|
Post by hibou on Jul 26, 2015 8:33:43 GMT -5
Yes she is wearing pants! Your eyes are just fine. She looks so thrilled to be there too. Just like a spoiled child told they cannot attend a birthday party because of a prior engagement. Bea's side of the family is hosting a small dinner at the Hotel de Paris for close friends and family, so naturally all of Caroline's kids and friends are over there having a good time. I think they were hoping that those not invited to the wedding dinner would come to the ball. This might explain all the no-names. Albert's plan to stock the ball with people from the wedding may have failed. JMO well, the owner of Dior has bought into SbM so expect to see hired names clothed in Dior etc next year. someone has a vested interest in MC now and it is not Albert... I guess it's just another sellout by Albert. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Michelle Elizabeth on Jul 26, 2015 10:29:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by refia on Jul 26, 2015 10:56:18 GMT -5
So they say Bea and Pierre choose the 25th to come down on Chars like a ton of bricks? Lol maybe, but imo they aren't malicious. But they know that people only are interested at the RCB because of the young set.
|
|
|
Post by mrszinck on Jul 27, 2015 6:39:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grimnir on Jul 27, 2015 9:27:19 GMT -5
So barbie is wearing the thing backwards? Not really surprising, it's so shapeless you can probably only distinguish the front from the back by remembering on which side the shoulder part is missing... Who is the one wearing the red dress? Did any photographer catch more of her than only the hem of her skirt?
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 27, 2015 15:20:19 GMT -5
it looks better on the model and without that tie up, but still no ball wear
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jul 27, 2015 15:23:35 GMT -5
btw she probably doesn't know which way to zip up female outfits yet, hence wearing it back to front. Bit like wearing your clothes inside out and no one telling you. She needs to hire some capable staff. Hope the nannies aren't in the habit of doing things that way with the kids....
|
|
|
Post by grimnir on Jul 28, 2015 10:36:34 GMT -5
To be honest, I was just being mean. The thing exists in more versions than I care to count and also, oddly enough, in more prices than I care to know and there's always the possibility that the other photo was mirrored or something. Apart from the left or right shoulder missing variation, the website listed several more versions and I can't for the life of me see what the difference is or why the one should be almost ten times the price of the other. Maybe I would have figured it out if I had bothered to look closer.
Ok, this was my fashion contribution for the rest of the millennium...
|
|