Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Kate Returns to the Spotlight at Buckingham Palace Mental Health Reception

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Kate is back and I don't know which of us looks more excited about it right now! The Princess made her come-back this evening wearing a Temperley dress in the blue and black colors of her mental health initiative Heads Together.


The What & The Why

Tonight, to mark World Mental Health Day, the Duchess of Cambridge made her return to the spotlight since news broke in September that she is expecting her third child. The princess joined William and Harry at Buckingham Palace for a reception of appreciation for those who work to improve the mental health discussion. 

The Where

There was some confusion about the location, because William and Harry attended an earlier event at St. James's Palace. Tonight's party is at Buckingham Palace. This picture of Kate gives a nice view of the lavish room. Victoria Murphy snapped this picture and pointed out you can see a hint of a baby bump in there. :)



The Labels

Kate chose Temperley's "Eclipse Lace Collar Dress," which the company's describes a "a modern take on the lace dress underpinned by the season's Elizabethan influence." 



I hadn't really classified the current trend as Elizabethan, but I can go with it. Just looking at 2017, Kate has certainly embraced high collars, bows, and ruffled sleeves...or all together! 


This Eclipse dress seems to be a close cousin to the sea foam tea-dress she wore to meet the Prime Minister of India in 2016--also a dress by Temperley. 


Tonight the Duchess wore her blue topaz earrings form Kiki McDonough, her black Gianvito Rossi pumps, and I think that is her Mulberry Bayswater... 


Fashion in Motion

Jane's Thoughts

It is so exciting to see Kate back again. As I have mentioned before, this is earlier than I predicted, and if the timelines from earlier pregnancies are the same, this is earlier than she usually likes to come back. Victoria Murphy reported on Twitter that aides to the Duchess said that "her condition is improving, but she is still suffering from hyperemsis gravidarum." I think that this event--Mental Health Day--is obviously particularly important to Kate and to the Heads Together initiative, which is what brought her out on the early side.  That being said, Kate seems to be showing more than she has at this point in past pregnancies. I don't know if that changes from pregnancy to pregnancy, or if she is indeed farther along, as some have suggested.



I am thrilled to see Kate choose this dress! I saw it in my Twitter feed sometime in the last two weeks and remember thinking it was right up Kate's alley and that I would wear it if I could afford a $1,000 dress. :) Kate really does have a very reliable style profile, so I wasn't surprised to see her wear it. 


The Verdict

This is a win for me. I love the ruffles and I think I have been a fan each time Kate has featured any element of this look. The high-collar and bow present a prim, proper, and buttoned-up (pun partially intended) first glance that is then juxtaposed with the delicate and feminine ruffled sleeves and the flirty skirt. It's a combination that has worked for a lot of women over the course of history and I really love it on Kate. 

Photo by Rebecca English

Earlier today the Queen was pictured boarding a plane in Scotland with three corgis in tow and by dusk, the Royal Standard was flying above Buckingham Palace, signaling HM is in residence and the Scottish summer retreat is over. The close of the Queen's Scottish holiday, combined with Kate's return to the spotlight, officially mark the end of the royal drought season. As October progresses and moves toward November, there will be a series of holiday events and glitzy royal sightings. I can't wait to see how the autumn unfolds!

Housekeeping Notes

I have received emails and messages from a number of you letting me know that the comments aren't loading past 200 on the last post. We have had this problem in the past, and sadly, it isn't one I have a solution to short of reintroducing a comment platform (which wasn't well received last time), or switching the blog to a new hosting system which is not a viable option for me right now, for a number of technical issues. I am so sorry, I know it is very frustrating. 



Second, I have changed my Twitter handle, and that has also caused confusion, which I apologize for. You can find me on Twitter now at @princesskate_GB

Ok, all y'all. I have to run, but let me know what you thought of this look! I know it is a little polarizing, but I am excited to hear what you think! 


149 comments:

  1. She looks beautiful! Love the dress. Yes, you will show earlier after a few babies. I didn't show until 4 months with my 1st,but by my 4th,I showed at 2 1/2 months.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many women show earlier with each subsequent pregnancy. The uterus and abdominal muscles have stretched before, and relax with much more ease with pregnancy hormones.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pregnancy aside, I loved everything about her look and the subtle nod to the initiative via the colour scheme.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really like this dress (& I'm not usually a fan of the ruffled, buttoned-up look!). I love the colour, especially. Cute to see her little bump :) I hope the HG is improving as time goes along.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I suppose I should just accept that she plays it safe with her outfits. I hope for a Queen Maxima outfit once in a while. Alas, that is just not Kate.
    Pretty on her..but also pretty boring, er.. expected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment made me chuckle, I've also had my problems coming to terms with the fact that she's not a fashion gal. Since I've accepted that I've been able to appreciate her outfits much more!

      Delete
    2. Do you think she is, in her own way, trying to emulate the example of the Queen by sticking with certain silhouettes/styles? It seems there is some variation between her public personal and her private persona from a fashion perspective.

      Delete
    3. Great to see her back. What a warrior she is to endure HG for a third time! The dress is ok, pretty color on her, demure and proper - certainly no "wow" factor. Kate definitely plays it safe, fashion -wise. It will be great fun to see what MM wears at these functions. She has a lot more confidence, or perhaps it's interest in being fashion forward - Kate certainly appears to be a confident woman. Not pitting these lovely ladies against each other, just sharing thoughts. It will be great fun to follow them both and see how they influence each other..

      Delete
    4. I give Kate credit for not being a slave to fashion. She know what she likes, what is appropriate, and she sticks with it.

      The dress is so Kate; Jane is right! And I like the color combination.

      Delete
    5. You don't have to be a slave to fashion to have fun with it.

      Regarding Kate - I like the color and the way her hair is styled. The dress itself is okay. She looks happy to be back though which is nice to see.

      Delete
    6. I wouldn't say this dress was not fashionable!
      But I agree Kate keeps to her style, elegant and feminine. I prefer this model to the India one.

      Delete
    7. It always makes me smile when people insist Kate is not into fashion, of course she is, just not very good at it, or shall we say Natasha is not very talented at all.

      This dress is as boring as her very similar previous ones (white, green), seen it once, okay, but next time should be something different. She dresses either a granny or a schoolgirl. I think some princesses can do both, being appropriate and stylish too. It is not something that can not be done. Maxima did, Mary did, Victoria did. Maybe one day...

      Delete
    8. I think she is having fun...in HER own way. :-)

      Delete
    9. Maxima always sticks to her flamboyant style, that suits her, but that I wouldn't like Kate to copy,Mary is nicely dressed but I don't think is more stylish than Kate and she has strange misses. Victoria has become very elegant since her wedding but doesn't variate that much, does she? It seems to me that Kate is as appropriate and stylish as all these ladies, and that they have all in common a personal predictable look. Personally, though I sometimes get ideas from Mary or Victoria, Kate is the one that inspires my own style the most. Maxima I leave to the flamboyant blondes.

