Royalty Thread #13: Zooming in on our favorite royals

Status
Not open for further replies.
mag

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
canbelto said:
#kategate. She did NOT wear white. She wore a canary yellow dress and hat that in the bright lights SEEMED white but indoors looked yellow.

Look at the photo inside the church.

abcnews.go.com

Duchess Kate steps out at royal wedding, weeks after giving birth

Kate gave birth to her third child, Prince Louis, on April 23.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...

There was a long discussion over at WhatKateWore about the dress Kate wore was pale yellow and new, or a repeat of an off white dress. They determined it was a new pale yellow dress. That was, of course, before Kate turned up at the trouping of the colour in a gorgeous canary yellow outfit with the same wedding hat. My take? The trouping of the colour dress was the one made for the wedding, but being only three weeks post partum, Kate could not get into it. No judgement here at all; the fact that Kate showed up, looked presentable, had her children organized, and all behaved perfectly, is more than enough for me. The dress she wore was made for a Christening so was probably bit bigger.

Now if anyone is suggesting that Meghan would have been the least bit concerned about any of that, well, that is quite the insult to Meghan. Royal wedding dates are complicated by the fact that royal calendars are worked out well in advance. I have no doubt that any reasonable bride would be completely understanding of the difficulty this date presented for Kate. It seems to me the day went off exceedingly well, and all this bs about Kate and Meghan is just the standard headline grabbing exaggerations.

ETA: I really don’t think Meghan fans should be throwing stones about wedding guest attire. Just saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. #eugenieupstaged :biggrinbo
 
aftershocks

aftershocks

Banned Member
Messages
17,317
ballettmaus said:
Or maybe accept advice from a mother who knows what she's talking about. (But since the dresses were fairly long, who says that the length wasn't adjusted?)
Click to expand...

Unless the details are completely and honestly revealed without bias, we won't know. And what difference does it make anyway! :drama: The entire drama is just a distractionary tactic in the first place. That said, Kate can know what she's talking about when it's her wedding. Otherwise butt out, especially if your intentions are gnarly and peeved. Let's just call quits with the notion underlying all the distracting reframing and rehashing of this story that Kate was somehow trying to be of royal sisterly assistance to Meghan. :rolleyes:

That notion is dead-in-the-water in view of all the intentional palace leaks which came out immediately after M&H's successful South Pacific tour. 'Meghan made Kate cry,' was the first nasty and questionable projectile in an ongoing onslaught to try and portray Meghan in a bad light. The claim was denied, then rehashed and reframed, and changed and spun again. Enough already. :blah:

As we know, the above is just one of many nasty leaks to the press meant to make Meghan look bad surrounding her own wedding. A wedding that by the way, certain behind-the-scenes machinations appear to have been designed to thwart or damage. Alas, we may never find out the full truth behind all the negative narratives and machinations against the Sussexes, because as I said earlier, M&H are positive people who are more interested in pushing forward purposefully with their lives rather than engaging in internecine warfare. However, M&H obviously are not conforming to being forced to play quid pro quo games with the media. Nor will they sit by willingly and allow major false tabloid claims to smear them. The pettier 'tights-related' crap is apparently a dime-a-dozen slam, which the Sussexes seemingly ain't allowing themselves to be fazed by or bothered about. M&H are a couple who appear to have more important and fulfilling matters to which they are devoting their time and attention.
 
canbelto

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,541
aftershocks said:
Unless the details are completely and honestly revealed without bias, we won't know. And what difference does it make anyway! :drama: The entire drama is just a distractionary tactic in the first place. That said, Kate can know what she's talking about when it's her wedding. Otherwise butt out, especially if your intentions are gnarly and peeved. Let's just call quits with the notion underlying all the distracting reframing and rehashing of this story that Kate was somehow trying to be of royal sisterly assistance to Meghan. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I think we have our new "slow like Usova" iconic remark. aftershocks, you ARE the new esta!
 
aftershocks

aftershocks

Banned Member
Messages
17,317
mag said:
ETA: I really don’t think Meghan fans should be throwing stones about wedding guest attire. Just saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. #eugenieupstaged :biggrinbo
Click to expand...

