed Andy Murray's big win in 2013 when she was prohibited from attending by her doctors. She delivered George a mere fifteen days later. I remember wondering if she'd make a surprise appearance and was disappointed when she did not.

Kate recycled a red suit by prestigious Italian label Armani. She first wore this in April at the Global Academy, and because I never did a full post for that event (thank you, law school) I will take this opportunity to review that event and those photos now.

This event came in the run-up to the London Marathon when William, Harry, and Kate were making their final push to promote their mental health campaign. The Global Academy trains young people for careers in broadcast and media, and the trio toured the facilities where various shows were broadcasting, as well as visiting classrooms and meeting some of the students.


Kate's red Armani was by the label's diffusion line, although when Armani creates a "cheaper" collection it's only *so* reduced. When I first got a peak at this suit, I thought Kate had chosen a jacket with ruched jacket.

Global Academy

I don't love ruching, because although it is supposed to flatter, I have rarely found it accomplish that goal. On closer inspection, however, it was readily apparent that this jacket featured that most loved feature of Kate's clothes, exterior tailoring. I love these sharp, exposed pleats.

Heads Together

This suit has so much va va voom because it has quite a bit of stretch. It's not too tight--it hangs nicely at rest--but in motion, it cures at all the right places. Red is a sexy color, but the stretch in this suit is doing the yeoman's work to produce the wow factor.

I wonder if this suit will, like the blue Rebecca Taylor, become a workhorse of the media events. It is a good bold color for television and a professional look that doesn't age her. On verrra.  I will try to get that post up on the tour soon, and a little note about the Meghan post, too. It seems like there is always a delay. Today I was stuck at work an extra hour because there was an active shooter scare at a building close to my office. They secured the other building, but it wasn't clear if there was a shooter wandering the street. I decided to stay right where I was and keep working until the sirens died away. 2017, kids, what can I say. A world where "potential active shooter" is literally an excuse for being behind. Le sigh. Talk soon! JCB


  1. Jane, that is so scary! Glad to hear that you are safe. No need to explain the delay in posting...they are always worth the wait :)
    I've yet to see Kate's 'Our Wimbledon' interview...I must get around watching it at some stage.
    I loved the red Armani looks very professional & as you said, would be a good 'working' suit like the blue Rebecca Taylor.
    Kate looks so relaxed & casual in those shots of her playing tennis while on holiday. Would love to see her do a charity match sometime in the future, I think she has a natural ability in almost any sport she puts her mind to.

  2. Jane, that is not good, mad, mad world, stay safe. You are a bit like Kate - I don't know you really BUT I feel that I do. I look forward to your posts, insightful, so beautifully written and you make me laugh. I work for a law firm, I know how madly busy they are and it is a credit to you that you manage that and this!! Thanks you x

  3. Sonja from BavariaAugust 10, 2017 at 4:49 AM

    Do glad you are safe! It is a crazy world we live in nowadays... so it is eben more important to get stability from traditional institutions like the monarchy;)

  4. Glad you are safe. The world seems to have gone mad.
    The Christmas when these tennis pap photos were taken was when Catherine also had her phone tapped.

  5. Glad everything is OK Jane. We had "active shooter training" at my workplace yesterday so that kind of thing can happen anywhere these days unfortunately. 

    I like the idea of the suit more than its execution. I don't think it's too tight exactly but the horizontal skirt and sleeve wrinkling when in motion wasn't a very good look. The skirt might have benefited from a walking vent, a non-cling slip or a lining, a slightly shorter length to avoid a "hobbling" effect (1 inch or so, not a mini!) and/or some Static Guard as it appeared to cling to Kate's stocking-clad thighs when she walked. And the sleeves needed lining or better tailoring IMO. I agree with Jane-- Armani's diffusion line is far from cheap but the excessive clinging when in motion makes it look cheap especially for an outfit that cost over $1000. Hey designers, real women rarely behave as motionless ornamental mannequins when at work! 

  6. What a scary moment, Jane! Glad everything is okay, and thanks for this lovely post. Can't wait to watch the interview!

  7. Is the interview available to watch online? I'm in the US so not sure if it ever aired here

    1. Yes it's part of the whole Wimbledon show and the link is in this post. Kate's interview is toward the end. It's sweet but I wish she could not say "sort of" quite so often. I'm sure it's a nervous crutch but hopefully someone can train her out of it. The Wimbledon program itself and Sue Barker presenting are brilliant!

  8. How did you get to see this video, I've been searching since early July and I must not have the savvy to find it! Susan

  9. Jane, I didn't get to the bottom of your post when I commented earlier...I'm so glad you are okay and our new reality didn't affect you negatively. Susan

  10. Omg so glad you are safe. It's a crazy world and times that we live in. I think that's why I live having this blog. Its my get away, my happy place. Thanks again and so glad you are ok.

