It’s a Sporty Look for Rugby Inclusivity Day

@Jack Bing, sigh.. can't say I disagree--

but with an 'accessory' like Kate's radiant smile, not to mention natural, athletic grace and agility, I can't say she doesn't successfully almost erase their execrable shapelessness--

I can think of a particular style that is EVEN WORSE, though, imho: the dreaded leggings. ugh. an American invention I shudder at and am sorry 'we' introduced to the world. I don't care if the super-model-y-iest supermodel is wearing them- i.e. someone with awesome physical beauty/legs.. just NO. NO. NO.

(I'm speaking of those who wear them with a short top. not a tunic that reaches mid-thigh.)

to everyone who responded!

may I THANK YOU- for each kind response! I was a little nervous about my post (-:

without knowing if anyone will see this, second post, since it’s very late, nearly a month later— I’ll add a few thoughts that have occurred to me, since..

1. I did not mean to be un-gallant! and only mention Catherine as fairytale-like! Queen Camilla was wearing one of the most beautiful dresses? gowns? coronation robes? I’ve ever seen in my life— seriously— and one that Titania herself would be proud to wear.. though possibly in a less substantial fabric.. spun spider silk, perhaps (-:

and shhh.. I actually think, again just my private fancy.. that Camilla’s exquisite dress may have been our peek at Charles’ III, Couturier! ?!

I know the ‘Empire’ style is not new.. but I don’t recall ever seeing a dress look, simultaneously, beautifully appropriate on a lady in her silvered-winter years, and yet awaken true echoes of a young ‘maiden’s’ grace— amazing— no plastic-y effects necessary-- Botox, bottled hair color, surgery, etc (blech).

2. everyone: remember The Coronation Invitations! I know the invitations are completely un-clothes related.. but. they elicited the same split and surprisingly exercised, vociferous opinions! and may have sparked my imagination.. invited me to react to the coronation as I did?! I certainly cannot imagine more Tolkien/fairytale-inspired invitations, unless they were delivered by Treebeard himself (-: I was utterly charmed—

p.s. for both 1. and 2. my ignorant ‘American-ness’ may have played a part: because I did not, could not, have a bias! I have had no previous coronation images in mind or HEART.. so had no investment in loving and keeping old traditions of yesteryear—

3. I still say read the Oscar Wilde tales! especially the two I highlighted— because the magic I am referring to is the NON-American, NON-Disneyfied, non-whitewashed? magic.. - like the ‘real’ Mary Poppins, by England's Mary Travers.. wherein little children can understand birdspeak.. they forget as they grow older-- - like Prokofiev’s gorgeous (ballet) score, Cinderella.. wild and fey and dark, along with the shimmering beauty-- - like the real Grimm tales-- shocking and frightening-- - like Shubert’s ‘Erlkonig’

there is NOTHING childish or twee about ‘real’ magic (! real magic?! what am I saying (-: )

@admin I agree. What a lovely perspective Deliane shared.

@Deliane, another who shares your appreciation of both the traditional and the more contemporary attire. I think and hope they both have (and keep) their place in the world. Your sourcing and poetic musings were no muddle to me.

As someone who was fortunate to work on a small portion of a Dutch royal tour, I'm also guessing there may also have been a practical/ protocol/ rank choice made. If British royals (other than KCIII and QC) had worn jeweled headwear, including the PoW, then the other European etc. crowned heads of state would at least be invited to, expect to wear them as well. But the insurance, security, logistics etc. to travel all those priceless pieces to one London location, for one day would be considerable. As is the physical burden for the wearer during a long day. Even the simplest tiara or coronet is not light. Many of the royals House of Windsor and beyond not young.

We will likely never know the answer, unless a senior courtier spills some tea decades from now. And perhaps it is a combination of homage, practicality, economics, or keeping the focus on the new King and Queen. In the meantime, thank you for sharing those thoughts of yours!

@Deliane,

Hi, and I'm so happy that my comments inspired yours! You wrote:

"I also thought the absence of a tiara on Catherine– but the presence of a hand-made, decorated circlet.. looked a little fairy-like.. (though I’m ready to admit that’s all in my fanciful head!).."

Not at all just in your "fanciful head," what you wrote makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, I mentioned that, had the "tiara" sparkled some, I might not have minded it so much. In terms of how it was constructed, the way the leaves and such looked, that part was well done, but, for me, a tiara (or tiara-like creation) works best with some sparkle to it. What Catherine wore had, for me, such a flat effect. It was very ornate, however, so, why not just wear a tiara? Again, though, it just had no sparkle at all to it, in any photos I saw or video. That actually disappointed me the most.

Deliane, you wrote, of Catherine's non-tiara tiara:

"...maybe a tribute to Tolkien’s Middle Earth.. to Wales, Ireland, Scotland.. all the green, rolling, poets’ lands- to the scepter’d isles that have given the entire world.. The Little Folk- and legends- The Round Table, the Chivalric Code, etc etc.. in other words– Catherine’s UN-tiara tiara.. might have been envisioned as a tiny whisper/presence of magic itself.."

That's so Beautiful!

Deliane, you wrote:

"ok, that’s enough of me being probably-incoherent and a muddle. aaarrgggh!"

You made some great points! For me, though, it's ultimately all about the visual impact, when it comes to a tiara, and so: a flat, non-sparkly one (that was actually designed to sparkle, it had crystals sewn to it, I think), will always disappoint me. It needed some Glittery Magic to it!

That's my take, I know we can't all agree, but, Deliane, you write like a poet!

@Deliane, Such an interesting philosophy and thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. The lack of tiaras at the Coronation was indeed a dividing topic. We all understand that the UK and indeed many places in our world, are going through a cost of living crisis. So it has been suggested that no tiaras was to be sensitive to that. However, those of us who wanted to see tiaras, gave the argument that the tiaras are already owned by the Royal Family and indeed many of them date back to the 19th century. It would be wrong to go out and buy a collection of new tiaras, but since they were already there, why not wear them? Some people discussed the fact that Kate's "non tiara" headpiece would have been bespoke and expensive, thus spending a sum of money, when the tiaras were already in possession and could be worn a zero cost. Also it was said, "If a Coronation is not the right place for tiaras, what could possibly be a more suitable place?"

I agree with the admiration that you have for King Charles vast knowledge and appreciation of music. His taste is excellent.