The very idea of a fashion "expert" dictating who should wear what seems rather quaint these days. I'll take a pass on Ms. Lowthorpe's thoughts on nude hose well as her endorsement of orange blusher, green eye shadow, lots of hair spray, and sheer polka dot tights. Horses for courses, as Angie might say.
It's the arbitrary nature of these "rules" regarding what is, and isn't, fashionable that give me pause. It makes total sense to go bare-legged (regardless of perceived "blemishes") in warm weather, but it looks ridiculous in -20F temps. It makes no sense to my mind to endure bloody, blistered, scabbed feet in the name of fashion, nor to insist that a 60 year-old woman looks "better" pairing her party dress with bare legs in an elegant setting.--or, even worse, to suggest that a woman spend hours with a paint can to cover her spider veins and then be afraid to sit down in case said paint rubs off on the furniture. And touting nude fishnets as the "solution" seems to ignore that (1) fishnets can be very uncomfortable if one is walking any distance and (2) fishnets have some unfortunate connotations in certain circles.
Can we agree to disagree on hose and let each woman choose the option that makes the most sense for her age, location, social setting, and personal preferences? I'll go bare-legged in summer (and if you don't like the look of my 65+ legs, that's your problem, not mine), I'll wear tights in the winter (black if I prefer!), sheer nude hose with my party dress, and socks with my boots and walking shoes. Fishnets and leg paint are not in my repertoire, nor is wearing multiple layers of tights (too constricting, to say nothing of bathroom contortions). And I promise not use words like dowdy, frumpy, trashy, ugly, or dumb when I see your choices if you'd do the same when you see my hose choices.