  11. Thank goodness you're safe, Jane.

  12. Oh wow, that video blew me away. So enjoyable and interesting, thanks for putting it up, Jane.
    I have also followed Wimbledon since I was a child, and I have watched the tennis stars battle it out year after year. I have been fortunate enough to visit this beautiful place many years ago, as my friend and her husband bought a house there. It was interesting to hear the tennis stars tell their story about how they made their immortal fame at Wimbledon and how they perceived the special magic of Wimbledon. The interview with Kate towards the end was the icing on the cake.
    I wish the royals a peaceful rest in August, and look forward to new engagement come the end of summer, early autumn.

  13. Wondering if the Cambridges are at Balmoral, as the Duke and the Prince of Wales are going to the Edinburgh Military Tattoo on the 16th.

  14. I enjoyed the general idea of the Armani suit, too; however, like lizzie (above), I had a few quibbles...mostly with the fit of the jacket...too small. Also the wrinkles/material. But, an interesting choice, nevertheless.

    I"ve just been watching the four-hour documentary on Diana, "The Story of Diana", on ABC, broadcast over two nights, the 9th and 10th of August. Quite positive; and it would seem that Charles, Earl Spencer, Diana's brother, has learned the art of diplomacy in the past 20 years. Long gone was the angst of his eulogy at Diana's funeral; this time round, he very carefully avoided any criticism of the BRF.

    A very wide-ranging program, it included interviews from Diana's friends, photographers, journalists, historians--you name it--it was an absolute soup of perspectives.

    Altho quite informative, if I was 25 years younger, I'm not sure it would've supplied me with make Diana's story truly compelling for young viewers.

    Did anyone else catch this documentary? What were your impressions?


    1. JC, you're exactly right. The documentary on Diana was a good *summary* of her life for those of us who were around during those years. But for someone learning about her for the first time, I'm not sure they would truly appreciate the depth of the individual "chapters" that made up her life.

      And I will take it a step further ... it is KEY to understand Diana's story in order to truly "get" the position that W/K/H are in, and to appreciate the reasons for various decisions, game plans, etc.

    2. I concur, JC and royalfan. Also, I had never seen footage that so graphically and completely revealed the absolute chaos that beset Diana upon stepping out of her house- especially after the divorce, when her car was completely surrounded, for example, many photographers deep The extremes gone to in order to capture the desired photo.. Yet, I believe the film also discussed that she was press savvy.
      No wonder she gravitated toward a family who could supposedly protect her when another had let her down. I believe it was mentioned somewhere that Jackie was similarly drawn to Onassis for his ability to protect her children That is an example of the way this film added context, instead of just reciting a litany of her weaknesses-
      such as" taking up" with a playboy. The same approach was given her efforts at self-harm. It was noted, I believe, that the episodes were a cry for help. If she had really wanted to end her life, she would have been gone long before the tunnel.
      In the end, no one could save her.
      It is like watching a Puccini opera-one knows how it ends but the story remains endlessly fascinating and tragic.
      I thought it the best Diana remembrance yet. The issues were dealt with, not avoided or magnified, either. They were put in context. I didn't really understand William's attitude toward some of the press before I saw this. William must have seen those scenes as well.
      It seems to me that George is not at ease in public as long as he is in the open . I've noticed he seems relaxed and even brave when behind the window of a palace or airplane. This indicates fear and his seeing the flashing lights and clicks as potential harm, not that he hates the press-otherwise, he would not smile and wave at them from behind the glass. He would likely not look out at all and if he did, scowl, not laugh. It has nothing to do with privacy or exclusiveness . I saw this start at the hospital visit following Charlotte's birth-he sought the protection of his Father's arms. He is an aware and sensitive little boy. Charlotte has apparently an entirely different make-up that was noticeable from the day she was born, in contrast to George's reactions. If George's behavior was a result of being taught to fear the press, Charlotte would likely react the same way. It is a matter of personality. I hope at some point people will realise this and stop blaming William. It is possible, too, that he has been able to accept the royal reporters, but not the paps. anon1.
      One thing that struck me---regarding Diana's saying the bulimia was prompted by Charles putting his hand on her waist and remarking she was chubby. The odd thing is--her wedding dress designer also referred to her "baby fat," I think was said in an interview somewhere. I'm not sure if Diana heard this remark. Diana began to lose weight and the dress had to be taken in. I can't help but think that this taunt was rooted further back. Actually, I think it was mentioned that she had been teased as a girl for being chubby. That sort of thing stays with one. I have a memory of clothes shopping with my Mother and trying on "Miss Chubbette" outfits. (Really) It was years later that I looked at photos and realised I was quite slender. She had to buy that size because I was tall and somehow the smaller size dresses were too short for me.

