Duchess Kate spent $45K on her wardrobe in six months: is that too much?

This story was mentioned yesterday, but I thought this issue deserved its own post. Yesterday, we discussed the Queen’s recent move to make “blood princesses” higher up on the royal food chain than commoners-turned-royals, meaning that Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice now “out-rank” Duchess Kate. I think the first hint of that should have been the Queen’s refusal to give Kate a “princess” title upon her marriage – Kate was simply made HRH the Duchess of Cambridge. She’s not a princess – but she sort of is, because she married a prince. But whatever. She still has to curtsey to Bea and Eugenie now. Anyway, in The Mail story I used, they referenced another royal story about Kate – apparently, Prince Charles is funding her shopping exertions. Did you realize that? I didn’t. I thought Kate was paying for her own clothes, and by that I mean “her parents are still funding Kate’s extravagant lifestyle.” Prince Charles began disclosing his (limited) tax information to the public, and he’s going to make another public declaration on the state of his finances in the coming days. And Charles is going to reveal the cost of Kate’s shopping sprees – she’s spent roughly $45,000 on clothes. This year. And it’s only June. Here’s more:

For a self-proclaimed Queen of the High Street, she has embraced the joys of designer shopping most enthusiastically. Indeed, a quick tot up of her recent purchases suggests the increasingly glamorous Duchess of Cambridge has spent more than £35,000 on couture and ‘high end’ outfits since the beginning of the year alone.

Quite a turnaround, then, for the young woman who, shortly after her wedding last year, insisted she did not want to be seen as a ‘clothes horse’ and went on her honeymoon in a £49.99 Zara dress. In the next few days the public is going to be given an insight into the real ‘cost of Kate’ when Prince Charles opens up his financial accounts for the first time since the royal wedding. For unusually, the Mail can reveal, it is not the Duchess’s husband who is footing the bill for her dazzling new wardrobe but her father-in-law, Prince Charles.

The future king has agreed to pay for the cost of any dresses the Duchess wears for ‘work-related’ functions and engagements through his official Household budget. While some may question why the duchess’s husband, Prince William, doesn’t fund his wife’s wardrobe this is because, ostensibly, he earns only £44,000-a-year as an RAF helicopter pilot. The £10 million he inherited last week from his late mother’s estate on turning 30, for example, is considered to be his private income.

Charles funds his public work – as well as that of his wife, Camilla, and both his children – through the Duchy of Cornwall, a private estate of land and property holdings which last year provided him a bumper pay pot of £17.8 million. His official expenditure – out of which will come Kate’s clothing allowance – amounted to £11.4 million of that.

Charles is extremely fond of his ‘darling daughter-in-law’, as he likes to call Kate, and – for the time being at least – does not mind indulging her in the slightest. But he may yet live to rue his generosity for it is a bill that is rising by the day, not least because the Duchess insists – rightly so, in the opinion of many – on paying full price for all her garments. While most celebrity clients can expect a substantial discount in return for their endorsement of a particular product, Kate has instructed her staff to never pay less than the going rate. She also point blank refuses to accept any of the hundreds of free garments sent to her by designers each month, desperate for a piece of what has been dubbed ‘The Kate Effect’. If a particular piece catches her eye she will instruct her Private Secretary cum Girl Friday Rebecca Deacon, or another member from her small team of private office staff, to buy it instead.

But Kate has privately made clear that while she is keen to champion British design around the globe, she does not want to become a ‘rent-a-royal’ fashionista. Indeed such is Kate’s growing sartorial confidence that she has refused all offers by the Royal Household to provide her with a stylist or a dresser, their female equivalent of a valet. Although she has, on occasions, sought the advice of Camilla’s own much-trusted dresser, Jackie Meakin, Kate hunts out and chooses all of her outfits herself. And while much research is conducted over the internet, Kate is still not above browsing the rails herself.

One of her fashion secrets is a small boutique called Moda Rosa, in the market town of Alresford, Hampshire, close to her parents’ Berkshire home. Owner Rosie Wild stocks a number of her favourite designers including Libelula and has become such a good friend that she was invited to Kate’s wedding.

‘The Duchess has barely put a foot wrong since she got married so why does she need anyone to do it for her?’ said an impeccably-placed source. ‘Catherine has an innate sense of style and, almost as importantly, knows what is appropriate for the occasion. She might not choose the most cutting edge designers, but she know what looks good on her and that’s what counts. Plus she is acutely conscious that she is not yet a full-time working royal and feels it is pretty pointless, as well as extravagant, to have her own dresser.’

Stewart Parvin, the Queen’s favourite couturier has welcomed Kate’s transformation from High Street Queen to Designer Duchess. He believes that whatever is spent on her wardrobe is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the business she brings in to the fashion industry.

‘I think she is looking fabulous,’ he said. ‘I understand with the way the economy is at the moment that she feels a needs to be seen in High Street clothes [but] I think people also want to see her in things that are slightly more unattainable. She can’t go walking into a function and bump into a woman wearing exactly the thing. People want the Royal Family to be slightly unreachable, it’s part of the magic they have. Princess Diana always wore couture clothes and it will become the norm for Kate as time goes on. The reaction that she has already received should give her the confidence to wear more. Especially in this day and age, people just want to be dazzled.’

[From The Mail]

I have to both defend Kate and slam her. I’ll defend her first: she is expected to look good, she’s expected to support British designers, she’s expected to not take discounts, and she’s expected to not traipse around in the same old frocks year after year. So, I get why Charles is paying for Kate’s shopping sprees and why she needs so many new dresses and such. It IS part of her job as a working royal. Being a pretty and well-dressed princess/duchess is part of the fantasy, and talking about her style is part of the fun for all of us in the cheap seats.

Now, my slam: Kate isn’t a full-time working royal. She’s already spent more than $40,000 on clothes in six months… and she barely averages one public appearance per week. Of course she doesn’t need a full-time valet/dresser – she doesn’t DO enough to need someone like that. Plus, it’s pretty clear that despite all of the claims that Will and Kate are so “normal” and they go without staff, they are in reality very well-staffed, and Kate is already quite staff-dependent. Which is fine (if she was a full-time working royal, which she isn’t) – she needs to surround herself with competent people, and she needs to delegate and manage her own affairs (she’s 30 years old, for God’s sake). It continues to bother me that the royal propagandists keep pushing this image of Kate, like we’re supposed to be overcome by her frugality at not employing a full-time dresser when she sends her personal assistant out on a daily basis to pick up clothes using her father-in-law’s credit card.

PS… Who pays for her hair appointments? She gets a blowout every three days. That’s a lot of money too, you know.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

227 Responses to “Duchess Kate spent $45K on her wardrobe in six months: is that too much?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. carrie says:

    it’s not expensive in my opinion.
    it’s probably what Lady Di spend in a month (lady Di loved Versace,Dior,Armani…)

    • Ravensdaughter says:

      Diana, Princess of Wales, was her title until the day she died. Was it the Queen or Charles who paid for her clothes? I think she caught a lot of grief because she often chose foreign designers. I think Kate is playing it safe there. Charles always wanted a daughter and he has so much money-let him cough up if he wishes.
      I think her policy of paying full price and not accepting freebies is costly, but is also well founded. She is not yanking money away from designers even though she certainly could wheel and deal, and if she likes what she receives for free, she pays for it. Most tacky celebs wouldn’t even attempt that.

    • julie says:

      not true. Diana wore designers from all over starting in her second year as a royal. At least Kate does recycle her clothing and isn’t afraid to be seen in the same dress twice. I agree. Diana probably spent that much in a month and did get freebies. I’m glad Kate doesn’t take freebies and she has worn outfits more than once. I don’t know that we should even have an opinion about who is paying for her clothes. If Charles wants to who cares? If they are using their own money I don’t know why anyone would have an opinion.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Diana wore british designers most of the time, she also recycled her clothes including ball gowns you can google images of you want plus she worked more then y times of do little work.duchy is not Charles private property, it is a public estate given to him by the government for his expenses, that is why he have to explain how much he is spending and where to public.so Kate is funded by public funds, get the facts and then defend her, duchy is not Charles private estate or business, he only gets to keep the income like a salary to a public servant Paripaid by the governments.no private spending like her regular clothes are talked about because they are bought from private income but this is the figure is from public funds from a duchy given to Charles.i hope I don’t have to explain this again.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Diana wore british designers most of the time, she also recycled her clothes including ball gowns you can google images of you want plus she worked more then y times of do little work.duchy is not Charles private property, it is a public estate given to him by the government for his expenses, that is why he have to explain how much he is spending and where to public.so Kate is funded by public funds, get the facts and then defend her, duchy is not Charles private estate or business, he only gets to keep the income like a salary to a public servant Paripaid by the governments.no private spending like her regular clothes are talked about because they are bought from private income but this is the figure from public funds from a duchy given to Charles.i hope I don’t have to explain this again.

      • LM says:

        @Angelic20, The Duchy of Cornwall is nothing to do with the public, It is a kind of trust set up hundreds of years ago to fund the heir to the throne, the money from it does not come from or go to the government so it is not public money.
        It’s the same with the crown estate.

    • inthekitchen says:

      Diana also worked her ASS off. Waity spends 90 minutes “working” with underprivileged kinds and then jumps into her helicopter and jets off to a polo match, patting herself on the back all the way.

      They really need to stop feeding us the line that these two are “just like all of us.” It’s insulting. She (upChuck) spends more on clothing for SIX months than a lot of people make in a year and that just gets added to the hair and makeup totals or possibly another 30k (as estimated by some magazine).

      • Anne says:

        Diana did NOT “work her ass off” in the first 3 or 4 years of her marriage. She, like Kate, basically made public appearances with Charles and also Diana got pregnant quite quickly.
        Go back and look this up online–don’t confuse the Diana 10 years after her wedding with the new one-year bride!!

      • Jenny says:

        Nothing against the dead, but I don’t see much different in the behavior of these two women. Diana came into her own “after” her divorce. The first couple of years she was just “shy Di” and not much else. She shook alot of hands, and got pregnant right away, which was her purpose (again, sorry, but those are the hard facts).

