The Cambridges News and Updates ( Prince William, Kate Middleton, George, Charlotte and Louis)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, has the reign of coat dresses for Kate finally come to an end? A turtleneck and a business suit is very...business-like.

She looks good in the rain this morning too! I like it.

She has been wearing a lot more pants and pantsuits the last two years. I think it’s a sign the Queen is giving there more freedom in decision making and brand management. It’s clearly a transition of power.

You think pants and pantsuits was what Kate wanted to wear but she was forced into coat-dresses and prairie dresses the entire time? Interesting thoughts. Diana did change up her entire warddrobe as she was divorcing and divorced.

DP: I think her tastes may be changing. I think she might be feeling more comfortable, confident, and settled in her role. I also think that she may genuinely like some of Meghan’s clothing choices — and Diana’s — and perhaps realized that she has more flexibility. It’s also possible that some of the “rules” for the Family Firm were set/suggested by Phillip’s expectations, which were based on the standards for “ladylike “ behavior from an earlier era — and now can be relaxed. I’m only guessing, of course, but comparing Kate’s outfits before and after her marriage suggest that she — like many of us — dressed appropriately for her new job. After a few years in, for multiple reasons, there’s often more flexibility.

Its been 10 years. They've been saying she's 'stepping into her role' since 2012. But hmmm, the younger royals do tend to do stuff right after a death that they couldn't get away with before. Charles marrying Camilla post-Queen Mother's death comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

Cool, that was one person's opinion. It's an anonymous board with many people. Is that news to you too?

Nope! Just pointing out yet another contradiction amongst the rabble.

If you're too stupid to get a Dr Dolittle reference you have no business pointing fingers.

I’ve actually read the book as a child — and get both allusionS. Perhaps your time would be better spent reading more instead of frothing at the mouth? Figuratively, I assume, although with DCUM you never know.

Then you would have laughed instead of your lame "ZOMG what can this mean?"

“ZOMG”? Inventing quotes and juvenile insults is not a great way to impress anonymous readers with —well, with anything really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But Pippa voluntarily wore those things and she's not Royal? Seems more like a Norfolk/Old Houses aesthetic than anything else?

No these are very formal events, like Royal Ascot etc. There is absolutely a dress etiquette for all guests at those events, everyone dresses like that. Not saying she is not conservative by nature, but pants and pantsuits are a NO with the Queen on official engagements.

Also, she was skewered for being a commoner and a social climber, the Aristocratic set viewed her as beneath them. She was set to prove herself. It’s clear she is now more comfortable in her role and has been given more decision making power. To me this is an obvious transition of power. Would not be surprised if the Queen steps back next year. She may not formally abdicate but will make it clear Charles is in charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, has the reign of coat dresses for Kate finally come to an end? A turtleneck and a business suit is very...business-like.

She looks good in the rain this morning too! I like it.

She has been wearing a lot more pants and pantsuits the last two years. I think it’s a sign the Queen is giving there more freedom in decision making and brand management. It’s clearly a transition of power.

You think pants and pantsuits was what Kate wanted to wear but she was forced into coat-dresses and prairie dresses the entire time? Interesting thoughts. Diana did change up her entire warddrobe as she was divorcing and divorced.

DP: I think her tastes may be changing. I think she might be feeling more comfortable, confident, and settled in her role. I also think that she may genuinely like some of Meghan’s clothing choices — and Diana’s — and perhaps realized that she has more flexibility. It’s also possible that some of the “rules” for the Family Firm were set/suggested by Phillip’s expectations, which were based on the standards for “ladylike “ behavior from an earlier era — and now can be relaxed. I’m only guessing, of course, but comparing Kate’s outfits before and after her marriage suggest that she — like many of us — dressed appropriately for her new job. After a few years in, for multiple reasons, there’s often more flexibility.

I think what looks good on someone almost 40 doesn't look as good on someone in their 20s and early 30s. The professional business look of pant suits is a mature look and looks better on older vs younger women. As Kate gets older her style and tastes are going to change. It was probably a lot harder to dress for the role 10 years ago than it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First that unapproved kid picture, now the Daily Mail called Kate Duchess DoLittle? They haven't used the word for her in five years. Something is up with the tabloids and the Cambridges.

You know its tongue in cheek, right? Have you never heard of Dr. Dolittle?

The British tabloids are masters at calling someone out while seemingly to not do so. They could have used a million other descriptors about her visit, instead they chose one they know has a history of being nasty for her.

You don't say!? Americans are completely devoid of sense of humor these days. You're hanging on the Daily Mail's every word like its super serious business. Lighten up.

Not too long ago, someone on these very pages assured me that the DM takes their research very seriously, and that while their appeal was broad-based, they could be relied upon to be both thorough and factual. I didn’t ask, though, so it’s quite possible that such comments were made by Americans.

Cool, that was one person's opinion. It's an anonymous board with many people. Is that news to you too?

