Should Duchess Kate be criticized for wearing a $78K Cartier necklace?

We discussed this a bit yesterday, but I missed the price tag on the necklace Duchess Kate wore to her pre-Olympic photo-op at the National Portrait Gallery. In addition to wearing that blue Stella McCartney dress (the color suited her, but the design was awful), Kate wore an uncharacteristically large Cartier necklace. It cost… $78,000!!!!

Kate’s Olympic-style necklace is from Cartier and is said to be from her personal collection. It happens to come at a price of $78,000, too, a source at the store in London tells PEOPLE.

The necklace, from the Trinity range, is made from white and yellow gold and, with its five rings (capped with a large one at its pendant), she felt it was “appropriate” to wear for the event, which celebrated pictures of leading athletes at the National Portrait Gallery in London.

Beyond confirming it was from her “private collection,” a spokesman at Kate’s office would not comment on the piece, or its price or whether she received it as a present, saying only, “It’s a personal piece which she’s had for some time. It’s not an official Olympic item but it’s appropriate to wear it.”

[From People]

You know what? I think I’m one of the few people that doesn’t have a problem with this whatsoever. I love jewelry. I love looking at photos of jewelry. I love talking about jewelry. I like that Duchess Kate is bringing out some jewelry-p0rn – because that is part of her “job” too, in my opinion. We expect her to wear nice things to appropriate events – and I think this was an “appropriate” event. It’s not like the time she wore an expensive Alexander McQueen, button-smothered sailor suit to meet with the victims of the London riots. And it’s not like (this hasn’t happened) she wore a $100K diamond necklace while meeting with the homeless. She wore a nice piece of jewelry to a gallery event. It’s fine.

But I’ve glanced through some American and UK sites, and Kate is being heavily criticized for wearing such a pricey piece of hardware, and there are questions about how this came to be in her “private collection.” Eh. I love a good conspiracy theory, but I still think this is fine. I do have a hilarious interpretation of Kate’s necklace, though – you know how it looks like an Olympic medal? It’s like Kate is telling the Olympic athletes, “I have a medal too! Mine costs more than yours! And I got my medal for waiting 10 years to marry a prince! That’s a sport, right?”

Meanwhile, Kate’s parents have gotten into a spot of trouble. It seems that their company, Party Pieces, is using official Olympic images without permission from the Olympic committee. So… yeah. Scandal!

Party Pieces, the company started by the Duchess of Cambridge’s parents, Carole and Michael, in their garden shed in 1987, has been asked to change parts of its website by Olympic officials concerned about its promotion of goods associated with the Games.

The couple built up a lucrative business through producing fun bags and themed items for celebrations, such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and their daughter’s wedding.

But their Olympic themed party goods advertised under the heading “Celebrate the Games” have been investigated by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games.

Locog is keen to protect the integrity of official sponsorship deals with 55 companies worth £700 million.

The committee has apparently asked Party Pieces to change a page bearing a picture of the Olympic torch covered by a Union flag, reports the Daily Telegraph.

Another image to attract the attention of Locog was one of a woman throwing a javelin under the strapline: “Let the Games Begin”.

Locog said in cases where firms breached rules enforcement officials would send them a warning letter or phone them. Only the most blatant breaches would result in further action.

“We will ring and explain the obligations and most times this dialogue is friendly.

“People are usually doing it to be part of the fun, but companies are not allowed to promote an association with the Games if they are not a sponsor.”

[From Hello Mag]

The Olympic committees take this stuff very seriously in all countries. We can’t just claim “OMG, Come and celebrate the Olympics with Celebitchy!!” or use any of the Olympic logos. I’m actually concerned about what we’ll be able to cover anything from the Olympics because there will probably only be ONE photo agency with a contract with the Olympics, and the videos from the events will be closely guarded too. Eh, we should be able to make it work. As for the Middletons and their problems with the Olympic committee – it sounds like everything was already handled in a low-key way.

She got a gold medal in waiting!! It’s because she stuck the landing.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

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

139 Responses to “Should Duchess Kate be criticized for wearing a $78K Cartier necklace?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. birdie says:

    I personally find it too excessive, lots of people could not afford such a sum on anything. I could spend that kind of money on other things than a freaking necklace.

  2. carlino altoviti says:

    And a girl does the Princess for what?

  3. Anait says:

    Should Duchess Kate be criticized for wearing a $78K Cartier necklace?

    No. The reason: no matter what she wears she will find someone who will find some reason to criticize her, so… if she likes it and she can afford it (no doubt), good for her!

