What do you think of Charlene?

[Jaya]

Of course I do not know you. Nor do I wish to.The aforementioned poetry speaks for itself.Those who know poetry let them speak.
The tragedy is that there is no "tragedy" in the poetry but only in your interpretive subjective reading. I am elated you are a universal spirit;like Miss Wittstock possibly I feel she is not tragic but "universal" as well.There appears to be an epidemic of universality going around.
I accept no one's apologies; I cannot give absolution;lowly "tragic" poet that I am interpreted as. A poet that never uses the word "curious" but knows better to say"interest" replacing the tragedy of the zoological level with the humane spirit of "universality".The poem is for Miss Wittstock and her universality; her thousand petalled kundalini force and the possibilities of relative and possible outcomes.
God Bless you

[CasiraghiTrio]

There is just no reason for Prince Albert to marry. For one thing, he has many more pressing things to do. His role as sovereign has enough demands to occupy him. For another matter, Monaco already has Caroline and Stephanie to be the humanitarians, the philanthropists, the fashionable, the beautiful, and all that. And the next generation -- Charlotte, etc. -- promises more of all that! So where is the need for a wife for Prince Albert? With the succession secure (no shortage of Grimaldi-blooded people in case Albert kicks the bucket, god forbid it) the only reason he should have a wife is LOVE. There should be no other reason for him to marry. Only love. If there is no love, please, why bother marrying, Albert? Why? It does not make sense. If he is in love with Charlene, then I believe nothing should stop them from marrying each other. But if there is no love, there is no sense in it.

[royal pauper]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Stephanie to be the humanitarians, the philanthropists, the fashionable, the beautiful, and all that. .

You had outdone yourself with this one.

[adelaide]

To be clear absolutly nothing. She is a beautiful woman, that 's all and she like the competition, good point for her. But for the others fields, she seems a little too mysterious

[Lady Jennifer]

Let's not veer off topic. This is a thread about Charlene.

Thanks
Princely Family of Monaco Moderators

[sashajones]

Charlene has potential to be a great wife, princess, stepmom etc. etc. etc......

[Ghislaine]

Originally Posted by sashajones

Charlene has potential to be a great wife, princess, stepmom etc. etc. etc......

Based on what? Not on what we've seen of her so far... JMO

[lilae]

Originally Posted by sashajones

Charlene has potential to be a great wife, princess, stepmom etc. etc. etc......

For the moment... she has potential for being his "hot girlfriend".

[Zonk]

The quote below was originally stated in the Current Events thread of Charlene. So that I would not derail the subject of that thread....I have moved the dicussion to this thread. Basically, some members have criticized an outfit that Charlene wore to a fashion show that she attended with Albert.

Shappica...this is not to pick on you....other members have pretty much said the same thing.

Originally Posted by shappica

Yes, but Stephanie is princess by birth! IMO there's a big difference between how two types of princesses (royalty in general) can and should behave....

I am a little confused. Because Stephanie is a princess by birth she can wear daring dressess but a girlfriend or companion can not? When it comes down to it...who is really representing Monaco...Stephanie or Charlene?

While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion on fashion as well as what or what is not acceptable attire for a Princess, I find that a double standard exists for Charlene.

Here are a couple of dresses that Stephanie has worn while representing Monaco:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...reply&p=617545
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...reply&p=617545
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...2&d=1066424414

Now I don't recall if and what various people have said about Stephanie's style of dress....but I sincerely doubt that some of the things that have been said about Charlene (an ordinary woman who dates a Princes) have been said about Stephanie (the daughter of a Prince).

[coco]

Charlene . . . hmm . . I don't know what I should think about her. For any reason, she's dislikable. But perhaps I don't like her because I don't know her very well . . .

[hibou]

I recall when Princess Grace was alive Stephanie, on more than one occasion, was banned from attending a Royal function because of dress code violations. With her Mother gone she has been running wild ever since, which is not excuse at her present age, but mostly Stephanie has been looked upon as a renagade royal the same way the Zara Phillips is sometimes viewed (like when she piereced her tongue for example). In any case, neither will ever inherit the throne so most don't care what they wear. Charlene may well be on a throne as the wife of the sovereign and thus her clothes are much more problematic for a potential Princess.

[brother]

she's not fit to step into grace's role, she's everything but what his mom was. she has no style, nor class, and he looks ridiculous with her. what is with that bleached hair, she resembles ana nicole smith or one of heffner's bunnies

[Jaya]

Originally Posted by Zonk

The quote below was originally stated in the Current Events thread of Charlene. So that I would not derail the subject of that thread....I have moved the dicussion to this thread. Basically, some members have criticized an outfit that Charlene wore to a fashion show that she attended with Albert.

Shappica...this is not to pick on you....other members have pretty much said the same thing.



I am a little confused. Because Stephanie is a princess by birth she can wear daring dressess but a girlfriend or companion can not? When it comes down to it...who is really representing Monaco...Stephanie or Charlene?

While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion on fashion as well as what or what is not acceptable attire for a Princess, I find that a double standard exists for Charlene.

Here are a couple of dresses that Stephanie has worn while representing Monaco:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...reply&p=617545
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...reply&p=617545
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...2&d=1066424414

Now I don't recall if and what various people have said about Stephanie's style of dress....but I sincerely doubt that some of the things that have been said about Charlene (an ordinary woman who dates a Princes) have been said about Stephanie (the daughter of a Prince).

There is no double standard in my opinion regarding Princess Stephanie and Miss Wittstock.Stephanie studied couture and thus aesthetics at Dior when she apprenticed in fashion with Marc Bohan.Certainly her fashion sensibility is iconclastic, sleek ,also bare but never jarring.Stephanie is a princess of simplicity and Miss Wittstock a lady of simplified practices[continuous uninterrupted halter tops bespeak no imagination & are a "static" ]Princess Stephanie is innovative while Miss Wittsock has a novel approach to fashion.I have yet to see Miss Wittstock attend a function and be totally covered with a jacket or long sleeves that fit properly. Both ladies have very strong facial features with angularities that do not necessitate plenteous jewellery.No criticism has been levelled at Princess Stephanie in the fashion of Miss Wittsock because she does not have to attain the status of royal..I have never seen Princess Stephanie appear alien to the environment she was in. However with Miss Wittstock I see that she is impervious of occasion and possibly attired to please herself.Princess Stephanie is a lesser[as third child of Rainier& Grace} but equally important representaive of the Grimaldis.Both ladies have a deep sense of their physicality & so feel uninhibited to expose parts of their bodies but their aesthetic sensibilty is rooted differently.Princess Stephanie is a veteran of the cosmopolitan cosmos,illustrious glitterati whereas Miss Wittsock is newly exposed & is a neophyte in the making.This does not imply that one is better than the other.Or that even a comparison is plausible but solely that Miss Wittsock be more aware of where we are going on what occasion and why. And in the final analysis classicism in garb never hurt or hindered anyone when in doubt. I for one would not require this or criticize her if I did not ask her to ask a bit more from herself because I want a "happy ending " for Miss Wittstock and all of us.Quite simply as Aristotle said I am asking that she "surpass herself" always and I do not know how that could ever be interpreted as a double standard.
Miss Wittstock could easily have the acclamation& admiration of millions of individuals around the world and what is required of her in wardrobe is probably not more than what we criticize her to invest but more than Miss Wittsock possibly has to lose.May she keep her own counsel.I think we have been misinterpreted as not desirous essentially to protect through specific suggestions.I think Miss Wittstock is young and getting wiser by the moment. But to listen to others counsel has never been a sin or a crime....
because we are all fallible; so I think it touching that anyone would care to speak on her fashion sensibility so that we might discover truths greater than those that have yet to be revealed & all of this for none other than Miss Wittsock herself.

[semisquare]

I think Miss Wittstock is young and getting wiser by the moment.

please tell me when she has improve? because i see the same mistakes with dress and behavior from the first time a pic was snap of her till the last pic i have see of her imo to me it still says non-classie trying to play dress up.

[Mandy]

This thread will not be closed to please the few closed-minded individuals who cannot heed warnings. However, from this point foward, suspensions will be handed to members who step over the line of civility. Name calling, insinuations, and conjecture will not be tolerated. Since Charlene Wittstock and Albert are persons, words such as trash, bimbo, whore, etc, will not be acceptable in future posts and will be deleted without notice.

I wish to thank the Monaco Moderators , who have have been very lenient with members, only to be met with ingratitude.

Mandy
Royal Forums Administrator

[shappica]

Originally Posted by hibou

Stephanie has been looked upon as a renagade royal the same way the Zara Phillips is sometimes viewed (like when she piereced her tongue for example). In any case, neither will ever inherit the throne so most don't care what they wear. Charlene may well be on a throne as the wife of the sovereign and thus her clothes are much more problematic for a potential Princess.

That's kinda what I ment. Stephanie didn't choose to be a princess, and since she is not going to inherit the throne she can dress less strictly, while Charlene... {well everything hibou said}

[Dori]

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with Charlene and I'm not saying it just because I'm South African myself. So she doesn't dress wonderfully and she might not be as graceful as everyone would like her to be, but I think everyone should just give her a break. The nasty comments are also uncalled for even if it is an opinion, there are nicer ways of saying things (more constructive criticism) and BTW just by adding "no offense" at the end of a post doesn't cancel out the not so nice comment.

[hibou]

Originally Posted by Dori

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with Charlene and I'm not saying it just because I'm South African myself. So she doesn't dress wonderfully and she might not be as graceful as everyone would like her to be, but I think everyone should just give her a break. The nasty comments are also uncalled for even if it is an opinion, there are nicer ways of saying things (more constructive criticism) and BTW just by adding "no offense" at the end of a post doesn't cancel out the not so nice comment.

I agree we sometimes get a bit too acid-tongued but I have to say that when one is in the public eye all this comes with the territory. If Miss Wittstock (and her family) had not been so public about her affair with the prince to begin with, I honestly think people would be more willing to cut her a break, but when someone is a bold as she has been, she has made herself an easy target. I will agree that bad manners are bad form and we should be more diplomatic in our criticisms of her.

[Dori]

Originally Posted by hibou

I agree we sometimes get a bit too acid-tongued but I have to say that when one is in the public eye all this comes with the territory. If Miss Wittstock (and her family) had not been so public about her affair with the prince to begin with, I honestly think people would be more willing to cut her a break, but when someone is a bold as she has been, she has made herself an easy target. I will agree that bad manners are bad form and we should be more diplomatic in our criticisms of her.

I would like to state that in SA we don't have a monarchy, (King Goodwill is king of the Zulus, which is a tribe) we don't even have a large celebraty culture. The European royals are not fussed about here. Our celebrities don't get hounded as others do abroad. Our newspapers are generally filled with politics, crime, sport and the stockmarket. So acting royal is not second nature around here. She has definitely been more toned down in the last year, so clearly she saw her mistakes about going so public and has been more discreet.

[Donna]

Dear Jaya
This board would not exist if we were not allowed to discuss her looks and my response is still: OH MY GOD - WHERE DOES SHE GET HER DRESSES??????