Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Kate Says She Loves Playing With Her Children + Meghan Wears GOAT to BP Garden Party

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

It is Children's Hospice Week, and as she does every year, the Duchess of Cambridge has supported the effort. This year, she has done so via a letter of encouragement. Kensington Palace released the note along with a picture of the Duchess.  


Apparently, the theme of this year's hospice week is "Time's Short." According to Kate's letter, "[c]hildren and young people are sharing what they love most in life and reminding us of how precious time is for everyone."  She shared her own priorities, saying, "[s]pending quality time together is such an important aspect of family life and for me, as a mother, it is the simple family moments like playing outside together that I cherish."

We know Kate isn't paying lip service here. People often ask me what I think makes Kate tick, and I always reply, her family. There are regular complaints that Kate doesn't work enough, but at the end of the day, it is very clear that she prioritizes time with her kids. It is a difficult line to hold in the face of sometimes withering criticism of her work ethic. But maybe it is her work with hospices that reminds Kate when she goes home that her greatest treasure is her children, and her greatest blessing is their health and vitality. The majority of our favorite shots of Kate are of her playing with her kids, both because they are such sweet shots, but also because we are seeing where her heart is:


Switching gears to the photo. This looks like it is part of a set of photos, several of which we have already seen. First we saw the family photo they released as their 2017 Christmas card:


And then we caught a glimpse of this sweet shot of the couple in a thank-you frame they gifted while abroad in February:



I think we have actually seen this solo shot of Kate already, too, but sadly my brain is still on post-finals hiatus. [I'll tell you, the law can destroy in more ways than one. ;)]  I know one of you will remember and tell me in the comments! In any case, Kate is wearing the icy Catherine Walker she debuted on her first solo trip overseas. She wore this in the Netherlands for a series of engagements in  October of 2016.


I was very interested to see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex undertake their first official engagement yesterday as a married couple. They attended a BP garden party celebrating Prince Charles' birthday and his work with his many patronages. Meghan really switched gears to royal style, opting for a customized dress from one of Kate's favorite labels, GOAT London. We've chatted about how Meghan's hats have been up and down, but she scored marvelously in this lovely topper from Philip Treacy, and for the first time ever, she was wearing stockings!


Can't wait to hear what you all think! 

90 comments:

  1. I absolutely loved this outfit from Meghan. Seeing her dressed so royally makes me wonder if this was done on purpose. Pre wedding outfits, wedding dress and then first appointment post wedding. A definite change in look and style. The hat was just gorgeous! I'd love to see Kate in something similar. Didn't realise GOAT also does non-maternity looks.

    And working in hospice nursing myself - I can fully relate to Kate's words. Coming home and cherishing time with family is that much more special - knowing what others are not taking for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Jane. I know what you mean about the law. I hear you! Thank you for the post on Kate. I know how busy you are, but while she is at home concentrating on being a mom to a newborn, there is still a lot to discuss about who she is and where she might go from here as her children grow and the pressures on William increase. I was so very impressed with William's reading at the Manchester Commemoration yesterday. He is such a strong speaker and so much better with the public than many give him credit for.

    As for Meghan, I thought she looked stunning from the neck up yesterday. I am not a fan of the dress on her, lovely as she is. She must be hard to fit or something because I just don't think most of her clothes fit her properly. This one bunched up in all the wrong places. I was most struck by that when I watched the videos. That dress did not move well at all.

    Lovely to see her easy rapport with Charles and Camilla. I suspect the relationship between William and Charles is a little more strained than it is with Harry, but that's to be expected given their roles and their personalities. I suspect William is a lot more like Charles than Harry is and that can cause discourse sometimes.

    Your brain will come back to you Jane. Hang in there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always assumed that as the younger son Harry had more room to have good relationships with both his parents whereas as the older child William probably got caught in the middle more often (as frequently happens in nasty divorces). Charles and William share a sense of duty and reserve, but I can see Charles and Harry sharing a romantic rebellious streak

      Delete
    2. It is amazing what Jane can do whilst in the midst of brain drain. Thanks for the post! I appreciate the Meghan coverage for this interlude. I think she was the very image of a modern/traditional blend of a Duchess.

      I have noted the careful rationing of the CH/KP spotlight. Apparently these Charles birthday celebrations will continue for the next six months.
      M&H have made their exits for the time being. Front and center W&C.

      Delete
    3. Catherine’s message was right to the point. The theme Life’s Short is so important, especially in this day and age. Not only for the children in hospice but for all children. They are our future.

      I say I have to agree with Jane in Canada 10:01. They just didn’t fit her well. The sleeves on her dress at Charle’s birthday party were just too loose. Perhaps she lost weight prior to the wedding and there wasn’t time for alterations. However it was a lovely wedding. Best wishes Harry and Meghan.

      Delete
    4. Iisyh thetwihitey coat worn to a churche service with tt Anzac, the wedding dress, and now this.) She seems very petite so maybe that's the issue? However that Roland mouret she worn on the eve of her wedding at the hotel for like a glove. That was perfection.

      Delete
    5. I agree about the fitting! This is the fourth time that the fit is the first thing I've noticed about her outfit (the white coat worn to a church service with beret, gray coat at Anzac, the wedding dress, and now this.) She seems very petite so maybe that's the issue? However that Roland mouret she wore on the eve of her wedding at the hotel fit like a glove. That was perfection.

      Delete
  3. Work ethic in the way many on this blog understand it means simply working hard. Which IMO is a very narrow point of view. Work ethic IMO means honesty, incorruptibility, fairness; being knowledgeable in your subject, respect for others and many other ethic implication. The traders that were responsible for the financial crisis were hard working men, I wouldn't call them ethical. I think working hard for money, personal gain or celebrity is not positive as such. Hard work can bring ruin to others, it can also bring happiness, depending on what and how you work hard. So this recurring discussion about Kate's work ethic is very strange to me, and I will shock her fans but I think the kind of job Meghan chose to work hard at, a shallow TV show, is not my definition of work ethic. IMO, Kate making her priorities clear, her family coming before anything else, is a proof of her life ethic. Charity begins at home and those who have practiced it know it is not the easy path. The charities she chose give us another glimpse at her ethic. Not showy, popular or glamorous causes. Children. Addiction. Art and Sports in so far they open perspectives. And her common sense in discerning that an unhappy childhood is at the root of many a broken life. Going to the roots of family unhappiness. Caring for the most vulnerable. Trying to give back the happiness she experienced as a child because she knows it can be done. Starting with those who are nearest to her and doing what she can to help others not because it is her job, or for PR but because she cares. From what I have seen and read about her, I believe Kate is a woman of very strong ethical values, of loyalty and integrity. That is what ethic is about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is so beautifully put and a wonderful perspective on Kate. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. I work at 9-5 M-F and my children are well adjusted and happy. I think life is all about balance. Doing the bare minimum in one area, in my mind, does not garner the luxury she is afforded in her personal life.
      I continue to think that Kate didn't want the job, she just fell in love with William. I have no doubt in my mind Meghan loves Harry, but I also think she is up for the job.

      Now.. I do understand that you can not retire from royal life given the position William and Kate are in. I will probably retire in my 70's... Phillip did not get to sit down until he was 96. So their work lives are kind of reversed compared to us normal folk.