      Delete
    10. Yes, Amy, I think you are right. I think she tries to be very respectful of the position she is privileged to have. I agree that trendy fashion is not her first priority. It seems her main priority is to be appropriate & respectful- which she always is IMO. I'm sure she looks to the Queen as an example & for guidance.

      It's so nice to see her again. So glad she was feeling well enough to attend. It's such happy news to follow her & her family. A nice break from dreary news on all news websites. I love how she is such a good example to young kids- in her dress, her manners, her charities, & putting her family first.

      Delete
    11. Not to quibble too much Kay, but I'm not sure that Kate *needs* to be relatively conservative or not-trendy fashion-wise. It is totally ok if that is her personal style, and playing it safe might save time not having to worry about faux pas, but the Queen wore some relatively fashion-forward/trendy ensembles in her youth and so did Diana not to mention Margaret!

      Delete
    12. I personally think Kate isn't a trendy fashionista but more of a classic Sloane Ranger. That said
      I think she would have to play it safe regardless because she wants the coverage to be about the event and not her outfit which is the right thing to do.

      Delete
    13. 4:07, considering just how much the Firm twitched ahead of the 20th anniversary of Diana's death, I'd say that Kate is wise to be conservative and not make it about her clothes.

      Regarding lace gone wild, well, just Google "Queen Maxima lace dress" and "CP Mary lace dress" and see how much of it THEY have worn. ;-)

      Delete
    14. I think some get what I said wrong, I have never said she should copy anybody. But surrounding herself with professional assisstants, like the new one, or a stylist, might help reduce fashion faux pas, and help her to embrace her role better.

      I would also refrain from saying flaboyant is only for blondes, otherwise we get into another "exotic" territory.

      Delete
    15. I simply don't think Kate has fashion faux pas or that other royal ladies manage better than her the difficult task of being appropriate and stylish. As for Maxima, she is not a natural blonde herself, so her choice of hair color is definitely part of her style.

      Delete
    16. I don’t like the dress. This is just another boring midi day frock and very similiar to the India dress, this style makes her much older, she looks better in shorter hemlines. Even if ruffles and lace are very up to date right now, ruffles and lace in one dress are too much and the shape of the dress is old fashioned. The top of the dress as a blouse together with a plain skirt or trousers could be nice.

      Delete
  6. I loved not only the dress but also her whole aura.. she looked absolutely radiant I thought.. I do hope this means she feels better!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very happy she's back. She looks wonderful. I love the dress especially the way it falls into soft pleats at the hem. She wears it well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She does look great. One would never know she had been sick.

      Delete
    2. She has been sick and she still is sick. Wonderful how good she manages to look in those circumstances.

      Delete
    3. I thought she looked beautiful. Her lipstick was darker than usual. I don't know how to say this--her make-up reminded me of the scene in Terms of Endearment when the heroine was in the hospital getting ready to see her boys. Her girlfriend was trying to mask the ravages of illness for her good-bye to her sons and was heavy on the blush, lipstick, and eye makeup. I do think her makeup was heavier than she has been wearing it lately and that may account in part for her seemingly healthy appearance.

      There have been some elsewhere that hint that she must not really have HG anymore. I think the strain around her eyes and William's concerned look may indicate otherwise. Plus her aide said she was still ill. I think this young woman made a huge effort to be there and not let those being honored down. She succeeded.

      Those suffering from later-stage MS and even terminal cancer have a an occasional day or so when it is possible to get out. It does not mean they no longer have the illness. It is an excellent morale-builder after being confined, although the price can sometimes mean a set-back. I don't think we can assume she is resuming her regular duties just yet. If so, she would likely be traveling to New Zealand with William this week. anon1

      Delete
    4. Anglophile in OhioOctober 11, 2017 at 7:45 PM

      William is not going to New Zealand. The commemoration is at Passchendaele in Belgium, same as the earlier ceremonies in the summer.

      Delete
    5. I agree Kate is not likely to be resuming normal duties yet. Think KP pretty much announced she wasn't. But even if she was raring to go, I seriously doubt we'd see her travel overseas for work while pregnant. Also anon 1 I may have misunderstood your cancer/MS analogy but I'm not sure that going out when feeling OK with HG is likely to cause a set-back/relapse although it certainly could with the diseases you mentioned.

      Delete
    6. It really could cause a setback. At home she's got control over the things that may trigger her sickness. Certain smells can be kept away, she has the ability to lay down immediately should she feel ill, and her medications are there. In a semi-public setting she doesn't have those guarantees.

      Delete
    7. I think we are defining "set-back" differently.

      Delete
    8. Right, lizzie. Anon 11:26 captures my meaning. Her symptoms may have abated somewhat; but the energy and exertion, as well as the factors Anon mentioned, could trigger a worsening of symptoms.
      Yes, William went to Belgium, not New Zealand. I was having trouble with the timeline of his various engagements fitting in with a long, time-consuming trip. I do think Belgium would have been out of the questions as well and obviously was. She has appeared with him on a number of such occasions in the past.
      The BP event was apparently all she could muster for now. I think her keeping this engagement was more a reflection of her dedication than her health status at this point. anon1

      Delete
  8. Like the top and the sleeves, don't particularly like the skirt. I honestly don't have anything else to say, this is such a formulaic look, I feel like I've seen it a hundred times before. Oh yeah, two more things: The colour of the dress suits her incredibly well and that tiny bump is cute.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another cute dress, beautiful and appropriate color for the evening, but nothing WOW! 😉 But I get it...dressing-up in any shape or form is just not in my “wheelhouse”—although I love to see others dressed-up—and it’s probably not for Kate right now, either. I have 4 kids so I can only imagine how much this organization means to her for her to get-out and get prettied-up!

    ReplyDelete
  10. She looks beautiful. The color really suits her and the initiative and I love the lace and the ruffled sleeves don't bother me at all because they are not overdone. She's very on trend and still very Kate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. She looks great! Thanks for the speedy post, Jane. I hadn't thought of the blue/black being a nod to the initiative, but you're spot on there. 💚

    ReplyDelete
  12. Total win on the dress for me! Not my style, but she wears it exceptionally well. That black trim adds a lot to sharpen up the lacy look. I imagine Kate wanted to be comfortable. And I bet she couldn’t wait to get back to KP!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, I forgot to mention—brows look great! Maybe a little more arched? And she gave us a tasteful cat eye feline flick with her liner!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I commented before I read your comment. Agree on both accounts.

      Delete
  14. I've commented before that I get the impression Kate sometimes "repeats" ensembles that are essentially an upgrade as she has moved from newlywed to established Duchess. With this dress I feel like some of her designers are doing the same thing! I wanted to like the sea foam green dress worn in India but something with the bodice tailoring was off for me - but this dress is fantastic!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I didn't like it at first but now, after looking at the pictures a few times I like it quite a bit. She looks lovely and her eyebrows look fantastic!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do! She's got a nice cat eye going too.

      Delete
  16. Well Jane (Barr), I quite liked this dress; true, it was a tiresome lace, but the colour really suited Kate. What really made this outfit for me, tho, was the glow on Kate's face; think she must've been delighted to finally escape --at least temporarily--the IV drip and KP!