        The current future queen just keeps getting slapped for doing what she is asked to do. I guess she could dress in JC Penny or whatever the British equivalent is, but she is not doing anything that was not done before her.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Anne,
        Diana did around 200 engagements in her first year compared to less then 60 of Kate’s.Diana was also pregnant and was dealing with more problems then Kate can even think of.Diana states supporting classic abs sake charities on the first two years but she stated supporting aids at that time in her 3rd or 4th year, she continued supporting these charities thought her disastrous marriage.she started walking on land mines after the divorce but all the other charities old.go and google it, .Kate cannot be compared to Diana because she will always fail whether in terms of style or looks or charm or charisma or warmth or being genuine and honest or dedication to her charity work and the Lissy list can go on.that is why media stopped this comparison because Kate just cannot com compete, the only thing she have is a collage degree that she never used in her life and the fact that she do not have and eating disorders that we know of.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Anne,
        Diana did around 200 engagements in her first year compared to less then 60 of Kate’s.Diana was also pregnant and was dealing with more problems then Kate can even think of.Diana states supporting classic abs sake charities on the first two years but she stated supporting aids at that time in her 3rd or 4th year, she continued supporting these charities thought her disastrous marriage.she started walking on land mines after the divorce but all the other charities old.go and google it, .Kate cannot be compared to Diana because she will always fail whether in terms of style or looks or charm or charisma or warmth or being genuine and honest or dedication to her charity work and the Lissy list can go on.that is why media stopped this comparison because Kate just cannot com compete, the only thing she have is a collage degree that she never used in her life and the fact that she do not have anyeating disorders that we know of.

      • Hmmm says:

        Who paid for the helicopter?

      • deep says:

        @Anne..you are wrong!! Diana worked her butt off from day one. She even worked through her pregnancies!! That’s fact..she would feel awful and keep on working. Look it up..from the beginning every charity wanted her and she was patron of 100′s. I know this to be true…I followed her well all the way until her death. And, she didn’t just wear British designer clothes. She wore them all. But, in all fairness…she didn’t pay, they gave and she accepted. And, this all can be easily verified with a few online searches.

    • Hmmm says:

      Not only did Diana hit the ground running right after her marriage, but those were different times, when the world was flush with money.
      Such extravagance now is like a slap in the face of the financially struggling in the UK and the Commonwealth at large. These particular comparisons to Diana are spurious, IMO.

      • Carolyn says:

        Diana had the public’s affection and interest right from day 1. It became very apparent that everyone wanted her instead of Charles and the amount of work & appearances she did reflected this.

        We had never seen anyone like Diana. Until her the British Royals were a bunch of inbred fuddy duddy’s with no grip on reality. Diana was a revelation. She rocked that old-fashioned institution and dragged it into modern times. By large, she was universally adored. She had the “IT” factor and charisma in spades. Kate is as dull as dishwater, does not have charisma even in her right toe and is just a skinny chick who looks nice in frocks. Not iconic and not interesting. As time goes on it amazes me Will chose her. She’s damn lucky. As for her clothing budget….zzzz…is this all this is newsworthy about her (and naturally we make Diana comparisons). Point proven.

      • DeeVine says:

        I believe in terms of public appearances Diana had to hit the ground running as she was married to the “next in line”? Prince Charles is still the future king, not William, so Kate is not expected to make as many appearances, especially in the early stages. Camilla is already not so well liked, and if Kate makes more public appearances and becomes popular, would that put Camilla’s nose out of joint? Charles still wants to be King after all.

        Think for 6 months worth of appearances, 45k is a tiny amount for a Princess whose job is too look good and royal in public. No wonder she has been recycling clothes.

    • hazeldazel says:

      Considering William & Kate are the ambassadors for the Olympics, I’m not surprised they’ve spent more on clothes this year – makes sense.

    • samira677 says:

      I’m positive that Victoria Beckham and Beyonce spent that much on a single shopping trip. So I don’t think $45,000 in 6 months is a big deal as far as the wealthy is concerned. But it is gross that people can spend so much money on something so insignificant.

    • Sweettart says:

      Carrie,

      That is exactly what I was thinking. Diana spent boatloads of money on clothes and had a different outfit every day.

      Besides that, they just had the Queens Jubilee, which had a lot of events.

      So no, I don’t think it’s that over the top extravagant, all things considered.

  2. marie says:

    she wears repeats and still spent that much? yeah, I believe that’s too much..

    • angelic 20 says:

      Lady Diana worked her ass off, so she spent that much money. Do little on the other hand do not work plus her fans and pr says she is frugal, discount duchess etc which is all crap.if she get the royal peeks she should do the work which Diana did.Kate is a spoilt and kept woman, don’t compare her to Diana.

    • CG says:

      And what’s up with that “she insists on not accepting discounts” line? Didn’t it come out in the last couple weeks that the royal family won’t allow her to accept discounts, or it’s a law that she can’t accept discounts, or something? You know she’d accept all the freebies she could, if she were able.

      • iseepinkelefants says:

        I know! Let’s not make her out to be something that she isn’t. If she could, she would just look at her before the wedding accepting Audis and who knows what else.

        Homegirl would gladly take that discount and all the freebies. Because Charles doesn’t mind spending the money and needs the public to think paying retail is some kind of good will that’s why she does it, but let’s be real Kate DOES get these clothes for FREE. Someone else is still footing the bill.

        And can I just add this makes William look like a punk, having his daddy pay for her.

      • LAK says:

        we must have imagined all the FREE Issa clothes pre-engagement.

      • bluhare says:

        I didn’t realize that she got comped Issa clothes before she got engaged.

        So now she’s spending someone else’s money, it’s OK to pay retail? At least that’s the story. She only accepts a discount on couture pieces. I dunno, I bet the discount is around 99%.

  3. backwards says:

    This is my new favourite gif. ever.
    http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m525/Mmmmmmokay/SNUBBB.gif

    But yeah that is too much, considering how many things she recycles and she has only been to a handful of events in the past year.
    Can you blame her? she doesn’t understand the value of money or hard work so she probably doesn’t think about how much she is actually spending.

  4. lucy2 says:

    Love that teal gown.

    Considering she’s basically looked at as a clothes hanger (until she starts proving herself as something more) I’m not surprised by that. Compared to regular folks, that’s nuts, but it doesn’t even seem all that extravagant, when you hear what other celebs drop sometimes.

  5. DanaG says:

    All those outfits and hats are expensive so yes I can believe it. Diana actually did recycle outfits and often wore english designers, she also did several hundred engagements her first year of marriage unlike Kate.

    • deep says:

      @Dana..you are exactly right. She came out of the gate literally running. She did charity work pretty much right after saying I do! And, she did recycle clothing. I’ve got books with picture proof. And, maybe she wasn’t perfect but, one thing you can say for her..she worked her butt off!! During and after her marriage. She had a very kind heart. And, she glowed.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Deep,i never thought that o would agree with your comment given our debate in the previous posts but now I can see that you are a Diana fan just like me.i also get your sugary comments on Kate because you want to like her too but I am not going to get into that no.it is nice to know that people still remember the great work that she did in the light of media trying to kill her legacy to make Kate look good and convince that Diana was bonkers.it just baffles me that media is just not bringing York princess and prince Harry to make get look good they are going after a a true icon who has given the royal work a lot of substance and did work that no other princess can compete with even today.may she be remembered for the good she did and rest in peace.

      • deep says:

        @angelic….We agree!! :) I am American and I adore Princess Diana still to this day. She wasn’t perfect but she had a heart of gold!! And, she worked so hard…a true giver. I still miss her. And, I also agree that nobody can hold a candle to her as far as the charity work she did. And, she made it look so easy. Flawless….

  6. melmel says:

    I think it is sort of sad that at 30, prince charles is paying for everything. I understand William is not royal full time but didn`t he have buckets of money before the inheritance he received at age 30.

    • bluhare says:

      I don’t think William had access to a lot of money before the 10 million BP he just got from Diana’s estate. Word is (reported by the very respectable Telegraph) that he’s using some of it to help Kate’s parents buy the obligatory Georgian mansion. Apparently, their current house is not private. My neighbor actually concurs! Apparently, her family live close by and the bus to Reading is right out in front of the Middleton’s current house.

      • iseepinkelefants says:

        *eyeroll* But their millionaires, surely their cheap Chinese tat turned them into millioanries who can afford to take Waity and Williy on vacations almost monthly. Now they can’t afford to buy their own house?

      • LM says:

        William isn’t paying anything towards the Middleton mansion… They’re worth like £30,000,000.

      • Carolyn says:

        A BUS STOP outside the Middleton residence…oh how common!! Hang on..they are commoners :) Why can’t they buy their own mansion..surely there’s big $$ to be made from (crap) party products?

      • bluhare says:

        LM: The Telegraph is reporting that William is helping them. The inference is that he’s using some of the money he just got from Diana’s trust.

        Would there be tax consequences to the Middletons for something like that? I bet there is, and I bet some sort of partnership will buy the house with William and the Middleton’s participating. Plus, if they use it for business at all, could they write some of that off on their taxes?

  7. hatsumomo says:

    I had no idea Prince Charles was funding her shopping, I just assumed it was her parents. When you look at it from that way it just seems weird for your father-in-law to pay for your things. This irks me in a bad way. That woman really needs to get off her skinny ass and get her shit straightened out already. She IS 30 and married! Most certainly NOT a tittering girl anymore!

    • beyonce's bump says:

      I am not sure why her parent’s should pay? she is married to him innit? I don’t know where your from, but where I am from, if the wife is not working, in MOST situations, the husband pays, whether he is a neurosurgeon or a macdonald’s cashier. I guess it is rather patriarchal, but it is “the norm” and i especially would not expect someone who is married to a royal, be it part time or whatever to not get some royal treatment.

      I do not think 45K is a lot to spend on a wardrobe in 6 months….for them.

    • benny says:

      It doesn’t surprise me at all that Charles would pay. We all know Charles married Diana because he thought he was getting a meek simpleton who would never stand up to him, just be his arm candy and brood mare.

      It didn’t turn out the way he expected. But in Kate, the royal family gets the arm candy/brood mare, and Kate has already proven over the past 9 years that she will be William’s doormat. I’m sure Charles approves 100% of William’s choice!

      And what do you have to do to keep the simpleton content? Throw some money her way so she can shop for pretty clothes. Small price for Charles to pay to buy William the kind of wife Charles wanted.

      And I don’t doubt William is “in” on the whole scheme. Looking at the body language of the royal family, they may ALL be in on it.

  8. I.want.shoes says:

    I wouldn’t be expensive if she actually DID something. But right now that 45K just to parade around next to her husband.

  9. dandelion says:

    I think it’s crazy for someone who isn’t doing the full-time work of a Royal family member. However, it’s also probably in line with what other full-time working royals spend per month (and probably less than Diana and Fergie did). I’d have less of a problem with the cost if Kate was doing more of her job.

  10. AJC says:

    I suspect the job is much bigger than the little bit of face time you see. Face time does not = time spent working.

  11. Susan says:

    That amount doesn’t seem too outrageous. Now the $25K ostrich baby carrier for Blue Ivy Carter is obscene.

