Prince Charles: same shoes?

"The brute covers himself, the rich man and the fop adorn themselves, the elegant man dresses!"

-Honore de Balzac

Post Reply
marcelo
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:07 pm
Contact:

Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:32 am

No doubt Prince Charles' shoes in the smaller photo may well be over 40 years old. But was he really wearing the same pair in 1968?

Image

On closer inspection, these look like a pair of derbies, unlike the pair of oxfords he wear in 2009.
Image
storeynicholas

Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:12 pm

Such shoes, with care, can last a lifetime. Moreover, if they are worn reasonably frequently, they do adapt to slight changes in the feet, as we age. Dangers against longevity are: damp and mould; central heating; over-use; failing to to go for repair by the maker in time - and angry women.
NJS
uppercase
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:49 pm

Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:10 pm

Dogs...
storeynicholas

Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:02 pm

Dogs, I grant you - but only after angry women.
NJS :D
Jordan Marc
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:59 pm
Contact:

Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:21 pm

I'm not sure the attribution of the garish shoes pictured is correct. Say what you will about The Man Who Will Be King, Charles has never had a penchant for uglyass shoes such as these. The closest he came is when Diana thought his footwear was far too stodgy and steered him toward trendy readymades at Trickers. Ladies, never get between a man and his bootmaker! John Lobb of St. James has shod the famous and the not so famous, usually in impreccable taste and a style that remains forever a classic. Whether in his twenties or his early sixties, I can't imagine Prince Charles tucking his toes into these two-texture nightmares.

JMB
Cufflink79
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:16 pm
Contact:

Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:08 pm

Our fellow member Will covered this topic not too long ago on his blog.

http://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/200 ... shoes.html

Best Regards,

Cufflink79
bengal-stripe
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:15 pm
Contact:

Tue Oct 06, 2009 9:30 pm

I don’t think they are the identical shoes. The ‘68 pair looks like ‘V-Fronts’ - three eyelets derbies (bluchers), while the ‘09 shoes are oxfords (balmorals).


Here are a few more samples of HRH’s shoes:

Image

Image

I think the problem is a military polishing technique: put on a thick layer of wax, then use a blow-torch and melt it all.

I believe John Lobb has a lifelong care and valet service for it’s shoes. It might be a good idea to fill a big bag with shoes and send one of the footmen over to JL. (Only a few minutes walk from Clarence House.)
Jordan Marc
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:59 pm
Contact:

Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:48 am

Bengal-Stripe:

The military polishing technique you describe may explain the derivation of holding your feet to the fire. Torching these tatty old lace-ups
seems an appropriate end. Shoes wear out, that's all there is to that. The structure of your feet changes as you age, so commission a new pair.

JMB
chelsea
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:19 am
Contact:

Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:23 pm

Well, I am not sure I completely agree.

I realise I have a pair of Church brown brogues which to the best of my knowledge I purchased from the factory shop (I believe they were seconds) in about 1983. I tend to wear them at weekends. Twenty six years on, they still have their original sole and are as supremely comfortable now as they were when purchased.

Chelsea
Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests