Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Sneak Peek: Kate Arrives in Cyprus in Jigsaw Trousers

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

William and Kate have arrived at Raf Akrotiri in Cyprus where they will meet with service members deployed to the island. To the absolute delight of many, many fashion fans, Kate is wearing trousers today!


The blazer looks like Smythe to me. Laura has IDed the clutch as an L.K. Bennett piece, and the shoes as Gianvito Rossi 105 heels.  I am loving this olive color way.

Perth's Fashion is guessing these trousers are MaxMara in deep blue:  As the day progressed, these were positively IDed as Jigsaw. 

This is a new-do for Kate. Her hair is half up and half down, but in the back it is like a mini-ponytail. I like the look from the from, but I am not sure what I think about it from the back:
There is also a velvet ribbon back there, which you can see a bit of in the last picture.


This is yet another hit for me. Kate looks fabulous. I love Kate in skinnies, but I agree there is a time and a place and it is nice to see trousers at an event like this. I suspect we will see more of this style.


P.S. Due to the time constraints I have this week, and as mentioned in yesterday's post, I won't be doing a full post on this event. :( 



206 comments:

  1. Oh my gosh, I. LOVE. THIS!!!!!! I have ALWAYS wondered why Kate has never worn trousers before-she has the perfect figure to pull them off. Oh well, better late than never;) I wish these were slightly more fitted but the flares are so cute and stylish! Love that olive color on her too! Fab! All around win today!!!:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is not the first time Kate has worn trousers.

      Delete
    2. Kate did wear flared capris one time. And she wore a white and blue patterned pair but they fit pretty much like jeggings. And the olive "armadillo" ones worn several times may have been called "trousers" but definitely fit like jeggings or jodhpurs. I may be forgetting but I can't remember seeing Kate in more traditional belted trousers like these ever before. I hope she keeps it up and wears other trouser styles that are cut slimmer but are not skin tight. (And reserves jeggings, especially faded ones, for more casual work events like those concerned with sports or outdoor activities like hiking.)

      Delete
  2. Wow. Kate in a pair of actual trousers, not jeggings!  Amazing. I'm not sure about style...wide-legged, almost dragging the ground trousers aren't my favorite although I know they are currently popular. Regardless, I'm so glad not to see jeggings.

    I don't much care for the hairstyle from the side/back. Think I would have liked a plain pony better (or as I've been wishing she'd wear for years, a French braid.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate would look so good in a French braid!

      Delete
    2. Totally agree, here hoping she wears one soon 🤞🤞

      Delete
  3. I don’t really care for her hair, and the color combo is a bit weird to me. Overall, I’m a bit mixed on the outfit. I like she’s wearing pants though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't understand why you forget to mention Meghan at this post!? Clearly, Kate did not wear anything like this for 7 years and now this. She either trolls her or this is the biggest coincidence in the whole world! I remember people like you writing many times, Kate is not that type of girl who wears trousers, her position, protocol etc. But who wants to bite into her own hand, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well gosh, one thing is certain, you would know about trolling.

      Delete
    2. Not really sure where the mention of Meghan would come in. Yes, I can see the similarities. However, Meghan tens toward flared jeans/trousers but she has also worn skinny jeans/pants with blazers plenty of times and has never been characterized as "taking a cue from Kate" in doing so. I think Kate is just having fun experimenting with a business casual look on a quick trip. I don't think perpetuating the narrative of Meghan/Kate comparisons is helpful for anyone and nothing about Kate's behavior or personality would suggest she's "trolling" Meghan. We know after this many years that she's pretty unflappable and confident in herself. Lastly, Jane owns this blog and is free to write about whatever she pleases.

      Delete
    3. Ha ha great response Jane.

      -H

      Delete
    4. Anglophile in OhioDecember 5, 2018 at 8:51 AM

      I think Catherine Quinn is having an influence on Kate's style. I do not think Kate is copying Meghan.

      Delete
    5. Anon 8:23, it’s obvious the person who writes this blog and the commentators hate Meghan, so they will only mention her if she does something they don’t like. I suspect this blog will be the first to party if a divorce happens.

      Delete
    6. She won’t because Jane is a Meghan hater

      Delete
    7. Anon 8:51am, that's ugly speculation. I never celebrate other people's heartbreak, and therefore if Meghan and Harry divorce, I won't be partying over the news.

      Delete
    8. Not sure where to come in? For example, like in the previous post, Meghan and the sudden change of heart in publishing photos of DR.

      I do know about trolling since I found your blog, I learnt from the best!!

      Delete
    9. How is pointing out that the Royal Family has a balancing act when it comes to its principal players, hating Meghan? It is a fact that the Royal Family is an institution with a hierarchy and that the press office has to make sure that everyone is getting the right amount of media attention. You have to read in all manner of things I never said, and didn't even imply, to go from that fact and my supposition that the release of pictures was part of the Palace's balancing, to I hate Meghan. Do you have anything better?

      Delete
    10. I can’t tell if the various Anonymous commenters criticizing Jane and this blog are one and the same, but the commenter(s?) strike me as singularly ill-informed or simply deluded if they honestly believe this blog or the comment section is filled with “Meghan haters” who would rejoice in divorce. The commenter(s) are also clearly ignorant of Kate’s ensembles through the years. She has worn trousers before, even if she does tend to favor dresses. Is Meghan copying Kate when she wears a sheath dress? Of course not! I do not understand why certain people feel compelled to “defend” Meghan by spewing their self-righteous ignorance all over the place.

      Delete
    11. I do. I am the original Anon. And I strongly believe you fall into the "troll" category since you use Meghan and her name to provide for your blog. As long as you keep her name in your blog, like in the previous post, you validate my opinion. You have financial gain from online abuse of a pregnant woman. Shame on you!

      And please don't come to me with this hierarchy. The royals have to work for respect themselves, if they want to shine, they should work for it. Everything else is given to them on a silver plate.

      Delete
    12. Sorry original Anon, your comment is not much stronger. First, using Meghan's name does not provide for my blog (also, that argument cuts against your original claim, because the original post pointed out that I *did not* mention Meghan in this post). So, a piece of free advice when it comes to arguing a point, you need to decide which side you arguing and make sure your evidence doesn't cut the other way. Second, this blog was very successful long before Meghan came on the scene (thank you lovely followers, all!). Third, and this is the heart of the matter, I have never abused Meghan--pregnant or otherwise--in any of my posts. And again, I invite you to prove me wrong. In fact, I have spoken highly of her fashion on many occasions, and wished her well in her marriage. Finally, if you don't understand the concept of hierarchy, you don't understand the Royal Family at all, and the next thirty years could be very rough royal watching for you. I suggest you do some research in that department--it's fun to learn about, and it might make you less defensive when others are discussing the various dynamics within this centuries old institution.
      Take care.

      Delete
    13. I wanted to write something about this but Jane, you can argue! As one of the commenters that supposedly hate Meghan, I don't think the strategy of her fans is going to endear her more...Why not praise her and explain why she has good points instead of aggressively insulting everyone?

      Delete
    14. Bravo Jane. Well stated. Move along anon. I think I speak for most of us long term readers. We are here for the blog. This blog is about Kate. Jane is articulate, insightful, and always gracious even when she dislikes an outfit. This is not a Meghan blog,and, shockingly I am rather sure most of us like Meghan too. You need to move along and take Jane's advice to heart: read up on the British Royal family.

      Delete
    15. Anon,
      As someone who has been following this blog for years (Hi Jane, I really do love your blog, it has been the first site a check when I know Kate has an appearance), I can say I have noticed Jane has made an effort to include a bit of Meghan here too. This is likely due to quite a few Kate fans following Meghan too. But I must say, your community of Meghan-worshippers has been nothing but aggressive towards everyone who isn’t a part of it. Your ugly narrative of Meghan being the best of everyone in the Royal Family just because she has certain qualities while attacking others for saying the same about Kate is really unfair. If you want to be treated with respect and for people to not get upset about your ideas, don’t attack others for theirs. I personally, am not a big fan of Meghan as, while she seems to make a point of promoting equality, her narrative is consistently twisted by you to say that everyone who isn’t a fan of Meghan must be some sort of racist or mysogonist. I also find some of her actions to be a show-boating or attention-seeking but I’m sure that’s not the first time you’ve heard that. You need to get with the fact that Kate has been around much longer than Meghan and she too made mistakes in her early years of marriage that she was called out for. Please stop arguing that everything is an attack against Meghan because Kate was also called out quite often in her early days.

      As for the fashion, Kate has often work skirts and dresses but has been known to mix it up. While this may be the first time we have seen her wear trousers like this, the credit does not need to be given to Meghan. Jane has notes how Meghan has shaken up the family a bit, but to the extent of her political views and at most making the Royal agenda include more of Will and Kate to remind everyone about the line of succession. Meghan-followers should really brush up on those rules because Meghan is more than highly unlikely to ever even touch the throne. Now please, this is a Kate-centred blog for which Jane puts in a lot of effort. Stop attacking both her and Kate for what they do. I’m sure there are Meghan blogs that you can go write your ideas on that will be shared by others with the same views.

      Delete
    16. If Kate is copying Meghan then is Meghan copying Letitia & Victoria & Maxima (all the othe royal women who have been wearing trousers for years before Meghan was on the scene)?

      Delete
    17. Well said Anon 12:24! It continues to amaze me why some people insist on following blogs that obviously they don't like or are so critical of, truly life is too short to waste energy on such negativity.

      Delete
    18. Jane, I am so sorry you are being attacked like this. Those of us who have followed this blog for years know that you are nothing like what your accuser has said. While criticizing you the "anon" should acknowledge your fairness in letting their rude comments go live. I pretty sure you are the only blogger who is this fair.

      Delete
    19. Anon 12:24, if you want Meghan fans to respect you, you should respect Meghan as well. Your whole comment was contradicting that narrative.

