Middleton women stun punters at Royal Ascot with matching feature that has an emotional family throwback
Cementing her status as the ever-glamorous and ever-practical head of the Middleton clan, Carole has once again opened her designer-filled closet to her nearest and dearest. And this time, it was daughter-in-law Alizée Thevenet who got to raid the rails.
The stylish mother-daughter-in-law duo showcased their shared fashion staples on day two of Royal Ascot, bonding over a borrowed hat and pastel ensembles.
Alizée, the French wife of James Middleton, elegantly dressed for the sunshine in a Longchamp maxi dress, topped with a feathered Juliette Botterill hat borrowed from Carole's wardrobe.
The millinery marvel made a royal appearance once before, when Carole wore it at St James's Palace to celebrate the christening of Prince Louis.
It wouldn't be the first time that Alizée has borrowed something from her mother-in-law's closet. For her wedding to James Middleton in 2021, she wore Carole's wedding dress.
'My something borrowed was in fact my dress from my mother-in-law Carole who last wore it 41 years ago on her wedding day in June, 1980,' Alizée shared following her nuptials.
'While talking about dresses with Carole and sharing ideas during lockdown for inspiration, I tried on her wedding dress and fell in love with it.'
Alizee added: 'It fitted me perfectly and was exactly what I wanted. It always troubled me that wedding dresses are only worn once so it was amazing to give such a beautiful dress a second lease of life.'
But it's not just Alizée who has dipped into Carole's collection. Over the years, Kate Middleton and her sister Pippa have also been spotted wearing pieces from their mother's wardrobe, as well as frequently sharing with each other.
Carole, now 70 and looking as stylish as ever, has clearly instilled in her children not just a strong sense of family, but also an enviable eye for timeless fashion.
Known for her love of British designers, well-tailored blazers and polished yet approachable elegance, she's long been the quiet style force behind daughters Kate and Pippa.
Now, it seems, she's doing the same for her daughter-in-law.
Kate Middleton's mother, Carole, showed she has the same taste in clothes as her daughter when she showed up to Royal Ascot in 2022 in a very familiar pink dress. The Me + Em frock was first seen during a visit the year before with young cancer patient, Mila Sneddon at Holyrood House in Scotland
What you see with the Middleton women is a shared fashion philosophy. They invest in quality pieces, and they aren't afraid to bring them out again and again.
But more than that, they know the value of a classic silhouette. Carole's wardrobe from 30 years ago wouldn't look out of place on the high street today.
Think timeless tailoring, flattering lines, and a consistent preference for natural tones and structured shapes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Munroe Bergdorf: ‘The most expensive thing I've bought? Gender-affirming surgery'
Born in Essex, Munroe Bergdorf, 37, studied at the University of Brighton and worked in fashion PR. In 2022, she became the first trans model on the cover of UK Cosmopolitan and in 2023 she published her book Transitional. She hosts the podcast The Way We Are and presents MTV UK's Queerpiphany. She is a UN Women UK Changemaker and a founding consultant of the UK Diversity and Inclusion Board of L'Oréal Paris. Her latest book is Talk to Me; her documentary, Love & Rage, launched in the UK last month and is available to stream from 14 July. She lives in London. Describe yourself in three words Passionate, loving, driven. What would your superpower be? Invisibility, so I can spy on people and get the gossip. Which words or phrases do you most overuse? I say 'scream' when I should just laugh, and it really annoys my friends. Which book are you ashamed not to have read? The Great Gatsby. What makes you unhappy? Being misunderstood by people I admire. Aside from a property, what's the most expensive thing you've bought? Gender-affirming surgery. Contrary to popular belief, it's not widely available on the NHS and a lot of it you have to pay for yourself. What is the worst thing anyone's said to you? Apart from stuff on social media, an ex-partner telling me I'm unlovable. What is your guiltiest pleasure? The Real Housewives franchise. What do you owe your parents? As you get older you start to realise your parents are just people and they're often just doing their best, so I owe them understanding and grace. What is the closest you've come to death? Before transitioning, I had a severe eating disorder. The doctor said, 'Your body's shutting down and if you don't improve your mental and physical wellbeing, you'll die.' Shortly after that, I started transitioning medically and my eating disorder resolved. To whom would you most like to say sorry, and why? Everybody I've lost to suicide. When someone dies in that tragic way, you always feel you could have done more. Which living person do you most despise, and why? Every single world leader currently making the world less safe for us all. Which living person do you most admire, and why? Victoria Rose, a British surgeon operating on children in Gaza. What did you dream about last night? I have a lot of dreams that involve running and yelling. I've just had Botox in my jaw because I'm grinding my teeth in my sleep. What is the worst job you've done? At university, I worked at a hotel in housekeeping. We saw so many weird things in people's rooms. Guests would leave sex and party stuff behind! If not yourself, who would you most like to be? Grace Jones or Madonna. When did you last change your mind about something significant? Cancel culture: getting stuck on the discourse rather than looking at the system. How often do you have sex? As often as I get to see my boyfriend. Would you rather have more sex, money or fame? Money, because fame's so transient and empty, and I've got enough sex. Tell us a joke I was so surprised when the stationery store moved.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Kendall Jenner poses with $60K Hermes handbag on her head after attending 'tone deaf' Bezos wedding
