Vivienne Westwood thinks Duchess Kate should recycle her clothes more often

For some reason, I mis-remembered which fashion designers have criticized Duchess Kate in the past. I thought Oscar de la Renta had shaded Kate, but no… he threw shade on Michelle Obama. Vivienne Westwood is one of the few designers who has been consistently critical of Kate, perhaps thinking that it’s no big loss because Kate was never going to wear her designs anyway. Which is a shame, because I think Vivienne Westwood is one of the most amazing British designers out there. If I was Kate (pity the thought) and I had to prioritize wearing mostly British designers, I would wear more Westwood and Burberry and I would definitely throw in more Temperley (who seems like an obvious choice for a princess/duchess and I always wonder why Kate doesn’t wear more Temperley).

Anyway, Westwood has been critical of Kate in the past, as I said. In 2011, Westwood was asked why she had never dressed Kate and Vivienne said: “I have to wait until [Kate] kind of catches up a bit somewhere with style.” BURN. The same year, Westwood also called Kate out for her raccoon makeup problem saying, “I think she’s got a problem with eye make-up! The sharp line around her eyes make her look hard. Either she should be smudgy or wear none.” Two years later, and Westwood is still going hard:

The Duchess of Cambridge has yet another critic: Dame Vivienne Westwood, one of Britain’s most celebrated (and iconoclastic) fashion designers. Westwood, 71, first called out Kate Middleton back in 2011 — complaining about the royal’s eye makeup — and leveled a new attack on the pregnant 31-year-old over the weekend.

Promoting her London Fashion Week Autumn/Winter 2013 presentation, Westwood was asked by reporters about Prince William’s wife talked-about style and offered an unexpected complaint: The Duchess should recycle her outfits more often.

“I don’t have any advice for her, [although] I think it would be great if she wore the same clothes over and again, because that’s very good for the environment and it would send out a very nice message,” Westwood said of Middleton — who, indeed, frequently wears the same clothing and accessories at public events.

Continued Westwood: “If you’re going to all that trouble to get an outfit that suits you, then you should keep on wearing it. I mean, you don’t have to have a red outfit one day and then something almost the same in blue the next.”

[From Us Weekly]

Yeah. That’s not even the worst criticism leveled at Kate this week. And I actually think it’s slightly unfair, because Kate does recycle clothes sometimes. She just hasn’t recycled anything in a while because she hasn’t been making many appearances in the past four or five months, and now that she’s pregnant, she needs new clothes. The one thing that bothers me about Kate’s fashion recycling is that she doesn’t spread the repeats out far enough. Like, she’ll wear something new (like a pink coatdress) one day and then eight days later, for her second appearance within that time frame, she repeats the same pink coatdress. She has an amazing closet, and she has so many clothes it would be easy for her to wear something that hasn’t been seen in a year, you know?

PS… Bump-cupping is the new hair-fondling. She even managed to do both in one photo. I don’t mind bump-cupping in general, except that when she’s only using one hand, it sometimes looks like she’s patting her duchess vadge. “Still there, girlfriend? Don’t worry, we’ll go shopping soon.”

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

150 Responses to “Vivienne Westwood thinks Duchess Kate should recycle her clothes more often”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. RocketMerry says:

    Waity’s skin is looking amazing! Preggo hormones are good for her.

    Also, love Vivienne Westwood, she makes unique but interesting fashion.

    And I don’t mind her looks: she is a normal woman of a certain age and I find that most designers look terrible anyways. It’s like all their fashion and beauty sawy gets poured onto the models; nothing left for them.

  2. Lulu says:

    I think Vivienne has recycled her teeth too many times.

    • Blue Jean says:


      That is a very unattractive woman, and she should reconsider offering any kind of beauty/fashion/style advice to anyone. I’d suggest a bag over her head.

    • Guesto says:

      @emmie_a – pathetic, isn’t it? Westwood has more style, individuality and personality in her little finger than Kate will ever have in her whole life, and that’s not even a criticism of Kate, just a fact.

      And VW’s right about recycling – Kate’s worn some great pieces and I bet if Viv sat down with her and advised her about what’s worked best for her and how to personalise and adapt a look, she’d start to develop a style that’s less safe (albeit dreary) ‘home counties’ and more contemporary and her own.

  3. smartyparty says:

    Westwood is terrifying looking, I seriously thought the thumbnail was a photoshopped pic made to look scary. I think that is the meanest thing I have ever commented. I just have to put that out there…

  4. pretty says:

    wow this grandma looks ridiculous. hahaha

  5. logan says:

    Top photo: Lindsay Lohan attends the 2017 amFar gala.

  6. T.Fanty says:

    I love Vivienne Westwood. I love that she looks like a crack version of Helen Mirren, I love her clothes, and I love her legacy.

  7. Micki says:

    When a designer preaches style I’ve no problem .
    On the other hand we should not forget that generally Royal women dress concervatively and blandly. Take any RF in Europe -they are not models to dress in the latest fashion nor do I think it’s required for the job. What is expected though is that RF members promote the designers of their respective countries.
    I remember some 10 or more years ago Mary of Denmark was strongly criticized for wearing expensive clothes but just a few pieces by danish designers

    • Sachi says:

      Letizia of Spain was also criticized for wearing Armani to her engagement press conference, even though she bought the suit with her own hard-earned money and she wasn’t a royal yet.

      The criticism about Mary was right. She was called “Imelda Marcos of the North” for her spendthrift habits that she still hasn’t curbed. She just doesn’t promote her country as often as she should…which for royal woman is sometimes through their clothes. She’s a clotheshorse for expensive foreign brands. Even now she rarely wears Danish designs except when she’s attending Danish Fashion Week/fashion shows or a random event.

      She’s worse than Kate when it comes to style and spending habits. At least Kate wears many UK-based brands regularly.