      Delete
    20. Anon 8:23 if you read through the comments of this entire post you will notice that many if not most contain a criticism of Kate’s look today. What you won’t find is people declaring that everyone that says something critical hates her and crying brutal attacks on a defenseless woman. I think eyes wide open and being cautious of double standards is important.

      Delete
    21. Jane - I've been a long time reader but only recently began to comment. Mainly because I wanted to add an extra positive voice to all this madness lately! I just wanted to thank you for writing a blog that has taught me so much about the royal family. You are a first stop for me after an engagement or when I want to learn more about a royal topic. This site is a gold mine of goodness for royal watchers like me! You have proven intelligent, kind, & informative for years now. I know it must be hard as of late with all of the hate making its way into the online/social media communities. Keep up the good work!

      Delete
    22. Anon 3:04,

      Anon 12:24 here. I just said I don’t particularly like her and her attention-seeking habits. That’s has nothing to do with me respecting her. I don’t outright bash her for doing certain things even if they aren’t done correctly, I just voiced my opinion that her actions were wrong. That’s not disrespect, that’s stating an opinion, and there is no need to go after someone for staying an opinion. What you did was attack Jane for not “giving Meghan credit for influencing Kate’s outfit choice today” which is absolutely ridiculous!

      Delete
    23. Kristen, you wrote exactly what I was thinking. Thank you. And thank you, Jane, for all your hard work.... This site is my favorite for meaningful information. -Nina

      Delete
    24. I am an anon that has not commented yet. Jane - I have been following this blog for quite some years, though I rarely comment.
      I am following for the most simple reason one can think of, because I like Kates style (mostly at least), and having a similar figure, and 3 kids around the same time, I like to get some ideas how to dress. I do not care for most of the part about charities, how much she works, etc etc, I also am not interested in Meghan. So, I would consider myself as a quite neutral reader. But let me tell you tha the blog - including the writing style, got some very critical Meghan vibes in the last couple of months. You did never say anything truly negative, at least that is what I think, but the blog somehow developed into a place where people are gathering to add a good amount of constructive, or not, critics for Meghan.
      I am really saying this from a neutral, obsering, position. I dont mind neither people critisizing Kate nor Meghan, I mostly want to see the fashion for my own sake. But thats the impression I get, I know it might neither be true nor intended. But its my impression.

      Delete
    25. Kristen, you wrote exactly what I was thinking. Thank you. And thank you, Jane, for all of your hard work through the years.... This site is my favorite for meaningful information.

      Delete
    26. It’s so funny when Kate married William there was no Kate vs Sophie fan wars. All of a sudden when Meghan comes in all hell breaks loose. Why is that?

      Delete
    27. I think both Kate and Meghan Stans have an equal part in all of this mess. The overzealous Kate fans criticize Meghan for everything and the overzealous Meghan fans criticize Kate for everything.

      Delete
    28. My goodness. Anyone who accuses Jane of hating Meghan must be very very new to this site. I've been a devoted follower of this blog since 2011 (though not a commentator), so I am obviously a Kate admirer and have enjoyed watching her grow into her role and greatly admire her inner strength.

      I am Afro-French-Caribbean and an Anglophile. I am of course overjoyed to see myself represented in the BRF when Meghan joined the Firm. I expect that some people will not like her, just as some people didn't like Kate. Unless you're a $100 bill, not everyone will like you.

      Jane has shown admiration for Meghan since the very start, even at the risk of upsetting some Kate fans on her blog. That is gutsy! If I remember correctly, the only reason Jane decided to not have a separate Meghan blog is because of time constraint. I believe Jane keeps Meghan posts to a minimum to respect the fact that this is a Kate blog; not a Kate & Meghan blog and must be fair to the blogs fan base.

      Jane rightly feels that she doesn't have to justify herself in her response to that troll who made those unfair remarks. Trolls will be trolls.

      I noticed a lot of new people have come to this site lately (both Kate fans and Meghan fans). Many of those Kate fans are people who claim to have run away from other blog(s) that had lots of Kate haters and that they came here to be among mutual fans. Unfortunately, those Kate fans who are new to this blog, mistakenly think this is a Meghan hate blog and take liberty to spew their venom on Meghan with complete disregard to us dual fans. The other group of newcomers are Meghan fans who seem to come here to confront and abuse Kate fans.

      As for those Meghan fans, you are ignorant beyond measure. You are obviously very new to royal watching and are not educated on the pecking order of royalty or aristocracy. You think they are celebrities whose relevance is based on the number of Instagram followers. You are very obnoxious people who should seek to educate yourselves and stop embarrassing yourselves.

      I find most (not all) of these newcomers to be quite dysfunctional and very toxic. It would be appreciated if those Kate fans would avoid mentioning Meghan if they don't like her/have nothing kind to say. As for Meghan fans who don't like Kate, try to accept that this is a Kate fan blog. You won't be happy here. Why make yourselves miserable?

      Fabie

      Delete
    29. I'm not the anon #1, but Jane: delete those comments. Don't waste more time on this mess:/

      Delete
    30. I think this Anon(s) is (are) well aware that Jane doesn't "hate Meghan". I think the real issue is frustration over the fact that Jane allows people to express opinions and have discussions that she (Anon) doesn't agree with. My take on it anyway.

      Delete
    31. I agree Fabie! If you’re an intense Meghan fan go to a Meghan site. This site is for Kate & those in her orbit, but mostly for Kate! Let us have our happy little community of people who admire Kate!

      Delete
    32. Very well said, Fabie. I no longer mention anything that isn't about Kate or her family. If too much toxic waste creeps into comments I avoid that thread altogether. Today, however, I felt it completely unjust to make up things about Jane and attack her so viciously.

      Am I the only one who thinks there is possibly only one "Anonymous" troll who is making all of the disparaging comments to all of us? If you are anonymous who's to know any different? It's so easy to anonymously agree with your own anonymous comment to back yourself up. Just sayin'.

      Delete
    33. Agree with most of your points, Fabie. Well said. I want to clarify one thing you are saying though. There may be a few new readers here who left other blogs to escape the "Kate Hate" but the majority who left those other blogs have been long time readers here also. I'm one and I've been here since 2013. There are others. I haven't noticed any "of us" spewing hate at Meghan although some comments have been critical. Jane has been kind enough to allow a broader spectrum type of discussion than other blogs. I'm pretty sure she doesn't publish comments that spew hate and venom at Meghan. Some comments may have an edge but they are respectful and civil backed up by intelligent thought.

      Delete
    34. Anon 11:33pm,
      Well if Meghan is mentioned in the post or in the comments her fans or stans are going to comment.
      If you want to just discuss Kate then I suggest nobody make a comment about Meghan.

      Delete
    35. I am fairly new to this blog, but love the way it is admiring of the Duchess without being fawning, and criticising aspects of her wardrobe as well as praising what is good. The fact that two commentators express opposing views on the same outfit is all part of the fun. There is no need to get personal or offensive; my Mum says every baby comes with its own love - a new royal should be the same - we can embrace them all!

      Delete
    36. I keep following for the Royal Family updates and Cambridge updates in particular. Jane does an amazing job with this blog and is nothing but even-handed, fair and welcoming.

      The nasty troll comments don't bother me anymore and I stopped hoping for them to change. Now I just roll my eyes and laugh when I see them. And feel grateful I don't have to work with or interact with some of the most argumentative, negative-nelly comment-makers in real life. Yikes.

      Delete
    37. I don't mind discussing Meghan if I can say what I really think about her.

      Delete
    38. Anon 2:10 great attitude, higher road, water off a duck’s back and all of that. I will do the same.

      Delete
    39. For the record, Jane, I really love this blog and have for a few years now. I'm fine with the Meghan stories and comments, and I'm fine if this is a purely "Kate" blog. Whatever works! I think it is only natural to bring Meghan into the conversation sometimes, especially if she appears at events with Kate. They are two very different women with different styles. I personally am more of a "Kate" follower myself, but I follow some of Meghan's fashion too. Jane, I think all of your Kate/Meghan coverage is very reasonable, neutral and well-done. You can do what you like- it's your blog. Keep up the good work!

      Delete
  5. She looks great, but I dislike the trousers. I am not one of those clamouring for them, and hope she is not starting a new phase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! I am probably one the few that agree that I’m not a fan of the trouser look! Skinnies or dresses all the way! She has a great figure that I think flatters more in tighter pants than a fuller pant leg. Not the biggest fan of this look but it’s not the worst! The little ponytail sticking out is odd from the side but it is super hard to master a half pony with such full hair.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Helen and Anon. I think Kate prefers dresses and I prefer to see her in them. Don't get me wrong, I love a good trouser and find them appropriate. But I think Kate doesn't opt for trousers because of her body type. Her slender, straight, athletic build makes it hard for her to wear all types of trousers. The tighter pants look good and a more tailored trouser would work better. She has the figure to look great in most all dresses, especially a-line and sheath dresses. I applaud her for venturing out and trying new looks, but I like her dresses style very much.

      Delete
    3. I can’t speak for Kate, but personally I prefer dresses over dress pants, generally speaking. I hate when I have to tuck in tops as they usually move around and untuck as the day goes on (same feeling for skirts). I think pants are appropriate for Kate on many occasions, but I also think dresses can be easier to wear (unless it’s windy lol) as I find them less fussy and needing fewer adustments.
      ~ A

      Delete
    4. I like the look and if I had been sitting for nearly 5 hours on a plane, it is a "working" look I would go for.

      I think the hair style is practical for a airfield plus the fact it was up and tiara hair late the night before.