    3. I agree with you both. But I always thought it was futile to think a film--any film-- could make young people feel as if they truly "knew Diana" or even knew her as well as many older members of the public thought we did in the 1980s-1990s. I don't fault the efforts made in the different films and I understand why W&H wanted to make their own film. But it's a different time and it's just not possible in 2017 for young people to see Diana through the lens of the 1980s/90s--- any more than any of us can truly understand what elderly relatives experienced during earlier times such as WWII or during the Great Depression. While I wasn't alive during the Depression or WWII, when I was much younger I listened to relatives' stories about depression cakes made with lard, victory gardens, scrap drives, rationing, heartbreaking gold stars or blue stars one bullet away from turning to gold displayed in the windows of almost every house, VE & VJ Days, and even on the east coast of the US, civilian watch teams (typically composed of old men and boys too young for military service) on the lookout for German U-boats. But even as I loved listening to all their stories and I felt I gained some understanding of historical  **events**, I didn't truly feel I understood the people my older relatives **had been** at the time of those events when the world must have been pretty frightening. And these were people I had known all of my life!

      I wonder if it is ever possible to  make "history and its players come alive" especially when it is such a relatively recent "history?"  When it's "long ago" history we at least have the advantage of knowing more of the full story, if not the end of the story-- in this case we haven't seen Will and Harry grow old and their children grow up and that's part of Diana's story too. Of course, when it's long ago history we don't know that what we are watching or reading is really the way it was...anyone who would know the truth (or more likely know his/her personally-relevant truth) is long gone. 

      When bereaved families set up memorial funds, endowed scholarships, charitable trusts and so on in memory of a deceased loved one, in addition to wanting to do good deeds one hope may be that by setting up these memorials future generations outside the family will "know" the loved one. But as with the Diana films, that knowledge is destined to be pretty superficial. We may learn about and appreciate the person's activities, contributions & work, just as younger people may have done with Diana through film. But just as our grief over the loss of our loved one is at some level *only* our own, in many ways our joyful memories of the deceased are only our own too. I'm just not sure those memories can ever be effectively conveyed to others across time. Speaking of Diana publicly when undertaking activities similar to hers (like visiting a hospice she opened) may be more effective than a film in helping young people understand her contributions. But trying to make her "come alive" to a younger audience through filmed interviews and archived photography may be futile, I'm afraid. I think it's a "you had to be there" situation as we all have experienced and will experience in our personal lives.

    4. Anon 1--I hadn't seen your response when I posted and haven't had a chance to digest all you wrote yet. But I think you are right about Jackie--it surely didn't seem to be a love match and it seems she saw Onassis as a protection of sorts mainly because of his vast fortune and non-US residency. Remember she married him--her sister's beau-- only about 4 months after RFK was assassinated. Not only had Jackie  depended heavily on Robert for emotional support--sometimes to Ethel's great consternation--since 1963, but Jackie supposedly said after his death in 1968 "they are killing Kennedys and my children are targets. I have to get out of the country." So she wasn't necessarily fleeing unwanted attention from photographers or the general public although I am sure she valued privacy.

    5. Speaking of historical perspective versus on the scene experience: I can remember my shock at the time that Jackie not only remarried, but she chose a non-American.( This was a full five years after JFK's assassination .) I just realised that response could echo that of some Brits, and certainly the royal family, about Diana's relationship with Dodi. I was not alone. The media were not kind to Jackie and general conversation revealed my friends and family agreed with me. We had no clue at the time that security and safety for her children might be involved. Many thought she literally married him for his money, which was certainly a requirement for the level of security he could offer. I believe RFK was shot June 8 and Jackie married in August (or October) She had spent time on his yacht even while married to JFK-most notably after Patrick's death, I believe. JFK was well-aware of their friendship. It may have been a similar situation as Diana's "what's good for the goose" affairs, but I doubt it. Aristotle was not a new acquaintance. He had come to her aid before.
      Charles was Diana's sister's former boyfriend, but I did not know Onassis was connected to Jackie's sister. I am writing all this from memory of the time alone.
      I think Diana's sons just wanted to get their two cents in.I believe they said as much, in other words. I really doubt they hoped for any immediate response from the younger folks; sometimes one may attribute motives to one's actions other than the primary one. However, just as some are trying to change perspective about concentration camps during WWII and the Civil War in the US, so there is an effort to change the historical perspective of their Mother. It was important that the first-hand stories of camp survivors be recorded while they still lived. There are not many left. William and Harry may have thought a little on the-scene experience from first hand knowledge might help preserve their view for historical perspective. anon1.