    • SISI says:

      I agree!!
      Whilst VW is perfectly entitled to hold an opinion, the more I think about her latest comments, the more baffled I am … I very much doubt Kate will loose any sleep over what she says!!

  8. minime says:

    I think Vivienne was being sarcastic.
    Ah, and your duchess vadge monologue is the best! :D

  9. GoodCapon says:

    3rd photo: Waity and her crocodile tears. HAH. You’re not fooling anyone kiddo.

  10. emmie_a says:

    I think she has a point. Almost everything Kate wears is precisely tailored to fit her to a tee and that type of tailoring is very tedious and expensive — so it’s not a bad sentiment to want her to get more use out of her wardrobe.

    • bluhare says:

      emmie_a: What? A logical response? ;)

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        Yes seriously. She buys direct and off the rack, but she has hundred of dollars/pounds tailoring done to everything.

        She has a long torso for her body and she has a tailored empire waistline added to fit her measurements. It was part of a Vogue article, but backed up by another fact riddled publication.

        The point is a fair one. And to another post you said she is not funded by taxpayers. She is indeed funded by the “trickle down” effect.

        Also, to your Camilla spends more that her comment. Camilla works 50x’s harder and does more engagements. For what Kate spends on pieces she may never wear again and never wore to any event is astonishing! And again funded by Charles who is also in the trickle down chain.

        Sorry to post all here, but I wanted to get this in quickly.

      • SISI says:

        @Alexandra Bananarama
        I repet, British taxpayers do NOT fund the Royal Family. ONLY the Queen gets a Sovereign Grant (15%) to run the royal household, out of the profits generated by the Crown Estate – the rest goes to the Nation.
        W&K are NOT paid for the royal duties they perform (they only do royal duties part-time), though they are reimbursed for any related expenses.
        Charles’ contribution towards W&K’s expenses cannot reasonably be regarded as being taxpayers funding. Under current arrangements, the Duchy of Cornwall is NOT subsidised by tax payers. As the Heir, Charles is ENTITLED to run the Duchy & draw an income out of the profits made. (but he does not own the estate outright, nor can he sell parts of it for his own benefit). – BTW, he has been VERY successful managing it!

      • LAK says:

        SISI – Irrespective of how little the expenses Charles covers for WK’s public duties, the fact remains that they become part of his tax write off. A tax write off has to be made up somewhere. We the public subsidise that tax write off in the higher taxes we pay. BTW: This is a problem posed by every individual/company that gets a tax write off, so I’m not singling out Charles or WK.

      • SISI says:

        LAK – C’mon! These are LEGITIMATE Tax Allowances (NOT any form of tax-avoidance or “write-offs”). If you have a “problem” with that, take it up wit The Chancellor of the Exchequer – It’s fundamentally wrong to call personal tax allowances “public subsidy”.
        BTW, Charles & William are high-rate tax-payers!?
        Anyway, Every individual/company is ENTITLED to certain tax allowances, so singling out Charles and W&K as you did, is misleading, prejudicial and unfair!?
        British taxpayers do Not fund the Royal Family.

      • LAK says:

        SISI – I made it very clear that i am not singling Charles or WK with regards their tax arrangements, BUT with your next statement you have made it very clear that you do not understand what a tax write off is or how the treasury makes up the shortfall of these cumulative tax write offs from all the people who get them.

        Your obtuse ignorance of something as basic as economics and tax only demonstrates how meaningless the factual comments you make really are.

      • SISI says:

        Good! – for confirmation that it is NOT singling Charles or W&K (1st & 2nd in line) with regards their tax arrangements ALSO renders the original “trickling public funds-Charles” argument INVALID.
        The British taxpayer do NOT fund the Royal Family. – It’s a Contitutional Monarchy and BOTH the Executive (Parliament) and the Monarchy have a place and important roles to play.
        Your last statement (“But, …”) – I’ll take that as a compliment!?
        Just two words spring to mind …POT & KETTLE.

      • bluhare says:

        SISI: Let me give you a tip. You will lose. Trust me.

      • LAK says:

        SISI – Taxation. Not your thing. You are embarrassing yourself.

  11. Gine says:

    Even though I’m pretty meh on all the royals, fashion is one area where they do have my sympathy, because they literally can’t win there. If they’re more fashionable, they’ll be criticized for being shallow and flashy, and if they’re more conservative, they’re called boring and stuffy. I actually think Kate’s managed to strike as good a balance as she can there for the most part.

    Plus it’s unfair that the men’s fashion choices are never criticized. I know that’s partly because suits are boring, but you never hear anyone whining about how Charles and William’s suits are too expensive or anything like that.

  12. Angelic 20 says:

    I don’t get why Kate repeating clothes is such a big deal. Absolutely everyone in rf does that and way more then her. Rf women are wearing clothes belonging to a different decade, men in rf are also wearing the same suit, tuxedo, coats for decades. She is actually the only one who repeats minimum clothes compared to the rest of the family.

  13. L says:

    Doesn’t she recycle clothes all the time? Months (and in the case of some hats and dresses) years apart? The one time she wore a dress twice in a short period-than pink coat dress- people went on and on and on about how she shouldn’t be recycling so often. I’m lost.

    And as @micki said, all of the European princesses dress conservatively. I don’t know why that seems to be a surprise to the european fashion houses.

    • Angelic 20 says:

      Actually she re wears them the least but I don’t blame her on this because women who marry in are usually more insecure and tend to spend more. What I don’t like is media’s crap calling her thrifty because she is anything but thrifty. I understand she have to buy more clothes compared to men and other ladies in rf because she just started working as a royal but please don’t call her thrifty and the first person ever in rf to re wear clothes.

    • GoodCapon says:

      The choice of what she wears is mainly down to PR. Take what she was wearing yesterday for example: they wanted to show off her pregnancy bump so out comes a figure-hugging dress with no coat or blazer even though it’s very cold in London right now.

      The problem with that pink dress was that she wore it to two CONSECUTIVE engagements which were only a week or so apart. It’s part of the “The Duchess is just like you, she recycles her clothes” PR spin but it was done so blatantly it came off as tacky.

      I don’t mind if she doesn’t recycle often, but I won’t let anyone tell me that she’s frugal just because she was caught wearing the same frock more than once.

    • L says:

      I’m just confused as to why westwood is saying she should wear the same clothes over and over and over again-when Middleton gets constantly dumped on for the one time she wore the same coat 2 weeks apart. It’s a mixed message. I could go either way on Kate, but it seems like people complain it’s either she never does it/she wears them to often. Which is it?

      I don’t think she’s thrify the same way a normal person is, but compared to other some European royals who wear something once and then never again-sure I can see that.

      • bluhare says:

        Yeah, I get the mixed messages, T. I think Vivienne’s point is that she should rewear some good pieces, but not necessarily one week apart. Even I, the queen of fashion rules (got a million of them) have a 2 week re-wear rule.

      • SISI says:

        Could it be that VW just wants Pulicity??
        …Problem is this type of stunt gets very tiresome after a (short) while and does no good to her credibility

      • bluhare says:

        SISI: So now expressing an opinion is a stunt?

        Vivienne Westwood has more years of fashion experience than Kate has of life. She knows what she’s talking about. As you have said in the past, Kate’s still learning. What’s wrong with a few tips?

      • SISI says:

        You call “Tips” to what can only be described as unwarranted CRITICISMS of a beautiful young woman who is kind, polite, has never cause harm to anyone, had a recent pregnancy scare and is NOT in a position to answer back to her critics?! Not only Kate is well known for re-wearing her clothing very often, even borrowing from her mother and sister, to attend very important official events, but this latest criticism from VW –bordering on the ridiculous- come at a time where Kate, as any pregnant woman, would need to make more frequent wardrobe changes as the pregnancy progresses. BUT, more astonishingly, VW is repetitively attacking a woman who undoubtedly loves fashion, is a keen supporter of British fashion, is having a huge impact on British fashion, and whose contribution to the Fashion, Millinery, Tourism industries and Charity causes are INCALCULABLE. – It’s a great shame and unpleasant sight, to watch one of our two most celebrated/highly regarded women like Vivienne Westwood and Hillary Mantel publicly attacking other women, and be this rude, inconsiderate and spiteful with Kate (Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge), our future Queen, for a quick grab of the headlines. I hope Kate NEVER accepts an Apple or listens to any “advice” from these two bitchy old women who can never be ladies, and certainly won’t last a minute if they were to be in Kate’s (elegant)shoes.

      • bluhare says:

        Yes I call them tips. Ms. Westwood was suggesting Kate recycle her clothes in a better way. That is a tip, or a suggestion. Perhaps it is also a criticism, due to the fact that Ms. Westwood obviously feels Kate could do a better job, but again, it’s all in the reading, isn’t it?

      • LAK says:

        SISI – STOP. You are REALLY embarrassing yourself.

  14. JL says:

    Oh shoot;

    I think I wore this jacket to work three or four weeks ago – call the fashion police!

    It’s clothes, they are made to be worn more than once. Wearing clothes more than once is not Recycling – getting them from Goodwill is recycling. Jeez!

    Why do people reem Waity on being lazy, frivilous, getting blowouts etc and then rag her about wearing her clothes twice a year….

    Now that’s she’s pregnant, it would make sense to wear outfits many times since they are limited life. Isn’t that what most women do with maternity clothes? Either get off of her for her lifestyle or appreciate she’s getting max use out of her wardrobe.

  15. Devon says:

    I’m with Gine. Royals have to be very aware of what they are wearing and how they’re wearing their clothes 24/7. Often, they’ve got strict protocol on what can and cannot be worn. Those protocols even extend to family members who are not apart of the RF.

  16. Mary says:

    This reminds me of why I stopped being a fan of Kate. She got a lot of publicity for wearing that blue Zara dress, then news came out about the human rights issues at the Zara sweat shop. Did Kate stop wearing Zara? nope. She still continued to wear Zara. She was actually in a position to make a difference and she did nothing!

  17. Karen says:

    Most royal women recycle. Especially since prince of wales pays for her official engagement clothing, and he gets money from tax payers, she should be more careful. Even prada princess mary recycles more – and thats saying something.

    • SISI says:

      British taxpayers do NOT fund the Royal Family. Only HM the Queen (as Monarch of 16 realms, Head of State, Head of The Arm Forces and Supreme Governor of the Church) gets a Sovereign Grant (15%) to run the royal household, out of the profits generated by the Crown Estate – the rest goes to the Nation.
      Kate’s clothing allowance is considerably less than what Camilla and other royals expend. The biggest expender of all was Diana, who only wore her outfits once and they were all haute couture, often tailor-made for her (one-offs).
      As for Princess Mary – my recollection is totally the opposite!

      • LAK says:

        They receive tax payer funds directly and indirectly.

        The Queen gets money for the upkeep of public buildings including KP. WK live at KP rent free. They are also having a £1M removal of asbestos and plumbing etc coming out of tax payers’ pocket for their new apartment at KP.

        Scotland yard has said that their decision to live off base has caused their specific security tax bill to raise by £1M annually. That’s just to look after them in Wales. Doesn’t take into considerations the other places that required extra security because of their decisions.

        Charles gets a tax write off for any of their expenses for public duties and by everything, that includes clothing, makeup etc not just the office/transport/security expense of the engagements. Since Kate keeps wears her engagement clothing in private, she is getting free clothing on taxpayer’s account.

        Charles pays all their living/working/beauty/grooming expenses. His money comes from an estate [duchy] that belongs to the nation. If it did not, he would be allowed to dispose of it as he saw fit. If we abolished the monarchy, the duchy would revert to us. The taxes he pays on the profits are negligible and were only volunteered AFTER we as a nation had a collective hissyfit in 1992. Ditto the Queen paying taxes that same year.

        As for your other points;

        1. Kate”s clothing/grooming expenses are less than other royals because she barely works.

        2. Please research why and how the crown estates exist and why they were handed to parliament to run. They belong to the nation in the same way that the crown jewels belong to the nation.

      • SISI says:

        @LAK – as I said above, and to Alexandra Bananarama:
        British taxpayers do NOT fund the Royal Family. ONLY the Queen gets a Sovereign Grant (15%) to run the royal household, out of the profits generated by the Crown Estate – the rest goes to the Nation.
        W&K are NOT paid for the royal duties they perform (they only do royal duties part-time), though they are reimbursed for any related expenses (as expected).
        Charles’ contribution towards W&K’s expenses cannot reasonably be regarded as being taxpayers funding. Under current arrangements, the Duchy of Cornwall is NOT subsidised by tax payers. As the Heir, Charles is ENTITLED to run the Duchy & draw an income out of the profits made. (but he does not own the estate outright, nor can he sell parts of it for his own benefit). – BTW, he has been VERY successful managing it!
        Note – Charles’ allowance for William, Kate & Harry is set by Charles himself, paid from his own private money, for reasons of his own (not publicly known -so pure speculation on your part). Point is, Kate’s clothing allowance is comparatively small (all things taken into account)
        Scotland Yard would NOT disclose any such security details with anyone! Also, William is ENTITLED to live off-base. – I read such “rumours” floating in the media.

      • LAK says:

        SISI – I am just going to re=post this here from my post above in response to your post.

        Irrespective of how little the expenses Charles covers for WK’s public duties, the fact remains that they become part of his tax write off. A tax write off has to be made up somewhere. We the public subsidise that tax write off in the higher taxes we pay. BTW: This is a problem posed by every individual/company that gets a tax write off, so I’m not singling out Charles or WK.

        True, Charles’s portion to WHK’s household is not known, but it is known that he funds them to very large degree eg the 27 dedicated staff they claim not to have.

        It is also a fact that he pays for their offices and their public duties 100%. So whatever the cost of her blowdry yesterday was billed to the tax payer via a tax write off to Charles.

        That is not speculation on my part.

        You keep posting these reports giving every impression that you do not do any further research beyond what is in the papers.

        Do you know what the Queen uses the Sovereign Grant for or what it is? It isn’t just to pay HM and DoE’s expenses. It covers other things including certain public buildings like KP.

        All senior royals, which includes WK, who use these public buildings do so for free. WK live rent free at KP. That is an example of their receiving money directly from the tax payer paid via goods in kind as opposed to cash.

        Another such payment is the £1M cost of removing asbestos and re-wiring and re-plumbing their new apartment. That’s coming from the taxpayer.

        Scotland Yard wouldn’t disclose exact figures of just how much the security bill, but they did disclose how much it went up in the case of WK and the cause of it when they reviewed overall security arrangements costs. Figure is taken directly from a report made by the Executive Committee for the protection of Royalty and public figures which reports directly to Theresa May. Once these things get to committee they are debated publicly or one can attend the session.

      • SISI says:

        @LAK – No matter how you slice it or pour smoke over, it won’t change the fact that British Taxpayers Do NOT Fund the Royal Family.
        Again, ONLY the Queen (Monarch) gets a Sovereign Grant (15%) to run the royal household. – How she does it, has NOTHING to do with W&K?! Those expenses you mistakenly refer to as “write-offs” ARE LEGITIMATE Tax Allowances (certainly not any form of tax-avoidance or “write-offs”). If you have a “problem” with that, take it up with The Chancellor of the Exchequer – It’s fundamentally wrong to call tax-payers’ (tax) allowances “public subsidy” (!?). Note, Charles & William ARE high-rate tax-payers. Anyway, Every taxpayer/company is ENTITLED to certain tax allowances, so singling out Charles and W&K as you did, is misleading, prejudicial and unfair
        British taxpayers do NOT fund the Royal Family…Period!
        As for living quarters, W&K are NOT the only royals living in a royal palace COURTESY of the Queen. Were Charles & Diana, Edward & Sophie, Margaret, etc paying rent?? As a future Monarch, William is entitled to reside in one of the palaces, as agreed with the Queen. KP, his childhood home, is not privately own by the royal family. Therefore, the state (the Landlord) is rightly paying for all structural renovations (removal of asbestos, re-plumbing, re-wiring, new central heating, security up-grade and so on). The Queen/William are rightly paying for the apartment’s decoration & all furnishings, out of their own (private) money.
        William is ENTITLED to live off-base whilst serving in the military… Period! Scotland Yard would NOT disclose any security details – so rumours floating about/(“if” scenarios) are pure speculation and frackly quite pointless!!
        The rest are more unsubstantiated rumours … and trivia (hair drying??!)

      • bluhare says:

        SISI: From your post:

        >>As a future Monarch, William is entitled to reside in one of the palaces, as agreed with the Queen. KP, his childhood home, is not privately own by the royal family. Therefore, the state (the Landlord) is rightly paying for all structural renovations (removal of asbestos, re-plumbing, re-wiring, new central heating, security up-grade and so on). The Queen/William are rightly paying for the apartment’s decoration & all furnishings, out of their own (private) money.<<

        Don't you get that this is what LAK is talking about? They ARE being subsidised by the taxpayer if they live rent free in a state owned building. Sheesh.

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        @ bluhare

        Bless your heart for trying!
        As I can best understand how SISI is viewing this the Right hand is distributing tax payer funds to the few listed to get it directly. If you’re not feeding from the Right hand you’re not receiving it end of discussion.

        Now the Left hand is sprinkling that money on things that the RF/WK are using for their private lives, but since they’re not on the list of recipients that the right hand is allowed to give to they’re just no receiving it at all.

        And IF Kate IS somehow receiving those funds she spends WAY less than people like Camilla.