      Delete
  6. Wow! Her skinnies never bothered me (hello legs) but I'm liking the trousers and belt, it's a put together work look and they move nicely in the video. I only wish the inseam were a bit higher to show off the length of her legs (it's a little baggy?). I also love the lines of the blazer and the simple shirt and tucks in quite well. Not liking the half ponytail, a little odd. Nice change up!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yay wide leg trousers! Yay olive green jacket and clutch! Boo that nasty hair style! Yikes, this is what my teen daughter and her friends do in the morning when they don't have time to do anything better. A bouncy ponytail or a real half up/ half down style or just about anything else would have been much better. Once she sees the photos, I doubt we will see it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Faith said. Love *love* the blazer - I want !!

      Delete
    2. Me too! Great piece.

      Delete
  8. I like the idea of trousers on Kate, but I dislike this particular style. She is swimming in them! A slightly narrower leg cut would have been better.

    ReplyDelete
  9. She looks great! Love the colour combination and the back of the jacket. I will wait for clearer pictures to comment on the hair...I am in for the ribbon but don’t really like the pony tail form :/

    I think I am developing a crush on William. I find him super handsome lately!

    BM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol! He is a nice looking man and his obvious love and admiration for his wife makes him even more attractive.

      Delete
    2. Totally! The pic of him looking at Catherine at the Christmas party is so beautiful!

      Also I think he has been dressing better lately...his trousers and jackets seem slimmer, less shoulder pats I’d say (some of his suits over the years have been terrible!)...and I think he has been training, his back and arms seem bigger. As I said, I am falling for him hahahahaha

      BM

      Delete
  10. Pants on a military cargo plane is the only way to go! I bet she had some flats on the flight too! I have loved these blazers since we saw them on her during the first Canada tour, one of these days i'm going to buy myself one. -H

    ReplyDelete
  11. Once again Kate proves that no one wears ANY look better than her. She looks FABULOUS!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love the blazer. I want her whole Smythe blazer collection on my life. As always it is great to see her mixing in high street and higher end clothing.

    Her hair, clothes and shoes since about November make me think Natasha is now on her maternity leave now and she is working with a new style advisor hence the disappearance of the hated praline pumps.

    Perhaps Amanda took some refresher courses whilst Kate was on maternity leave because her hairstyles are better lately too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love her Smythe blazer collection too

      Delete
    2. Same! And I'm a fan of these trousers!

      Delete
  13. I’m thrilled she’s finally in trousers (I figured she would never show up at a military base in her skin tight leggings), but I’m not sure the fit is right on these. I love the color combo of the blue and olive green, but I’m not a big fan of the cut out in the back of the blazer. Even though I’m critical of this look, I think it’s great she tried something new and the trousers look so professional.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I love that her style is maturing as she is and I think the pants are a part of that. I am not a fan of the supertight jeggings but don’t love these wider ones either. A straighter leg would have worked better and looked more tailored. Everything else looks great. The colors and blazer looks modern and clean. The half up pony from the back looks immature though and a little bizarre as some said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with everything you wrote, Kpcog.

      Delete
  15. I really love Kate for being so "stubborn" about wearing dresses, skirts and long hair. I remember all the voices saying that the hair is ready to be cut shorter before she really did it. I really love her for being herself. Kate made me reconsider my own wardrobe and I started wearing dresses myself. I dont like these businness trousers, not even on Letizia. I see this style all day everyday in the office, everyone wears it.
    While I am surprised, because this came out of nothing, I can totally understand why she wore trousers. It is a military event, she flew there and her usual jeans are too informal for this. If even Kate can not find anything better than trousers than this really is a "trousers event". I hope she is not starting a new trend though. The rest of the outfit is perfect to me.
    Have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you!! I like Kate's fashion for the same reasons! No need for trousers! I understand why in this instance but please no trend!

      Delete
  16. she should never wear trousers pants. Only dresses and coat dresses the pants are so ugly and look stupid. No more ugly outfits she needs to wear more new coats and coat dresses. This outfit is the ugliest thing I have ever seen cant believe they made her wear this she has a great figure and should show it off in beautiful dresses not something that looks like a potato sack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anglophile in OhioDecember 5, 2018 at 1:52 PM

      Wow what a rant. No one "made" Kate wear this outfit.

      My opinion--The pants are not ugly and do not look stupid. They are modern and professional. I really like many of Kate's coats, dresses and coatdresses but a dress or a coat dress would not have looked as good as this outfit did for this particular event.
      P.S. Some dresses can look like potato sacks, but this crisp blazer and pants did not.

      Delete
  17. And cue the meghan is the influencer in today look. I'm for one is in love with this look it's time for more looks like this. Also I'm pretty sure Kate wore pants/trousers for the radio gig her and William was at in 2016 if I'm not mistaken

    ReplyDelete
  18. I love the clean professional look of Kate's outfit. I'm sure it's one many of us wear to work regularly, so I'm finally glad to see her embracing it today. I know she has worn this look in her pre-royal life, but I hope she'll be encouraged to wear it more often now for certain occasions. Maybe a straighter or cigarette type leg would also look great on her. This is such an important engagement for W&K. It's wonderful to see them involved in this way with the troops who are away from their families at Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't wear this to work. I do singing time with the littles at a local elementary school and I have to be able to move, bend, stretch, and get down on the floor. (It's exhausting, actually.) Kate's skinnies with her Superga sneakers, boat shoes, or flat boots is more like my work uniform. However, when I worked in an office today's look is pretty much how I dressed in the winter. Dresses in the summer.

      Delete
  19. This is one of her worst looks for me. The white shirt doesn’t go, the pants are way too baggy, and her hairstyle does nothing for her. The whole look is drab.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Specifically commenting on “pants are way too baggy” the wide leg is an intentional style/trend. But it’s ok if you don’t like it even if it was intentional and designed that way :-)
      ~ A

      Delete
    2. I know that they’re supposed to be baggy, and that it is intentional, I just think it looks horrible on her body type. Not only that, but the crotch area looks way too long. The whole look is bad.

      Delete
    3. There are flattering trousers and there are simply trousers. This style was ok on Kate, however, I was reminded of Gumby.

      Delete
  20. Emmaline in the U. S.December 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM

    I love seeing this style. It reminds me a bit of Crown Princess Victoria who always puts a wonderful spin on modern, polished, working professional outfits. Hip, hip, hurrah for seeing W&K continue to grow into their roles! Their gravitas and, let's be honest, swagger is such fun to watch :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True Victoria is a great example of having a fantastic & appropriate royal working wardrobe!
      ~ A

      Delete
  21. I think it’s awesome she is doing a new look!!! They are a bit baggy but she still looks streamlined. It’s not my favorite look but I think it’s still very nice, love the color way.
    I know people will say “influenced by Meghan” and maybe she was!!! It would be nice if even tho they are not very close they can bond over family and frivolous things like fashion. BUT, these looks just became popular again whilst she was on maternity, (at least i think so) and she really has only been back for about 2 months. It might just be the timing of fashion and when all these family life events happen.
    I wouldn’t read into it too much.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No velevet ribbon at all.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6462263/William-Kate-land-Cyprus-make-whirlwind-visit-RAF-base.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mam nadzieję,że moje wypowiedź zostanie opublikowana ( te dotyczące Frogmor Cottage nie opublikowane). A więc Kate nie naśladuje Meghan, bo Kate od 7 lat miała ubranie we wszystkich stylach, więc tylko o Meghan można powiedzieć że naśladuje Kate.Uważam, że obie księżne mają prawo do ubierania się według własnego uznania ale z gustem i odpowiednio do okazji.Cieszę się, że Kate ubiera się odpowiednio do okazji, jest zawsze elegancka i z klasą.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's amazing that Kate manages to look elegant, classy and perfect for every occasion. She is such an inspiration and really a perfect choice for her role in the Royal Family now and in the future.

      Delete
  24. She looks fantastic! The trousers really suit her, and pair well with the jacket. I like this look a lot. I agree that from behind, the hair is not great. It would have looked much better with a barrette, not that weird ponytail, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  25. William looks good! Textured/tweedy blue with smooth blue trousers. Excellent engagement, too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This enseble is great choice, every piece of her look it is amazing, I glad using this kind of trousers, it fit well on her, same way I love on Meghan, for sure I would love to see more of this kind of outfit, love her snikky, but I think a huge change on her wardrobe, from time in time I see a great change happening, first was 2007, after 2011 ad now 2018, think her role is increasing e and wardrobe is following her change.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree with the other posters that I'd prefer the half-up hair without the little raised pony-tail effect. I wondered if her hair had more curls in it when she styled it and if the pony-tail was more in line with the fullness earlier in the day? My own hair is about Kate's length but probably thicker than her hair, and when I curl it the curls definitely lose some volume after a few hours. Maybe this happened to her and she didn't notice it? Unlike the planes they use on Royal Tours, I can't image that Royal Mail plane had a great, first-class space to freshen up before landing. :)

    On a related note, when she wore the ponytail the other day I was actually surprised to see that her hair was thinner than I would have expected...the bouncy curls definitely make it seem much thicker. She has a very beautiful head of hair, either way!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Are the pants really dark blue? I find olive green, white (?cream) and dark blue an odd colour combo - but I suppose anything goes these days. She looks great however - practical and elegant, and the wider leg really suits her.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I dislike the fit of the trousers. I agree that the crotch is too long. The trousers have a very Letizia-vibe (for us royal watchers) but the reason they work for Letizia is because the tailoring is always impeccable.

    I have never had a problem with her skinny jeans (girl, you worked hard for legs, show them off!) so I hope this is something she continues to wear occasionally or gets better tailoring.

