Worst outfit ever worn by a royal?

Sweet Mother-Fucking Confucious with a Red Beard!

WORST.

EVER.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I think you win, OP. That's really pretty hideous, although she doesn't seem that big, or the dress too tight?

Oh, wow, R2! I'm 😵 (dizzy) from looking at Queen Elizabeth's Harlequin gown. She deliberately dressed herself as a court jester.

But, yup, in contention with Maxima's Big Bird dress. Would win the contest if the yellow weren't so mustard and brighter.

I mean...

R5 - She's one of the GOAT which got her disqualified from contention as a Hall of Fame member.

Sorry, OP. I like the romantic fairy princess look of Diana's wedding dress. Kate Middleton's wedding dress wasn't horrible but it was underwhelming.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Looks like bad taste is hereditary.

Fergie never quite got it right.

Tacky

Sarah strikes again.

Diana at 1981's Royal Ascot

Imperial Margarine — fit for a king!

Maxima's dress could have been saved if the flounces on the sleeves were gone and those on the top part of the dress. Smooth paired with just a few tiered flounces is ok. The belt could have been a dark velvet as well for a bit of contrast.

I think some of those outfits that Sarah and Diana wore were fancy dress for one of those priest and prozzie parties.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Maxima again, looking like a piñata

R5 It was the hat that was hideous. The coat and accompanying dress were Valentino. She wore it again without the ugly fascinator at another wedding and looked perfectly fine.

Thank you to the posters with enough historical memory to pull up all of Sarah's nightmares. It should be a course at any fashion college and a side note in a Genetics 101 textbook. The extreme bad taste of the new York family. The parents cannot escape their grasping and tacky nature through their words and deeds, as their daughters sought to rebel through sartorial humiliation. Again.

Liz looked like such a frump next to Jackie.

This bizarre space helmet

At R21, Jackie’s hairline looks like Theresa Giudice’s of Real Housewives of NJ. Jackie’s hairdo is atrocious.

No caption needed

Not the worst outfit ever worn by a royal (or royal by marriage), but too costumey, too old for her and just an outdated look. She looks too much like an actress playing a role.

OP here. Many thanks to the posters with Fergie's exceedingly weird and questionable cavalcade of misused satin.

I left for college between the Wales and York marriages and effectively stopped reading anything about them in gossip magazines since I got cut off from my aunt's supply.

Wow. I thought modern day Sarah Ferguson lived in a fantasy world, but even her wardrobe back then suggested she was in the ether.

I know you don't want photos of Beatrice and Eugenie, OP, but this look is inspired in its badness.

Jiffy Pop strikes again.

Great choice, R28. Breast implants I presume.

Please do not name your daughters Maxima.

R27 - I just didn't want them named WOAT again. They were always on top and didn't want them to be sole names on the list, but as per usual DL unearths the most worthwhile gems for resurrection.

I do actually welcome any evidence when rich folks keep evidence.

[Quote] I know you don't want photos of Beatrice and Eugenie, OP, but this look is inspired in its badness.

In stark contrast to R28, here's Stephanie at age 36 (!!) in full mother-of-the-bride mode.

Oh my. She has the shoulders of a linebacker.

Yikes. The excesses of the 80s.

I think that's why I had a crush on her as a gayling, R33.

Haha. If shoulder pads ever come back into fashion, she won't need them.

Maxima at R18 is like something Ugly Betty would have worn to the office.

What was she thinking?

^ Kate really loves that designer

Gah! The black suede platforms at R38 are the worst! How did Kate even wear those heels with that satin floral gown? Yes, I am shallow enough to notice .

Sometimes the late Diana, Princess of Wales got things right fashion wise. Other times you wonder were there no mirrors anywhere at all before leaving for event, and or whoever came up with outfit in question ought to have been shot.

Could be wrong but think one thing behind the often awful choices of fashions by HM and all female members of BRF is limiting themselves to or preferring British designers/fashions over say Italian or French.

British women (including royals) ought to wear British clothes; well so goes that train of thought.

HM does mix things up with accessories by Chanel, Hermes, and other names from the Continent, but much of her day to day wardrobe has always been and still is done by British designers. This makes sense to an extent as one job of the monarch is to promote British industry.

Princess Margaret OTOH wore French couture and told anyone who dared call her out on it to basically "fuck off".

Diana IIRC was pretty much along same lines; from that ghastly wedding dress (by David and Elizabeth Emanuel) on down through the years of her marriage. Again being second lady of the land job of Princess of Wales was to promote British industry where possible.

Prince Harry got his mother's wedding dress. What will happen to it in future is anyone's guess. Likely end up back on display somewhere..

R43, he has it?

Oh, Meghan’s getting that in the divorce.

Well, there's something the BRF can't wait to duke out among themselves, no pun intended, right?

That a divorced women with a husband living insisted on marrying again in white, with a veil and in church was bad enough. The Markle woman wouldn't have dared touch Diana's wedding gown. Diana-maniacs would have savaged her in the press, if not rushed to rip the thing off MM's back.

Zandra Rhodes was responsible for two of Fergie's monstrosities above. Here's Diana in three others.

Wiki entry may have things muddled; other sources state Diana's wedding dress was given to joint custody of both Duke of Cambridge and Duke of Sussex.

Micaela, Countess of Paris

That oft used DL phrase fits here; "oh dear".

Oh, my goodness, R47. It's like Olivia Newton John for Xanadu!

Princess Diana’s wedding gown looks much better in person than it does in photographs. However, when you cram that much silk taffeta into the small space of a carriage it comes out looking like used tissue paper from a gift box on Christmas Day. In 2010, the gown was part of an exhibit that featured Diana’s best outfits. On display, smoothed out and lit properly, the gown looked stunning. It was the wrong choice of fabric for how it traveled on her wedding day.

Anything Fergie wears as well as Meghan Markle. They both have appalling taste.

I actually love that outfit at r49. It's perfect for a woman of a certain age who's not afraid of color. The only thing I would change is the shoes and the clutch -- I'd have gone with simple pumps and a silk clutch to match either the fuchsia or orange of the outfit. Probably the fuchsia.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

OP - Thanks for a refreshing fun royal thread!

Obviously, the York sisters own this thread. Second place: Princess Anne. Third place: Meghan Markle (the de la Renta tablecloth dress, the green tent at the polo match, and the eye-wateringly hideous olive green belted thing with white scarf she wore to the mosque in Morocco - those three alone gain her a place in the top spots).

Honourable Mention: Queen Maxima of The Netherlands and Queen Margrethe of Denmark (a/k/a Mother Goose)

^* Sarah Ferguson has to pip Meghan Markle, I omitted her.

All right, Meghan drops from third place to Honourable Mention. Even she cannot outdo Fergie in the Bad Dress Chromosome contest.

R38 - Erdem is the absolute worst. I have only once seen a decent gown of his, and that was on Benedict Cumberbatch's wife at some evening event. For one thing, his wife had the sort of colouring that worked, and the gown while flowered with pockets was at least on a black background and didn't have flounces.

Actually, I think Kate wore an even worse Erdem whilst visiting pregnant, I think, with Charlotte? It was in Sweden and it looked like it was covered in Victorian ormolu.

Re: Diana's wedding dress - it wasn't the wrinkles - they were actually rather endearing and smoothed out quickly once she was out of the carriage. It was simply incredibly fussy and the meal-bag sleeves seen from the back made a tall slender 20 year old look like a giant square. It was just overdone to the nth degree.

Had the sleeves been fitted to offset the dizzying array of beads, bows, lace, sequins and ruffles, the gown would have worked. But the huge sleeves ending in ruffles trimmed with bows totally did the dress in.

It looked like something an eight year old girl would have designed for herself.

R24 "too costumey, too old for her and just an outdated look. She looks too much like an actress playing a role."

That's exactly what she was: an actress playing a Duchess sweeping in determined to mow down the audience, and coming off looking like nothing so much as Cruelle de Ville.

Not to mention, yet again, the outlines of an (unnecessary - this wasn't a strapless gown or summer tee) strapless brassiere clearly outlined underneath, just as she did in Ireland with the grey Roland Mouret dress that otherwise would have looked quite elegant).

R41, Princess Diana was a total frump when Charles married her, and she stayed that way till after William's birth. Around 1985, though, she woke up, went properly blonde, got a good stylist and after that she is rarely seen in a fashion disaster. The occasional dud, sure, but considering the number of outfits she modelled they are very occasional indeed. In a few cases you need to make allowances for what was fashionable in the 80s, but her good stuff is mainly pretty timeless. And nobody could team a hat with a suit like that gal.

She was never hit-and-miss. She was always Miss, then after that particular point in time, almost always Hit. Glamour personified. It would be interesting to try to work out exactly when the change occurred.

Meghan, by contrast, is a fashion disaster. She could look very good all of the time if she wore the right clothes and hair, but she positively insists on doing the opposite of what she should to bring out her best. She has the superpower of making Givenchy and Chanel look like Target.

“She was never hit-and-miss. She was always Miss, then after that particular point in time, almost always Hit.”

So she was always hit and miss.

[quote] OP - Thanks for a refreshing fun royal thread!

+1 with r55.

The 1980s pix of Diana and the rest makes me appreciate how very disciplined one must be to achieve restraint when one is battered by a prevailing storm excess. For example, even Jackie O's discipline and restraint wavered, as is plain as day when seeing some of her 1970s choices. They were mind-bogglingly bad.

Now, I see Q E II as among the best dressed women in the world. There's a certain genius to her uniform. It's exactly what I want to see on her. It's singular, instantly recognizable, and appropriate to her global presence.

Her wardrobe is analogous to the Golden Arches of McDonald's, and I write that as a compliment.

R57, did you see this article? The Emmanuels had made a back up gown in case the first choice was leaked. It wasn’t completely finished but it did have fitted sleeves to the elbow and then two layers of ruffles. It’s very 18th c except for the neckline.

[quote] Meghan, by contrast, is a fashion disaster. She could look very good all of the time if she wore the right clothes and hair, but she positively insists on doing the opposite of what she should to bring out her best. She has the superpower of making Givenchy and Chanel look like Target.

Agreed. I've consistently argued that the needs to find that sweet spot between flair and severe, and by this point, I don't know that she's capable of it.

she needs

Why doesn't Liz get a new 'do? She's been sporting the old lady wash and set forever now. Even my grandmother didn't have that in her old age. She had a modern, easy to care for short, sassy cut.

IMO, fascinators are the absolute worse headgear for women who don't style their hair. The only time they look good is on a model type with hair pulled back into some kind of chignon. All that long hair hanging with a stupid little thing pinned on the side or front just looks stupid or sloppy.

What is that fabric? There is no collar, and it looks like they just used scissors on it. The fit is terrible. The color is inexcusable. She is too mature for flounces no matter where they would be placed, especially on the occasion of the opening of parliament.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

He never had the legs for it.

The dress at R67 is quite nice.

Louis really did have bird legs!

Princess Beatrice when she got it right, wearing an Alexander McQueen split tuxedo dress at a 2015 V & A gala.

[quote] Why doesn't Liz get a new 'do? She's been sporting the old lady wash and set forever now. Even my grandmother didn't have that in her old age. She had a modern, easy to care for short, sassy cut.

Totally agree. Maybe something like this.

Liz should wear a wig like Raquel Welch.

Kate showing her stuff when touring Canada.

Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother's funeral dress.

It doesn't show off her cunt, r25.

Maxima's next dress

Another of the Grifter Cunt of York.

All that glitters is not gold.

Duchess of Cambridge nearly caught it with that floaty yellow dress. Someone should have known better and it mustn't be allowed to happen ever again.

Kate Middleton gave the world quite a show from the rear (a la Marilyn Monroe in Seven Year Itch scene).

Dress was too short and of flowing material with the latter doing what it does when it catches a breeze.

She was just entertaining the soldiers, R79. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess the hem of the dress should be weighted.

To be fair plenty of other British women and girls had issues with skirts and wind.

This little layered dusty old mess on CPB make me howl when I first saw it. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall arrives at the Hofburg Palace for a State Dinner on April 5, 2017 in Vienna, Austria. Looks like a very old duster she dug up from Wiltshire farm attic and had modified for Austrian visit. Poorly fitted, but the worst offence are the layers which look like granny's old faded lamp coverings accumulated over a century. Does nothing except draw attention to perpetually chronic saggy royal hooters.

Another thing; Duchess of Cambridge needs to do something with that long hair. She isn't a school girl any longer nor even a young woman; but yet HRH constantly is either touching, playing with, arranging, or trying to control her long hair.

R59

"Princess Diana was a total frump when Charles married her"

To whom are you referring?

There never was any such person as "Princess Diana". Despite what current and previous Earl Spencer may think they are not British royalty.

Lady Diana Spencer was daughter of a peer prior to her marriage. Afterwards she became H.R.H the Princess of Wales, then busted down to "Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce.

[quote]Princess Diana was a total frump when Charles married her, and she stayed that way till after William's birth.

She was a Sloane Ranger, basically the British version of a preppy.

Queen Mathilde of Belgium often wears matching masks with her outfits but this printed one is a fail.