        If the 1st defense of Kate in no way receiving tax funds was solid SISI wouldn’t need to be so defensive with the 2nd defense and attack Camilla. And to better understand this tell me if anything I said was incorrect. Because we all make mistakes.

      • SISI says:

        @Alexandra Bananarama/Bluhare:
        Please don’t put words into my mouth
        Yes. You are fundamentally incorrect!
        Provision was made a long time ago for the Queen (Monarch) and members of the RF to set up residence in the Occupied Royal Palaces (i.e: BP, Windsor Castle, Clarence House, KP-residential areas & St James’s Palace). Historical Palaces are NOT available to be used as residences by the Monarch &/or the RF. Only some royals and many non-royals live in the occupied palaces. A few “tenants” live courtesy of the Queen (she pays their rent from her private funds). William, a future King, is certainly entitled to reside in KP – his former home until his mother’s death. The Queen herself arranged for Apartment 1A in KP (previously her sister’s) to be given to W&K.
        All the Royal Palaces are own by the Nation, held in trust by The Queen (Monarch). Only Balmoral Castle & Sandringham House, the Monarch’s official private residences, are owned by the RF (for over 150 years).
        So, it’s right that the Estate (the Landlord) pays for all Apt-1A’s structural renovations (removal of asbestos, re-plumbing, re-wiring, new central heating, security up-grade and so on), whilst the Queen/William pay for the apartment’s decoration & all furnishings, out of their own (private) money.
        The Queen’s effective use of the Sovereign Grant and running of the Royal Household (the occupied palaces) is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
        Likewise, The Prime Minister and members of the Executive (incl. members of the Civil Service) are adequately provided for – i.e: No 10 Downing Street, Chequers (PM’s official private residence), No 11, etc. – They are ALL Estate-owned.
        As for clothing allowance, I wasn’t attacking Camilla – I was merely stating the fact that
        Kate’s expenses are considerably less than what Camilla and other royals expend – The biggest expender of all was Diana. Point is Kate’s clothes allowance is modest in comparison, and W&K are NOT PAID for the royal duties they perform – They are only reimbursed for any related expenses incurred (as expected).
        Charles’ contribution to William, Kate & Harry expenses is paid from his own PRIVATE money (even if EARNED from managing the Duchy of Cornwall!). – The level is set by Charles himself, for reasons of his own (exact level & reasons are not publicly known)

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:


        I don’t believe I have put words in your mouth and if I have it was not intentional. I was only asking bluhare if I was understanding your logic correctly. I would better understand bluhare over you, because your posts seem fuled by rage and frustration. I was not asking specifics of what you’re saying, but rather a general understanding.

        Also, I don’t mind that you like Kate. I don’t think anyone does, really. I (personally) just can’t make heads of tails of how Kate fans defend her or believe her to be something she isn’t. These aren’t opinions. Most of the posts here state facts on why Kate isn’t like by them and in turn picked on by the Kate defenders.

        1 more thing LAK & bluhare along with others are incredibly knowledgeable about the royal family and other bits of trivia in the UK. You could learn a thing or 2 if you put your everlasting devotion of the duchess aside. 

        I stay firm. Kate displays so much apathy for her position. Because apathy is in my opinion the trait only possessed by the worst of humanity.

        I hope this gets through to you. Post whatever response you like. I’m not returning to this post. It’s like a huge hissy fit at this point rather than a casual back and forth.

      • LAK says:

        SISI – Most people who post on the royal threads are perfectly aware of the facts you keep posting repeatedly.

        What you seem to demonstrate repeatedly is that YOU have no understanding of how the facts apply in a practical big picture sense.

        Alex made a very good analogy as to how we perceive your understanding of the facts because that is how you are posting them.

        Shouting the words ‘entitled’ ‘royal’ and many more such words at all of us doesn’t take away your lack of understanding of the fundamental truths and economics that drive the whole thing.

  18. Kate says:

    I want to be Vivienne Westwood when I’m older. I just saw a doc on her the other night and I love her whole punk grandma thing. Plus her clothes are usually pretty damn amazing.

    I wonder if Westwood’s punk roots are the reason the royals don’t wear her designs. Her partner was Malcolm McLaren, the manager behind the Sex Pistols, and they generally weren’t too complimentary of the Queen. ;)

  19. Marigold says:

    She has some nerve commenting on anyone’s eye makeup. Egads.

  20. Dee Cee says:

    If we all did that.. less volume in new collections sales.. lag in fashion news and gossip.. think it over a little more Viv..

  21. bostonian says:

    The point Vivienne was making about the clothes: Kate wears the same silouette in different colors. Always knee legnth or just above, always sleeved, always fitted on the waist. It does make her closet quite redundant.

    With her long slim body, Kate would look phenomenal in a below-the-knee 1940s pencil skirt. Imagine a high waisted skirt with a billowing blouse. Or a sharp pants suit. I’d love to see her in pants that are not so tight her vag is suffocating. I actually dislike how her beloved skinny jeans give her slim legs the appearance of being stumpy and short.

    Kate’s style isn’t “classic” or timeless. Trust me, the Queen thinks those legging-jeans are tacky as all heck. But she does have some beautiful pieces that will stand the test of time. The Red McQueen she wore to the Jubilee. The pale pink fitted lace number (also McQueen ). The tartan McQueen might be my favorite… hmm… Just noticed the pattern appears to be her McQueen’s are in a league of their own.

  22. babykaos77 says:

    Westwood is pioneer of the british fashion scene. In my mind she is not only on par with McQueen but when everyone else on the couture scene was hit by the economic crisis she continued to press forward choosing to re-focus. Nevermind that she has had years and years to develop her art, designs, and company and stand up for what she believes to be important.

    With that in mind, this is a woman dedicated to the environment and I don’t read what she said re – kate as criticism but a round about way to encourage K to support the environment and sustainability through the fashion industry.

