[Flawless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurofashionjunki Kate is a Royal Barbie Doll...no inspiration to me.

Barbie Doll ??? Whaat?

[rox_yr_sox]

Quote:

Girls equal in British throne succession Sons and daughters of any future UK monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders agreed to change succession laws. The leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state unanimously approved the changes at a summit in Perth, Australia. It means a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would take precedence over younger brothers. The ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic was also lifted. Under the old succession laws, dating back more than 300 years, the heir to the throne is the first-born son of the monarch. Only when there are no sons, as in the case of the Queen's father George VI, does the crown pass to the eldest daughter. The succession changes will require a raft of historic legislation to be amended, including the 1701 Act of Settlement, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The change to the Royal Marriages Act will end a position where every descendant of George II is legally required to seek the consent of the monarch before marrying. In future, the requirement is expected to be limited to a small number of the sovereign's close relatives. Announcing the succession changes, Prime Minister David Cameron said they would apply to descendents of the Prince of Wales. They will not be applied retrospectively. "Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen," he said. "The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic - this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become." Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard said it was an extraordinary moment: "I'm very enthusiastic about it. You would expect the first Australian woman prime minister to be very enthusiastic about a change which equals equality for women in a new area." She said the changes appeared to be straightforward. "But just because they seem straightforward to our modern minds doesn't mean that we should underestimate their historical significance, changing as they will for all time the way in which the monarchy works and changing its history." But the campaign group Republic - which wants an elected head of state in Britain - said "nothing of substance" had been changed. "The monarchy discriminates against every man, woman and child who isn't born into the Windsor family. To suggest that this has anything to do with equality is utterly absurd," spokesman Graham Smith said. Queen's speech On scrapping the ban on future monarchs marrying Roman Catholics, Mr Cameron said: "Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church. But it is simply wrong they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so. After all, they are already quite free to marry someone of any other faith." The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, said the elimination of the "unjust discrimination" against Catholics would be widely welcomed. "At the same time I fully recognise the importance of the position of the established church [the Church of England] in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today," he said. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond also welcomed the lifting of the ban but said it was "deeply disappointing" that Roman Catholics were still unable to ascend to the throne. "It surely would have been possible to find a mechanism which would have protected the status of the Church of England without keeping in place an unjustifiable barrier on the grounds of religion in terms of the monarchy," he said. "It is a missed opportunity not to ensure equality of all faiths when it comes to the issue of who can be head of state." In her opening speech to the summit, the Queen did not directly mention the royal succession laws, but said women should have a greater role in society. "It encourages us to find ways to show girls and women to play their full part," she said. Previous attempts The BBC's royal correspondent, Nicholas Witchell, said this was a hint that the Queen herself backed the change. The Queen will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee next year and there are already two generations of kings-in-waiting - Prince Charles and his son Prince William. In January 2011, Labour MP Keith Vaz tabled a Succession to the Crown Bill in the Commons to end gender discrimination in the succession to the throne. He said his bill - due for its second reading on 25 November - could be used to introduce the reforms announced in Perth. "As a society that values gender equality so highly, this is a long overdue," he said. "We will now have modern laws that fit our modern monarchy." The royal author Robert Hardman said there had been 11 attempts in recent years by individual MPs and peers to change the succession laws. The laws are not a matter for the 54-nation Commonwealth as a whole, only for the 16 countries which have the Queen as their head of state, known as realms. These are Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Barbados, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and the Bahamas.

bbc news

[Thefrenchy]

^That's really cool.

[VogueElle Addict]

Bored of reading about her scar during 4 days!! Papers must leave her calm

[KKnardi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thefrenchy ^That's really cool.

I would actually prefer to see a new queen, all the dresses and jewellery!

[helen-rox]

I'm hoping they have a girl first

[glitterpeacock]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild roses Stop giving her a free pass just because you want to bang her.

wow. classy.