    I love the blazer and I love that it's olive. Yay, it's not a bland blue (hint hint William :P) or a corporate/funeral black. I hope we see it again. I remember Kate used to wear dresses with blazers in her pre and early marriage days. I hope she goes back to wearing them again in future, they look very sharp on her!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed; I love a blazer over a dress!! Granted I’m bias as I wear that look quite often, but it’s so easy and versatile (for work)!
      ~ A

      Delete
  30. Jane, I started reading your blog after Kate got married.You are amazing writer and have helped me understand the royal Family.As one of your favorite readers please never stop writing.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wow, Kate threw us a curve ball with her wide leg trousers. I think she carries them off pretty well. The wind didn’t help the “look” as she descended the stairs. I am not a fan of the pony, my dear Kate. Please do not repeat. Although, she is no doubt exhausted from yesterday. I am enjoying watching Kate develop in her roel as future Queen Consort. She was born for this.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi! I have a theory: Kate must be nursing Louis. That would explain why is she is slightly bustier on top than we are used to seeing. It would also explain how she became so thin so quickly. I'll explain, for those of you who don't know how nursing works: As the baby gets older, he starts to eat more, and this extra loss of calories from the mother makes her lose weight. Many nursing moms begin to magically lose weight by four months.
    For example, a switch flipped when my baby was three and a half months. In just a month and a half, I lost nine pounds -- and I wasn't watching what I eating at all! (my payback for sticking with the breastfeeding even during the rough beginning:)). As time goes on, I am dropping more and more pounds! Of course, I am bigger on top because of my milk supply, but my waist is tiny and my thighs are sticks.
    Kate is a devoted mother, as far as we know, and it is her style to want to breastfeed her baby for as long as she can, since breastfeeding is the gold standard of baby nutrition. And that is my theory of how she regained her tiny figure so quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jane, must send a Huge compliment your way: you have always and I repeat have been most gracious and kind in your blog on Kate and Megan and it’s relayed in your comment sections to be respectful in ones comments. You have always been a role model in your blog. As a faithful reader commentor , I too also share your beliefs.
    Kate’s outfit today was so appropriate & the green blazer was lovely. I hope she wears this color more frequently. I enjoyed seeing the wide leg trousers, although I thought they were a bit too big on her. She must be losing more weight. Kate can wear any type of pants: skinny’s, jeans, jeggings and she looks Fabulous in all of them! I do appreciate when Kate wears her hair in a ponytail. It’s easy to stay in place as she has thick hair. The only thing I would change is Kate’s shoes, I think a boot or a flat would coordinated better than a pump.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well, thank gawd Kate has finally discovered trousers. Not that I was 100% in on the trousers she chose--I don't favour dark on dark when the darks are mismatched, and olive green with navy pretty much leaves me cold....Why not olive green with tan trousers? (now that's a colour match, IMO.) I then had to deal with myself very sternly; this was Kate, the walking, talking example of symbolic dressing, and today she was going to Cyprus to greet both Army and Airforce personnel; hence, the decision to go half and half--above the belt, Army, and below the belt Air. Then it made perfect Kate-sense. And after all, the blazer and trousers could easily be separated for future wearings.

    Personally, I've never liked the half-up, half-down hair look on anyone over the age of 10, and THAT'S pushing it, so I'll say no more.

    So...this all-over-the place look is a fail for me, altho I'm genuinely happy to see Kate in trousers. (Again, with a provisor: these navy ones look cheap/inexpensive, like some William has worn over the years.) I am also glad to see her wear trousers to the waist--low-slung jeans/trousers only accentuate her long waist, IMO.

    BTW, I don't follow Meghan so I can't be sure, but the shoes and clutch reminded me of her head to toe olive outfit worn at Louis' christening...could it be that Kate borrowed same from her supposed arch-enemy? Would someone in the know please enlighten me?

    Aside from fashion, I think the last two days' engagements with the military were great, and, in one pic I saw somewhere, William raised his stock as far as I'm concerned. The pic was of Kate's short speech to those present at the Orangery--William was simply beaming at Kate; apparently, he liked what she had to say!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The purse and clutch are similar to Meghan's but not the same. Meghan's clutch is a different shape and may be a shoulder or cross body bag with the straps removed or tucked in. Most fashion bloggers said Meghan's shoes were Sergio Rossi of LK Bennet but that Kate's are Gianvito Rossi.

      Delete
    2. Or LK Bennett, not of

      Delete
  35. From the front I love this look. From the side and back I don't like it at all. I do not like those Smythe blazers with the cut out backs and the hair looks odd from the back. She does look beautiful and they both look so happy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My feelings precisely. Well said. The cut out back is particularly wrong for Her as she has a long torso. But the view from the front and the colour combo, I love!

      Delete
  36. In a 24 hour span, a beautiful tartan skirt for a Christmas party with kids; a stunning glittery gown and jaw dropping tiara for a reception with world diplomats; a 5 hour flight to Cyprus; and a meet and greet with service personnel. Then home to three little children who want their dinner. A typical day in the life of a 30-something yummy mummy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I was quite surprised when i saw Catherine coming down the steps from the plane, but I thought the outfit great.
    I couldn't quite figure out her hairstyle at first, but it kept her hair tidy.
    I don't suppose she could take her hairdresser on a day trio and they flew out quite early---Sky royal reporter was interviewed at about 7am going on the same plane, so I suppose it was something quick and easy to do.
    I "followed" the Royal Family from childhood--then it was a matter of cutting pictures from the newspaper and mostly of the then Queen Elizabeth visiting bomb sites.
    Sadly, now I am becoming almost afraid of saying what I think of an outfit in case someone takes offense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of us feel the same way, Jean. Your comments are always lovely.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Robin, Jean - I actually always look out for your comments because they are, without fail, cheery and kind. After not seeing a post from you for a while, I was getting worried (funny how you start looking for “familiar faces” after reading this blog for a few years! Where is anon1 of late?) so am very glad to see you pop up again! Kx

      Delete
    3. There have been some not-so-nice comments to anon1. I wouldn't be surprised if she's taking a little break.

      Delete
  38. There is a photo on Instagram of Catherine and Charlotte at " Nutcracker " rehearsal las

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, handle @fromberkshiretobuckingham Or, easy access: https://www.instagram.com/p/BrAufypHZQL/

      Delete
    2. That is just precious! I wonder if Charlotte will take ballet. Her Granny Diana would be so proud!

      Delete
    3. I seem to remember reading that the curriculum at George's school includes ballet (and that he loves it, per William). So if Charlotte's going to the same school, as I imagine she will, it looks like you're in luck! :-)

      Delete
  39. I love that she's trying something new, but this just isn't working. The white with the black and olive looks too busy. The blazer is too long for the pant style, and the pants could be slightly more fitted, or a heavier fabric that would hang in a cleaner way..I think she should have removed the blazer entirely, worn the pants a bit higher at the waist, and gone with a darker shirt and lighter shoe. But I hope to see her in more trousers going forward! It's very flattering on long thin legs =)

    ReplyDelete
  40. This is HRH at her best, I am MAD IN LOVE with this look. She looks lovely-beyond attractive, super executive, slender and her hair evokes the more playful Kate-Middleton days. Yes. Serious and more playful–all at once. Also, in general (and yes, it includes HRH): I am DONE with ultra tight skinnies, yoga pants, etc. I've never been a fan, even on someone as exquisite looking as the Duchess. Today's HRH look showcases how incredibly flattering and how much more slender, polished and attractive a woman looks with clothes that fit WELL– neither loose nor tourniqet-tight, ESPECIALLY for the 30 and over crowd (meaning MOST women). Ladies, take note! Sylvia

    ReplyDelete
  41. My random thoughts:

    I loved see Catherine in pants. I hope pants make it into her rotation more often.

    I think the look has a Victoria/Leticia vibe.

    I do not like wide-leg pants. I don't care if they are stylish, I just don't like the look. Even the stunning Catherine can't make baggy pants look good to me.

    I like the color combination, very sharp.

    I thought the blazer looked fabulous.

    The hair, not so much. That was kinda weird.

    I found the amount of space devoted to bickering about Meghan in the last couple of post disheartening. I don't mind comments about her fashion, the rest of it is wearing me out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ugh. I wish there was a way to edit mistakes, typos, and autocorrect fails after you hit publish.
      I'm not illiterate, I promise.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Mary regarding the bickering surrounding Meghan is getting tiring. I don't mind discussing her when she's in a joint engagement with Kate but this event has absolutely nothing to do with Meghan!

      Delete
  42. I love this look on Kate but I also loved it on Meghan so it makes sense. She looks competent and professional. I also feel like here and at the Christmas party in Kensington Palace she is stepping out of his shadow - walking beside him down the plane stairs instead of behind is something I’ve never seen them do for instance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watch footage from their tours - many available on YouTube. They often walk out of the plane beside each other.

      Delete
    2. I noticed that too. And they're usually chatting as they come down the steps. I think in the past we've seen her come down the steps behind him because she's usually carrying a child and sometimes those steps aren't wide enough for side-by-side walking. As a future King he will most often be the first to greet those waiting but I've noticed that sometimes he steps aside for Kate to greet first. I've never paid attention to the venues where this happens but I wonder if it's at places where she is the patron. After watching what happened with his mother I don't think William ever wants Kate to feel inferior to anyone - except maybe HM who commands quite a presence when she walks into a room. Her lifetime of service and leadership has made this tiny, little woman larger than life!

      Delete
    3. Kate is on the step behind William on the plane stairway in these photos. They appear shoulder to shoulder but look at where their feet are placed. That positions him to be the first to meet the greeters at the foot of the stairs without making an obvious move to be first. I can't recall Kate ever moving ahead of William on her own in a reception-line situation that focuses on protocol, as do these arrival situations. At times, William usually gently places a hand at her back and moves her ahead.She knows and fulfills her role in the RF but is not diminished by it

      Delete
  43. I love this look! I don't know if it is a "copy cat" look, because I've seen so many people wearing it this year. I think she's stepping out of her comfort zone in wearing something she hasn't worn too often before, and it looks lovely, confident, polished and professional. Honestly, I love every piece of this look- the hair, the shoes, the make-up, the blazer...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Some of the comments here are...scary.

    Thank you for writing this blog Jane. It's horrible that you are having to deal with posts that take left turns.

