I've seen other photos of both princesses, taken at the same time as those rather unattractive ones reproduced here, and I thought that they looked quite good; even Eugenie's cornflower blue fingernails which matched the pretty colour of her dress were not out of place.
I'd like to think that we can extend some sort of tolerance to these young women. I don't think that they ever look badly dressed, considering their ages (and golly gosh, couldn't it be a whole lot worse?). Both, I've read, have something of an artistic flair, and I'm quite pleased that they feel confident enough to flaunt their personalities and preferences. The days of expecting our princesses to only wear twin-sets and pearls have passed, surely?
Comparisons with their mother are unkind, too, I think. Sarah suffered unreasonable abuse, in my opinion, because she wasn't a skinny, stick-insect, in build. From photos, she doesn't appear to ever have been abnormally large to me, except after the birth of her children, and I'm sure that many here can sympathise with that. Today, Sarah looks svelte, has obviously worked very hard to rehabilitate herself and to accommodate her daughters, but if we dislike her clothes and presentation, who are we to say that she's wrong and we're right? We can disagree, of course, and criticise, for what it's worth, but condemn outright, I wouldn't have thought.
Like Paris Hilton, I have abnormally large feet, though I'm taller than she. However, if my persona were discussed in terms of my feet alone, I'd be most disgruntled and unhappy. Maybe, then, it's possible to desist from commenting on Beatrice's eyes, which, like my big feet, she was born with and can do precious little to alter. And given that so many females go to considerable trouble to adorn their eyes with paint and other artifices to make them appear larger, I think that Princess Bea is particularly fortunate!
But, as we have seen, we all have different tastes in styles and clothing.
You are far too kind for that!