      Delete
    3. I understand as a Kate fan, you probably think digs toward Meghan make Kate look better, but that's not the case. Prior to her marriage, Kate worked part-time as an accessories buyer. Would you think that's shallow as well?

      Meghan was an actress but she also portrayed a strong female role, which I think should be respected. She was also a writer and entrepreneur with her web-site and articles she wrote for publication. That should be respected. She also has worked for charitable, philanthropic, and humanitarian causes.

      Comparing Meghan pre-marriage to Kate as a royal is ridiculous and shows your agenda.

      Delete
    4. Both of you have written and expressed your thoughts beautifully. Kate is a Senior member of the Royal Family. She and William may feel that her main job is being a great Mom, but the reality is that she is a working mother and her other job is fulfilling many Royal duties / that came with the package. I like her a lot, but her work ethic, as well as William’s need to to increase greatly. It is what she signed on for and he was born into. Their lifestyle comes with that price. Like it or not...

      Delete
    5. Daniela, no agenda, I assure you. I don't make digs towards Meghan because I am a Kate fan. In fact, I dislike the idea of being a fan of anyone. I have a positive opinion of Kate, that I have stated.
      My opinion of Meghan is based on the shower of information about her and would have been the same if Kate didn't exist. Believe it or not, I though I showed great restrain in labeling "Suits" as shallow. Cheap entertainment, vulgar show are nearer my meaning. Actually my point was not to compare Kate and Meghan, but to illustrate how the ethic of work depends more of what you work for than how hard you work. I used it because Meghan is regularly praised for her work ethic, in fact I believe there is not a comment about her that doesn't mention the notion. I agree she seems an active hardworking kind of person.
      Where I strongly disagree is that having a paid job automatically means you have work ethic. Or that taking care of your children means you are lazy.

      Delete
    6. Actually, "work ethic" has a definition, and you can't just "IMO" your way through your own definition. That's like me saying that "IMO, chartreuse is really more of a bright purple." Sure, I could have that opinion, but it would be wrong.

      Work ethic is believing that hard work deserves to be rewarded, and that hard work in itself is a good and worthy thing. It has nothing to do with honesty, incorruptibility, and all that stuff you've mishmashed in there.

      I like Kate, but she doesn't seem to have a killer work ethic. And that's fine! She's doing what she wants with her life. But it's unfair to slam Meghan for her "shallow TV show." She got the job, memorized her lines, put in the time, ran a blog, and earned her own money (a lot of it). Like her or not, she's got a work ethic.

      Delete
    7. I think the conflict here is not as much in what is ethical as in what is work, which is a very subjective and elusive term.
      As I have written previously, some people see home making and teaching children at home as inferior to or less work than similar work outside the home. Some consider homemaking equally a job/work as any other. The two groups will never come together as it would involve changing every experience and influence one has had in one's life. That is what determines one's definition of work. Not a dictionary.

      The discussion has not been whether Catherine or Meghan is more ethical in her work. Being ethical involves following a set of rules which governs how a particular goal is accomplished. In work that involves a specific schedule, it means showing up and on time. It means dealing fairly with one's contacts; it means keeping one's word. I don't see any definition of "Ethics" that discriminates between work done at home and work done outside the home. Even those with inherited wealth who don't have 9-5 jobs operate within a code of ethics for their specific role. And philanthropists must also operate by a code of ethics. Spending time or money on a charity does not automatically make one ethical. It is not what is done but why and how it is accomplished that is the basis for ethical behavior. (I think someone else said that in this discussion)

      This discussion on this thread and others here and elsewhere seems to center on what one considers work, not on what is ethical behavior. The topic has become a very emotionally charged issue. I really don't think we can rationally and intelligently converse on the topic. It has become a matter of defending one's own life, not discussing the Duchesses' ethics.

      Delete
    8. Thank you, anon1, for putting things into perspective. And thank JTQ for giving the definition of work ethic. Very illuminating and the discussions here make more sense for me. In fact work ethic has nothing to do with ethics. A person like Harvey Weinstein has work ethic. I won't bother anymore about it. And I agree with anon1 that the core of the discussion is indeed the definition of work, not the ethical values of Kate.

      Delete
    9. You're welcome, H.
      This blog was a refuge for me at one point. It seems other sites are either edited to the point of being one-sided and somewhat boring or so poorly moderated that one feels like one has wandered into a crossfire and must dodge the bullets. This has been my Goldilocks blog and I hate to see it consumed in animosity. There are topics that by history we know lead to no resolution. The fun of a spirited discussion is sometimes lost in a tangle of hurt feelings.
      Sometimes it helps to know just what we are arguing about.

      Delete
    10. I think everyone needs to consider the vastly different course each of these women's lives will take as the years go on. Harry and Meghan might undertake a lot of engagements at the beginning of their relationship (perhaps compared to W&C at the beginning of theirs), but they are significantly older than W&C were when they were married. Also, W&C were not full time royals (William had a different full time job and they lived pretty far out in Wales). I will hold judgement on kid/work commitment for when Harry and Meghan have kids (although I have a harder time picturing Meghan as a mother compared to Kate). Also, Kate might want to spend time with her family now since their lives will only get more rigid and busy as William gets closer to the throne. They are never going to be able to "retire." This is their time to have some sort of family life. Harry and Meghan will eventually not be in the spotlight and they will always have more freedom. Once George, Charlotte, and Louis gets older, they will take more responsibility from Harry and Meghan. H&M are going to be able to "retire" and do more things with their future family. I really wish people took this into consideration when comparing Kate and Meghan.

      Delete
    11. Danielle-
      👏👏🙌🙌

      Delete
  4. I think you hit the nail on the head about Kate. She clearly prioritises her family & time with her young children. I loved Meghan’s outfit yesterday..she’s definitely part of the firm now!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jennifer from the SouthMay 23, 2018 at 10:22 AM

    Thank you for posting - I, too, think Kate adores being a mother, and it suits her so well.

    (Just a note, Meghan also wore stockings to church at the Commonwealth Service. Those were more nude, though, and the garden party stockings were more blush.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like Meghan's outfit in general. And I like her non-wispy updo alot. But I don't like the wispy bits at the neckline and sleeves at all. I know those wisps are supposed to be a decorative element.But here they make it look like the dress could be inside out to me. And when Kate has worn "ragged" wispy lace at the neck/cuffs (one of her Ascot dresses, I think) it made her garment look either worn or unfinished to me. I'll be glad when the wispy-edges-on-dressy-clothes trend passes!

    I don't object to the fit of Meghan's dress here (although I did think the raglan sleeves of her wedding gown didn't fit quite right, probably due to the weight of the material.) There are stories online comparing the beige dress Kate wore at her first royal engagement (the private one with the Obamas) to the dress Meghan wore here. The two kinds of engagements were very different, of course. But I think the side-by-side photo comparison mainly highlights the two women prefer their clothes to fit their bodies quite differently & I doubt that will change. So some will think Kate's clothes are too tight and others will think Meghan's are too loose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I look forward to seeing Kate back after her maternity leave but i suppose I will have to wait until the end of summer for that. How can she not be pretty tired from giving birth a month ago and having to slim down and run after two kids. Of course she has more help than most but its still a physical and possibly a mental drain on the body. She looked a bit tired at the wedding but she also must have been distracted, making sure George and Charlotte follow directions during their walk down the aisle. I was happy to see Meghan looking really polished yesterday. Although her updo is normally casual I think she has to look a bit more professional as a royal if she wants respect. Royals get so many privileges and when they look too casual, even if it is just the hairstyle, it somehow displays a lack of seriousness about the job. I want the royals to look put together from top to bottom as they have the means and available assistance. if you are casual then you are just like everyone else, and then why have the royals? Anyway, I thought she looked wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 10:50, Quoting you: "I want the royals to look put together from top to bottom as they have the means and available assistance. if you are casual then you are just like everyone else, and then why have the royals?" I have vaguely had this thought, but have never been able to articulate it. I completely agree, and am glad you put my thoughts into words!

