Charlene Wittstock's Fashion and Style Part 2: March 2010 - April 2011

[Jaya]

Brooke Astor once said I would never be caught dead in one thing and that is a dress of any sort with a slit up the side. I disapprove of the gown as it is too threadbare to make the lady wearing it credible as the lady accompanying a Head Of State.

[Boris]

Unfortunately, the dress size here is not quite the correct one for Miss Wittstock. The gown is far too tight and too short, giving the impression of her being wrapped tightly in a satin sheet.
The exaggerated form-giving foundation garment she once again chose to wear up front does not help matters - it looks completely unnatural.
In some pics, her appearance is a bit of a joke:
http://www.ppe-agency.com/preview.ph...rch=27-03-2010 Monaco

[LadyS]

After searching on the web, I think the dress is from the Armani Prive Spring 2007 Couture Collection. I assume the dress has been altered for Charlene as the version on the runway looked more floaty but had similar embellishments. I preferred the rumway version personally and think it would have suited Charlene better.

I looked on Style.com: the online home of Vogue; Fashion, Fashion Shows, Shopping & More.

[Jaya]

Originally Posted by LadyS

After searching on the web, I think the dress is from the Armani Prive Spring 2007 Couture Collection. I assume the dress has been altered for Charlene as the version on the runway looked more floaty but had similar embellishments. I preferred the rumway version personally and think it would have suited Charlene better.

I looked on Style.com: the online home of Vogue; Fashion, Fashion Shows, Shopping & More.

The Dress from the Armani 2007 collection is in organza whereas this one is in satin.

[Opal]

I'm not finding her dress on this website.

[agami.pearl]

it could be this one armani prive s/s 2007

[Opal]

Yes, that looks like it. Thanks.

[Jaya]

Originally Posted by Opal

Yes, that looks like it. Thanks.

It appears like it but it is not in my estimation the actual dress but a copy because it is in satin as sported by CW without the back panel flying behind and what is shown here is organza.

[Opal]

Oh I know it's not the actual dress and just a similar copy. I like this dress. The only thing I would've preferred is that the side slit not be so high up.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Boris

Unfortunately, the dress size here is not quite the correct one for Miss Wittstock. The gown is far too tight and too short, giving the impression of her being wrapped tightly in a satin sheet. The exaggerated form-giving foundation garment she once again chose to wear up front does not help matters - it looks completely unnatural.In some pics, her appearance is a bit of a joke:
[DNF] Fotoarchief Denieuwsfoto Monaco

Yes, Miss Wittstock's hair wore slicked down, her gown style and its fabric and her foundation emphasis her muscular arms and upper torso out of proportion. Then, the gowns tightness in the hip area and the slit made her look more unflattering . This upper figure problem needs to be less emphasis at future events, but the color of the gown and her accessories did help somewhat.

[Sereta]

Originally Posted by Jaya

Having known a couple of individuals who.knew Matisse I know he would have diasappproved of CW's dress only because she looked like the top of a chocolate box painting[too delicate] and that is not what the theme of the Ball was.

I agree her dress didn't fit the theme (Morocco) of the ball, but then neither did Charlotte's dress which looked more Grecian to me.

[Sereta]

The dress is pretty. She should've worn different shoes. Something to match the dress.

[Sereta]

I think the dress looked better on Charlene than the runway model, although I agree the slit was a bit too high.
Doesn't Charlene have a contract with Armani? I thought I read at one time that she did.

[Opal]

Charlene Wittstock attended a private view of exhibition 'Grace Kelly: Style Icon' on April 15, 2010 in London, England.
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4

[NoorMeansLight]

What's up with all this 'nudity' in April AND in London? The dress is very pretty - I'd like to see it worn in July or August. I don't like this kind of sandals anyway, so thumbs down to this one.

[Opal]

I like how the dress gathers in the front. It flatters her figure. I think her sandals are nice. Perhaps wearing a shawl of some kind would've protected her from the chilled air and made the outfit more elegant.

[georgiea]

Ms. Wittstock was dressed better for this engagement. I love that she did not show her shoulders, but her dress was not flattering at her waistline again. Her feet are very large and the sandals emphasis that, plus they and are out of season. Would have liked a shawl for this time of year. Charlene did look better than usual. Hope she keeps on improving.

[Sereta]

I thought her outfit was very flattering and fit her well. I like the embellishments in the front. The dress does seem a bit skimpy for this time of year tho.

[Sereta]

It's nice to see Albert/Charlene and Edward/Sophie do an engagement together.
Charlene's dress is pretty. I agree her feet are too big for her sandals.

[dazzling]

Originally Posted by NoorMeansLight

What's up with all this 'nudity' in April AND in London? The dress is very pretty - I'd like to see it worn in July or August. I don't like this kind of sandals anyway, so thumbs down to this one.

Whats she suppose to be dressed for in spring and anyways FYI, such dresses are worn all year round. The color isnt a summer dress.

The dress is pretty so is the hair, styled nicely.