:huh: The 'throwing of stones' as you phrase it, was not initiated by so-called 'Meghan fans.' This is the case, no matter how hard tabloids, trolls, haters, and Cambridge apologists attempt to make the royal family's ongoing karmic drama be situated and constantly caricatured as Meghan and her fans being the 'baddies.' :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what the #eugenieupstaged reference is all about. Hopefully, it hasn't got anything to do with the fact that Meghan was pregnant and beginning to show by the time of Eugenie's wedding. Meghan wore a perfectly nice outfit with a matching dress coat intended to help camouflage her small bump. Some observers latched onto what Meghan wore right away to speculate that she might be pregnant. There was really no need to speculate, but that's what a lot of people tend to do in such instances.

It is completely irresponsible for anyone to keep suggesting that M&H should be blamed and targeted for Meghan being pregnant at the time of Eugenie's wedding. Yes, Meghan was pregnant, and many members of the royal family were already aware that Meghan was pregnant. There were no plans to announce to the public that Meghan was pregnant, but KP press office decided to do so on the following day when M&H landed in Australia for the first leg of their South Pacific tour. The whole brouhaha that ensued suggesting Meghan 'upstaged' the aftermath of Eugenie's wedding with a pregnancy announcement is just part of the ongoing negative narrative against Meghan, which is fodder created by the tabloids, sometimes in collaboration with palace insiders.

But 'oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive,' or to instigate and slander. Those who insist upon playing with fire tend to get burned. :watch:
 
Last edited:
mag

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
mag said:
ETA: I really don’t think Meghan fans should be throwing stones about wedding guest attire. Just saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. #eugenieupstaged :biggrinbo
Click to expand...

And just in case anyone gets offended by this, Archie was the size of a raspberry at Eugenie’s wedding. (8 weeks pregnant which means she had actually been pregnant for 6 weeks.) In fact, two weeks later in Australia Meghan was wearing tight waisted clothing so there was clearly no need for the choice of outfit for the wedding. Now I am not hating on Meghan. I am sure she and Harry were over the moon excited and she just didn’t think. My point is that we all make mistakes and blunders and Meghan is no different

www.whattoexpect.com

8 Weeks Pregnant: Baby Development, Symptoms & Signs | Week by Week

www.whattoexpect.com www.whattoexpect.com
 
aftershocks

aftershocks

Banned Member
Messages
17,317
mag said:
In fact, two weeks later in Australia Meghan was wearing tight waisted clothing so there was clearly no need for the choice of outfit for the wedding.
Click to expand...

:drama: :wall:

The announcement that Meghan was pregnant was made by KP just before M&H landed in Australia. Therefore, happily there was no longer any need for Meghan to try and camouflage her small and growing baby bump while on tour. Whereas at Eugenie's wedding there was a need for Meghan to not wear close-fitting clothing. Just because she wore a loose coat over her matching dress underneath didn't mean she was pregnant. There was no way to know until it was actually announced, despite all the speculation. M&H exited their car rapidly and moved quickly into the church in an effort to not 'upstage' Eugenie on her special day. What Meghan wore to Eugenie's wedding was perfectly fine and muted. In fact, Meghan's entire approach to being a royal in her first year-and-a-half was to play it safe sartorially by wearing a lot of muted monochrome basic colors, especially when she attended group-related royal family functions.

The way Meghan pulled out all the stops with effortless effervescent chic and colorful, laid-back glamour in her final engagements as a senior royal in early March 2020, demonstrates that she had initially been bending over backwards to fit in as a royal, by generally dressing in a muted, understated fashion during the months after her wedding. She was trying to meld who she was with her new role. With those senior royal 'dim your light as you're married to the spare' restrictions lifted, Meghan rocked who she is, no-holds-barred during her final U.K. engagements. And the impact was delightful and magical.

mag said:
... if anyone is suggesting that Meghan would have been the least bit concerned about any of that, well, that is quite the insult to Meghan. Royal wedding dates are complicated by the fact that royal calendars are worked out well in advance...
Click to expand...

It's funny that around last June, you were complaining in a royalty thread about Meghan being wrong for scheduling her wedding day so close to Kate's pregnancy due date. I recall pointing out to you that Meghan was not responsible for the scheduling of her wedding date, and that a number of considerations have to be taken under advisement by the staff who are responsible for checking calendars and setting a date, while keeping all family firm advance logistics and contingencies in mind. Likely, the senior members of the family who are most impacted are all consulted, but there's no way M&H were free to pick their own wedding date. As it was, the eventual date of May 19 coincided with an athletic event which Prince William was unable to attend as initially planned. This type of scheduling overlap and having to take into account unexpected occurrences like birth due dates, etc., is par for the course for the royal firm.

So, it looks like you have at the least changed your tune in that regard. :COP:


mag said:
... there was clearly no need for the choice of outfit for the wedding. Now I am not hating on Meghan. I am sure she and Harry were over the moon excited and she just didn’t think. My point is that we all make mistakes and blunders and Meghan is no different...
Click to expand...

:huh: :duh:

mag said:
... I have no doubt that any reasonable bride would be completely understanding of the difficulty this date presented for Kate.
Click to expand...

:p Just as 'any reasonable bride,' such as Eugenie 'would be completely understanding of the difficulty' surrounding Meghan being pregnant and beginning to show by the time of Eugenie's wedding day. Thus, I'm sure Eugenie knows that Meghan wore a perfectly fine, understated outfit to her wedding that was not a wrong choice, nor a 'blunder,' as you strangely claim in your post #66.
 
AxelAnnie

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
14,463
mag said:
There was a long discussion over at WhatKateWore about the dress Kate wore was pale yellow and new, or a repeat of an off white dress. They determined it was a new pale yellow dress. That was, of course, before Kate turned up at the trouping of the colour in a gorgeous canary yellow outfit with the same wedding hat. My take? The trouping of the colour dress was the one made for the wedding, but being only three weeks post partum, Kate could not get into it. No judgement here at all; the fact that Kate showed up, looked presentable, had her children organized, and all behaved perfectly, is more than enough for me. The dress she wore was made for a Christening so was probably bit bigger.

Now if anyone is suggesting that Meghan would have been the least bit concerned about any of that, well, that is quite the insult to Meghan. Royal wedding dates are complicated by the fact that royal calendars are worked out well in advance. I have no doubt that any reasonable bride would be completely understanding of the difficulty this date presented for Kate. It seems to me the day went off exceedingly well, and all this bs about Kate and Meghan is just the standard headline grabbing exaggerations.

ETA: I really don’t think Meghan fans should be throwing stones about wedding guest attire. Just saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. #eugenieupstaged :biggrinbo
Click to expand...
Ummmm. That yellow dress was a bespoke dress. It would have fit her perfectly had she chosen to wear it. I have one word to describe Meghan (and it is a word from a friend of hers) Petulant. It explains so much.
 
MsZem

MsZem

I see the sea
Messages
18,495
ballettmaus said:
^Well, she's queen of the Netherlands, so it seems fitting. :)
Click to expand...
Indeed :)

This year's Princess of Asturias award will be awarded to Spain's frontline healthcare workers in recognition of their work over the past few months:
royalcentral.co.uk

Spanish frontline healthcare workers to receive Princess of Asturias Award this fall

Spanish frontline healthcare workers will receive the Princess of Asturias Award for Concord this year, Casa Real announced on Wednesday. In a statement posted to Twitter, King Felipe, Queen Letizi…
royalcentral.co.uk royalcentral.co.uk
 
aftershocks

aftershocks

Banned Member
Messages
17,317
taf2002 said:
@aftershocks, as I was told when this thread was just posted, it is supposed to be about royals other than M&H. We can read your rehashing books posts about them on the other thread.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me where to post my comments and observations. Are you trying to designate a ghetto for Meghan & Harry commentary?