    -H

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think Carole Middleton mentioned in the interview that she finds jigsaw a bit pricey.
    Pictures of Kate+ a new outfit makes me so happy regardless of how good/bad the outfit is. But I really do like this one. I'm just happy to see her try something new

    ReplyDelete
  46. Okay, I am not a fan of these trousers; IMO, they are baggy where they shouldn't be baggy. :-) Otherwise, it's nice to see her experiment with trousers again and the color combination here was a thoughtful one.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This outfit was a total score for me, and a perfect one to recreate, at that! Love the trousers--style, cut, and length. Color combo is fresh and looks so good with her skin and hair. My only, only quibble is that I don't love GV pumps with these trousers. A round toe, or chunky heel, or platform would have been a better choice, imo. But overall, this outfit is a super win for me.

    This is a random curiosity, but why are so many followers here on Jane's blog anonymous? It seems to be more regulars than anything and there is no discussion of anything questionable or vile--why stay private? Especially for people who troll and/or are haters. It would be dynamite to see some real faceds behind some of these comments. Boy oh boy. Happy Thursday everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know how to post my name. I use my actual email. Any help?

      Delete
    2. I totally agree, Stephanie

      Delete
    3. I am anon because I am barely computer literate and can't figure out any other way of posting. I understand your point however Stephanie and have taken to signing my name. I love this blog, I thank you Jane, and by signing am trying to become a known. Elen in AZ

      Delete
    4. I stay anonymous for my own personal reasons. Ive been commenting on this blog for years as an anon and only recently have I started to sign using -H. I feel like thats a good way to stay anonymous but also show that I'm a regular. Although, I did notice someone else signed with -H and that comment was not something I would write.I will start signing -HB.

      Delete
    5. I can only speak for myself, but I think I make pretty benign comments and sometime people get snarky at me. For instance, on a royal blog where there are many international followers, I asked if anyone in Denmark knew much about C.P. Mary and P. Marie. Someone got very angry with me and said they hated it when someone pitted two women against each other. I was doing nothing of the sort. Anyway, they kept pointedly calling me by name. This is why I started going with anonymous.

      Delete
    6. Some people just prefer to stay private. To each his or her own. No biggie.

      Delete
    7. Unknown, if you have a Google account, you can sign in with that and show your name and profile pic. You can also create a second one if you'd like to stay private but still have a regular handle to use on comments like these. I hope that helps!

      Delete
    8. I agree with you too. Some of our anons will sign their posts at the bottom which is fine with me as well. Not that you're going to see my face because all of my icons are pink roses wherever I have to sign in. It's easier so I don't have to change it. I rarely change my FB photo. I think the one there is of the hubby and I at a Giants baseball game about 18 months ago.

      Unknown, if you're name shows in pink - as yours does - just go into your google account and follow the links to update your profile information. I think you'll find it there. I've had mine for so long I can't remember exact details.

      Delete
    9. I comment under anonymous because I usually write from my phone and the account I have logged in is the professional one, so it is easier for me to be anonymous than changing the account every time I want to comment here. I always make sure I sign at the end, though.
      I agree that having multiple unsigned anonymous in a conversation makes it difficult to follow the thread.

      BM

      Delete
    10. Unknown - I think I myself have just managed it for the first time this evening! I’m posting from a phone and you go to “reply as” and then choose “name/url”. I think it means my name pops up at the top of the post - will see when it gets published!
      But on the rare occasions I have commented before tonight, I’ve “identified” my own “anonymous” with my initial. It’s a personal choice, though, we’re all different after all :). Kx

      Delete

    11. Good evening ladies (and possibly gentlemen),
      I would just like to let you all know that I did not mean to point a finger at anyone who is anonymous, it was simply a curiosity, and my apologies if anyone took my comment offensively. Obviously every individual has a right to remain completely private if they so choose, I only raised the question with a broader idea in mind.

      My thought is, the more people who identify themselves (not necessarily photos, but at least a username), the more regulars (which I think I am at this point) can determine who is commenting as a member of the community and who is just commenting with nonsense. I personally think I can identify about 5-6 members here, which is nice, because over time you begin to learn a bit about that person's communication style and have somewhat of an idea in advance if replying to a comment you might disagree with is a good idea or if it's best to just let it go.

      The other thing about being an identified user is somewhat of a sense of accountability. I realize I am ranting by now, but I just have to say that it makes me so sad for people who hide behind their phones and computer screens and mostly post rude, hateful, ignorant, and unintelligent comments. When mostly everyone knows one another the chance of spewing ridiculousness is greatly reduced.

      It is high time I get off of my soapbox….soon. I just wish for this blog's community that we could be friendly with one another and politely disagree rather than be snarky, condescending ,or accusatory. I *LOVE* reading the comments (after Jane's take in the actual post)...I feel like I learn so much about the BRF, protocol, different cultures, etc. This blog has really developed my lifetime love of all things royal into an actual hobby, and I want that to continue. A few years ago, I would have never admitted in real life how much I love learning about the royal families around the world, and now, partly in thanks to this blog, I am so proud to talk about it.

      So all in all, seriously people, let's try our best to get along and be more open to learning from others and teaching with kindness when possible. What does it hurt anyone of us to be more gracious. I want to feel safe enough to say 'Meghan is gorgeous, but there is something off' and not initiate a world war over it or be called racist...when I am actually of color and not caucasian. Anyway, that is all for now! I hope everyone has a great weekend! It is Victorian Christmas in Northern California and I am too happy about it.

      Delete
    12. Stephanie, how can you say something is off about Meghan if you don’t even know her? Can I say something is off about you when I don’t even know you?

      Delete
    13. Anon 6:00pm, If Stephanie lived much of her life in the public eye and she had a history of public comments made by herself and others in her life, then yes. Someone who was following her public journey could consider what they saw, note patterns of hehavior and form a personal opinion of any sort - positive or not positive.

      For example, I have followed Kate’s public life since when news broke that she was dating William. Over this decade+ time period, I see patterns from her own comments and bevhavior, from the comments and behavior of her immediate family, from the comments about her made by others in her life (and equally the Amazing lack of people who have actually met/known her taking advantage of her spotlight to sell stories and say negative things about her). The patterns I see are of a smart, steady, traditional, trustworthy, calm, kind, patient, fun, loving, devoted, nature-loving person.

      Delete
    14. Stephanie, I did not detect a soapbox; your comment was thoughtful and well-reasoned.

      Delete
    15. Stephanie, your comments were thoughtful and unworthy of a rude reply. Those of us who are regulars are happy you're one of us. Ignore the others. They're not worth the time.

      Delete
    16. I loved your comment, Stephanie. So pleased his blog has egged on your royal-watching hobby. :)

      Delete
    17. Anon 6:00 I actually read her comment as an example of “something’s off in regards to a particular outfit” a discussion we have amongst Meghan and Kate fans on almost every post. Interesting how we can all read things differently! I don’t find that offensive in the least.

      Delete
  48. Great to see Kate in these trousers, a new style, not the usual skinny jeans. The look is smart and professional, not as formal as a dress, I hope to see more trousers and blazers. The gown at the BP reception is fabulous, it will be one of my favourites. I also love the tartan skirt, perfect for christmas, the midi hemline does not look matronly as many of her midi dresses do.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Once again, Kate considers the event and possible windy tarmac in choosing her arrival outfit. Casual, but professional, the jacket color in a military tone and the Jigsaw slacks a nod to her former employer from her single days. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Duchess comparison vis a vis walking down the pane steps is ridiculous.
    Catherine still walks somewhat behind him down the stairs and to greet if you look. If its a protocol they follow it. Prince Phillip always walks behind the Queen- thus you can see walking a step behind is a role issue not a gender issue. The Royal family mostly still represents an ancient tradition bound power structure that flexes it's norms visually.

    Comparing Megan to Catherine in terms of being more "modern" because of how they walk off a plane discounts that an avowed progressive person/ woman in the world would reject becoming part of a dynastic power structure that controls unspeakable amounts of land, capitol and power because once you join you can only benefit from this structure.

    I don't thing Megan or Catherine had any qualms about joining the family thus taking on the absolutely un modern quality of the structure of royal family styling. Diana was the mouse that roared by accident. She took on the most ancient aspects- marriage weeks out of her teens, with an unsullied past, immediate baby, bowing to duty until she couldn't cope emotionally anymore because of the family's lack of awareness to support her in an ancient role within the modern world.
    Prince Charles tapped into the oldest monarchical patterns when they chose Diana. He went wrong when he brought them into the modern realm but didn't follow modern mores- he gave the nation a teenage British bride who provided duty and heirs and then he cut her to the curb. He is till paying the price.
    Diana's power in her role echos in the continuation of her personal cult and the power her son's still retain because of it. Harry can spend his personal power bringing an interracial marriage into the family. His society is more than ready, the monarchy needed this, and he is well loved. (Though it hasn't shielded them from horrible racism at all. )
    Catherine may not be four steps behind but she is still behind William off the plane and to the handshakes. Catherine is the closest William could get to the old patterns- teen age love choice un sullied by another pubic relationship, British duty, etc. Megan may have a modernish past but she signed up, took the title, moved into the palace and put on the hose. Less the extra crud and slog Harry and Megan bear for braking racial barriers in a racist world both Duchesses are equal in taking on Royal roles in the modern world. The planes they are stepping down from are paid for from the same dynastic past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well considered and apt response. Thank you.

