PDA

View Full Version : What Tiara Will Katherine Middleton Wear For The Royal Wedding?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

emason
04-20-2011, 05:05 PM
The most important question: How quickly will Kleinfeld's have a knockoff available?

Jenny
04-20-2011, 05:06 PM
I'm not believing much of this article from the Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1377849/Royal-Wedding-Kate-Middleton-designs-dress.html

PDilemma
04-20-2011, 05:13 PM
But the sleeves were all massive :)



True. But that was just the 80s/early 90s in general. After all, the women on Dynasty weren't getting married every week in those shoulder pads. :lol:

And it complemented the massive bangs!

Aceon6
04-20-2011, 05:17 PM
And all the weddings I have attended in the last five years have not only been the strapless but also the ball gown cut. And every bride thinks that hers is original because it has the beading in a slightly different pattern or something. It's not. It looks like all the rest. It's time for something new and the bridal salons can deal with it. And I think there is the possibility that if Kate brings back sleeves, we'll see some variety. It might occur to a December bride that she is not obligated to freeze and hers could be long. And sleeves make for more variety in necklines as well.

In 2006, my poor niece had to go to nearly a dozen stores in both Boston and NYC to find a simple column dress that wasn't strapless. The one she chose was lovely, but it was a royal pain to find it.

Jenny
04-20-2011, 05:24 PM
Here's another report that makes no sense to me - apparently Kate is staying in a hotel the night before? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/kate-middleton-to-stay-in-luxury-hotel-ahead-of-wedding/article1988344/

This is the hotel - http://www.thegoring.com/home.aspx

With all the palaces and private residences available to them, why would Kate stay in a hotel? Unless the entire hotel (71 rooms, plus a bunch of restaurants) has been booked out, isn't that a massive security nightmare, not to mention the risk of leaks of any number of details about her dress etc? Tell alls by staff members and other guests?

The hotel manager is quoted, but might only be referring to the fact that her family is staying there. Even there, I would think he would not be allowed to confirm that any member of her family is there - security risk, plus it's just a no-no among high end hotels to talk about guests. Maybe this is all a big decoy.

I think I'm going to stop reading media coverage.

cygnus
04-20-2011, 05:30 PM
Here's another report that makes no sense to me - apparently Kate is staying in a hotel the night before? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/kate-middleton-to-stay-in-luxury-hotel-ahead-of-wedding/article1988344/

This is the hotel - http://www.thegoring.com/home.aspx

With all the palaces and private residences available to them, why would Kate stay in a hotel? Unless the entire hotel (71 rooms, plus a bunch of restaurants) has been booked out, isn't that a massive security nightmare, not to mention the risk of leaks of any number of details about her dress etc? Tell alls by staff members and other guests?

The hotel manager is quoted, but might only be referring to the fact that her family is staying there. Even there, I would think he would not be allowed to confirm that any member of her family is there - security risk, plus it's just a no-no among high end hotels to talk about guests. Maybe this is all a big decoy.

I think I'm going to stop reading media coverage.

I believe that the story is correct- that the family has booked the entire hotel for the duration of the wedding. It's not that large a hotel, and I imagine that the family got a huge discount- imagine the publicity the place will get (and it already has a good reputation). But the Middletons can certainly afford it.

I imagine that it would be easy enough to fill the place with family and friends, and have their own party away from the royal circus. Security will be present I imagine.

Apparently they were offered a suite in a palace, but turned it down.

PDilemma
04-20-2011, 05:31 PM
The hotel manager is quoted, but might only be referring to the fact that her family is staying there. Even there, I would think he would not be allowed to confirm that any member of her family is there - security risk, plus it's just a no-no among high end hotels to talk about guests. Maybe this is all a big decoy.

I think I'm going to stop reading media coverage.

ABC News had this as coming from the Palace and indicates that the transportation schedule released has them all being picked up at the Goring.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Royal_Wedding/kate-middleton-prince-williams-royal-wedding-day-schedule/story?id=13385903

I assume that since her family will be staying there, she has chosen to spend that night with them. That makes sense.

It is a nice change from 30 years ago that Kate is not being sequestered by the Queen et al the way Diana was.

Jenny
04-20-2011, 05:36 PM
Still bizarre to me. If they booked the whole hotel, even at a discount, the extravagance would seem to go against the messaging that is being put out there about Kate's and William's tastes. There's still the security issues too - if it's not a venue they've worked before, the security people have a lot to cover in preparation and on the day of. The hotel would still have to be staffed to a point, people coming and going, suppliers, etc.

For the hotel itself, it's an enormous loss of income in exchange for being able to say "Kate stayed here." Most hotels and restaurants - especially close to the action - are booked the max with no intention of offering discounts to anyone. Friends in the media said they had a helluva time booking hotels for their crews, and that was months ago.

