The cover pose , she wears white pants …. there is something so awkward about the posing , she looks short waisted, he is piled on top of her and scrunched down , major fail by photographerWow, they had help to look this awful.
Meanwhile, Serge Normant, who created Meghan's 'messy bun' on her wedding day to Prince Harry in May 2018, was responsible for the Duchess of Sussex's wavy hair style, which hair stylist James Johnson told FEMAIL is the 'main focal point of this piece.'
'Her middle parted big waves highlights her authority and the leg apart stance gives viewers a glimpse of her powerful new status,' he explained. 'It gives me Beyoncé vibes showing us girl power - backed up by her man, her Prince leaning on her showcasing the female empowerment, she’s wearing the trousers with her big hair.'
The Duchess of Sussex, 40, put on a very glamorous display after being styled by an A-list team of experts as she posed alongside husband Prince Harry for the cover of The Times magazine.www.dailymail.co.uk
ETA: are we tired of this pretend-symbolism? Everything we wear now must symbolize something or someone??? Not for me.
If you could measure people's influence by PR-output then I agree.
If the natural light's coming from the back, why can we can we still see their faces? Spare us.
It’s like I technically I know she is still very pretty, but I literally can’t even see it anymore because of everything we know.They hired the best of Hollywood's best for styling and hair/makeup. Serge Normant for the hair and Nina Hallworth and crew for the clothes. Not sure who did the photoshop because it's not good. Their hair is huge and the backgrounds look edited in, even if they weren't.
I think she looks very pretty and the clothes are perfect for the image she is trying to project. Kudos to the stylists. I like that she seems to have stopped whatever she was taking to be stick thin.
Still hate her and her lying, manipulative, destructive ways, but she's still pretty...
She can be very pretty, but in this photo the hair-raising hair hides it. The clothes look awkward because of the way she stands.I think she looks very pretty and the clothes are perfect for the image she is trying to project. Kudos to the stylists. I like that she seems to have stopped whatever she was taking to be stick thin.
He had to earn his "donation". OMG! These 2 are such a joke! The Queen really needs to make a clear separation of the rest of the royal family from these 2.Me too
Sing to the tune of The Addams Family -
They’re creepy and their kooky
Mysterious and spooky
They’re all together ooky
The Harkle family
What did they do to deserve to be in this list?
I think but could be wrong, they bought their way on to the list. The World Kitchen chef wrote their syrupy piece.
Some petites suit flamboyant styles. MM looks best in minimal as well as minimalist, the hair blowout is Washington DC 1990s (yes, I know it's supposed to be back in as a micro-trend, but not if it doesn't suit).She can be very pretty, but in this photo the hair-raising hair hides it. The clothes look awkward because of the way she stands.
I'm sorry (not sorry) but every time I see the picture of her in these pants..... it looks like she has large bloomers or a baggy diaper on. Is it just me?