    Hopefully, Kate won't push herself until she is more-or-less over the HG, because I'd really like to see her on the upcoming tour (of Norway) in November, this time, sans kids. She doesn't need the extra work, so why not leave both behind; surely, between Nanny and Carole they'll be in good hands.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  17. P.S. If this was Kate's first pregnancy, I'd think she was four months along, but as it's her third, with weakened stomach muscles, she might be at the three-month point. Do think it's time that someone in an official capacity released news re the expected month of delivery. Clearly, Kate is alive and seemingly well, and rather obviously, so is Baby Cambridge #3. So what's the holdup?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is this announced anyway? I feel sorry for her. I'd hate that. Hopefully they just are vague when it's time. This child will be far down the line of succession. Let her have some privacy!

      Delete
    2. I don't think they've ever announced this early. In the past I think it's been around the 7-8 month time frame.

      Delete
    3. I think that "bigger with each child" relates to the mother's physical condition. I think most would agree that her active life style and apparent exercise routine would keep those abdominals in great shape. I did not notice an increase in size per month, comparing the two other pregnancies. Also size of fetus (and number!) as well as position could change the form .anon1

      Delete
    4. This is a tricky subject because the more they say, the more people feel entitled to know. I understand the interest, but I lean towards privacy here and don't think they need to go beyond sharing a "vague" 4 week window. For example, if she's due in mid[month], they can say she's due early the *following* month. This way it decreases the "count down" frenzy and speculation.

      Delete
  18. I'm happy Kate's back so I tried really hard to like the dress, but I just can't do it. I guess we're stuck with lace dresses forever. The style is ok and the color is nice....nope can't do it, this is just not a win for me. She looks beautiful though, you would never know how sicks she's been. -J

    ReplyDelete
  19. Like others, it is not an earth shattering dress for me but it does look nice on her. The best part is the color which is fantastic with her coloring. Otherwise, the dress is fussy and prim even with the sheer bits. It is classic Kate, however. Nice to see her out and about again. She is glowing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wonderful to see Kate back, and she looks lovely. I hope that the HG is mostly over, and she can begin to enjoy her pregnancy. Fall is in full swing now, hope to see more of Kate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I thought Kate looked nice but I'm not a fan of the dress. While I do like high-necked dresses occasionally *except in the summer* I really don't like neck bows whether they are full-on pussybows or thin ones like this one. Overall the look seems kind of prissy. I would like the dress much better worn with shoes like the model's. Much less stuffy but I can see why Kate would not wear that shoe style.

    Looks like she's had a haircut since the Diana's Garden event. It's not that much shorter but that was in Aug and her hair would have been longer had she not had a trim. Personally I hope she keeps it on the shorter side as I think it is more flattering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lizzie, I agree that the shorter, but not too short hairstyle, agrees with Kate. Has she found her perfect length?--Do think she was encumbered, until lately, by the fact that she lived far away from London, and hairdressers she trusted; first, in Anglesey, Wales, then in the British Boondocks/Norfolk.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Another vote for short(er) hair. It's more bouncy and gives her a "lift".

      Delete
    3. I agree JC & royalfan that "short hair" likely isn't the way to go for Kate although short hair looks terrific on some women (loved Diana in short hair.) Honestly I thought the length at Wimbledon looked really great--bouncy, young, full of energy--but also thought it looked a little "chopped"  maybe because it hadn't had time to "settle" post-haircut OR maybe because the particular cut she got "cut against/into" her natural waves at awkward spots OR peŕhaps because her regular stylist hadn't adjusted her techniques to the new length. I did not think it was too short myself but think this length is beautiful too. 

      Maybe Kate's more willing to take haircut chances now that she's in London and has access to other stylists as you suggest JC. I don't know. I do know that *some* posters here and elsewhere practically had heart attacks when Kate cut her hair shorter. Some said Kate's hair was THE most important part of her appearance...that it was her trademark. Some implied or even outright stated she'd lost a critically important part of her looks without her super-long hair. Others argued against perceived societal views about women, hair length and age/ageism. As I said at the time it seemed to me as if Kate was being viewed as a female Samson--powerless without her long locks. While we can't know what Kate reads about herself, I doubt it escaped her notice many focus on her hair. And it has been reported Will likes her hair long, but there's long and there's LONG. My personal view is that Kate's shorter hair reflects a growing inner confidence and a final discarding of her college girl/20-something personna. But maybe I'm reading too much into it and it is just a different hairdresser!

      Delete
    4. The length is OK but I prefer it a bit longer and hope not any shorter.

      Delete
    5. You are all very right about the shorter hair. That long floppy droopy sad bow needs a fix. Shorter and more structured, please.

      Delete
    6. Lizzie, I agree that Kate is unlikely to go with a short haircut, but I *would* like to see her go a bit shorter with layers. She would still have the longer hair she appears to favor, yet it would be versatile, updated, and youthful, IMO. In the past, when she had the shorter layers around her face I think it made her look younger.

      Delete
    7. I think some layers and a bit shorter would look nice too but I am not sure Amanda could cope with those when doing an updo. When Kate had the dreaded "fringe" (I didn't like that one thick extra layer--would like more "feathery" layers on both sides) and when it was growing out Amanda seemed to resort to some odd side pinbacks when doing updos. So that would be my only concern.

      Delete
    8. I thought the shoes the model wore were horrible and too clunky with a delicate lace dress. Kate chose much better.

      Delete
    9. I agree Anon 9:47 Kate's shoes "match" but that's part of what gives the outfit a "prissy" feel to me. IMO (and maybe only mine) the juxtaposition of chunky shoes with frou-frou lace on the model keeps the outfit from looking like a throwback to the 1980s (I wouldn't call it "Elizabethan" despite the designer's choice of name) 

      Delete
  22. Thank you for the excellent post, Jane. I really like the way you've broken down the content and inserted 'headings'. Very easy to read!

    It's great to see Catherine again and she does look very well; it's wonderful that she came out to support this worthy cause. I do like the dress, even though the style reminds me of clothing I wore when I was a child in elementary school way back in the early 1980's. I couldn't get enough of floppy bows at the neck and faux velvet trim details. I presume on Kate's dress that the velvet trim is authentic though!

    I hope the Palace confirms Kate's due date soon and that she moves into the second trimester unencumbered by HG. The condition must be horrible but Kate does have plenty of personal assistance at home with the children and the household and she's received time off from "work" very easily, unlike the personal and professional conditions most other ordinary expectant mothers are coping within.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Help at home doesn't make her feel less sick. Outside of having certain medical attention st home I don't see what would make her situation easier than other people that had a supportive family and sick time from work.

      Delete
    2. I agree, Ellen.

      Delete
  23. I think Kate looked great!! Twins may be a real possibility this time!!! Welcome back!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Twins!😊 We can hope, right?

      Delete
    2. I'm just saying... Look at her comebacks with PG and PC.. The blue Jenny Packham was way smaller/ tighter on her she that picture is shown... She looked normal, to me in that dress, certainly not pregnant. It was cooler with PG so the coat did her a favor with covering her bump. This last 6 weeks she has really went from no sign to an actual bump we can plainly see. I'm not shaming her in no way!! I'm only hoping or observing either way she looks fabulous!!! I wish we could do a name the baby thing.. So for a boy I say it will have some combination of Phillip Michael James. For a girl some combo of Victoria Alice Mary. Now to remember to back and look how close I was!!!

      One more thing... Has any of you noticed the lack of Jenny P in Kate's wardrobe as of late? I'm going to have to Google it bc I don't know when the last time she has worn a JP dress unless she did on one of the short trips they've taken, I wonder what is up with that???

      Delete
    3. Ok, so I was right and wrong. I thought Jane had put up the photo of the baby blue high low dress she wore to the national history museum awards ceremony or something like that, but either way it was JP on Kate's comeback from hg with PC. Now I was correct about where Kate did wear JP this year. Both times she was on tour once in Paris, my now favorite gown she had ever worn previously it was the blue high low JP. The other time I found she wore a flowy short yellow and white dress while on tour in Germany. So maybe she's become a tour staple? Who knows!?

      Delete
  24. That sad little bow. �� And lace, again.��

    But, it was so good to see Kate looking happy and out.�� And I agree with some others, I enjoy looking at her outfits, but at this point, we all love Kate. So, if the outfit isn't my fav, I still enjoy reading out her. We like her so much now, it's beyond the clothes.

    And pregnancy always looks good on her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So very well put Anonymous - this particular genre of outfit is her go to style - we have to concede that now, as much as some of us have grown tired of the lace, the high collars and pussy bow detail. We are obsessed with her and that isn't gonna change - My sister had severe hg for both of her pregnancies, Kate is lucky she is able to recover from the initial awfulness of it, relatively quickly - my experience of it with my sister was alot different but I guess, being mere mortals, she has luxuries that most of us can only dream of which have probably ensured a quicker recovery (I mean that in a factual and not disrespectful way).

      Delete
    2. If you look at the bow on the model dress and the bow on Kate you can see that what she really needs is someone who can tie a bow properly. Hers was tied too long and floppy on the loops which shortened the length of the strings so they didn't frame the placket well. To me it makes a huge difference.

      Delete
  25. Nope not polarizing at all. I've been enjoying this look this year. Love the dress and it's skirt. She's so happy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This particular shade of blue seems to be a go-to color for Kate when she is pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Consistent with other commentators, I believe that Kate conceived in June and is due in late March. Before she was forced to announce her pregnancy on September fourth, I had long thought that she was expecting. On their tour of Poland and Germany, she did look « fuller ». I concur with those who have said that it is time that her approximate due date be released by the Palace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't make sense. If she had conceived in June she would not have been seen all summer because of the HG. That would mean she'd have been at the beginning of her second trimester at the time of the announcement in September which is when HG starts to wind down in those fortunate enough to get better after the first 12-14 weeks which has been Kate's experience in the past.

      Delete
    2. If Kate is that far along I'll also be surprised. Before folks tell me I know a few alcoholic drinks probably won't hurt a fetus but I'd still be surprised to learn Kate drank publicly when pregnant (and conception in June would mean she knew or at least very strongly suspected during the Germany/Poland trip) Some have implied she drank (even when Will stuck to water) to "throw the press off the pregnancy trail" but I can't imagine taking a risk with a baby--albeit a small one--for that reason. And no HG or even no regular morning sickness apparent until the 2nd trimester would be an unusual pattern.

      Delete
  28. Lovely to see Catherine out, but hope she takes care, as I thought she looked rather tired.
    Love the dress and of course the colours are those of "Heads Together".
    In his speech earlier in the day, William said it was Catherine who had the idea for "Heads Together", When she noted that all three were dealing with mental health charities, so working together would have more effect.
    I suspect William would have to go straight from this reception to fly to New Zealand for their Passchendale commemorations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anglophile in OhioOctober 11, 2017 at 7:01 PM

      William is not going to New Zealand. The commemorations are in Belgium, same as this past summer.
      http://passchendaele2017.org/en/evenementen/nieuw-zeelandse-herdenkingsplechtigheid/

      Delete
    2. That makes sense. I don't think William would fly half way around the world while Catherine was still grappling with the end of the HG.

      Delete
  29. I love this outfit and I think Kate looks wonderful :) In some pictures, her make-up looks quite heavy - I wonder if perhaps she put more on usual because she's still feeling a bit ill and perhaps pale?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Glad to see Kate back! Unfortunately for me, the dress is a boring, granny look. I don't think the Queen would be caught dead in it. I find Kate beautiful in more stream-lined, sophisticated looks. Save the lace for evening wear.

    ReplyDelete
  31. lol The lace dress was for evening reception. Of course you would not see the queen where this type of dress now but I could see her wearing it in her young years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Anonymous 10:11 I think you are well aware this occasion was not an "evening wear" as in long evening gown..situation. That is what I was referring to. I also do not think Queen Elizabeth ever wore something so frumpy, even in her youth. Don't forget, LOL, it's only an opinion/comment. Not a call to arms.

      Delete
    2. Not everyone thinks the dress is frumpy. People either love it or hate it.

      Delete
    3. lol. The Queen has worn plenty of frothy "day" dresses in her lifetime - even in her youth.

      http://assets.instyle.co.uk/instyle/live/styles/article_landscape_600_wide/s3/galleries/15/04/1959-queen-elizabeth-ii-arrives-at-windosr-cocktail-party-1959-queen-wearing-a-lemon-lace-two-piece-wide-rimmed-hat-and-sun-glasses-.jpg?itok=_0pTfQ_X

      http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/10/02/2E42BDE400000578-3309563-Queen_Elizabeth_II_pictured_in_Australia_in_1954_in_a_bottle_gre-a-30_1447123246927.jpg

      Delete
  32. I love this ouftit!

    Today i learned that Marchesa ist the company of Harvey Weinstein´s wife.
    I assume that we will see Marchesa any time soon on Kate. Its a little bit sad, because in my opinion the two Marchesa evening dresses were fantastic!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary-I would think wearing Marchesa in support of a woman who is undoubtedly going through a horrid time right now might be a kind thing to do. As far as I know, there were no complaints about her. I think it is a different type of situation from the Issa episode. If we boycotted everyone who has been associated with the man there would be few left to make movies. I realise the evidence is very loud against him and may prove to be true; I just dislike condemning someone without due process. This isn't a matter of a minor social faux pas..it could involve criminal prosecution.anon1
      I agree-the gowns are beautiful and seem to suit Kate.anon1

      Delete
    2. Don't see why Marquesa should be boycotted: she is not responsible for her husband's behaviour. She has left him and taken the children, who least of all deserve to suffer for their father's evil.

      Delete
    3. She is not responsible and the first victim of the circumstances.

      Delete
    4. i don´t think that she is responsible. And in my opinion she shouldn´t be boycotted. BUT i think Kate won´t wear it anytime soon. It will - for some time - be conected to the Harvey Weinstein. And i dont think the royals want to be connected to him - even if its through his wife, who isn´t responsible for his actions.