As stated previously, one must make allowances for 1980's fashions. It wasn't just royal ladies (British or otherwise) but most around world were subjected to a decade of some what dubious fashion designs.

Proof of this is in how much of fashion from that era just isn't wearable today.

Few years ago spent a rainy Sunday afternoon helping a trannie friend clear out her closets. Vast amounts of jackets, blouses, dresses, gowns, etc... from 1980's all simply had to go. Shoulder pads alone often made things seem so dated and there just wasn't anyway to change things.

There are no words to describe the mess that is Queen Margrethe of Denmark.

Exactly!

Lady Diana was truly a Sloane Ranger, as befitting her rank and set she ran around with at the time.

The Danish Queen sometimes looks like a bag lady.

I have a theory about the long hair on Kate, r84. Trying to emulate the aristocratic "country set" look in Norfolk like Rose Hanbury. Kate wears clothes way too young for her. She could take a few tips from Charlene of Monaco but no she's still into the frills, high collars, florals, long skirts, ....so .....country. Some day, she'll cut it off, the hair, but she's just not ready to give up her Young Innocent Girl look just yet.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Here's Charlene looking sophisticated in an egg blue silk tailored outfit. Stunning. Notice Kate keeping her eyes firmly fixed on Wills and Charlene chatting....lol Not a ME! fan but honestly, Kate needs to ditch the country look when in London and look more "continental."

Sophie Wessex in a jumpsuit at Ascot was a big failure.

She looks like she’s pooping fabric, R24

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Maxima's floral dresses.

R93, note that Kate’s white lace dress does have a lining but when the sun shines through, it’s still sheer. The problem with a slip is that it doesn’t move with the dress. If she bends down from the waist, eg to accept a bouquet of flowers from a child, the dress would raise up in back but the slip would remain, showing an unflattering several inches of nylon tricot.

Swipe for Maxima's wedding guest outfits.

R92

One suspects dss of Cambridge will remain with her current look until the duke inherits either Wales or the throne. Then either as new princess of Wales or queen Kate Middleton will grow up and sort herself out fashion wise with a nod towards a more conservative look. It simply will not do for a queen consort or Princess of Wales to have her skirts flapping away in the wind.

If you're going to go "native" in India, at least get your feet fixed. Or wear socks.

Camilla and (dead) Duchess of Alba. Are good support bras that hard to find??

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R102, the hand looks more puffy than the foot. What the hell is going on with Prince Charles? Why is he so puffy-looking all the time?

Disagree about Kate Middleton's hair. It still looks great to me and age-appropriate. It's one of her best features and, IMO, she should wear it long as long as possible (no pun intended).

The flying-up dress / skirt. I think Kate knew that would happen. Despite being almost anorexically thin, she has a great lower-half of her body, still rounded. Must be kind of a bummer to have a great, young body and not be able to show it off like a normal woman.

While she's had her share of misses, Princess Michael of Kent otherwise nearly always is spot on fashion wise.

There is something to be said for being born and raised outside the damp chilly climate of Britain. One's first thought when dressing isn't always how to keep warm......

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

That one isn't that bad r108. The silver Wonder Woman belt is a bit much, but otherwise she looks fine.

IMO, Princess Diana didn't dress horribly, but I didn't really like her style. Same with Jackie O. Mary Tyler Moore (from the show) also comes to mind as someone who looks put-together but you don't really like their style.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Silver shoes and purse?

Good lord!

Can we just agree to forget the 80s ever existed fashion-wise?

R97, that's not underwear.

That's plaited hairpin. A tight weave. Waterproof.

Another Fergie Fail.

I love Diana’s dress at R114.

What you bitches consider her “frumpy” era was my favorite. All the darling little hats and flowing fabric suited her type better than the killer Dynasty suits that followed.

I don't mind Diana's Sloane Ranger looks at R90. I just don't like the frilly, ruffled, unsophisticated Romantic dresses like R108 and R114 which she wore early in her marriage.

Kate is not "anorexically thin". She has always, as has her sister, been athletic and toned. Naturally, a woman nearly forty and a girl of 25 have different levels of smoothness in the face, but Kate has worked well with the figure she has. It has some great points (slim hips, flat backside, great legs, a nice up top, and for a girl her height, small feet) and some disadvantages (primarily a longer torso that shortens her legs). She looks good in a bikini, good in evening gowns, good in sharp tailoring, good in short flirty skirts and long skirts, and good in coatdresses. She doesn't look good in fussy and over decorated, even with her height.

Some women really are born to slenderness, just the way some women can never pull it off (Fergie and her daughters are the poster illustrations of women just NOT born to slenderness).

When you want to look at someone clearly in the grip of an eating disorder, you have to look at those ghastly photos of Diana with her cheekbones sunken in and her shoulder blades protruding. There's a photo of her somewhere in a strapless gown with a taffeta plaid skirt and ruffled black satin or velvet top that is horrifying in what it said about her mental state. You can't miss it.

Kate does not now nor has she ever looked like that.

They're going to a Halloween party, right?

OMG, what in the fuck is that at R2?

R123, maybe Liz is going to a Christmas party and she's trying to upstage the Christmas tree.

Royal idiot . . .

Was QEII considered attractive when young? She looks alright in some pics but in others not so much. It must be hard to be young and forced to dress like a frump and matron before you are 30.

"It looked like something an eight year old girl would have designed for herself."

Diane supposedly told the designers that she wanted a "fairy princess" wedding gown. So they gave her one: an 80s "fairy princess" gown, which meant that it had too much of everything: silk, taffeta, lace, pearls, sequins, and a fucking twenty-five foot train. Diana looked weighted down under the tons of fabric. The gown was the epitome of 80s excess and it was hideously overdone. But it's supposedly "Iconic" and a classic wedding dress. She would have looked so much better in something more simpler and elegant. Poor Diana. On her wedding day she spilled perfume on her wedding gown, staining it. Her gown and train were noticeably wrinkled because all that fabric was stuffed into a small carriage.She had a massive headache the entire day because of her heavy tiara. And she flubbed her wedding vows, calling her Prince "Philip Charles” Arthur George." Maybe somebody up there was trying to tell her something by all those mishaps. Something seemed to be warning her that her marriage was a big mistake.

r93 I think everyone, including the York girl, looked good that day in your video. I loved the lace dress on Kate. Her body can work is the clothes are fitted properly. From head to toe, it was a win. The Queen's dress, under the coat, was a minor drab-looking think, but she's 300 years old so I'll cut her a break. Camilla also looked good, but she perks up when she's around horses.

Really fun seeing the Queen interact. I know they say that Kate is as dull as a broken lightbulb and only offers superficial comments about nothing. I wonder if the Queen is a good conversationalist and if she's ever just left alone in a room. Michelle Obama said that during their first trip to BP, she found herself off to a corner and the Queen happens to be in the area. They had a light-hearted chat about wearing shoes at these events where your standing for long periods of time. I wonder how often the Queen may not be the center of attention outside of formal events.

r94 as head of a ruling Principality, would Charles and William (and everyone else) bow to the Prince of Monaco? I know they have a higher rank as rulers of a sovereign nation, but since they aren't kings, do they receive a bow?

R13 wins. In that outfit, she looks like the love child of Stan Laurel and Ronald McDonald.

Duchess of Kent is seriously the most beautiful, or formerly beautiful, woman to join that family. Shame she's a racist bitch.

Kate's wedding dress was underwhelming. A boring choice.

Isn't Charlene that poor thing that was basically kidnapped at the airport trying to get out of Monaco? Seems like it was big stinko at the time that was hushed up quickly.

She’s also not the Duchess of Kent, R131.

Whoever the fuck she is, she was a beauty. If she was nicer the family might have given her a higher profile and I'd know her proper title. Something with a G, correct?

I happen to like the dress. I’ve seen way, way worse in this thread.

Which dress R135?

Aren’t facinators supposed to be outrageous and ornamental? Because if they are, Bea’s is perfectly fine. I like the 3-D effect and sculptural quality,

I'm surprised at the comments about Kate dressing too young for her age. To me, her look is often quite mother-of-the-bride.

I also think she looks very matronly r138

The curse of royalty is having to dress so conservatively and old for your age. Never being allowed to wear fun stuff. I mean can you see a royal dressing like Carrie Bradshaw?

The OP’s dress, r136.

Why do they never think to ball up a pair of socks and press/steam the darts into submission? Meghan Markle has had the same problem a few times.

OP’s choice reminds me of this in nature:

I love it when couples dress alike, R125.

R103 I think that such wealthy and powerful women letting their boobs be all saggy and hang out might be a dominance display. “ I’m so rich I can afford to be comfortable; the rest of you will have to just deal with it“ seems to be the unspoken message.

Did she just get out of prison?

r11 gets my vote. I kind of like the Big Bird dress.

^^^ Fergie doesn't look bad, except for the hat.

Fergie at R146 doesn't look bad.

Kate has the best legs.

Isn’t r11’s dress from Pretty in Pink and r12’s from the Wizard of Oz?

This is the most daring gown I've seen Liz wear. Not bad.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

"Kate's wedding dress was underwhelming. A boring choice."

Not really. It was perfect and suitable. Compare it to Diana's dress, which was overdone. Compare it to Meghan Markle's, which which was underdone. Kate got it exactly right.

Di's wedding dress was beyond awful.

About 8 sizes too big with granny sleeves, the whole god awful outfit seemed to be swallowing her alive.

I thought Meghan's wedding dress was more elegant than Kate's.

Kate’s wedding gown was a safe choice but the pointy bust darts were terrible, that’s all anyone could see. Compare that with the white lace dress (posted above in the no-slip discussion) (at least I think that was in this thread) she wore at Ascot. Another McQueen but they got that bodice and waist absolutely *perfect*.

To each his own R156. I found it boring. Not ugly per se just dull.

What are you bitches talking about? I'm beautiful.

Even skiing, Fergie can look horrible.

R92 - Kate has been wearing her hair long since her midteens. She isn't "copying" anyone, her long, thick, wavy, glossy hair has been a trademark since she was a young woman - before she started dating William. Suggest you google some photos of her in school.

If anyone is copying anyone, it's Rose Hanbury copying Kate.

Oh dear. Very amateurish.

Princess Mabel's wedding dress, from her wedding to the late Prince Friso. The further down the dress, the larger the bows get; by the end of the train, they're the size of pillows. Maybe "worst" isn't the right word here. It's so OTT that it's a work of art.

R131 - You mean Princess Michael of Kent. The Duchess of Kent is married to the Duke of Kent. Princess Michael is married to the Duke's younger brother.

And with those elephantine ankles, I would hardly call her beautiful. In fact, the actual Duchess of Kent, the former Katharine Worsley, was much prettier, a very English delicate blue-eyed blonde.

I prefer Princess Grace's wedding dress to Kate's. More modest for a church ceremony. I have nothing against small chests on women, but Kate's dress made her look flat-chested in a bad way.

Might be sacrilege, but I think Grace's dress is overrated. It's by no means ugly, but I find it a bit "stiff", if that's the right word. I think the reason it's so popular is that Grace herself was so beautiful that she elevated the dress.

Grace Kelly's dress was amazing and totally iconic. No one's has compared with it, ever. It was designed and done by MGM's Helen Rose and took six weeks and hundreds of seamstresses to make. It was MGM's wedding gift to the bride.

I liked Kate's wedding dress very much except for the much-remarked upon darts. And the thing is, she isn't flat-chested: she has a nice medium sized bosom. Perhaps they were afraid of jiggling. But I loved everything else.

Meghan's dress was boring and poorly tailored. It didn't even seem to fit properly. I heard that she wanted to go sleeveless but was told No Fucking Way and that sleeves were added on after ward. But it was so . . . nulle, as the French say. And that endless veil including over the face on a 36 year old d-list divorced actress!

If you want to see that sort of gown done correctly, look at Maxima's (Valentino, it was gorgeous and simple and fitted within an inch of its life) and a very similar type dress designed and made by the bride, Princess Angela of Lichtenstein.

Two classy examples of what Meghan and Givenchy got so wrong.

R168 - Must disagree. The dress was made for a huge Catholic cathedral ceremony and I think the silk taffeta skirt and cummerbund gave the gown a luxurious yet decorous look, and the cummberbund accentuated Grace's tiny waist and delicacy. It was also very 1950s. It was perfect on her.

I also prefer the way that Grace's skirt area ballooned out under the waistband, vs. Kate's more A-line skirt area.

At R164, that dress makes her look like little orphan Annie.

I’m a big fan of Maxima - she wears practically all of the Royal jewels when she goes out. Looks fantastic.

Kate got the memo - everything she wears is safe and correct. You really can’t complain except that it’s so boring.

If I were Kate I'd at least be a bit adventurous. They are not going to kick you out of the family so there is no harm in being a bit fun. She will be queen no matter what.

No, no, no. Too matronly.

Meghan Markle's wedding dress looked like it was made out of bed sheets. And she wanted to wear a showy emerald tiara with the thing. What execrable taste.

I had to google the MM dress. It was very plain but hardly ugly. Very modern looking and I dont think the headpiece was all that showy. If anything she could have worn something much showier.

