Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be disappointed that Kate Middleton has posed for Vogue cover

186 replies

DoesFlossfloss · 01/05/2016 09:16

I'm ambivalent to the Royal Family but like the way Kate has taken a relatively low key approach since marrying William. I think it's a shame she's decided to pose for Vogue. Liz Jones writes:

'But here is my important problem. You only grace the cover of Vogue when you want to become an icon and have your ego massaged. You are joining the fashion elite.

Like Diana, who wanted to be a mother, a Princess, a charity worker, an everywoman, a pin-up, Kate has sold her soul to the devil that is vanity and elitism, and those fashionistas who judge others only by their BMI.

Kate, who up to now has protected her privacy and that of her children ferociously, has opened the floodgates to the sort of forensic scrutiny her late mother-in-law endured'.

To be disappointed that Kate Middleton has posed for Vogue cover
OP posts:
FlowerOfTheWest · 01/05/2016 19:04

Augusta I can honestly say that in all of my 36 years, Albert/George has never come up in conversation. And Maggie Thatcher was married and PM before I was even born so of course I call her the name I've always known her as. I doubt it bothers Kate how the plebs refer to her. And in a family where nicknames have included Phil the Greek, Brenda, Princess Pushy, Squidgy, Randy Andy etc etc I think she's got off pretty lightly if the worst people are doing is calling her by her maiden name or Waity Katie.

Cric · 01/05/2016 19:22

Yes!! She looks like Robin! That was bugging me hownottofuckup!

FrancesNiadova · 01/05/2016 19:30

Diana did Vogue, I loved those photos.
Kate is a, "doors to manual," commoner in a family built on ancient lineage and tradition. Good luck to her & her highly scrutinised marriage. I'd rather have a slimmed down royal family than a presidential republic any day.

HermioneWeasley · 01/05/2016 19:37

I don't understand why she would do it - she doesn't need the exposure

squoosh · 01/05/2016 19:43

It does seem like a bit of a missed opportunity to feature her in some amazing gowns by British designers, no?

I agree. You're on the cover of Vogue woman, get yourself gussied up and leave the suburban mum outfits for the Good Housekeeping gig.

Honestly.

CallaLilli · 01/05/2016 19:58

C'mon Kate, it's fucking Vogue and you're dressed like you're modelling for Boden?

Bitlost · 01/05/2016 20:04

The choice of clothes is dreadful. Doesn't anyone advise her?

SoupDragon · 01/05/2016 20:04

Maybe that's what the photographer and stylist wanted?

SirBernardWoolley · 01/05/2016 20:37

I think she agreed to do it as a special one-off as it's British Vogue's 100th anniversary special edition - fair enough, it's a good way of showing support for the magazine and British fashion - but then didn't want to go too high fashion because it's bad for the image.

Problem is, it's VOGUE, man, high fashion is where Vogue lives.

JocastaFarquhar · 01/05/2016 20:43

I did not recognise her in the hat. I think it was the eyebrows and tan. But she has just been to India and Bhutan. Not that going to those. Punt rise encourages eyebrow growth!

Larastheme · 01/05/2016 20:55

sugar I think its what she wanted,

the cover reminds me of an ad for one of those hunting equipment shops in Mayfair like holland &holland ,that's the first thing that I thought of, like she is about to go shooting in the countryside ,Confused,
,has nothing to do with vogue, very bland

JocastaFarquhar · 01/05/2016 21:04

No idea what punt rise means.

flippinada · 01/05/2016 21:14

Why on earth hasn't anyone put the hateful, tripe-peddling drivel monger that is Liz Jones out of her misery yet? Ugh.

andintothefire · 01/05/2016 21:27

I don't blame her for doing it. However I do blame Vogue for putting her on the cover and inside in those clothes! It suggests to me that they are so in thrall to the concept of royalty that they are prepared to risk their own credibility as a fashion magazine! I also can't imagine they would have chosen those outfits for her - I suspect she is actually quite a tough figure who was determined to wear the clothes she wanted.

That petit bateau top is truly awful from a fashion perspective.

squoosh · 01/05/2016 21:39

Yes I'm sure Kate agreeing to appear on the cover came with lots of strict T&Cs from the palace and that she'd pick her own clothes. It looks more like a Tatler cover.

andintothefire · 01/05/2016 21:59

As a Tatler cover it would have been great! And much more suited to her image I would have thought.

Iflyaway · 01/05/2016 22:07

If this is the way the monarchy is headed I don't think it will last.

haha, good one.

Who gives a fuck if they will last, or if Kate is flashed all over Vogue, really.

Maybe all to do with IN/OUT vote coming up....

Talk about deflection about the real thing going on. EU. Refugees etc.

Housing crisis? Nah! Not in Britain, surely!

wake up!

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 02/05/2016 00:09

I can understand her choice of outfits.

She must be aware that many people dislike her for living a life of privilege. She can't exactly pose in rags but donning diamonds might be perceived as provocative. So she decides to be herself as she feels she is right now - a mildly glamorous mother, who is usually dressed in (cute) jeans suitable for running after small children.

The look that would have won universal approval does not exist. But the style put forward in Vogue has been pretty consistent over the years and is obviously who she feels comfortable being, especially not that her party going days are suspended. I think we should acknowledge she has a the right to be whoever she chooses on the cover of Vogue. She didn't sell her soul and can't be expected to make every decision in her life wonderingly futilely how to escape the censure of folk who will never think she's anything but worthless.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 02/05/2016 00:11

And she probably thought we'd all appreciate her making an effort, after all the criticism she's been subjected to for not trying hard enough.

EverySongbirdSays · 02/05/2016 00:13
  1. She's a smoker?
  1. It's very Kardashian of her to appear on Vogue when she's a member of the Royal family??!!! Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie appeared on bloody Oprah and openly cried about the state of their mothers life. Highly, highly undignified
andintothefire · 02/05/2016 00:17

Oh yes - I totally understand her not wearing a glamorous dress and jewels. It's just a bit strange that she wore such boring and uninspiring casual clothes. They didn't even go for cheap options bearing in mind the cost of the Burberry coat. I am sure the Vogue stylists could have chosen more interesting options had they been free to do so.

But like I say - not a dig at her at all. Just slightly odd that it features in a high fashion magazine.

Summerwood1 · 02/05/2016 00:38

I agree.

andintothefire · 02/05/2016 00:51

Some Stella McCartney would have been great, for example..

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 02/05/2016 01:13

C'mon Kate, it's fucking Vogue and you're dressed like you're modelling for Boden

Boden? The broad bimmed trilby and surde jacket screams Bono from U2 circa Rattle and Hum.

This whole exercise snacks of her sainted late mother in law's attitude to the press, she wants the fame and exposure when it suits and screams press intrusion when it doesn't or the coverage is anything less than arse lickingly sycophantic.

WanderingNotLost · 02/05/2016 01:17

I don't mind that she posed for Vogue. I do think it's a shame that the photos and clothes are so bland. The most famous fashion magazine in the world, the best photographers, stylists and clothes at their disposal, and this was the best they could do? I mean I know she has to play it relatively safe, but still...