    6. Ladies, I apologize for the late reply... :-)

      Anon1, as I watched "The Story of Diana", it was the chaos that captured my attention. Despite following her from the beginning and being aware of her situation, seeing it again really does make it obvious to me that William is determined to prevent this level of exposure...and expectations. And IMO your analysis of George and Charlotte's response to the press is on the money. Regardless of William's feelings towards the press, he would never raise his children to FEAR them; he is well aware that they are and always will be in the picture (pardon the pun!).

      Regarding the puppy fat remark, I believe Elizabeth Emanuel did make this statement publicly after Diana's death. It was a 20/20 hindsight remark IMO because she also said it is not uncommon for brides to lose weight prior to their big day. Little did we know what Diana was dealing with prior to her own!

      Lizzie, regarding the subject of history, as far as it pertains to the royals, me thinks they have learned and adapted in some ways, while also continuing to repeat some prior mistakes. This most recent attempt to undermine Diana's memory is an example of the not so good!

      Regarding Jackie, I was born after JFK was assassinated, but I do recall the fuss over Jackie and what i perceived to be an assumption that she was after Aristotle's money because, surely, she was not smitten with his looks. ;-)

      It is my belief that Diana accepted Mohamed Al-Fayed's initial vacation invitation because of the setting and security he had to offer. But the idea that she was drawn to Dodi as a long term companion, well, I cannot sign on to that; I believe she loved Hasnat Khan and the situation with Dodi just developed due to evolving circumstances. Nothing more, nothing less.

    7. I can't vouch for the truth of all of it but this article fairly recounts what I always thought re: Jackie and her sister Lee. As the article states, Jackie's vacation on Onassis' yacht after her baby's death may not have been romantic but rather political, a supposition that appeared in the American press, albeit not widely. Anyway it is a really interesting article if those two women are of interest to you.

      I thought I had read W&H wanted young people to "know Diana" and that was part of the rationale for their documentary. Perhaps that isn't true. I cannot find a quote right now to support that notion at any rate.

    8. lizzie, the better part of me hopes that you are correct when you wrote, "W&H wanted young people to 'Know Diana", and it does pass the reasonable test.

      But the reason I am posting is that I wanted to compliment you on your insightful and incisive comment on Aug. 15, 2017, 4:24 PM. I hope you're wrong, but fear you may be right.--My offhand solution is that Hollywood get a grip and produce a Diana movie along the lines of "Anne of a Thousand Days", a moving tale of Anne Boleyn'slife--and her despicable family, who "threw her under the bus." It would help, of course, if William and Harry added their two cents, either as a prelude or at the end of said movie. (The sorry truth is that, to this day, neither William nor Harry have ventured into 'dangerous'/ honest territory; neither one has yet expressed their view of the Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla--which saddens me.


    9. William did say that, lizzie. He also gave other reasons, or probably more accurately, explanations. He may have felt he was put on the defensive in some way. Perhaps one reason didn't seem to take so he offered others. There were likely a number of factors involved, but I would put my money on countering the spate of books, articles, and interviews that tended to tarnish Diana's legacy- which he did allude to.
      I can't believe that Jackie was up for making a political statement at that time. She was devastated.
      Royalfan-I'm also not convinced Dodi was considered life-partner material, but something alarmed the royal family about the relationship. There were stories of plans, house-shopping, rings, even a baby. However, I don't think the relationship was a move to make her Doctor friend jealous, as some rumors claim. He seems like the type of person who would be put off by her public behavior with Dodi, not enticed.anon1

    10. Now I have read the VF article, or most of it. I have it saved to my reading list--thank-you, lizzie. I enjoyed it.
      It seems clear that Jackie's sister did have a relationship with Onassis. The parallels to Diana and her sister are several. It seems reasonable that Lee asked him to invite Jackie for a rest cruise following Patrick's death. I do think that is primarily what the trip was for. The story of the Kennedy brothers not wanting Onassis associated with the family probably likely. The idea that Jackie was sent on the trip to persuade Lee to drop him, not so much. I imagine the subject came up, but given Jackie's being in mourning, I doubt that was the purpose of the vacation. In fact, I think Jack did not want his wife to make the trip. The source of the anecdote passes from a Kennedy to a friend of the family to "Bedall-Smith (where have I heard that name before?) to the author of this article.anon1

    11. JC, W&H are in a very difficult position. Would it honor Diana if they were to admonish their father and grandparents ? I would be fibbing if I said that I am not curious about their true feelings on certain subjects. On the other hand, I believe that their decisions, actions, and priorities reveal quite a bit about how they feel.