    Having said that – going after Westwood’s looks isn’t cool. Just yesterday it was all – feminism and choice and all that other hoopla about not criticizing other women.

    If you can’t argue something objectively then there is no need to go after a person’s looks particularly when they’ve got a long list of accomplishments and a lifetime of experience and have committed themselves to a cause.

    And any woman that has the sex pistols on speed dial is ok by me.

    but never mind me – Kate could not be bothered with you or me or the environment and why should she – I bet you if you asked her to fry an egg – her duchiness has probably forgot how its done.

    • LAK says:


      Things I ve learnt this week; you can be an accomplished woman of substance with a wealth of experience but if you are old and or not pretty then any comments you make about the young and pretty are done out of jealousy and spite because those are the only measures for judging a person!

      • Sachi says:

        Have you ever noticed, LAK, that most jealousy comments actually come from those who readily admit they want Kate’s lifestyle? I’ve never read any Kate “hater” say they’re jealous of anything Kate has. If anything, most ‘jealous haters’ have said they wouldn’t want Kate’s fishbowl life.

        On the other hand, it’s always the sycophants who confess to envying Kate’s life and see nothing wrong with being lazy, aimless, and pathetic. Comments like “If I were her, I’d be lazy too” only come from her fans. They also like to put themselves in Kate’s shoes and say, “If I were in her place, I’d do the same thing.” to show they can relate to Kate.

        So if you criticize Catherine (never Kate Middleton, remember!) :D , they get personally offended because they can easily see themselves behaving like the precious Duchess, and they resort to ad hominem attacks.

      • babykaos says:

        It is precisely because you are accomplished and have had a long life and the benefit of accumulating life experience in general and career/passion/work experience in particular that allows a person male or female to be considered an authority on their work/life passions – plus its obvious that these are two women with an above average intelligence and while pretty women have got only their looks to rely on for a short amount of time – accomplished women don’t need anyone to tell them how its done, what is done, or when it is done.

        I’d take Westwood’s advice, Mantel’s advice and put it to good use.

        And as for those claiming Mantel said so and so because she knew Kate couldn’t respond as she is royal and must stay silent – please even if she did response – what kind of response would it be – another OTT worded press release to promote man event that will be set up in the near future in an attempt to correct how she is being perceived now (lazy, laying about on the tax payers dime, spends most of her time alone)with sentences that only a teenager could string together to describe what must be “feelings”.

        There I can now be labelled as mean and a hater and feel good about it cuz I earned it with my intelligence and not my looks.

    • bluhare says:


      Vivienne has earned everything she’s got.

  23. TG says:

    I don’t mind Westwood criticizing Waity for her makeup, because she is right it is tragic but why would she say she doesn’t recycle her clothes enough? The Duchess is always making appearances in something previously worn.

  24. Sachi says:

    I think VW’s comment is more about Kate buying very similar clothes instead of just repeating the ones she already owns. Kate also doesn’t mix and match. She just buys another version of an outfit that’s already in her closet.

    In 2011 Kate was all about the tight-fitting, sheath dresses to show off her skinniness. She was also big on buttons and military-style clothing. In 2012, she was more about fuller skirts, high-waist dresses that would give the illusion she has a shorter torso.

    But the issue, IMO, is that those clothes must now be too small for Kate. She bought many of those pieces when she was very, very thin with no room for even a weight gain of 10 lbs. Now she’s pregnant, she can’t repeat any of those outfits because they simply wouldn’t fit her. After she gives birth, is she gonna diet herself to a size 2 again just to recycle her old outfits? Chances are she’ll go back to being thin after the birth but she’ll be buying brand new clothes all over again.

    Most of her clothes are also not in style anymore. The clothes she wears are not ‘conservative’ in the sense that the pieces are not timeless. Kate often buys what is on trend/past seasons’ clothes. In 2011 lace was big, so most of her clothes had lace in them from day dresses (the ones worn in Canada) to evening gowns (the Zara 50s-style dress and the Temperley lace gown).

    It’s 2013 now and lace has mostly gone out of style. She won’t be wearing those clothes again, so she’d be buying another batch of whatever’s on trend right now. Her wardrobe has very few classic pieces, so unless she stops that habit of buying everything trendy, she’ll always need to buy new clothes just to keep up with the “fashion icon” label that the media has tacked onto her and she seems very willing to live up to.

  25. Jax says:

    Jeez… this from someone who looks like that witch from Robin Hood Prince of Thieves?? I think she should have a look in the mirror before having a dig at someone else. At least Kate looks like she’s had a wash this century!!

    • Tatiana says:

      So she can have an opinion just for not been “pretty” like Kate? I actually find that knd of statements ridiculous and offensive. And if you want to dish on someone’s looks, you should have see Vivianne Westood when she was younger, she was really pretty and even now I think she has aged gracefully.

  26. LAK says:

    Any one who thinks conservative can’t also be trendy needs to look up Samantha Cameron. She’s the prime minister’s wife, so she has to dress like a first lady. She’s a great example of trendy and conservative dressing. And her pregnancy wardrobe was to die for.

  27. LIVEALOT says:

    meh. i’m kinda over kate.

  28. j.eyre says:

    Re: the bump grab – it is completely beyond your choice. As soon as that thing pops out, your hand latches on to it as if it were magnetized. And you completely forget yourself during a conversation and start rubbing it when it stands out 3 feet from your body. Honestly, I was disgusted by the relationship between my hand and my bumps while pregnant.

  29. babykaos77 says:

    @ everyone that has been commenting on both mantel and westwood as being old – I’d love to see what you all are going to look like at their age.

    at least westwood looks her age and looks like she lived her life to the fullest.

  30. lola lola says:

    When I read your headline I thought you were going to dis VW. I’m so glad you love her as much as I do. She’s amazing and when she dissed Kate about too much black eyeliner, I agree with her. Its so old hat! Kate’s style is way too contrived. She needs to have some life about her! Some fun. Something spontaneous! VW is right.