      Delete
  51. The cameras didn't capture it but one of the guests at the funeral for Pres. Bush 41 said Prince Charles was sitting right in front of him. Quite an honor for HM to send the POW since it's usually the Wessex's who attend the weddings and funerals. When 43 broke down at the end of his eulogy the guest said there was not a dry eye in the place and even Prince Charles wiped his eyes. I wonder if it made him think that he could be in the same place sooner rather than later with his own parents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, Robin. I expect it was emotional for Charles for that reason. Bush 41 & HMTQ did have a relationship that perhaps went beyond perfunctory. While People mag isn't the most reliable source, this article is pretty good. (They were actually *distant* cousins.)
      https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-pays-tribute-george-hw-bush/

      Delete
    2. That is a nice article, lizzie. She and 41 seemed good friends. She also seemed quite close to Pres. Reagan. They had the equestrian thing in common and used to go for rides together. It's interesting to note that she probably knew 41 the longest having visited during the Reagan years when he was VP and then during his own term. The little tidbit at the end about 43's boots is amusing and shows her quite dry sense of humor!

      Delete
    3. I watched a few hours of the funeral on playback last night (Thurs) and wondered if anyone from BRF would be present. I also was not aware that particular members attended particular types of events, but am absolutely glad to learn POW attended, it means a lot. I don't even care to see a photo or video, simply knowing he was there is enough.

      Delete
  52. Does anyone know when the Queen will have her annual extended family Christmas lunch at Buckingham Palace this year? I always look forward to the day and those arrival pics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So do I, Laura. And we get to see all the family members like Zara and Mike and this year Eugenie will be able to bring Jack. Zara has become one of my favorite members of the family. Wish we saw her more. Jean from Lancs may know. She always has early information!

      Delete
    2. Heard no mention yet, but is usually just before HM goes to Sandringham, so is probably next week.
      Of course there has just been one family get together for Charles's 70th, so there may not be another one/

      Delete
  53. I love this look on Kate. Sonsophisticated. I hope will see more of this style.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Couldn't love this more...top to bottom perfection.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Has anyone caught up with the recent news on Harry and William's fight and now Thomas Markle coming out again? I just managed to catch up after a long crazy week. I don't know what the backstory is but I can't help wonder why he has been cut off like this because he has nowhere to go anymore, other than to the press.
    Also, it's a bit heartbreaking to read what was written. He seems to be genuinely distraught. Maybe I am naive but I do believe that he loves Meghan and is repentant. I can't imagine if either of my children cut me off like this as an adult - how I would feel. I think I would be dead inside. Everyone makes mistakes. Why is this so hard to forgive and move on? I am really puzzled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is sad and I don't understand either, Rosman. Of course, I'm sure as you say there's more than meets the eye that we don't know. But it does seem-- despite media stories about a long-standing estrangement-- Meghan had a positive and active  relationship with Thomas until fairly recently. And the story that he didn't attend her first wedding doesn't seem to be true either. While "not speaking" rifts fortunately have been very rare within my family, the few times they've happened they related to a partner or spouse of one of the quarreling family members. The spouse/partner was either an instigator of the rift or, for his/her own reasons, was active in ensuring the rift wasn't healed OR a quarreling family member felt his/her partner/spouse's behavior fell into a to-be-defended-forever-at-all-costs category. I'm not saying Harry caused or is prolonging this rift but I always thought it was odd he had not met Thomas prior to the wedding. After all, Meghan and Harry lived on different continents while dating and had a birthday date on a third continent. So physical distance wasn't the impediment it might be for other couples.

      Delete
    2. Because her father blackmailed her before the wedding by paying the paps to take pictures of him. I think if he and Meghan were closer he would have been forgiven, but they seem distant so it might be harder. Personally for me if my close family member betrayed my trust I would obviously be distraught but if they say sorry and ask for forgiveness I would forgive. But, if it was a distant family member I wouldn’t be too easy to forgive because they are distant and I don’t know if I can trust again.

      Delete
    3. I have always felt for Mr. Markle. Yes, he's made mistakes but Meghan and the palace have mishandled him from the beginning. I think he is genuinely distraught as well. I hate to say it but I think he's rough around the edges and doesn't fit in with " The Duchess of Sussex" brand. Essentially, she doesn't need him anymore, so.... Actually, I try not to follow this saga because it's very painful and distressing for me to watch.

      When she becomes a mother, she will realize how much parents love their children. (I know there are exceptions to this.) That kind of unconditional, I'll take a bullet for you anyday love is unfathomable until that point, I think. I remember holding my daughter and thinking- oh my goodness, my mother loves me this much! Hopefully, that will become a turning point in this situation and a catalyst for some sort of conversation.

      Samantha Markle is a completely different situation. There doesn't need to be any reconciliation there.

      Delete
    4. Yes. It is very sad. We all have such limited time in this life and it goes by quickly. I hope Harry steps up and starts building bridges with Meghan’s father. This was avoidable personal pain in the Markle family and avoidable negative attention for the Royal Family’s reputation.

      I wonder how these past couple of years would have played out if Prince Phillip was still in vibrant health and a leading voice behind the scenes in the family? Sometimes I think he was too hard-headed; if rumors are true, I think he was too harsh with Fergie in recent years. Andrew has clearly forged a good relationship with her post-divorce. I wish Prince Phillip had been willing to build bridges with Sarah, even if just behind the scenes to make things better for Beatrice and Eugenie. If he were in stronger health, I think Phillip would have seen some flags of caution and slowed down this very fast-moving train of relationship between Harry and Meghan to ensure, as William is rumored to have pointed out, that the family had more time to get to know Meghan and her family. If Harry was truly insistent about moving at this speed (especially at their ages and if they wanted a family), that would be a totally personal choice and he and Meghan could have opted for a private wedding and more private life. Over time they could have eased back into the public facing roles in the Royal family. But I think a more engaged Phillip would have been less inclined to have put them out front so much as representives of “The Firm” at this pace without a new “employee” of the BRF having been more tested over time.

      Delete
    5. I view this situation with Meghan’s dad a bit differently- I was appalled by the repeated interviews he gave about Meghan. I can’t imagine how hurtful and embarrassing it was for her to have her dad repeatedly airing their dirty laundry on an international stage. I think any communications between Meghan and her dad would’ve been shared with the press, so I think Meghan stayed silent because she was left with no alternative if she wished to keep her private life private. I don’t feel sorry for her dad- the way he bullied and embarrassed her in public made me cringe (and don’t get me started on Samantha and Meghan’s half brother!!). I’m a parent and I can’t imagine ever publically humiliating my children the way Meghan’s dad humiliated her.

      Delete
    6. Oh dear! Can of worms, Rosman. And Pandora's Box, all rolled into one.
      There are undoubtedly facts and feelings involved that we may never know. Also, do we really know there is no private communication on some level?

      Delete
    7. I am a bit lost here because I have not read much about what you are commenting. Here the magazines only praise Meghan and Harry’s love but do not get into her family problems so I have not heard about William ang Harry fighting and all the details about the situation with her father.
      So my opinion may be not very well founded...but I feel sorry for him. He talked to the press, yes, but I do not think what he said/did before the wedding left her in a bad position. How sad for him being denied the opportunity of accompanying his daughter to her wedding. I do not know how I would have felt if my daughter had left me out of her big day and changed me for the more glamorous future king...

      Her sister is a completely different story. I don’t think anybody can agree with what she is doing.

      Anonymous 11.06, I agree with your comment! Things could have been handled very differently to avoid unnecessary drama.

      BM

      Delete
    8. So I agree with most of those who have responded. Especially on the point that one doesn't understand the depth and extent of parental love until they become a mother or father. From the beginning I have separated Thomas and Samantha. For Samantha it was clear that she was truly not a well-intentioned person and Meghan was doing well by steering clear of her. With Thomas it wasn't so clear. I was choosing to believe that there was more behind the scenes that we did not know about - emotional distancing and Thomas being a difficult person. But interviews notwithstanding I don't think that is the case. Meghan lived with Thomas from 11-18 continuously. That is a pretty important part of a young girl's life. He seemed to have doted on her and she on him till very recently. She sent him cards till 2016 and posted on instagram till 2016. He paid for her wedding, he was very closely tied with his daughter until very very recently. And from the beginning he and Doria were handled differently - she received a formal invitation and he didn't, she was introduced to Harry and he wasn't. Etc. Etc.

      Unlike Anon 11:58 I don't see the interviews as humiliation or bullying. Anon - what was bullying or humiliation of Meghan to you? To me it seemed that he was a bumbling old man who had not received much guidance on how to deal with the Press beyond strict instructions not to talk with them. Of course it was a big mistake to talk to them in the first place, and I do wish he hadn't done so, but this man has gone on and on apologizing publicly, humiliating himself willingly. If there has been any humiliation it has been of Thomas, not Meghan. He has repeatedly said that he sent cards, letters, phone calls asking for forgiveness and Meghan has been silent. So then he has again come back to the Press. It just seems cruel to me. I don't think that the punishment fits the crime. Anon11:58 - are you a parent yet?
      Nothing here adds up except the interpretation that Faith presented, which is that Meghan is choosing to walk away from Thomas. I don't know why. But as a parent this is my biggest fear. I can't even type how I would feel if my children would choose to distance themselves from me for whatever reason. Even if I make mistakes I would hope that they would find kindness and compassion to forgive and include me in their lives. And I hope fervently that as adults they choose the right partner. By golly - it is the biggest most important decision and I hope every day that they don't mess up there.
      It is really distressing to watch this play out with the Markles.

      Delete
    9. Anon 12.16 - yes it is Pandora's Box. According to Thomas he has been ghosted since the wedding. It's hard to believe but it seems to be true. What are your thoughts Anon ?

      Delete
    10. BM, Meghan never denied him the opportunity to walk her down the aisle. He was supposed to but couldn’t because he had a heart attack. Meghan is not a bad person.

      Delete
    11. He said he was no longer attending the wedding because of the paparazzi scandal, as I recall. It was after that that the surgery took place. As for now, I am not following the events to know what else is happening/has happened.

      I have never said she is a bad person, you can be a good person and also be mistaken in the way you handle things. I do not think anybody in this story is a bad person (well, that sister...)