      Look at William's decision to marry Kate; the way he has embraced the Middletons; the way he balances his family life and royal responsibilities; the causes he and Harry support; the very approachable way in which they interact with the public; etc. I could go on, but my point is that they are her legacy and she would be very proud of them. And, IMO, this carries far more weight than if they were to criticize members of the RF and end up with starring roles in an ongoing royal soap opera.

      My two cents ☺

    12. Thanks JC. I agree with everyone that W&H are in a difficult position. At some level though I am not sure what good can come of throwing other family members publicly further under the bus at this point. I don't see how it can help even W&H or by extension Kate, PG, & PC (as the kids will be starting to read fairly soon and the internet makes things forever.) I CAN see good coming out of an acknowledgement that the immediate cause of Diana's death was drunk driving and secondarily no seat belt although I know that doesn't address what led her to be in that situation in Paris in the first place. But W&H do have a pulpit to influence young people's behavior whether those young people feel they "knew Diana" or not. HT includes some substance abuse groups I believe so it WOULD fit. But I'm not sure either W or H see drunk driving as a cause much less the immediate cause.

      Anon 1... I agree that we don't know the whole story about that trip with Onassis. I doubt Jackie's main purpose was political and agree she likely was devastated at the time. But I can easily believe that JFK might have eventually encouraged the trip, thinking if Jackie was around Onassis for a period of time, someone JFK and RFK found crude, she might *later* discourage Lee from maintaining that relationship. 2. If Lee was simultaneously in the company of Jackie and Onassis, she might *herself* come to the realization that he was unsuitable and crude....kind of like when parents invite their children's unsuitable friends to dinner. And 3. Given her recent experience (C-section and Patrick's death) Onassis wasn't likely to be a romantic threat so far as Jackie was concerned. For sure with most politicians and with the Kennedys in particular, more was going on than met the eye! 

      Sally Bedell Smith has written biographies about members of the BRF in addition to writing about American politicians like JFK and both Clintons. Maybe you are thinking about her recent book on Prince Charles anon 1?

    13. Thanks, lizzie- but it was my attempt at an ironic, rhetorical question. I know exactly who SBS is. Other than the books and articles, she has appeared on various programs about Diana this year.

      There are way too many variables involving the crash to assign primary blame to any of them-everything from substances in Henri Paul's blood sample that indicated tampering to reports of faulty brakes, laser lights blinding the driver, as well as the mysterious white car, which left scrapes of paint on the Mercedes. That is in addition to the paps weaving in and out and around the vehicle. The French police did charge some of the photographers. I may be wrong, but I believe the drunk driver accusation did not make an appearance until the RF/MI5-6 started being implicated. The police seemed to focus the blame on the photographers. A lot of the theories were popularized after an inquest presented details of the crash, years later.
      Whatever caused the car to crash, it seems to be a fact that Diana was not wearing a seat-belt. I believe her injuries could actually have been caused by a seatbelt as well as by hitting her chest against the front seat. She was still alive as the paps snapped away, taking photos of her. I think that was actually the main charge that stuck-failure to assist. One detail I don't recall reading is whether the car was actually equipped with seatbelts in the back seat. Also, I thought I had read in that initial medic/passer-by's reports that he was hindered in his ability to assist her by an obstruction of some sort.
      Does anyone else recall reading initially-at the time- that her PPO was seated next to her with Dodi in front? I thought it a strange arrangement at first.Rhys-Jones was the only survivor and should have been seated by Diana per security protocol. I can't get the picture of Dodi in the front with the driver out of my mind. The front was totally smashed in. I don't know how the PPO could have survived in that position. anon1

      I don't think Onassis's crudeness was the issue so much as his probable desire as a foreigner to be allied to a powerful American political family. Maybe he just liked strong, stylish women--Maria Callas, for example. :)
      Most of British aristocracy had thought the Kennedys crude and brash when they lived in London while JPK was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. In early days in Boston the Irish were distained by the circle they aspired to, no matter their wealth. It is possible they were trying to dissociate themselves from that heritage by avoiding him, I suppose. Also, the Kennedy family made their fortune in boot-legging whiskey, I believe. It would have been somewhat hypocritical.

    14. Lizzie, I agree and also suspect that W&H do not see drunk driving as the primary cause of Diana's death. Perhaps they have/are focused on other factors that influenced the driver's actions that well as other factors in Diana's life that lead her being in Paris in the first place.

    15. No, Anon1, I honestly do not recall reading or seeing any news reports of Dodi being seated in the front beside Henri Paul.

      And I certainly agree with you that there were too many variables...