Kate's dress at r175 looks like something Diana would have worn in the early years of her marriage.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I like Kate’s dress at R38; and the link to some of Maxima’s dresses shows some very nice gowns.

I love Helen Rose!

R104 And don't forget Andy's former BFF was there, with his gal pal Ghislaine. Brought even more glamour to the event.

R175 - You do know that that under that "matronly" blue lacy thing Kate wore to Ascot last year, in some photos it became clear that she was wearing a most unmatronly black g-string?

The Duchess of Alba wedding dress:

Terrible!

All that material...and wrinkled, no less! It was like the designer just said "throw more fabric on. No, more fabric...more...MORE FABRIC!!!"

Makes Dorothy Zbornak's wedding gown look chic by comparison.

The Duchess in her pretty bikini:

Re: Meghan's wedding gown - I didn't really mind that it was loose-fitting. Brides don't have to wear tight dresses. The problem that it was just so boring. Obviously the difference between "elegantly minimalist" and "boring" is in the eye of the beholder, but I'd put Carolyn Bessette's wedding dress in the former category and Meghan's in the latter.

A fashion miss here for Kate. A previous poster was erroneous in saying that Kate's breasts were larger. As this shows, she is a solid A cup. When you are engaging in near-extreme dieting, it's hard to keep that fat on!

She is starting to get Angelina arms/hands.

Carolyn’s was a boring slip!

Carolyn was American "royalty," but, yes, I thought her dress was boring.

The Duchess of Alba's husband at R185 looks like Steven Spielberg.

Meghan Markle should not have had a huge formal royal wedding at ALL. She was a divorcee, for God's sake. But she wanted the whole bridal bit, the white gown, the tiara, the long veil, as if she were a young, first time bride. She wanted her day of glory. How gross and unseemly.

No, R182, I did not know that but the overall effect is too old fashioned and prim and proper. It must be difficult to come up with a flattering outfit given all the conservative rules that members of the royal family must follow but she still could have done better than that. Not horrendous but a definite fail.

Caroline Kennedy's wedding dress. How times have changed. Now all brides want low cut strapless dresses regardless if they have the figure to pull it off.

Not dressed conservatively here. Don't care for it.

I don't understand- can't most of these Royals afford a stylist? At least the more prominent ones. I understand it's an additional expense, but when you're both in the Public Eye all the time AND representing the Heritage of the Nation, I don't think it's an unreasonable expense. In addition, I understand the importance of the Crown to support National designers and trade, but good- god, some of these nations are quite small and they can't all have a plethora of quite talented designers. I don't see anything wrong with purchasing an outfit from a couture house in France once-in-a- while- especially if it were for an important event and not *astronomically* priced.

[quote] Meghan Markle should not have had a huge formal royal wedding at ALL. She was a divorcee, for God's sake. But she wanted the whole bridal bit, the white gown, the tiara, the long veil, as if she were a young, first time bride. She wanted her day of glory. How gross and unseemly.

This was Harry's first wedding. Harry was not divorced.

R191. Yes, it is atrocious for a divorced woman to wear white at a second wedding.

Here is that hussy Princess Anne, a divorcee, daring to wear WHITE at her SECOND wedding and how could she hold flowers, which symbolize virginity.

The horror!

Here is a link for Hussy Anne in white at her SECOND wedding.

More horror!

I didn't know Anne got married in a Mormon church. Looks like Elaine Benes as well.

Yes, Anne would fit in nicely in a LDS polygamous community. And they tend to have horses in these communities.

I heard Anne was a hussy, though.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R93, maybe William gets off on knowing the royal cooch might potentially be blasted into public view. He might be encouraging Kate to wear those revealing dresses, because he knows there is a possibility of the exposure of Her Royal haunches.

Remember, these guys were all raised by nannies. They must have loads of psychological issues with women.

"Here is that hussy Princess Anne, a divorcee, daring to wear WHITE at her SECOND wedding and how could she hold flowers, which symbolize virginity."

Her wedding outfit was CREAM you silly twat, not virginal white. Anne's second wedding was VERY understated, as was her wedding outfit, not the blowout that greedy Meghan's was. She was described thus:

"As a second time bride, Anne chose a cream suit with a high necked jacket over a knee length dress. Her only accessories were a small spray of blossoms worn in her hair and a simple bouquet of white heather. With the world’s media descending on Crathie to catch a glimpse of the House of Windsor at its lowest ebb, Anne opted for discretion."

Whoever said upthread that Kate should cut her gorgeous hair is nuts. It’s shiny and healthy and suits her. I can’t imagine her with a bob (which it would end up being.) It would make her look like a frau.

R27 it looks like our girl Bea is being held-up by a stanchion up her ass.

r193 I'd say Kennedy's dress was low class looking. I'd expect an Amish girl to wear something so ugly. Straps or strapless is fine. It all depends on the style. We can't sit on DL wringing our hands at religion, then get upset if the confining rules from sid religions are thrown out the door. Brides covered up because they'd go to a house of worship. Royal brides used to have a party of courtiers, at least in France, outside their bedroom door to make sure the poor girl got fucked.

Times are changing. As long as tits aren't hanging out like it's a cow farm, then most brides are alright. Don't forget their parents and grandparents are present. Most bides are dressing like "sluts".

r204 Meghan had a normal royal wedding. Meghan being black and American brought positive light (until her family acted out) to the royal family. They wanted that wedding just as much as she wanted that wedding. The media and her family were hell-bent on destroying her day. Stop with this second marriage bullshit. Most of the royal marriages under the Queen's control were failures. The next Queen will be a divorce that harassed the Duke of Cambridge's mother. No way they could force Meghan to have some back from Princess Beatrice country wedding when Americans any many people of colors within the Common Wealth were interested ins seeing.

Get your hateful head out of your ass and remember that this family is playing politics. No matter who Harry married, he was going to ensure that his bride received her proper wedding given his former senior royal status.

My first partner, a fashion designer, told me that the first strapless gowns were held up with spit and a prayer. By the 1950s, they were so heavily boned and deeply constructed they would stand up by themselves if sat on the floor.

The pioneer of the strapless gown was none other than our very own...Brenda Frazier!

I thought Jackie Kennedy's wedding dress was beautiful but she didn't like it. She wanted something more "modern" but she acquiesced to her future husband's (or maybe her future husband's father) desire for something more traditional. The dress, which is considered one of the most famous and iconic wedding dresses ever created, was designed by and African American designer name Ann Lowe. Lowe worked her ass off to create a gorgeous wedding dress. But A flood in Lowe's Lexington Avenue workshop 10 days before the wedding ruined the bride's gown and nine of the bridal-party's dresses. The designer and her staff worked through eight days (the original time was eight weeks) to reconstruct the gowns and get them delivered on time. Instead of an estimated $700 profit, Lowe lost $2,200 on the project. Poor woman, she really got stiffed. Snotty Jackie never appreciated her work. When asked who made her dress, Jacqueline Kennedy dismissively said it was made by a "colored woman."

[quote]R27 it looks like our girl Bea is being held-up by a stanchion up her ass.

Haha. Yes, it is an unfortunate angle in that sense but it does show the dress in all its glorious awfulness.

R207, I agree that Caroline's dress is too cutesy and unsophisticated, though the church probably had a rule about women covering their shoulders.

Then again, I disagree that the current trend for strapless wedding dresses is for everyone.

Oops, silly me. That's obviously not a strapless dress. I meant low cut.

[quote] Around 1985, though, she woke up, went properly blonde, got a good stylist and after that she is rarely seen in a fashion disaster.

And yet, in the posts above you, people have posted photos of her in MULTIPLE fashion disasters since 1985. Did you not see them?

I'm always fascinated by posters like this. They never even bother reading what preceded them on the thread because they're in such a huge rush to act like an expert.

"Meghan Markle should not have had a huge formal royal wedding at ALL. She was a divorcee, for God's sake. But she wanted the whole bridal bit, the white gown, the tiara, the long veil, as if she were a young, first time bride. She wanted her day of glory. How gross and unseemly."

It's 1952 anymore. What a weird reason to hate her.

"Whoever said upthread that Kate should cut her gorgeous hair is nuts. It’s shiny and healthy and suits her. I can’t imagine her with a bob (which it would end up being.) It would make her look like a frau."

She already looks like a frau. A frau with boring hair.

Princess Margaret wasn't rocking this look

[quote]Meghan Markle should not have had a huge formal royal wedding at ALL. She was a divorcee, for God's sake. But she wanted the whole bridal bit, the white gown, the tiara, the long veil, as if she were a young, first time bride. She wanted her day of glory. How gross and unseemly.

You sound like some Victorian maiden aunt. Hopefully, you are being sarcastic.

[quote]Meghan Markle should not have had a huge formal royal wedding at ALL. She was a divorcee, for God's sake. But she wanted the whole bridal bit, the white gown, the tiara, the long veil, as if she were a young, first time bride. She wanted her day of glory. How gross and unseemly.

You sound like some Victorian maiden aunt. Hopefully, you are being sarcastic.

The Duchess of Kent at Prince Harry's wedding.

Another ghastly Erdem outfit, and those trainers would seem an unfortunate choice But we can forgive it all as the duchess is going on...

Duchess of Kent at her wedding day....

More:

R211

Jacqueline Bouvier had just returned from France and wanted something simple, elegant and French for her wedding gown. Grasping and climbing Jack Kennedy, Sr. who was footing bill for much of the wedding and thus was in charge would hear none of it....

Anne Lowe was not unknown to the Bouvier or many other white women of upper classes. She supplied them with dressmaker suits, gowns and other creations of French couture quality for very little money. They took horrible advantage of the "coloured dressmaker" in way such well off white women did and still do; by haggling down Ms. Lowe's prices and or otherwise threatening to go elsewhere (and tell their friends to do same), if she didn't play ball.

In terms of equality well off Protestant/WASP women often treated dressmakers who were Italian, Jewish and any other non-white nationality or race (as they saw things) with same treatment.

As such Anne Lowe knew who Miss. J. Kennedy was and so forth. There is some dispute as to whether or not Jackie Bouvier actually referred to Anne Lowe as "some coloured dressmaker". Also the bride to be had no idea until much later on about the disaster with her wedding gown and bridesmaids dresses.

Dresses were delivered by Ms. Lowe personally to Newport, RI, and at first the lady was told to go to service door; AL shot back if she and her gowns couldn't enter via front door she and they were going back to New York City. That was last thing Anne Lowe had from her clients until bills were settled.

Years later when Mrs. Kennedy was now no longer first lady and a widow she heard that Anne Lowe was deep in debt and being hounded by IRS. Someone paid off Ms. Lowes tax debts, and at least Ms. Lowe suspects it was JBK.

Brides wearing white was a tradition that started with Queen Victoria so it’s not that old. Virginal brides wearing a veil over their faces is much older and exists in different cultures. MM’s veil was OTT, especially paired with a minimalist gown that had a sweep train.

I love Dutch Queen Maxima's wedding dress. Here is a video.

R225 Yes, her dress is very lovely and chic. The style is quite similar to MM but while Maxima hits it out of the park, MM misses by a mile. The fabric and fit, as well as some design details, make Maxima’s so perfect. I’m sure the fabric of MM gown was quite luxe up close, but in all the photos and videos I’ve seen, it looks like thick, cheap double-knit. Far too heavy for a late spring wedding. I won’t go into the fit of MM’s gown since it’s been discussed endlessly. Maxima’s veil is beautiful as is MM’s, but MM’s is far, far too long. Apparently even HM questioned the Markle veil.

I don't think it really matters that Meghan wore white. As a previous poster mentioned, it was actually Harry's great-great-great-great-great granny Queen Victoria who started the trend for white wedding dresses. It had nothing to do with virginity - she chose white because it complemented the lace of her dress.

I do think it's a bit much when divorcees have big white weddings. Second weddings can be a bit awkward for the guests if they've already heard at least one party make those "lifelong" vows to someone else. But in fairness, it was Harry's first wedding. If it were the other way around, I doubt anyone would have expected Meghan to have a small wedding because Harry was divorced.

Yes, but the hoopla around the wedding is mainly focused on the bride...gown, veil, maids dresses, bouquet. The groom, divorced or not, just stands at the altar.

LOL, the MM haters are fucking hilarious. They will pick her apart for any transgression. The veil was fine. The dress was so simple it needed that OTT.

Agree with r229

R92 Rose looks like a buck-toothed hag with frizzy, unstyled, bad hair next to Kate.

Thread closed.

Halloween costumes don't count. It's when someone is trying to look fashionable and fails miserably.

Fascinator? Portable satellite dish?

[R21] The sapphire brooch alone makes her the best-dressed in that pic IMO.

"Someone paid off Ms. Lowes tax debts, and at least Ms. Lowe suspects it was JBK."

Jackie Kennedy paid off Lowe's tax debts?! HAH! Sounds like total bullshit to me.

"It's 1952 anymore. What a weird reason to hate her."

I don't waste energy hating vapid celebrities. But Markle's behavior was indicative of her ego and greed. She wanted the huge wedding bash and got it, except for the emerald tiara she coveted. She could have gone for something much less overblown but that's just not her style. Tacky, I would call her.