      BM

      Delete
    12. I feel for Mr.Markle. He seems to be very sad to have been cut out. He has repeatedly asked forgiveness for letting the press take pictures of him. He has never said anything negative about Meghan, only that he cannot reach her. I don't understand why speaking to the press is so wrong, Meghan's friend, Serena Williams is speaking about her all the time and she doesn't seem to mind.

      Delete
    13. Anon 4:44, I'll just add that Princess Diana's father and step mother would talk to the press. Nothing scandalous but thry weren't exactly silent. Sarah Ferguson's father did as well. He could be slightly inappropriate. So, it's not like there haven't been talkative royal in laws before. I agree though. Meghan's friends seem to be talking to the press with her approval. Kind of backs up my theory that Meghan is carefully curating a certain image.

      Delete
    14. I’m Anon 11:58-

      As I mentioned in my original post, I am a parent and I have a very close relationship to my children. I also have a very close relationship to my own parents. I can’t imagine ever giving public interviews about my kids and criticizing and attacking them in the media. As a parent, I would never knowingly and intentionally cause them harm and humiliation- I love them and to attack them in the media would be unthinkable.

      I suspect Meghan’s relationship with her dad wasn’t as close as some may think- she may have lived with him until she was 18, but she’s now 37 and I wonder if their relationship became more distant. I suspect there is much more that we, the public, don’t know. We only have Thomas’ side of the story and I’m suspicious of his comments, based on the way he’s humiliated Meghan in the media. He’s shared personal details of their conversations and personal photos. He’s staged pictures with a photographer. Yet (according to Thomas himself), Meghan still wanted him to come to her wedding. Then he had heart trouble- we know all this because her gave regular updates to TMZ, a gossip website. Based on his behavior thus far, i assume anything Meghan says to him will be shared with the media. I wouldn’t trust him either and I can’t imaging how devastating it must be to have a parent sell you out like that. I do consider his behavior to be bullying- he’s humiliating her in public and threatened to keep giving interviews until she spoke to him.

      Delete
    15. Anon 11:58. I wouldn't speak to the press about my children or about anyone I know, and I wouldn't stop speaking to my father even if he did, I just would be very careful about what I tell him. But I won't compare my family, like yours, close knitted and lovely with that of Meghan. The whole situation is not nice at all, and because of it I don't think well of Meghan and her family.

      Delete
    16. I guess we must have different values then because I would never sell out my children but would forgive if my children or parents spoke to the press about me. I just don't believe in cutting off relationships unless there is a serious reason for doing so. I am not saying that it is never warranted to cut off people from one's life - I just don't think this is it. Talk is, at the end of the day, just talk. It is completely fine to moderate relationships and maintain emotional distance and I think that is what Meghan should have done, but ghosting someone is cruel.
      Charles sells out his sons left and right in the press but I don't imagine that either William or Harry would ghost him like that. And what Markle did is a small infraction compared to that.

      Delete
    17. Anon 7:11, so you don’t think well of people from disfunctional families? Say that to all the people whose parents are divorced.

      Delete
    18. No Anon 8:13, that is not what Anon 7:11 said. Anon 7:11 said she did not think well of Meghan’s family in particular because of the whole not nice situation regarding Meghan’s family that we’ve all seen play out this year. The situation has made it clear her family is not tight-knit and lovely as a family; maybe they were at one time but they clearly are not now. Harry and Meghan were the ones who chose to put this idea out there/spotlight on it in the lead up to the wedding when they made guest list choices and when Harry publically said something about Meghan getting “the family she never had...” What a great thing to say to show respect and build bridges with your new in-laws, eh? 🙄🤷‍♀️

      I agree with Anon 7:11. The whole situation makes creates a very negative impression for me of Meghan’s family, of Meghan and of Harry.

      Delete
    19. Initially, I was sympathetic with Meghan at the time of the wedding. However, my opinion has changed as the story unfolds.

      I do support and understand cutting off someone who has been a toxic presence in your life. But there was a difference between a genuinely toxic scenario and punishing someone when they don't dance 100% to your tune.

      Meghan was prepared to have her father walk her down the aisle, so clearly up to that point he was not deemed worthy of being completely cut off; she simply preferred to manage his presence. But when things did not go according to plan due to poor execution, Meghan changed the storyline. This is how I see it at this point.

      Delete
    20. @8:13 I said I don't think well of this family in this instance. I wasn't making a statement on dysfunctional families and the consequences of divorce. Every family is different. IMO Meghan isn't a good daughter to her father and he is an embarrassing father. What's happening there is not nice and I don't think well of them. 7:11

      Delete
    21. My thoughts, Rosman? I wonder if some of the above commenters actually read the new interview. I did. Mr. Markle insulted Harry. In an attempt to exonerate his own behavior he cited Harry's Nazi uniform and naked pool episodes. That alone may have been crossing the red line. Ironically, Mr. Markle is complaining about being mis-used by the press while using the press's exploitation of Harry's past error to say more or less--"If I'm bad, he's worse."Pretty hard to talk one's way back from that one. For me, it also takes the father out of the "poor, mis-guided old soul" category into the vengeful, attention-seeking realm.
      Additionally, after the pap photos excuse for not attending the wedding, he gave the "heart surgery" excuse. As someone has pointed out elsewhere, the near-by hospital in Mexico was not equipped to handle open heart surgery. He has amended his story to say he was hospitalized in a facility in the US. He has also dropped the surgery story and amended it to a "heart attack" narrative...a "widow-maker" no less--from which there is about a 2% chance of survival. He showed the reporter his "evidence" which included discharge instructions for "Congestive Heart Failure" and a hospital bill. I don't recall seeing a name on any of the material to identify it as his. I also saw nothing that would prove a heart attack; certainly not open heart surgery. I would give the benefit of the doubt if the reporter had not remarked that he drove to LA. to see Doria a few days after hospitalization.

      To be fair, it is very possible he simply has been poorly educated on his health condition. He may have understood a procedure done in Radiology to be "heart surgery." He may also not understand that Congestive Heart Failure does not equate to a heart attack.
      He may think he is using the media to get to his daughter; it is the media who are using him, apparently without remuneration, and that is truly sad. The article on the surface is sympathetic to him but there are asides and remarks in an accompanying second article as well that cast doubt on much of his argument. The publication has played both ends against the middle, leaving wiggle-room to refute bad press for Meghan. Anon 12:16

      Delete
  56. Anon 11:58, I would agree with you except for the timeline. For a long long time, Mr. Markle did not speak to the press. Only after the photo debacle( bad judgement but just kind of silly and benign) came to light, then he started talking to try to redeem himself. Then came his heath crisis and his pulling out of the wedding. She seems to have totally cut him out from then on. Since then he's given a couple interviews that I'm sure he regrets. To me, they seemed to be out of anger and desperation. No one likes to be ghosted, especially a parent. It's a very passive agressive tactic that takes away all the power of the ghostee and puts it in the hand of the one ghosting. Doesn't make his comments right but does make them understandable imo.

    We haven't heard from him in some time. I thought, perhaps, he was staying quiet to see if she would contact him. Maybe, when she didn't, he felt like he has nothing to lose and he should go ahead and clear up a thing or two. Now we know he did have a health crisis, he did go to her first wedding and they maintained a close and loving relationship up until recently.

    I think if the Sussexes had a relationship with Mr. Markle he would not talk to the press but if they are afraid of that, they can control what he knows. If they think he may say something sensitive, then just don't tell him anything sensitive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Faith, I do agree with you; I believe she had a decent relationship with her father (from what I've read, he even raised her for a number of years) until he became inconvenient. And by that I mean that he didn't fit the image she was presenting to Harry during the courtship and engagement. And before anyone jumps on me for this, please explain how/why Mr. Markle was expected to walk his daughter down the aisle? If the relationship was so terrible, how could he be expected to act like a loving father on such a significant day that was o be broadcast to the world? It doesn't add up. What does make sense is that there was no real reason to alienate him, yet he was expected to arrive in London and go along with a very carefully choreographed program (by his daughter) which was intended to make him look like a more presentable version of himself. But it didn't work because it wasn't real.

      Yes, I do agree that he should not have spoken to the press, but I think he did it out of desperation which is very different from Samantha & Co. Had he been in the loop all along, and had his daughter personally asked him to remain silent, I believe he would have done so. The poor decisions he made, IMO, were due to his being left to fend for himself.

      I went back and read the engagement interview transcript and it was an interesting read given 20/20 hindsight. H&M were somewhat vague with respect to the family involvement on both sides. Harry even made a reference to "a couple" [of meetings with W&K] and corrected himself. Overall, the flow was awkward.

      Delete
    2. http://time.com/5038618/prince-harry-meghan-markle-engaged-bbc-interview-transcript/

      Sorry, I wanted to include the transcript from the engagement interview. :-)

      Delete
    3. Thank you so much Rosman, Faith, Royalfan, and others who have expressed exactly what I have been feeling and thinking about Thomas, Sr., Meghan's father.

      Both Meghan's parents, emphasis on both, were guiding influences and very involved parents in her life. There were ample opptunities to introduce her father to Harry even before their engagement, all done very discreetly. Why didn't she? Meghan plans were to introduce her father the week of her wedding when she is very busy and expect a flowing transition. Huh?? That defies common sense.

      I cannot begin to imagine how her father must feel. Unfortunately Samantha and Thomas, Jr. came swooping in when their father was vulnerable and talked him into doing things he should not have. But Meghan still could have forgiven him for that. Unconditional love works both ways. It's concerning that Meghan appears to be having nothing to do with her father.

      I was embracing Meghan when news first came out about their dating. But the things I saw on her instagram, the engagement interview, and now many other things.... and there are grains of truth even in the media. Then the Piers Morgan article really got me to thinking. And suddenly her friend Serena is saying she is "sweet". Things that make one go hmmmm.

