For Reference: Liz Jones in the Daily Mail, with Photographs
M-J's Impression of the Distaff Side's Dressing on May 24th
Proving the Elegant Survival theory that it does not cost more to look better, the Duchess of Cambridge wore a simple beige dress by Reiss, and dignified shoes. Mrs Obama wore a puzzlingly shiny dress (shininess is not appropriate for daytime) with a too-high waist that emphasised her belly, an oddly-mismatched bolero that seemed to have been squeezed around her, and some long-toed, open-heeled shoes (aren't the witch-toed shoes passé yet?). Just once we should see some elegant sartorial simplicity from this capable woman, who has obviously been wrongly-advised once again by her handlers. Her dress was the perfect length for the day. However, a pale blue dress doesn't blend well with a hot-pink bolero, and the satiny look ought to be reserved for evening. The "ensemble" that Michelle Obama wore when meeting the Camerons, a purple dress with a royal blue coat, was also mismatched and awkward. The occasions called for closed shoes (see the Duchess of Cambridge), which the First Lady finally wore with her garish blue and violet clothes, which actually would have been all right had they been of either complementary or identical hues.
Mrs Cameron's dress was a pure abomination, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The complicated waist and white panels, together with the busy, low-prole print on the rest of it were tragic. And her reptilian shoes were outrageously high-heeled, making her look sleazy and overly-tall, and her head appear too small. All the above, of course, bears up my traditional theme on classic dressing: money cannot buy elegance. Clothes DO make the man or woman, but first, a person must make the right choices or they will make one look foolish instead of stylish.
©M-J de Mesterton