[Squizree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild roses Ha! I noticed that Glittering Star only recapped Kate's post-marriage style in the majority of the pics. I'm sure if she had posted more of the 2011 pre-marriage style, we would have noted more misses. Boomer, Kate has had 8 freaking years to get used to the royal role. Diana had just months, and she was experimenting with clothing barely a year into her marriage. Kate is just conservative, unadventurous, and unimaginative with clothing. Stop giving her a free pass just because you want to bang her. (Reread your comments in here. You are ALWAYS talking about her body and very seldom about her fashion except for when it emphasizes her body.)

Yes and we all know how successful Diana's stint at marriage and royalty was Please. You speak as if fashion makes you royalty material. Catherine may be conservative and "unimaginative", but she doesn't have to be anything else. She's royalty, not celebrity, which means that her duties as Duchess come before trivial things like fashion.
And I suggest you retract that tasteless statement because you're only degrading yourself.

[*Kristina*]

^Her duties as a Duchess? She doesn't seem to do much else but go to few events where she looks pretty. People only talk about her style and what she wears because that is all she is right now... She hasn't done much (or any) charity work that I know of.

[Lacroix]

Yes and we all know how successful Diana's stint at marriage and royalty was

What does that have to do with her style? They broke up because of her fashion sense and by default the same would happen to Kate...? I'm not understanding the comment.

What are her duties as Duchess? She's not a paragon of anything as far as I can see, to be so lauded. We're on a fashion forum, and I disagree that fashion is trivial fluff. Many people see it as art and there's more behind it than just pretty clothing. Sales soaring in this economic climate for various brands just because Kate wears a certain item is evidence enough of that imo.

[Squizree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacroix Yes and we all know how successful Diana's stint at marriage and royalty was What does that have to do with her style? They broke up because of her fashion sense and by default the same would happen to Kate...? I'm not understanding the comment. What are her duties as Duchess? She's not a paragon of anything as far as I can see, to be so lauded. We're on a fashion forum, and I disagree that fashion is trivial fluff. Many people see it as art and there's more behind it than just pretty clothing. Sales soaring and commerciality of various brands just because Kate wears a certain item is evidence enough of that imo.

Because that person was speaking as if Diana's superior fashion icon status somehow made her better royalty, when in fact it was kinda the opposite. To me Catherine is more royalty material than Diana ever was. She knows her place and shows respect for her marriage and her position. Royalty IS conservative. They always have been and they don't want to change that.

Oh yeah sure, her duties aren't exactly back breaking, but she's only been in the palace for a short time and in time I think she will show that she's more than just a pretty face.

What I meant when I said that fashion was trivial is that if having a caring and helpful princess means being "boring" and "conservative", then so be it.

[masquerade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boomer Remember she has been temporarily off in Wales most of the time they have been married while he did military things- so far I doubt there would have been too many charities to devote herself to in any case...

I am sure there was an animal shelter or food bank she could have volunteered at

[Lacroix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squizree Because that person was speaking as if Diana's superior fashion icon status somehow made her better royalty, when in fact it was kinda the opposite. To me Catherine is more royalty material than Diana ever was. She knows her place and shows respect for her marriage and her position. Royalty IS conservative. They always have been and they don't want to change that. .

well that makes her sound submissive and like a doormat. Completely unflattering picture of her. No point comparing the woman, their marriages or the reason for the break down of Diana's marriage since it has nothing to do with style. One can like fashion, be stylish, conservative and yet respectful and still be their own person. It's not an either or situation.

Conservative doesn't equal frumpy/unstylish.

[wild roses]

Quote:

Originally Posted by masquerade I am sure there was an animal shelter or food bank she could have volunteered at

Absolutely! Charities and places in need don't just exist in metropolitan places. There's plenty she could around Anglesey or the surrounding areas.

[YoninahAliza]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wild roses Absolutely! Charities and places in need don't just exist in metropolitan places. There's plenty she could around Anglesey or the surrounding areas.

Well... to be fair we don't actually know what she's doing in Wales. Who knows she could be working with charities or planning something but it hasn't been announced. I like to hope that she's doing something, I honestly don't think William would have married someone who wasn't concerned or didn't want to make a difference. It's something that I think Princess Diana passed onto him and Harry. Both are quite involved in numerous organizations.