      I hope you´re right and we will continue to see Marchesa! But I´m pessimistic

      Delete
    5. It's a well known fact that Georgina knew about Harvey's attacks. She was going to leave him in 2015 when three police investigations were ongoing concerning his attacks on women at his office. Although women shouldn't be held accountable for their husband's actions, when they become aware of it and do nothing, they become complicit to the attacks.

      Families do have responsibilities when they have monsters in their families. They really are the first line of defense once they are aware of the situation.

      So, yes, in this specific situation, I think it's wholly appropriate to stop buying her line. And I loved her dresses. We have to speak with our pocketbooks. These were egregious events.

      Delete
    6. 1:55 IMO stopping to buy her line is not an appropriate answer to her husband behaviour. Did he continue with that behaviour once she knew of it? Aren't the facts well before 2015, with some going back to 1980? She can't be held responsible for what he has done nor for not stopping him when she didn't know about it. And if no other attacks were reported after she knew, she likely did something to stop him. Add to that that she was a also a victim. Calling her an accomplice is unfair and simply not correct. My opinion won't change anything for I have never been a Marchesa client nor likely to be but qq

      Delete
    7. It's very disturbing, anon1, for you to say things like... the evidence is very strong against him but he deserves due process...

      There is no case pending against him for a "due process". There have been documented settlements from him with at least 8 women, his own admissions of guilt, first person accounts of attacks and rape by Rose McGowan, Paltrow, Jolie, Kate Beckinsale (when she was 17), and on and on, deep reporting from the New York Times, etc.

      The evidence against him is overwhelming. These brave women deserve our respect and our voice that we believe them. This is not a witch hunt. This is the truth in action.

      Delete
    8. BTW, anon1, re: your very quick to accuse Rebecca Deacon of really being fired from her post....

      Rebecca just received the Royal Victorian Order from William at BP for her service. And she is starting her own consulting firm.

      So, I guess, Harvey Weinstein deserves "due process"🤔 with all the reports and confirmed interviews from victims, but Rebecca Deacon can be slandered over nothing but malicious gossip based on squat.

      Delete
    9. ha, thank Anon 6:40 - I was thinking the same thing! btw, really sweet to hear William presented her with the order

      Delete
    10. I see no reason to boycott nor do I see a reason to suddenly embrace the brand. I, too, believe that she was well aware of her husband's behavior. She had the means to walk out, but chose to stay with him until the embarrassment factor became too much. That is not a victim, IMO. More a case of priorities other than self respect. She is not the first, nor will she be the last woman to make this choice.

      Delete
    11. I agree people have all kinds of reasons for staying in marriages that from the outside appear much less than ideal. Each individual has the right to make her/his own choice. But an individual doesn't have the right to expect to be protected from consequences arising from those choices. I can easily see the brand taking a hit because it seems obvious she did know and chose to look the other way. And while I typically prefer due process to play out, it sure seems like he has admitted to inappropriate behavior at the very least before fleeing to obtain in-patient "rehab."

      I do think that in western cultures women are more likely to be judged by the actions of their husbands than vice versa. And that is unfair. But I don't think sexism is at play so much here...the issue is that she knew.

      Delete
    12. There are numerous reports today that Harvey threatened the careers of well known actresses if they didn't wear Georgina's dresses at major events. Felicity Huffman, from Desperate Housewives, confirmed this happened to her.

      Georgina established her clothing line the year she started dating Harvey. Although her dresses are beautiful, I can imagine that many have a horrible taste in their mouth after being forced and threatened about using her brand.

      Delete
    13. Lizzie, I agree.

      Well, 2.26, if this is true it should resolve any question of her being a victim. Not that this makes her responsible for all of his actions, but it does suggest that they had some common ground.

      Delete
    14. It would be disturbing, anon 6:34, if I had actually said the "'evidence was very STRONG against him." I said LOUD. A world of difference in meaning. I would also like to say it is possible for commenters to mis-quote me and criticise me personally and my remarks because I own them.

      I think the time line, as a commenter described it, should factor in. She may have taken her "til death do us part" vow seriously. Unfortunately, it is sometimes a matter of the influence and political power one currently possesses that determines the outcome and resolution of such charges. On the whole, the victim is always the loser, no matter what resolution. I just think it is possible that knowing something is happening and then acknowledging it publically and doing something about it represents a process that evolves at a differing pace.
      The original comment referred to Kate's future wearing of the wife's brand. I think that is a reasonable point to discuss here. I agree that at this time it would probably amount to a too-controversial choice. I don't think a permanent boycott as with Issa is indicated (not that I agree with that, but I understand it) and that is what I objected to. There are many people involved in designing, sewing, distributing, and advertising the brand. We would also be punishing them, as well as the wife of the alleged offender.anon1



      Delete
    15. I don't think I misunderstood your original comment anon 1 but if I did I'm sorry. I agree a boycott here will affect collateral folks...the the sewers, advertisers, and others you mentioned. But that is the case with ANY boycott of ANY product or business. Does that mean we should not "vote with our wallets"? Or is the issue the difference between a "boycott" and a bunch of individuals making an individual choice to pass on this line of designer clothes?

      Whenever we see wrong-doing (whether a spouse or not) it can take awhile to decide what to do. But that period of indecision--while perhaps understandable-- isn't necessarily a shield against consequences of our inaction.

      Delete
    16. anon1 I agree that many innocent people could be negatively affected if the Marchesa brand takes a hit because of Georgina's husbands actions. I think that women are often unfairly held responsible for the independent actions of men - and I believe that is wrong, and that women should not have to "pay" for choices and actions *other* people make. That said, there have been enough stories implying that Georgina knowingly profited from at least some of her husbands bullying - she shouldn't be a victim of his bad deeds, but she is responsible for her own.

      Delete
    17. Anon1,

      The only words I quoted directly from you was "due process", which you used verbatim, which is why I used quotes around these words. The rest, I paraphrased without using quotes. I stand by my paraphrasing as accurate. Loud vs. strong is really the same thing when paraphrasing.

      And yes, your comments were very disturbing.

      6:34/6:40

      Delete
    18. Just a question here but, why is boycotting Marchesa and condemning Georgina for supposedly knowing what her husband did not the same thing as Bill Clinton's consistent misdeeds but Hillary wasn't held accountable for her husband abusing his power? All of the women who came forward and accused Bill were denounced as liars and all of these women who have since condemned Harvey after the initial brave accusation by Rose McGowan have not been labeled as such. So, are Bill and Harvey both scum and their wives both victims? Or are they (both admitting to their follies - one under oath) married to women who themselves victimized their husband's accusers so they could sell their own brand of product? One is politics, the other is Hollywood which could be argued is the same thing. Maybe they are all to be avoided.

      Delete
    19. Actually, Harvey is the money and power behind the fashion brand. He's being called the mastermind of the brand.

      You are bringing up politics. We are talking about a fashion house that Kate uses. Big difference.