  12. Eleonor says:

    It’s a ton of money,for us peasants, but I remember when Diana started her Royal makeover she was slammed for the same reason. And Lady Diana had much more expensive tastes, she used to wear a ton of Versace’s dresses (She was very close to Gianni), but also Chanel, Armani etc. etc.
    Duchess Kate uses the same dress, or coats for different occasions..so I don’t know if she deserves to be slammed.

    • LAK says:

      Diana didn’t start wearing foreign designers until after the separation. For the most part her clothes were made by British society designers eg Bruce Oldfield and Catherine Walker. After the separation, the Dior, Versace etc was fully indulged.

      Really, i personally think that the amount isn’t the problem but the fact that Kate barely works and is sold as thrifty and frugal and mostly shops in high street stores.

      It’s all about what we are being sold vs the truth. This is pushed again and again so people who do not see beyond are surprised by the figure because you would have to be really dedicated to spend that amount of money in LK Bennet and Zara – we are frequently told these are her favourite shops where she purchases clothing to be worn at public events, with a very occassional McQueen thrown in….because she is frugal and thrifty and recyles. You know who is frugal, thrifty and recyles and works harder than all of them? Anne

      • bluhare says:

        Totally agree re Anne, LAK. She works her butt off. And Zara’s going to represent Britain at the Olympics! I think that’s great, as I assume she earned it on her own.

        But I do wish Anne would quit dying her hair that horrendous colour. It makes it look even more like a helmet on her head.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – Anne..LOl. As much as we hope Waity would change up her hairstyle,, i really want to see what Anne’s hair looks like down. i always gloss over her head so hadn’t noticed that she dyed it.

  13. Hoby says:

    She never ever had to earn the money herself. First it was her parents paying for her now it’s Charles. So pathetic and co-dependent.

  14. AlexandraM says:

    This is the funniest kinda Freudian slip ever – HRH’s shopping exertions. Yes, agreed, spending that much cash could be considered an exertion… Of a sort. Still, I think that such – ahem – expeditions, and their associated exertion, would be welcomed by many of us. That royal credit card is *heavy*…..

  15. Agnes says:

    aren’t her parents really rich? why don’t they pay for her stuff, instead of the tax payers?

    • badrockandroll says:

      Taxpayers are not paying for it, Charles is, from the revenues of his estates.
      45K is not a lot for a “start up” wardrope for your first six months on the job, especially if that period involves lots of special occasions like the Jubilee and the Olympics. If the trend coninues, I would be concerned, but not now.

      • bros says:

        if she does one appearance a week, and I think that is a lowball estimate, then that is 6×4=24 appearances at the very least for the last six months, or 1,875 per public outfit. that is not very much at all. a couple of those event dresses like the jenny packham and the green one above cost well over 3k, so if you take out 10k from the 45k, you are left with 35k or $1,045 per outfit, which really is not that much for quasi couture, high end clothing. she’s doing alright.

    • bluhare says:

      There’s a lot of whispering about how/where they get their money. That Uncle Gary (Carole’s brother) has laundered his ill gotten gains through them.

  16. pebbles says:

    Benefit scroungers, all.

  17. moja31 says:

    Yes she’s expected to look nice, but not every new outfit has to be McQueen, especially not for your average meet & greet like the Birmingham riot visit. She could choose to support up & coming british designers, which would have the added benefit of being more affordable, but she doesn’t. Not only does she spend more on clothes in 6 months, than her husband makes from his army job in one year; but if you divide this sum, but the very small number of engagements she’s done, it’s pretty ridiculous.

  18. lover says:

    errm non story what is she supposed to wear wallmart clothes. why dont they publish everyones clothing expenditure for comparison

  19. mary simon says:

    I think she is doing great at what is expected of her by her husband, and his family,for what she signed on for. She always looks pretty, pleasant, and appropriate. That was the deal, right? I don’t think $45,000.00 is that extravagant.

  20. L says:

    Considering it’s only for official events, I wonder how much she spends on her regular everyday clothes (which come out of her/her parents pocket)

    And it doesn’t cost the tax payers anything as Charles gets his money from the Duchy of Cornwall-a private estate of land and property holdings which last year provided him a bumper pay pot of £17.8 million. His official expenditure (after paying taxes) amounted to £11.4 million of that.

    But let’s count the official events so far in 2012, just by peering through the celebitchy archives-trooping the colors, order of the garter, camping with the kids (for her official charity), kids playhouse event, jubilee northingham visit, jubilee religious service, jubilee concert, jubilee flotilla, jubilee garden party, jubilee tea, jubilee evening party, BOA olympic concert, thirty club event, imperial war museum, camping with scouts, scott-admundson race reception. 16 events.

    Ignoring the recycling that’s about $2000 for each outfit. That seems about what you would expect for a celebrity. Plus I’m sure she’s already bought clothes for the official olympic events.

    • Jane doe says:

      I don’t usually get involved in these sorts of things…however $45k for clothing, For a Royal, for half a year is NOTHING just think for just a minute, what is the average going price for a Burberry handbag, $1,500 and many upwards of well over $2,000 a rather plain Versace black silk dress $1,425 and remember now, she is paying the full price. She is a member of the royal family now wether practicing or not blah blah she is the wife of a prince, the prince of England none the less some day he will be the king of England. Who cares how much is spent on her wardrobe, just know however that $45k certainly did not buy a huge excess of designer clothes not at the prices they are going for these days. Furthermore if she DID dress in dresses from target or gap she would more then likely be criticized for being being frumpy or not representing her position properly. That’s what the commonwealth does they tear apart those in power, I just have to say any female that posted in this if they had the means to carry around a designer purse or trot around in designer clothes don’t fool yourself you most certainly would.

  21. Ellen says:

    I think it’s pretty comparable to what Diana spent. It’s still TOO MUCH, but I’m not surprised.

    BTW, there’s no real way for the queen to give women who marry into the family a Princess title, unless the women want to be known as Princess [Husband's name]. And in fact, that’s where you get Prince and Princess Michael — because Prince Michael had no other, less weird title to share with his wife.

    Diana got a Princess title of her own because her husband, Prince Charles, ALSO had the title Prince of Wales. So she got Princess of Wales. When Charles becomes king, William will inherit the Prince of Wales title (as opposed to being Prince William OF Wales, which is his title now) and then Kate will become Princess of Wales. They may or may not do that funky investiture thing again.

    Actually, the queen keeps giving out these Dukedoms to spare the new wives from being known as Princess William or (back in the good old days), Princess Andrew. Bertie, back when he was just the second son, was made Duke of York so his new wife Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon could be HRH the Duchess of York — and George V and Mary LOVED her, so it definitely wasn’t a diss. Ditto Sophie — Edward was made Earl of Wessex so she could be HRH the Countess of Wessex, rather than HRH Princess Edward.

    BTW, it’s not just Prince that attaches to a spouse this way — wives of Dukes become Duchesses, wives of Earls become Countesses, but wives of Lords (unless they have titles of their own) take their husband’s titles. Lord Peter Wimsey marries Harriet Vane and she comes Lady Peter. Weird but true.

    I think the whole protocol thing is (a) designed to distract from the dress news and (b) another sop to Andrew and his poor wounded ego.

    • Hautie says:

      So now I understand why I saw her listed as “Princess William of Wales”.

      I did not realize that the Queen really does not hand out the “Princess” title.

    • LAK says:

      Titles are not as arbitrary as that. They remain in the gift of the Sovereign so if they do not want to give a title, it’s their decision. Reasons titles are handed out can be whimsical or serious. It is assumed these days that The Queen has to give out a title but she really doesn’t if she doesn’t want to. Just like she can change all these rules if she doesn’t want to. She tends to stick with what her Grandfather set out for his reign as her guidelines of what she should do in these situations.

      She could have made Kate a princess by right but chose not to. Legally Kate enjoys the highest title of her hubbs making her HRH The Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge Blah, blah to be commonly known simply HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. Also William is no longer William Wales. He is now William Cambridge. The Wales part of his name wan’t really his name. The royal family do not have surnames offially. They use their titles as surname-like identifiers. Makes it easier i suppose for identification. Their private surname as a whole is Windsor. The Queen, in deferrance to Prince Phillip has made the legal moves to allow her direct descendants to be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. So he is technically William Mountbatten-Windsor.

      In the main the Royal Dukedoms are hereditary and denote the status of the holder eg The Monarch is always The Duke of Lancaster [yes, The Queen holds this title] It is the only Dukedom that can only be held by the Sovereign. The Heir is always The Prince of Wales. Even if they are female. The second son is always The Duke of York. It’s going to be interesting what title will be given to Harry because he can’t be the Duke of York until the present Duke of York dies or circumstances force Andrew to lose the title like The Queen’s own father who was suddenly elevated to Monarch. The other royal Dukedoms are Clarence, Kent, Gloucester, Sussex and Suffolk. Prince Edward is going to inherit The Dukedom of Edinburgh on his father’s death. It was gifted by the sovereign and is not subject to any tinkering by anyone else. The Dukedom of Edinburgh was specifically created by The Queen’s father to elevate prince Philip’s status and create BRITISH Duke. It would have been scandalous for the Heir to marry a minor foreign Princeling. We’ve moved on since then, thank goodness.

      Also, legally by the letters patent, if you marry HRH of the male line, you automatically become HRH. The only time this did not happen was when The Duke of Windsor married Mrs Simpson. The Soveriegn refused her to use it and put together some paperwork to say that it was a gift of the Sovereign and was therefore, for well documented reasons, denying her the HRH. Historians have researched it and found that the Sovereign doesn’t have the legal right to refuse the HRH and that it was illegally witheld from The Duchess of Windsor even though her hubbs remained one. As The Queen follows so closely what her father and Grandfather laid out to fetish levels, everyone assumes that all this is centuries protocols and she can refuse or grant an HRH. The only change she has made is to make it an automatic loss in the event of divorce.

      Female usage of titles depends on whether they are born titled or marry the title. If they are born titled, then the title plus their first names eg Lady Diana Spencer is used unless they marry a higher title. Then, they take on the full higher title without reference to their own eg The Princess of Wales. If they marry below them,it is their title plus their husband’s surname eg Lady Diana bloggs. In the case of divorce, their original title comes back into play plus their married title eg Lady Diana, princess of Wales or Lady Diana Spencer [if formally married to Mr Bloggs].

      If they are not born with a title and marry it instead or it is given after the marriage, they will always be known by the married title without reference to any of their names eg The Duchess of York or Lady Bloggs. Should they divorce, they revert back to first names plus married title eg Sarah, Duchess of York or Sarah, Lady Bloggs.

      Should they re-marry, they lose married title altogether except the one they are born with eg Lady Diana Bloggs or Sarah Bloggs. They also lose the title should their hubbs remarry.

