There is a new article in the Daily Mail about Kate and her Oz tour wardrobe, and my if it isn’t hilarious. It’s hilarious in how interesting and telling it is. It references Diana—a lot—and talks about Kate’s wardrobe and stylists and all that, and is very telling I think. Hm… how best to do this… I think I’ll bullet point quotes, then give my thoughts on the quote, and then summarize after.
- The article starts by talking about Diana’s first trip to Oz and the green emerald choker she wore on her head, and how she captured Oz’s heart on that trip. And clearly the palace is hoping Kate will do the same!
- “[Packing royal jewels for the Oz trip] is part of a subtle but significant regal makeover supported by the Queen.” — Because flashing her ass needs to stop, and the palace has finally figured that out and told Kate to shape up. And it’s by order of the Queen, guys, so when she proudly flashes that tiara it’s not because she’s so ecstatic that she finally has her hands on the good jewels it’s because the Queen is forcing it on her.
- “The Duchess will deploy a couture wardrobe of day dresses with lower hemlines than she has previously favoured.” — Finally the palace has stepped in to put an end to her ass flashing—it’s not like she’s done it six times or anything.
- “[Angela Kelly—the Queen’s personal dresser—selecting statement jewels from the Queen’s personal collection] forms part of a deliberate move to shift the Duchess’s image from High Street to high end, timeless Royal elegance – without losing her freshness and informality.” — Well, she doesn’t act like a Duchess but I guess they can try to dress her up as one to see if that makes a difference. It won’t. It’s not about what one wears, but how one carries oneself and Kate does not carry herself as a Duchess. She does not have that regal air, no matter what she wears. Some people make anything they wear look like a million bucks, and some people make high-end couture look like cheap tat.
- “[T]his trip will be about Kate appearing more Royal than ever – you can expect to see a lot more tiaras… [H]er clothes need to convey her status as the wife of one heir to the throne and the mother of another.” — This. The palace is going to use this trip, along with a royal makeover, to sell Kate as an actual royal to the public, because she hasn’t shown herself to be one yet and the sycophancy for her is waning. Kate just doesn’t have the magnetism that Diana had, no matter how much the royals/press wanted that. Kate is a joke with her ass flashing and naked pictures, so they need to do something to make her appear like a proper royal, and they are hoping a nice long PR-filled trip to Oz with the baby and tiaras will make that happen.
- “Meanwhile, the frilled, girlish frocks she likes have been outlawed in case they detract from the newly grown-up image she needs to project and also to prevent any wardrobe malfunctions.” — FINALLY!
- “Ms Cook Tucker [Kate’s personal hairdresser] has recently undergone training in the art of attaching a tiara.” — So don’t be shocked when she flashes that tiara, y’all.
- “‘It takes weeks of research and Kate is going to need quality couture for the trip… She really needs a full-time member of staff to help with her wardrobe.’” — So don’t be shocked when she spends a crap ton of money on clothes and assistants during this tour.
- “But in a country which last September voted into power a conservative government on a ‘family values’ ticket, her most winning accessory is likely to be baby George.” — Which is why they will totally be bringing George along… not so they don’t have to leave their baby behind, but because they want the PR photo op—and the comparison to Diana—to make them look good.
- “If the palace strategy succeeds – and Kate can combine maternal warmth with a sense of majesty – she may even eclipse Diana and silence Republican sentiment well into the next decade.” — This. They really want to push Kate as a royal who captures the hearts of millions, but like I said, she just doesn’t have that quality and no amount of couture and diamonds will change that. Also, they most definitely want to secure Oz and NZ as commonwealth countries that will hopefully not leave once the Queen dies (I doubt they would leave while the Queen lives, but once Charles is King they may—probably—bolt, and this PR trip is to help prevent that from happening).
Overall, what I’m getting from this is that the palace has finally had enough of Kate’s ridiculous wardrobe malfunctions and is putting it’s foot down because this trip is very important to them. They want to catapult Kate into superstardom the way Diana’s first trip to Oz catapulted her, and Kate needs diamonds to make that happen. She doesn’t actually need diamonds, but the palace thinks that if they can blind the public with diamonds they may forget how lackluster Kate is. But more importantly than anything, they want to make an impression on Australia and New Zealand to quell the Republic tide and prevent them from leaving the Commonwealth.
Now, this may all be suspect because it’s a Daily Mail article about things that may not even come to pass, but if Kate does step out in royal jewelry and couture with appropriate hems and nice happy-family-PR photo ops, then I tend to believe in everything I’ve said. Also, Katie Nicholl wrote the article (which I realized only after I read and wrote about it). Katie Nicholl, the woman who has had the inside scoop on the Middletons for years. So… I guess that explains the Diana comparison. You know, I’m not actually sure the palace wants another Diana. Prince Charles reportedly hated the fact that Diana got more attention than he did. The royals don’t want a non-blood royal to eclipse the blood royals, you know. So maybe that whole “catapult Kate into superstardom just like Diana” thing is pure Middleton/Katie Nicholl crap, but I do think the palace wants to make Kate look better (if only to make themselves look better) and to garner some love for the Cambridges since their stock has fallen so much. And the “quell the Republic tide in Oz and NZ” things stands, no matter who wrote this article.