      Also, I agree that Meghan looked wonderful at the Garden Party. I hope she will continue with the new "Royal look"!

      Delete
  8. Hope your finals went well, Jane! Thanks for continuing with the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the criticism about Kate's work ethic come from people who are bitter. There is nothing wrong with choosing to prioritize her family and children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know how anyone could criticize Kate for her "work ethic," especially now with three young kids. I do think they should be more open with photos, access, etc. which would go a long way. I know Meghan is now officially part of the Firm, but I hope she doesn't lose the magic of who she is - and HER real style. Given the wedding style, I don't think she will, but you never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Courtney, MarylandMay 23, 2018 at 2:36 PM

      I think the criticisms about Kate’s work ethic are also off - isn’t it important that she gives her children a good, loving upbringing? George is in line for the throne, after all, so I see her parenting as an important role in the future of the royal family.

      I loved Meghan’s look, and my fist reaction to it was that it was much more “royal” than her previous ones. But I would guess she hadn’t totally pivoted - I’m sure we’ll get a taste of her personal style in more relaxed events.

      Delete
  11. There are so many things that I love about this post Jane! First, I want to say thank you for writing about Meghan. I know that your blog is primarily about Kate, but your blog is truly one of the best out there and I love the perspective you bring. Anytime that you can write about Meghan is so appreciated.
    Secondly, I'm the anon that wrote a comment the other day about Kate being a fantastic mom and wife, but her royal work ethic is a little lacking. I felt scared about writing those comments because sometimes criticism of Kate on this blog, is not taken well.
    I didn't want to turn the comments negative and just wanted to speak about Kate and Meghan as I see them. I've always been a fan of Kate and always will be, but it's clear her heart is more focused on her home life. Seeing your perspective and thoughts on her work ethic and home life that mirror a lot of my beliefs about Kate is reassuring. That's not to say that Meghan is more suited for the role of royal wife, but there is a public work ethic that she has that is more genuine I believe.
    Personally speaking, I am a public servant professionally and have always known that I wanted to get involved and give back. It's my biggest joy in life to work for the people. I listen to Meghan and her desire to serve the public and it really rings true because I can relate. Sometimes it may come across as inauthentic to some, but when you have the opportunity to do what brings you the most joy, there's a joy that you don't want to hide. I could be projecting a little bit.
    I think being a wife and mom brings the same type of joy to Kate, as working for the people brings to Meghan. That's the reason I truly believe both of these women can and should be adored instead of being taken down a peg or unfairly compared.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and as horses and corgis and being in the country bring joy to the Queen. Doesn't make her less authentic or competent in her role that she takes her joy outside of royal work.

      I refuse to compare Kate and Meghan in their roles, as is the current media theme song. I try to resist the temptation, although there is a constant push to do so. I think sometimes the comparisons are unintentional. Unfortunately, there are those who for various reasons look upon Kate's prioritizing her family life and children as somehow a deficiency and not an asset. Just as William's work with the air ambulance service has added nuances to his interactions with those in the midst of tragedy--his recent work with both the Manchester and the Tower survivors, for example, so Catherine's experiencing motherhood has allowed her to identify with and understand those whom her various fields of work involve.
      Wonderfully empathetic comment, H.
      I am also beginning to understand anon 11:29's current and previous remarks. I still do question the applying of such words as "authentic" to the work of one Duchess but not the other.
      One hates to be so picky about semantics on an international forum, but words are the weapon of choice on the internet and image has become reality in that world.

      Delete
    2. We don’t yet know how Meghan will prioritize her family once children enter their lives. It remains to be seen.

      Delete
    3. I agree, Meghan's approach to joining the family is one I can relate to, as a young professional in the global health sphere. She's been inspiring to watch, and I hope she'll be part of important conversations on topics that relate to womens' lives. I am driven by similar motivations to her and I see in her that work ethic you're referring to.

      That's not to criticize or contrast with Kate. Choosing to focus on family instead of public service or career is a choice; every woman should be able to choose what works for them. It's not as interesting of a choice for me right now, but I still love checking in with this blog so thanks Jane!

      Delete
    4. Anon, I have explained my thoughts above, but I agree with anon 1 that " genuine " is a conflictive term. My perception on what kind of attitude is genuine is I believe different of yours. When I "discovered" Kate 7 years ago, I was struck by her lack of pretence. She was very natural, it was striking when compared to other royal spouses at the time. And I still think that while trying to do things to perfection and being very careful not to do anything wrong, and following closely the RF wishes, she is authentic. I won't elaborate about Meghan but I think she has a tendency to be aware of the public or the camera. I am sure she has a desire to serve, but speaking too much about it is not the way to seem genuine. Funnily enough, I am also a public servant ( perhaps this explains why we both have time to chat here! Or not!) and while it is rewarding to me and I hope what I do can be said to be useful to the public, I do not think it is the way I give back. In fact, my unpaid activities are where I feel I sometimes can be of help and where I find the joy you speak of, even if sometimes the feeling of this help being just a drop in the ocean is overwhelming. But enough about me!

      Delete
    5. H 3:16. There is a saying-song "..if everyone would light just one little candle, what a bright world this would be." Sometimes it does seem as though there are as many snuffing out the candles as lighting them. The lighters just need to get ahead of the snuffers.

      Delete
  12. That portrait of Kate is absolutely gorgeous. I can't wait to see her after her maternity leave -- really looking forward to what she might wear to Louis' christening. I don't know why people would complain about her work ethic. I love that she prioritizes her family life so much, and that also helps to show how much her causes mean to her. She practices what she preaches. Also I think Meghan has said before that she prefers relaxed clothing, so possibly her clothes always seem not to fit right because of that. I'm not a fan of that look, but I think her dress yesterday was lovely and quite befitting of a royal while still being her own unique style. Yesterday's outfit was one of the few of hers I've been a fan of, so I'm interested to see how her style will evolve in the future. I'm also looking forward to seeing how she becomes acclimated to royal life -- she still seems to have a Hollywood air about her, at least in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love this blog Jane and your perspective. Awesome you are covering Meghan now. She is becoming my favorite royal. Don't get me wrong, I love Catherine. I guess she isn't up for the public side of it all. The way Meghan started off proves that. I am super excited to see her passion for causes and style over the summer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have to take into consideration the difference in timing between Kate’s enterance into the Royal Family and Meghan’s. The Queen and Prince Phillip were still both very active in 2011 vs 2018 where Prince Phillip is no longer doing any engagements and the Queen has significantly scaled back. Kate has stepped up accordingly prior to the birth of Prince Louis.