      • bluhare says:

        You are a wealth of knowledge, LAK, you really are. I never knew that HRH was withheld from the Duchess of Windsor illegally. All that being said, I don’t quite understand why it’s such a big deal, but then I’ve never run in those circles.

      • Justme says:

        So far as I know, the only example of the Queen (or her father or grandfather etc.) giving out the “princess” title to anyone was with the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, her aunt by marriage. Since she was not a Princess by birth (she was Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott, daughter of the Duke of Buccleuch), she, unlike her sister in law Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, could not be differentiated from her daughter-in-law and therefore would need to have been known as the HRH, the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester. As a token of her appreciation for her aunt-in-law’s long service to the crown (heck she outlived the Queen Mother and made it to 102!) and to avoid that awful “Dowager Duchess” title, the Queen declared that she be known as HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

        But that is rare (actually I think, unprecedented). So no slight was meant to Kate by not “making her a princess”. As many have pointed out, she is Princess William – much as a married woman is Mrs. Smith.

      • sharylmj says:

        thank you for that! it’s so interesting and complicated and historical.. I love it!

      • Justme says:

        Actually if the king’s heir is a female like Princess Elizabeth was for George VI, she has not traditionally been made Prince (or Princess for that matter) of Wales. Elizabeth never was – nor was she Duke of Cornwall – nor did she have the revenues from the Duchy.

        The reason is that it was always theoretically possible for King George VI to have a son. Even after his wife was past having children, theoretically, she could die (although she outlived him by 50 years in reality), he could marry again and have a son, who would immediately become the heir over his sister. Therefore a female heir was always “heir presumptive”, rather than “heir apparent”. This is set to change but this is how it was up until the current time.

        Nor is the second son always the Duke of York – although he frequently is. Queen Victoria’s second son was the Duke of Edinburgh – he also inherited his father’s title of Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha. Her third son was the Duke of Connaught (there’s a title they are unlikely to use as Connaught lies in the Republic of Ireland). Her fourth son was the Duke of Albany.

        What has happened in history is that the men given this title (Duke of York) have either become king themselves (thus the title returns to the crown) or died without legitimate male heirs. If Andrew remarried and had a son then the title would pass to him, just as the Queen’s cousins look to be passing on their titles of Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent to their sons.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – i am super interested in Social history, particularly European history and of course royalty so i read and research alot in my spare time. It is amazing what you find out in obscure places and when you join certain clubs. I keep threatening to write a book about it all. Not sure if the world needs another book on Social history and how royals have impacted our lives outside of the bowing and curtseying.

        Being ‘royal’ is another level of upmanship. And then for the super special royals HRH or HSH rather than plain old royal.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: Write the book!!!

        I’ll even proof read it for you as long as you let me wear that McQueen dress with the cape while I do it.

      • LAK says:

        @Justme – The titles closely aligned with the sovereign, Lancaster, Wales and York are for historic reasons and for that they are reserved for particular statuses. Lancaster will always be the Sovereign, Wales always the heir, York always the second son or the presumed 2nd in line to inherit. They are not always handed out as at the end of the day it gift of the sovereign and not a rule that the occupant has to have that title. Plus the person receiving said title has to be a clear heir with no prospect of later challenges eg birth of another child that can inherit. For that reason Charlotte was heir Apparent and given full POW title and status where as Victoria and our Queen were not. The same can be said for other heirs who never received the full honours.

        i thought it was obvious in my answer that titles aren’t passed on unless they are vacant. So of course Harry can’t have York because it is currently occupied. And of course should Andrew have a son, then the title will have an heir presumptive to it.
        As it stands, that would be the title he would assume to have as the second in line of the presumed Sovereign to be. And only then when his father was ruling, not still a POW.

        The original point, which i got completely sidetracked from is that for example, when Charles becomes King, the POW title can not be arbitrarily handed to Edward or Harry. based upon their status in thye royal susccession. The only person who can inherit that title is William and if not, it goes is put on the shelf until conferred to someone in a similar position.

      • Justme says:

        Actually Henry VIII was the Duke of York; he was the second son of Henry VII. (edit- you had said in your post that Henry VIII was not Duke of York, however you have retracted it now.) However when his older brother Arthur Prince of Wales died, he became the Prince of Wales in his turn and the title Duke of York was subsumed back into the crown when he became king.

        Here is the deal with the Dukedom of York in a nutshell:

        “Since 1461, when the great-grandson of the first duke became King Edward IV, not one of the ten subsequent holders of the title has ever passed it on: they either died without male heirs or became King themselves.”

        So the title was always around to be given out to the second son. However had any of those men had a male heir and not become king, then the title would have gone off on its merry way to a cadet branch of the royal family. (As I said, if Andrew remarried and had a son, he would become Duke of York. )If however that theoretical cadet branch died out the title would come back to the monarch to be handed out however he or she pleased.

        An example of this is the Dukedom of Gloucester. Like the Dukedom of York it was given out to sons of the monarch. Most died without issue, one became king (Richard III). However George III’s brother received this title and he did have a son, who became the 2nd Duke of Gloucester of that creation. However he also had no children, so the title reverted back to the monarch to be used by George V when he gave it to his third son.

        What I am trying to say is that yes – traditionally the second son has frequently been given the title of Duke of York, but not always (see Victoria for example). However it is just by happenstance that this title has always been around to be given. It could either be thought a very lucky title, in that so many of the holders become king, or unlucky in that the rest have no male heirs!

        Oh and another oddity “And only then when his father was ruling, not still a POW.” Actually the brother of George III was made Duke of York when his father was POW – “Poor Fred”, who never became king because he predeceased his father.

        Just so you know I’m not actually arguing here or trying to be antagonistic – I’m like you and I LOVE this stuff! :)

      • LAK says:

        @ Just me – i do not think you are arguing. Frankly there is so much to know about it all, we are all learning. Besides if i do write a book, at least i am getting my research proof read for free! I am picking up extra information and any mistakes i make are lovingly pointed out :)

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: This means I get to wear the dress and cape!! Yippee!!

      • Ellen says:

        He was/is Prince William OF Wales, though. The whole “William Wales / William Cambridge” thing is separate from that. You see all the aristocracy using their titles as last names in the 18th/19th centuries but it’s mostly fallen out of favor.

        It does make reading Heyer a great deal of fun, though. (Talk about a woman who loved to invent Dukedoms!)

        And about that Dukedom of York: if Andrew doesn’t have a son, it will revert to the crown. Presumably Harry will already be married and have received another title (the Queen will signal a LOT if she gives him a Dukedom, after demoting Edward to an Earldom that was made up just for his wedding), and he will not become the presumptive Duke of York. I would lay good money on the title remaining with William to bestow on one of his children. We’ll have to wait to see.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: Not that I’ve ever been accused of taking the inch and going for a mile, but do you have any of the Highland Fling pieces?

        I think I could pay way more attention to grammar and spelling if I were wearing one of those outfits.

    • LAK says:

      @Justme – Duke of York discussion: Even if the last holders died without heirs or ascended the throne, The title is not just given to any random person in the royal dukes pool.

      The Lancaster and York titles are tied into how england became England, after the War of the roses. Since Lancaster won, The Monarch is always The duke of Lancaster. The tradition of POW was already in place – separate dicussion. The tudors wanted to legitimise their rule and minimise further civil war from The Yorkists, it was seen as a way to keep the peace. They didn’t just marry Elizabeth of York.

      All the royal dukedoms, should they fall vacant are absorbed by the Crown. It is not a coincidence that York is picked time after time and given to someone who is generally either 2nd son or 2nd in line to inherit.

      @Ellen – He is William of Wales dynastically but his surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

      The line of succession is brutal. Edward, wasn’t demoted. It was an unfortunate time for him to choose to be married -so close to 1997, HM was trying to signal a change that made the RF seem like one of us at the very leat closer to us. She agreed to give him DoE once present owner died – which given his current health might be sooner than we think :(

      Harry is higher up the line of succession and is a freak accident and infertility away from being the Heir so i very much doubt she will give him a lesser title. Charles on the other hand, when he becomes King, may change all of it if neither Edward nor Harry have received new titles because at the end of the day, the title is the gift of the Sovereign, and he would Sovereign at that point.

      • Ellen says:

        I agree, York will be held for a second son. I just think it will end up being William’s second child’s title (especially if their first-born is a girl), rather than Harry’s. Partly because Andrew will probably live another forty years, and the timing will make sense. (William will be about ready to ascend the throne himself; Harry will be long-established as Duke of Whatever.)

        And of course if ever a Duke of York manages to have sons again, there goes the historic accident of its being so often in the possession of the sovereign.

        I mean, it really has been a happy/weird accident that the Dukedom of York keeps ending up back in the sovereign’s pocket.

        Edward and Sophie just had the worst timing EVER. Although maybe they looked at the Phillips kids and thought that going the non-HRH route for their children was the smart thing to do.

  22. Hautie says:

    Geez, Princess Diana spent that much on shoes in 6 months. And she tended to only wear couture clothes for her public events.

    Charles paid out sooo much more 25 years ago dressing Diana than he ever will for both Camilla and Kate. I am curious, what was the total spent on Camilla. Did it say? Ummmm….

    And this is no different than any girl marrying a man… whose Daddy has all the cash. And pays all the bills.

    But I do think it is funny, that everyone bitching about the money spent on clothes. They would be bitching just as loud, if Kate wore tragic cheap clothes off the rack from the GAP.

    And for the record. I hope Kate keeps on spending!

    If she is going to have to put up with all this sh*t. She better get an excellent new wardrobe out of it!

  23. LAK says:

    She frugal! Not.

    Can we talk about the fact that she refuses to socialise with her local RAF wives lub on Anglesey.

    That was another story conveniently buried under the avalanche of ‘kate has to curtsey to B&E’ story.

    • bluhare says:

      Yes!! That’s the one I think is bad. Very bad form for not agreeing to socialize with your husband’s coworkers. Very bad form. Maybe it’s because William’s already deciding he won’t be re-upping in the RAF because when they first got married I remember reading that she would be joining. I can’t believe she doesn’t want to be Queen Bee somewhere!!

      The other one is William helping the Middletons buy their new Georgian pile.

      • LAK says:

        They really did bury an avalanche of bad news under that one didn’t they?

        what about the snippet about how William only revealed his engagement to Hm and POW 2 hrs ahead of press conference.

        That is 4 damaging stories buried under the curtseying story!!

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: I just saw that engagement interview and just boggled at that one. Two hours!! When he has to get the Queen’s permission to marry??? Says a LOT about the RF’s attitude toward her when he pretty much presented them with a fait accompli, eh?

        I also boggled at all the marbles Kate must have in her mouth to get that accent. It was so obvious how hard she was trying.

