Re: Kate may wear

ellaphant · ‎12-13-2010

Let them have their big event...but they should pay for it. Shameful to dump it on taxpayers.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Ladybug724 wrote:
If I were a princess I'd wear my tiara everywhere!!! Are you kidding!?!!! I wouldn't take it off

No, you'd have to have more than one.

A dressy tiara for important formal occasions, and then of course a casual tiara for picnics or running to the store for eggs and milk. Would look good when you wore your jeans and tee shirt.

bikerbabe · ‎03-09-2010

The lack of tiaras was a choice because of the struggles of the British economy.

With regard to cost I heard $125 million but bringing in $445 million in tourism for the event.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@bikerbabe wrote:
The lack of tiaras was a choice because of the struggles of the British economy.

With regard to cost I heard $125 million but bringing in $445 million in tourism for the event.

Well now there are some inconvenient facts that some will certainly ignore.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Isobel Archer wrote:
@bikerbabe wrote:
The lack of tiaras was a choice because of the struggles of the British economy.

With regard to cost I heard $125 million but bringing in $445 million in tourism for the event.
Well now there are some inconvenient facts that some will certainly ignore.

Sorry, but I doubt that "I heard" is a verifiable source.

MorningLover · ‎10-04-2015

HRH the Princess of Wales, the future Queen.

Not only were HRH The Princess of Wales and Princess Charlotte's Coronation headpieces exquisite, they were also created by a Trust-supported entrepreneur!

Jess Collett Milliner, who created The Princess of Wales' and Princess Charlotte's headpieces, founded her business 25 years ago by a grant from The King's Princes Trust.

Founder and President, HM The King, founded The Prince’s Trust in 1976, when he was HRH The Prince of Wales.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@bikerbabe wrote:
The lack of tiaras was a choice because of the struggles of the British economy.

With regard to cost I heard $125 million but bringing in $445 million in tourism for the event.
Well now there are some inconvenient facts that some will certainly ignore.

Sorry, but I doubt that "I heard" is a verifiable source.

"I've read in a few places that Charles expects Kate to "tone down" her outfit so attention isn't taken away from him. What is she supposed to wear ... a burlap bag?

Remember how he used to get upset when Diana got more attention than he did?"

And yet your sources are all absolutely true - right?

I don't know the source for his expecting Kate to "tone down" but the source for his alleged "jealousy" was Diana. Now there's a reliable source for sure - I mean she had no motive other than pure concern that the public be informed when she announced to the press (more than once) that he was jealous of her popularity. And of course if she said that it absolutely must be true.

And again - as I asked you before - if a close family member to you did that (especially if you didn't believe it was deserved and you couldn't publicly defend yourself) just exactly how would you feel?

faeriemoon · ‎03-14-2010

@faeriemoon wrote:
@lil sophie wrote:
or she can just wear gold leaves

As lovely as something as this might be, she would never wear anything other than a family tiara. Whether it be from the royal family collection, or Diana's, it's not going to be a store-bought alternative. Flowers, perhaps but I'd say unlikely.

I suppose the royal women could possibly just be wearing hats. I guess we'll find out Saturday.

Quoting my own post!! Clearly I was wrong!!!

~What a terrible era in which idiots govern the blind.~ William Shakespeare

vermint · ‎04-05-2010

@faeriemoon In your defense, you weren't completely wrong! What Kate wore was called a headpiece, not a tiara...and I think it was custom made, so not "store bought".

What ever Kate's and Charlotte's headwear was called, and wherever it came from, it was definitely beautiful!