      Delete
    2. Good point, Eva.

      Delete
  14. Beautiful post. Thank you. Yes , we saw the pic of Catherine already. I am pretty sure she used it for a thank you card.
    Concerning Meghan and hoisery I am95% positive she already wore some during the Commonwealth Service in Westminster Abbey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the 2 of us are the only ones who remember that! I’ve seen so many articles saying the birthday party was the first time she was wearing hosiery!
      Duch

      Delete
  15. I know that this blog is primarily a Kate blog, and I love your writing and all the hard work you put in, but I love reading about Meghan as well. Do you have any recommendations for Meghan focused blogs? I've done a little digging around, but I can't find anything that even comes close to the great coverage and insight you have here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, thank you for the sweet compliment; it is appreciated! Second, my recommendation is www.whatmeghanwore.net That is written and run by Susan of WKW and you will get thorough coverage and lovely photos and original content. Enjoy! :)

      Delete
  16. Jane I love your coverage of Kate and this blog! I did want to add a couple of thoughts on the Meghan - Kate debate. I think it is important to remember Meghan is stepping into this role a decade older than Kate was, coming from the entertainment industry and with Kate having paved a bit of a path for her. I’m not sure you can compare the two women’s start as a royal fairly. The other thing is in reality this is Meghan and Harry’s most influential time as royals. As William and Kate’s children grow they will fade more into the background. They are smartly leveraging the focus they have right now. They also don’t have three children to raise. My final point is that Kate is going to be Queen and that is a lifetime role. We should grant her some grace and these early years with her children. She will be working long after all of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well said 1:49. Kate was much younger and married to an active duty military man when she entered royal life. The bloom is on the Sussex rose right now and Kate is still on maternity leave. Harry & Meghan will make the most of their time in the sun but, as happened with Charles's siblings, they will fade into quiet duty while the focus stays on the future monarchs as it should.

      I am wearied by the conversations surrounding the Kate v. Meghan debate. It's OK to like one and not the other, it's OK to like both, it's OK to like neither. The only thing that's not OK is to ridicule those who hold a different opinion from your own which has become more and more prominent in the comments section these days.

      Delete
    2. regarding your last sentence, Robin 3:48. That is exactly my viewpoint of the varying reactions to the speaking style during the homily at the ceremony. It was a vastly different style from what many in the Anglican Church and others were accustomed. I understand the surprised expressions but some of the reactions, both from royal and non-royal guests, indicated scorn or ridicule. That is not acceptable, in my opinion.
      I also wonder if there was a five-second delay in telecasting, which is common with most live broadcasts, allowing such displays to be edited out. The deletion of Meghan's curtsy was also a controversy-inspiring point. Whoever was calling the shots was going for entertainment value, not a respectful recording of a solemn, yet joyous event.

      Delete
    3. Thank-you for this live discussion, Jane. I obviously have thoroughly enjoyed and taken advantage of it. ;+) I know you must have a hundred other tasks you could be doing.

      Delete
    4. I did watch W&K's wedding start to finish. But once the ceremony began I don't recall so many general audience shots and wide shots. Many they were there but I just don't recall that. I think missing MM's curtsy related to the "let's look at everything including celebrity guests & old girlfriends during the ceremony" approach this time.

      Delete
    5. Agree with Anon 1:49, on this being a peak Harry Meghan time, but I think it will last awhile. The BRF (esp William) will try to keep attention away from the growing children until they’re 20 or so — that means 15 years for HaM to have a lot of media attention, if they choose. (Yay!)
      Duch

      Delete
    6. Agree with Anon 1:49, on this being a peak Harry Meghan time, but I think it will last awhile. The BRF (esp William) will try to keep attention away from the growing children until they’re 20 or so — that means 15 years for HaM to have a lot of media attention, if they choose. (Yay!)
      Duch

      Delete
    7. Agree with Anon 1:49, on this being a peak Harry Meghan time, but I think it will last awhile. The BRF (esp William) will try to keep attention away from the growing children until they’re 20 or so — that means 15 years for HaM to have a lot of media attention, if they choose. (Yay!)
      Duch

      Delete
    8. Thank you Anon 1:49, RobinfromCA, and of course Jane.
      We should not compare Kate and Meghan for all the points already mentioned, so I will not reiterate them. :-)
      The Duchess of Sussex looked beautiful, her dress was perfect and a reflection of her streamlined fashion taste. I loved the tiara she choose ( I never thought she would wear the Spencer or Cambridge Lovers Knot), her flowers were lovely. And as others have mentioned, her entrance reminded me of Julie Andrews as Maria von Trapp in the Sound of Music, so strong and elegant. Harry looked handsome and very happy. What a joyful day!
      I felt badly for Meghan and all the controversy she had to endure in the run up to the wedding. A beautiful gesture by the PoW to escort her to altar and even I could read Harry’s lips “thank you Pa”.
      Charlotte was adorable, I think she is going to be a star!
      I think we have determined Kate had a new McQueen? When I look at the formal family photo, all the greens/yellow, creams and whites looked fantastic. Kate looked beautiful and hardly seemed to be less than a month from giving birth, except for those of us who follow her know she likes to be super thin. ;-)
      I look forward to watching the new couple grow into their roles as important members of “the Firm”.
      I suspect Meghan will be pregnant in about 5 minutes!

      Delete
    9. I so agree with what you have said. I also think when Kate came onto the field, the Queen and Prince Phillip were the principal Royals and everyone else were in a supportive role. While the Queen is still the Head of the Firm, she has reduced her involvement and Prince Phillip has totally pulled out of appearances and the younger Royals are now in a position to step up. I have always maintaned when Kate was criticised for her “poor Work Ethic” that she was doing exactly what she was asked to do by the Queen and when the time came she would step up and increase her load. I think she had done exactally that leading up to the birth of Prince Louis. Megan is entering at a very different time!

      Delete
    10. I agree Will has stepped up & has done quite well in carrying out some recent events (e.g., Manchester) Sometimes he's been a last minute substitution and so his participation may have gone unnoticed. And like with Charles and Diana, Will's solo activities do not always attract as much press attention as when he & Kate do events together. And I agree that Kate entered the family when conditions were different than when Meghan entered (in terms of HMTQ and the DoE's activity levels as they were **only** in their 80s when W&K married.) But I don't fully agree with the idea that Will (& by extension Kate) have always done exactly what HMTQ expected them to. While none of us can know for sure, after the extensive renovations were done at KP, I'm not at all sure she expected them to live full-time at Amner Hall instead. Certainly AH had been publicized originally as a country retreat/weekend get-away home for the family. And the bungling by KP about why Will wasn't doing many royal events when he worked for the air ambulance service (that he was required to "rest" per air regs when that wasn't true) sounded like not just a bungle with a public announcement. There were also frequent KP bungles about how often he was actually working at the ambulance co. We've also been told time and time again members of the BRF largely set their own schedules. And recall Will said in an interview he didn't see why he couldn't continue to work part-time for the air ambulance co. & do royal work part-time when he was king! I can't imagine that's the sort of statement HMTQ would have approved of. While she obviously engages in leisure activities, I kind of doubt the queen sees the work of the UK monarch to involve a part-time schedule! And Will has openly expressed disdain for activities like ribbon-cuttings, school/shop openings, activities other members of the royal family including the queen do on a regular basis. (Would you ask someone to do a public activity he's openly dissed in the past? Not if it can be helped!)