      • iseepinkelefants says:

        Ugh if you don’t have a title Waity doesn’t care. Stepford Waity doesn’t come alive until she’s sure you have one. And even then I imagine she can only respond to wealthy MEN. Women are not her thing (hence why she has no friends), not even other blueblooded well off females.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare – there were so many details that didn’t happen. At the time i thought this was new protocols but then i started to hear the rumour of the 2 hrs, and i started to do a little digging and oh my……it really was a fait accompli!!! Which also explains why the protocol things didn’t happen. That list was originally in the Telegraph, then DM copied the story.

        You know how much The Queen resisted the idea, the privy council document that gives official permission and which they could not marry without, didn’t come through until a week before the wedding!!!

        So he asked Kate, if we believe the engagement story weeks before the press conference, and didn’t bother getting permission from the only person who could have stopped him 2 hours ahead of the press conference with Kate presumably already at the Hair dressers getting her hair done for said conference and the media trucks rolling into BP.

    • littlestar says:

      Seriously, LAK?! Do you have a link to an article? Bluhare, same to you – do you have a link to a story about William BUYING the Middleton’s a mansion? So much for being multi-millionaires.

      I absolutely cannot believe Kate would refuse to associate with the wives of William’s co-workers. Well, actually, yes I can and do believe it, but I’m still going to spout righteous indignation haha. What a little spoiled brat. Doesn’t she realize she has NO friends? Would it hurt to make a few? Doesn’t she realize how bad she is being portrayed by bloggers and commentors? Kate really needs to start reading Celebitchy…

  24. Aud says:

    She can spend all she likes, she still will look masculine.

  25. Violet says:

    “High maintenance” and “dead weight around Willy’s neck” come to mind. Hope she’s worth it in private. Public-wise, no one seems impressed.

  26. Garvels says:

    I actually think that figure is on the low side. Considering that she is promoting British fashion and designers,she always has to look her best in public,so I think that figue is quite reasonable.

  27. angelic 20 says:

    Dear do little fans, either your duchess is royal enough to spend that much on just just clothes or she is not a full time royal and she do not have to work.so please pick one and let me know because you can’t have it both ways.

    Let us assume she is royal, so she deserves all these clothes expenditure like Diana BUT what about the amount of work Diana used to do? If Kate is a royal who needs to spent this amount of money on dresses then she needs to work hard which she do not do. The one engagement pet well is a rough estimate not actual number, she works less then one engagement per week.since she is not doing the work, she do not get to spends that much money.

    Of she is not royal family member enough to do hundreads of engagement i’m a year like Diana, them spending this much money is ridiculous and spoilt and way to much for a woman being fed by Mummy and daddy and now fil.

    Second of all duchy is a public estate which is given to the heir by the government to support his expenses.Charles did not created duchy and this was ruled by the supreme court.duchy find are public finds given to a public servant Charles, so in directly Kate is funded by public funds and she do not do public engagements.so again it is ridiculous to pay her do much public money when she its not even working.

    her fans and pr say that she is a normal, down to earth, hard working person.as tabloids call her discount duchess, frugal,a housewife, oh I forgot a military wife etc.the fact is (also reported by daily mail) that your normal military wife never ever even talked to the regular raf wives, who are a very tight group and also invited her but the normal military housewife never cared to even reply.please don’t say that she did this because of leaking stories to tabloids because people in Wales never ever said anything about them and that why no body knows that they don’t live in a cottage, they line in 5 bedroom mansion with attached home for staff and gardens. In the end every pr story about her is a lie, first she is discount duchess who like to bargain then she do not take bargains.them she is frugal but she spends this much money in clothes alone in 6 months.then she is a military housewife but s she is in London most of the time and never talk to other military wives who invite her.then she is not a full time royal when it comes to actual work but she is a royal when it comes to her extravagant expenditure.absolutely everything said about her is contradictingand still her fans make absolutely stupid excuses for her.

    NOTE: please don’t compare her to celebrities, they earn their money and can do whatever they want to.she is a public servant not a celebrity who had not worked even a single year in her life, had been fed by Mummy and Daddy before and now she is supported by Charles who is supported by duchy which is a public estate confirmed by the supreme court.so she is funded by public in one way or the other.

    • maemay says:

      All this for a woman you call do little?

    • Maureen says:

      If I were you, I’d worry more about getting a firmer grasp on English grammar and syntax than the spending habits of a woman you know next to nothing about.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Maureen sweetheart don’t worry about my English, bring from a country where people don’t speak English I have been doing great in England for more then a decade that I have been here, plus I am new to Swype and touch screen phone hence the little mistakes in my posts.ii can assure you that I know more about her, royal family, their history, politics, finance (actually that is my work field) and some causes like human rights, child abuse then you, you are welcome for a discussion any time.looks like you don’t have an excuse for her so you are picking on me, as far as knowledge goes I bet I will give you a run for your money despite my little grammatical mistakes because of my phone.

    • Maureen says:

      Honey, the only thing you’ve “assured” me of is that you’re an internet tough guy (gal) with a skin thinner than Duchess Catherine…long may she reign ;-)

      Again, you’d be taken far more seriously if you worked harder on improving your English…end of story.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Of course I have a thinner skin then do little,i would never tolerate being a national joke for years or abf who tolerate friends who call me names. also my language have nothing to do with my arguments looks like you don’t have anything to say in her defence in the light of facts.i think other posters understood what I was saying and I am a british citizen so I don’t need an American to take my opinions on royals seriously,i am sure they care more about what I think of her as z citizen then you. also yes I am a very tough girl on internet as well as in my life.

  28. Suzie says:

    This is RIDICULOUS! How much attention does anyone pay to the Queen’s clothes? Shouldn’t the clothes take a backseat to the woman and the kind of work she does? Oh yea, Waity doesn’t work. Oops, my bad.

  29. Blen says:

    so tired of seeing anything about this “royal family.” nobody cares. they’re a waste of space. the end.

  30. ramona says:

    I think that spending is fine. Think how much more it would be if it included the salary of a full-time valet.

  31. The Original Mia says:

    If she’s spent $45K on the few appearances she’s made in six months, how much is her royal tour gonna cost? Yowza.

    For those comparing her spending to Diana’s, stop. There is no comparison. Diana worked her butt off during the her 1st year of marriage & had a kid. Duchess Dolittle hasn’t done a tenth of what Diana accomplished.

  32. angelic 20 says:

    Correction, it was not said by the supreme court but it is public fund and that is why Charles have to explain to public about his expenditure from the duchy.i will post some links if I have time.

    Lak,sachi, Julie m, blue hare and all the other Kate critics, here a link where you will see even royal reporters are having trouble selling Kate to public and not they are thinking about new false angles because the normal and frugal ones are not working.

    • bluhare says:

      I never realized I was a critic, but I guess I am! When she first married William I liked her. I thought she dealt with the attention and her wedding with amazing aplomb. I can’t even imagine walking down Westminster Abbey with 2 billion people watching me. I don’t think my knees would have worked.

      Then I noticed a couple of months later that she seemed to be enjoying her new status a bit too much, she didn’t seem as genuine as she used to be. For the first time, we really had one of us join the royal family in a major position, and it didn’t take long for her to forget about that, which I thought was sad. Some people here had some really good points about her too (Looking at you, LAK!!). Now I realize she probably didn’t give a rat’s ass about the symbolism of her journey for a long time, if ever. She might have fallen in love with William the man, but she certainly fell in love with William The Second In Line to the Throne.

      I used to think the stories about Carole Middleton pushing Kate into William’s orbit were crap. Now I don’t think so. I don’t think that they did as much as some people do, though.

      So I think officially I’m on the fence. I see the bad stuff, although I don’t think she’s as bad as some people think, and I see the good stuff. She is a breath of fresh air in some ways. But I don’t like the new accent. I understand she’s trying to fit in, but it’s too much.

      Which leads me to the snobbery angle. She’s doing all this because of all the crap she catches about her background. You can’t take the coal mine out of the girl sort of stuff, because her maternal line comes from Durham and were coal miners. I think it shows the really ugly side of the class system in Britain, that it’s so entrenched she has to try to be as snooty as they are so everyone quits with the “doors to manual” stuff. I really do feel for her that way. Imagine marrying someone, and not only do your inlaws think you aren’t good enough, but a lot of the country as well.

      Nope, I don’t envy her.

      • angelic 20 says:

        Blue hare,i did not want to call you a hater or jealous , so critic is the only word that came to me.i also used to like Kate before but then the waiting and partying and shopping and vacationing started but I still have her a benefit of doubt after wedding but she is still a what she was before a lazy spoilt uninspiring wannabe snob.what really irritates me about these monikers about her background is that William never support her, he made her change absolutely everything about her to make her fit in.he could have stopped taking to one of his friends who called her and everybody would have stopped but he did nothing to defend her and she was okay with that.she choose to be called names and being a public joke for a Deededecade for the ring so she do not get my sympathy.if I would have read even a single story about her or William standing up for herself then I might have felt differently.

        Mamay
        First you don’t like when britishers or british citizens on this site try to tell you that monarchy is a constitutional institution for us and that the way we judge it is completely different then Americans for whom it is a source of gossip and then you go again asking why I am writing critically about this woman or why I feel strongly about her shortcomings.yes all this for my future state of head who is nothing but duchess of do little for me.looks like you are ruining out of excuses for her and calling someone hater or jealous would be very old.so please if you have anything in her defence let me know.i stand by my post and you can see through the pr lies and crap clearly if you want to, if you want to believe the imaginary false fairy take image about her you can close your eyes but that will not change the facts.

      • bluhare says:

        angelic 20: No problem at all. I am proud to be a critic, as I have posted all over some things I don’t like about her. I’m not so locked into hating her that it’s all I can see is my point I think. My post actually turned into a much longer diatribe than I intended!

      • bluhare says:

        By the way, angelic 20, I totally agree with you about William. Allowing people to talk about his girlfriend like that is reprehensible.

    • Suzie says:

      I never knew a thing about Waity until the wedding except that she was Wills’ sometime girlfriend.

      The more I’ve learned about her, the less I like her. Reading early articles about her and cruising through some of the footage of her on You Tube, I realized that Paris Hilton (minus the sex tape) had married into the Royal Family. She’s a panty-flashing, famewhoring partygirl who cleaned up very nicely with money and a good PR team.

      If that’s what Wills wants, so be it. But don’t whitewash Waity and try to sell her as something she clearly is not.

      • LAK says:

        What many do not realise, including Waity herself, is that the wedding gave her a new beginning. Whatever she did before, there was no guarantee that she would be wed to William. Many people, gave her a pass because of that. I think that’s why the palace also went down this road.

        i like to think that we are all capable of change and whilst i may come across as a huge critic, i really want her to pull through and change and surprise me.

