Another Engagement for Kate’s Calendar, & Thoughts on “Fashion and Power”

I don't really have much in the way of input on the discussion going on in the comments. But when I was reading about Kate's engagement at Buckingham Palace for the dramatic arts reception and saw the expected guests all I could think was: Kate and Benedict in the same room? I wouldn't know where to look! I'd need a second set of eyes so I can take in what Kate was wearing and watch Benedict at the same time!

I have liked almost all of Kate's fashion choices. Probably the things I have not liked are her wedge shoes, and some of the brown dresses she has worn. Overall, she always looks impeccable, and cannot imagine her in any kind of pantsuit (glad she has stayed away from them so far).

And after reading the post about Megan Mulry's books - I have downloaded and read the first two and am about to download the third! Really enjoying the series, a lot of fun to read. Thanks WKW for the great site, it's always a pleasure to read the tasteful updates and get a look at what is coming up for Kate.

Does Kate demonstrate the power of clothes? She certainly shows the power of celebrity and the speed at which details of her outfits circulate via social media. She generally seems to favour discretion and the role of dutiful royal spouse in her choice of outfits.

I do think a good pair of high heels adds a quick shot of confidence, and Kate certainly takes to those in abundance.

Referring back to the last post, which was a little overwhelmed by choccy-mania, I was interested to see the comments following the Daily Mail article about tiaras and skirt lengths. I’d agree with WKW re tiaras – the Cambridges are upping their game as Charles comes more into the spotlight, which will mean turning on more bling.

As for the skirts – it’s not so much the lengths of the skirts that matters as much as the fact that they keep flying up. And that wouldn’t be a problem if Kate wore some respectable underwear. At the moment, rear-view shots of Kate threaten to be as lurid as any exhibitionist on the Daily Mail’s notorious Sidebar of Shame.

I fear the Duchess is on the brink of becoming a diplomatic liability, something that really would result in pressure being applied. So what interests me in Katie Nicholl’s article is a suggestion that maybe, under cover of having baby on board, Kate might finally accept the one accessory she so sorely lacks – a dresser.

There has to be someone on hand to warn her when she is about to do deja-vu all over again. Both the Queen and Diana have shown evidence of petticoats when the breezes get frisky. Normal women in normal life observe these precautions, so why is a royal Duchess so very slow to latch on?

As an art historian, I've had reason to think rather a lot about the issue of fashion and power. There was a time when rigid class divides and related sumptuary laws meant that the way someone dressed really did represent his or her access to power and ability to wield it. Today that is not the case. Style, once the province only of the wealthy who could afford designer clothing and who therefore proclaimed their wealth via their stylishness, has democratically proliferated, has trickled down to the masses. The average person now has access to it via relatively inexpensive retailers. (I actually once read a lament about that, several years ago. What was the point of dressing well, the writer asked, if everyone could look stylish and you couldn't necessarily tell the difference between a dress that cost $3000 and one that cost $300?)

I think it's interesting that we're seeing royals who are regularly on public display now frequently going out of their way NOT to dress in clothing that announces wealth and power. We're seeing the young women dressing in relatively affordable pieces much of the time, and they are having a greater impact than their elders once had on the way average people dress, both because of the lower cost of what they wear and because the Internet allows information about designers and stores to be disseminated quickly and for rapid ordering. The democratization of style has trickled UP to the onetime halls of wealth and power, not too surprisingly, since royals in this day and age really exercise no power and have to be increasingly careful not to suggest that they do.

By the same token, however, those same young royals are conscious of the need to appear to BE royal every now and then, because what's the point of a monarchy, as the writer I mentioned earlier might ask, if it didn't sometimes put on a great display? And to that end, there are certain types of clothing and accessories that, even now, in the early 21st century, proclaim their "royalness," much as certain types did so back in the 15th or 16th centuries, when the average woman was prohibited from wearing them. I've commented before that dresses worn with matching or near-matching coats are very "princess-y" or "queenly,"; most women don't wear such outfits, at least not often, and they certainly don't wear them with hats and fascinators and pointless little clutch bags that aren't big enough to hold anything. But such outfits instantly announce, "This woman is royalty" to anyone who's paid attention over the years, and the Duchess of Cambridge began to wear them even before she became royalty herself. She was letting the world know that she knew how to present herself as a princess, encouraging people to see her as one via her clothes.

In other words, even royals wear uniforms.

As for the rest of us, we're all conscious of the way such non-uniform uniforms can work in our own lives, how they can influence perceptions of us. However, sometimes our choices can have an unexpected impact. When I was nearing my college graduation, I bought an elegant black Harve Benard suit for job interviews. (I couldn't then dream of anything like Armani.) A few years later, I wore that suit to interview with professors at the universities to which I was applying for graduate study. I thought it made me look smart, highly intellectual and efficient, potentially powerful in a severe sort of way, and it seemed to have worked very well on the job market.

However, I was wearing the black suit in the office of a university department at the moment that the man who would become my husband suddenly walked through the door. We didn't meet that day, but my husband says he took an interest in me at once, partly because of my suit. "I thought," he told me several months later, "that you looked really sexy in it."

Sexy? Yikes. That wasn't the sort of "power" I'd been trying to wield. But then, after 27 years of marriage, who am I to complain?

Already entered on the other post, but just too excited to not comment again! Excited for whoever wins that awesome basket (fingers crossed that it is me)!