Charlene Wittstock's Fashion and Style Part 1: May 2007 - March 2010
 

Beautiful car. Charlene's look could have been more finished in that pic. Especially her hair could be better done(combed). She seems not to be styled for professional photo shot.

it is a lovely car! i dont think Audi would do a promo shoot without professional makeup artist and hairstylists. maybe they were going for the natural look.,

Its a very casual shot. One that works well for the setting I think.

does she not own anything else to wear but halter tops? halter tops for dressy, halter tops for casual. what's odd is they don't become her body type with those wide shoulders and little head, doesn't she look at photos of herself? is it in the job description of official companion, rule #1 halter tops are to be worn whether they look good on you or not.

Hi bbb,
While I agree with everyting you've said they are her trade mark as that is mostly all we have seen her in, so I can see why she posed in them - it's Charlene.

CW's outfit at the fashion show reminds me of the infamous dress Eva Sannum, the Prince of Asturia's ex-girlfriend, wore to the Norwegian CP wedding reception - aesthetically offensive.

I saw the pics and I have to say her outfit really is a bad choice....to put it nicely.....

Fashion show pics
 

I reviewed the pics from the fashion show that Miss Wittstock attended with HSH Prince Albert.The deep purple which photographed as sulfuric blue trademark halter dress [with grommets and laces down the front of the neckline} that Miss Wittsock sported was in a garish shade that does not become anybody's colouring and was unflattering as a result on this occasion.It contrasted nicely however I thought with the Jean Harlow like shade of her hair retouched.The textile of the halter dress if my eyes do not betray me was duchesse satin which shines & is primarily utilized in Las Vegas, theatrical personalities and back in my day we used it for our robes, pajamas and linings of our suits and coats.For Miss Wittsock's theoretical height the length of the skirt was short to create symmetry and exposed what to me and Chanel is part of the anatomy that is optically difficult; the knee ;or kneecaps.Miss Wittsock's knees along with those of all women should be covered whether jutting like promontories or rounder like Betty Grable's.I did not discern a waist in her silhouette which is a critical factor of a beauteous figure.Further, I thought I saw lame[silver] shoes[ with a strap at or above the ankle] and matching beaded handbag which should have been black or any other colour as lame is reserved again for the dancefloors, ballrooms & theater. Once again shoes that tie at or above the ankle are to signify an affinity for ballet[I am hopeful] and dancing and worn inside the lengths of evening gowns. I thought there was a lack of sophistication in the selection of such an ensemble and possibly appropriateness for the occasion and that Miss Wittsock has no apparent aesthetic sensibility of magnitude which touches or inspires me personally, hence no matured aesthetic endurance against time yet in my opinion alone..JMO.

well, alright then ;) .

:flowers:

anybody have any pics of this 'outfit'?

Here is a gallery of pictures from Polfoto, where you can see many pictures of them.
Though I'm not a fan of dress as well, I would say Charlene looks quite nice. :smile:

Avalon...thank you for the pics.

I actually thinks she looks nice. But we all have different perferences.

Maybe not princess material but she is not a princess is she. But then again....Stephanie has worn some questionable items as well and she is a princess.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...2&d=1066424414
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...6&d=1066425018
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...5&d=1121809822

You're welcome Zonk. :flowers:
I actualy find these two pictures of the couple (first picture, second picture) from Abaca Pictures Gallery quite nice.

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 didn't like CW dress either. And I ALWAYS seem to notice her shoulders before anything else...

Well...as I stated its all about personal choice and you certainly don't have to like her dress.

As for your first statement...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. There is no need to answer here...I would hate to throw the thread off track.....I will also pose the question here
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...e-11841-8.html

I rather liked the shoes (dancing or otherwise) but I must say I think she was a little unwise with the dress. A lot of modern dresses are quite revealing, but this did not look too 'classy'.

What little I have seen of Charlene makes me think she is a pleasant girl, but perhaps a little out of her depth (no pun intended) among European royalty. However, I am sure she could learn if given the right guidance. But who is there in Monaco who could (or would want to) take her under their wing and give the advice? If Princess Grace was alive, and she liked her, she would be ideal. But she isn't. And I have a feeling that neither Caroline nor Stephanie would do it. (Of course, I could be quite wrong.)

I just feel that Albert is going to have to take the plunge (sorry, another Freudian slip) soon and find someone to marry. He is getting older, and his girlfriends are still young. That could lead to a generation gap causing problems in the future. He shows no interest in woment nearer his age - although this would limit the chances of him producing an heir.

As one who spends a fortune with a good colorist and who likes the sun and sitting poolside in the summer, I can assure you that Charlene won't be doing any training in the near future. Even with a bathing cap, she could expose her hair to chlorine. The results: green. And I mean a horrible shade of green that takes the most experienced colorists a heck of a lot of time and effort to neutralize. (Not personal experience, but first hand.)

I'm not sure that if I were Charlene I would have gone to a fashion show, knowing I was sitting in the front row looking like that. She was ready for a nightclub...Albert on the other hand looked like he was going to a college interview. Was this a daytime affair? I'm totally confused...

no class, I'm sorry . and that's not an outfit you wear whn you are the guest of a head of state. she looks like a waitress, very las vegas show girl.

Obviously Albert didn't mind her outfit. I think he would have made her change if he had. What about the outfit that the woman on the other side of Albert is wearing?

Well now, perhaps she could have gotten away with wearing something shiny and low cut, or perhaps she could have gotten away with something low cut and not shiny...but shiny, low cut AND (dear God help us) laced loosely down the front to just above the abdomen.

Well, let us hope someone explains how encompassing three such in your face signifiers of "availability" in one outfit is a bit much...especially when your date is wearing kakhis and a navy blazer.

Had they both been dressed for the evening it would not be so jarring.
Albert looks like he's going to an afternoon luncheon with his aunt and picked up Paris Hilton on the way.

No class.
 

No, class, definitly.

Please take a look of her way to look the girl talking with Albert... :rolleyes:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...96_POLFOTO.jpg
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...72_POLFOTO.jpg
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...71_POLFOTO.jpg