Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Kate Wears the Zarita to Philip & Elizabeth's Dinner Party

Monday, November 20, 2017

Two posts in one day! The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were pictured arriving at the Queen and Philip's dinner party tonight celebrating the royal couple's 70th wedding anniversary. [They have been pictured leaving with Harry, and Kate is bundled in a fuzzy coat]


Kate is dressed to the nines in her DVF Zarita, which we just saw on the 7th at the Anna Freud Centre's gala dinner.



By very lucky happenstance, Kate tossed her head at the right moment for James Whatling to catch a picture that included her earrings. She is wearing the Collingwood pearl earrings. I am not an expert on the BRF family jewelry, but a quick Google search pulled up Kate's necklace. It is indeed on loan from the Queen, who has worn it on a number of occasions and loaned it to Diana, too. More from the blog Her Majesty's Jewelry Vault:
The necklace includes four rows of pearls with a central diamond clasp in a curved shape, each side including three rows of diamonds that join at the top and bottom with marquise diamonds. According to Garrard: The Crown Jewellers for 150 Years, the Queen commissioned this from a set of the "finest cultured pearls presented to her by the Japanese government." She made her first state visit to Japan in 1975; the choker was in use by at least 1982.
This is the latest foray into more pearl jewelry for Kate, and I am loving the trend. Here is the Queen wearing the choker on November 16, 1983 in Bangladesh: 


What about Meghan Markle? According to Niraj Tanna, a royal paparazzo who has been scooping royal exclusives for years, says she was not there. I am very surprised, and I think this suggests that Harry and Meghan are not secretly engaged, although I do think they will be publicly engaged sooner rather than later. But, I am still surprised. Meghan has met the Queen, but this underscores (I suppose) how strongly HM sticks to protocol, and I cannot blame her for that. 

56 comments:

  1. Do you think it's possible Meghan was there but entered and exited separately to keep the focus on HM and not on Meghan/Harry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For myself, I am secretly not ruling it out, but it certainly seems less likely. But, one of the photographers said definitively she wasn't there, though, which could be based on more than merely watching the arrivals. He may have other info, e.g. know she is elsewhere, etc.

      Delete
    2. On the Daily Mail article they show a photo of the pass list to get into the party and Harry is definitely listed without a date. Actually so is The Earl of Wessex. No Sophie or the kids.

      Just to put the MM stuff in perspective, Princess Eugenie wasn’t invited with Jack Brooksbank and they have been together for a super long time and there are alway engagement rumors there.

      Delete
    3. I read in another Daily Mail article last week that Meghan Markle is planning on spending Thanksgiving in Los Angeles with her mother. Not an expert on jet lag, but my personal experience with London to L.A. is that it's a long flight and the time zone changes are harsh. You end up wanting to go to bed at 3 pm. Maybe she finished Suits and went home to her Mom.

      Delete
    4. The DM has photos today of her out and about in London.

      Delete
    5. If it is one of her in the cap and gray jacket, that was taken at some point "leaving her house in Toronto," according to a very fine-print caption under the photo in the Express.
      I was looking for Anniversary photos and was lured by headlines... about Meghan missing and "Camilla Livid," apparently about Kate. Of course, not so long ago they reported that the Queen was "livid" that Kate was missing engagements due to her illness with HG. I can't imagine HM taking that attitude when she allows Sophie to miss major royal events the Queen's birthday honors--for her Father's birthday; an overseas visit planned for the day of HM anniversary party...as though THAT date hasn't been on the books for 70 years. I am NOT saying Sophie's excuses were unjustified; I am saying Kate's certainly was justified.
      The slow, peaceful transition stories are gone. It is all about Charles stepping aside or the Queen by-passing Charles for William and Palace rifts now. Including a royal reporter story comparing the transition to a jar of Marmite. Between those stories and the tea party and Diana watch stories, the tabs must think their readers are a bunch of gullible fools.

      Delete
    6. I'm not a usual reader of the tabloids anon 1 but you certainly keep us abreast of the tabloid news!

      As I've said before, I don't really understand why you *appear to  be* gunning for Sophie so often. (Yes, I saw you capitalized the word "not" but the full context of your comment implies blame for Sophie to me.) Sophie's husband is pretty far down in the line of succession,  after all. And she & Edward do a fair amount of royal work..particularly the "someone-from-the-BRF-must-attend-not-necessarily-fun" appearances. And Sophie does regular solo multi-day overseas visits that may not be super-glamorous. (Bangladesh?) 

      Of course, I don't think Kate should be blamed for her pregnancy illness. And I seriously doubt the Queen was "livid" because Kate was temporarily ill. But speaking of "well known" dates (as you have), as an American I've even heard of Commonwealth Day & know the date. And it's not a signal to schedule a long ski weekend in a non-Commonwealth country!