Kendall Jenner was spotted playing around with friends after her 'tone deaf' appearance at Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sànchez's wedding in Venice. While vacationing with friends in Saint-Tropez located in the south of France, the supermodel was seen taking a shot while balancing a $60,000 handbag on her head. Her limited edition Hermès Kelly Doll bag is worth approximately $50,000 or $60,000, according to Sotheby's. She was joined by her younger sister Kylie Jenner, 27, as they partied at the exclusive Loulou's beach club on Pampelonne Beach right before jumping into the ocean in their party dresses. This comes shortly after she and the rest of her family attended the Bezos-Sànchez wedding, facing backlash and fueling the polemics surrounding the billionaire's Venetian nuptials. The model, 29, hid a grimace as her friends recorded her taking the shot of hard liquor as they screamed in excitement, as seen in model Devon Lee Carlson's Instagram post on Saturday. Carlson's post also included a snapshot of her and Kendall posing with large Chloé bags after going shopping together in luxury designer stores. In the photo, which Kendall reposted on her Instagram Story, she wore a red minidress paired with matching flip flops while holding hands with Carlson, who wore a complementing look. The Wildflower Cases founder also shared a photo of Kendall alongside their friends after they enjoyed an impromptu swim after doing shots at the day club. Her day of partying comes amid her lavish Euro summer with her sister Kylie. On the same day, as Kendall was seen wearing the same dress, the bikini-clad sisters were pictured enjoying an impromptu dip in the cooling ocean. Kendall showed off her model figure in a black bikini which she wore with a sheer polka dot dress. They were joined by a group of pals as they all frolicked in the sea after some afternoon cocktails at the club. Carlson's post also included a snapshot of her and Kendall posing with large Chloé bags after going shopping together in luxury designer stores. In the photo, which Kendall reposted on her Instagram Story, she wore a red minidress paired with matching flip flops while holding hands with Carlson, who wore a complementing look Right before heading to France, Kendall was in Italy with her sisters and their mom Kris Jenner for the star-studded wedding of billionaire Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez. After the nuptials, she was also on auntie duty as she joined Kylie with her kids Stormi and Aire for a boat ride through Venice's historic canals last weekend. Described as the 'wedding of a century,' the 61-year-old Amazon founder and the former journalist, 55, exchanged vows in front of nearly 200 VIPs on San Giorgio Maggiore island in Venice, Italy. The Bezos wedding began last Thursday with the first of three days of parties in Venice – but impeccable sources revealed days before that the Amazon founder and journalist-turned-philanthropist Lauren Sanchez were already married. A source closely connected to the organization of the week's events told 'They have been married for at least a month, more than a month. 'The marriage is fully legal and took place in America under American law.' The source adds: 'When they were planning the wedding, they were clear about the fact that they were already secretly married There is no application for a wedding license from the couple because it was not required. 'Whatever happens at the wedding on Friday, it will not be a wedding. Under Italian law, it will not be a wedding celebration, any vows said or rings exchanged will have no legal meaning.' The source added that Bezos had personally confirmed that he and Sanchez – who met when both were married to other people – are already legally married, and that they had also signed a pre-nuptial agreement to protect his $244 billion (£177 billion) fortune.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
I watched YouTube for a week with my children. Here's what I learnt
At about 5pm every day, in the small window between after-school activities and dinner, my three and five-year-old daughters veg out in front of a screen. Sometimes they'll watch a cartoon on Netflix; occasionally they'll ask for CBeebies. The majority of the time, though, it's YouTube. The show they chose — or rather, that was algorithmically suggested — to watch one recent afternoon follows the adventures of a real-life brother and sister. They'd watched it before, as have many other children, since it's one of the most popular kids' channels on YouTube. While my daughters love the slapstick humour, to me it's like white noise, the background soundtrack to my multitasking. But the video they watched that day made me pay attention. In it the brother tricks his sister into thinking she has gained weight. Visibly upset, the little girl changes into a skimpy workout outfit to do star jumps, and later turns down a sandwich in favour of a plate of raw carrot sticks, before heading to her bedroom to weigh herself. I was horrified, both at what we were watching and at myself for letting my impressionable daughters access it. How was it, I wondered, that this type of content was being promoted on a platform marketed as family-friendly? And what else had they watched that had flown under my radar? According to Michelle Neumann, a professor of childhood education at the University of Sheffield who has carried out research on children's YouTube content, this is precisely the problem with a lot of what our kids are watching. 'On the surface many of these channels seem OK, so if a parent glances over their shoulder, they might think, that looks fun,' she says. 