      Delete
    20. Actually, the subject is Kate's not wearing a designer because the husband of the designer has been accused of sexual harassment. The discussion sort of went south after that and became more a discussion of sexual harassment and then whether a wife is responsible for her husband's actions. That's where politics reared its head. There are several notions of what constitutes sexual harassment, but they all involve the use of power inappropriately-which would involve politics, especially relating to presidential power.

      TO the anon who brought up Bill Clinton: I don't think Hillary should have been held accountable for Bill's behavior any more than Melania, Jackie, Mamie, or Eleanor should have been for the behavior of their Presidential husbands. They all knew and they all chose to stand by their man. Some in separate bedrooms and in one case a different floor of the White House, but the marriages were publically intact. Those women had the sympathy of other women. (plus for some the cooperation of the press) No one suggested that the wives

      gained by keeping quiet, although every single one did in one way or another.

      Kate has clothing from many different designers. If she doesn't wear Marchesa for awhile there will be no need for an excuse. It would be more of an avoidance of conflict than a purposeful boycott. There is a difference. anon1


      Delete
    21. Anon @ 8:33, Marchesa may be known as Georgina's venture but her husband was *very* involved so discussions about boycotting the label are not simply about "punishing" a woman for her husband being a creep.

      Delete
    22. Anon1-

      Harvey's behavior goes well beyond sexual harassment and is documented publicly by several famous women who accuse him of rape.

      And I do not consider this a "political" discussion. IMO that's a very sad way to describe it. Sexual harassment and attacks on women are not political. Harvey and Georgina, to my knowledge, have never been elected officials. Yes, they support a certain party, but in this instance, who cares?

      I will say this, I have never been a fan of Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt after what happened with Jennifer. But it sounds like Brad was the only man who stood up to Harvey when he tried to attack Gwenthyn Paltrow, his gf at the time. And Jolie not only spurred Harvey's attack, she refused to work with him again and warned others about his behavior. I was surprised and impressed by both of their actions. Kudos to them.

      Delete
    23. Should be Gwyneth! 😂

      8:37

      Delete
    24. Anon 8:37

      -There is a difference between "political" and "partisan." I believe you are referencing a partisan situation. Politics is a broader term-"Office politics," for example. Power politics.

      By the way, prominent members of both major political parties have been photographed being friendly with the man, who is currently being dropped like a hot potato by those who once relied upon his approval and financial resources.
      Abuse of women or any group becomes political in a business setting if it motivates business decisions.
      It is sexual harassment if one uses the power and influence one holds over another to control the person, an employee for example, which is the form of harassment under discussion and is illegal. I agree. Rape goes beyond this. However, some of the women who claim abuses were in a hotel room with him at the time. Perhaps not a wise choice, if his tactics were truly as well-known as some claim. That in no way excuses his alleged behavior but it does illustrate that these women had choices at some point. This was not a stranger accosting a woman in her home.
      The film industry is just one in a number of organisations and businesses that have one by one been implicated. The Catholic church, figure-skating, college sports (involved boys, but they are victims, too)...is anyone still discussing that? Unfortunately, when powerful groups or persons are involved, there is an impetus to make the discussion go away. With that, the tide of disapproval that has swept the shores of filmdom might reverse itself as it has before.
      I just hope this time the rhetoric will result in long-range and far=reaching change in the film industry and other businesses. That will likely not happen as long as women and other perceived minorities are seen as second-class.anon1

      PS. A bit of a rant, there. It may not be published, but if it ends this current discussion( as my comments have been deleted before as an end of discussion)---all the thought and time I put into this comment will not have been in vain.

      Delete
    25. Now I'm really confused anon 1. I believe your first post on this topic seemed to suggest Georgina's brand should be supported out of kindness because she must be suffering and perhaps she didn't know about her husband's disgusting behavior. Not my view but seemed be yours and you are entitled to it. Many posters then suggested there is evidence his wife knew what he was doing and some suggested he used his power to push her brand. If so, she was not just looking the other way to preserve her marriage but could be said to be complicit. But your latest post seems to suggest his accusers are somewhat to blame since they were unwise enough to be alone with HW in a hotel room (a place film business IS done-- it's hardly like working in a bank) since *everyone* knew about his behavior! What!? Everyone but his wife? If we're not blaming his wife for profiting from his behavior in her business & are being urged to actively support her instead, why in the world would we place ANY modicum of blame on the women who were sexually assaulted? You also *seemed* to imply because it was not a stranger rape/assault it somehow wasn't solely his fault. (Most sexual assaults and rapes are not by strangers.) What next...maybe the women were wearing clothes that were too revealing? In Hollywood no less.

      Delete
    26. Anon1,

      You were discussing politics as in politics. You referenced the Clintons and a number of other first couples.

      And your new comments continue to be disturbing. These ladies had a choice at one point? This wasn't a stranger attacking them? OMG. No, this was a person who they trusted and knew and who had a lot of professional power over them. He threatened to ruin their careers if they didn't submit. And many of them think he did just that.

      All of your comments in this thread hinted to this very shocking line of thinking on your part. When you wanted Harvey to have "due process" after everything that has happened and with no active court case, I could see where you were heading.

      I am 1000x disturbed by your comments.

      Delete
    27. DO you plan to bake a pie with those cherries you've been picking, lizzie? Ha!

      In part, I understand your confusion. My perception of the situation altered as this discussion progressed and information new to me was presented.
      HOWEVER, there is quite a difference between saying "if" something, which indicates uncertainty and saying "since," which implies certainty. ( you reported me as saying "SINCE everyone knew about his behavior"...I said IF. That word substitution changes my meaning . The if indicates that some may not have been aware and went into the situation unprepared. The since indicates the person knew, but went anyway.)

      My favorite book in college was "Semantics and Syntax" I think that was the title. By SI Hayakawa ( this is probably a terrible mutilation of his name).That may explain a thing or two about my comments. Ha!

      My initial response is clear that I was assuming the wife was not implicated and in those circumstances it "would be a kind thing to do." It wasn't really my major point.

      RE: hotel-room etc...."IF " his tactics were well-known and the actress still chose to meet in a hotel room. Apparently, one actress at least refused to meet in his hotel room and insisted upon meeting in a restaurant with another person present. AN Italian actress was told she was being taken to a party in a hotel room. The party turned out to involve him and the actress. What she did when she discovered the subterfuge, I don't know. I also said it in no way excuses his alleged behavior.
      Please read first for understanding, before looking for points to argue with.

      I finally found a summary of this on-going situation in what I feel is a reliable source. (beyond the NY Times original article that ignited this subject.) It is ABC News, Australia. I realise they have their biases; but I think the way the story is covered with sources and quotes, as well as videos--including several direct references to his behavior in the format of a comedy show and as part of an MC's remarks during an award show--all well before this current situation
      .
      My theme has been-in the case of allegations that include possible criminal activity, assuming the worst about someone and more or less convicting him without his having his day in court---that's a dangerous path to follow, however LOUD his accusers may be. I was primarily concerned about his wife, children, and her employees. I do think in this country that even accused murderers are constitutionally allowed a day in court. Rumors and he said/she said should not be ignored, but they must be substantiated.