      Delete
    7. Totally agree Lizzie. And this PP has a history of criticizing anyone who is not Kate (Sophie, Rebecca, etc.)

      Delete
    8. Look at all the things Kate didn't get to go or be a true part of for years!! And years!! MM won't get special treatment.. Val from the US

      Delete
  2. I know there's generally a motorcade and traffic shutdown, but shouldn't they be wearing seatbelts? There could always be a problem with their car, even if there's not much of a chance of getting hit by another car (although you never know if a crazy person will try to ram them). Just seems a bit unsafe considering Kate & Wills have small children, and given that Diana died in a car crash. Safety first.

    As for Meghan, why would she be here even if they ARE engaged? This is to celebrate the wedding anniversary of two people she's barely spent any time with and who she has no history with, and from a family she hasn't married into yet. It wouldn't be appropriate for her to be there, ring or not. (And, it would also take the focus away from the main event, let's be honest.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, also, hate the choker. This style is tolerable on the Queen and Camilla, but Kate shouldn't be emulating women who are decades older than she. Nice to see HM loaning her things, though.

      Delete
    2. Pearl chokers are so BRF! The ladies have been wearing them forever. I was never a fan but thisnones doesn’t bother me so much.

      Delete
    3. Agreed, Am! I don’t think this was the place for her. It was an intimate family event plus it was probably fraught with protocol and she probably hasn’t done princess boot camp yet! Hopefully she is just waiting at KP for Harry to come home!

      Delete
    4. Re: age of choker wearing women. (Sometimes, our topics crack me up!😂)

      Chokers, to me, go on any age group and I really think of them for younger(ish) women. BUT, it also depends on the style of the choker and the dress.

      Also, younger necks and jaw lines look better with a choker than older ones. Sometimes, chokers can be seen as a sexier piece of jewelry. So I do not like the trend of very young girls wearing chokers now. It smacks me as too much, too soon.

      And Diana famously wore a lot of chokers starting at 20.

      I remember my sister wore a very fitted black velvet dress with a pearl choker to a Christmas formal in high school. It was really beautiful. It was a great accent to her bare shoulders and neck.

      I think this choker on Kate would have been better if she was showing more skin. When the dress fabric is that close to the choker, it looks aging instead of sexy and elegant.

      Delete
    5. Anon 6:51, agree they can be beautiful and youthful and frankly sexy. This one is not really being worn like a choker she is wearing it like a necklace and agree it runs into the dress. If she actually had it up higher on her neck it might work better with this dress but agree a lower neckline would work better with this necklace especially the way she is wearing it. I assume she wore it to honor the Queen. Maybe when she is standing it all works better than the angle we are getting in the car. I am not that fond of this necklace either but I do like some of the pearl chokers:).

      Delete
    6. I looked again at the pictures. I am rethinking the necklace, it looks like it sits on Kates neck about the same spot as it did on the Queen and Diana, may just be the angle in the car. So much for my initial post:):)

      Delete
    7. Totally agree, Ali, this necklace needed to be higher on Kate’s neck even if she wore a different dress. She’s almost wearing it as a regular necklace.

      6:51

      Delete
    8. I don't think chokers with front clasps are typically adjustable. So they sit where they sit. The wearer doesn't have a choice unless the piece is altered by a jeweller. But not all chokers are intended to sit high like a velvet ribbon choker or "dog collar" type of choker. That said, I think this one looks very nice & fits Kate the same as it did HM & Diana. I agree a lower necked gown might have showcased it more. The gowns HM & Diana wore wih it hit a bit lower than Kate's gown. The black lace edge of Kate's neckline also competes a bit. (I don't think it's the angle of the photo. Kate's dress hits here where it seemed to at events when she was photographed standing.) Both HM & Diana wore their hair shorter and that made it show more than it does on Kate with her hair down. Still a win to me!

      Delete
    9. As someone who has recovered from HG I would think if the necklace was higher it may set off the vomiting reaction. Anything constricting on the neck could produce that reaction when someone is recovering from HG. Just a thought as to the lower necklace placement.

      Delete
    10. Good point. Also, Ohio, I imagine Kate's neck is smaller than the Queen's, although HM wore this earlier in her reign when she may have been smaller. That also might explain why, however much she might enjoy a necklace, why she has not worn some jewels recently-they were made for a younger or smaller person.
      With this appearance I think the necklace hits above the sternal notch depression area on all the ladies. I think the dress neckline was high. There is a photo of HM wearing the choker in a white lace dress that comes as high as Kate's. Queen Mary wore some chokers high , nearly under her chin. Which was unfortunate as she probably should not have emphacised her lower face area. Not her best feature.