      I'm not saying that Will has openly defied requests by the queen, rather I'm saying he & by extension, Kate have tended to signal their "unavailability" in various ways in the past (such as moving 100 miles away from London when Charlotte was born.) But that seems to be changing, especially for Will. Whether it will continue remains to be seen just as the ongoing regular activity levels of Harry & Meghan remain to be seen. I do think there will be an effort to carve out a more formal *and structured* role for H&M than there was for W&K. I think there are a number of reasons for that, including the ages of members of the BRF. But I also think there was a fear in retrospect that Diana was thrown into royal work too fast, so there was too much of a pull-back with W&K as a reaction, and maybe with H&M the roll-out of their responsibilities will be closer to  "just right."

      Delete
    11. Checkout KP Twitter. William is all over the place doing every kind of royal duty. We may be hearing about them only because M&H are out of pocket and there is a need for CH/KP to look busy in their absence. William was still quietly forging ahead with royal duties while the spotlight was on the couple in the run up to the wedding.

      I'm not sure if William was actually quoted as saying he didn't like ribbon cuttings or if that was urban legend type rumor started by some internet source. I have a vague memory of an off-the-cuff interview when he was working at EAAA. I think the remark was in the context of the meaning that the ambulance work had for him and I believe the reporter was angling for just such a remark for a catchy tag line. You have to admit---ribbon cutting versus helping to transport injured--which is more meaningful? It may not be his first choice but he also made it clear that he was committed to his duty. I seriously doubt HM finds ribbon cutting more meaningful than raising a champion thoroughbred, but cut ribbons she does when she'd rather be handing out horse race trophies. William does openings and unveilings and award givings and receptions--today a BP garden function in honor of DofE Award recipients.. as well as keeping up with the Foundation business. There is no Great Oz who distributes royal duties and says, "William, you don't find ribbon cutting your favorite job. No more ribbons for you!"

      And, as long as I am warmed up,
      -re: Head's Together just working on stigma removal. That may have been true on the roll out, but it has been clear for some time now that that campaign was just the initial goal in an extensive plan. There was recently a move to involve schools and also a specific outline presented with a goal of getting help resources known and available.

      There is a Bank Holiday coming up and Heads Together has a notice shared on KP Twitter listing specific telephone numbers and sites where
      "mental health support" can be found over the holiday. The word "stigma" is not mentioned.
      HT and William's efforts have moved far beyond the initial stigma focus, but for some reason, some have not caught on to that. Or it may be that not recognising the comprehensive plan of HT allows one to continue using criticisms that are no longer applicable.
      And another thing...
      They never "moved away" from Kensington Palace. The senior royals all have multiple homes. The Queen's movements, as well as W&C's, are widely noted. Sometimes it is not entirely clear to me where exactly C&C are. They're at Birkhall; no CH; no, on a yacht on the Aegean...If changing one's locale signifies "unavailability," the Queen and Charles are apparently unavailable when not residing at either CH or BP.
      The supposed "move" from KP was a huge tabloid hype--which was usually and still is when rehashed, accompanied by citing the vast amount of tax-payer dollars spent on updating the centuries old palace etc. etc. The plan was always that their residence at Anmer Hall was temporary while William was working with EAAA and that when that ended and George started school and the DofE retired, KP would again become their home base as their royal activities were "gradually increased." It has and they have. Promises kept.

      Delete
    12. I know some royals have multiple residences anon1. (Wonder what Harry will be given besides KP?) But I'm pretty sure Will has said AH is "home," not KP. When they came back to KP after PP retired, Will was quoted as saying they considered having Kate and the children continue to live at AH while he commuted & sometimes stayed over at KP to attend to royal business. So KP was their "official residence" but it wasn't home then. And it's clear they spent the vast majority of their time living over 100 miles away in what had been billed as a weekend getaway during the taxpayer-funded KP renovations. That's not an urban legend/media hype. It is my *opinion* AH's location made W&K less available. They could be helicoptered to London or elsewhere for a quick event and sometimes were. But there was also criticism of that costly mode of travel for brief events. And asking W/K to spend 5-6 hrs round-trip by car to do a 1-hr event in London probably wasn't thought reasonable. (Isn't reasonable to me) Events for both W&K were "stacked" but it's not always possible even for royals to make all events happen during a brief period. I expect it was easier to find others to do events or to leave them undone. That doesn't mean Will was actively refusing requests from HM but rather it was a kind of passive resistance via lack of easy availability.

      So far as Will talking about not wanting to do ribbon-cuttings, I'm pretty sure that was reported as a quote. If I have time I'll try to find it. Harry said much the same thing *on tape.* Reporters do look for angles but perhaps W&H shouldn't do interviews if they are unable to avoid the traps. I think work Will did for EAAA was important. I've said that before. But as time passed, it became unclear exactly how much EAAA work he was doing. It also became unclear whether, as officially announced was expected when he began his work there, he had logged enough hours to qualify for commander status or whether he continued to work as a co-pilot. Either position is a "pilot" and either was a contribution but if the latter was true, he wasn't working very many shifts over 2+ yrs of ambulance work. Some PR issues re: EAAA (e.g.,had to "rest" so couldn't do royal events on days off) related to goofs by the communications team at KP. KP bungled other times too re: W&K's activities. But ultimately isn't Will responsible for that team? If he isn't, who is? Remember things got so bad Will did a "I'm not work-shy" interview. That's bad! And in that interview he said something like "if the queen wants me to do more she'll tell me." That reminded me of situations parents sometimes face with teenagers. The kitchen trash is over-flowing but the teenager keeps trying to pile more in. An exasperated parent finally says "why don't you take that out" & the teenager says "you hadn't asked me to."

      Will has stepped up & as I said before, I give him credit. And as I said before, I think he's doing a good job. However, I'm not sure the way things have unfolded was always exactly "the plan." We'll likely never know for sure, but I wonder if it was the plan for PP to officially "retire." He strikes me as the type who would have preferred to "die with his boots on." I strongly suspect the plan was for a gradual withdrawal much as we're seeing with HMTQ. But unofficial withdrawal can only work if others are willing to step up without having to be explicitly ordered to do so (possibly creating a family conflict or big PR mess.)

      Delete
  17. Broad smile and great hair! Lovely picture indeed
    -Soha

    ReplyDelete
  18. Meghan has worn stockings on numerous occasions: when wearing the Amanda Wakely white coat, the black Emilia Wickstead suit and April 21st when wearing the black Stella McCartney cape dress. (this is a non-exhaustive list).

    ReplyDelete
  19. While some complain about the Meghan-Kate debate, I'm miffed at the Harry-William debate. William has been working just about every day of late (except for the two weeks after Louis was born). It's just that his work isn't making the same kind of headlines. I read somewhere that Harry and Meghan will shore up the Commonwealth support over the next few years, while William and Kate look after the UK support. This makes sense. William is going to be King of the United Kingdom, his presence is better felt at home the next few years. Harry and Meghan will cover the rest for now. Sounds like a really good plan to me. So let's start to recognize the work that William is doing and stop with the talk about how work shy he is. In the last year or so, in my opinion, there simply aren't any facts to support that notion. True, his engagement numbers may be lower than Charles or some other royals, but it's only been a year since he moved back to London and since then he's been working regularly. The last numbers I saw showed he had logged more engagements than Harry for the same period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm in complete agreement here! William never seems to get a fair shake when it comes to the work he does. He stands in for HM on many occasions which are not reported unless a former Beatle is getting knighted. Just today it was announced that he would be the first ever BRF member to visit Israel, Jordan, and occupied Palestine. Good for him! He deserves far more credit than he gets for what he does.

