Princess Charlene's Fashion and Style Part 10: October 2013 - November 2013 - Page 3

casualfan · #41 10-06-2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Must be something wrong with my eyes. I don't see any problem with the dress with the black herringbone design that Charlene was pictured wearing in that group shot in Russia. The shoulder area is see-through but the rest of the dress has a clever lining which hides anything we aren't supposed to see, unlike the version worn by the model on the catwalk.

Have a look at the whole photo, ladies and gentlemen, and compare Charlene's sleek appearance with the outfit worn by the woman standing next to her! Charlene's host and hostess aren't exactly paragons of sartorial splendour. Charlene looks just fine (though Albert needs to buy some suits in a larger size).

Um, no. You can clearly see her underwear, or what appears to be underwear.

Obviously she didn't do this on purpose but it does bug me that she or someone else could have clearly seen that the runway version was see through (even if it wasn't apparent in person and they had to look at pics).

Still, I feel mortified for her. This isn't really a fun thing to go through, and I'm sure she'll rebound.

melina premiere · #42 10-06-2013, 05:54 PM

As Roslyn, I think many people on these board see things that do not exist. I see any problem with this dress, it is not transparent. there are folds and all is an optical illusion; nothing else.

I remember a photo of Kate in a nightie at the universitat to attract William. and a Photo of princess Diana in the gardenkinder. We saw all . We saw nothing of Charlene.

Elly C · #43 10-06-2013, 06:03 PM

Kate wasn't on an official engagement representing her country in fact she wasn't dating William at the time so I don't think this is a fair comparison . As a fashion choice I guess you could argue its edgy, and she certainly has the figure to wear it. But as a style choice for a Royal on an official visit, it is a misjudgement and I one I am totally at a loss to understand.

Roslyn · #44 10-06-2013, 06:06 PM

A quick google will produce a few images of Charlene wearing dresses which obviously - to me, anyway - have linings when worn by her but which probably - and sometimes very clearly - didn't when first shown on the catwalk. Here is one example with the gown on the catwalk and as worn by Charlene: Princess Charlene of Monaco In Christian Dior - Princess Grace Foundation Annual Gala » Red Carpet Fashion Awards

And here is another one that has a flesh coloured lining: Princess Charlene Shines in Backless String Dress at South Africa Gala Night [PHOTOS]

amaryllus · #45 10-06-2013, 06:11 PM

Many people expect princesses and queens to dress a certain, very conservative way and get bothered by deviation from that norm. On another thread people were fretting because Mary might have actually have had *gasp* a backless gown on. To each his own.

Andolini · #46 10-06-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amaryllus

Many people expect princesses and queens to dress a certain, very conservative way and get bothered by deviation from that norm. On another thread people were fretting because Mary might have actually have had *gasp* a backless gown on. To each his own.

I am hardly gasping, I simply do not like seeing one's black thong. But to each his own. I do not care for the dress, and once again people start sniping at those who do not subscribe to their preferences. The dress, TO ME, was inappropriate. Doesn't make me a prude., it makes me a person sharing my opinion.

AdmirerUS · #47 10-06-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casualfan

Um, no. You can clearly see her underwear, or what appears to be underwear.

Obviously she didn't do this on purpose but it does bug me that she or someone else could have clearly seen that the runway version was see through (even if it wasn't apparent in person and they had to look at pics).

Still, I feel mortified for her. This isn't really a fun thing to go through, and I'm sure she'll rebound.

See, I disagree and we will never know which of us is right. I think the way the herringbone stretched and gathered in places makes it appear you can see naked breast and see through underwear (or no underwear). I think it is an optical illusion caused by the variable stretch and the ATROCIOUS lighting. The photo is tragically over-lit. They all look red and ruddy and even Charlene's legs look like she scrubbed them with steel wool. And we know that's not the case.

Technically, this photo is even worse than the Cambridge baby pictures

Roslyn · #48 10-06-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andolini

I am hardly gasping, I simply do not like seeing one's black thong. But to each his own. I do not care for the dress, and once again people start sniping at those who do not subscribe to their preferences. The dress, TO ME, was inappropriate. Doesn't make me a prude., it makes me a person sharing my opinion.

But you can't see a black thong. It's an optical illusion due to the angle of the fabric. The dress has a lining.

Andolini · #49 10-06-2013, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berber princess

don't you all think you are a bit harsh with her ?

Words can hurt more than a thousand violent hands

I doubt Charlene reads here, and I am not assassinating her character. This is a FASHION THREAD, we comment on fashion. I don't like the dress. That is my right. Period. I like Charlene and this sensitivity about criticizing her clothing is getting old. It's not like I am saying she is a bad person, just a bad dresser this time TO ME.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn

But you can't see a black thong. It's an optical illusion due to the angle of the fabric. The dress has a lining.