And I'm still floored that the hotel manager would be allowed to, let alone want to, speak about it before the event.

Jenny
04-20-2011, 05:37 PM
ABC News had this as coming from the Palace and indicates that the transportation schedule released has them all being picked up at the Goring.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Royal_Wedding/kate-middleton-prince-williams-royal-wedding-day-schedule/story?id=13385903


Well then I guess it's so!

Skittl1321
04-20-2011, 05:43 PM
Still bizarre to me. If they booked the whole hotel, even at a discount, the extravagance would seem to go against the messaging that is being put out there about Kate's and William's tastes.

The "simplicity" is a lot about appearances, IMO. I know it's what they prefer, but they are also thinking A LOT about their image, and not coming off as "too royal".

It's more common to stay in a hotel than in the palace. Not to mention, Kate is going about a major life transformation, so maybe she thinks a night in a hotel would be one last night of normalcy with her family? I know I wanted to stay at my parent's house the night before my wedding, instead of a hotel, and because of that I slept on a couch. I didn't have a room in my parent's house anymore (I lived in another state.)

emason
04-20-2011, 05:43 PM
The location of the hotel seems to be about as close to Buckingham Palace as one can get, so I imagine that helps with the security issues.

Gazpacho
04-20-2011, 05:47 PM
Still bizarre to me. If they booked the whole hotel, even at a discount, the extravagance would seem to go against the messaging that is being put out there about Kate's and William's tastes."Simple" is relative. Sending your kids to expensive boarding schools and buying her designer clothes (I assume they paid for them before she could get them for free) are extravagant by common standards, but the Middleton's never claimed to be simple by common standards.

William and Kate are also only "simple" by royal standards. They skied regularly at Kloster's and got engaged in an exclusive hideaway in Kenya that he used a helicopter to get to.

But simple by royal standards is still something. It might seem easy for us to live a much simpler life than they do, but when it's readily available, it's hard to turn down.


For the hotel itself, it's an enormous loss of income in exchange for being able to say "Kate stayed here." Most hotels and restaurants - especially close to the action - are booked the max with no intention of offering discounts to anyone. Friends in the media said they had a helluva time booking hotels for their crews, and that was months ago.
Are you kidding me? Free publicity like that is worth hundreds of times more in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if they offered it for free, as long as they didn't have to pay for the extra security.

Jenny
04-20-2011, 06:00 PM
"Simple" is relative. Attending an expensive boarding school and wearing designer clothes are extravagant by common standards, but they're not claiming to be simple by common standards, only by royal standards.

Even for those who attend boarding school and wear designer clothes, booking out a 71 room hotel is a big deal.


Are you kidding me? Free publicity like that is worth hundreds of times more in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if they offered it for free, as long as they didn't have to pay for the extra security.

No, I'm not kidding. Gambling a rare opportunity to maximize room rates and additional revenues against the potential for benefits down the road is a decision that a lot of businesses would not be able to justify - especially in an industry that has been hard hit over the past decade.

Gazpacho
04-20-2011, 06:21 PM
No, I'm not kidding. Gambling a rare opportunity to maximize room rates and additional revenues against the potential for benefits down the road is a decision that a lot of businesses would not be able to justify - especially in an industry that has been hard hit over the past decade.That's not how it works. The additional revenue a 71-person hotel can generate isn't that much. So maybe they double their rates, maybe triple them.

Let's say they would have tripled their rates, and they gave the hotel to the Middletons for free, which they may not have done. That's 223 rooms worth of lost revenue. Even if they don't change their regular current rates after the event (unlikely), they only need to fill one more room a night for 223 days anytime in the future to recoup it.

Free-for-publicity doesn't always pay off, but I don't see how this can be bad for the hotel as long as they don't have to pay for security.

Aceon6
04-20-2011, 06:35 PM
That's not how it works. The additional revenue a 71-person hotel can generate isn't that much. So maybe they double their rates, maybe triple them.

Let's say they would have tripled their rates, and they gave the hotel to the Middletons for free, which they may not have done. That's 223 rooms worth of lost revenue. Even if they don't change their regular current rates after the event (unlikely), they only need to fill one more room a night for 223 days anytime in the future to recoup it.

Free-for-publicity doesn't always pay off, but I don't see how this can be bad for the hotel as long as they don't have to pay for security.

I think it's a business trade-off... a hotel fully occupied by the general public means a fully staffed desk, concierge, etc., as well as having to pay for their own security. A hotel booked by a single entity requires far less back office support and will be secured by TRF. I'd pick the latter.

For me, it's not a big deal and not that unusual. Our family booked a small resort in upstate New York for a wedding. We got a discount, and the guests didn't have to scramble to find a place to stay.