General News for the Duchess of Cambridge 1: November 2010-February 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Dressing a Duchess".

Hi Everyone,

Just reading today's paper and there is a double-page spread - "Dressing a Duchess" - where various Australian designers have been quoted regarding their designs, and Catherine's upcoming tour.

(The cheapest item is a skirt for $320, with the day dresses starting at $579 and going up to $990.)

I don't think Catherine will actually wear any Australian designed clothes - what if an Aussie lass turned up to a function in the same outfit.

Cheers, Sun Lion.
 
On the contrary, I'll be shocked if she DOESN'T wear Aussie designers on this tour. She'll be trying to honor her host country.
 
Sun Lion said:
Hi Everyone,



Just reading today's paper and there is a double-page spread - "Dressing a Duchess" - where various Australian designers have been quoted regarding their designs, and Catherine's upcoming tour.



(The cheapest item is a skirt for $320, with the day dresses starting at $579 and going up to $990.)



I don't think Catherine will actually wear any Australian designed clothes - what if an Aussie lass turned up to a function in the same outfit.



Cheers, Sun Lion.
Click to expand...


Did she wear Canadian designed clothes when she came to Canada? I can't remember who the designers were, but I do remember how at least one outfit was chosen specifically to honour Canada (with the maple leaf hat).
 
Ish said:
Did she wear Canadian designed clothes when she came to Canada? I can't remember who the designers were, but I do remember how at least one outfit was chosen specifically to honour Canada (with the maple leaf hat).
Click to expand...



I thought she looked fantastic on the Canadian Royal Tour Ish.

That's why I don't want Australia to get the "casual" version as some sort of fitting in with our informal reputation.

I think we're "informal" in our manner, but not necessarily in our appearance - if there is something special to attend.

(Sorry, don't know who the designers of her Canadian outfits were, but they were on the money with what they provided.)

Cheers, Sun Lion.
 
MichelleQ2 said:
What will the weather be in Aus/NZ be in April? I would expect kate to be happy to be able to fit back into her pre- pregnancy wardrobe. She was unable to wear her spring summer wardrobe from the Asia tour last year being pregnant. However I believe she gets a clothing allowance for the tours which she seems to use to supplement her wardrobe so we should get some great new additions.
Click to expand...


Hi MichelleQ2,

As Australia is a continent as well as a country, the climate will vary quite a bit if the tour covers a lot of territory.

Sydney will be mild to warm, and probably dry.

(A lot of Australia is now officially in drought again and we are still having bushfires in various states with people being told - even today in some places - that they've left it too late to evacute their homes, and to get indoors and as safe as possible.)

The Mayor of Ipswich has been on TV and thinks the Royal Couple may visit there, as Prince William toured following the natural disasters a few years ago.

In any case I'm sure they will go to Queensland, and so it will be warm compared to Victoria and Tasmania - not to mention New Zealand which sits quite a bit further south again.

If W an C get to what is known as Far North Queensland - they really only have two seasons.

"Wet" when its warm, and "Dry" when it is cooler.

April will be more dry/cool than not, but maybe Catherine will have to still battle hair-frizzing humidity as per her visit to the South Pacific Islands.

Autumn in Tasmania is usually lovely with still - that is not windy - days and sunshine, though it gets cold in the shade and at night.

Western Australia will be warm, though I don't think they have the humidity of Queensland, more a strong, dry heat than a clammy, cloying one.

Canberra is quite inland and has very hot summers and very cold winters as there is no moderation from coastal influences, but it is a very pretty place in Autumn due to all the European trees planted there.

I think it was a smart time of year to pick for a Royal Tour - nothing too extreme. Certainly better than coming in Summer.

Cheers, Sun Lion.
 
She wore Erdem who is Canadian on the Canadian tour. Also that purple dress on the se Asia tour was Prabal Gurung who was born in Singapore.
 
HRHHermione said:
On the contrary, I'll be shocked if she DOESN'T wear Aussie designers on this tour. She'll be trying to honor her host country.
Click to expand...



Hi HRHHermione,

I realised Catherine could always either have an Aussie designer do her something bespoke - or offer her some pieces from a forth-coming collection not yet available to the general public.

It would help our designers out if she wore something Australian, as quite a few have shut up shop lately.

Even Collette Dinnigan has stopped, (she says for family reasons), but I think the arrival of "Mango", "H & M", "Zara", "Top Shop" etc here for the first time, has had an effect on the local market

Cheers, Sun Lion.
 
Last edited:
I don't think she really went out of her way to wear Canadian designers while in Canada. Looking through the photos it seems like she mostly went with her favourite designers, but did pay tribute to what was going on around her. So she wore the Maple Leaf broach once or twice, and on Canada Day she dressed up in the colours of the flag with a maple leaf hat.

For the most part the pair don't seem to have ever gone too casual. When they were at ceremonies or receptions they were either dressed up or business casual, but they seemed to have toned things down a bit more when they were more on walksabouts - still dresses nice, but also more comfortably. The only "casual" appearance seems to have been when they dressed like cowboys for the rodeo, which was event appropriate.