Let it go r237. You didn't have to watch and it brought in tourist dollars. The Royal family shines at weddings. Even the sun was out in full force. You really need to get a life outside of bashing some woman's wedding, that you didn't even pay for.

"You really need to get a life outside of bashing some woman's wedding, that you didn't even pay for."

You really need to get a life outside of defending some celebrity that you don't even know. By the way, she's a public figure, and fair game for comment, even if it does tear your heart to hear any criticism of her.

R229, R230 It really is not about “hating” on MM. This is a thread about Royal fashion fails, and much of her bridal ensemble, IMO, was a fail. Was it a disaster? No, of course not, but it was very underwhelming and quite disappointing. However, there are aspects of her wedding attire that are lovely - her bouquet was beautiful and perfect; the tiara was also a perfect highlight. (Of course, we now know this particular tiara was not her choice.) I also love her engagement ring. How refreshing to see a beautiful and fairly modest ring instead of an OTT, ginormous rock. I thought her hair and makeup were fine, despite many opinions to the contrary. Perhaps she wore this softer version for her groom, as Kate did for William. But at the end of the day, MM is a frightful fashion fail. She obviously tries quite hard to be “frightfully chic” but misses the mark (for varying reasons) time and time again.

It is strange to me that one must have complete and total reverence for all things Markle; anything else and you’re a “racist” or “hater”. At the time of their wedding the vast majority of people were happy and hopeful for the couple. It is only afterwards that the sentiment changed when Meghan showed the world, without question, who she really is.

No fan of La Markle here, but I thought her Givenchy bridal gown and overall look was the height of simple clean bridal chic. I prefer it over Kate's, which I mostly liked. MM's overall fashion presentation since marrying Harry has been very hit or miss; she does well with her color and accessories choices, but has terrible trouble with fit and need obvious use of a tailor.

Say what you want about her, but Kate's (usually boring) clothes fit her like a near second skin every time, and never a boring hair out of place.

Calling MM a fashion fail is a big stretch. Honestly most of her looks are decent but forgettable. No real disasters

R242 A stretch? Hardly. Her choices are quite simply - bad. She tries and some almost hit the mark but the consistent ill fitting garment does her in. I don’t understand that. Many of her choices are good but I can’t quite comprehend why they’re so poorly fitted!!! What happened?? Does she not own a mirror? She wore a gorgeous one shouldered, black evening gown that was really beautiful but...she ruined the esthetic by constantly clutching her bump. Ugh. God, how ridiculous.

Di usually had such great taste. Why the ugly wedding gown?

It took awhile for Diana to find herself both as a married woman and princess of Wales. Her figure also changed as in first few years of marriage she still was rather busty/bit heavy (not in a bad way), but far from the svelte fashion plate of later years.

Keep in mind Diana also was busy breeding children for early part of her marriage. Whoever choose her maternity clothing ought to have been shot. More ruffles, bows, and other

After her engagement and certainly marriage early on Diana was "advised" by the Queen Mother who sought to act as a part of a transition team if you will. HM also dispatched one or more of her most senior ladies to also aid in that effort. One assumes at some point Diana found herself and became more confident in discarding certain fashion advice and going with what she wanted.

Other royal brides before Victoria wore white; Mary, Queen of Scots did so for her first marriage to French Dauphin. However it was the popularity of Queen Victoria that set in motion a craze among noble, society and others who could afford to do so wearing white on wedding day.

There were then few issues with wearing white for marriage; as Mary, Queen of Scots was informed it is the color of mourning in some societies. Indeed in France and French speaking countries white mourning then and is still done.

Next came fact unless one is rather wealthy having a dress that could only be worn once was a luxury few could afford. Most brides in Victorian period married in their best frock or had one made for occasion, but either way it would be something that could be worn again afterwards.

As for the white ='s virginal thing, Godey's Ladies book was source of incorrect information who made that association.

Liz looking fabulous at the Royal Opera House Covent Garden in 1959.

Not her colour.

This can't be real. I don't remember her being this chubby.

^^^Whoa. That is a very real fashion fail.

Yes, if she really was that overweight, there must be a better way of disguising it.

R251

Image was taken at bad angle; photos were from HM and Prince Philip state visit to Thailand back in 1996. In other pictures HM's weight seems normal.

Lady Diana's first fashion "scandal" of sorts was that black strapless dress she wore on her first night out with Prince Charles after their engagement had been announced.

You can see, well you can see the 19 year old Diana Spencer was still a bit "chubby" and had a fuller bosom. What scandalized many was the décolleté (deemed by many too low for a yet unmarried young woman), and of course the color. As Prince Charles famously quipped upon seeing Diana "black is for funerals". Indeed royal ladies (and certainly HM) at lest then and many now do not wear black outside of mourning.

Another issue with that dress was no one (and this seems common with royal women still today), considered dress from all aspects when being worn. When Lady Diana bent low to emerge from car her entire cleavage was clearly visible.

Diana would go on to wear black ensembles or dresses again during her marriage, and Kate Middleton as done same in sort of homage to her husband's mother.

What r241 and r243 said.

In fairness to Markle, she shouldn't be, in terms of how a garment drapes their bodies, unfavorably compared to Kate. Most women don't have what Kate has: At least 5'9', and not an ounce over, in my estimation, 122 lbs, if that.

Put another way, Kate, as did the late Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, possesses the physical dimensions approximating how a gown/garment drapes from a designer hangar. It's a much easier job to wear something that will look good.

Still, while Markle has the tougher job in choosing a garment, their is no excuse for ill-fit, and poor style choices. And, Satan only knows why she doesn't know that proper, foundational undergarments aren't optional. Nancy Pelosi's undergarments budget must match her wardrobe budget because she knows those dictate how a garment will most flatteringly drape a body, especially a body that isn't tall and thin.

I've written this before but I'll do so again- I envision Markle in a modified, semi-severe variation on, say, Yohji Yamamoto's ( a CBK favorite) designs inn bold color that provides only a canvas for her pretty coloring, face and hair.

I don't get why everybody is all gaga over Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.

They were both ugly as fuck.

I think Albert was deemed handsome for his time. Vic was never more than passably pretty and lost that fast and got fat as a cow. He could have done better.

R255, when you are super rich, they lower bar in the looks department, I suspect.

I wouldn't know, r257.

R258, tell me about it.

"Di usually had such great taste. Why the ugly wedding gown?"

Her wedding gown was the fashion style of the 80s: overblown, too much, over the top. More is more. That's what fashion was back then. It was awful.

But couldn't they have at least ironed the wrinkles out, R260? It just looks so sloppy.

Diana's wedding gown got wrinkled due to that huge amount of fabric stuffed into the small glass carriage that took her to the wedding. Just one of several wedding mishaps that day.

R225 - Thanks for the video. In addition to the elegance and the fit, in the video you can see how beautiful the material was when it moved. MM's dress didn't have any of that even when you saw it in motion, and the long embroidered veil with the nothing bed sheet dress was awful. Everything was proportionally right in Maxima's gown: it was grownup without being boring, the 3/4 length sleeves were perfect, the little standup collar and neckline were perfect, and the panel around the sheath was perfect.

Most people watching didn't care fuck all about the wrinkles, in fact found it endearing and human watching the young bride smooth out the dress without seeming to care too much.

Those wrinkles were nothing next to the migraine brought on by the crammed detail of the dress. Diana was 5'10-1/2" in her bare feet. To have a bride like that swallowed by a dress is no small achievement. The dress broke a cardinal rule: never let the dress wear you rather than the other way round. The Emanuels were experienced enough to know that. They made that dress for themselves, not for her.

After Diana's wedding, copies were made of her dress (much cheaper, less elaborate copies) so brides could wear the "fairy princess" gown at THEIR weddings. But nobody seemed to want one. Well, I guess not!

Princess Stephanie:

I love this dress and pearls. In person it must have been beautiful with quality fabrics:

Thanks, R252. I didn't think she was ever that overweight.

Sorry, Diana's wedding dress was beautiful, just like the person wearing it. If you disagree, you're half blind and have terrible taste.

😲! Maxima in her wedding dress had the lowest set of Head of State boobs this side of Mamie Eisenhower's low hangers.

Maxie's tits are near her waist! 😵 And she was young then. If anything, she's learned the fundamentals of foundation garments.

A quartet of ugly sweaters.

SNL skits don't count.

[quote]Sorry, Diana's wedding dress was beautiful

I guess if you lived in a trailer park and found mess like that "fancy"...

No, you'd actually have to be a tiresome pretentious twat to criticise it. She pulled it off.

It looked like it swallowed her whole.

R264, the Emmanuels weren't very experienced at all: the dress was a career-making milestone for them. And if you think Diana wasn't wearing exactly the dress she wanted to wear, you've got rocks in your head. It is well recorded that she wanted a train longer than anyone before her, for example. As for her not seeming to mind it was wrinkled: she had a lot on her plate that day, but you can be sure they heard all about it when she got back from the honeymoon.

R276 - I believe the train was so long because of the venue. St Paul's Cathedral is HUGE.

You are wrong r265. She set the style for 80s wedding dresses. Huge puffy or leg of mutton sleeves and full ball gown skirts in taffeta and satin. Before that the silhouette was slim, close to the body or a-line, in jersey knit (!) or chiffon and slim or bishop sleeves (fullness at the wrist). Wrinkles or no, Diana’s dress was a sensation, as was the black strapless she wore to the opera with Princess Grace.

R253: what sort of a medieval analysis is that?! I seriously doubt anyone gave that much of a thought to a perfectly run-of-the mill, rather conservative formal dress in the 80s. Black was considered "Parisian chic" in England since the 1800 so there is no way it was such a scandal in 1980. Let alone a hint of female cleavage or arms. Were you raised by nuns?

Diana's gown, love it or hate it, had nothing on those monstrosities those trashy gypsy girls wear. Talk about "big" gowns and UGLY.

Upon viewing Diana's wedding on TV, I found her dress to be sort of a monstrosity. However, a decade or so later, I saw it on display in London and I must say, it struck me then as altogether glorious and regal!

"If you disagree, you're half blind and have terrible taste."

Hon, you're the one with the myopia and tacky taste. Diana's dress was, in the words of one critic, "a poufy monstrosity."

Di's dress was like a turtle shell.

She could have just slinked down into it and disappeared.

It was terribly ugly but so were the 80s so it fit in perfectly. It was functional as well to hide her less than thin (at the time) figure.

Diana' dress would have been better with a simple deep V or sweetheart neckline and simpler sleeves. The big bouffant skirt and train were fine. Diana was NOT fat R283 if that is what you are implying. Her figure was fine.

R17 She looks like Dobby, the free elf in that rag:

Young Di was pretty stout. It wasn't until she started indulging in bulimia that she really got her weight under control and became the fashion icon the people loved and adored.

[quote] Diana's dress was, in the words of one critic, "a poufy monstrosity."

Critics are often wrong. Take movie critics. Plenty of examples of prestigious movie critics who have trashed movies that are now considered classics or praised movies that are now completely forgotten.

A healthy weight isn't stout. The pic of her in that see thru skirt reveals a very nice figure. Some of you bitches are crazy.

I actually appreciate Di's wedding dress for what it was supposed to represent, her status as a senior royal. Think back to royal brides of the past, like Marie Antoinette. She wore an over the top gown that ran counter to even her general style, and she was considered rather daring at times. So a future Queen would wear a gown that's full expensive and a bit over the top. Given the mark she left on Britten, similar to Marie Antoinette in France, I think it's a perfect start to her doomed royal journey.

I wouldn't wear that dress, but I don't mind it.

jfc she was NOT stout. She was, as the old personals ad would say: H/W proportionate. It’s comments like that which make gullible young women think eating a lettuce leaf is an adequate dinner. And yes, she lost weight later on because she became bulimic.

Lol, R285. There is a resemblance. Fergie's attempt at edgy was just plain ugly.

Di was never stout

Diana COULD be called slightly pudgy when she first became involved with Charles. In earlier photos of her as a teen she had a very rounded, sometimes puffy face. This was evident in her engagement photos with Charlies. She also had little fashion sense. For her engagement presentation with Charlies she wore an ill-fitting, off the rack blue suit from Harrods with a "pussy willow" bow. A biographer said she looked "plump and uncomfortable."

Wow Kate has stunning legs -- those pics in the yellow dress are keepers! Her hair is glorious and makes beautiful formal updos, so I wouldn't cut it.

I never saw Di look plump -- maybe pregnant?

For many gay men, a woman is fat if you can't see her ribs.

If one has a taste for bad German folk tales that include an illustration of a butter-churning milk maid wearing a dress made of crumpled Kleenex, than, yes, Diana's wedding gown was perfect.

No, her dress was charming and romantic and everyone was in love with her. So many trends that have been praised by fashion critics in the past look ridiculous now. The same goes for what fashion critics criticise.

R286: "Women, develop an eating disorder if you ever want to be loved and not called a fat whore."

Nice. Nice.

Diana, herself, said once she started the binge-purge cycle the media loved her and she felt incredible.

