Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you commenting on the hat are wrong. She actually had nothing to do with the design. Phillip Treacy did the whole thing, only knowing what her dress was like. Thats what he does...create things. he has come out to defend the hat as well.

I think it was ugly, but she had nothing to do with it.

She wore it. Indictment enough.

Anonymous wrote:All of you commenting on the hat are wrong. She actually had nothing to do with the design. Phillip Treacy did the whole thing, only knowing what her dress was like. Thats what he does...create things. he has come out to defend the hat as well.

I think it was ugly, but she had nothing to do with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I feel sorry for this poor girl. She's just so homely... And with no one to help her with hair and makeup, she ends up looking even homelier. I'm sure the clothes and hat came free from an aspiring (but ultimately doomed) designer; it's sad that they couldn't offer her some tips on the rest of her look.

I agree she is crazy looking and THOSE EYES! BUT pp she worre Valentino (well known big time designer) and the hat was Phillip Treacy who is another huge hat designer. Both very well known.

Shows what I know! I had just assumed that some fashion novice was jumping at the chance to get his/her name in the papers by doing something completely whackadoodle. It concerns me to hear that people who "know" fashion are even condoning, much less creating this crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I feel sorry for this poor girl. She's just so homely... And with no one to help her with hair and makeup, she ends up looking even homelier. I'm sure the clothes and hat came free from an aspiring (but ultimately doomed) designer; it's sad that they couldn't offer her some tips on the rest of her look.

I agree she is crazy looking and THOSE EYES! BUT pp she worre Valentino (well known big time designer) and the hat was Phillip Treacy who is another huge hat designer. Both very well known.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I feel sorry for this poor girl. She's just so homely... And with no one to help her with hair and makeup, she ends up looking even homelier. I'm sure the clothes and hat came free from an aspiring (but ultimately doomed) designer; it's sad that they couldn't offer her some tips on the rest of her look.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I hated it. Matronly and ugly. Di's dress was spectacular at the time. I can see why Kate didn't want to risk looking dated at some point (and I admit that Di's dress looks dated) but she didn't have to go with plain and ugly either.

I agree but think that Kate's dress looked outdated now and will continue to do so. There was nothing modern or classy about it.
Lace=victorian. Frock bit=medieval. The veil=plain net curtain. Hair=country girl. Make-up=diana after the divorce. Shoes=none of the above.
Combined, did not pull-off as 'classy' but looked a bit thrift shop to me. She shoulda gone glam:Rule No.1 in any mega royal wedding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Kate is much prettier than Diana, and more stylish. Maybe it is because I am Kate's age so I never experienced the "page boy haircut is cool" era, but I thought Diana's whole look was pretty awful on her wedding day. Nothing glamorous about it. And Kate is obviously much classier - Diana's interview where she talks about her bulimia and weeps was just terrible. I've always felt bad for her because she was so young and in over her head, but I've never found Diana to be particularly admirable. I assume the near worship of her is because she was relatable.

No, it wasn't that she was relatable. It was her charisma and sense of style for the time which cannot be explained to someone from a later generation. It was her grace and the fact that she tried to do so much good in the world when it really wasn't required of her. There was something special about her. She genuinely cared. You had to be there. And be old enough to get it.

Umm Diana was a princess, pretty sure they are basically required to do charity work. What else was she going to do, become a day trader? And how on earth do you know that Diana genuinely cared? I find the Diana worship just so bizarre - she was born rich, became famous because she had the right breeding and looks for Charles to marry her, and died young in a stupid and pointless way. Yes, she did charity, just like every rich socialite does charity. She may have been a nice person, I didn't know her, but I meet people every day who I find to be more impressive.

Why do you log on to your computer, get onto this site, scroll through dozens of posts, select this thread, compose this tiresome post about how much more evolved you are than everyone else who has a fondness for the royals or a passing interest in the recent wedding? Stop trying to kill the thread with a holier than thou attack. So boring and predictable. What is the point in trying to objectively measure the worth or inner beauty of a human being that you don't even know? Lighten the f*ck up! We're just talkin' here.

WTF?! Evolved? Attack? I think someone who gets upset over idle criticism of a dead socialite is the one who needs to lighten up. Also, I think your reading comprehension needs some work. Please read the bolded portions and try again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Kate is much prettier than Diana, and more stylish. Maybe it is because I am Kate's age so I never experienced the "page boy haircut is cool" era, but I thought Diana's whole look was pretty awful on her wedding day. Nothing glamorous about it. And Kate is obviously much classier - Diana's interview where she talks about her bulimia and weeps was just terrible. I've always felt bad for her because she was so young and in over her head, but I've never found Diana to be particularly admirable. I assume the near worship of her is because she was relatable.

No, it wasn't that she was relatable. It was her charisma and sense of style for the time which cannot be explained to someone from a later generation. It was her grace and the fact that she tried to do so much good in the world when it really wasn't required of her. There was something special about her. She genuinely cared. You had to be there. And be old enough to get it.

Umm Diana was a princess, pretty sure they are basically required to do charity work. What else was she going to do, become a day trader? And how on earth do you know that Diana genuinely cared? I find the Diana worship just so bizarre - she was born rich, became famous because she had the right breeding and looks for Charles to marry her, and died young in a stupid and pointless way. Yes, she did charity, just like every rich socialite does charity. She may have been a nice person, I didn't know her, but I meet people every day who I find to be more impressive.

Why do you log on to your computer, get onto this site, scroll through dozens of posts, select this thread, compose this tiresome post about how much more evolved you are than everyone else who has a fondness for the royals or a passing interest in the recent wedding? Stop trying to kill the thread with a holier than thou attack. So boring and predictable. What is the point in trying to objectively measure the worth or inner beauty of a human being that you don't even know? Lighten the f*ck up! We're just talkin' here.