  31. tabasco says:

    Totally random: I wonder if that’s really Diana’s ring that she wears around, or if the real ring is locked up somewhere and she wears the QVC version out to events? I honestly think that would be the smart way to go. I understand a lot of married women do this for fear of losing their valuable (monetarily and sentimentally) jewelry. Can you imagine having to be like “oh, f*ck, sorry ’bout that, i’ve gone and lost DIANA’S RING?)

    • LAK says:

      You know, her fans get in a snitch for calling her Kate Middleton all these years later BUT gloss over the fact that everyone refers to it as Diana’s ring.

      If it were me, I’d insist on a new ring or a ring from the Jewelry vault that wasn’t a ring of doom.

  32. Zimmer says:

    Kate is really getting on my nerves as of late, but I think V. Westwood should leave her alone for now (additionally, I think V. Westwood is wrong about this). Kate’s been getting a lot of criticism lately and I think it’s enough. All the stress does not help the baby and it’s a bit cruel to dish it out now. I’m sure there will be plenty of opportunities in the future.

    • charlie says:

      I don’t think it’s too much at all. In fact, Waity’s received scarcely any real criticism, which is a big part of the problem. Most of her criticism seems relegated to the DM comments and blogs like this and Royal Dish, which really don’t carry much weight. If more prominent people would constructively criticize her lack of work ethic, maybe something would actually be done about it. The fawning over this lazy robot needs to begin to be countered by some widely publicized criticism from time to time. It’s part of her role to acknowledge people’s opinions and maybe act on them, but so far that hasn’t happened.

      • Zimmer says:

        By lately, I mean this week. It is one thing when gossip sites discuss her, but I think it’s poor taste for major personalities to get on her case all at once during her pregnancy. It’s a time when too much criticism can put one over the edge. Once she delivers, I say, “go to town”.

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:


        One of the topics about Kate people are critical of is that she’s out of touch with the people. What critics say and how people feel about her will possibly never reach her ears or eyes.

        She spends the majority of her time with her mother, William, shopping, or within the palace. Any negative press is dealt within her PR team. I believe it’s more than fair to say she is only surrounded with people singing her praises, but certainly never speaking ill.

        Her pregnancy will be carried out fine. She is possibly the most stress free person on this earth.

    • charlie says:

      Zimmer, I see your point. But I can’t cut Waity any slack anymore. I gave her two years from the time of her engagement to prove herself; make something of herself. I am a huge Diana fan and I anxiously awaited and hoped for someone whom I could admire again. With Waity, I was 100% utterly disappointed and disillusioned. So I cut her no slack at all for being pregnant; she had two years to do something and she blew it.

      • greta says:

        charlie, i wouldn’t call myself a diana fan – i’ve always been fairly neutral where she is concerned – but i totally agree with your sentiments (on your other post too).

        As Lak and others have pointed out til they are blue in the face, Kate lacks the charisma and substance that Diana had and has a long way to go before she could achieve what Diana did with people. Even without being a “fan”, I could plainly see that Diana was very genuine and caring. Kate is mechanical, forced and as phoney as a three dollar bill.

    • T.Fanty says:


      One of the CB points is that nobody is criticizing her. Particularly Hillary Mantel. It’s just that nobody bothered to read what Mantel ACTUALLY wrote before they all jumped to Waity’s defence.

  33. boredbrit says:

    Well, less eyeliner and a PERSONALITY TRANSPLANT.Her accent is fake, her hair is fake, her attitude is fake. She’s like a less hot Stepford Wife.

  34. Miss so and so says:

    Ms Westwood needs to employ a dentist, hairdresser, makeup artist and at least WEAR her own stuff before she goes throwing stones in that glass house!

    • some bitch says:

      Because appearance immediately (dis)qualifies somebody from sharing their opinion, amirite?

      VW knows what she’s talking about. She’s been designing for decades now.

    • Alexandra Bananarama says:

      Do yourself a favor. On a keyboard type and hold Ctrl+F and in the box that pops up type LAK or Sachi or bluhare. They all do a wonderful job of summing up in clear terms what VW meant.

      They also do an excellent job of questioning the motives and people here who attack a successful, distinguished woman’s looks rather than attacking her statement.

      If you have a problem with what she said then attack her words with logic. Not with attacking her appearance.

      Come on people! FFS!

      • greta says:

        Bravo!! PS – Liked your sensible comment on c-sections, but as usual, the knives came out (no pun intended) from the ignorant ones. There’s a huge difference between a regular person having a c-section (long hard recovery, plus childcare responsibilities) and someone like Dolittle who doesn’t have to lift a finger!!

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:


        I can’t tell you how much i appreciate that! The claws do come out with the Kate defenders and logic carries no weight with them.

      • bluhare says:

        Alexandra: thank you for that very nice compliment. I’m all puffed up with pride. Mr. bluhare is on his way out of the house because he can’t stand my over inflated ego right now. :D

      • LAK says:

        Alexandra – Thank you so much for the compliment. And i agree with Greta. You comment vis a vis Kate getting a c-section was very clear. :)

        Mind you, there was a poster who couldn’t get their head around vanity c-sections. I can only assume they live a sheltered life because the phrase ‘too posh to push’ didn’t come out of no where.

      • Sachi says:

        Thank you, Alexandra! :D

        And I agree. Ad hominem attacks are so boring.

        Funny how these sycophants never fail to respond with “You’re just jealous! Get a life!” comments and calling people names (I got called a malcontent once, out of more than 100 comments that were criticizing Kate LOL), but they sure love to ‘hang out’ with us and troll the comments specifically for our posts while leaving other comments alone. We’re that hot, I guess. :D

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        Sachi bluhare and LAK

        Glad you all enjoyed the compliment. It’s deserved. Sometimes I can’t even make heads or tails of comments, but you’re all quick to simplify and condense it for easier comprehension.