      • angelic 20 says:

        La k lak,i agree with you.i was willing to forget everything she did before the wedding and give her a clean start but she is same old.i will come to this site and give her compliments if she even make an effort to change her ways but I don’t think it will happen as long a media and pr keep on making excuses for her.i have said it before and I am going to say it again that her minimum work will continue even after the 2 years period and both she and William will g use their children as an excuse to do less work.i can bet my house on this and her fans will continue to make stupid and irrelevant excuses for her in the coming years.

    • JulieM says:

      Hello angelic20. Since you mentioned my name as a Waity critic, I feel compelled to make a comment. I am, indeed, a Waity critic, off with my head! I don’t hate her and I certainly am not jealous of her. What I have is no respect for her. How does a uni educated woman get to be 30 and has never worked an honest day in her life. If she had done anything on her own, and it didn’t have to be earth shattering either, I think most of us “critics” would be cutting her some slack right now. Palace PR would not have the need to be in sale overdrive trying to make this lazy woman into something she’s not. She’s not anything. She is a void. Harsh, yes. Even Diana was a part time day care worker before her marriage. OK, not earth shattering, but at least she got in her car to go to work. Remember all the Paps chasing her? Maybe you’re not old enough to have seen it, but I sure am. Yes, I’m old!!

  33. Amy says:

    Yeah technically Camilla is Princess of Wales now. However she decided to go by another of her titles, the Duchess of Cornwall because Princess of Wales is strongly associated with Diana.

    By the time Kate becomes Princess of Wales, the Queen will have died so it won’t matter what she thinks. I guess it will be up to Charles if he will let Kate inherit that title. Or William and Kate might just continue to go by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge?

    • bluhare says:

      Personally, I don’t think anyone’s going to be bothered by Kate becoming Princess of Wales. The outrage about Camilla taking the title stems from Diana and Charles’ marriage and the fact that Camilla never went away and caused Diana all that grief. Which is sad that Diana even bought into it to start with. For someone with her background, I would have thought she’d be well aware that the royals, and especially the direct heir, do not necessarily marry for love.

  34. Anon says:

    As the Queen said decades before ” I am not a hollywood actress; do not expect me to act as one”. Like the Queen Elizabeth II Kate Windsor is not a celebrity she married to the future King; His power lies in the hands of his future subjects not in the whims of random public opinion. The royal family continues to enjoy a steady force of support in the Commonwealth; if that stays consistent there is no need to worry about the whims of random public opinion elsewhere. The Duchess spends her husband’s money; he just receive $15M from his inheritance based on his mother’s untimely death. Let it be.As long as Kate act according to protocol; she will prevail where it matters.

  35. angelic 20 says:

    Correction, it was not said by the supreme court but it is public fund and that is why Charles have to explain to public about his expenditure from the duchy.i will post some links if I have time.

    Lak,sachi, Julie m, blue hare and all the other Kate critics, here a link where you will see even royal reporters are having trouble selling Kate to public and not they are thinking about new false angles because the normal and frugal ones are not working.

    Sorry the link

    http://royaldish.com/index.php?topic=11064.30 http://royaldish.com/index.php?topic=11064.30

    • bluhare says:

      That’s pretty interesting that a reporter basically said they didn’t have anything new to say so they flipped and started this stuff!

      • Sachi says:

        This wouldn’t be the case if Kate actually does something more meaningful with her time.

        Like, you know, actually staying in Wales and socializing with the neighbours instead of spending most of her time in London going shopping and spending Charles’s money.

        Or better yet, spending time with the other RAF wives.

        But no, she and William were in Wales over the weekend to celebrate his 30th bday and they had a party there, but nothing about helping out with the cleanup after the massive floods.

        It would have been nice if they visited the families affected by the floods and spent some time there for William’s 30th birthday.

        But again, nope. They had a wild celebration (Kate arranged for William to be dragged riding a ‘doughnut’ in a lake) and they partied on.

        They won’t do any charitable work unless they are required to do so and it will get a lot of publicity, and they can both dress up in expensive clothes and hobnob with the rich and famous. No altruistic move from either of them.

        It’s no wonder the press has to find other things to report.

      • bluhare says:

        Sachi, I agree with you. I’ve said a couple of times, and I’m going to reiterate, that I’m appalled she can’t be bothered to join the wives’ club. Instead she sits home, runs William’s bath, and uses Chuckles’ VISA at Net A Porter????

        And the cottage. A 5 bedroom manor on a large estate. Give me an effing break. I always thought that being in a cheap cottage (don’t they say rent is 750BP a month?) was a really good thing, until I found out they live on Lord and Lady Oojits estate and go to lunch at the main house on Sunday. The fact that their house is so large makes me doubt the “she does it with no help other than a once a week cleaner” line. She’s got more help than that, I’d bet money on it.

        But maybe making sure Lupo doesn’t piddle on the carpets is a full time job.

      • LAK says:

        Something has definitely changed behind palace walls because royal reporters are not tabloid reporters and want to keep having the access so will white wash anything and everything if they have to.

      • iseepinkelefants says:

        “and uses Chuckles’ VISA at Net A Porter????”
        ——————————

        AHAHAHA LMAO

    • Mich says:

      OMG. Those gifs (?) mid-page are hysterical!!!

  36. Mich says:

    The clothing cost is absurd given how little she does.

    Honestly, I don’t like Kate or her sister. They are the ‘mean girls’ we all went to high school with.

    A friend’s daughter went to uni with Pippa and, from the stories, the girl (Pips) was a total bitch. If you didn’t have a title, she not only wasn’t interested in knowing you but would make you feel like dirt. And, of course, she could do this because her sis was dating Wills.

    My friend’s husband was very high ranking military, gave his life in service and the Queen knew him by first name. Yet Pips of the Party Planners still felt incredibly superior.

  37. Charlotte says:

    If you figure she makes 1 appearance per week and then add her outfits for the Diamond Jubilee, which is a once in a lifetime event, her spending is not that bad. Then, add her outfits for travel events then she is averaging like $1,600 per entire outfit. Sorry, I say pretty Darn frugal of the Duchess. Consider also, she is paying full price. I wish I could hire her to dress me.

    • bluhare says:

      I’d want her to talk to the Queen and see if she could get her to let me spend the night in her jewelry vault.

      I’d even give them my VISA card in case they were nervous I’d take something. Just so they felt better. They don’t need to know it would buckle under the weight of any charges!

  38. HME says:

    Personally I’m more interested in how much it costs to maintain that freaking hair of hers. Because even when she IS wearing high street or a recycle her hair has been professionally done. And it’s so hilarious how big a deal they make of the fact that she does her own make-up. Yeah it looks like crap BUT she does it herself!! Really she should ditch her stylist for some events (because she did fine with her hair pre-engagement and it didn’t look like she went to the salon every 3 days, correct me if I’m wrong though) and get a make-up artist instead.

    You know what I’m surprised by? That she hasn’t repeated ANYTHING she wore in Canada yet (at least nothing I can remember off the top of my head). She had some lovely outfits last summer (many of which weren’t summer clothes…..makes me wonder sometimes if she actually didn’t know that we DO get hot weather here in the summer) and I was looking forward to seeing some of them again.

    When Will and Kate do eventually become full time Royals will Will have to pay for her clothes or wil Charles still fund them?

    • jenna says:

      She has re-worn some of the items from the LA portion of the trip, at least. The green wrap DVF dress got pulled out for Zara’s pre-wedding yacht party, and that floral Jenny Packham thing was worn under a coat to another fairly recent wedding.

      Oh, and the Burberry shirt she wore “camping” was also in play on the Canada trip.

      I think she has gained a tiny bit of weight since Canada (which would be a good thing) and many of those clothes were super-tailored so who knows–maybe they don’t fit properly anymore?

      • Sachi says:

        What a terrible waste of money it would be if she bought such expensive, tight-fitting clothes to show off her extreme skinniness, but now she can’t wear them again because she gained 5-7 lbs and she could only use 3 pieces of clothing out of the slew of brand new outfits she had.

      • jenna says:

        It would be kind of crazy, but given that she does appear to have gained at least some weight since then, I am willing to buy that even she ultimately realized her figure in Canada was way too thin and that it was perhaps at least in part due to wedding related stress, not just intentional weight loss. It’s pretty obvious that this woman has iron self control and I think if she wanted to maintain the level of thinness she was showing in Canada, she totally could. So I’m not going to rag on her too much if many of her Canada clothes go “to waste” because she’s gained a few lbs. I wish she’d have to throw out a few more pieces for this reason–she’s still far too thin, I think.

  39. kay says:

    Great post Kaiser :)
    and thanks for including all the pics, I love her clothes.

    I think it makes sense Charles pays for her work clothes. I don’t have a compelling argument as to why I feel this way, just that it didn’t shock me to read he does and it makes sense to me. I didn’t read he funds ALL her clothing, just the “Official” stuff. And considering that one dress can be really expensive, I don’t think the total is out of line at all.

    ITA with Kaiser, at this point, I wish she was out there more, being a full time Royal. It’s time, and she is so classy and gracious, I think she can handle it (but what do I know really).

    I also liked that she pays full price, so that everyone benefits from her choices. Or the Royal Family’s choices. Whichever.

    and finally! I LOVED that clip!! If looks could kill that princess would be toast.
    Go Kate!!

  40. jenna says:

    I don’t think it’s that outrageous. I also don’t think the constant comparisons to Diana are really valid. Diana was a rank up in the royal hierarchy, OF COURSE she was doing more engagements. William and Kate aren’t going to be on the throne for another 20+ years, probably, and they probably won’t even get the Prince/Princess of Wales titles for another 10-15…I totally expect the queen to make it to 100. So although it would be nice if Kate seemed a bit more into the working royal thing, she doesn’t need to get up to Diana-esque levels of engagements (or clothing expenditure…) just yet.

    Also, even if she does zero public engagements, the woman is getting photographed at the grocery checkout. She does need to keep up appearances at all times.

    What I think would be a more valid comparison is how her clothing costs compare to say, Beatrice or Eugenie’s. Those two are also very fashion conscious, get photographed a lot (but aren’t working royals), and always seem to be wearing something way out of the price range of mere mortals. If her clothing expenditures are on par with either B or E…it’s not really Kate that’s the problem.

    • iseepinkelefants says:

      Are we really going to get into the fact that a) Andrew can afford it and b) Bea and Eugene have their own inheritance?

      Waity cannot afford it on her own and her husband doesn’t even pay for it (because he couldn’t afford to up until last weekend. Even then with her budget she’d put him in the poor house soon enough).