      Delete
    11. The RF has superb jewelers that adjust and adapt jewelry for each new person. Any changes that needed to be made for Kate would have been done. Diana adapted jewelry all the time.

      Delete
    12. Based on all the pictures I've seen, Anne Boleyn wore her famous choker with the letter "B" low, lower than this fits Kate. So I'm just not sure there is  "proper" choker placement on the neck for royals. In recent years there has been an unfortunate connotation regarding chokers, particularly high chokers though for everyone else.

      It may be true Kate would not have wanted to wear something fitted higher while pregnant, but I still think this necklace hits her the same place it has the other wearers. I don't know that her neck is thinner than HM's was when she wore it...Kate is slim but she's also tall with broad shoulders so I'm not sure how absolutely thin her neck is. But if her neck is thinner, I think at best that might explain the slight "looseness" seen in the top strand in the photo. I really don't think with the (very likely) heavy clasp it could fit *anyone* higher on the neck at least not without a major reworking by a jeweller (and regardless of the existence of royal jewellers, presumably not possible for any *temporary* borrower. Long-term loans might be different and gifts certainly would be.)

      Delete
    13. It's not that younger women can't wear chokers, it's more that this style of pearl choker is mostly seen on older women like Camilla these days (seems like she has several and frequently wears them). Maybe a diamond one would've been more youthful, you know?

      And Diana wore them in the 80's...doesn't help the argument (haha). A decade we should all try to forget, style-wise!

      Delete
  3. What a wonderful occasion for Her Majesty and Prince Philip. I love the Zarita gown, and Kate looks smashing, as do William and Harry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank-you, Tedi, for your consistently upbeat comments.
      There was a Professor Godard or Goddard at university.
      English department head, I believe.

      Delete
    2. Thank you anon1 for that lovely post. To which University are you referring? My husband's surname is French (Huguenot), rather than the English Goddard.

      Delete
  4. I guess I am not surprised that MM was not there since this was such an intimate family affair. Kate attended some family weddings with (and w/out) William prior to their engagement, but those were not considered private family affairs because of extended family, friends and university friends. Even once Wills and Kate became engaged she did not attend Christmas at Sandringham out of respect of still not officially a family member and wanted to respect the Queen's most coveted private family time. I don't expect to see MM at a family event before they are married. The one exception being.....if there is an engagement announcement prior to the extended family lunch at Buckingham before the Queen sets out for Sandringham....MM might be welcomed into the fold at that point. I think they all look great arriving tonight together. It is fun seeing Kate with the new jewelry pieces!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm also thinking Charles is going to have to do a quick change to a tux! Looks as if arriving with open collar and casual blazer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think they are secretly engaged. I also think it would have been ridiculous for her to come to the party and be “secretly” engaged. The whole point of keeping their engagement secret is to have more space and privacy. Taking her to this would have ruined that. Yes, they were in Canada together but that was more of a coming out for their relationship and was a function for Harry only. This was for Phillip and the Queen, not a time to overshadow them with are they or aren’t they headlines.

    Yes, they are making parts of their relationship public but not all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love the pearls! I wear pearl earrings every day, I rotate between 3 pairs, including a drop pair that is similar to the ones Kate wears :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. He would have only landed this morning from his 3 day Caribbean trip to Antigua, Barbuda, Dominica and the BVI. Looks like he’s still wearing the suit he wore here in Antigua!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did Camilla make that trip? I hadn't seen any photos of her with Charles from the trip.

      Delete
    2. Likewise, Anon1. I don't believe she accompanied him.

      Delete
  9. I love seeing this necklace on Kate! I remember Diana wearing it and I love pearls so, combined with one of my favorite dresses, this is a total win for me.

    I agree that it would have been completely inappropriate for MM to be at this dinner. They are not engaged, no date is set, and this is about HM and PP. Nothing should steal focus from that. Yes, MM was at one Invictus event where she sat with Harry and not rows apart but it was clear that Harry's focus then was on the athletes and the athletes alone. He visited with them all, supported them all, and cheered all of them on - no matter what country they were from. He is very well respected by all of the men and women who compete at Invictus because he isn't there to be a figure head but to do something truly good in which he truly believes. It shows in everything he does there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Harry even knows the meaning of "figure head." Not in his wheelhouse.

      Delete
    2. I agree completely. He really is his mother's son.

      Delete
    3. I totally agree on the MM point, Robin. I don't think she would have been invited even if they were secretly engaged: it would have set off a firestorm in the press on par with an actual engagement, and if they're keeping it secret, then that's likely because they're avoiding publicity for now.

