Duchess Kate spent about $160K on new clothes this year, her most expensive year ever

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, at Sandringham Church for the royal family's traditional Christmas Day service

There are several annual traditions towards the end of the year for royalty. Royal reporters tally up the cost of the Duchess of Cambridge’s clothing over the course of the year, which is always a fun story, plus the “numbers” of royal events are tallied and we always get hard numbers on how little the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge actually do over the course of any given year. Another annual tradition? Around New Year’s Day, we always get a story about the Cambridges’ keenness, and how the next year is going to be full of keenness and this time they really mean it, they’re so keen to work. The big difference this year is the entrance of Meghan Markle into the royal fold, and we still don’t know how everything will shake out in the coming months and years and decades.

The annual story about Kate’s wardrobe costs is usually a negative one, given how little she works and how much of her father-in-law’s money that she spends on the same coatdresses, shiny gold buttons and lace doily dresses. But you’ve gotta think that Kate is feeling pretty good this year – yes, she spent more money than ever on clothes, but at least she didn’t blow $75,000 on one Ralph and Russo ballgown, right? Right.

When the eyes of the world are on you, it’s natural to want to look your best – but that’s left the Duchess of Cambridge with a rather hefty shopping bill at the end of 2017. This year, Kate has increasingly turned her back on high street staples in favour of designer labels such as D&G and Preen. Totting up all the new pieces she’s worn throughout 2017 comes to a massive £119,000 ($160,000) – her most expensive year yet.

Femail estimated that in 2016 she wore clothing worth more than £174,170 ($233,072), however this took into account items she already owned and re-wore, making the total spend more likely to sit around the £100K ($133,800) mark.

Below FEMAIL reveals the new purchases Kate has been sporting on official engagements, only taking into account items that haven’t been seen before in public. These include her most expensive outfits of the year – the dusky pink ensemble she wore to Pippa’s wedding that came in at £11,500 ($15,400) and a Chanel outfit she sported in Paris costing almost £13,000 ($17,400).

[From the Daily Mail]

You can see the cost breakdown there at the Daily Mail. As I was looking through this year’s archived Kate-fashion photos, I did notice that she repeated some looks over the course of the year, so obviously the price tags on those pieces shouldn’t be doubly counted. I think it’s far more likely that Kate spent about the same in 2017 and 2016 – around $150K. Or, about two Ralph and Russo dresses for Meghan! Ugh, poor Meg. One of her first choices as a royal bride and she f–ked it up. Kate has the upper hand here, at the end of the year. Kate looks like a bargain. I eagerly await the annual Kate-is-Keen-to-work story.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attend the Queen's Birthday Garden Party

Royals visit West Ham United’s London Stadium

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visit the Maritime Museum in Hamburg

Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

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

273 Responses to “Duchess Kate spent about $160K on new clothes this year, her most expensive year ever”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Elizabeth says:

    I thought it came out that Meghan bought the dress last year. ?

    • Des says:

      Regardless, it was privately purchased and she is not the first royal to wear a ball gown for her official engagement portrait (tradition as late as Diana). This narrative about it being a “misstep” is entirely based on optics and is being pounced on by the usual racists.

      • inthekitchen says:

        I’m certainly not a racist and I think it was a bad decision. I mean, I’m not going to cancel her over it or anything (as long as it’s not a harbinger of things/expenses to come), but I do think it was a misstep by Meghan. But, yeah, I do agree with your point that some people are looking for any little thing to be up in arms about with Meghan. Even things that other royal fiancees or married-ins have done.

        I also think economically, things may be different now than in the 80s when Diana wore her gown. But even if personal or local economics are the same for many people supporting the royal family, the whole vibe of OTT conspicuous consumption of the 80s has passed, so I can see why wearing something so expensive now vs. then would come across differently.

      • Ikr says:

        @DES – Stop playing the race card. Not everything is about race.

        The dress was too expensive. People will comment. It was a mis step. The end.

      • Megan says:

        It is not racist to say it was a misstep to wear a $75,000 dress when many in the UK are struggling to make ends meet. It was tone deaf for Meghan, Harry, and Charles who obviously paid for the dress.

      • Goats on the Roof says:

        Meghan is marrying into the BRF aka immense wealth, she’s leaving her acting career behind as a result, and she’s American…A $75k dress was never going to go over well, no matter who paid. For some, it proves she’s a gold digger, for others, it’s proof she’s as out of touch as the rest of the lot.

      • Des says:

        @Inthekitchen – I said it was being used by racists, the way a lot of well-meaning narratives targeting POC/women are used by racists to further their own agenda. As far as it not being the 80s, yeah that’s what I meant by optics. I guess to me, it’s ridiculous people are mad about the 75k tag because it represents a lot of money paid into the British economy and supporting niche craftspeople who depend on the haute couture industry to survive. I bet Meghan was trying to do what Michelle O used to do but went for the high end straight out of the gate unlike Michelle who had a more nuanced approach and wasn’t backed by her own narrative of supporting British fashion.

        Ikr – oh dear, somebody saw themselves in that comment. I suggest you head back to the Daily Fail comment board where you belong.

      • BegoneOrangeCheeto says:

        It’s not about race. It’s about optics, which, in this case, are not good. There are PLENTY of gorgeous gowns which don’t cost one tenth of that price. It was a bad misstep on her part. especially when many people in the UK are struggling. Heck, if she was a public figure here in the US, it’d be a bad move.

      • inthekitchen says:

        @Des at 9:54 — “I said it was being used by racists, the way a lot of well-meaning narratives targeting POC/women are used by racists to further their own agenda”

        Yes, I completely agree with you here!!

        Also, interesting what you say about the dress supporting British niche craftspeople. I’m so curious as to what her thinking was with choosing that dress…I wonder if we’ll ever find out.

      • African Sun says:

        @Des, girl you are spot on. Ignore the haters. Anyone getting overly sensitive about the race element you mentioned needs to relax.

        People are making a massive deal out of a dress that wasn’t purchased using public money. Who cares.

      • equalitygadfly says:

        des — For what it is worth, I understand what you’re saying, and agree…you’re saying some racists have USED it, not what people are trying to say you said. Alas, people see the word “race” or “racist” and flip out. Le sigh…can’t wait till we reach a time when more folks can have discussions about such things without immediately throwing up defensive remonstrations and shutting down.

      • inthekitchen says:

        @equalitygadfly – thanks, but I do think I misunderstood Des’s original point which she (he?) clarified on the second post. Oops, you’ve changed your post and directed it toward Des and not me. Either way, I appreciate your sentiment…

        p.s. I love your username (as long as I’m interpreting it correctly that you’re a gadfly to promote equality? lol).

      • ELX says:

        She did not f anything up. The British public didn’t pay for that dress so everyone can put a sock in it. What a woman decides to do with her money is her business. What PC decides to do with his money is his business. The pictures are great for that brand and I guarantee, next year there will be a big display with that dress and her wedding gown etc and lines around the block to look at all of that sh!t.

        Maybe the Daily Mail just can’t stand the idea of a beautiful African-American in a couture gown. Maybe they’d prefer Aunt Jemima.

        I’d love to see a breakdown of Jerry Hall’s wardrobe—just how much is Rupe shelling out to keep her happy?

      • NewKay says:

        @ikr- the fact that you actually use the phrase ‘the race card’ tells me everything I need to know about you.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        +1 Des you are absolutely right. It’s clear that some people simply don’t “get it” because they don’t have to.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @IKR whenever anyone throws the term “race card” it tells me everything I need to know about them.

      • minx says:

        Racists? I didn’t like the dress at all, that does not make me a racist.

      • Megan says:

        The $75,000 dress would have been less of an issue if William and Harry weren’t hell bent on pushing the “we’re normal just like you” narrative. How many times have we heard about how down to earth Meghan is? How she and Harry like to stay in and roast a chicken? They are nothing like us and they need to retire this ridiculous story line.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Agreed. It is her dress to wear when she wants to, and I definitely feel the outrage was over the top. Like I said couture craftspeople make a decent living and can spend 800 hours on one dress, all done by hand. Those are jobs, and I don’t doubt if she had been a white blonde nothing would have been said.

        I hate the term race card because it is always said by people who can’t deal with race. It is dismissive and a way to refrain from listening to someone.

      • happy girl says:

        All of Princess Diana’s engagement wardrobe (from announcement to portraits) were famously “off-the peg,” and paid for by her mother. Nothing super high-end or in-your-face. Even in one of the looks, she wore a denim chombray shirt!