      I appreciate your attention to my opinions, lizzie, and I do enjoy sparring with you. I had mentioned one of your comments, 7:56, I believe, that I especially appreciated. My comment was a comment that vaporized . I could understand why you felt Marchesa should take a hit, if her business did directly profit, as some have said.
      We just need to be careful in general which information is substantiated and which is Twitter-twaddle. anon1


      Delete
    28. Post your piecrust recipe anon 1, think you might be doing some cherry picking too! I agree changing "if" to "since" CAN change a sentence's meaning but I don't think my unintentional change did that here. Either way, the essence of your sentence (as well as your follow-up explanation) seemed to be to suggest the assaulted women were somehow at least partly at fault for not avoiding the situation. If we adopt that viewpoint, ANY woman (or man but I'm focusing on women) who experiences sexual harrassment more than once at work is partly at fault--after all, she could always quit the job. And if she didn't quit, she was making a "choice" to be harrassed (or worse.) I don't think you believe that and I know I don't. 

      Of course this is playing out in the court of public opinion. And you are correct that some info being reported now is likely not accurate. But it appears HW has confessed to some of it, it appears there were multiple settlements over the yrs, and it appears his 2015 contract with his company anticipated he would continue to engage in the reported type of behavior. So it's not exactly a he said/she said situation  (or in this case, they said)

      Delete
    29. I find it really interesting that women who are unknown to the world are rejected out of hand as "opportunists" but because the women in this case are touted as brave and believable. Is it because they are famous that they are credible? Rose McGowan first accused Harvey Weinstein 20 years ago. Then she was a no-name actress and she was discredited. They paid her off. Now she's not a young ingenue who could be permanently blackballed but she still needed the validation of bigger names like Gwyneth Paltrow and others to be believed. It's a hideous double standard by people who claim to be humanitarians. My hope is that his wife wins the Marchesa brand in the divorce settlement and makes a huge profit.

      Delete
    30. https://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-style/marchesa-designer-georgina-chapman-leaves-harvey-weinstein.html/?a=viewall

      https://www.racked.com/2017/10/12/16464736/marchesa-harvey-weinstein-georgina-chapman-vogue

      Delete
    31. If my comments disturb you--simple solution: stop reading them. Unless you enjoy being disturbed, then by all means, read on. anon1
      MY comments are easy to avoid as I name and claim each one.

      Delete
    32. Are you saying you know what I meant and I don't, lizzie? Twice.
      No cherry-picking. I did make an attempt to acknowledge and understand your viewpoint-which you usually do as well. I paid close attention to what you actually said, not what I thought you meant. I did not put words in your mouth.

      First I will say clearly and unequivocally, AGAIN, that rape is in another category and not one of the forms of sexual harassment I refer to, if it can even be classified as such. I think that may be what you refer to and if so, we have failed to establish exactly what we are debating.

      I realise it isn't politically correct to say this, but a woman who enters a private room alone with a known womanizer shares some responsibility for what happens in that room. One woman mentions being chased around a room by a naked man. My question would be--at any point in that chase did you pass the exit?
      However, some of the instances were with very young women; some may have been with women new to that environment and honestly unaware of the threat; some episodes may have occurred at work, without warning...a pinch, a lewd remark, a rude suggestion. I can understand feeling like a victim in those circumstances. But there seem to be a group who knew the danger and chose to take a chance anyway in order to advance a career, perhaps. Compare that to a woman whose home is broken into and is treated to some of the insults woman have described...requests for favors, suggestions, remarks, fondling...but --no choice, no warning for the woman at home.

      I stand by my remarks as I have written and explained them.
      I am sure Jane (and other readers) is weary of this discussion and I know I am. Thank-you for allowing this to play out, Jane. Given what Kate's Uncle has been up to, and for other reasons, it seems an appropriate discussion within the framework of her life.

      Lizzie--Truce/draw? anon1



      Delete
    33. I just read all these comments and I have to admit - I'm so confused. I don't know who is saying what and I can't tell what's going on in the comments between lizzie and anon1. Should I be distressed that I'm not able to follow this? Brain games to make me sharper? Maybe it's just migraine fog. That happens to me a lot.

      Delete
    34. Your comments about sexual harassment are gross and misogynistic, anon1.

      This is 2017. Talk to your granddaughters and become enlightened.

      As Emma Thompson said, Harvey Weinstein is a predator. Plain and simple.

      Delete
    35. Wow anon 1. I am quite surprised to hear the distinction you seem to draw between the level of a woman's culpability for being the victim of acquaintance vs stranger rape. Women often feel guilty for being victims of sexual assault and those attacked by a person they know often do feel guilty for not avoiding it (resulting in the under-reporting of acquaintance rape--estimates suggest as many as 80% go unreported.) But women raped in their own homes or in a street alley by a complete stranger (relatively rare statistically but more likely to be reported to the police) blame themselves too--"why did I not buy better locks?" "why didn't I fight back?" "why didn't I notice he was following me?" Typically women are counseled those thoughts, while common, are irrational. And they are helped to not blame themselves in EITHER type of perpetrator situation--stranger OR acquaintance. Your view that women bear some responsibility for the assault if choosing to be alone with a man--while surprising--does mirror legal views in the US back in the 1960s (US Model Penal Code) Rape by a "voluntary social companion" was codified into law as less serious than stranger rape.At the same time, a husband's rape of his wife was not recognized as a crime and rape of men was considered a less serious offense. Of course there have been many enlightened changes in US law in the last half century including adoption of state rape shield laws in the 1970s.

      I think we'll have to call a truce. Our thinking seems to be decades apart and we aren't likely to find any common ground on this issue.


      Delete
    36. I am in favor of a truce. :) I know this is a topic on which many have strong feelings and I wanted to give everyone a chance to have a conversation on it, but it is probably best to agree to move forward at this point.

      Delete
  33. Love the dress, and Jane- as always, your reporting is great because although I know the duchess uses her fashion to align with her events, I had missed the Heads Together color coordination until you mentioned it. "Anonymous" made a great point (and not just because I have always believed it) that with Catherine's patronages and initiatives, we can move beyond the clothes. I have always thought that Catherine is determined not to let her outfits steal the spotlight from the work of "The Firm." Although I love the over-the-top color schemes, clunky jewelry and daring fashions of Queen Maxima, I cannot tell you a single charity or project she is involved with. I love "The Max" for the fun she displays, yet I also admire Catherine's balance between form and function.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, Kathy! I love to see what Maxima wears as well but I honestly can't tell you one specific charity she supports.

      Delete
  34. I'm in the minority but I hate the dress! Everything - the colour, the ruffles, the neckline - is just too fussy and fuddy-duddy. Sorry, I adore Kate but the chin to wrist daytime lace look just doesn't do it for me. However, it was good to see Kate up and well enough to attend an event which obviously means so much to her and the Princes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. I really dislike the dress. The lace, high neckline, and color is so Kate though.

      Delete
  35. I do not like this dress at all ... sorry - but it seems oldfashioned to me and it does not support the glow of pregnancy she has in her face ...