As has already been mentioned by someone other than me, since M&H are still royals and when incidents occur that involve overlap which is the case with the Tatler brouhaha, there will be overlap in these threads. As I recall, you initially questioned @mag starting a separate thread exclusively to discuss M&H. I questioned it too as many of the posts in royalty threads about M&H have been very negative and based on questionable attacks against them in the British tabloids. There really needs to be an opening of minds and a broader view of everything that's happening among the British royals, and among the other royal families. If all people are interested in is looking down on and picking apart M&H, exalting the Cambridges and other British royals, and generally posting fluff pieces about the royal families of Europe, okay then.

But I will continue to post my comments when I have something to say.

ETA:
Allow me to provide you with a 'rehash' regarding the overlap: I initially posted about the Tatler article in the M&H thread, since M&H were once again being defamed and mischaracterized in articles describing the Cambridges' feelings about the Sussexes 'stepping down', etc. Another poster initiated discussion of the Tatler article in this current general royalty thread, understandably, and then subsequent posters began bringing up here the derogatory references to M&H in the Tatler article. I simply joined in the ensuing conversation about tights, sister-in-law spats, dress lengths, and 'upstaged' wedding myths.
 
Last edited:
aftershocks

aftershocks

Banned Member
Messages
17,317
@overedge and @taf2002, a word to the wise: It's probably more productive for you to try policing and paying more attention to yourselves, your own perceptions and your own inclinations.
 
aftershocks

aftershocks

Banned Member
Messages
17,317

ROYAL EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry’s legal move over ‘cash-for-briefings’ claims at The Sun – The story Murdoch tried to bury – Byline Investigates

www.bylineinvestigates.com www.bylineinvestigates.com

It will be interesting to see whether efforts will continue to be made to sweep this under the rug, or whether Christian Jones will ultimately have to resign from working with W&K at KP. ByLine Investigates point out that they have been threatened, but they are sticking to their reporting.

It has been rumored for months that legal matters were afoot implicating staffers at KP in the leaks against the Sussexes, which have been going on for some time. This is a direct reason for M&H's split from KP household staff, and for the recent shutting down by M&H of all representation by any of the royal firm's palace staff (not to mention the leaks to The Sun that led to the entire uproarious Sussexit brouhaha and Sandringham Summit in January).
 
Last edited:
taf2002

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
28,775
aftershocks said:

ROYAL EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry’s legal move over ‘cash-for-briefings’ claims at The Sun – The story Murdoch tried to bury – Byline Investigates

www.bylineinvestigates.com www.bylineinvestigates.com

It will be interesting to see whether efforts will continue to be made to sweep this under the rug, or whether Christian Jones will ultimately have to resign from working with W&K at KP. ByLine Investigates point out that they have been threatened, but they are sticking to their reporting.

It has been rumored for months that legal matters were afoot implicating staffers at KP in the leaks against the Sussexes, which have been going on for some time. This is a direct reason for M&H's split from KP household staff, and for the recent shutting down by M&H of all representation by any of the royal firm's palace staff (not to mention the leaks to The Sun that led to the entire uproarious Sussexit brouhaha and Sandringham Summit in January).
Click to expand...

@aftershocks, I have no defense other than bitchiness but I was rude to you on my posts above & I'm very sorry. I do apologize.

The above article is shocking but the website looks like a tabloid. Have you ever heard of them before? But I read the story & it sounds very believable. If true it would explain a lot.
 
aftershocks

aftershocks

Banned Member
Messages
17,317
taf2002 said:
The above article is shocking but the website looks like a tabloid.
Click to expand...

Thanks @taf2002. I respect your views which are not always similar to mine. But yes, as I've said, my focus is on hoping all the truth comes out, regardless of who is implicated. We have been seeing a lot of hard truths coming out in the world in recent years. There seems to be a paradigm shift happening. Let's hope it will all be for the good, and that it will benefit all people being able to live better lives, free of abuse and harassment.

ByLineInvestigates has proven to be a well-researched and respectable journalistic enterprise. The reason the main website looks tabloidy is because they are highlighting and featuring pictures from British tabloid newspaper headlines, which have been the focus of their serious investigations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)

Similar threads

MsZem
  • Locked
Royalty thread #15: A New Era
42 43 44
Replies
1K
Views
96K
PRlady
PRlady
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information