Does anyone else think that Kate Middleton's wedding dress was a little dull?

[Anonymous]

ahh yes

I see the symbolism in the cake.

Anonymous wrote:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, the dress was a bit dull.

Now, what do you think about these shoes??

http://photos.toofab.com/galleries/royal_wedding_guest_arrivals#tab=most_recent&id=371674

maybe something like this instead?
http://www.snaz75.com/pl-flamingo-801.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was nice but a little dull.

And I agree that Kate is attractive but not gorgeous. To me, she looks older than her age (in the face). She has a nice figure but it would be so much better if she had some hips.

This. She is attractive and obviously well-groomed, but I just couldn't believe she is only 29. In some pictures she looked like she might be pushing forties!

Yes, exactly!

The eyebrows are over plucked, that always ages a person. The other thing that adds years is highlights in the hair.

Totally disagree. I thought she looked like a child bride.
BTW, she also looked much, much, MUCH too thin.

Um, she is not too thin...you can never be too thin...or too rich.

You can never be too thin? Do you say that as you wipe vomit from your daughter's mouth, eh, Tiger Mama?

[Anonymous]

Here's the evening wear...I really like both dresses:

[Anonymous]

Look at what happened to Fergie when she refused to play the game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was nice but a little dull.

And I agree that Kate is attractive but not gorgeous. To me, she looks older than her age (in the face). She has a nice figure but it would be so much better if she had some hips.

This. She is attractive and obviously well-groomed, but I just couldn't believe she is only 29. In some pictures she looked like she might be pushing forties!

Yes, exactly!

The eyebrows are over plucked, that always ages a person. The other thing that adds years is highlights in the hair.

Totally disagree. I thought she looked like a child bride.
BTW, she also looked much, much, MUCH too thin.

Um, she is not too thin...you can never be too thin...or too rich.

You can never be too thin? Do you say that as you wipe vomit from your daughter's mouth, eh, Tiger Mama?

[Anonymous]

I was shocked when I found out James, Kate's brother, is only 23!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Di's dress looked like it was made from piles of bed sheets. And it was terribly wrinkled. I have always hated it. Kate look beautiful and simple. She does not want to be a celebrity, she just wants to be a wife to William, so that is why she wore something conservative.

Then she should not have married Prince William.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I will never get tired of looking at this picture and this hat. Beatrice and Eugenie strike again! You should have provided the pic of both princesses.

I'd like to think that the two sisters intended to bring some much-needed levity to their cousin's stuffy affair. Maybe they were reminding him of some sort of inside joke? I've seen plenty of pictures of them at other events in more understated outfits, so I can't help thinking that today's getups were somehow significant in their goofiness.

Or maybe they were offended that their mom wasn't invited?

And, well, they should have been. They are 5th and 6th in line to the throne and whatever else Sarah Ferguson has done, she has done a good job in rearing her children, which is better than one can say for the Queen, Charles, Andrew, and Anne, who rumor has it that she is having an affair with Camilla's ex.

[Anonymous]

They all look old

I married DH when I was 27 and we both look like kids in the pics!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was shocked when I found out James, Kate's brother, is only 23!

What did the Middletons feed their children to make them look so dried up in their twenties? Maybe they are all bulimic? Or alcoholics? Freaks me out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And, well, they should have been. They are 5th and 6th in line to the throne and whatever else Sarah Ferguson has done, she has done a good job in rearing her children, which is better than one can say for the Queen, Charles, Andrew, and Anne, who rumor has it that she is having an affair with Camilla's ex.

Andrew is their dad and Fergie's ex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP
You are jealous
And so are most of the DCUM posters

OP here.
I agree that Kate’s dress was pretty, and I wish I looked half as great at my wedding. But my point is that, this is a public occasion and it seems to lack that flair. Kate’s dress looked limp. It could have used more oomph, fullness, whatever. While Princess Diana’s gown looks dated now, it had that fairy-tale element. It was sensational. I will always remember it.

[Anonymous]

She's pretty for someone who just joined the Royals but I can imagine what she would look like as a dowdy 50 something English woman when I look at her. I thought Harry looked kinda buffed under his suit though. And why are they delaying their honeymoon. Do they really need Wills at work next week? Kinda doubt that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was shocked when I found out James, Kate's brother, is only 23!

What did the Middletons feed their children to make them look so dried up in their twenties? Maybe they are all bulimic? Or alcoholics? Freaks me out.

Could be ugly genes from daddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ahh yes

I see the symbolism in the cake.

Anonymous wrote:

Can you share?