    16. I didn't catch the irony anon1...sometimes that sort of intention is missed in written communication  :)

      I agree the Kennedy "airs" were and are hypocritical especially given where old Joe got his money. But I think they existed and were on full display when JFK was president. And still are today despite the demonstrated "poor character" of many of the members in the younger generations of the family...rampant substance abuse including DUIs and fatal ODs, sexual escapades including those involving underage girls, questionable financial associations/use of various charitable foundations' money, careless behavior (e.g., JFK Jr, who I liked very much, was careless piloting a plane at sunset in iffy weather without being instrument rated), murder (e.g., Michael S's conviction for the Moxley murder plus Teddy's special treatment after Mary Jo K's death), and so on. Even Caroline who I DO generally admire seemed to think she ought to be "gifted" with Hillary's senate seat in 2008 even though she seemed woefully uninformed. And public records showed she had rarely voted since registering in NY in 1988. You don't have to convince me!

      So far as the crash that killed Diana goes, I wasn't suggesting other factors did not play a role. Of course they did. But I didn't know the driver's intoxication (or his outrageous speeding) was EVER in doubt. I always thought Dodi was in the backseat with Diana and photos taken at the hotel seem to bear that out. So far as I know Rees-Jones was in the front (and he was wearing a seatbelt for sure.) If a front seat passenger survived that sort of crash, that does suggest a rear seat passenger would have likely survived with a seatbelt. I also would have thought a newish Mercedes 20 yrs ago would have had seatbelts in the back. It also seems pretty unlikely to me that a shoulder belt would have caused more damage than being unbelted in that sort of crash (lapbelts alone can cause problems but so far as I know,  those are spinal and not what happened to Diana. Shoulder belts can bruise for sure but not like being loose at impact with concrete.)

      But it all happened 20 yrs ago and my memory may be faulty. Regardless, my point really was that W&H making or authorizing documentaries about Diana so younger people "know her" and everyone else remembers her the way they do may be futile.  Throwing other members of the BRF under the bus publicly might give short-term relief but in the long-run won't help anyone including themselves IMO and certainly won't help Diana. Hating intrusive photographers is very understandable. W&H's strong feelings are known from the various KP press releases and their comments. But feeling that way doesn't help make the world a better place nor does it likely give them peace. Convincing younger people that drinking and driving and/or skipping wearing seatbelts isn't a good idea likely would ensure fewer children lose a parent much too soon as W&H did. And that might provide some healing. 

    17. I doubt young people knowing her was the most pertinent of his reasons given. I'm not even clear why this is considered an arguable point.
      What members of the BRF did W&H throw under the bus via the film? I thought they showed great restraint, given the circumstances.

      I think if his father "hated" photographers, George wouldn't be smiling and waving at them, although from safety behind a window. Don't forget-his parents were also on that plane. Would William sit back and allow George to do this if he "hated" photographers?After all, his Mum is a photographer-amateur or not, she basically does the same things any photographer does to capture a photo.

      After a brief Google research effort I gained the following tidbits:
      A seatbelt law was passed in France in 1990. However, the laws were not uniformly or vigorously enforced in Europe at that time.
      It was more usual or customary then for front seat belts to be utilized than back seat ones. Especially as regards taxis and limousines--whose riders often neglected to employ them.
      The acceleration force and impact of a person in a back seat not wearing a belt into the back of the front seat causes massive facial and chest damage at the 70-100 mph speed of the Mercedes. Tests with dummies were done by an engineering department at a university in the USA, I believe.
      Multiple witnesses, including a man arriving in a taxi immediately after the wreck (who has not spoken out before) as well as at least one emergency responder and photos will attest...Diana had no facial injury and "looked as though she had fallen asleep."
      There was conjecture that she had indeed been restrained, but the seat belts were faulty or had been tampered with- perhaps enough to allow the pulmonary artery injury she had but not cause facial injuries. The acceleration alone, without impact, can cause such damage. . I had mentioned above that the bystander medic who first assisted her (France has a "Good Samaritan Law") had mentioned some barrier to getting to her .
      Take another good look at the pictures of the car. The entire front was pushed back with the engine where the front seat would be. The front part of the roof of the car had been peeled back mechanically to remove bodies. A witness states that (the taxi guy) as he and the cabby approached the car walking, he saw the PPO sitting in a car doorway, wiping his face with a cloth. The taxi was following behind the car when it crashed. The car had turned 180 degrees so that the left front and left rear areas were visible on approach from that end of the tunnel. That could place TRJ in the back rear seat. If Trevor Rees-Jones was sitting in that front seat he would have needed more than a seatbelt to save him. He would have needed Divine intervention. anon1

    18. Hey Anon 1. I'll consider all the details you mention about the accident when I get off work later. 

      A few points though for now. I didn't say Will hates "photographers."  I said he's made it clear he hates "intrusive photographers." The adjective makes a big difference, at least to me. Your counterpoints seem to ignore the adjective I used.