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm really happy that Kate is back and feeling better. It's so nice to see her again! Unfortunately, though, I think this might be my least favorite dress... ever.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Good to see her back but I am afraid I second the most recent posts - that dress is not great .

    ReplyDelete
  38. I loved the color of this dress! It would be a homerun for me if the frilly cuffs and the bow at the neck were eliminated. It's sure good to see Kate back again!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I can't help but wonder if this third pregnancy is bittersweet for Zara and Mike Tindall. On one hand, they are very close to the Cambridges but on the other, I would imagine that a new baby and this time of year bring back difficult memories for them. Babies are always a blessing and I'm sure the Tindalls are excited for Mia to have a new playmate!

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am so glad to see her I don't care what she wears!(Well, almost) I like this dress and I don't like it too. Where it is form-fitting i think it's very flattering and cute, but the lace cuffs bother me - a bit too Miss Havisham for my taste - and the skirt seems slightly bulky - I don't care for that length or the panels. Just too much fabric, not enough leg. :) The color is beautiful on her, she looks amazing in every shade of blue! LOVE her eye make up - just gorgeous! Both Wills and Catherine look wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Orange County GrandmaOctober 13, 2017 at 4:24 PM

    I don’t understand how the disgusting Harvey Weinstein got on the page. He has nothing to do with the beautiful Duchess.
    And how Jane would allow this kind of comments.
    Let’s take our focus back on Duchess Catherine. And not the disgusted Harvey Weinstein😡😡😡

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the Duchess has recently started wearing Marchesa for official events so it's not completely random to wonder if the label might join Issa in the "never to be seen again" category.

      Delete
    2. Add to that--I suspect a portion of the abuse/discrimination leveled at Kate is a roundabout means of getting at her husband/ the monarchy.
      It is not a pretty subject but harassment based on gender is one that does impact Kate's life and ability to make choices in a number of areas, including fashion.
      Neckline too low? Skirt too short? are two of the most obvious. anon1

      Delete
  42. Orange County GrandmaOctober 13, 2017 at 8:37 PM

    Anon. Just wondering what your comment has to do with my comment on Harvey Weinstein

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harvey is the backer and he's being called the mastermind behind the brand.

      Delete
    2. Weinstein's wife owns Marchesa. Therefore people are wondering if Kate will wear the brand again. So there is somewhat of a connection (not between Weinstein and Kate obviously but between his wife's label and Kate). None of this discussion in anyway is implicating Kate in anything btw. It's just that now that this has all come out, I think it's a valid question to wonder whether Kate will wear the brand again (at least in the near future).

      Delete
    3. He's not only a backer but actively "marketed" the brand by threatening actresses to ensure they wore the label on the red carpet.

      Delete
    4. It would be interesting to determine
      1) how many actresses have worn Marchesa on the red carpet
      2) of those, how many were actually his employees. And in that group, how many were asked to wear it against their will and felt unable to refuse for fear of retaliation. As far as I know, only one or two; but I confess I am more interested in the larger themes than specific details and have not read many individual accounts. For one thing, it is difficult to find an unbiased , accurate news- source.
      It may be unethical to require an employer-owned or associated attire when representing a business , but I'm not sure it is illegal or even sexual harassment.
      As always, one must ask the question: who stands to gain and who will lose in all this? The winners will most certainly include his business rivals. The losers-his children and those everywhere who are deprived of a voice --because this will go away. A famous, once-beloved television actor was not prosecuted until his days of being useful had passed, although his activities were known in the acting community for years. If this man still has power I have little hope of his being actively prosecuted and found guilty or not in a court of law. So far, he is being accused in the court of public opinion, which is notoriously changeable.. that thought--that he may never see a day in court- may be behind so many coming forward in this way. But as we have seen in the past year, all the accusations can fade away when one has power. It is ironic or maybe just sad that the use of power can both implicate and free him. anon1

      Delete
    5. anon1 you are confusing the accusations of sexual harassment against employees with the reports that he bullied and threatened actresses to wear Marchesa. They are 2 different things - one set of behavior was for his own pleasure and one was to enhance the Marchesa brand. Felicity Huffman is on record saying that he told her if she didn't wear Marchesa on the red carpet he would pull funding for her project. There is no scenario in which that is akin to an employer requiring an employee to wear a uniform to represent the business. You are seriously stretching here.

      Delete
    6. Jane, I would appreciate your reading this entire comment.

      7:56--"...but I'm not sure it is illegal or even sexual harassment." "...employer owned or associated attire." Was he not associated with and perhaps on some level owned Marchesa? I don't see "uniform" in my statement. That's what I said. No confusion. No stretch on MY part. Try reading what is actually said, not filling in the blanks with whatever is convenient for the sake of argument.

      Say what you want about my generation-at least we were taught to read for understanding and meaning, not just for talking points for an argument--manufactured talking points at that. My comment was mis-represented, even when I prefaced a statement with: "First, I will say clearly and unequivocally".....rape is not in the same category as sexual harassment. I cited specifically what forms of harassment I intended; I specifically excluded rape, yet a commenter spent a whole comment criticizing and shaming me for my questionable and backward ideas about rape...WHICH I CLEARLY SAID I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT.I clearly stated what the housewife was threatened with and they were acts that are included in the definition of sexual harassment. NOT rape.

      JANE, I realise this is the same song, second verse, but apparently others have continued to mis-state my comments and resort to name-calling ("Disturbing," "gross and misogynistic, "for example)--Some replies to my comments left me scratching my head, much as they did Robin; the persons could not have read my entire comment. Either that or I must assume that the mis-interpretation was willful and intentional.

      I have been through targeting and character assault in another forum where readers were lead to believe I had made unpublished rude remarks about the blogger, among other slurs about me, personally, by name, which were never proven but were allowed to stand and have been repeated a number of times with the blogger condoning it. I had considered a lawsuit to prevent that from happening to someone else. I will no longer sit quietly by and allow it. I don't think your blog-or any blog-is the place for maligning other commenters' character, motives, intelligence, or generation. I think I am owed an apology from someone or at the very least, publishing this comment. anon1

      Delete
    7. Actresses are not Weinstein's "employees" they work via contract. And their scope of work begins and ends with the terms of their contract. That is why he threatened them in order to get them to wear the dresses.

      Here's where many of us have a problem with your views, anon1. You take everything and twist it against the women, even the dresses!! Felicity Huffman was threatened by that scum Weinstein with having her career killed. She talked about this in an interview.

      Your response? You say maybe she was an employee who was asked to wear it! Um, no. She was abused, forced, and threatened.

      Many times, your comments are literally mean and biting to people. In this Weinstein thing, everyone, and I mean everyone, gets what a monster he is. But you defend, defend him. No one is maligning you, you are doing it yourself.

      No one is making you look bad. Your words are doing it for you.

      Delete
    8. I'd like to call it quits on the Weinstein discussion. It has drifted far enough from Kate that it isn't really relevant to the blog and it has gotten heated enough that it is making other readers uncomfortable. I appreciate your understanding.

      Delete
  43. This is one of my least favourite looks for her ever. But she is glowing and looking so happy and healthy.

    ReplyDelete

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!