      Delete
    2. I'm in complete agreement also.

      Delete
  20. Both Catherine and Meghan seem to be lovely young women who understand the roles they have undertaken. It is proper of Cstherine to prioritize her children and family, and her patronage of various charities should be an ancillary duty, which, in my opinion, she carries out wonderfully. I wish we had someone here in the US working to remove the stigma of mental health issues and put it in the same category as physical ailments with respect to insurance coverage and support. I see no upside to judging the Duchess's "work ethic" and hope we will all put aside our wishes to see more of her in order to respect her choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Jackie removing stigma attached to mental illness is important to do everywhere. And there are notable health insurance differences between the US & UK. But the ACA does mandate that limits on mental health coverage can't be lower than limits for other types of medical/surgical coverage. So in many ways mental illness IS treated as any other kind of illness per health insurance. And in the UK, while the NHS covers everyone, there continue to be pretty unbelievable wait times for mental health services, especially for the severely mentally ill. Sometimes the wait can be *years* for treatment after diagnosis. So there is lots of work to do there too *besides" removing stigma.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/ nhs -patients-mental-illness-waiting-times-treatment-report-health- bma -talking-therapies- iapt -a8195611.html

      Delete
  21. Jackie--a family member was referred to a counseling service by a physician to get help dealing with a devastating diagnosis. The service proceeded to administer a battery of tests and then informed the patient that all the insurance available for mental health support had been used up. There were no funds left for treatment. I think that anecdote is typical of the milieu in which mental health care operates.
    I admire Catherine for coming up with the idea for Heads Together and the work the Foundation has done so far in following a blueprint for mental health awareness and treatment.
    Of course, the Sussexes are now both a part of this work; however, it seems likely William and Catherine will carry the bulk of this activity, whether publically or behind the scenes, with the Queen's plans for Harry and Meghan to be largely out of the country on Commonwealth youth activities starting this Fall--which, probably not coincidently, is the timeline given for Catherine's return to non-family events and causes.
    A snag to their Commonwealth project will arrive after Meghan has taken and passed her citizenship test and qualified to formally apply for citizenship, if she attends to do so. She will have a waiting period of three years after that, during which time she will be required to spend only a limited amount of time out of the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe take the citizenship test when she gets pregnant and has one or two kids, the limitations on travel would work well with that. Also maybe the amount of time out of the UK is pretty generous, so it would never be an issue.

      Delete
  22. I hope that Harry and Megan have time to settle into their relationship a little bit before the family encourages a much brighter spotlight on them. They were careful to manage Kate's wattage after her North American tour and the wedding by spacing appearances and tours. The Olympics and Jubilee events also tempered some of the baby timing. I think the somewhat longer waiting time before George also gave their marriage's progression a more measured quality in the public eye. Harry and Megan seem eager to become parents soon which is lovely but it adds a huge new layer in a relationship that is still under lots of scrutiny before having to cope with more mundane ups and downs. I hope the family encourages and insulates them to enjoy their exciting public role while also digging in to being a newly married couple after a whirlwind transatlantic courtship. Between Charles's well documented reluctance to share the spotlight and the family's genuine need to appeal to a wider more youthful and multiracial community in the Commonwealth the pressure will be on Harry and Megan. Pressure to both produce popularity and yet not overshadow an already insecure heir to the throne. Catherine has the ballast of her slowly built home life and family in her corner when the going gets weird. I hope Megan can be afforded time to build her home life and marriage as well especially with the extra challenge of her friends and mother far away. As a member of the Royal Family Megan's public too will typically run hot and cold. She and Harry will benefit from time to build dependable non-publicity seeking private relationships together to carry them though.

    ReplyDelete
  23. She finally got it right. I guess she was waiting to get married first.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Carmen, The NetherlandsMay 25, 2018 at 6:57 AM

    I think Kate looks exactly like Carole in that snap!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Can I just say how happy I am that you did a mini post on Meghan’s outfit? I know there are many sites out there but none of them have your thoughts, Jane :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maybe too off-topic...But what do folks think about Emilia Wickstead's claim? I was shocked. Sure Meghan's dress was similar to pictures of EW's, but frankly, except in the eyes of (some) brides, once the basics are decided (sleeves/no sleeves, lace/no lace, white/ivory/something else) when it comes right down to it, lots of wedding dresses are really pretty similar. Regardless, I'm surprised EW would say anything publicly & IMO it didn't make her look good, particularly her comment about the fit. I also didn't hear ANY commentators say during the wedding (or since) it looked like an EW dress as EW claimed they said. (I also didn't see anyone here post that.) Good grief, when I think EW, I think strangely finished seams as that has seemed to be her trademark look forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it is surprisingly similar but, quite frankly, it's such a plain and (IMO) boring design how can one claim it as their own. Truth be told, thousands of other brides have probably worn the same thing. It was the detail on Meghan's veil that was the work of art - even if it should have been shortened quite a bit. While EW has made some of Kate's fairly nice and some of her worst outfits, I do agree with her that the fit on Meghan's dress wasn't good and it looks much better on the model in her design. I agree with your assessment that she mostly does odd seams and strangely placed darts. The dresses all seem to start out well and then not finish well. Or, maybe it's that they just don't look completely finished at all.

      Delete
    2. Lizzie I wonder if she has been caught out in some way. I cannot imagine why she would have thought it would be smart to make those comments publicly.

      Delete
    3. I loved Meghan’s veil but wondered why you thought it should have been shortened quite a bit? I loved the length!

      Delete
    4. JF, it is usually the rule of thumb in the bridal fashion world that the veil is not longer than the train on the dress. Sometimes you'll see a little bit to highlight a lace edge but this was yards longer. Odd decision fashion wise. Since her dress was a one off it makes no sense to not have the train lengthened. Then again, that would be called a cathedral length train and that's not where she married.

      Delete
    5. I’ve never heard that about veil length- everything I was able to find on veil length makes no mention of keeping the veil shorter than the train. Instead, most pictures I saw show a veil longer than the train, so as to highlight the veil as Meghan did.

      Delete
    6. Again...KKW's veil...
      One has to admit the veil's dramatic cascading and then flowing effect as she made her way up the stairs and down the aisle. The lighting for that aisle walk should have made her lighting-director Father proud. This was Meghan's show and there were no sisters/friends with attractive bottoms to rival her.
      It was a production geared for an audience of millions, no doubt about that.
      Cecil B. Demille is rivaled only by the British Royal Family...and maybe Bollywood... when it comes to pomp and pageantry.
      A part of me wonders why the media hasn't used the bigger tiara, bigger veil, bigger celebrities, bigger bridal party etc. in their "Kate"/Meghan competition theories. The church wasn't bigger, however.