      Also, my "under the bus" comment referred to a comment made earlier in the thread by JC. She had said she wished that had been done. I wasn't saying (nor was she) that the film had done that. Her opinion, to which she is entitled, seems to be that public bus throwing by W&H is needed and would be useful. Mine is that while it might provide short-term satisfaction, it would not be useful for anyone in the long run including W&H. What they choose to say to family in private is a different matter and should stay private IMO.

      So far as seatbelt laws in France go, that's interesting but Diana was riding in a German car and was a British citizen. I know as an American when I get into a car reaching for the seatbelt has been automatic for many decades and still would be even if I were in a country that didn't have or enforce seatbelt laws (assuming I was even aware of that point of law.) I don't think each time I get into a car "Should I wear a seatbelt today?"  I don't know for sure but I would assume that cars made in Germany for **European** sale would generally be made the same way except for steering wheel changes needed for the UK, not specially made for France, Italy, Spain depending on whether the country had or enforced seatbelt laws. I know Volvos for years came with safety equipment not required in the country of sale. That may not be true for Mercedes. But if the car had not had rear belts I think we would have heard that. (And if it didn't have them they couldn't have been faulty so we can't have it both ways.) Some photos I remember from prior to the crash seem to show Diana was sitting sideways (with Dodi beside her) and both were turned and looking back at some of the following photographers. I don't think she could have sat that way with a seatbelt on. That position also could explain the tearing force to her heart and vessels on impact while largely sparing her face. It has been awhile though since I thought about those details and I will consider your points.

      Finally, several folks have said W&H probably don't think not wearing a seatbelt had anything to do with Diana's death. I'm not convinced that's true but I have to agree they probably don't think seatbelts would have mattered. Neither Kate nor Will seemed to be wearing a belt in the photos taken on the way to church on Sunday. I know the car wasn't speeding nor, I assume, was Andrew driving drunk on Sun AM especially since he never drinks alcohol. (He was wearing a seatbelt though.) But I am still surprised in 2017 that belting up isn't automatic. I know HMTQ regularly skips it but she's in her 90s and for much of her life seatbelts didn't exist. I also know belts aren't *required* to be used on private property but I don't think the church is on private property. Regardless I still am surprised that W&K skip them.

    19. Correction: Looking at a larger photo I see Will may be wearing a seatbelt but Kate really does not seem to be.

    20. If we assume for the purpose of proving that Diana was not wearing a seatbelt that sitting sideways photo was taken just before the crash then that photo also clearly shows evidence of a bright light penetrating the front window- which by itself could have been a cause of HP's losing control of the car. Not to mention--ok, I just did--that photo was taken from directly in front of the car. Either the photographer was sitting on the bonnet with the car speeding or the car had not yet moved away from the hotel or had just started and was barely moving. Some sources say that the photographers had not been fooled by the dummy car that sped away from the front and were able to snap photos of the car in back before they got away.
      Also, regarding seatbelts, apparently Diana's sister Sarah said Diana used seatbelts "religiously." The car, according to a witness, had not been in custody of or guarded by security just prior to their getting in and could easily have been tampered with. (this from a former Fayad security person who also stated security around Diana broke all the rules.)There apparently was heavy security at the hotel due to the presence of the Saudi royal family. TRJ may have been all that was available.They obviously were in a hurry to leave and Diana may have not had time to fasten her seatbelt immediately, before that photo was snapped.
      I have since read that the "new" witness coming forward is American, a lawyer, and had gone to police with his info. He was not chosen to testify at the inquest, but reports he did give a statement. He said Diana was alive, conscious, and talking when removed from the car some 20 minutes after the accident, I believe. He was greatly disturbed that it took so long to get Diana to the hospital. The type of injury she had requires emergency surgery. No matter how advanced and prepared French paramedics/doctors were, they would not have be able to perform surgery in an ambulance that would likely require cardio-pulmonary bypass equipment. Diana's only salvation depended upon getting her to a hospital, only minutes away. It is insulting to me that anyone would use such inadequate excuses for the delay in her treatment that have been given and generally accepted. I can't imagine what impact on her sons the full realisation of the medical circumstances. This was actually the reason given by the lawyer-witness for not pursuing his information...that he had sons and felt the information would hurt Diana's boys. I think that is a nice after thought.
      OK Anonymous---just giving an opinion, no rumor mongering, unless you choose to start one...I have speculated that that "emergency meeting" awhile back could very well have discussed this "new" witness and the need for appropriate PR to counter his statements. I never have accepted the Phillip is retiring five months from now excuse for calling a meeting so abruptly and making sure all media was on edge anticipating an announcement.