This allowed her to address land mines.

Nope. Casual gone wrong.

Diana looking good. She's thinking "I hate him SO much".

[quote] Diana would go on to wear black ensembles or dresses again during her marriage, and Kate Middleton as done same in sort of homage to her husband's mother.

Or maybe because black is a basic color for dresses.

Casual done correctly.

At R300 (photo), I feel sorry for Di. Not just the outfit, but I do think she tried to have a real marriage with Charles. He was cold to her from the start. I do believe she was a lot of drama and high maintenance, but I think we all want to be loved back.

Diana's wedding dress put the husband and wife (now divorced) Emanuel team on the fashion map. They had done things for Lady Diana Spencer prior to her engagement, and of course that famous (or infamous) black strapless gown worn prior to marriage, but it was that "crumpled Kleenex" silk gown that brought house of Emanuel world wide notice.

Say what one will, good or bad; that dress was instantly copied and worn by hundreds of brides in months and years after Diana's wedding. Vogue patterns came out with their "designer" version for those who wished to run up their own, or have a local dressmaker do so. Of course one could take the pattern and adapt it to various other sorts of gowns or dresses.

If you believe following Emanuels received requests for copies of Diana's dress for years afterwards.

Also if you examine history of British royal brides and lades in below like you can see where designers drew inspiration for Diana's dress.

Lady Diana's wedding dress likely was the last gasp of pantimine fairy brides gowns. By the 1990's and certainly 2000's more and more brides were going with more slim, less bouffant wedding gowns, usually strapless or near enough.

R302

Yes, but historically women of BRF only have worn black when in mourning. How often have you seen HM in black? Lord knows the Queen wears every other hue and shade of rainbow (even when they don't suit her), but rarely if ever black outside of funerals or mourning.

Lady Diana Spencer was just 20 when she became engaged. The young woman wasn't "pudgy" or "stout" but merely a healthy young lass with weight appropriate for her height. That fresh young and "healthy" appearance is exactly what eldest sons, heirs and anyone else marrying woman for (essentially) breeding purposes.

A man wanting to marry and breed an heir along with possibly a spare in quick succession out of the gate hardly would choose some emaciated skeleton a la Mary Kate Olsen.

Big bouffy romantic wedding gowns are still with us only they are strapless, the trend that will not die.

The strapless trend needs to die. Too many heifers with back fat rolls and untoned fat arms showing. They need a bolero or jacket of some sort.

and don't get me started on the tatoos.

and don't get me started on the tattoos.

and don't get me started on the tattoos.

Sorry for the triple post. Weird little glitch.

No, R277. Diana specifically told the Emmanuels she wanted her train to be the longest ever. I've seen video - can't remember whether it's one of them or someone from their atelier at the time - where it is explained that she did.

R295, that looks like a (much prettier) spin on Wallis Simpson's hideous wedding dress. Ironically, Wallis is the woman credited with coining the phrase "you can never be too rich or too thin", yet this photo proves there is DEFINITELY such a thing as being too thin. She has the body of a fourteen-year-old boy.

[quote] The strapless trend needs to die. Too many heifers with back fat rolls and untoned fat arms showing. They need a bolero or jacket of some sort.

It's relatively easy to sew a strapless gown, that's why the trend is pushed. (I have a little bit of sewing experience.) Jackets and fitted armholes are more difficult. I watched an episode of Project Runway where, instead of women's wear, the contestants made men's wear, i.e., blazer jackets, pants, etc. My God, there was some amateur-looking stuff on the runway.

[quote]She was never hit-and-miss. She was always Miss, then after that particular point in time, almost always Hit.

Not really. Look at any gallery online of Diana's best gowns, dresses, maternity wear, etc. and you'll see a period from late 1983 to early 1987 where she went back and forth between glamorous and hideous. The "teddy boy" suits in 1983-1984 were the beginning of a more fashionable wardrobe, and I'd say her first really lovely gown was the February 1984 red gown she wore in Norway, plus a velvet day dress on the same trip which was inspired by the "teddy boy" look but was far more classic and timeless. The last really terrible dress was probably the 1987 Berlin Opera House gown. In between were a lot of hits AND misses.

[quote] It wasn't until she started indulging in bulimia that she really got her weight under control

Oh Datalounge, you never fail to bring out the psychopaths.

Oh dear. Diana went out in her slip.

I don't think the pink dress @320 is hideous but it has that dropped waist which was a thing for a time. The sleeves could fit better too.

^^^ You must mean R318.

"Say what one will, good or bad; that dress was instantly copied and worn by hundreds of brides in months and years after Diana's wedding."

I heard that copies of Diana's wedding gown didn't sell well. I tend to believe that. It's a very unflattering dress.

Di's fashion motto: bigger is better, more is more. That attitude influenced her choice of an engagement ring, too. She was brought a tray of 12 rings by the then crown-jeweler Garrard. The ring she chose was neither custom-made nor unique and was, at the time of her engagement to Charles, featured in Garrard's jewellery collection and available to anyone for purchase. What it WAS was this: big. She later gloated "I picked the biggest one on the tray!" She wanted the biggest train in Royal history. She seemed to think the bigger the better. Typical 80s fashion sense. Or fashion nonsense.

Those early '80s dresses Diana wore were hideous. Joan Rivers once remarked that they were cheaply made.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] Those early '80s dresses Diana wore were hideous. Joan Rivers once remarked that they were cheaply made.

Joan Rivers made some bad choices, herself, in the '80s.

The full sleeve and sleeveless look just looks weird to me.

Yikes. Too much colour and the pattern is too strong.

Liz updates her look.

[quote]If one has a taste for bad German folk tales ....

Princess Eugenie looks like she's out of a German folk tale.

Uh huh. How many copies of Kate Middleton's wedding dress sold? I doubt it was many unless the copies were modified to look more mainstream.

What's so non-mainstream about the dress?

Alexander McQueen isn't known for being safely middle of the road. The part of the dress above the waist is gimmicky with the pointy boobs. Her veil looked like a limp dish rag.

This "copy" of Middleton's wedding dress from H & M looks more elegant and mainstream than the original.

If I remember correctly, Kate's wedding dress was the most copied one in history, in the UK at least. It was very conservative, obviously not designed by McQueen himself so hardly "gimmicky" and the veil was stunning - easily the most beautiful part of her attire. In my opinion, Kate Middleton was the loveliest royal bride ever.

Lies, lies, lies, R336.

Left, limp dish rag. Right, proper veil.

Left, a duchess. Right, a triumphant Murican washerwoman, hissing "Hu'z winning now, bitchez??"

And above, a badly paid, angry and unintentionally hilarious intern.

Kate is only a duchess by marriage. Before that, she was a commoner just like Meghan. The only difference was that Kate's parents had much more money. It's not as obvious in stills, but when I watched the wedding, Meghan's dress was more beautiful and elegant in a simple way than Kate's dress. And Meghan didn't resort to dragging big potted trees into the church (how silly was that) like Kate, but maybe that was Charles's idea.

[quote]Murican washerwoman

Yes, I know many Brits are xenophobic and racist and classist. Any other prejudices I've forgotten?

Markle’s dress was an ill-fitting sack.

[quote]Left, a duchess. Right, a triumphant Murican washerwoman, hissing "Hu'z winning now, bitchez??"

I'm also very skeptical that Meghan and Harry are clever and talented enough to make enough money in the U.S. so that they can live in the type of style that Harry is used to. I think they'll eventually throw in the towel and return to Britain or divorce.

I just said that I preferred Meghan's wedding dress to Kate's. That doesn't mean I don't like Kate.

[quote]If I remember correctly, Kate's wedding dress was the most copied one in history, in the UK at least.

Link to a reputable newspaper or magazine please, not a tabloid that also carries stories about alien sightings.

While we're on Kate's dress, the wedding was on a Friday and every formalwear stall at the fabric/bespoke-clothing market in Shanghai already had a copy at the entrance when I went there on Saturday morning to pick up my shirts.

I made a comment to my tailor about how fast they were. He tsk-tsked me and said, 'No, no, no, no....last night. They put them out last night right after we closed to customers'. Given the time difference, they must have had them finished within a couple of hours of the wedding starting.

I preferred Kate's veil to Meghan's because it was more understated. I think brides generally look better without veils at all, though, which is part of the reason I thought Eugenie looked the best of them all.

Meghan's veil was incredibly tacky - not because she was a divorcee, but because the veil being about twenty miles long.

I mean, wtf was this pompous crap veil supposed to be all about?

R329, that’s a very chic look that could be worn today.

Taste is highly individual but it has to be said that even the fraus and obsessed Meghanstans on Celebitchy were disappointed in her dress. "Underwhelming" was the general opinion and in many people's view, the word stands. The veil was absurd, didn't go with the dress, the face veil was farcical, the fabric looked indeed like bedsheets on television, and the dress did seem poorly tailored.

Kate's dress was quietly magnificent, and the skirt with the graduated panels sweeping back particularly beautiful. The back was beautiful. The fitted lace top was beautiful, and the veil far from looking like a "limp dish rag" went well with the modest, low tiara. A veil covered in embroidery and diamante would have added too much to the sumptuous skirt and lace bodice. I thought it perfectly balanced and I loved the half up/half down hair. Only flaw was the pointed bodice. But overall the dress achieved what Diana's didn't: grandeur and beautiful material below but avoided falling into the mealbag sleeves and overdone ribbons, bows, spangles, and lace above. And it was appropriate for someone marrying the next heir to the throne.

There was just nothing memorable about Meghan's dress except how unmemorable it was. It looked like it came out of David's Bridal.

The potted trees were brought in so the the trees could be replanted afterward. I thought it was a nice gesture. It was late April in England ("Oh, to be in England now that' April's there", as the Poet said) and if no one else notice, guests arrived to Frederik Delius's "On Hearing the First Cuckoo in Spring", an exquisite piece by an English composer in English spring wedding.

Nothing of this kind was done at the Sussex wedding, which was, frankly, embarrassing.

^*Frederick (not Frederik) Delius

Di learned early on that she would never have gotten to wear Versace during her "portly" phase so she ate what she wanted and then stuck a finger down her throat.

Viola! Fashion, fame and adoration all under a designer label.

Smart bitch.

Oh ffs she was never "portly"! She was tall and rangy and at at 18 or so quite healthy, which in these days translates as "portly" instead of the healthy that it was. She was never fat. For heaven's sake, her legs were shapely and beautiful from the time she was twelve or so and stayed that way in her pre-Designer Di days. She just wasn't naturally "thin". In fact, even when she became much thinner, she was still basically a tall, rangy, athletic sort with a boxy middle, long arms and legs, a flat arse, and very large feet.

She was never going to look petite or like a ballet dancer.

She wore some beautiful stuff and I saw some of it in New York at the Christie's viewing before the sale that William had suggested.

Some of it was ugly (that red sequined dress she wore to the Bond film premiere in the early days was hideous) but some of it was much more beautiful up close when you saw how luxurious the material was and how it must have looked as it moved, in person.

Diana definitely didn't always hit the target. But when she did, the impact was memorable.

[quote]a triumphant Murican washerwoman, hissing "Hu'z winning now, bitchez??"

"Our hatred of Meghan has NOTHING to do with racism!"

[quote]Our hatred of Meghan has NOTHING to do with racism!

But you're not disputing the xenophobia and classism. Brits should be used to a prince marrying an American divorcée. It happened a long time ago with Wallis Simpson.

There is racism too. You just won't admit it.

I don't get the washerwoman comment.

And classism is a farce in Britain. If you look at the wealthiest, most powerful aristocratic British families from 300 years ago, I'll bet 99.9% of their descendants today live in far more humble circumstances. Times change and people get left behind. People who are rich and powerful today are clever in business, invent new useful technologies, etc.

Plus Brits welcome with open arms very wealthy Russian oligarchs / kleptocrats who have fallen out of favour with Putin.

I was making fun of the trolls who say racist things about Meghan, and then claim they don't have a racist bone in their bodies, R354.

I'm R353 but I'm not R339, I was just making fun of them, hence the quote marks and signing as them.

Sorry, R349. I watched the wedding. You can justify all you like but Kate's veil did look like a limp dish rag once it was pushed back from her face, her dress was underwhelming and the big potted trees were just a lot of green eco silliness. Flowers work just fine as decoration for a church wedding. No need for big trees.

[quote]I was making fun of the trolls who say racist things about Meghan, and then claim they don't have a racist bone in their bodies, R354. I'm R353 but I'm not R339, I was just making fun of them, hence the quote marks and signing as them.

Oh ok. I missed that.

Story on HM and black clothing, with a rare example of blackish daywear.

Another time HM wore black, this time at an evening event. No date.

It's not royal, but it remains one of my favorite "foreign dignitaries" photos ever.

R360 - the three women were having a "Goth Reunion" with the Obamas.

Jaysus, who are those ghouls?

[quote]Jaysus, who are those ghouls?

Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero and his family posed for a picture with Barack and Michelle Obama at the U.N.

I believe it was in 2009.

I like the boat neck neckline. I think Meghan's wedding dress had potential to be really great, something that women could actually wear at their own weddings. Plus, it was modest. I'm an atheist, but if you're going to get married in a church, wear something modest. The fit was not great, though.