I would expect similar for the Audtralian tour. Formal to business casual for most stuff, but a bit more relaxed for the walkabout tours.
 
They were casual in Canada when they were doing outdoor activities also- PEI with the dragon boats and in the NW territory with the rangers.

The trip itinerary should be coming out in a couple of weeks.
 
Harsh Criticism of Catherine In Today's Sydney Newspaper.

Poor Catherine -

The Duchess is strongly criticised by one of Sydney's most popular newspaper's regular columnists today.

In an article about "a recent study", (also reported on by the television news yesterday), regarding women apparently wanting to marry a financially successful man - rather than earn it themselves - half the report is a very strong personal put-down of the Duchess.

Again referred to as "Kate Middleton" and even just "Middleton", which I've never seen before.

Only three items, and no ads etc., on the whole page and most of it devoted to this story.

"Not consigned to history, the term "gold-digger" endures" is a heading, along with "Marrying a meal ticket etc.,".

Lines such as "fritter her entire twenties away", "a woman universally acclaimed for her stellar achievements in life" - the achievement being to marry a prince - "things are bad when the Queen has made it known you should probably be seen to work a little harder" and so on.

We're being warned about the "fawning commentary aplenty" when the Royal Tour get under way.

I wonder how much of this there will be in the coming two months.

(Columnist is an attractive, successful, young woman in case you thought otherwise.)

Sun Lion.

P.S. Did any Oz posters see the Channel 9 TV report this morning about the "Royal Snub" - I only caught the preview shown over footage of W and C?

I'm guessing it's about Victoria being left off the Royal Tour itinerary.
 
:previous: Is there a link so that we can read the article, or is in print only?
 
Ah the feminazis strike...other women only can choose when their choice is aligned with their beliefs.


LaRae
 
Sun Lion said:
Poor Catherine -

The Duchess is strongly criticised by one of Sydney's most popular newspaper's regular columnists today.

In an article about "a recent study", (also reported on by the television news yesterday), regarding women apparently wanting to marry a financially successful man - rather than earn it themselves - half the report is a very strong personal put-down of the Duchess.

Again referred to as "Kate Middleton" and even just "Middleton", which I've never seen before.

Only three items, and no ads etc., on the whole page and most of it devoted to this story.

"Not consigned to history, the term "gold-digger" endures" is a heading, along with "Marrying a meal ticket etc.,".

Lines such as "fritter her entire twenties away", "a woman universally acclaimed for her stellar achievements in life" - the achievement being to marry a prince - "things are bad when the Queen has made it known you should probably be seen to work a little harder" and so on.

We're being warned about the "fawning commentary aplenty" when the Royal Tour get under way.

I wonder how much of this there will be in the coming two months.

(Columnist is an attractive, successful, young woman in case you thought otherwise.)

Sun Lion.

P.S. Did any Oz posters see the Channel 9 TV report this morning about the "Royal Snub" - I only caught the preview shown over footage of W and C?

I'm guessing it's about Victoria being left off the Royal Tour itinerary.
Click to expand...


I am always disappointed when women are criticised for making choices in their lives. That is what women fought for IMO - the freedom to make choices. Be a doctor, be a secretary, a teacher, a housewife, a stay-at-home mother. This article is incredibly arrogant, seemly dictating what Catherine should have done with her life.

Her choices don't coincide with mine, but I respect her right to make them.

By the way..........
The journalist in the UK who wrote all the stuff about the Queen and Catherine is also the one who said that this tour would be formal, with tiara's and gowns.

Journalists always "believe" what other journalists write, otherwise their own credibility could be questioned. That's why we should never believe what any of them say until we hear it from the palace.
 
cinrit said:
:previous: Is there a link so that we can read the article, or is in print only?
Click to expand...


Hi cinrit,

Yes, I've just seen your post and fished the paper out of the rubbish :lol:.

The columnist has her email, twitter and web addresses under her photo and banner.

Try www.sarrahlemarquand.com.au

The article is there, starting with "Girls, girls, girls. Has it really come to this?"

Format may not be the same as in today's paper - a large wedding photo is in the article with Catherine looking like the cat who got the cream. (I didn't go into the internet article completely to check.)

Cheers, Sun Lion.
 
Last edited:
cepe said:
I am always disappointed when women are criticised for making choices in their lives. That is what women fought for IMO - the freedom to make choices. Be a doctor, be a secretary, a teacher, a housewife, a stay-at-home mother. This article is incredibly arrogant, seemly dictating what Catherine should have done with her life.

Her choices don't coincide with mine, but I respect her right to make them.

By the way..........
The journalist in the UK who wrote all the stuff about the Queen and Catherine is also the one who said that this tour would be formal, with tiara's and gowns.

Journalists always "believe" what other journalists write, otherwise their own credibility could be questioned. That's why we should never believe what any of them say until we hear it from the palace.
Click to expand...



I'm the generation cepe who were bought up to regard their elders as their betters - at least in terms of the wisdom gained from actual life experience.

Then I started to notice all these younger women thought I should have the benefit of their mind's thoughts as well - about how I should conduct myself and what choices I should make!