      • Lilly says:

        I wondered whether finding ways to sneak attack through ways, other than race, will be the path with MM. Then I wondered whether that’s a step forward or not, in line with Anziz Ansari at the beginning of the year on SNL and our Orange Foolius fans: “You gotta go back to pretending (you aren’t racist).” Of course, the ideal is no racism and it’s never an easy path. Overall, I’m trying to be optimistic about starting with knowing where people stand. But, certainly as a couple they’ll continue to face increasing prejudice and I hope, like in their engagement interview, they just won’t read anything online. Back to the subject, though, I love the ballgown and have always loved a great gown.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

      • FLORC says:

        Yes To most points.
        Exception to how Charles spends his money. It’s a fine line. His private cash might be private after it’s been through a few ways where it was originally tax funds that were unused or transferred. Slippery slope.

      • A says:

        @Megan, why are you assuming that Charles purchased the dress for her? I don’t understand where this assumption comes from at all, and I’ve seen it crop up quite a few times. MM made about $50k an episode on Suits, iirc. She’s likely got money stashed away, money that she rightfully earned by working for a living. She has every right to splurge her own money on what she desires, if that is what she is doing, and she doesn’t have answer to anyone else for it.

      • FLORC says:

        I’ll take a stab at this. Because it’s his son. Because he buys Kate’s things. There’s a history of similar acts… Charles buying clothes for his sons wife.

        And MM made money, but after cost of living, taxes, vacation… I doubt she has as much stored away as everyone thinks.

        Imo… it was Charles or the designer. And the dress might not have been sold for that price.

      • magnoliarose says:


        We really don’t know what she has, and there is no way on earth she paid full price or any price. Like someone else said the network, producers of the show or any number of people from her life.
        She isn’t a pauper, and she is someone who has superior access and connections.
        They said that was the price but not that someone actually paid that.

      • A says:

        @FLORC, you’re acting as if this is a villa that she’s purchased in Spain and not a single, expensive couture piece, lol. She’s not paying a down payment for it, it’s one expensive dress. She makes considerably more than most other people would make, and I honestly don’t see how purchasing one piece is something that’s stretching her beyond her means. She’s not out here buying up yachts and condos like Johnny Depp, and yet people can’t shut up about what a woman who’s earned a fair amount of money does with it. Yikes.

        At the end of the day, the simplest explanation is this: she’s getting married, she’s taking a set of engagement photos that she’s going to look at for a long time. Considering that, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suggest that she probably chose to wear a dress that she was saving for a special occasion anyway. I know that that’s what I do, and I make a fraction of what she does and have somehow managed to evade poverty.

        Considering how much grief this forum gives Kate for having not spent the decade before her marriage working and for defining herself by her relationships, it’s surprising just how quickly people are coming up with excuses to criticize Meghan for having done exactly what people wanted Kate to do.

        Until there’s concrete proof that Charles purchased the dress, or Harry did, or that she raised the money for it by robbing the Bank of England, I’ll take KP at their word and assume that it was privately purchased–as in purchased using the funds MM earned in her capacity as a private citizen before getting engaged to Harry.

    • annabanana says:

      Where did it come out? Really interested to know. I hope it’s true that she bought it last year with her own money

      • HadToChangeMyName says:

        It hasn’t. That’s another narrative. I think that if the dress were Meghan’s, they would’ve just said it was her dress from before.

      • windyriver says:

        It’s a dress from the previous winter season, you can probably still see it on their website.

        So either she bought it last year – and I still can’t imagine she’d pay or have to pay $75,000 for it – or it was purchased this year at a significant discount for being from last year (and/or for the publicity involved).

        I’m inclined to believe the latter. Can’t see too many reasons to have a dress like that for any but a really major occasion, so not sure why she’d buy it last year, and doesn’t seem like she generally was seen in high end couture.

        Wondering if she wanted something beautiful and memorable for this special occasion, and to take the opportunity to highlight British high fashion, but picked last year’s style to cut down on the cost, or the perception of it. Oh well.

        I loved the dress on her because it just looked like fun to wear. But I also liked her church outfit hat and bag for the same reason – a bit of fun. Liked the coat also, though agree it doesn’t look its best when walking around, and don’t get the criticism of the color scheme. She didn’t upstage anyone, probably her intention, and it looked appropriate and comfortable.

        I get the optics of a potential $75,000 dress so don’t have anything to add there. Possibly KP should have released a more specific statement. But I’m sure it didn’t cost $75,000, she’s engaged to a member of the BRF and the engagement pictures will always be around – but she has money of her own and she’s not married to Harry yet, so she gets a pass on this from me.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You can’t buy in a store so she would have seen in July and they added the lining. The price tag of the dress is not what she paid. They would instead take the heat than tell that it was a gift. Not that it would matter because then someone would have had an issue with that too. Frequently a designer will send sketches or inquiries or whatever to someone who they feel will bring free advertisement to their brand and she has done that.
        I hope they do the wedding dress.

      • A says:

        It’s likely true. KP is not going to comment on the finances and spending habits of a private citizen, and it’s much more likely that MM purchased that dress herself. Insinuating that Charles purchased it for her without proof is an enormous stretch, and one that’s not motivated from a good place.

      • Tina says:

        There’s plenty of evidence that Charles purchased it. The vague statement that it was “privately purchased” is a big giveaway. The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate (which happens to belong to the Crown) so it’s not strictly inaccurate to say that if Charles bought it. If Meghan had bought it herself, I am sure they would have said so. And I have no motivation for saying this, as I quite like Meghan.

    • inthekitchen says:

      But even if she didn’t and just bought it for the engagement, it’s different in my mind because Charles (AKA tax payer funds) didn’t buy the dress – like he does for Kate. Meghan paid for it herself, with money she earned herself…which is something Kate can never say.

      Once Meghan is on the public purse, then I think we can start judging her clothing totals (and, yes, hopefully she’ll never wear such an expensive outfit again…even though I still don’t think she would have paid full price for the R&R!). Hopefully we’ll see a lot of previously-worn, pre-marriage outfits since she does already possess a work wardrobe and even an evening/gala/red carpet wardrobe.

    • Redgrl says:

      Unfortunately, imo, the dress was a big misstep in several ways. On a frivolous level it was gaudy and, imo, tacky and future Meghan will cringe when she sees it. I said in a previous post she can donate it to the British ice dancing team. But that’s not the bigger problem – on a more serious level, regardless of who paid for it, wearing a $75,000 dress during a time of economic hardship and upcoming austerity measures is extremely tone-deaf and wins Meghan and Harry no favours. On a sad note, it gives ammo to those who view her as being unworthy of her new position (many of whom I’m sure feel that way because of racism). If she (and Harry) learn from this and put their best feet forward and work hard they can hopefully bounce back. I actually fear that, unfortunately, we will see Harry’s innate entitlement shine through more and she will be blamed for it. Hopefully I am wrong.

      • minx says:

        Redgrl–exactly. It was an ugly dress, and worse, an expensive ugly dress, no matter who paid for it. MM needs a stylist who can get her into nice clothes, well tailored, that don’t cost an arm and a leg. I don’t think anyone begrudges splurges here and there for special occasions. But she just needs some help to navigate her new role.

      • Redgrl says:

        @minx – yes, agreed. And really, when I look back at what they did while they were dating, it’s a bit of foreshadowing to this moment. Everyone was so swept up in the goodwill that their OTT dating lifestyle got a pass. Harry & his security jetting back and forth to Toronto at the taxpayers’ expense? Check. Going “camping” at a expensive African resort and fueling his colonial cosplay (and still calling it “camping”)? Check. Telling everyone they were roasting the proverbial chicken when they were socializing at members’ only clubs? Check. Time will tell if Meghan’s vision of her “role ” is the same as what we all hoped it would be. As I said, the next months will be telling. They both need to work hard and take his (their) massive privileges seriously…More optimistic for Harry than Will in any event.

      • BCity says:

        100% agree. I’ll also throw a big ol’ sideye at the people in charge of managing the royal image. Didn’t it occur to them that this was a bad idea? That’s their JOB and they should be keen to avoid this kind of obvious misstep right out of the gate.

      • Milla says:

        I agree. Economy aside, that dress wasn’t flattering. Simple 90s minimalistic style with clean lines really worked for her skinny frame.

        That being said, if people are talking about the dress more than you or pics, you definitely did it wrong.

        Bet Harry chose it. And maybe Markle wore it cos she felt bad to tell him that he has zero style sense…

    • Liberty says:

      @ELX, I agree with you. It helps British business, and there is no way anyone paid even close to that price for it. Houses increase value for media attention, and slice prices when potential press is good. This press = very very good.

      Otherwise, to be fair, please begin jumping on every British celeb of both genders on every red carpet who’s not wearing Primark for the next few years. And every one of them driving something expensive. And every other non Brit in London living the high life.

    • Natalia says:

      What.the.HELL is that orange piece of crap that I would have worn in 1970 and probably did??? (Albeit a different color.) Good GRIEF.

    • Princessk says:

      I didn’t particularly like the dress but the public did not pay for it and I don’t think Harry and Meghan did either. So what is the problem??

  2. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    And how many engagements has she done so far that warrants her tax payer funded shopping habit? I hope Megs learns from the snark Katie keen gets over this and the snarks she got for that engagement dress (regardless of when and who bought it).

    Of course Katie will be keen, she has keen competition so am sure that even thou she is pregnant she will be keen to be keen about the patronage’s she’s keenly keen about.

    Maybe we should start the new year with a competition to see how many times we can use the word keen when taking about her.

    I hope Santa gave Jason a New thesaurus.

    • Serphina says:

      Digital Unicorn, well said. What a waste of money. She should spend less and work more but I’m not sure she would understand tonassociate the word less with spending and the word more with working.

      It’s the end of the year numbers of her spending compared to her working that get me fuming. And they parade like a bunch of peacocks on Christmas. How about giving back to those who are poor????? Seen to be doing something good. Maybe they do and I don’t see it but these numbers are ridiculous. Keenly ridiculous.

  3. Mishka says:

    So much money to look so plain and boring. Oh well.

  4. Annabelle Bronstein says:

    That Ralph & Russo dress really threw off the averages for Kate and Meghan. I wish I didn’t know how much that gown cost, it’s one of the biggest unforced errors I can think of.

    Kate actually looked appropriate a few times this year. I happened to love her Christmas look for her.. it’s youthful and Christmasy and cute.

  5. Hh says:

    Kate’s fashion choices looked more grown and appropriate this year so I don’t mind the price tag. The hems were longer and there was less of a twee vibe than before.

    Also, in regards to Meghan’s Ralph and Russo dress, I think that may have been what made her more nervous during the Christmas church walk. Prior to then she was getting extremely positive reviews from the general public. However, people were pretty miffed about that price—and understandably so. I think she felt the first wave of large criticism and wanted to not put a foot wrong on Monday. If anything, she should have waited to spend that sort of money (or more) on the actual wedding dress. Also, I’m hoping some sort of adjustments will be made to the Ralph and Russo dress so she can wear it for an event. Even if she didn’t pay sticker price, that discount would have to be near free, for that not be a colossal waste of money.

  6. Petty Riperton says:

    The race to who spends the most is on!
    Meghan might as well go crazy sis going to be vilified regardless to put Katie keen up on a pedestal. Even more when she becomes the wife to the 6th in line to the throne.

    • inthekitchen says:

      +1 about Meghan getting slammed and Kate put on a pedestal! Have you seen the DailyFail article about how horrible Meghan’s curtsy was while Kate was the bringer of everything graceful and lovely…all while being pregnant?? It was a complete joke of an article and full of under-handed slagging off of Meghan couched in “even my own first curtsy was a hot mess…”

      Her biggest issue is that Meghan’s feet were wobbly and her back foot was not placed far enough back behind her. But, erm…she was standing with her heels at the stairs. Where on earth would she have put her back foot? Not to mention that Meghan actually dipped further down than Kate and bowed her head – while Kate did not – as one is supposed to do in a curtsy. Argh. But I guess we have years of this nonsense ahead of us!

    • Hh says:

      While I agree that Meghan will have it harder than Kate in that sense, the engagement photo dress is not a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. Gossip tabloids may play into the vilification game, and she can’t get caught up in that. However, the “commoner” (hate that word btw) is what she needs to worry about. That price tag is a major “let them eat cake” moment. $75K is someone’s yearly salary. As I said above, if she got a discount, it would need to be crazy steep to make a difference.

    • Bea says:

      Meghan will never win even when she does right. I hope she realizes that fact already and navigates accordingly. I don’t envy her position but I wish her the best for small victories here and there that will hopefully be enough to sustain her.

      • Cranberry says:

        Right. Which is why it’s so frustrating for her to f**k up so royally beyond reasonable defense right at the beginning.

      • Olenna says:

        @Bea, ITA. As much time as some people have devoted to lambasting MM over a dress, I hope they have dedicated the same amount to contacting their local and national politicians and demanding they find out just how much that f*cking dress actually cost and who paid for it. Maybe they should be lobbying for new disclosure laws specifically to cover MM’s expenditures once she’s married in. But, going on and on about it here, acting as if they speak for “the people”, calling her actions disgusting and proclaiming she owes some of them this information is just high-minded fantasy and self-righteousness.

  7. Serphina says:

    I know what the counter point is: she is a spokesman and ambassador or whatever for the British. But I don’t care, it aches my heart to see that number and know that two families could live off of her clothing budget. And that money belongs to the people. Does she really need all those clothes? Would she not be better served spending less and doing more??? Like I said, it aches my heart.

  8. JaneDoesWork says:

    I forgot about that red dress, love that one!

  9. Busy Bee says:

    I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the engagement dress. The palace confirmed it was privately paid for by the couple. Meghan has her own means with an estimated worth of 5m and Harry has the income from the money his mom left him not to mention the other Windsor money in his name.

    • Rhys says:

      Where was it “reported” that Markle is worth $5 mil? There’s no way she has that much money after working on semi-famous cable show and staying deeply under the radar the entire time.

      • Jegede says:


        Pretty much.

        She was third tier on a very low rated cable show. She did not have any major endorsements.

        No shame there at all, but where on earth is this narrative of her being a millionaire coming from?

        I don’t even think the Sex and City girls – save SJP -raked in that much moolah from their show.

      • whatever says:

        I assume it was on one of those celebrity Net Worth sites but they are not correct. She is not worth 5 million. She’d be lucky to earn 500,000 a year in the last couple of years on the show. At the start she would have not earned anywhere near that amount. Then there are taxes and expenses to pay. I’d guess she has a net worth between 1-2 million but not 5 million.

      • Pimo says:

        I am guessing 1-2m makes sense.

        Since I am on vacation…

        If she made $50k per episode for the last four seasons, and I am being generous here, that is $2.9m. If she made half that amount for the first seasons, that is another $1.2m. Plus her other movie projects, for which I’ve read that she was paid $100k+. Her endorsement with Reitmans I doubt brought in six digits, maybe $50k. So over all you have about $4.5m. From what I know, between agents, lawyers and taxes, celebrities take in less than half of what they make. So you already went down to $2.25m. She’s been living a luxurious lifestyle, buying clothes and shoes worth thousands of dollars, travelling a lot, have rich friends and was keeping up with their lifestyles. She’s already spending multiple $100k per year.

        Unless she is some financial genius who’s made all the right investments, she’s worth somewhere between $1-$2m. Considering that her career would end with Suits, that amount makes up most of the income she would accumulate throughout her life. That is not a huge sum compared to other white collars, who are making six digit figures per year and make good investments, which is my demographic. No one would ever spend five digits on a dress, maybe four if it is a very special occasion or a timeless piece of accessory.

        I think either PH bought the dress or she’s purchased it herself since she knows she is set for life and does not need to worry about her money lasting her through her lifetime. If RR gave if for free or with a huge discount, then she broke the cardinal rule, she took advantage of her royal connections. No couture house would gift a dress to a fifth billed TV actress on a lower end cable show. Either way, it is too much money for a tacky dress that would be worn for a photo shoot with only one official photo (they’ve released the second one as a “thank you”). I think that was her “princess dress” and I am afraid she has too much of Hollywood celebrity in her.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        She’s made over 100 episodes. It might be in syndication. Each season/contract renewal, she would probably get a rate hike. Her show airs in 17 countries and On Demand. TV is VERY financially rewarding, more than film. It would not surprise me if she had a very high net worth. ***Remember, for TV you don’t just get paid for doing the work. You get paid for how many times it airs/is viewed.***

        I have first hand knowledge of financial information for people you could not name that are millionaires many times over for their work on TV.

      • Cranberry says:

        You are spot on. She made some decent money as a supporting character of a cable TV show that is set to end pretty soon. That would be the bulk of her income over her life time since she was not getting any bigger jobs as an actress. Her worth now is based on being the girlfriend and now fiance of PH.

        Many supporting TV actors can make a good living off the residuals from syndication if they make smart choices with their $. Living the life style of the rich and famous and buying $75k dresses is not the sort of smart choice that will accomplish it.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        We clearly don’t have enough information to know whether she has been smart with her spending habits, so we shouldn’t rush to judge. Remember, we only know what the dress “costs”, we don’t know what she paid for it…or if she did.

      • TuxCat5 says:

        There is “plenty way” Markle could be worth $5 million. It’s called *investments*. If she has someone good managing her money (she likely does), then Meghan has been making plenty of money by means other than acting. Doesn’t she also own properties, both in L.A. and Canada?

        So Meghan treated her engagement photo session like a “red carpet moment”; big deal. It was a cultural misstep (i.e. Hollywood vs. BRF) by a newcomer.

        She’s likely learned from her mistake…unlike Keen Kate, who still hasn’t learned to wear maternity clothing, weigh her hems, stop butchering designer clothing, that a coat is not a dress, or how to do her hair and makeup properly, style an outfit, or dress for her age and role.

      • Princessk says:

        @Pimo….”No couture house would gift a dress to a fifth billed TV actress on a lower end cable show”….Are you serious about what you are saying? Lol!

        Meghan Markle is the most googled actress of the year, she is on the covers of magazines and newspapers all around the world EVERY day, and she is a very beautiful mixed race divorced actress about to marry the world’s most eligible bachelor and the most popular member of the BRF…Designers are falling over themselves trying to get her to wear their stuff. She would never need to spend another penny on high end clothing after marriage if she was allowed to accept free stuff, which she isn’t. Worldwide 2017 and 2018 will be all Meghan Meghan Meghan. Nothing at all even second rate about her.

      • SoulSPA says:

        That’s a good question. The only official information out there is from KP or an official spokesperson for the royals who said the dress was “privately purchased”. Not who purchased it. Nor the price, full or at a discount.
        I do not believe Meghan bought it herself or if she did, that she spent such a fortune. She is a private citizen so far because only a marital contract makes her a spouse. An obvious NDA is something completely different. Should the wedding happen with no unforeseen circumstances (not likely at this stage, like almost impossible) she’s in a grey area. Even if a friend or friends bought it as a present that fits the official narrative but the optics are very bad because there is so little information available.
        I totally get why the palace are ambiguous because otherwise they would have to explain themselves all the time. And we know they don’t like that but they do like the privilege.
        I still cannot believe how wrong they did the whole dress thing and their lack of will or capacity to address this scandal. From the choice of dress to little and ambiguous information. And it’s only a dress.
        Meghan will disappear until next year while taking secret and expensive vacays in preparation for the princess lessons, confirmation into the CoE and the wedding. We won’t see much of them.

      • Veronica says:

        SouSpa, the poor dears are already exhausted by their one event. They are going on vacation after the New year.
        OK, I’m being snarky. They are supposedly going away, but after that faux pas with the gown, the last thing these two need is to be seen jetting off to some tropical place to have fun in the sun. Who is advising these two?????

    • notasugarhere says:

      If she bought it herself last year and she likely got a deep discount, I’m not going to quibble about it. She earned her money and didn’t spend a decade living off her parents. If she turns around and spends $8000 each on dozens of ugly custom coat dress like Kate Middleton, then we have a problem.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Yes but if she did buy it last year, did she keep it in the closet for one year and just used it now? No snark. Who even said that she had bought it last year? I don’t get it. I mean, woman buys dress and keeps it for months?

      • inthekitchen says:

        @SoulSPA – maybe Meghan and Harry had talked about marriage by this point and so she knew they would be getting engaged eventually and was saving it for that time? I don’t really know, but I kind of could see someone buying a one-of-a-kind dress and saving it for the perfect, special occasion.

      • A says:

        @SoulSPA, I don’t know about you, but I do that a lot? Quite often? It depends on what I’m purchasing, but sometimes I buy things that I find a good deal on or that I like, but hold off until I’ve donated/discarded some of my current wardrobe. It’s not that out of the ordinary. Maybe Meghan purchased the dress a year ago and didn’t have an opportunity to wear it until now. Or maybe she has worn it before now, and we just haven’t been privy to it.

        Either way, the slew of assumptions in the comments about who purchased the dress, MM’s spending habits etc etc are astonishing. Why is it so hard to believe that a woman like Meghan could afford a $75k like that, and might want to buy it? You certainly don’t have to like the dress in question, but to assume that her wearing it is akin to snatching the money out of a poor British citizen’s hand is so strange to me.

    • Bea says:

      As soon as Meghan was connected to Harry and he confirmed their relationship, I’m sure a lot of designers started reaching out to her and offering free clothes with the hope that she’ll get photographed wearing their brand. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how she received the engagement dress which may have been given to her before the engagement announcement. If that’s the case, that’s something KP wouldn’t openly reveal. To say it was privately purchased was the only thing to say now that Meghan is protected by the BRF.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Sigh that is the way it is done.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Hmmm, idk. The designers would have had to sign NDAs because accepting the dresses could have meant an acknowledgement of the imminent engagement. And despite the hype the week prior to the announcement, even the months before, it would have meant too much work and logistics and lawyers for something as mundane as a dress. Let’s remember, it’s just a dress. They have money, Meghan has friends in fashion, she has money, she’s well connected. Someone in the BRF or Meghan bought it. I changed by opinion about receiving it as a gift because, given the importance of the engagement for which she wore it, and earlier talks about that piece being haute couture, I think the dress was commissioned and she went through designs and fittings.

    • magnoliarose says:

      People don’t take into account that the show was played all over the world and she gets residuals not to mention she did work other jobs. It is not unheard of, and a lot of actors do commercials overseas and other appearances for their income. 5 million is reasonable if not possibly lower depending on how she invested her money.

  10. Cee says:

    Problem is Kate hardly works during the year. Imagine all the clothes we haven’t even seen? I’m all for Kate having a wardrobe matching her station, but she hardly works. She’s hardly seen. It is safe to assume most of her clothes are worn privately while purchased with public money (YES, the Duchy of Cornwall is given to the heir to fund his/her lifestyle, however he/she does not OWN the Duchy nor its revenue).

    EDIT to add: The Ralph & Russo dress was a misstep due to the price, however Meghan has her own money. She’s not funded by the taxpayer yet so I don’t think it fair to compare one dress to the amount of money Kate has consistenly spent on the same dress and coat for the past 7 years.

    • inthekitchen says:

      + a million, Cee!!

      And, don’t forget that in addition to buying the same coat/dresses over and over again, she buys the same ugly Kiki jewelry over and over again too! As of mid-way through 2016, Charles/tax-payers had purchased about $40,000 worth of samey, ugly, semi-precious Kiki earrings. There are several pairs added to her Kiki collection since then, so it’s probably up to about $50-60,000 by now!

      • Tourmaline says:

        Good point about the Kiki jewelry. Just like with her clothes, it is many, many expensive variations on a theme purchased. Not even different gemstones necessarily either–like, Kate has multiple pairs of Kiki citrine earrings alone.

        I liked how Meghan wore the same pair of delicate diamond earrings on Christmas morning that she had already worn to the Queen’s Christmas luncheon.

    • Redgrl says:

      @Cee – good points re Kate. I still think Meghan should’ve been a little less naive as to how that gaudy, expensive dress would be perceived – but I agree that doesn’t change the fact that KatieKeen has been spending $ like it’s going out of style on a largely hideous wardrobe for her 1 or 2 events per month for years.

    • Veronica says:

      But Kate is married to the heir. Meghan is not going to be allowed to spend that much on her clothes. They are apples and oranges.
      And after the Dress Debacle, the media is going to broadcast every penny Meghan spends on clothes, jewelry, and vacations. They found their angle with which to beat her up.

  11. sus says:

    Are there similar tallies for other RBF members’ clothes? Or vacations/other frivolities? How much did Harry spend on trips to Toronto? Genuinely curious.

    • Midigo says:

      Right! And you don’t find information about Rania of Jordan, for example, who is celebrated as a style icon. Or Mrs Macron. And it’s not like a bespoke coat from a Royal Tailor costs less than 2k. Or a Savile Road bespoke suit less than 5k. At the end Ibet the other members of the Royal Family are splashing more than Kate but they give no contribution to the revenues of the British Fashion industry.
      I think people can be really mean when it comes to Kate.

    • Lobbit says:

      Course not. No one here (or anywhere else where “Royal Watchers” congregate) cares what Camilla or Sophie or any of the others spend on clothes – just Kate. And now Meghan, of course. And Sophie gets a whole lot of love despite the fact that she doesn’t “work” all that much more than Kate. It’s all very tiresome.

      • inthekitchen says:

        I’ve heard that about Sophie several times recently and kind of had no idea. Now I’m really curious to know what she’s spending!! Although, I do think Sophie works a lot more than Kate, right? I feel like she does but is just not covered as widely.

        I think totals should be kept for ALL the family members – including Charles and all the other men. Let the public know how much Charles or William spend on a custom made suit or handmade shoes. Or their 27 valets. It should all be public. The only person who gets a pass from me is Anne, since she’s often seen in an outfit first worn in 1987, lol.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edward 260 in the UK, 94 overseas
        Sophie 169 in the UK, 49 overseas

        William 87 in the UK, 35 overseas
        Kate 62 in the UK, 0 overseas

        January 2016 was when the insider story hit about Work Shy William taking four weeks off from EAAA at Christmas and rarely showing up over four months.

        Edward 241 engagements in the UK, 118 overseas
        Sophie 143 engagements in the UK and 36 overseas

        William 117 engagements in the UK, 71 overseas
        KM 79 engagements in the UK and 61 overseas

      • homeslice says:

        Edward is not heir to throne either…

      • inthekitchen says:

        @notasugar – thank you! The thing to keep in mind about the numbers too, is that those are engagements and not even days worked! Days worked is probably only half those numbers since they count stupid things like “deplaning and greeting so-and-so” as “an engagement” – bull$shit, IMO.

        Are there also tallies of how much each royal is spending on clothes? I’d love to see what Sophie spends (or even all of Charles’s bespoke suits!). I tried to google it but couldn’t find anything.

      • Redgrl says:

        @nota – thanks for that – very telling. And considering how inflated Kate & William’s numbers are – credit for 1-2 hours work/day, double credit for going to two 1/2 hour events in one day etc – it’s even more annoying.

      • Princessk says:

        It is not about the quantity of engagements, its about the quality. Some engagements and activities can result in charities getting millions into their coffers and tons of worldwide publicity. Not quite the same as turning up for the commemoration of a new bell for the village church.

  12. Beluga says:

    It’ll be interesting to see cost per engagement, once the annual work numbers come out. And when I say interesting, I mean shocking.

  13. Midigo says:

    I don’t get this pauperistic approach in Royal Gossip.
    Either you go for a Republic (and by the way it’s not like mrs Macron or Mrs Trump come cheap) or you decide as a Nation to keep your Royal Family and in this case you have to let them be Royals and represent the Country glamorously. And, by doing this, give a contribution to the National fashion industry.
    Once upon a time aristocracy was the main customer for haute couture. One Chanel or Dior HC gown costs more than 100k. One single gown. Kate never spent that much, instead we see actresses and nouveaux riches wearing them. Good to see the social elevator working properly, but we cannot blame Kate for spending a fraction of an oligarch’s wife budget.

    • LAK says:

      Kate’s public clothing comes from taxpayers via Charles.

      Secondly, she rarely wears British designers therefore not helping the national industry.

      If she worked more, most people wouldn’t endlessly discuss the clothes or the clothing budget given to her *to work*.

      Her approach to royal duties vs cost of clothing translates to a very expensive, dull, ornament.

      • notok says:

        That’s not true. She wears appr. 60% on british designers in the last years, somebody who had a lot of time on her hands made the list (last year not included).

        Her clotingbudget comes from duchy of cornwall, if charles didn’t have that it wouldn’t go to taxpayers but the government. Potatoes patotos.

        But if they do this they should do it for every member and not just kate. For example sophie was wearing a dress for christmas costing 2600 pounds or something like that. Cover every one or nobody.

      • Tina says:

        You know that the government spends money for the benefit of taxpayers, right? (Along with the rest of the British people). Our MPs can’t even buy themselves floating duck islands at public expense any more.

      • LAK says:

        Notok: i’ll bite. Please provide the list of Kate’ public clothing and we can compare %British vs % Non British designers.

        We can start with 2017 list made by the DM .no snark.

        Duchy of Cornwall: govt is the people. Perhaps you skipped civics?

        101 about royal clothing worn in public: all taxpayer paid. Sophie included. This is a blog thread about Kate, not about Sophie.

        In an essay about tax payer funding of the royals, all of them are walking case studies. Queen included.

      • happy girl says:

        Duchess Kate does in fact, regularly wear a lot of British designers. off the top of my head:

        Hobbs (I have the most perfect peacoat from this line :) )
        Catherine Walker
        Jenny Packham
        JK Bennett
        Self Portrait
        Emilia Wickstead

        I’m sure there are many more…

      • notasugarhere says:

        In the past year she’s worn roughly a dozen (ugly) Dolce and Gabbana. Especially bad when she wears it for things like Remembrance Day. She loves to shop with other people’s money and she’s been spending it on foreign designers.

      • LAK says:

        Happy Girl: the only British designers she wears regularly are McQueen, Packham, Temperley and Walker, and only for big occasions.

        She wears alot of Zara, JCrew, Dolce and Gabbana, DvF these days.

        She wore alot of LK Bennett in the early years, but now wears Gianvito Rossi and Prada.

    • Nic919 says:

      Kate wears a lot of bespoke items that cannot even be accounted for, with a cost that is much higher than ready to wear designer items. She has worn several gowns including at recent state dinners where no price has been estimated because they are bespoke. So the total provided doesn’t event include all these items.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Unless they’re Charlene of Monaco, it isn’t their job to be fashionable. It really isn’t, although many royal ladies fall into that trap. They need to dress appropriate for the job and according to protocol. They aren’t required to spend the taxpayers money on large wardrobes.

      For years as Crown Princess, Letizia wore a low-cost, flexible working wardrobe. Her custom pieces were reserved for evening gowns. She’s started wearing some more expensive brands now that she’s queen (Hugo Boss, Carolina Herrera), but still wears lower cost day wear for many events.

    • magnoliarose says:

      That is my point. If you want John and Mary from Sheffield, then a country shouldn’t have a royal family. Their whole point was partially the pomp and splendor.
      My mother said in the olden days American’s complained about Nancy Regan’s wardrobe, but she always looked polished and elegant. Everyone still talks about Jackie and her wardrobe.

      My problem with Kate is her wardrobe looks budget and unremarkable not the amount.

      • graymatters says:

        I’m laughing at the Reagan administration being classified as “the olden days”. Otherwise, I totally agree with you and your mother. Kate looks good in the few UK designers she frequents, she should branch out more within GB and commonwealth brands. She could spend the same and look better and do more.

        Nancy and Jackie, though, were also known as interesting women. That probably affected the impression of them being stylish as well.

    • A says:

      Thank you for saying this. This is always what I think when I see people complain about the RF and their spending habits. If Kate were cheap and thrifty, then people would say she disgraced the RF by dressing shabbily and call for a republic. If she wears expensive clothes, then people say she is a drain on the tax payer and call for a republic. If it bothers people so much to contribute to their upkeep, then why not agitate for a republic now? Why simply complain, one way or another?

  14. notok says:

    I don’t get all this counting of how much her clothes cost…. Diana spend far more in her time on dresses. All of them, camilla and sophie, spend money on their clothes and nobody is counting that. They are also counting the cost of her jewelry.

    • Serphina says:

      Times, they are a changing. Of course the people want to know the cost. It’s their money that is being spent. And in an era where information flows freely, should the people still have blinders on? As it’s been stated and explained endlessly, the money is the people’s money and it would do the the people far better good to have more charity done than clothing Kate and MM.

      MM would be wise not to get caught up in the lack of work ethic and expensive clothing.

    • Nic919 says:

      Saying Diana did it does not justify profligate spending. There is Brexit now that changes things and already there are cuts to the NHS for health services and cuts to child benefits beyond two kids, when the Cambridge’s are going to have a third one while living in utmost taxpayer covered luxury. Sophie does have some of her clothing costed, as it was for the Christmas walk, but Camilla and the Queen wear bespoke very often so there is no obvious price. It should all be accounted for, but Kate makes herself a target for “working” so little and being lazy for seven years. Diana also worked a lot more than Kate ever has, which is another reason why her clothes wasn’t such a focus.

      • notok says:

        What i said above why is it kate only. Queen, sophie, camilla also wear clothes wich costs a lot of money. For example sophie had a dress costing 2600 pounds for her christmaswalk nobody said anything. Cover them all or nobody.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sophie works more than twice as much as Kate Middleton and re-wears items frequently.

      • SoulSPA says:

        Kate is the most visible female figure in the BRF except for TQ, and the third highest ranking after TQ and the Duchess of Cornwall. And Kate is the one who works the least and the worst at the same time. Said position requires the highest of standards of excellency. And all discussions around her revolve around her bad fashion, seemingly lack of character and poor work ethic. For almost 7 years as a royal through marriage. She has absolutely no excuse. None whatsoever. If a change in the public narrative is needed by some, she should do a lot more and a lot better, with the Midds out of picture and no PR from their side. Kate is the “royal”, whatever that means because she is a poor and pathetic example. They are not royals.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It is about the work. That is all. Diana worked and was seen and glamming it up while committing to her job. Everyone loves that combination. A glamorous humanitarian wins every time, but a lack of work ethic is offensive to people when it is on their dime.
        If Meghan had paid that much from the taxpayers as a wife and didn’t work, I would supply the torches and pitchforks.
        As everyone says, she is the mother of the future King.

    • A says:

      Diana was the Princess of Wales. She was the wife of THE heir, the second lady after the Queen. Kate is not, she is simply the heir to the heir. And Camilla, bless her, but the optics for Camilla are far far different from Diana.

      • Tina says:

        Camilla works much harder than Kate. When Diana was doing her engagements, both the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret worked. It was simply generational. It has nothing to do with who the heir is.

      • LAK says:

        Tina: it is so exhausting to read these wrongly assumed public assumptions regurgitated as facts, isn’t it?

        Over and over you see this excuse of Kate (and William) being lower tier royal and that’s why they can’t do stuff ie they have to wait until they are the top or second to top couple to do anything.

        Nevermind that people much lower than them in the line of succession frequently outdo them.