This is tedious. Fine, whatever you say. I am wrong. I am tired of this Charlene fashion thread turning into a "you are wrong and I am right" debate about a dress. Good Lord.

agogo · #50 10-06-2013, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melina premiere

As Roslyn, I think many people on these board see things that do not exist. I see any problem with this dress, it is not transparent. there are folds and all is an optical illusion; nothing else.

I remember a photo of Kate in a nightie at the universitat to attract William. and a Photo of princess Diana in the gardenkinder. We saw all . We saw nothing of Charlene.

looking at these dresses, on Charlene and the runway version side by side - there is no optical illusion.

Katie in in a nightie and Diana at the gardenkinder - neither was married to a crown prince yet. Kate was not even dating William at that time and the photographers urged Diana into a position with the sunlight behind her. Diana was tricked into the photo.

Princess Charlene's choice is unfortunate.

Roslyn · #51 10-06-2013, 06:30 PM

It's a shame we don't have more photos from that event. Does anyone know of any?

udyusa · #52 10-06-2013, 06:37 PM

Just to add another dislike of this dress... The sleeves are too short! (A little levity is due here).

**soapstar** · #53 10-06-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melina premiere

As Roslyn, I think many people on these board see things that do not exist. I see any problem with this dress, it is not transparent. there are folds and all is an optical illusion; nothing else.

I remember a photo of Kate in a nightie at the universitat to attract William. and a Photo of princess Diana in the gardenkinder. We saw all . We saw nothing of Charlene.

It's actually not an optical illusion. You can clearly see her black underwear. As for Kate and Diana, you can't compare what they wore during their pre-royal days to what Princess Charlene wore on an official visit.

I imagine Charlene didn't intend to wear a see-through dress and just like the many other royal women that have had fashion mishaps (Letizia, Kate, Mette, Mary, etc.), I'm sure she will be a bit more careful going forward. As someone said above, maybe wearing a slip or something will help when wearing these type of sheer dresses.

AdmirerUS · #54 10-06-2013, 07:08 PM

We obviously need an underwear checker to accompany Charlene to all her events.

Maybe hubby could give her a hand with this.

Roslyn · #55 10-06-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soapstar

It's actually not an optical illusion. You can clearly see her black underwear.

We have clearly divided into two camps on this issue, and we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

We obviously need an underwear checker to accompany Charlene to all her events.

Maybe hubby could give her a hand with this.

I am quite sure hubby already does, and I cannot imagine for one minute that Albert would permit his wife to leave their accommodation to travel to a formal do wearing a see-through dress that revealed her underpants and nipples for all the world to see.

casualfan · #56 10-06-2013, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

See, I disagree and we will never know which of us is right. I think the way the herringbone stretched and gathered in places makes it appear you can see naked breast and see through underwear (or no underwear). I think it is an optical illusion caused by the variable stretch and the ATROCIOUS lighting. The photo is tragically over-lit. They all look red and ruddy and even Charlene's legs look like she scrubbed them with steel wool. And we know that's not the case.

Technically, this photo is even worse than the Cambridge baby pictures

Because we all know the consort of a reigning head of state should absolutely choose a dress that might appear as if her underwear were showing, depending on the angle of the dress's creases.

I was actually relieved (for her) that a breast is not visible, but the fact is the dress is atrocious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn

But you can't see a black thong. It's an optical illusion due to the angle of the fabric. The dress has a lining.

So she chose a dress with an optical illusion that makes it look like your underwear is visible? I'm not sure that explanation is much better!

Roslyn · #57 10-06-2013, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casualfan

So she chose a dress with an optical illusion that makes it look like your underwear is visible? I'm not sure that explanation is much better!

I actually don't think it looks like her underwear is visible at all. There is a bit of a shadow that seems to have been interpreted by some as being the black colouring of a thong, but for all I know she is wearing normal underwear and not a thong. Heck, she might not be wearing any underwear at all!

Compared to what the woman next to her is wearing, I think Charlene looks fabulous.

COUNTESS · #58 10-06-2013, 08:02 PM

The dress is awful. It takes a lot for me to say that, because so many are critical of her, but she is edgy and has sisters-in-law who dress like streetwalkers. The woman next to her looks like a Russian, overweight and overbearing. Sorry. No style. But sometimes no style is better.

Daria_S · #59 10-06-2013, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Another disturbing outfit from Charlene, on Saturday night Albert and Charlene hosted a dinner for many Russian personalities from politics, from business, sports, science.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...88656989_n.jpg
This dress doesn't look elegant at all with the lights of cameras, probably Charlene didn't know how it would look at the flashes. This dress is inappropriate for a dinner with russian ministers.

All I can say is 'HOLY TOLEDO, OHIO

! What on earth was she thinking when she dressed that evening

?

NGalitzine · #60 10-06-2013, 08:22 PM

At the end of the day it was just a dress, love it or hate it that's all it was. No one died. No gunboats were launched. Diplomatic relations were not severed. Trade sanctions were not imposed. It was just a selection of clothing that was apparently not successful. Big deal?!?! The world kept spinning forward.