Nope! Just pointing out yet another contradiction amongst the rabble.

If you're too stupid to get a Dr Dolittle reference you have no business pointing fingers.

I’ve actually read the book as a child — and get both allusionS. Perhaps your time would be better spent reading more instead of frothing at the mouth? Figuratively, I assume, although with DCUM you never know.

Then you would have laughed instead of your lame "ZOMG what can this mean?"

“ZOMG”? Inventing quotes and juvenile insults is not a great way to impress anonymous readers with —well, with anything really.

It's ok to admit things just go over your head.

[Anonymous]

She looks good in high waisted pants, they showcase her small waist and long legs while giving the illusion of shapelier hips than she has. I always disliked her low rise skinny pants/jeans look.

[Anonymous]

She looks Royal. Always appropriate and proper. Not like the other one

[Anonymous]

Kate just really knows how to play the game. She is really good at her job. She knows what's expected of her and she always hits the mark. I respect the hell out of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate just really knows how to play the game. She is really good at her job. She knows what's expected of her and she always hits the mark. I respect the hell out of her.

I don't respect her. I admire her grit and IDK why the British media coddles her so much.

Let's talk last night's appearance. She looked fabulous but so did Camilla - who the rota just straight up ignored. Camilla's dress is Kate's usual aesthetic and when Kate wore an almost-identical dress the rhetoric was 'Look radiant in rhinestones like Kate wearing in Jenny Packham'.

With Camilla its crickets. Which I guess is better than calling her a homewrecker but its just so telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate just really knows how to play the game. She is really good at her job. She knows what's expected of her and she always hits the mark. I respect the hell out of her.

I don't respect her. I admire her grit and IDK why the British media coddles her so much.

Let's talk last night's appearance. She looked fabulous but so did Camilla - who the rota just straight up ignored. Camilla's dress is Kate's usual aesthetic and when Kate wore an almost-identical dress the rhetoric was 'Look radiant in rhinestones like Kate wearing in Jenny Packham'.

With Camilla its crickets. Which I guess is better than calling her a homewrecker but its just so telling.

Camilla looked fantastic. Thought I think Camilla does not care that she is "ignored." I think Camilla is rather low-key and enjoys being low-key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate just really knows how to play the game. She is really good at her job. She knows what's expected of her and she always hits the mark. I respect the hell out of her.

I don't respect her. I admire her grit and IDK why the British media coddles her so much.

Let's talk last night's appearance. She looked fabulous but so did Camilla - who the rota just straight up ignored. Camilla's dress is Kate's usual aesthetic and when Kate wore an almost-identical dress the rhetoric was 'Look radiant in rhinestones like Kate wearing in Jenny Packham'.

With Camilla its crickets. Which I guess is better than calling her a homewrecker but its just so telling.

Camilla looked fantastic. Thought I think Camilla does not care that she is "ignored." I think Camilla is rather low-key and enjoys being low-key.

Okay but Camilla is the Princess of Wales. Regardless of whether or not she likes being ignored, its been beat in peoples head that you don't show up someone who ranks higher than you. The tabloids are acting like the future Queen doesn't even exist.

[Anonymous]

Camilla needs to stop copying people. She tried it with Diana and got laughed out of the papers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate just really knows how to play the game. She is really good at her job. She knows what's expected of her and she always hits the mark. I respect the hell out of her.

And what exactly is her job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate just really knows how to play the game. She is really good at her job. She knows what's expected of her and she always hits the mark. I respect the hell out of her.

I don't respect her. I admire her grit and IDK why the British media coddles her so much.

Let's talk last night's appearance. She looked fabulous but so did Camilla - who the rota just straight up ignored. Camilla's dress is Kate's usual aesthetic and when Kate wore an almost-identical dress the rhetoric was 'Look radiant in rhinestones like Kate wearing in Jenny Packham'.

With Camilla its crickets. Which I guess is better than calling her a homewrecker but its just so telling.

I hate her. She’s a home wrecker and destroyed Diana’s relationship with Charles from the beginning. He’s at fault too, but she should have just stepped off and said no. She’s the worst and better not become Queen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate just really knows how to play the game. She is really good at her job. She knows what's expected of her and she always hits the mark. I respect the hell out of her.

I don't respect her. I admire her grit and IDK why the British media coddles her so much.

Let's talk last night's appearance. She looked fabulous but so did Camilla - who the rota just straight up ignored. Camilla's dress is Kate's usual aesthetic and when Kate wore an almost-identical dress the rhetoric was 'Look radiant in rhinestones like Kate wearing in Jenny Packham'.

With Camilla its crickets. Which I guess is better than calling her a homewrecker but its just so telling.

I hate her. She’s a home wrecker and destroyed Diana’s relationship with Charles from the beginning. He’s at fault too, but she should have just stepped off and said no. She’s the worst and better not become Queen

Oh, she's becoming Queen. They wouldn't have married otherwise.