      Delete
    4. Georgia rose, I agre . If they are engaged, they are keeping the secret to themselves. The moment they tell the Queen, it will be official, and announced to the world just after that.It would have been very strange if MM had been invited to such an official although private dinner. It is likely there will be an official picture of the occasion, she would be incongruous on it,"girlfriend" has no historical status.

      Delete
  10. I adore pearl jewelry, so I'm thrilled to see her wearing more pearls, and, more importantly, MORE PIECES FROM QEII's VAULTS! I'm in love.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree that it is highly improbably that Meghan attended the anniversary dinner, even if she and Harry are unofficially engaged. The BRF are strict about protocol with such things and she wouldn't be in attendance as simply a girlfriend. And Sophie isn't present because she's on an official trip to Bangladesh, I think. I would guess Camilla attended though perhaps she wasn't photographed on route.

    On another note, Catherine looks great! The lace gown must be a favourite of hers when pregnant, and the choker is nice, if a little odd with the neckline of the dress. It's hard to say for sure from these photos. I hope a group picture is released tomorrow so we can see more of this very special event :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great to see Catherine wearing another piece of jewellery from the Queen's vaults. Sitting in the car between the two men, it doesn't show to best advantage.
    However, it is certainly not aging---Diana wore it in her twenties.
    I think if she were standing the neckline would be a little lower and fit the necklace perfectly.
    It would be lovely with the black velvet dress she wore a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, not aging at all. Actually, I think chokers age older women.

      Do agree with you about the black velvet gown. So strange its never been seen again because it was a home run.

      Delete
    2. I love that dress. I'm sure it wouldn't fit her at the moment being a few months pregnant. Being strapless it was probably very structured in the bodice. She really has moved away from strapless. I always thought it still was appropriate on her since she is so small busted. That said, I am the same age as her and I've moved away from strapless just because I find them uncomfortable so maybe she is the same way. Have we seen those rubies since?

      Delete
    3. No we haven't seen the rubies again either, Ellen:(

      Delete
    4. I love chokers and I would like to see Kate wear more of them. She certainly has the neck for it.

      Delete
    5. Royalfan, completely agree.

      Delete
    6. Good :-) ... we choker gals need to stick together.

      Delete
  13. Yes! This necklace deserved to be shown off a little and the neckline of the Zarita didn’t seem to lend itself to that. I love the idea of pairing it with the strapless velvet dress...that would be a knockout!

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is just more proof that she has multiples of the same clothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't be surprised if she did with some of her staples but I doubt with this evening gown. Yes, she has worn it multiple times but not THAT often to warrant two!

      Delete
    2. She's worn it twice within the same month...

      Delete
    3. Why does that mean she has two? Dry cleaning is available I imagine.

      Delete
  15. I want to learn more about the BRF over the years--any recommendations for resources (online or print)? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  16. It seems Meghan Was photographed out shopping with a girlfriend in London. She was dressed stylishly in a dramatic, Hollywood way--in oversized scarf wrapped around her neck and shoulders, oversized sunglasses, a black sweater, and very close-fitting skinny jeans. It actually would tend to draw attention, rather than disguise her, if that was the intent. She looked neatly groomed, including her hairstyle, and well put together, however.
    Please tell me why she appeared at an official function, her first public outing with her Prince, in ragged cuffed jeans, half tucked in oversized shirt and bedhead hair? Some had explained that that is her style and even considered fashionable. Her appearance in London was almost polar opposite. She wasn't participating in any sport or activity in Toronto. She was sitting as a spectator with Harry at his Invictus Games. On the other hand, she appeared respectfully attired on the streets of London with a very casually dressed acquaintance. What am I missing? Is there a protocol amongst her set that calls for unkempt appearance with one's hoped-for intended mate yet
    perfect grooming for shopping with an apparent casual friend? It is almost as though she was thumbing her nose at the royal family at the event that Harry had been working so hard on for months as a royal patron.
    That doesn't make any sense to me.
    There has got to be another explanation.

    By the way, I think there will be an announcement Saturday in time for the Sunday papers. Not necessarily an engagement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am going to answer this one quickly so it doesn't spark a row. :). Meghan has a trendy fashion flavor. Her ensemble shopping in London was consistent with her style at the Invictus Games. The kind of ripped jeans she wore, no matter my opinion or yours, are currently en vogue. I don't think she is trying to fly under the radar, I think she dresses in what she thinks looks nice--as do we all. Her Invictus Games outfit wasn't dissonant to her generation, as I say, for better or worse. The point I am trying to make is that she isn't deliberately attempting to offend anyone. She wears what she thinks looks nice. I think assuming anything beyond that would be unfair and unfounded.

      Delete

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

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

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

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you 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!