      I could write so much more but just wanted to say thank you that I am not alone.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the transcript link, royalfan. I agree given the benefit of hindsight it was a bit odd re: the way the couple discussed time spent with relatives. But I think what strikes me most reading the transcript is the apparent confusion about how long they had known each other before the engagement! Such an easy question to answer, I'd think (especially for a relationship that supposedly began with a set-up/blind date.) I thought the confusion was odd listening to the interview the 1st time but it is much more striking to me now reading the transcript. And it seems once they decided that their 1st date was in July 2016 and that somehow meant in November 2017 they'd been dating a year and a half (instead of the accurate measurement of a year and 4 months, and certainly not as long as Meghan first suggested in the interview), the phrase "a year and a half" sure was repeated alot in subsequent questions and answers! I do understand interviews (for anyone, about anything) can be stressful and people can say dumb things. But asking how long a couple had dated before becoming engaged should be a "softball" "no errors answer" question. Just odd to me.

      Delete
    5. lizzie - I understand where you are coming from. The questions on the timing of the relationship along with the caginess on the dog and the peculiar emphasis on how many time Meghan had met different family members - all of it lacked some authenticity. It felt like they were trying hard to convince the interviewer how much she was liked by the Firm.
      Then there is the most recent article that claims that William along with other senior members had concerns prior to the wedding. Also that Charles had tried to send a senior aide to mediate between Thomas and Meghan but she had decided to cut him off, and that William thought her actions drastic. So overall I now understand why there was not a smile to be seen anywhere during the wedding. It was even more unbelievable that no one, not a single family member except for Edward occasionally was looking at Harry and Meghan when the vows were being said. Even Kate, who is sunny and smiley to a fault (remember how she tackled the day after the topless photos came out - what a champion) was almost sour and grim faced. The only person smiling was William, which in retrospect makes sense, having been read the riot act by Harry for not rolling out the red carpet for her. I was most surprised by the reactions that day because I was operating under the assumption that everyone was thrilled to have her (Queen riding with Meghan's beagle and all of that) but now it makes a lot more sense. They were genuinely unhappy and were not bothering to hide it.

      Delete
    6. Royalfan, I wonder if Meghan felt that her relationship with Harry might not go forward if he met her dad.

      I do agree that the plan of having Mr. Markle show up in London only a few days before the wedding and not allowing him to give a toast etc. hints at an attempt to control his image.

      Thanks for the transcript! There was a lot of fuzziness going on in that interview. Obviously, they wanted the information for public consumption to be different from how things actually happened. Like Lizzie, I was struck by how they seemed to be confused about how long they had been dating. Just reading through now, Harry seemed really intent upon establishing the beginning of July as the start although, the numbers don't add up. So either they wanted to portray their relationship as being longer than it was or they wanted to portray it as shorter than it actually was. I'm wondering if she wasn't quite out of her relationship with the chef before she started seeing Harry.

      Delete
    7. Katharine, yes, it did defy common sense. Where there's a will, there's a way. And surely they had the means to make it happen. You're not alone in questioning this or other things. :-)

      You're welcome, Lizzie. And, yes, there was some "confusion" about the length of their relationship. Harry was pretty clear that the blind date was in July (of the prior year) while Meghan rounded up to 1.5 years (more than once). She appeared anxious to avoid/deflect any suggestion that the relationship was rushed and, IMO, it was, especially if you consider the long distance factor, adjusting to life in a different country, AND becoming a member of the BRF (HUGE even if she had been born and raised on British soil).

      And for these reasons, I do believe that William attempted to have a heart to heart chat with Harry and, most likely, suggested that he take it easy and really get to know Meghan. Consider how many years Harry observed William's relationship with Kate and how much he must have wanted a family of his own. Unfortunately, I don't think he had a true understanding of the investment it requires, especially for someone in his position.

      Delete
    8. I enjoy reading all your comments! Thank you for sharing your insights. A question for you, I am interested in your opinion...If there were concerns about the wedding (I agree with the serious faces, this picture of the Queen was viral on twitter https://goo.gl/images/ARJEeX ) why would the Queen invite her to do a joint engagement so quickly, even going with her on the train? That was the beginning of all the ‘the Queen prefers Meghan to Kate-the Queen is happier when Meghan is around’ narrative...

      BM

      Delete
    9. BM - I think that was Harry and Meghan approaching her and requesting her to do one. Like they apparently threw
      a tantrum that resulted in an invitation to Anmer. Or how they claimed that they and the Queen together chose the tiara while it came out later that that was not the way things way down at all. they even said in the engagement interview that Kate and William were great to them, but then it turns out that they believed that it was opposite of that !
      I think that they were keen on getting across that Meghan was welcomed into the family but that was not the case at all, if any of these stories are to be believed.
      Lizzie and Faith - I agree with you on the timing. There was likely some amount of overlap between the chef and Harry and that was the reason for the "confusion" on when the dating started.

      Delete
    10. BM, after being chastised for their treatment of Diana, the Firm has been more cautious and PR savvy. The Queen did a joint engagement with Camilla when she joined the Royal Family, then she did so with Kate, and now it was Meghan's turn.

      May I just say that I don't believe Camilla was welcomed with open arms, but for the sake of the monarchy, the Queen had to be seen as being on board. I also believe it gives HM a unique opportunity to teach and to observe the new pupil.

      Delete
    11. I do agree with these observations because I was excited when they first started dating & now I can't be more horrified at the way news is coming out. I feel so sad for Meghan's father because I think he genuinely loves her despite everything & wants to be a part of her life. But he doesn't apparently fit in with the image she wanted to project to the world or the BRF. I read that William was surprised by her behavior towards her dad because he'd lost his mother & felt the loss of a parent significantly. I don't event think her father committed some unforgivable crime that he needs to be shut off like that & I can't imagine how hurt he must have been when Meghan & Harry confronted him. She's known to be rude to people & I can't imagine what she put her dad through when the photos came out because she had a certain image she wanted to project. She had no issues using him when she needed him, but now that she landed the golden goose that keeps giving, she didn't need her dad anymore. It broke my heart for her father thinking of what he must be going through watching someone else walk his daughter down the aisle. I think she was desperate to lock Harry in marriage & didn't want anyone or anything reminding her of the life she left behind, including her dad. I mean, who has celebrities you've hardly known get invited to your wedding but only one person from your entire family & friends from back home attend your wedding. I find it hard to imagine how, if she's such a good person, had no friends from high-school, college, her neighbourhood or any single relative attend the wedding. She didn't even know Oprah for goodness sake. I feel sorry for her dad, I really do. I think what she's doing is just unforgivable. Parents are usually very forgiving & they love kids no matter what. They don't deserve to be treated this way at all.

      Delete
    12. I really have to watch the wedding again, Rosman! I didn't get the impression of sour faces, I remember more that it seemed rather cold and impersonal, and the impression was heightened watching Eugenie's wedding and the way they keep smiling and making eye contact with their guests when exiting the chapel. As for the RF I am afraid I don't remember their expressions. William seemed happy for his brother, Harry very tense and eager,Meghan expressionless with the same smile from beginning to end. Kate was in a situation where the first though must have been on her baby and feeding schedule, the second on her children and how they behaved. She must have felt uncomfortable, having given birth so recently. I wouldn't read anything in her face that day.

      Delete
    13. Don't get me started on the Oprah sudden but obvious invitation to the wedding. No way she knew Meghan or Harry. Oprah inviting Doria to her house for a "talk". Oprah first in line at door of church. Meanwhile there is a scrambling to find her a seat in the plush section of church. After all who seats a billionaire in those other seats.

      Yes, everything now makes more sense that there were no smiles especially by Kate who always has a smile no matter what.

      Thank you everyone for your astute observations. These discussions have been so interesting and very revealing.

      Delete
    14. I agree, my dislike for Meghan has deepened after the surfacing of all the latest news. I am not looking forward to next year, we are going to be hounded with articles about her come April.

      Delete
  57. The Middleton home where Kate and Pippa lives together is for sale!
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476079/Kates-three-bedroom-Chelsea-home-shared-sister-Pippa-sale-1-95m.html

    A flashback to the Middleton days. I hope Jane has time to share her thoughts on the furniture. I dont know if it is the same furniture when Kate lives there but can you imagine that she cooks there with her sister, had movienights with her friends, had William over and doing her hair and make up in this badroom before going out to Boujis? It feels like a very small sneek peek into her early life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just read the article, Kate and Pippa have a great life.

      Delete
    2. Fabulous apartment!

      Delete
    3. I seriously need to buy a lotto ticket and cross my fingers and toes. 😉😄😃😀😍

      Delete
  58. Growing up, the royals were distant figures found more on the tabloid pages on my nan’s dining table. Nan was a devout Irish Catholic and pro-unification. She loved the queen and royal news was a welcome respite from caring for 6 children on a lumber man wage. I followed because of Diana. I follow this blog and commented only once since Will and Kate’s wedding.

    I like the blog for the fashion. After a day in scrubs treating patients all day, hitting the blog for relief from daily mayhem is my respite. So thanks Jane.

    What I’m saddened by is the war being wage on-line and in the tabloids. It saddens me when I see women succumbing to gossips over people being paid for their interviews to fuel contrived conflicts. Maybe it’s because I see so much unnecessary and often self-inflicted trauma already in the workplace.

    I hope we can avoid placing women in impossible situation. There is so much misogyny out there. I believe Kate and Meghan don’t need to be placed on a pedestal. I believe these women are strong enough to be who they are without our help to make paper cutouts of who we think they should be. - Em

    ReplyDelete
  59. Nie ma mojego komentarza z 09.12.2018. Napisałam, że Meghan odrzuca ojca, czemu nie wybaczy swojemu ojcu, nie jest tak bardzo zły. Jeśli Meghan popełni błędy , czy Rodzina Królewska musi usunąć Meghan ?

    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!