R356 - Look, I acknowledged that taste is individual. I'm far from the only person on the planet who thought Meghan's dress boring and poorly fitted. If you liked it, fine.

"Left, limp dish rag. Right, proper veil."

Oh shut the fuck up. Meghan Markle's entire wedding dress was a limp dish rag.

Markle's dress did look like really cheap fabric, although it probably was nice. She just has that knack. The fit was awful, as if she was going to be sending it right back or something. It was gaping at the sides and sleeves, and the hem looked scotch taped. But the absolute worst one was the green hornet cape number with a strapless show-thru bra and an unflattering hat, as usual,

LOL, it's funny how people hate Markle so much that they'll just make shit up to trash her

R368 She’s the gift that keeps on giving. No need to make shit up when she provides so much material on a weekly basis.

R369, lol. The only people who think that are the weird racist snobs who are obsessed with attacking her

SS really should consider seeking a better caliber of intern.

R371 and teach them not to use “LOL” so often - it’s a dead giveaway.

Isn't there anything truly atrocious by our dear DL icons Princess Michael of Kent and Lady Collin Campbell? I couldn't find anything myself but need some earthshaking gaudiness to lift my spirits before I go to the dentist to be tortured.

R372, the dead giveaway that you're a moron is that you demonize a totally harmless person because of racism and jealousy

Racism, racism, racism, bla bla blaa.

Jealousy, jealousy, jealousy, blåååå.

I understand you lot are underpaid but do come up with better talking points. You rattle my editorial sensibilities and are as much a shame to your profession as Markle is to humankind in general.

R375, you're just making yourself look stupid by attacking a woman who harmed no one for being a shame to humanity

Are you Piers Morgan? You seem dumb, bitter, and hateful enough

R374 I rather doubt that the members of her family and “the family she never had” see her as harmless.

Besides, I was talking about you and the other interns, and how you need to lift your game!

r377, apparently not being in touch with some members of your family makes you the shame of humanity!

Are you getting paid extra to be extra melodramatic?

R376 If you’re going to call someone else “stupid” it’s best to have first mastered the basics of English grammar and punctuation.

People in glass houses and all that.

Back to intern school for you!

So, what about Princess MoK and Collin Campbell? Leave the interns alone, their working hours are almost over anyway.

People don't dislike Meghan Markle because of her skin color. They dislike her because of her behavior. Those idiots screaming "RACISM!" can't seem to comprehend that.

[quote]No need to make shit up when she provides so much material on a weekly basis.

You must really be looking for stuff because I rarely hear about her.

R382 you will hear from her soon when she fires you 😂😂😂✌

What are you blathering about R383? I know you keep calling someone an "intern" but I'm not that person you dipshit. You can easily figure that out, you bitter old twat.

r379, my spelling and grammar are fine. You, on the other hand, can't make a coherent argument. Did you drop out of 10th grade?

You're an idiot with no sense of perspective.

I hate stupid Republicans who say racist shit while pretending racism doesn't exist. They accuse people of playing the race card while acting like white men are victims.

I honestly believe that the interns are beginning love us and feel at home. The bitchiness is already present. Do you feel your inner gay flaring up, little boys and girls? Bless your little hearts! 😚

Just FF or block the lunatic emoji queen and her obsessive trollery. Get therapy, sweetheart. It's not healthy to hatefully obsess over people you don't know.

Lunatic emoji queen, hahahaha! 😂🥰 Thank you, babe! I feel that something special is beginning to bloom between us.

Blossom! I meant blossom, not bloom. Drat! What will my beau think of me now?!

Whoever emoji queen is she's about 14 years old.

Whoever emoji queen is she's about 14 years old.

You're on fire! Responding to me so quickly, and twice! I haven't felt that loved since college!

Let's get this derailed thread back on track, shall we? The DM article linked at r326 detailing the work that went into Diana's "fairytale" gown is very long but well worth the read. The details and minutiae are mind numbing. She went through 15 fittings of several hours each before the designer lost count of the number of fitting sessions. There weren't enough silkworms in the UK to produce the amount of thread needed to weave the countless meters of fabric for the gown so they had to import.

The most jaw dropping aspect is that the Emmanuels sent a token bill of ~ £1100 to Diana's mother. It really sounds like the people who produced an incredibly costly gown that took a sold six months to make swallowed all of the costs. Granted, the publicity, but it really sounds like the lower classes subsidized the dress.

I've read this retelling of the ring selection a number of times now including in Tina Brown's bio. Quite possibly the least romantic ring thing ever, but I digress. I can see how a 19 y.o. would pick out the flashiest, most eye-catching thing on the tray without a thought as to how it would age. It was on the gaudy side then... I know taste is highly subjective, but I don't think it aged well.

I've always wondered how Kate feels about wearing it. Does she do it out of obligation and a sense of duty or does she really like it? She wears it at every public function. If memory serves, Diana didn't wear it all that much (please help with my elder memory)

[Quote]She was brought a tray of 12 rings by the then crown-jeweler Garrard. The ring she chose was neither custom-made nor unique and was, at the time of her engagement to Charles, featured in Garrard's jewellery collection and available to anyone for purchase. What it WAS was this: big. She later gloated "I picked the biggest one on the tray!"

I'm pretty sure Kate wears Diana's engagement ring out of duty. It doesn't seem like her style at all. It's very ordinary looking, except for the size of the sapphire. I think if she had picked out her engagement ring herself it would have been much more interesting.

I like that Di's / Kate's ring wasn't a diamond (it's sapphire), but oval is my least favorite shape for a stone. Rather have a round shape.

Anyway, Kate gets to wear lots of other fabulous jewelry & tiaras.

[quote]Oh shut the fuck up. Meghan Markle's entire wedding dress was a limp dish rag

You must be trolling, dear. Either that or you have anger management issues.

Don't know who these interns you keep referring to are. Bad taste and an overactive imagination. What a great combo.

I blocked the unhinged MM hating juvenile.

[quote]I blocked the unhinged MM hating juvenile.

He may be using more than one device and will pop up again.

I just googled Princess Charlène of Monaco, looking to see if she’d worn any fashion disasters and nope, she must be the most elegant royal out there. Tall, statuesque, chic. I don’t know much about her although I’ve read rumors here about plastic surgery. She’s practically the only royal with really short hair and it suits her. I was surprised to read that she’s 42. She looks a decade younger.

That's okay R399. Block again.

Princess Charlene of Monaco

Difficult color green... very tricky.

Most stylish young royals..

R400 - Charlene has no accent in her first name: she's South African, not French. And most of the time she does wear clothes beautifully. However, she does have "swimmer" shoulders and occasionally I think it's too much of a good thing and her clothes emhpasise their out of proportion width rather than work with it.

She has thin hair so I agree the short look agrees with her facially, but, again, atop the swimmer's huge shoulders it can also maker her look like a pinhead.

Lastly, it would be nice to see her smile reach her eyes one of these days. She's paid a heavy price for her status and wealth.

The diarrhea-coloured belted tent and thick cascading white scarf with the hanks of coarse hair coming out of it that Meghan wore to a mosque last year easily has a place in the top five.

Billed-Bladet today has a photo of Princess Marie (Prince Joachim's second wife) in an absolutely hijus dress that the article titled, "See Princess Marie's fantastic and beautiful dress [skjole actually can mean an entire "outfit"] in Paris"

Sorry I don't know how to post links, but it's a horrible dress and Marie is usually better at this.

Also, she's starting to look genuinely middle-aged, and as she does so, looks more and more like her sister-in-law, Crown Princess Mary.

R406, copy the link and paste it into the second slot under the square where you write your posts.

R404, spell check added that accent for some reason. I agree with what you said about the pinhead effect but it’s so nice to see a woman who isn’t clinging to teh sexy long hair. I was surprised to see so many photos of her holding hands with Albert. He probably clamps on to her to prevent her from running away again.

All right, I have posted the link! Thank you so much!

R404

^* sorry that thank you should have been signed

R406

And here is that heinous outfit Meghan wore to a mosque on the last Africa trip. She obviously also ignored the fact that displays of physical affection like that are frowned upon by religious Muslims and she should have respected their views when visiting a mosque on official UK business.

Bitch never had any respect for anything except what she wants.

And one of Diana's really unfortunate moments. Good God, with those canal boat feet!!!!!

The Danish Folketing (Parliament) usually opens around this time and we get to see another horrendous Mother Goose appearance by Queen Margrethe and two (usually) chic outfits on Crown Princess Mary and Princess Marie - they both usually wear beautifully tailored suits or coatdresses to this.

But I cannot find it anywhere on the Danish royal calendar (you can only find that on the Danish version of the site, not the English) and can only suppose that it is cancelled due to COVID.

Wow, five posts missing. The MM crazies must be posting.

R408, if you ever saw their wedding pics it looks like she was crying and miserable and, yes, he had tight grip on her the whole day.

I hate low-heeled shoes or kitten heels. Prefer flats or high heels (don't have to be super high like stilettos).

Anyway, Diana wore low-heeled shoes because she was tall & Charles wasn't that tall.

Same as Nicole Kidman when she was married to Tom Cruise.

She shouldn't have worn the stupid socks.

Well, the taller the heel, the shorter your foot looks.

"Don't know who these interns you keep referring to are."

I've never referred to anyone as an "intern", you silly thing. You're confused or something.

Diana's ring was certainly a big, expensive thing, but it was a very boring piece of jewelry. I've seen dozens of expensive rings that look exactly like it. Big stone surrounded by diamonds...expensive but dull.

[quote]I've never referred to anyone as an "intern", you silly thing. You're confused or something

Who is SS? The Nazi SS? Sorry, I'm not a Nazi.

The worst: Princess Margaret's silly hat in 1991 at Royal Ascot

Truly the worst veil of all time.

Nope.

R423 - Is that Erdem? God, I hate Erdem.

Yes, it is Erdem, R424. I don't care for this other Erdem dress she wore on the same tour of Scandinavia in 2018.

Those last two dresses look like a bedspread and a set of curtains.

"Truly the worst veil of all time."

There was nothing wrong with her veil. You seem fixated on it. That's not healthy.

Hardly, R427. This is a bit flashy but it's an improvement over Kate's.

Note to SS interns: Sparkles and Haz have nothing to do with the BRF. They will never again be photographed with any working royal at a public function. Sorry to tell you that the last such picture is the godawful green caped number teehee.

Please use plain English that everyone can understand, R429. Thank you.

Teehee R429? Off to ignored land for you again. You reveal your age and intellect.

[quote] There was nothing wrong with her veil. You seem fixated on it. That's not healthy.

You seem to be terribly invested in defending Kate's wedding dress and veil. Are you her publicist?

[quote]Teehee R429? Off to ignored land for you again. You reveal your age and intellect

I'm proud to be ignored by you. I have no time for your jargon and silly abbreviations.

[quote]Those last two dresses look like a bedspread and a set of curtains.

A very good comparison. I don't like the Erdem dress at R38 either.

[quote]I'm proud to be ignored by you. I have no time for your jargon and silly abbreviations.

Dude, you aren't R429. Keep track of your numbers, man.

[quote]Dude, you aren't R429. Keep track of your numbers, man.

D'oh.

Di, that's supposed to go around your neck.

Queen Maxima got criticised for this dress but I kind of like it.

I really like that dress and overall look on Maxima. On anyone else it would look bad, but she pulls it off..

I also like how all 3 ladies look at R421. Posting photo again.

You don't think Margaret's hat is a bit much?

r422 There's too much of her dark hair showing through that veil, she'd have looked better with a Juliet Cap to anchor it to her head.

A good idea, Bronze Age Gay. Or maybe put her hair up.

r443 Totally agree. The whole look was "soft," she needed something to crisp it up, and add some structure.

Margaret's hat is hilarious! I chuckled audibly. It looks like an ostrich's nest. Or a Royal Fuard's hat hacked in two and dipped in fuchsia and fabulousness.

Guard^

Max’s dress at r438 is fine...dramatic and interesting , but the too-skinny belt has slid out of place and carrying what looks like a black blazer looks sloppy.

Kate gown was luxurious, the material sumptuous, and the bodice very detailed. The sheer veil kept it, in my view, from going over the top. A stiff tulle veil would have been wholly wrong and made her look like a Barbie Bride Doll. A long trailing embroidered veil would have added too much detail to an already carefully calibrated level of folds, panels, lace, and train.

As mentioned above, it's a matter of taste.

Meghan's veil looked absurd with that plain bedsheet poorly fitted dress, and was wholly out of place on a 36 year old divorcee marrying the 6th in line.

R423 - I think Kate was in only in second term pregnancy in that dress, you can tell from the waist. She seems to turn to Erdem in pregnancy, maybe because it's comfortable and detracts from the bump.

But the stuff is heinous. I don't know how Erdem got famous.

By the way, the Sussex Squad, aptly named here on DK the SS, had its Twitter account suspended for violating community rules.

Something about posting stuff like, "Death to the monarchy!"