  41. sharylmj says:

    I think that Wiiliam is in charge of everything that Kate does. She is not choosing how often she works, he is. She maybe had some input on what charities she wanted to be involved in, but the amount of exposure to the public is not her choice. He is VERY protective of her and is in charge. As far as the clothes budget goes.. If someone told me to go shopping with that budget… I would.. I can’t hate this girl, she is going to be constantly compared to everyone around her who was born into this business…It took them 9 years to get married for that reason. She’s not going to go full charge into anything, it’s going to be a LONG process

  42. I side with your defense. She can’t not be dressed up in super-spiffy clothes all the time. Whenever she reuses an outfit, it makes the news, her eye makeup and shoes and hair- every inch of her is scrutinized viciously, and if I were her, I’d be careful to always wear designer clothes in public too. Also, $45,000 in six months is a lot, but it’s not that much, considering her station.

    • Sachi says:

      If she really has any style of her own, she’d be able to look fabulous in cheaper clothes. You don’t need to spend $50,000 in 6 months to look good. That rationale is ridiculous. That only works if you’re as vain and greedy as someone like Imelda Marcos.

      Take away McQueen and the other designer duds, the 5 layers of makeup, 2 layers of blush, and 3 coats of eyeliner, take away her curled hair, and what is left?

      Look at Zara Phillips. She most likely spends less than Kate does on her clothes, and yet Zara almost always looks smashing. She’s naturally beautiful and doesn’t need to cover herself in designer brands.

      Other Princesses make do with cheaper brands, too. Look at Princess Letizia of Spain. Her clothing budget must be only about $15,000 per YEAR since most of her outfits are truly cheaper, affordable Spanish brands and Spain’s economy is in the dumps so the Spanish royal family’s annual income is greatly reduced, yet she manages to look beautiful 90% of the time. And she works 6x more than Kate.

  43. Apsutter says:

    Yes, she’s expected to look good but she barely does any royal duties. I think this shows just how much she goes shopping in all her down time. This doesn’t even include her beauty treatments which I believe we’re estimated to be around another 30000ish a year.

  44. Sachi says:

    That amount wouldn’t be as obscene if she was actually working more than 10x a month or if she spends more than 2 hours per event.

    But she doesn’t. She only spends, at the most, 1.5 hours per event and then off she goes to a Polo match or with that event for sick children, she went shopping right after interacting with sick children and their families.

    Going shopping after seeing sick children suffering as Kate has done doesn’t speak well of her compassion and empathy. Anyone who sees children suffering and pretends to care, then goes on to shop and buys two big bags worth of clothes, like Kate did, is on my sh*t list.

    She most likely spends upwards of 3 hours getting ready for an event where she only stays for an hour and then it’s “see ya later!” for her. And the press and her fans drive themselves to a sugar-high praising her to the high heavens when she barely contributes anything. 1 hour in a charity event is not enough to accomplish anything. 3 hours at a salon, however, will be enough to ensure Kate feels pretty that day.

    Kate is labeled by the media as thrifty and “just like us”, a girl who loves high street shops and wears affordable clothes. She is far from it.

    She’s yet to recycle the thousands of $$$ worth of clothes she wore in her tour of North America. She’s only recycled an outfit 3-4 times. The rest of her outfits are still brand new, designer stuff.

    It’s fine is she wants to look her best, but she fails even at that.

    70% of the time she ruins her outfits with that big, College-style hair of hers which, by the way, also cost upwards of $10,000 per year for maintenance.

    And really, her PR team should do better in selling her and William as a normal couple. They are not and they never will be. It is offensive to liken themselves to people who actually work and earn their own money. Kate and William are not frugal, they don’t live ordinary lives. Stop bombarding the public with lies because the more they try to sell this image of William and Kate as two down-to-earth people, the less believable it becomes, especially when we get this revealing information that points to the contrary.

    I don’t expect them to stop being spoiled, entitled prats, but at least they can be discreet, hardworking, and responsible prats.

    The least Kate can do is to not wear McQueen and Jenny Packham for every formal event. There are a lot of upcoming and unknown British designers. She should support them instead of wearing such expensive outfits over and over again.

  45. Cathy says:

    I read somewhere that when the Queen and Prince Philip got married, she was allowed to take a couple of years off royal duties to basically go live on some foreign naval base with her husband. And for almost two years she was a part time royal. Why can’t you give Kate a break. If the Queen, then Princess Elizabeth took two years to be basically a housewife then why can’t Kate.

    • bluhare says:

      You’re right. It was Malta and I think the Queen has said they were two of the happiest years of her life.

    • Lisa Turtle says:

      Its comparing apples and oranges. Circumstances were different. Princess Elizabeth was a young bride and while she was with Phillip in Malta she had her first two children during that time. When her father’s health declined, she immediately assumed all royal duties. Elizabeth was 25.

      Diana, at 20, was pregnant and immediately thrust into public work. In retrospect, this was probably to the detriment of her and Charles’s marriage. That and Charles was in love with another woman and 11 years older than her, and they hardly knew each other.

      Kate is 30. Never held a real job. Has been living with William since college. What has she done for the past 10 years except be a housewife?

      • bluhare says:

        I think the Queen produced Charles in the first year of her marriage. If not within, certainly shortly after. She also hardly saw him as a small child, and I’m not sure he was with them in Malta. Does anyone more versed in history know? I’m thinking no, because it’s always been portrayed as a carefree two years with them going out and dancing. I wonder if she joined the officers wives club.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare – this officers wives thing is going to be your Ross -we-were-on-a break moment!

        The Queen was happy to mix with the ladies of the local chapter of Philip’s unit. She did the same when she was a teenager and mixed with the unit she was with in the War effort. Apparently when world war ended and her parents did the balcony, she was in the crowd too for a while before going up to the balcony. I do not think Miss won’t-mix-with-the-RAF wives would do such a thing.

        Differeent times, i know , but she really wouldn’t mix ywith anyone who wasn’t helping her climb or William.

    • bluhare says:

      LAK, I am a bit obsessed with the wives club, aren’t I?

      It’s just the one thing she could have done that would have created amazing good will at the base, plus the positive PR for her would help show her detractors she’s not just a wind up doll. I would also think it would have helped William with his wife participating, thereby making the wives happy, and thereby making their husbands happy. I mean it’s just a win any way you look at it, and I can’t believe she’s so self absorbed she won’t do it.

  46. Andrea says:

    I can’t believe people are actually up in arms about this. I’ve said it before: She is essentially a welfare recipient. She lives off the state. It’s highly likely her father-in-law is paying for her clothing. Where exactly did Prince Charles get his money from? The British people. This is in no way surprising. This is why anti-monarchists groups exist. The entire group of royals are lazy, inbreeds.

  47. Lisa Turtle says:

    I think its okay that Charles is funding Kate’s “official” clothes… That’s fine. Charles can afford it, Kate wants it, Williams okay with it. And frankly, I think its part of her job to look nice and to support British designers.

    I’m curious as to the Middleton’s financial situation, in general. Kate had to slum it (clothes-wise) while she was on her parents dime. She would wear things from her mother’s closet or from Zara and Topshop. She really hasn’t done that at all in the past 6 months… Meanwhile, Pippa is cashing out with a book deal. Doesn’t seem like there is actually as much wealth in that family business as they would like you to think.

    I’m honestly surprised that she actually bagged William after all those years… I just don’t really see what she has to offer him. Sure she’s sporty and fit. But she’s not nearly the most attractive woman in the world. She’s not a bright girl. She’s not an interesting woman. She’s been incredibly banal and underwhelming in her public appearances. Her public quotes are either unintelligible mumblings or so trivial they shouldn’t even be repeated in reputable papers. Her big accomplishment in life is waiting for William to commit to her. I think she must have put herself in a motherly, care-taker role for him (cooking, cleaning, doting on him) and he probably fell in love with that when he was a broken little boy who’d lost his mother. I don’t think Kate would be married to William if Diana was still around. I think William would have found someone more dynamic, more passionate, someone heavily involved in and interested in charity work and about things other than becoming William’s perfect princess.

    • iseepinkelefants says:

      Well Waity wasn’t his first choice (Jecca Craing, Isabella Calthorpe), so you can’t even really give her that win.

      More she lucked into the role because no one wanted it (and after 9 years William was being labeled as an arse for leading her on, when in reality she wasn’t his girlfriend for that whole nine years, she was just better at running to the press to make it seem like she was his gf the whole time).

    • LAK says:

      i was at the supermarket when i caught the tag line of a magazine tabloid which compares type of wives the two kates {Moss and Waity} are. One is a wild child teenager, whilst the other one is a nursemaid/nanny who doesn’t have sex – apparently she ‘gives away her sexy clothes’ guess which kate was which?

      Putting aside the tag line and idiocy of having such a comparison, it really crystallised for me that she is his nanny. But then i question a man who can marry his nanny. Even Camilla doesn’t pander to Charles to this level.

    • D1 says:

      William isn’t the most attractive man in the world. I also see no evidence that he is particularly interesting or that he possesses a more than average intellect.

      Perhaps the lifelong company of a banal man does not provide enough incentive for a genuinely passionate, interesting, and intelligent woman to put up with the stress of joining the royal family, and as a result, William wasn’t able to attract one.

      Perhaps William and Kate are birds of a feather.

  48. Mrs.Krapple says:

    Considering the crap she usually wears, yes, that’s way too much. The dress in that top picture probably cost a fortune; instead, she could have made it out of an old woman’s bedspread for cheap.

    With all the money she spends, why does she wear such horrible old-lady dresses? Trying to copy the queen? SHe should find someone younger with a better fashion sense to ape.

  49. bettyrose says:

    Yeah but they save a lot of money by not feeding her.

  50. kate says:

    i don’t think it’s that much money. and it’s justified. i actually think she’s doing great work as a first year royal. I hope she keep it up.

  51. Michelle says:

    I believe this is nothing compared to what Michelle Obama spends on her wardrobe.

    • benny says:

      Michelle Obama is a self-made millionaire. She can spend whatever she wants on her clothes because she’s not buying them with hand-outs.

      And at age 48, Obama looks more stylish and classy than the 30-year old hag, Kate. Obama has taste; Kate copies Camilla.

      • Michelle says:

        Michelle would not have her “self-made millions” without her husband, which is the same for Kate. It is a fact that Michelle has spent a much larger figure than Kate has in six months.
        Does it matter which one looks better? I think they both look respectively nice at their events.
        It is just amazing how much they are each willing to spend in the name of style.
        As for your “hag” comment, bitter much?

      • HoustonGrl says:

        I’m no Michelle fan, however she made it through Harvard Law School and became a major administrator at the University of Chicago. She could be a partner in a law firm by now if she hadn’t chosen a life in public service. That, and she works and has two kids. I’m certain Michelle has many more public and private appointments than Kate.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Michelle made her own money. In fact, she made more than the President before he wrote his books. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from (I can guess), but it’s wrong. The American people aren’t paying for her wardrobe, but the Brits are most certainly going to be paying for Waity’s.