Very tiring having the expectations, and un-asked for advice, of people who's mothers have just stopped telling them to clean their rooms etc., about every aspect of my day.

Isn't there a formula - "The less you know, the more you're sure of it."

Poor Duchess though - dammed if she does, dammed if she doesn't.

You have to get to "dammed if I care".

Sun Lion.
 
If Kate just really wanted to marry a rich guy, why pick William and all the scrutiny that comes with him. There were plenty of rich guys in Marlborough and St Andrews. Pippa could of set her up with her college roomie George Percy.

You never see males being as petty towards men as women are with other women.
 
Sun Lion said:
In an article about "a recent study", (also reported on by the television news yesterday), regarding women apparently wanting to marry a financially successful man - rather than earn it themselves - half the report is a very strong personal put-down of the Duchess.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the "recent study" asked men if they wanted to marry a financially successful woman - rather than earn it themselves. I know my husband wishes I was financially successful.
 
US Royal Watcher said:
I wonder if the "recent study" asked men if they wanted to marry a financially successful woman - rather than earn it themselves. I know my husband wishes I was financially successful.
Click to expand...

My father-in-law wishes I were wealthy, because his son's income doesn't allow him to pay rent independently. Now, who's a gold-digger? My husband doesn't care if I have money, but we still have tensions about certain aspects of money-related things. Sadly, we've not even been married a month. I think that men, as well as women can only look at the size of someone's bank account when choosing a life partner. Personally, I believe that you cannot help whom you fall in love with, so if you happen to fall in love with a prince, like Catherine has, then that's fine. She made a choice, and we're all free to make choices. The most important thing is, being able to live with the consequences, and Catherine is doing just fine.
 
TLLK said:
Good question cinrit.
Click to expand...


Hi TLLK,

You must have missed my post on the previous page.

Yes, the article is also on the internet if you're interested.

Cheers, Sun Lion.
 
LadyCatharine said:
What a nasty jealous article
Click to expand...


What I found offensive LadyCatharine, was the Duchess being referred to as "Middleton" - not even "Kate Middleton" - and more than once.

Not called for, regardless of anything else.

And I think the columnist was making a mistake in trying to cast Catherine as role-model to young Australian women.

CP Mary of Denmark probably fills the royal role-model position here, and now young women have moved on from Paris Hilton and the Kadashian girls, they are probably looking up to Katy Perry and such.

I also think the poor Duchess was dragged into it all because she and Prince William were all over the news yesterday with the release of the Tour itinerary.

The large wedding photo in the article in the newspaper drew my eye, and probably many others. Without it, the column might not have got much attention.

Sun Lion.
 
royalistbert said:
Would she be brave enough to say it to her face? :whistling:
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be suprised royalistbert - if she ever got the chance to be face to face with the Duchess - that she would be telling all her girlfriends and family about the thrill of it. :lol:

Cheers, Sun Lion.
 
What I found offensive LadyCatharine, was the Duchess being referred to as "Middleton" - not even "Kate Middleton" - and more than once.
Click to expand...

While the author did take some digs at the Duchess of Cambridge, referring to her as "Middleton" instead of "Kate Middleton" wasn't likely supposed to be offensive. Granted, it's silly (and misinformed) to refer to her by her maiden name almost three years after her wedding, but if she were still going by "Kate Middleton," using her last name in the context of an article wouldn't be offensive. In fact, it would be clunky to keep writing "Kate Middleton." It's common in journalism. For example, an article about the Prime Minister would likely identify him by name initially and by surname thereafter.
 
Sun Lion said:
Hi cinrit,

Yes, I've just seen your post and fished the paper out of the rubbish :lol:.

The columnist has her email, twitter and web addresses under her photo and banner.

Try www.sarrahlemarquand.com.au

The article is there, starting with "Girls, girls, girls. Has it really come to this?"

Format may not be the same as in today's paper - a large wedding photo is in the article with Catherine looking like the cat who got the cream. (I didn't go into the internet article completely to check.)

Cheers, Sun Lion.
Click to expand...
Thank you Sun Lion.
 
Sun Lion said:
Try No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au
The article is there, starting with "Girls, girls, girls. Has it really come to this?"
Click to expand...

Thanks, Sun Lion. I must say, it's quite a snarky article. I wish I could read minds as well as this journalist seems to be able to. The article is just as insulting to William as it is to Kate, since it insinuates the only reason Kate married him is because of who he is, not because she loves him.

Broadway Duchess said:
While the author did take some digs at the Duchess of Cambridge, referring to her as "Middleton" instead of "Kate Middleton" wasn't likely supposed to be offensive. Granted, it's silly (and misinformed) to refer to her by her maiden name almost three years after her wedding, but if she were still going by "Kate Middleton," using her last name in the context of an article wouldn't be offensive. In fact, it would be clunky to keep writing "Kate Middleton." It's common in journalism. For example, an article about the Prime Minister would likely identify him by name initially and by surname thereafter.
Click to expand...

Best would be if Kate had been referred to by her correct title, The Duchess of Cambridge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom