: The difference to Crown Princess Mary of : Denmark is, that she before appeared regal : and in all style with order and jewels in : public and in portraits. [snip]
We all know that, Barbara. My point was, that there are different criterions for formal portraits and photos accompanying home stories in glossy magazines. To apply the first for the latter is useless. And no "grand" photoshooting for a magazine could ever make up for a refusal of grandeur in real life.
We've seen photos of Grandduchess Maria Teresa sitting barefoot on the floor, of Princess Caroline and Crownprincess Mary in staged poses wearing tiaras in informal settings, of the Duchess of Vendôme with jewellery in front of her mirror... do I like it or find it appropriate? No. I find it uninteresting and the immanent vanity of such (non)stories basically contradicts everything I associate with style and posture, and yes, noblesse. Still, the photos of Princess Charlene are not less "royal" or more "celebrity" than those afore-mentioned.
I happily admit, that the fashion historian in me prefers a somewhat ironical approach to "royal image" questioning handed down perceptions, to an overdone fulfilment à la Henri M's suggestions. And I'm probably in a minority here insofar as I'd prefer a lady wearing "not enough" to "too much" jewellery.
We've now at least an idea how the ocean tiara looks like when actually worn as a tiara. I do like the piece (again apparently in a minority here). It has a 30's look and feel that I find appealing and it suits the princess well, although the bottom row of diamonds should get better support to avoid sagging above the ear.