^* here on DL (not DK)

[quote] A stiff tulle veil would have been wholly wrong and made her look like a Barbie Bride Doll.

There's actually a bridal Barbie from the 90s whose dress looks a bit like a cheap version of Kate's.

Tut tut to the Sussex Squad, who have repeatedly threatened assassination to all who stand between Kang Harry and the throne.

R451 there is literally nothing in common between the two.

R434 Those Erdem dresses are awful. Is she friends with the designer? They remind me of all those ugly Marchesa dresses everyone was forced to wear under Weinstein's reign.

Good heavens no.

Tom Parker Bowles and Sarah Buys in 2005. He is the son of the Duchess of Cornwall. She is wearing a strapless Alexander McQueen gown with a tulle underskirt.

If the bride has to be covered up, then this is a good look. It helps that the bride is very pretty and has a nice figure.

Aimée Sohngen and Prince Floris van Orange-Nassau, 2005 wedding in the Netherlands

I didn't realise there was so much embroidery on Liz's dress. Still not a bad look.

R456 - Very tasteful, and like Maxima's, had those lovely panels encircling the straight sheath. The only detail I'm not enthused about is the little round neckline, it's a bit nun-like, but that's a quibble, it's very, very tasteful.

R457 - It's beyond doubt that Meghan, despite marrying someone already so far down the line, got the idea for her long embroidered veil from the one done for the actual Heir Presumptive; from the former Heir Presumptive's expression at the Sussex wedding, the, er, compliment backfired.

Some info on the material and design:

"The wedding was a royal event held following the end of the Second World War. The dress, designed by the Court Designer Norman Hartnell, had a star-patterned fan-shaped bridal train that was 13 feet (4.0 m) in length. The train, symbolic of rebirth and growth after the war, was stated to be inspired by Botticelli's c. 1482 painting of Primavera, particularly the elaborate embroidery motifs of scattered flowers on the rich satin dress and the tulle veil worn by the royal bride. The material used was ivory silk and a diamond fringe tiara secured her veil. The dress was decorated with crystals and 10,000 seed pearls, imported from the United States of America. Hartnell, who had been Court Designer since 1938, claimed it as "the most beautiful dress I had so far made".

On account of the austerity measures following the war, Princess Elizabeth had to use clothing ration coupons to show her entitlement to the dress. The government allowed her 200 extra ration coupons. She was given hundreds of clothing coupons by brides-to-be from all parts of the country to help her acquire the dress. She had to return these coupons as it was illegal for them to have been given away in the first instance.

The designs for the dress were approved three months before the wedding. Hartnell's search for suitable designs in London art galleries had led to him to the Botticelli figure. This was the inspiration for the use of ivory silk with flower designs of jasmine, smilax, lilac and white rose-like blossoms added to the train, embellished by white crystals and pearls. These motifs were transferred to drawings to enable embroidery experts to work on them. The dress featured a "heart-shaped neckline and long tight sleeves". The silk cloth was chosen at the specific directive of her mother, the Queen, who desired an "unusually rich, lustrous stiff satin which was made at Lullingstone Castle". The silkworms to manufacture the silk were bought from Nationalist China and not from Japan and Italy, which were the UK's enemies during the war. Satin was chosen for the train, and a more flexible material of the same tone as the train was chosen for the dress. However, in spite of the careful choice of the silk, the curator of the London Museum observed 30 years later when the dress was on display at the museum that "the choice of silk was not a good one" as the fabric had deteriorated. It was also noted that the "weight of the embroidery dragged the skirt down, increasing the strain on the weave." Round the hem of the dress, "a border of orange blossom was appliqued with transparent tulle outlined in seed pearls and crystal".

R453 - Too right! Dropped waist, big sleeves . . . embroidered bodice. If anything, it has more in common with Diana's dress.

Supposedly the Queen was not pleased that Meghan Markle chose to wear a long, formal veil at her wedding, seeing as how she was marrying for the second time. But she let her have her way about the veil. The Queen did draw the line at Markle wearing a showy tiara with emeralds. I guess she figured "you got your way about the veil, but you are NOT wearing one of my emerald tiaras!"

[quote][R434] Those Erdem dresses are awful. Is she friends with the designer?

I'm not sure. Maybe because Erdem is of Turkish descent, his taste in fashion isn't always appreciated by Westerners.

It's not her worst outfit, just a strange choice: leather (or pleather?) pants on Duchess Meghan, in her AGT filmed video clip:

“Duchess Meghan”?

Will she ever stop making "surprise" appearances like she's the gift of God and we should all faint in delight at the "surprise"?

I get tired of calling her "Megs" or "Me-again" or other names. She certainly isn't an HRH or Princess at the moment, and I'm not going to type out the full "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" for a short fashion post. Sue me.

I get tired of calling her "Megs" or "Me-again" or other names. She certainly isn't an HRH or Princess at the moment, and I'm not going to type out the full "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" for a short fashion post. Sue me.

[quote]Dude, you aren't R429. Keep track of your numbers, man.

Okay, Sanjay. I'm still getting over the death of Marguerite Trudeau. I can't believe she was buried on top of Pierre. The saucy tart.

She is currently, for better or for worse, HRH the Duchess of Sussex.

The whole “Duchess Meghan” bullshit was started by that idiot Scobie who was trying to rebrand her, no doubt at the direction of “Duchess Meghan” herself.

Which showed that for an allegedly royal reporter, he had absolutely no fucking idea about his alleged chosen subject.

His knowledge of British Royal titles and styles was about as substantial as his plastic face. And now Duchess Meghan has thrown him under a bus - outlived his usefulness. Poor sad Omid Scobie. We’ve all been ditched by a fag hag - now it’s the turn of Scooby Dooby Do.

She is currently Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The HRH is currently retracted by the Queen, as of Jan 2020, by her statement which is all that's needed. There is no need of official legislation, paperwork, or even Letters Patent (LP) to remove the HRH in the UK. TQ simply needs to state it, as fons honorum, and it is so.

One could technically say H&M still 'have it' but just can't use it, but imo (my op) that's same as not having it.

If she, or more specifically Harry, return to the UK and begin royal work, they will be HRH again as per the January statement.

Nothing, but nothing, is worse than this monstrosity. Fergie s clothes were the absolute worst.

No, R470, you are incorrect. The style “first name”, “title of place name” is reserved for former wives of peers - either through widowhood or divorce. Hence “Sarah, Duchess of York”.

Otherwise the Duchesses of Kent and of Gloucester would be referred to as “Katharine, Duchess of Kent” and “Birgitta, Duchess of Gloucester”, which they’re not.

Of course if their husbands pop their clogs first then they could assume those styles while their daughters in law become the new Duchesses (but without the HRH as their husbands will be great grandsons of the Sovereign - in this case, George V) and the HRH gets dropped with the grandson.

Interestingly, and it shows how pragmatic the current Sovereign is, when the previous Duke of Gloucester, the Queen’s uncle, died and his son and wife unexpectedly became the new Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, as Prince Richard’s older brother who was the heir to the Dukedom had recently died (until then they were known as Prince and Princess Richard of Gloucester), their mother, Alice, the previous Duchess of Gloucester, didn’t like the idea of being styled and titled as the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. So she asked the Queen, her niece, if she could be styled and titled as HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. To which the Queen agreed, as the count of all honours, and because she apparently liked her Aunt Alice!

This pissed off her other aunt, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. Also widowed. Born a princess of Greece and Denmark and not happy at all that one of ”those common little Scottish girls” was suddenly elevated to Princess status. No matter that Alice (previously Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott) was the daughter of the richest and oldest landowner in Scotland whereas Marina before her marriage into the British royal family was pretty much impoverished and living on family handouts.

^^^ “fount of all honours”, not “count of all honours” - but you get my drift, hopefully.

I get it r473, and everything you wrote is essentially correct. But how does it relate to H&M. Meghan as the wife of a BRF member as you say takes her status/title from her husband Harry, and he (imo) is not HRH (at this moment in time), So she is only "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" or simply The Duchess of Sussex. The former style is, I'm aware, same as if she were Harry's former wife.

I'm not sure how else you would currently style her. That is how she's been referred to, by BP and the media, since leaving active BRF duty last winter.

To refer to your example, HRH The Duchess of Gloucester is currently married to an active HRH, hence she gets that styling.

Please stop the tedious title discussion and get back to the ugly clothes!

They all do it: sometimes it's Duchess Kate/Duchess Meghan, sometimes it's Kate Middleton/Meghan Markle - using the correct titles rather than the nick-name-ish ones is the norm not the exception.

That photo of Sarah Ferguson at her first Ascot as Andrew's fiancée garnered one of the DM's most famous headlines (easily 4" high): "FROCK HORROR!"

What no one knew is how much worse Fergie's clothes could get. If they had known, they'd have reserved the 4" type for later.

Although the wedding dress surprised in coming off quite well, far better than Diana's.

And that ruby and diamond necklace that was part of the parure the BRF gave her as a wedding present was one of the ugliest pieces of jewellery I have ever seen.

^*using the nick-name-ish ones rather than the correct titles is the norm . . .

Okay, honest question. Do Beatrice and Eugenie dress like that ironically, or do they honestly believe that their clothes are chic? I really can't tell. If they're being ironic, they're doing brilliantly. If not - oh em gee.

I seriously doubt they are doing it ironically with that trainwreck of a mother.

But they are in the public eye. They must be aware that people laughing at their clothes. (Not dissing the girls, I like them a lot.)

Both have acknowledged being hurt by the jeers thrown at their taste in clothes, and I doubt said taste was ever anything but excruciatingly bad taste. They are short, pudgy, and both inclined to stockiness, although Bea has at times managed to look quite slim. Add to that the execrable theatricality of their mother's taste in clothes, and it was probably a lost cause by the time they lost their milk teeth.

They weren't helped much by the arrival on scene in 2011 of the 5'9", svelte, leggy Kate Middleton, who looked good in short skirts, long skirts, pencil skirts, lace, coat-dresses, charming day suits like the one she wore to Yuge's wedding, belts, sleek trousers, large hats with tilted brims, and small fascinators.

They do seem like nice gells overall but it is a bit puzzling why they never looked in the mirror and said, "I must do something about those fat arms or get quite another outfit for Ascot next month . . . "

Their arms aren't really fat but these outfits are doing horrors for their figures! Surely they can afford stylists?

I was going to say the same R482 and R481. That color looks terrible, the hat, shoes and purse are ugly and don't match or complement anything. How can they be so self-unaware, especially being photographed constantly and in tabloids, etc.? They should have been begging for stylists as pre-teens.

Besides, wearing tops with no cleavage is sin No1 when you have big boobs and a stocky figure. It adds 55 pounds to your upper body and creates one massive shapeless monoboob (with two large nips, as shown above). They don't look comfortable in these clothes at all, why wear them then?

Oh God i just had a thought. What if Fergie IS their stylist??

LOL!

The pattern is kind of busy but I like this Erdem dress.

Princess Diana's sister, Lady Jane Fellowes, looks quite butch in the hat with the black sash.

Kate looking good.

Not horrible but not great.

Not a fashion fail. Crown Princess Mary of Denmark loses her shoe while visiting the grave of JFK at Arlington National Cemetery.

R487 - That's the least offensive Erdem I've ever seen.

And, yes, Lady Jane Fellowes did look rather butch in that photo. She also looked like she was making a silent comment on the proceedings with her clothes, hat, and half-closed eyes.

R491 - LOL. That outfit is one of Mary's most versatile. She wore the dress recently with a black fitted jacket and black hat. I think Mary was channeling Jackie in this outfit and it came off rather nicely.

I don't like everything Mary wears, but she usually gets it mostly right.

However, here she is in three Erdem outfits, and they do only slightly more for her than the designer does for anyone else, and that's not saying much.

Princess Eugenie's outfit with an Alice and Olivia skirt - fashion forward gone wrong.

Obviously Beatrice, Eugenie and even Meghan are at a disadvantage because they don't have Kate's tall, thin, model-like figure.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Mary does look very good in that dress, R493.

R495 - No, they don't have what Kate has. But most women don't. What separates the women from the girls is a realistic assessment of what a woman DOES have and make the most of it. Petiteness can be as attractive as height, but not when its covered in mounds of flesh and cloth. Both York girls have pretty colouring, lovely skin, and nice hair. The trick is to keep the avoirdupois off and buy simple unfussy outfits in flattering colours that play up delicate stature instead of making a mockery of it.

Pss. Mary of Denmark isn't as tall as Kate, either, and like Meghan and Diana, doesn't have much of a waist and is athletically built. But she also has nice colouring, nice hair and legs, and most of the time dresses to give the illusion of a waist and play up her legs, hair, and eyes.

Here is the first of two very different outfits on Mary, who is probably no more than 5'5", 5'6" at most (she looks taller in photos, I saw her once in Copenhagen at the opening of the Folketing and she is surprisingly smaller in person). This is her sleek Very Princess look, same coat-dress different hats - I don't understand why Meghan and the York girls, who aren't so different from Mary, couldn't look at the great tailoring and accessories on this and get the hint!