        Although, some posters will be stubborn to the last they can’t argue against your sound logic for forever.

  35. erika says:

    ohhhh kate…you can tell by her body language she is NOT comfortable in a spotlight, that second pic she is cupping her bump AND messing with the hair. Two big signs she doesnt like to bring attentino to herself….damn, i would make a great duchess…..

    v. westwood is art, fine art…

  36. babykaos says:

    Honestly – I cannot believe there are people out there that think calling Mantel and Westwood ugly, unattractive, or any form of ridiculing how they look is a valid argument/defense against the criticism of waitybot.

    That’s just uncalled for.

    None of the posters criticizing Kate have even commented saying she was unattractive. Comments directed at her are exactly what they are – a critique of someone that is EXPECTED to do more by virtue of the position she courted, sought, fought tooth and nail for, and eventually got because there weren’t any other takers and then turned around and thought they were so smart PR and media wise and tried to sell us a love story followed by a regular folk – we’re one of you schpeel and then followed by we’re ambassadors for the greatest sporting event in the world but its alright if we duck out for a few days away cuz the real sports are over now and its just people with physical challenges and then followed by boobgate followed by the most dramatic pregneancy announcement I have ever seen in my life followed by what I lovingly term – the Christmas of HG Past Present and Future and a vacation from a life long vacation while all the other schleps just watch and in alot of instance have to choose between eating or staying warm.

    Go figure – even a cat gets bored of shiny objects eventually.

    • chrystal says:

      Okay, I don’t think Kate is particularly attractive – at least when you take away the fake hair, fake tan, veneers, uber padded bra, expensive clothes and accessories. I will say that she had a good figure before she destroyed it with drastic dieting before the wedding…

      • babykaos says:

        I don’t think she’s all that either to be honest but I don’t think rating or judging her looks as attractive or not attractive are relevant to the conversation about her. But I can view her and what she does and criticize it without having to knock the way she looks.

        Her looks, fashion, extreme preening (I don’t begrudge her wanting to look good) fake hair, tan, and all that other stuff are a symptom of the problem – she’s got nothing to offer and in the absence of a concrete contribution to society, we’ve got very little to go on, so that extreme preening becomes the focus and you know I’d feel bad for her if she didn’t seek it out but she did. So if she feels trapped or judged or starts craving bamboo shoots like a panda – she hasn’t got anyone else to blame but herself but I doubt she’s loosing sleep over any kind of conflict relating to the proverbial cage she is in. In fact I’d bet my last dollar she’s got the paps on speed dial or someone in her family does.

        Meanwhile I wouldn’t mind being on Harry’s speed dial right about now – booty call or otherwise.

    • bluhare says:

      babykaos: Most awesome post EVER.

    • LAK says:

      Until William and her family ask her to get some character, THIS am afraid is all we are going to get. EVA.

  37. RHONYC says:

    i just wanna pull the covers over my head & hide… love her clothes tho’. :-(

  38. Giselle says:

    am i the only one who is suspicious of this bump? last week she had bikini photos and her bump was super small. now she’s putting her hand on a larger looking bump… and NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. beyonce’s dress/belly deflates and no one misses a beat. kate’s bump grows unnaturally and no one says a word. well, im putting it out there.

    she’s PADDING. i believe she’s pregnant… but i dont think she’s this big yet.

  39. Reesa says:

    I’m glad I can finally ask this question: Why does it matter what you wear? I can understand wearing a fashion designers clothes when visiting the country, it shows respect. For example when Kate visited Canada, she wore Erdem who was born in Montreal, nice touch. But when she visited Malaysia and Singapore, she only wore Raoul (Singaporean) and Prabal Gurung (Singaporean). She didn’t wear Ashley Isham (Singaporean), Benny Ong (Singaporean), Melinda Looi (Malaysian) or Bernard Chandran (Malaysian), and I think they are all based in London. I guess since these designers aren’t sold at Selfridges or Harvey Nichols she just ignored them, didn’t do enough research. I’m sure they would’ve been overjoyed to make a few dresses for her, and she could afford it. As for visiting charities and attending events with The Queen (i.e. Trooping the Color & Order of the Garter) she could wear anything, it shouldn’t have to always be an expensive British designer, especially if the country you represent is having financial problems. Why not wear something from a thrift store, a family owned clothing store, Debenhams, Marks & Spencer, and or House of Fraser? I heard someone say that the British fashion industry rests on her shoulders! Are you kidding me?! Who was promoting the British fashion industry before she married Will? It shouldn’t be just on her shoulders, but every other famous Brit such as actresses and singers. I’m an American and I think our First Lady is pretty conscious of what she wears because the US is still suffering financially and has very high unemployment.

    • LAK says:

      In a roundabout way you have answered your own questions. Remember when Michelle wore Jason Wu at the first inauguration? No one had heard of him outside of dedicated fashionistas. He is now running a very successful business. That’s the kind of influence Kate could have had or was anticipated to have.

      You are right that if it isn’t in Harvey Nicks, Selfridges, Knightsbridge or Chelsea, she’s not going to wear it.

      She was never a thrifty shopper because she always stuck to the expensive end of high street. Now she’s got a black Amex, it’s expensive designers all the way.

      Funnily enough, there is a huge M&S on High street Ken, but she always pops into Zara instead.

  40. Jan says:

    Eeew! That is one f*cken ugly gollum! I’m sorry, but I am NOT inspired to buy anything from a ‘designer’ with such an ugly mismatched ‘outfit’ and straggly brillo pad hair of a color that matches her teeth! Fashion designers are a physical example of their style, their presence ‘sells’ and promotes their business. Physical impressions count in that business. I would NOT be tempted to buy anything from this mistake of nature. She is so hideous its disgusting!! :(

  41. cipher says:

    waity katie. what a bimbo. why on earth would you go around being naked in a public place and then complain about being seen and photographed and published? attention whore.