        And their history strongly indicates that they will be just as lazy and lacklustre when they are top as they are now.

        William gives an interview to EAAA in which he says he intends to be a part-time King and still these weird assumptions about an up tick in work continue to be made!!

      • Tina says:

        @LAK: I am with you. I can handle ordinary punters believing this stuff, but it does bother me when lazy journalists repeat it!

  15. CynicalAnn says:

    If I was a British taxpayer I would be pissed. As an American who loves clothes, it just makes me sad that for all that money, Kate mainly looks “fine” versus how amazing she could look with a great stylist.

  16. whatever says:

    In Kate’s defence..the amount is a lot but all she is doing is using William’s ‘inheritance’ 10-15 years early. The Duchy of Cornwall will be William’s once he becomes to the Prince of Wales. Its different for Harry and Meghan – all their future expenses (including clothes) will be paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall but it will never be Harry’s.

    • Chaine says:

      Really? So even after Charles is dead the duchy still funds Harry? It would be so weird to be looking to one’s brother for living expenses throughout life…

      • Ollie says:

        I wonder if Harry told Meghan about his future financial situation. For now everything is jolly as Charles bankrolls his lifestyle and Meghan in extension but that will change big at some point. Harry isn’t that wealthy on his own.
        Meghan is American so she may not know that the royals get tax money and that they have to show receipts for cloths etc.

        It would explain her 75k dress. She definitely knows she marries in one of the richtest families so that dress was no big deal for her. The thing is the wealth will go to William, not Harry.
        Somehow i think she had no Idea before the engagement photo op that her life is now tax payer funded as long as the public and William allow it?

      • Squidgy says:

        @Ollie “I wonder if Harry told Meghan about his future financial situation. For now everything is jolly as Charles bankrolls his lifestyle and Meghan in extension but that will change big at some point. Harry isn’t that wealthy on his own.” – I don’t think she should worry about it. He might not be cash rich but as we can see clearly, it doesn’t matter. Their (Will’s and Harry’s) domestic (whatever that means!) expenses are paid and will continue to be paid for. Harry is famous and has tons of great connections. He will never be out of nice places to live in. Or vacation at. Remember that little photo sesh of Will rubbing Kate Middleton’s naked bum with suntan oil? It happened on a private villa of their “french cousins”. How fabulous! So yeah, this is a different definition of rich.

      • A says:

        @Ollie, Harry has inherited quite a bit from both Diana and the Queen Mother, for precisely the reason that he is not the heir that William is. When he came into his inheritance, there was quite a bit of chatter about how he was wealthier than William was at the time. But his inheritance has him set up precisely for this very scenario, so I don’t think there will be much of a difference between now and then tbh.

      • Princessk says:

        Charles will probably buy Harry a nice ‘hice in the country’ as a wedding gift, and when the Queen and Charles go they will leave substantial sums to Harry, he will always be rich. Hopefully William will be generous to his brother too. Harry will always be very rich.

    • Serphina says:

      Whatever, the Duchy belong to the people. That land and everything off of it belongs to the people.

    • LAK says:

      Regarding the duchy……technically Charles shouldn’t be funding William or Harry because neither are the ‘heir to the throne’ per the wording of the paperwork. In ye old times, no one lived long enough to have children and grandchildren of the heir to the throne so wording sticks to ‘heir’ not ‘heir to the heir’ and ‘ heir to the heir to the heir’ and siblings.

      Charles gets around that by funding his ‘household expenses’. William and Harry and Kate fall under that category in Charles’s accounts.

      Once William becomes Heir, duchy will be transfered to him and Harry will be cut off because he is not the heir.

      See Charles vs Anne, Andrew and Edward’s funding. That’s Harry and Charlotte’s future.

      • Tina says:

        When the Queen dies, Harry will be funded by Charles through the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy of Lancaster. It will be jolly interesting to see what happens to Andrew and Edward at that stage. I suspect Charles will be happy to continue funding Anne, given how much work she does.

        And @whatever, the Duchy belongs to the Crown (aka the state). Its income (around £20m per year) is given to the heir to the throne but he cannot dispose of any of its assets.

      • LAK says:

        Exactly Tina.

        The duchy of Cornwall will not be in the equation at all.

        And it’s interesting that due to becoming heir as a small child, Charles immediately had more money than his siblings and possibly his own parents until they could build up their own investments.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne will do what Anne wants, no matter what Charles wants. Taxpayer paid security on her private home? That might only be paid while she’s “working”.

        Andrew is “safe” with the 75 year lease on Royal Lodge, as are Beatrice and Eugenie who can legally inherit that lease. As long as Fergie and Andrew don’t go belly up again, B&E will eventually inherit private ownership of the Swiss ski lodge. Edward and Sophie are another matter. Their lease on Bagshot only runs another 30 years but they don’t have known outside private property.

        I think Charles would be happy to shove Andrew out and make Harry trade ambassador. He cannot do that completely because Andrew is a Counsellor of State and will be until PGTips is 21 or Andrew dies. Unless Charles changes the rules, when he’s king both Andrew and Beatrice will be Counsellors and are required to live in the UK.

  17. Talie says:

    Of course the big difference is that Meghan bought her own dress…with her own money…that she made at a job she worked for 15 years.

    • TaraT3 says:

      1. When was this confirmed? 2. If true, it still baffles me. As a woman who seems to have her head on straight, I would really side eye her throwing 75K at a dress. Sure, you can say it’s her earned cash and she can spend it how she pleases. But, people have no problem judging the Kardashian’s for the same thing. It’s over the top extravagant and excessive.

    • notok says:

      That’s not the point if she paid for it herself or not. When you preach about poor people in africa etc. and helping charities etc but you are wearing a dress with that cost it makes her charity work fake.

      • Rosalee says:

        That is a deplorable statement, simply mean-spirited. The insinuation her intentions are fake is insulting to volunteers who donate time and money to nonprofits and ask for nothing in return. To have a young person such as Meghan Markle volunteer is a tremendous boost to an organization. Even before she was engaged, she added a profile despite not being a huge star. I don’t give a damn what my volunteers wear or wonder how much their clothing cost, they are donating their time and energy towards a common goal with compassion and dedication that’s what truly counts not the price of a dress.

      • imqrious2 says:

        How is that so?? Are you saying, if you decide to work for/donate to charity you must wear cheap clothing?? Because anything of cost/quality means you’re spending YOUR MONEY which would be better spent on charity…!! Hmmm.. wonder if anyone tells that to Oprah, Bill Gates, etc. I don’t see them dressing in the latest Walmart or Target specials. Hell…just look at “Oprah’s Favorite Things” list every year! lolololol

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is a ridiculous statement. Wealthy people who are philanthropic don’t run around in rags to look more genuine. You can be a clotheshorse and a considerate person who helps people.
        You defend Kate no matter what and then say something very mean-spirited.

        Whoa, I better see my way out. *waves*
        Cheerio. (I couldn’t resist)

      • A says:

        No offence, but do you go around saying the same thing to Bill Gates? Or about Diana? She wore some of the more expensive couture gowns and jewelry, but no one is out here calling her insincere are they?

        All this speculation about someone’s private finances is mindblowing. We don’t know what MM’s other spending habits are like. We only have this ONE example of ONE dress that she may or may not have spent that much money on. And even if she did, so what? Why shouldn’t she? Don’t all of us who work for a living have a right to indulge as we desire? Why is there this persistent suggestion that just because she has ONE expensive item that she’s automatically a spendthrift with expensive taste far beyond her reach?

        You don’t have to like her dress, or agree with her taste. That’s fine. But to act like she’s a crazy person for simply doing what we have all done at some point or another is wild.

    • notasugarhere says:

      And it would have been purchased at a deep discount, which while she’s a private citizen is okay. See Kate Middleton’s decade of freebies from designers before they got engaged.

  18. NIKKI says:

    RHYS: according to Fortune magazine, Markle made $450K per year working on Suits (for 7 years).

    “As a pilot in the British Army Air Corps, he drew an annual salary of around $45,000. That’s far below the $50,000 Markle reportedly earns per episode on Suits. Her salary on the show is said to be around $450,000 per year. Film income has supplemented that in previous years. (Keep an eye on her clothing budget, though. The Line the Label coat she wore in the official engagement photos shows she has a knack for fashion.)”

    So it’s very easy to see that total if she had investment portfolios, etc. And since we are not privy to her life or financial status, I’m not sure anyone can quip that “ There’s no way she has that much money after working on semi-famous cable show and staying deeply under the radar the entire time.”

    As for the cost of her dress. She can surely afford it on her own, hence the statement made because they knew people would judge her for it. And, I think they all spend way too much, considering the suffering around the world, on material things, but it’s not my money.

    • notok says:

      You forget taxes, agents, managers……. they all have to be paid.