All right, put the link in the wrong slot, here it is. Apologies, R498

And here is Mary in something less structured, far more cloth, but still chic, gives her the waist, and with the kind of detail that makes a dress interesting, but not so much that it overwhelms what is in reality a small-ish girl.

r499 That's a beautiful "Wallis Blue" dress, and fits her very well. I think if the hat had matched the dress, or the shoes and bag, the ensemble would've looked better.

I really don't see any reason why the York girls, if they kept their weight in check, and Meghan, cannot wear similar outfits that confer both dignity and femininity.

Neither Mary nor Meghan are tall. Mary is just married to a much shorter man than Meghan is, and she always wears really high heels. Meghan always looks especially small next to Harry, who is over 6'. Prince Frederick is maybe 5'10".

Bea was quite slim at the Cambridge wedding and her coat dress was entirely appropriate, flattering, nicely tailored, and a beautiful colour. Then she HAD to put on THAT hat!!!!

Here is Eugenie trying to do what Pss. Mary was able to do in a simple blue boucle tailored outfit and pillbox, but not - quite - succeeding. Sleeves too short, hat too big, hair not under control. As for Bea's outfit . . . well . . .

Very pretty look, R499, but Mary is still slim compared to Eugenie and Beatrice. Too bad we're so conditioned to criticise overweight women.

Is there some protocol rule that Beatrice and Eugenie should be walking ahead of Kate at R496 because they were born into the royal family and Kate married into it? I read that the Queen insists Kate curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie for that reason when she is not accompanied by William.

Not everyone is tall and thin and no one is obliged to be either. Bea and Eugenie aren't. There is nothing wrong with their bodies and I feel very uncomfortable commenting on them. This thread should be about funny clothes, not about policing women's bodies. And the sisters offer enough fun as it is. No need to go physical.

Not so much.

Sarah was pregnant at the time but still, she could have done better.

Oh My God, R507!!!!!!

She really doesn't give a flying fuck, does she? Against my will, I'm gaining newfound respect for her. THAT'S the kind of thick skin I'd sell my soul for, lol!

I don't know if I agree, R508. My guess is she probably thought she looked pretty, maybe even fashionable. She has definitely had to develop a thick skin over the years because she was a favourite target of the tabloids (along with Camilla).

R506 - Definitely not one of my favourite evening gowns in Kate's closet. Like some gowns of Diana's that I later saw in person, this probably looked more impressive in the flesh, when you saw the luxurious silk tulle moving as the wearer moved. Some gowns of Diana that I thought less than compelling in photographs looked far more beautiful when I saw them at Christie's in NY prior to the auction.

She has a similar style gown in an inky teal colour that worked much better. Kate does like Easter egg colours and she looks good in most pastels, but she looks better, in my opinion, in deeper shades. Just the same, it's gorgeous compared to the Erdems.

Kate in a similar McQueen gown, which she also wore once whilst pregnant - it works much better with the natural rather than empire waist and simpler bodice, and the colour is superb on her - not to mention the staggering diamond necklace in one of the photos. I would have put the hair up with that necklace, though.

R506 - Definitely not one of my favourite evening gowns in Kate's closet. Like some gowns of Diana's that I later saw in person, this probably looked more impressive in the flesh, when you saw the luxurious silk tulle moving as the wearer moved. Some gowns of Diana that I thought less than compelling in photographs looked far more beautiful when I saw them at Christie's in NY prior to the auction.

She has a similar style gown in an inky teal colour that worked much better. Kate does like Easter egg colours and she looks good in most pastels, but she looks better, in my opinion, in deeper shades. Just the same, it's gorgeous compared to the Erdems.

Kate in a similar McQueen gown, which she also wore once whilst pregnant - it works much better with the natural rather than empire waist and simpler bodice, and the colour is superb on her - not to mention the staggering diamond necklace in one of the photos. I would have put the hair up with that necklace, though.

I really believe Fergie was bipolar - she has the low inhibition controls that go with a manic phase. The exuberance that everyone found so charming at first was, I think part of that. If only she had been a bit more in control of herself, everything might have gone much, much better.

A lot of the criticisms of Diana's clothes show no understanding of 80s fashion. For example, the outfit that was said to be "too bright" is nothing compared to the acres of cobalt blue and other dazzling blocks of colour that were then common in day dresses. Kitten and Louis heels were all the rage for a few years in the 80s, so naturally very tall women who were not supposed to overshadow their husbands were going to jump at the chance to wear them. The choker worn round the forehead was considered a brilliant fashion coup, because it was the first era in which gym gear became a fashion item and the headband was an indispensable item of gym year (cf ONJ's Physical). To do that with huge jewels on a formal occasion was considered very witty, and a way of Diana saying she was blowing away conservative Royal cobwebs.

There were a lot of really horrible clothes in the 80s (and Fergie wore most of them), but in the late 80s Diana's clothes were, almost without exception, very stylish examples of what was on offer. Remember that she was the type who wanted to stand out, so she wasn't going to wear conservative styles that don't date much, as Kate will.

Mary's hair color is so harsh at R500 that it looks like a cheap home dye job.

I keep reading that the Crown Prince Frederick is quite dissolute. He looks very disengaged in all of the family shots.

R514 - he's too lazy to be dissolute. What the Danes see him as as someone a bit like Prince Harry, only he got born the Heir rather than the Spare, so was forced to behave better. Mary came in and anchored him is the prevailing view, and worked harder than he do even whilst pregnant. She seems never to forget her incredible luck in landing him and the life. I don't agree he looks disengaged in the family photos, he looks just as much as he loves his kids as Mary does.

One thing you have to remember about Frederik and Joachim is that they had an emotionally disengaged Mum who was also their Queen - not unlike QEII's problems with her kids. That said, both Danish princes married well. Joachim's marriage ended in divorce but Alexandra was no Diana or Meghan - it was a much more ordinary split and was handled with a minimum of fuss. Joachim's second wife, just like Mary and Joachim's first wife, handle their roles well. Those sensible marriages more or less redeemed two princes one of whom was mostly interested in sports and found royal life boring (Frederik), the other of whom had a reputation for being testy with moderate interest in agriculture and military matters - but not on any level like the interest in environment that, say, Charles has in Britain.

The three Danish royal wives, including the ex-, have done a good job keeping the side up. Joachim has a lovely estate called Shackenborg; it would roughly be the equivalent of Frogmore Cottage for the Harkles, only it's much classier (there are photos of the inside available) and Marie, the second wife of the spare, has been only too happy to find herself ensconced there, and doesn't spend her time grousing about the huge apartments in Amalienborg Palace renovated for the Crown Prince and his family.

Frederik is now over fifty. He may not find his role wholly fulfilling, but he's acclimated to it and I don't doubt is happy with the brood Mary provided, and they are viewed as good, hands-on parents.

I can well imagine QEII looking at Margrethe's family and wondering why things couldn't be managed more like that, including the problems, on her end.

The Danish monarchy, by the way, is the oldest in Europe in straight lines of descent as well as sheer time. When royals from different countries are gathered, e.g., funerals, weddings, etc., they are seated and ranked by that. Queen Margrethe is always ahead of, say, Queen Mathilde of Belgium.

R515 - Joachim recently had a stroke and recovered so maybe he'll have a better attitude. He's working at the Danish embassy in Paris now.

R516 - Yes, it was all over the Danish papers. I think the embassy appointment is not permanent, but has a delimited time.

In a way, it's a bit like the situation Harry foresaw as William's kids got older and ever more prominent on the royal stage. Prince Christian is almost 15 now, his sister 12, the twins 8 or 9, so interest in them is increasing, in Christian especially. In three years, he comes of age and could theoretically become Crown Prince any day as Margrethe turned 80 in April of this year.

Joachim's children are NOT royal highnesses, either: only HHs, not HRHs, like Frederik's kids. So beginning a gradual and graceful retreat makes sense.

One of the worst wedding dresses EVER! A gold nightmare worn by Princess Olga of Greece to Prince Aimone of Savoy.

I always found Aimone to be handsome. He comes from an artistic family (mother) as does Olga, hence her unique designer Prada gown. I think she had input into its design.

Aimone's mother, Princess Claude of France, wore a remarkable star-motif tiara at her own wedding (see linked photo). Anyone know the name of this tiara? Her sisters seem to all have worn it at their weddings as well.

How fashions have changed. The Queen Mother's wedding dress. Maybe the beige colour is from the fabric (silk?) aging. Don't care for the boxy shape.

Looks better here.

Well it was the style. I actually like it better than the queen’s gown which is fussy and dowdy.

(yes, the silk is discoloring)

[Quote]Princess Left Tit of Greece

Fixed

R518 - I must say, she does have all the rest beat.

r515 Schackenborg is nothing like that shack for the help that the Queen unloaded onto H&M. Schackenborg is more like Prince Edward's little palace.

Both buildings are white and old. The similarities end there. The rest of your post was vrey helpful.

Prince Edward's humble home. He must be the Queen's favorite after that pedo Andrew.

Um, R527, you do know that Edward’s family doesn’t use that entire house, don’t you? I’m not saying they huddle in one room, but it’s been famously repeated they can’t afford to heat the whole thing, so they occupy a reasonable number of rooms, sort of like the Kensington Palace apartments scheme.

As for Shackenborg, Joachim is the Queen’s son. Harry is the Queen’s grandson, one of many. He should be grateful he got anything. Eugenie is now gratefully living in two-bedroom Nottingham Cottage, which Harry lived in pre-Markle.

Thirdly, many moons ago, Charles bought an estate called Harewood Park (not the more well-known Harewood House). This place is a 900 acre country estate and it was always thought that Harry would live there one day. The place needs a lot of work, but seeing how beautifully he updated Highgrove, it was thought Charles was just the man to refurbish it with Harry. It was his fatherly answer to knowing that William would get Amner from the Queen. But alas, Harry married the American adventuress who couldn’t be bothered to live a dreamy English country life and would rather live in a Russian oligarch’s mansion while pimping herself to Netflix.

Princess Märtha Louise of Norway

Royal adjacent: Kitty Spencer, Princess Diana's niece, dressed in green at Meghan and Harry's wedding

That outfit on ML is adorable, at r529.

Kitty has never looked as good as she did at Harry's wedding, at r530. Gorgeous dress, hair and makeup were perfect.

I don't care for the tulip decorations on Martha Louise's dress. I could see a five year old girl wearing the same dress. Too bad her handsome husband committed suicide at the age of 47.

Ms. Spencer is a beautiful woman but the flower pattern on her dress is too distracting..

r528 what makes you think that Harry still won't inherit the place? He left the UK, not the planet.

That was indeed the best Kitty Spencer ever looked. Resplendent in head-to-toe Dolce and Gabbana...the orange velvet shoes were a wonderful choice.

I loved the flower pattern...it was handpainted onto the fabric.

R533 It belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, meaning that William will be in charge of it the minute the Queen dies. He might let the ginger live in it post-divorce, but fat chance he’ll remodel it for his troublemaking brother.

There’s no house on the property although there are “plans”.

Kitty Spencer really is gorgeous.

R530 Who is her skanky friend? Invited to a royal wedding yet looks likes she rolled out of bed, hungover, and threw something on, then put a hat on to hide her dirty, stringy hair.

That’s Violet von Westenholz. She’s supposedly one of the matchmakers for the dastardly duo but the story keeps changing because PRIVACY!!!

Thanks, R539. The photos I found only mentioned Kitty.

She could have at least taken a shower and put on some makeup for the wedding for fuck's sake.

R530 - Agreed, for once the dress, shoes, and hat, and accessories were splendid. Lady Kitty doesn't always display great dress sense, but she did here, and she is, indeed, gorgeous. She's gotten the beautiful Spencer complexion, height, hair, and wide blue eyes, but skipped her Aunt's huge nose. I also like that Kitty is somewhat zaftig, as they say, and never even tried to pull off "waif" slimness.

She is allegedly engaged to a very, very rich man 30 years older than she is, and also allegedly converting to Judaism to marry him.

Alas that COVID will deprive us of another royal-adjacent luxury society wedding, one we have so richly earned by loyally paying attention to such things since Charles and Diana tied the knot in St. Paul's . . .!

R528 - Actually, Eugenie and her husband live in Ivy Cottage, not Nottingham Cottage. Both, however, are inside the grounds of the Kensington Palace complex, and both are two-bedrooms, and are not far from each other.

It looks quite charming and I believe they pay commercial rent for it, but adjusted due to the cost of security for the Kensington Palace security needs.

There is nothing "zaftig" or plump about her.

R544 - I never suggested for a moment that she is "plump"

"Zaftig" also means Big, and Lady Kitty is a Big Girl, like her Aunt Diana.

She is not delicate by any stretch of the imagination and does not exhibit the painful anorexic look of most models.

And I admire her for not starving herself down. She's a big healthy girl and on her it looks gorgeous.

The link below shows nothing if not a zaftig young woman.

Zaftig is a good description. And she’s the epitome of “peaches and cream complexion “.

Your arse is zaftig, R545

R545 - Jesus, if just that comment triggers you, I pity your wife/husband/kid.

^*meant for R547

The joke is on you, R548/549! I'm alone!

"I'm alone!"

Quelle surprise!