'But when you dig deeper, you realise there's a lot of problematic content.' So I set myself a challenge: for one week I would dig deeper, intently watching everything that my girls were looking at on YouTube to see what I would learn. I should preface my little experiment with a disclosure: my husband and I used to work for Google, which acquired YouTube in 2006. I joined in 2017, the year it emerged that bad actors were circumnavigating the platform's filters to run creepy, violent and explicit videos on YouTube Kids, the version of the app for under-12s. But the company's response to the scandal had been solid, I thought — introducing new guidelines for creators about what qualified as good children's content, beefing up its moderation and mass deleting inappropriate videos. • YouTube and the rise and rise of trash TV for kids In the years after the scandal, after we became parents, my husband and I found ourselves turning to the platform more and more for educational and entertainment purposes. The depth of content is simply unrivalled. For example, around the age of four, after reading a lift-the-flap history book in our local library, my eldest daughter developed a morbid fascination with the bubonic plague. Her endless curiosity quickly exhausted my limited grasp of 14th-century history, but I knew YouTube would have the answers. Sure enough, I found what seemed like an age-appropriate video that taught her everything she needed to know about the Black Death. She watched it repeatedly for months, until the next obsession took over (Egyptian mummies). This way of using YouTube is what Michael Robb, the head of research at Common Sense Media, the age-rating forum for parents, calls intentional — knowing what you're looking for and being deliberate about identifying it. The problem is, he says, it's just not reflective of how people actually use the platform. 'You could stay within a playlist that perhaps a parent has curated and have really good, high-quality content,' he tells me. 'But it's not how kids use YouTube, and it's not how it was designed.' When a carefully chosen video finishes, algorithmically powered suggestions on what to watch next can take kids down a rabbit hole of low-quality — even harmful — content. This became clear within about ten minutes of my week-long challenge. After watching a video where a monocle-wearing cartoon professor explained evolution (fuelled by another question that had left me stumped), what followed was a flurry of content that, had it appeared on terrestrial television, would have had the Ofcom complaints line ringing off the hook. In one video, which had more than a billion views, two young brothers showed off a homemade vending machine that spat out boxes of sugary cereal, fizzy drinks and chocolate bars. In another, a child played with what the video title described as 'girl' toys: a pretend sewing machine, a nail salon and a pink play kitchen (all things my girls love, I should add — but so, too, do lots of boys). • Apart from these (and other) examples of content that flouted UK broadcasting guidelines or featured dated stereotypes, most of what we watched might generously be called clickbait: content that promised to teach children to learn new words, say, but that ended up being a thinly disguised toy promotion. Many of the videos we watched had titles packed with educational-sounding buzzwords, but turned out to be garbage with no narrative arc, out-of-sync dubbing and, all too often, an undercurrent of consumerism. A spokesperson for YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'On YouTube Kids we provide parents with robust controls to decide what content to make available, whether approving specific content, choosing from age-appropriate categories, or the ability to block specific videos or channels.' They added that, after reviewing the links we shared, it had found no violations of its community guidelines. My experiment stacks up with what other (more rigorous) studies have found: the platform has a few gems, some quite shocking content and a hell of a lot of rubbish. 'We did some research a few years back and found that, while YouTube says it has a lot of educational, high-quality videos, really only a small percentage of the content could be classed that way,' Robb says. 'A lot of the videos that position themselves as being high quality or educational are very shallow.' By the end of the week I realised it was these types of videos that bothered me the most — content that Neumann described as 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. I feel well equipped to have conversations with my children about media content that very obviously challenges our family values. After watching the video that first triggered this article, I spoke to both my daughters about what we had just seen — how no food is inherently good or bad, about how we exercise to feel, not look, good. But knowing how to deal with the other, more innocuous-seeming content has left me as confused as when one of my kids asks me how birds evolved from dinosaurs. Colin Ward, a Bafta-winning former children's TV producer and member of the Children's Media Foundation, agrees that, like me, most parents are struggling to separate the wheat from the chaff. But he questions whether that type of pressure should be put on us in the first place. 'Parents can't be expected to police this — it's just not possible,' he says. Neither should we put our faith in the platforms to self-regulate, given their main concern is their bottom line. 'It's a very competitive market and they are focused on monetisation, so they're not going to change.' YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'We have strict advertising guidelines on YouTube Kids, and don't allow paid promotional content.' If we can't leave it to individuals or the free market to tackle, that leaves just one actor that might make a difference: governments. Ward knows that might not be popular with some people, but makes a point I think most parents will agree with. 'We all accept that there are some things that are important as a public service, whether it's the armed forces or parks, and that those things need taxes to support them and sometimes regulations,' he says. 'When it comes to our children having access to high-quality content and not just utter drivel, that too is surely a social good?' The present government has already indicated it will take action. Late last year the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, wrote to YouTube urging it to make high-quality programming more visible on its platform. She also suggested that, if this doesn't happen voluntarily, regulation might force its hand. YouTube told The Sunday Times that it 'continues to engage regularly with the culture secretary, as part of our ongoing efforts to support the UK's high quality children's content creators'. But while she and others work on that, what are parents to do? Ban our kids from accessing YouTube? Co-watch at all times? Neither seems realistic, at least not in my household. I have promised we will continue to apply a little more of that all-important intentionality. In other words, relying on our gut when deciding what might be an appropriate video for our kids, rather than ceding control to an algorithm.