      • benny says:

        It was the same with the Clintons — until Bill became president, Hillary was the major bread winner in the family, and also worked full-time while raising Chelsea (and by all accounts, Chelsea turned out great).

        These are women to look up to. By comparison, Waity Katie is an intellectual simpleton (even her in-laws don’t trust her to speak in public), who has nothing going for her but her long hair and an eating disorder. There is NOTHING to praise Kate for other than her hair or her physique (the result of the eating disorder). Women who admire her are setting the gender back decades.

        Kate: Can you, . . . um, . . . test the, . . . um, . . . smell of the tea . . . by smelling it?

        That was a PLANNED trip to a tea shop, she had all the time in the world to prep, and that’s the best her mind could come up with.

        Real role model right there (sarcasm)

  52. KG says:

    Forbes said it was $54,000 not $45,000. This is just on clothes, not her hair and beauty treatments. Also designers have talked about how she accepts discounts but not freebies in the past. Past as in after her wedding. So I don’t buy she pays full price for everything.

  53. Justme says:

    @LAK :D Write the book – write the book! I’ll buy a copy!

  54. Reece says:

    I going to try for a silver lining here and hope that some of that $45,000 is for the Olympics.

  55. anne_000 says:

    What’s ironic is that if Kate did ‘go to work’ more often, her clothing bill would probably be even more than it is now. Imagine that if doing very little costs $45k in clothing, what it would cost if she did work, especially as much as Princess Anne.

  56. Ryan says:

    Either she spends a lot and is criticized for being wasteful, or she doesn’t spend enough and is criticized for looking “budget.” She can’t win.

  57. Feebee says:

    Expected NOT to take discounts? Why on earth not?? I think it’s delusional for her to be paying full price or even keeping a lot of the stuff. Why not borrow? She’s bound to be sample size, grab it off the runway, wear it to an event and then give it back! She’s not an ordinary citizens and I believe we’re the only ones who have to pay retail.

    The royal household, doesnt matter which one, should be stumping up for her clothing for public functions. It’s a family business but it’s still a business.

    A blow out every three days is ridiculous. How the hell does she manage that ‘living in Wales’? Doesn’t she own a hair-dryer?

    • Fue McCormick says:

      If you have a blow-out every 3 days, does that mean you don’t wash your hair for 3 days? I hope not. Imagine the odor! Listen people: wash your hair everyday. After 24 hours it starts to smell; even if you think it doesn’t smell … it does.

  58. HoustonGrl says:

    Of course she spent all that money. Her job is to look good in pictures. That’s it.

  59. annieanne says:

    Who pays for her hair appointments? She gets a blowout every three days. That’s a lot of money too, you know

    She lives in Wales. Her stylist is in London. You seriously believe she’s traveling almost 300 miles every three days to get her hair blown out?

    • Jackie O says:

      no, the hairdresser is probably doing all the traveling when waity is not in london. and getting handsomely paid for it too, i imagine.

    • iseepinkelefants says:

      Yes because there are picures of her throughout the week in London.

      Going by the pictures she spends the weekends in Wales (if that) and her weeks at KP (and people really question if she married William for William and not William, Future King? Newlyweds don’t move away from their husbands after a year to live it up in a Palace and spend their days getting thir hair did and running up their visa card).

  60. iseepinkelefants says:

    I love how they gloss over her extravagent clothing budget by saying “Kate always pays full price”, like that’s supposed to make up for it.

    Did you lot really think she’d change? This spoilt little madam will never grow up and now with Charles’ unlimited bank account she can indulge even more. She has some balls. I would never ever think of asking anyone to pay for my clothing budget. It would make me feel ashamed.

    I wonder what the Queen thinks of this. Of course Charles doesn’t care because he himself spends thousands on clothes. They can Marie Antoinette it up together.

    Oh House of Windsor I hope this adds another nail to your coffin. Can you imagine the draining costs Charles AND Waity would put on the public? Ahaha maybe they are a match made in heaven. Both inflated egos thinking they deserve more than they do (at least Charles has en excuse, what’s Waitys?).

    • Jaxx says:

      Do you really think Kate TOLD Charles to pay for her clothes? That she tells anyone anything at all? I get the impression that she goes when and where she is told and nothing more.

      Yet everyone criticizes her like everything that happens in her life is her idea.

      And after the way Diana was treated it’s no wonder no one else wanted the job. And by 30 William knew it too. And that’s how you get to be a future queen.

  61. chalkdustgirl says:

    I’m a school teacher and while my wardrobe costs are nowhere *near* Kate’s, I DO know how quickly just the essentials can add up. Add on the requirement of high end labels, gowns, and suits for countless functions and appearances…yeh, well, $45k sounds pretty reasonable!

  62. soleil says:

    Don’t mean to be a smartass, but £35,000 is way more than $45,000 – it’s close to $55,000, actually.

  63. Diamond Girl says:

    There’s no comparison to Diana, who was from a rich titled family and only 19 (same age as Miley Cyrus!). I think people forget how young she was, and she did all of her duties while having her babies in those first few years.

    I still remember after William was born when Charles and Diana had to tour Australia and Diana defied the Queen by refusing to leave her baby behind as she was expected to do. That took some guts for a 21 year old but she took that baby with her to Australia.

    I just don’t think this weathered, wrinkled 30 year old party girl compares to Diana.

    • snob says:

      You put it better than me. I see a lot of poster try to promote Kate by pulling Diana down. I do not understand why a woman who has been dead for over a decade being dragged back to life in order to justify someone’s deficiency. Kate’s fans tend to treat her like a precious fragile doll even though she is already more than 30 years old. Diana at that age already had 2 children and packed a lot into her lifetime.

  64. LM says:

    The Queen didn’t give Kate a “princess” title because in the Royal family Princes with a Royal Duke or Earl title rank above Princes without and when any son or grandson marries he is given a Dukedom which he (and his wife) will be known by.
    Kate is technically a Princess but for the moment Duchess is a superior title, once Charles is King she will be Princess of Wales.

  65. BLOGAHOLIC says:

    Some people spend over 100k on 1 bag

  66. kristiner says:

    $40k on clothes and she’s still wearing the SAME pair of beige pumps?????

  67. PS says:

    I agree with Kaiser on this. Kate needs to look good and she’s representing not only the Royal Family but Great Britain. If she wore the same old same old, she’d be slammed for that.

    That said, she really should be working full-time. What else does she has to do? This is her job now. She may not feel comfortable without Prince William or may want him there with her but she’s got to get on with it.

    However, I would think if the Royal Family – - and most importantly, the Queen – - had a problem with Kate’s schedule, it would be dealt with accordingly. Since her schedule seems fairly light, the Queen obviously doesn’t have an issue.

  68. flower says:

    I think you have the wrong idea regarding the princess title Kaiser.

    Princess is actually just a courtesy title and she does already have that title, literally ‘Princess William of Windsor (or Cambridge), she could never hold the title of Princess Catherine because she was not born a princess. She might one day become Catherine, Princess of Wales but never Princess Catherine.

    The title of Duchess is actually more important than princess in the grand scheme of court hierarchy. Princes and Princesses are a dime a dozen in Europe. That’s why Prince Phillip was given the title Duke of Edinburgh on his marriage to the Queen and is his chief rank in Britain. Also Why William was given a Dukedom just before his wedding, until that moment he was in British law a ‘commoner’ it was to established him into the British peerage. Everyone who is not a peer of the realm is in law a ‘commoner’, which means Prince Harry and Princess Anne are legally speaking ‘commoners’ because they have no title of their own. Anne has either refused a Duchess/Countess title or it is not legally possible to make her one (I’m not sure on that point), that’s why the Queen made her Princess Royal to lift her above the other princesses of Britain, but still a courtesy title.

    Camilla is also legally a princess, Princess of Wales, which in Britain does hold more importance than a Duchess title (basically it means here comes the next Queen) but she never uses that title because of its public association with Diana.

    There is still some confusion regarding the Duke of Edinburgh’s title, the Queen has indicated the title should go to Edward eventually, however he cannot directly inherit the title on his father’s death. There is a strict precedence to follow, a Dukedom automatically passes to the oldest son or nearest male relative. Which means Charles will inherit the title and after him William (under normal circumstances). However once Charles becomes King the title will go back into the royal melting pot, only then can he re-create the title for Edward. There are many slips between the cup and the lip so anything may happen to upset the title cart between now and then. Perhaps even a complete shake up of the peerage heredity system once the new accession law comes into effect, if the Crown is to pass to the eldest child regardless of sex then female equality may also eventually become part of peerage law as well, a few decades from now.

  69. AnneOriginal says:

    “I think the first hint of that should have been the Queen’s refusal to give Kate a “princess” title upon her marriage ”

    The Queen is very traditional. She followed tradition here. Unless born a princess the wife is not made a princess in title unless she is married to the Prince of Wales. The Queen Mother was a Duchess until George VI ascended to the throne. And although born a Prince, Prince Philip relinquished his own titles from birth, and was not made a prince by the Queen until 1957.

  70. rek says:

    new article just came, the true number is actually £105,000

  71. Boo says:

    This should probably go on the earlier Kate thread about curtsying to Bea and Eug, but I figure the same people are on this thread, so…

    Turns out it is all apparently a lie, this “new protocol” story.

    http://socialitelife.com/victoria-arbiter-clears-up-the-royal-protocol-story-exclusive-06-2012

  72. mayamae says:

    To my more knowledgeable fellow posters who are Brits:

    Do you feel that Kate will be able to win people over when she has children? Do you personally feel you’ll give her a fair chance as a mother or is the dislike too strong? Reading how some believe the York sisters pay for the sins of their parents made me wonder if people will vent their dislike of Kate on her children.

    • LAK says:

      The children will be used to deflect from her shortcomings. The media will sell her as the first and greatest mother that has ever been. The children will always be diana’s grandkids, just like William (bizarrely not Harry) is always Diana’s son, and so they will not suffer any dislike of Kate. They will probably be adored and given the same pass William has been given.

      My kate dislike stems from her being sold as everything she’s not. None of the other wives are sold like this. In the case of first ladies, most are truly accomplished these days and have earned the right to stay at home eating bonbons but they don’t. When you examine Kate, it is worse than you are told. I can not abide rude, thoughless, superficial people and it kills me that at a place I volunteer for that looks after troubled teen girls, they all want to be kate ie be pretty, don’t see why they should accomplish anything if they can get a rich man to take care of them. It used to be football WAGS that they looked up to, now it’s Kate. I do try to steer them to other role models but I get the same response….why try, when a rich man can take care of them, like Kate/WAGS