    • wendy says:

      The only statement made was that the dress was privately purchased. It does not mention who purchased the dress nor the price. The narrative that she bought it herself with her own funds is wishful thinking at this point.

      You would think with the fallout that if she HAD purchased it, a statement would have been made to reflect that.

      • A says:

        @Wendy, why? If she did purchase it, then she purchased it during her time and using her funds as a private citizen. Why is the public privy to the details of her financial decisions if they were not contributing to her income? And why should KP, of all people, talk about a private citizen’s decisions regarding how to spend their money and their income?

        If the dress was purchased by Charles or the RF using taxpayer funds, then KP is obligated to disclose that information. If not, then again, commenting on the private finances of private individual who is not using public funds is an invasion. You are not entitled to know what she spends her money on, it’s none of your business, until she is married to Harry.

    • Renee says:

      Meghan would not have been making $450,000 per year for the entire run of Suits. She was a an unknown with only a few credits when the show started. For the first few seasons she would have been making no more than 20-25,000 per episode. She’s not poor by any stretch but that 5 million is really inflated.

      • Karen says:

        Didn’t she have an endorsement with a Canadian Dept store?

        This whole debate on the gown is enough. Movie stars for the Oscars do not pay full price for their couture gowns and most get them for free. I am quite certain whoever bought it did not pay $75000.

        Kate spends an enormous amount of money for fugly clothing to shake hands with a few people and hang out with some kids for 45 minutes. She needs to repeat and use some less expensive pieces for low key events.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, Karen. She had a line with Reitman’s, for which she would have been paid and gotten a percentage. She also had her website which would have earned her money.

      • Renee says:

        Yes, she’s had a few endorsements but she’s never been in a position to command top dollar.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Every penny of it she earned herself, rather than living off her parents or her uncle. If she bought the dress herself, privately, at deep discount last year? It wouldn’t have been anywhere near the quoted figure and she paid for it herself, I’m not seeing the problem.

      • Renee says:

        Please point out where I said the cost of the dress was a problem. I said nothing about the dress. I said her reported 5 million net worth is overinflated.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m not disputing what her net worth is or isn’t. Whatever it is, she earned it herself.

      • Redgrl says:

        @karen – her line was a handful of pieces with Reitmans, which is pretty bargain basement. Kind of like Smart Set or Winners or TJ Max in the US. Not being snarky – I’ve shopped there (before I get attacked) just saying it wasn’t some high end fashion deal. I doubt it made her all that much money – and it popped up briefly never to be seen again.

      • Cranberry says:

        I can’t believe people here want to defend MM’s dress while still criticizing every little thing Kate wares or doesn’t ware. You can’t have it both ways even if MM ‘MAY’ have used her own $ to buy exorbitantly priced dress at a discount – which I highly doubt she did. And No MM does not make the kind of $ to go around buying $56k or $75K dresses. Without the discount the RF connection affords her, she would be broke pretty fast based on her income alone.
        If she did splurge a great deal of her own $ to have her dream dress, it unfortunately still looks bad because marrying a prince that lives off tax payer’s $ just to have her red carpet moment is not going to be received well by the people who’s $ supports the BRF. Being a part of the BRF is not the equivalent to an American Alist celebrity walking the red carpet at the Oscars. Celebrities can get away with things royals are going to forever be scrutinized for. That’s just the nature of the position.

      • notasugarhere says:

        KP official said it was purchased privately, ergo purchased privately. If she bought it herself, with money she earned, no doubt got a deep discount, while a private citizen – that’s all okay.

        The entire Middleton family publicly took freebies and “royal discounts” for years before W&K were engaged. They’re still taking them. Carole is still demanding “the royal discount” for things like her down-market Real Royal Family TM boxing day shoot last year.

        Kate Middleton has spent roughly $1 million in taxpayer funds on her wardrobe in 6 years. Taxpayer money. For a wardrobe filled with identical custom coat dresses, yet another pastel beaded dress, foreign designers, and silly little girl mini-skirts when she’s feeling body conscious during pregnancy.

        MM as a private citizen splurging her own money on a discounted dress for a big occasion in her life? No where near what we’ve seen from Kate Middleton and the rest of her family for 15 years.

    • Jayna says:

      You don’t make the same amount of salary every year on a TV show. It starts lower, and at each new signing every few years you negotiate your salary when it’s time to, and it goes up depending how important you are to the show.

      And her net worth is way overinflated, just how you see when celebs die and it’s no where near what was reported on these sites.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I don’t think so.
        What isn’t being accounted for is that the show is shown in several foreign countries, and she makes residuals, probably negotiated at a higher percentage now that she is with Harry. She had jobs prior, she gets residuals from those, and she made guest appearances. MM had the department store gig, and it is unlikely she didn’t invest her money. 5 million is not outrageous or even remarkable for seven years on show plus the extras.
        The other thing to consider is that the show will be syndicated and she will most likely receive a large percentage of that deal if she hasn’t already. She probably paid for very little, and as a single woman, her overhead was low.
        She didn’t pay full price for the dress. It would be very unusual for someone with a higher profile to even pay anything.

        I know someone whose father was a musician in a niche market, and it is common for her to get average 15 to 20+ thousand a month from royalties. She negotiated a deal with some of the music for other uses and compilations, so it added a reasonable fortune to that. Apparently, he was extremely popular in other countries.

    • inthekitchen says:

      I’d also add that there are more than 9 episodes per season – more like 13-16 depending on the season. So, that might average out for the years where she was earning less per episode.

      Also, wasn’t the studio paying for her rented apartment? So there’s an expense she wasn’t having to shell out. And, when that house just went up for sale, I read that the owner originally paid only 350k, so the rent probably wouldn’t have been all that high!

      Not to mention that – other than travel – she seemed to live a pretty low-key life. She didn’t seem to be stocking up on expensive vehicles or lots of property, so perhaps she really was saving and investing most of her money. And, as someone else said, once Suits reached episode 100, she’ll be getting residuals forever (it’s not a fortune, but still, additional personal income).

    • Veronica says:

      Where did you see that she bought it herself?? It was only said to be “privately purchased.” No one has any idea if she bought it and now that the Royals have consumed her, she isn’t free to put out her own statement about buying it.

    • Jussie says:

      You’re talking about pre-tax income, and forgetting about agents fees, managers fees, publicists fees etc. Also she only got 450K for the last 2 seasons of Suits. Before that her salary ranged from 100-250K.

      She’s had a few minor endorsements, nothing substantial, and she did a Hallmark movie (they don’t pay much). Before Suits she really only got enough work here and there to just about support herself comfortably. She’ll get residuals, but Suits isn’t the kind of show that’s going to be on repeat worldwide for decades. Once it’s off the air it’s pretty much done except on the network that owns it of the network it’s sold too. The residuals going forward will be small, and they’ll never have been that much to begin with.

      5 million is about right as what she’s earned throughout the entirety of her life, but take out tax, other people’s fees and basic living expenses, and she’d be lucky to have 2 million now even if she’s invested wisely. If she’s bought a $75,000 dress with those savings she’s insane, even if she got a deep deep discount.

      • Cranberry says:


        Yup. Don’t know where people get the idea MM is filthy rich just because she’s an American TV actress. Sure she makes more $ than me, and can live very comfortably if she spends wisely. But she doesn’t have the kind of wealth to afford buying $56k dresses, not based on her own income.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “she only got 450K for the last 2 seasons of Suits. Before that her salary ranged from 100-250K.”

        That’s not all of her compensation. What you are calling “salary” is the fee for filming the episode. TV actors also get paid residuals. Her show is in dozens of countries and on digital on demand service. She is getting paid much more than just her fee-per-episode rate. Union TV actors get paid for doing the work and also for each time it airs.

        I don’t see anyone saying she is “filthy rich”, but being on a TV show that has been on for so many years is very financially rewarding. I know what I am talking about. I don’t know why people are so intent on down playing her earnings. It doesn’t mean much at the end of the day.

  19. Lobbit says:

    It’s going to be so much…fun watching the commentariat lambast Meghan every year for her clothing budget. Can’t wait. /s

    • Nic919 says:

      Well they are already doing it for the engagement dress that was confirmed to be privately purchased so you didn’t have to wait for long.

    • Bettyrose says:

      I don’t envy Meghan any of this. There’s a chance her name will be remembered for all time in history books, but her every move from here on out will be scrutinized. Seems to me she’s already learned from dressgate, tho, and isn’t giving people much to discuss with her fashion. Personally, I loved the message of her understated brown outfit.

  20. milla says:

    What about the queen? She has tones of clothes in all colors and like 100 leather bags, same one but still… and Camilla? Why just attack the young ones?

  21. Maria says:

    I’d be interested in how much Princess Mary spends in comparison to Kate as they have often been compared style-wise. Any Danes around? You have to factor in also that Kate was sick for two months and presumably didn’t need new clothes.
    Seriously, the Queen needs two pairs of shoes. One black and one white. Ditto with the handbags.