      Delete
  27. Actually Meghan's Givenchy dress is somewhat an homage to another Givenchy wedding dress Audrey Hepburn modeled in a 1964 issue of Vogue, which itself is inspired by the Lady and the Unicorn tapestries. (Google it, its just lovely and I think shows that Meghan may prefer a different fit for her clothing.) Either way EW shot her royal business in the foot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not necessarily. Meghan may not wear EW but Kate's the one who wore her fashions so much before and may not care that she had made a dress similar to what Meghan wore. They are almost identical. If Kate chooses elsewhere, then there won't be any more dresses with strangely placed pockets, weird darts, or unfinished looking fronts. There are plenty of people who wear EW so royal business or not she'll be fine.

      Delete
  28. For what it's worth--Kim Kardashian West also wore classic bridal Givenchy with a very long veil--I think it was tulle, too.
    Audrey Hepburn's own wedding outfit was casual, not formal as Meghan's was. It was made by the founding designer at Givenchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comparisons to Audrey Hepburn are interesting since Audrey's personal wedding dresses were nothing like Meghans. The dress Meghan wore was only slightly similar to the costume Audrey wore in Funny Face but her's had cap sleeves and the dress was tea length with a full skirt and short veil. Givenchy did design one of Audrey's two actual wedding dresses but the one he designed was when she married Andrea Dotti and it was a pink mini dress for their marriage at the town hall.

      Delete
  29. I spent some time thinking about and researching what I could find about the Emilia Wickstead story. I think it fair to do so before judging her reported actions.
    The Sun and Huff Post published stories on May 25th. They each credited the Daily Mail as their source. I don't know where the DM got their information. I'll discuss that later.
    Articles on the story then appeared in US magazine and affiliated tabloids. Harper's Bazaar, what I think of as a credible fashion source, also picked up the story-which leads me to another point.
    Emilia Wickstead was referred to as "Kate Middleton's favourite designer" and/or "Kate Middleton's go-to designer" by most if not all of the forums, some apparently quoting the original article.
    Any competent, knowledgeable fashion source/writer would be well-aware that Emilia Wickstead is not one of the designers used most frequently by Catherine. Sarah Burton, Jenny Packham, even Catherine Walker fit into that category. So why make the Kate/Wickstead tie-in in a story about Meghan's wedding outfit?
    It is possible Kate's name was added to pull in readers for whom Emilia Wickstead would not ring a bell. However, at least one version made the Catherine/Wickstead/Meghan connection and all but came out and said that since Kate favors EW's designs she would also agree with EW's evaluation of Meghan's wedding appearance. The implication was there. The articles seemed like another attempt to promote the Catherine/Meghan competition theme that seems to draw attention....
    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  30. ...continued
    How did the original writer come by these quotes? Was it from a taped interview--possibly one billed as reviewing the latest EW designs. Was the designer asked off the cuff what her opinion of Meghan's gown, hair was? Was EW quoted by a third party who perhaps overheard some comments at a cocktail party? Or was the information volunteered by EW as a quotable statement, as the stories seem to indicate--as though EW sought out a reporter in order to air grievances and trash Meghan and Givenchy.

    What was said--some sources say the remark was that the dress was similar to an EW wedding gown. Some implied the designer was claiming the gown was copied. Actually, the gowns are quite similar and could have appeared identical to the guests and live television viewers who would not have been able to compare them side by side in detail. I don't think for a second that the Givenchy designer purposefully copied an EW design. It is entirely possible, however, that Megan saw the gown in her review of possible designs and designers and tucked the image away. Meghan's designer was quoted as saying that Meghan had significant input in the process. It is interesting to note that Meghan had worn a POW plaid top with a "boat" neckline that was well received.
    What I am saying here is EW may have a point.
    Most important to me is---1)did she actually make those remarks and 2) in what context. If it was a private opinion not meant for publication I think the remarks are at least understandable, if not justified. A lot of people thought Meghan's hairstyle was a bit messy and did not survive the veil lifting procedure .
    The fashion industry is a very competitive one. There have been comments that the remarks were "sour grapes" that EW did not get the highly valued commission herself.
    I do know that reputations have been ruined and businesses with them by just such media coverage. Although Emilia Wickstead is not Catherine's top go-to designer she has received a respectable amount of patronage from the royal. The possibility that Meghan could also be added to EW's list is most likely seen as a threat to others in the fashion business. This story could effectively eliminate that possibility.

    This very well could significantly effect Emilia Wickstead's future customer base. Commenters elsewhere have certainly suggested that the Duchesses should stop using her as a designer. I imagine it will depend upon how much credence the two place in the stories. Catherine Quinn might contact the designer to discover what was actually said and in what context. Kate has dropped designers and businesses before for indiscretion, for example. It wouldn't just be a matter of not ordering future Wickstead designs; it would mean Kate would no longer wear what designs she currently has. I think that would be unfortunate, as some of those outfits are among my favorites.
    How this will all play out, time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Interesting points anon1.

    I have to say the idea that EW criticizing the design/price/fit of Meghan's wedding dress was intended as a press attack on KATE would not have occurred to me in 1000 yrs. I didn't get that at all from the article(s) I saw.  I thought the mention of Kate was only a way to ID the designer as someone who has designed for the BRF. While Kate has worn EW for years, Meghan wore EW more recently than Kate has for a public event and so I only thought Meghan might not do that again! I also thought I'd be pretty ticked off if I were the person at Givenchy who designed Meghan's dress. I honestly did not think about the effect on Kate as I did not see any connection between Kate & EW's assessment. When I first read the article I did wonder if EW said that. But as time passed with no response from EW...It's possible, of course, she didn't say it but it's odd there's been no response. Or more plausible to me, she did say *everything* she's credited with saying but didn't intend to say it for publication. If she "let down her hair" with the wrong reporter, or was blabbing in public and was overheard, lesson learned, I guess.

    As I said before, there are similarities between the gowns. But really few wedding gowns are truly "originals" (at least not those worn in church!) Kate's gown looked like Grace Kelly's after all. Others have pointed out there are similarities between Meghan's gown and Princess Mary's, J-Lo's in The Wedding Planner, and those A. Hepburn modeled. It also shared some details with a (non-wedding) dress Carolyn B-K wore. Quite the spectrum!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your list of people whose dresses were like Meghan's (or the other way around) really do make it seem quite common.

      Delete
    2. lizzie--in the interest of accuracy, regarding my comment(s) above:
      1) I did not say or imply that my remarks indicated an attack on Kate alone, which seemed to be your main objection ("KATE") to my comment. I did say at least one of the stories may promote the Meghan/Catherine competition the media keeps trying to encourage.
      There are some commenters who read "Kate attack response" into remarks inappropriately and then complain that they cannot make critiques of Kate. I want to stress this point because I don't want my comment used later as a case in point. (It is always astonishing to me, by the by, that an unsubstantiated remark can balloon into "it's widely known" simply by frequent repetition.)
      2) Catherine may be forced to limit her EW patronage as the four young royals are all associated in the Foundation as well as being members of the BRF. I thought this contributing fact would be understood by the readers of this blog. If EW made those remarks for public consumption--and I obviously doubt that--then it was an insult to Meghan that cannot be ignored on Catherine's part. (nor should Meghan ignore such an obvious insult to Catherine) Catherine would be hung out to dry by the Meghan supporters (and vice versa) as well as other royal followers if she broke out the Emilia Wickstead anytime soon---actually, regardless of the truth or circumstances of the remarks. The ax job on EW has been too thorough.
      As a side-bar--wouldn't it be classy if both C and M wore Emilia Wickstead designs to Trooping! It would say louder than words what they think of online tabloid rumors--which Meghan says she doesn't pay attention to anyway..."Noise.".