      Thanks for your input, lizzie and others. I really enjoy these discussions. I only hope we aren't boring the other commenters and thank-you Jane for allowing it. anon1

      PS if W&C wore seatbelts on a family outing on the grounds of Balmoral where the church is located while the Queen refuses...I'm just trying to imagine what would be made of that....and lizzie...a bit of deflection there?.

      Addendum: inquest records indicate the Mercedes was going 65 mph, not 70-100.

    21. PPS- define "intrusive" as it relates to a photographer, lizzie. I think that probably is a matter of the perspective of the person involved. anon1
      Still not clear on the "under the bus" issue.

    22. Hey Anon1, my bus comment was in response to the end of JC's 8/18 comment. She seemed to suggest W&H share publicly whatever they really think of HMTQ, PP, Charles, Camilla. I get her point but disagree more public airing of W&H's feelings will help anyone now. I can see why they've spoken up given the anniversary, but I think more will keep things stirred up for no benefit. For example, in June Harry seemed to say he was forced to walk behind Diana's coffin leading to cries of child abuse by the public & Charles Spencer chiming in. Now it sounds like in the BBC film W&H say they weren't forced & are glad they did that last thing for their mother. Those inconsistencies suggest they are still working through their grief and I think that's best done privately.

      I've looked back at pictures of the car as you asked. I don't see what you said you see. I see the engine compartment badly crumpled. I think cars are made to do that w/ high speed impacts. When the metal folds up, it helps absorb the force and is better for passengers. Since HP was driving (seated on the left) and reportedly wasn't wearing a belt, along with everything else, the steering column probably did him in. I agree TRJ (on the right in front by all accounts) was lucky. But that sometimes happens in crashes for people belted in (although maybe it's always a bit of the "divine intervention" you mentioned. I'm not arguing theology :)

      My point about the pre-crash photos was threefold. 1. The shots clearly show she and *Dodi,* not she and TRJ, were in the backseat w/Diana on the right, Dodi on the left. I'd say it's impossible between the hotel and the crash for TRJ (right front) & Dodi (left rear) to change places. And we know TRJ survived. So despite how the car looked, a front seat, seatbelted passenger survived suggesting rear seat passengers *might* have survived with seatbelts. 2. The photos suggest Dodi was on the left. The right side where Diana was appears accessible to rescuers although the car doors may have been inoperable. And 3. IF (I admit it's if) Diana was sitting sideways when the car crashed as she was in photos, I don't think it's possible she was wearing a seatbelt (even if she normally wore one as her sister said.) And that COULD explain why her face was spared but her internal organs/ vessels were not. If she died of cardiac arrest because of bleeding from a torn pulmonary vessel as reported, if the tear wasn't huge, there could have been brief consciousness after the crash. Of course, sources report Harry said in the BBC film Diana had a severe fatal head injury...

      So far as being slow to get to the hospital...I've read that in France "ambulances" aren't always intended for fast transport. They carry doctors on board to begin treatment. In the US at least where I live, "paramedics" are great and are in radio contact with hospital docs. But the extent of treatment on board is usually stuff like IVs, warming blankets, meds for anaphylaxis, asthma, or arrhythmias, oxygen, boards/straps/collars for possible spinal injuries and then it's off to the hospital bouncing down the road at high rates of speed with sirens blaring. But IF Diana DID have a torn major vessel in her chest, being bounced around had the ambulance raced to the nearest hospital likely would have led to an even faster fatal cardiac event due to increased bleeding. We'll never know for sure but it sounds like she had an injury that was survivable only if it happened right outside a hospital and a good cardiovascular surgeon was in the house. I know many have other opinions but I don't see a conspiracy or any culpability for the ambulance team. It was just an awful accident.

      Last, I hope members of the BRF feel they can wear seatbelts even if the queen often hasn't for yrs.They don't imitate her behavior in many other ways so why that?

  15. I quite like the exterior tailoring and think the zipper is a nice nod to Kate's sportier side, but I'm not wild about the color and I think the fabric looks like it needs to be better lined or something. For what I know is an expensive piece it can look a bit cheap (as in low quality) in a few shots.

  16. It's a crazy world we live in nowadays. I'm glad you're safe, Jane.

    As for the Armani suit... in every photo that I've seen, it looks more orange to me than red. If it truly is red, then it is an orange-red, which can be rather harsh. It's a hard color for anyone to wear--even Kate. Also, something about the material looks very cheap. I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of this suit. I hope it doesn't become one of Kate's workhorse outfits.

  17. There was a great documentary from BBC (available on Netflix) called Diana: 7 Days That Shook the World. It was a great insight into the events surrounding and immediately following her death.

  18. It's probably just because of the way it photographs but the fabric on this suit looks like horrible polyester from the 80s. Not a fan of exterior tailoring either so this suit is a no-go for me.


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)

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

Happy chatting!