  22. Bee says:

    Pretty sure they are consulting the thesaurus for a descriptive equivalent to “keen” for Harry and Megs. Betting that these two will prove just as lazy as William and Kate, they all like holidays too much.

  23. Hazel says:

    Eh, Meghan will wear that R&R gown to a few engagements & all will be forgiven, just as Diana wore that green ball gown. Kate will forever remain keen in name only.

  24. HoustonGrl says:

    We’ve been critiquing Kate’s spending on here for years, and then the minute Meghan wears an obscenely expensive dress, anyone who points that out is racist?

  25. Bluthfan says:

    Not sure why you are trying to equate the known factor of Kate’s spending $160K of the UK citizens’ money to Meghan’s engagement dress. Unlike Kate, Meghan has her own money. She hasn’t spent a lifetime mooching off her parents, UK citizens or father-in-law for clothes, Meghan could well afford to pay for that dress on her own. She also likely got a deal for the dress. Since she isn’t royal yet and is spending private money, that is well within her rights.

    Kate is a lazy do-nothing, who spends UK taxpayers money on ugly clothes. None of those things apply to Meghan nor does deflecting to Meghan take away from Kate’s appalling spending while being lazy.

    • Nike says:

      With or without discount deal and however privately it was purchased isn’t quite as relevant as the proportions: Meghan spent an obscene amount of money on a single dress which was her first dress as a royal (albeit not yet married). And it doesn’t matter if she purchased it or if somebody else purchased it for her: the price is simply obscene. And it is even worse if somebody else bought it for her: to whom exactly is she obliged now? Whom does she owe favour?
      With or without discount the number is just obscene. Marie Antoinette pops up in my memory.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She would have purchased the dress at a deep discount with money she earned herself. The price, wherever it came from, is not anything like she’d have paid for it. I don’t see how that is obscene.

        Obscene was the $400,00 spent on Kate Middleton’s wedding dress. I don’t care if she is the wife of the heir-to-the-heir, that amount was not warranted. The resulting dress was a knock-off, corseted, bland disaster to boot. Talk about bad optics.

      • SoulSPA says:

        @nota, I think the narrative was that Kate’s parents paid for the dress and the cake. Does it ring true?

      • Nike says:

        Even if Markle got lucky and at a 50% discount that dress would still be $ 37.500. That is obscene. Many families don’t make that per year.

        It is disgusting that Markle doesn’t publish who paid for her dress. Because she will be part of the team representing Britain politically. I would like to know who pays my political representatives.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What is bandied about as the cost for the dress vs. what she would have paid for it are two very different things.

        Try Uncle Gary, SoulSPA. No matter what he does, he isn’t cut loose, I suspect for monetary reasons.

      • Natalie S says:

        Nike, do you really think newcomer Meghan is going to have any pull in the BRF politically?

        Genuinely asking, Will and Kate received some extraordinarily expensive gifts including some multicolored gemstones that Kate used for a necklace. Are you as outraged that we don’t know who gave her the gemstones?

      • A says:

        Why is it obscene? Did she steal that money from the British people somehow? She earned that money through her work. Why is it obscene of her to spend money that she earned?

        Also, don’t use Marie Antoinette as an example when you clearly don’t know wtf you’re talking about, lol.

      • Liberty says:

        Working in fashion, I can tell you that a house can happily state that a $10,000 dress is “a $75,000 dress,” merely for PR wow factor and the extra press — then, privately sell the same dress to a client for $5,000, or even less if the “will be seen” factor is this huge. No one paid $75k for this gown, nothing like it.

      • Nike says:

        @ Natalie S

        If Markle accepted an expensive gift from somebody outside the RF then she will have to repay in some way some time later. Same case as it is with politicians. There is no such thing as a free obscenely expensive gift. It doesn’t matter that she has no pulling power right now. She will have some power. And whoever paid for that dress still has the bill to prove he paid for her dress. And that gives him power over Markle.

        I would like to know WHO paid for Markle’s dress.

        It is obscene to pay distinctive five figures for a dress while many British people have trouble paying their utilities bills.
        It is obscene to pay such sums for a single item of clothing while many British people earn nothing on zero-hour-contracts and while they don’t even earn the average wage per year.

        Since when is obscene wealth on the one end of society no longer objectionable while the other end of society is dirt poor?
        And surely it was a big mistake on Markle’s part to display such obscene wealth.

        And nope, couture ball gowns don’t go for 10.000. Not even on a discount and not even when you know the designer.

      • Olenna says:

        Yeah, this is a double post to which I’ll add: We get that some of you don’t like her, never will, but Meghan Markle doesn’t owe you, Brit or not, any information about her personal business. As much time as some people have devoted to lambasting MM over a dress, I hope they have dedicated the same amount to contacting their local and national politicians and demanding they find out just how much that f*cking dress actually cost and who paid for it. Maybe they should be lobbying for new disclosure laws specifically to cover MM’s expenditures once she’s married in. But, going on and on about it here, acting as if they speak for “the people”, calling her actions disgusting and proclaiming she owes some of them this information is just high-minded fantasy and self-righteousness.

      • magnoliarose says:


        I keep saying that and it is because this is a subject I know about because it was my job and still is sometimes for nearly 20 years. I understand what stylists do, and I have relative who is a stylist. I know on the other end because of family members who buy on that level. Some people would think my closet is absurd, but a lot of it has been gratis, discounted, given to me by my stylist friends, swapped with friends, raided from my grandmother, aunts or mother or I bought it myself. From old band tees to vintage to chain store to designer to elegant dresses.
        You are wrong about that. One of the reasons famous people hate to give it up is because of how little they ever have to pay for anything. Even people on stupid cut-rate reality shows. I like Meghan, but I wouldn’t make this up. I am not that invested and have no reason to embellish since she has no bearing on my life except as a distraction.

    • Natalie S says:

      I remember the debates about the costs of the Mustique vacations and ski vacations. Back then, the argument was the Middletons paid for it and so the cost didn’t matter. Now, it has changed to Meghan’s private purchase still being judged.

      So, is it open season on judging anything the BRF buys with private funds?

      • Nike says:

        Mystique vacations were private vacations. They are disgusting because the Middleton’s flaunt their “connections” into people’s faces. And likely they pretend they were wealthy though it is likely Uncle Gary Middleton’s money. And because such vacations double security bills.
        These vacations are as disgusting as the price of Markle’s dress.

        Markle’s dress is simply obscene because it wasn’t a private pic but a public engagement picture and because of that price. And because nobody knows who paid for it. She does flaunt her new status as wifey of the filthy rich into the pauper’s faces. It is disgusting. And neither did she earn the money to buy the dress nor did the Royal Family ever earn their money. As a taxpayer-funded institution they shouldn’t widen the gap between rich and poor and they should certainly not justify it.

  26. Tura says:

    I just wish Kate would get more value for her money- some gorgeous wardrobe classics that she could elevate with jewelry or other accessories- less random odd things that don’t work together.

  27. FuefinaWG says:

    Boy, that RF does not age well. They all look 10 years older than their actual ages. Hopefully Markle won’t end up aging like that, too, once she’s officially in.
    As for the RF, all the women look like hags … and Anne looks like she could be QEII’s sister.

  28. Twinkle says:

    All that money spent and Kate’s wardrobe is so, so dull. Zzzzzzzzz.

  29. FuefinaWG says:

    Kate will probably do a crash-and-burn as she tries to keep up with MM.

  30. Natalie S says:

    How are Kate’s clothes actually priced? Gowns from Alexander McQueen alone are tens of thousands of dollars.

  31. Starlight says:

    160,000 in one year Kate – Meghan however 56,000 in one day

    • notasugarhere says:

      Taxpayer money for her 7th year on the job where she has spent that amount each year (actually far more since her custom designer evening gowns don’t have quoted prices) for a wardrobe of nearly identical coatdresses vs. Meghan Markle buying a dress with her own money at deep discount for one big event in her life. Cannot believe how some people think she’d have paid full-price for that several seasons after it was released.

    • FLORC says:

      The kate wardrobe cost is for items for work. Any casual or personal shop does not add to this figure I think. Considering how few appearances she makes in a year the items she gets are extremely expensive.

      MM’s gown was for engagement announcement. It’s a big event.

  32. Anare says:

    If Meghan bought that dress it’s no one’s business how much it cost. Sure the papers harp on how much gets spent on clothing and they harp if royals wear something cheap or shabby looking. Can’t win. How about Charles. His suits and shirts and ties are all bespoke. What’s his total? Honestly the Royal family is loaded. The Queen and Charles are billionaires aren’t they? $150k on clothing in a year does not sound extravagant to me.

  33. Starlight says:

    Charles bespoke is exactly that do it lasts that is why he is always getting them fixed and patched his suits often have the odd patch here and there LOL