      I'll also note that the mention of CBK's wedding gown has been as a general reference to wedding gowns Meghan had admired, not a comparison to Meghan's Givenchy gown. Of course, those gowns were not similar at all, although Meghan's second wedding day gown certainly gave off a similar vibe as the CBK wedding gown. I am not aware of a (non-wedding) CBK gown that has been mentioned in connection to this issue. There may be one. Catherine's dress was never said to be identical to Grace's dress. They were both lace and were traditional bridal gowns. There were resemblances but, as I recall, there were no accusations of Sarah Burton's copying Grace's wedding dress . There were too many differences. Robin and I have discussed the so-called Audrey Hepburn connection.
      I'll have to take your word on JLo and the "The Wedding Planner."

      3) Finally, my point was never that Givenchy purposefully copied EW's gown. In fact I clearly stated I did not think this. I also clearly, items 1&2, outlined what my actual focus was.
      I do agree that classic wedding dress styles do tend to have resemblances. Especially those worn by royals in cathedrals and those worn by those who are trying to emulate royals in cathedrals..

      Delete
    3. Think you misunderstood lots of things about my post anon1. I agree with you wearing EW may be tricky for Kate now (& Sophie), but I still don't think/never would have thought the whole EW debacle was thought up by DM/tabs to attack Kate, in whole or in part.You seemed to imply it was or could have been. I'm sure you've seen EW's recent statement. It's a non-apology apology. For me, whatever small doubts I had about whether EW made those statements have vanished---She did. Maybe not for public consumption but I'm 100% convinced she said it. She also belatedly removed the EW Bridal tag from a picture of Meghan on her IG. Still posts a pic of her gown right next to Meghan's though.

      I know Meghan had posted somewhere she liked CBK's slip wedding dress but we all knew she couldn't wear something like that to marry Harry. In my post I specifically said the CBK dress Meghan's wedding dress resembled was NOT a wedding dress. Here it is

      https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a20757630/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-dress-caroline-bessette-kennedy-tribute/

      And here is the dress from The Wedding Planner.

      https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/fashion/celebrity/a20770249/meghan-markle-dress-jennifer-lopez-wedding-planner/

      The AH dress Meghan's dress resembled is one she modeled not one AH wore to get married. It's here at the end of this article. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a20756229/meghan-markle-audrey-hepburn-wedding-dresses-compared/

      My point was that it would be hard for Givenchy to steal the design from EW given how often elements of it are used.

      Delete
  32. I wrote a reply to the lizzie 4:13 comment which seems to have vanished into cyberspace.

    For now, I will just strongly recommend that commenters read Emilia Wickstead's current complete quote from Instagram. If you don't have an account, Instyle online magazine has the complete quote. That source, which I tend to credit more than the DM, has referred to her "alleged" remarks as reported in the "Daily Mail." I realise taglines and headlines refer to an apology. There was no apology or admission of making the variously reported remarks. It was closer to a denial. I think EW may have earlier posted side by side photos of the dresses and may have remarked that some people thought Meghan's dress was an Emilia Wickstead. I haven't verified whether she actually made such a post or just has been reported as doing so. If true, her Instagram statement would be a clarification of intent. I do think it significant that Instyle refers to "alleged" remarks and cites the Daily Mail as the source. It sounds as though Instyle may be anticipating possible libel lawsuits. If we see back-tracking by sources who printed EW's alleged remarks, I would guess the remarks have been distorted. If C&M no longer wear the designer's clothing, I think that would reinforce the tabloid versions. Time will certainly tell. At any rate, I would bet Catherine Quinn is definitely "on it."

    I repeat: I did not say or imply that there was a Kate attack. I clearly referenced the tabloid promotion of a Kate/Meg competition. I did discuss a possible EW attack and the possible damage to reputation and business. I have previously discussed the tabloid/online trend to combine bits of fact with speculation and sometimes outright facrication in order to incite controversy or conflict that leads to more clicks. I have also deplored the practice of taglines that entice but do not always reflect the gist of a story. Some taglines are completely misleading.

    I stated clearly that I did not think the Givenchy designer had copied an EW gown (which EW also says in her Instagram statement) I am somewhat puzzled by the citing of examples of white, boat necked, long-sleeved gowns as proof that it would be "hard for Givenchy to steal the design from EW." Perhaps you were agreeing with me or supporting my statement.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gee, it's kind of hard to respond anon1 not knowing was in your vanished reply to me. To respond to what's posted right now, I agree EW didn't apologize in the true sense of the word. She said, according to the letter she posted to her public EW Bridal Instagram https://www.instagram.com/ emiliawicksteadbridal /? hl =en she was "saddened" by what has appeared online. She did not use the word "alleged" nor did she mention the DM in her letter. I haven't seen what you mention that appeared in Instyle but think her *own letter* on her public IG is the best evidence of her response. Her statement is what I consider a "non-apology apology." It's along the lines of "I'm sad X happened.." "It's a shame people thought..." Sometimes that sort of wording might fit a particular situation if the speaker is truly sorry things got out of hand but wants to ensure it's understood absolutely no offense was meant. More often that approach merely avoids taking personal responsibility and may be intended to avoid legal culpability. EW's reported words clearly intended offense to both Givenchy and Meghan. *IF* EW didn't say what DM reported, I can't imagine why she'd use the language she did in her letter. You say it was "closer to a denial" than an apology but why in the world wouldn't she *explicitly deny* making the offensive statements if she truly hadn't made them? Instead we are supposed to *infer* a denial? Maybe some will, as you say you have. But as I said, her letter left ME completely convinced she did say the things DM said she said. I think she was "caught" & couldn't outright deny the statements. Givenchy's attorneys may have sent her a letter suggesting she make a public statement. Saying a named competitor is not only a thief, but didn't properly fit a gown seen by millions and massively over-charged for the stolen design to boot is the sort of thing likely to bother attorneys (even more than C. Quinn!) EW's letter saying she didn't think it was a copy seemed like a sentence written by HER legal team to me, in fact the whole letter did. Maybe something will happen to make me change my mind but at this point, I doubt it.

    The string of 3-4 references I provided to similar dresses in my original comment was simply to make the case elements of the design have been around, in many different venues, worn by many different people. In your response to that post you seemed to think I was talking about CBK's and AH's actual wedding dresses and I wasn't. You also suggested you were unfamiliar with JL's Wedding Planner dress. Hence, the 3 links in my reply.  Anyway, it certainly was not a design EW "owned" & if she didn't own it, no one could have stolen it from her. (I'm not sure if that means I'm agreeing with you either!)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Fun debate, lizzie! Call it a draw?
    I do feel for those caught in the middle of the controversy. Soon, the tabs will move on to the next thing, but traces of the damage left in the wake will remain. As always.

    Thanks, Jane, for patiently slogging through our rhetoric.

    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 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!