  4. Camilla says:

    She is so… average. She doesn’t have the “it” factor at all. She is boring as hell.

  5. Jessica says:

    No – she is married to WILLIAM FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

  6. Jenna says:

    They seriously get their knickers knotted about the Olympic images anymore. Which is rather rich considering it’s an event meant mostly to promote unity and sportsmanship taken from ancient Roman Games – but since they snapped up the copyright, I suppose it makes it truly ‘theirs’ (the committee). And if I sound slightly snarky about it, it’s because I belong to the knitters group (Ravelry) that got seriously bumrushed by a bunch of morons who thought that crafters using the term “Olympics” in connection with knitting & crocheting events (mostly for charity) was somehow tarnishing the great name of the Games.

    As for the necklaces… eh. She’s a princess. Isn’t having your photo taken while wearing jewelry pretty much a central part of the gig?

    • Amelia says:

      Oh god, the Olympic thing is ridiculous. There was a butcher and a baker here in London and they made Olympic rings in their windows out of sausages and bread – they were told to take it down! It’s getting a bit excessive.
      The terms and conditions on the locog website say that you’re not really allowed to put photos or videos of any event you attend on facebook either.
      Pfft, stuff that. I’m slapping up every picture I take. They can’t prosecute half of Facebook.

    • Lady D says:

      A greek restaurant in Vancouver called the Olympic, was ordered to change the name they’ve had for over 20 years. The owner refused and was facing charges from the Olympic committee. The OC finally quit hassling him just before they went to court.

    • Nagia says:

      Ancient GREEK games to be precise

    • Carletonart says:

      What are you talking about???? Do you even know yourself? What do the royals have to do with have to do with the rights to use anything Olympics, which by the way is the property of the IOC and is licensed out to gain revenue. The internet is a great resource for checking facts before spouting sharing misinformation. Just a thought. Getty has the rights to all images for the London Olympics. With that being said, my fifth reading of you post clarified nothing.

    • Carletonart says:

      A trademark is a trademark, like it or not.
      The Olympic Games are one of the most effective international marketing platforms in the world, reaching billions of people in over 200 countries and territories throughout the world.

      Support from the business community is crucial to the staging of the Games and the operations of every organisation within the Olympic Movement.

      Revenue generated by commercial partnerships accounts for more than 40% of Olympic revenues and partners provide vital technical services and product support to the whole of the Olympic Family.

      Each level of sponsorship entitles companies to different marketing rights in various regions, category exclusivity and the use of designated Olympic images and marks.
      I would also suggest you take a you take a look at their amazing Sports For Hope program.
      I have several friends that have had the honour of representing their respective countries in the Olympics. With the exception of the few marquee competitors such a Michael Phelps. Most athletes struggle to find sponsorship and raise funds. Yes some countries do pay out for hardware (not here in Canada though).
      For 10 days the world celebrates and nations get a chance to puff up their proverbial chests over something else besides war. The news is always so much nicer to watch while the Olympics are on.
      People are hoping and smiling for the most part. Unless you live in the host city and need to get to work. lol.

  7. Lucy2 says:

    I don’t like the necklace but I don’t see an issue with it if it was properly paid for.
    Considering the value of jewelry other royals wear, that’s probably not that expensive in comparison.

  8. LAK says:

    Should Duchess Kate be criticized for wearing a $78K Cartier necklace?

    If she/the palace stops pretending she’s frugal and one of us then, No we won’t criticise.

    On a different note, what an oddly detailed statement from the Palace.

  9. Katie says:

    I think the moral of this story is that someone is always going to be pissed off. Now that she is the Duchess of Cambridge, the poor girl can’t win. We loved here when she was the underdog in waiting but now the she had won her prize, we are tearing her apart!

  10. Cathy says:

    This poor woman can’t win no matter what she does. I feel bad for her. But I guess that’s the crap you gotta put up with if you’re gonna be part of the royal family.

  11. Chattycat says:

    No problem here. Royals have been wearing obscenely expensive jewels since…well since royals began. Shoulder shrug.

  12. Eleonor says:

    I’m with you Kaiser on this one, because I love jewlery too, and also because I think: if the wife of a future king can’t wear a good piece of jewlery (the Cartier necklace it’s cute, but I didn’t even imagine it costs that much!) who can?

  13. fabgrrl says:

    She just can’t do anything right, can she?

  14. lars says:

    am i the only one who likes the necklace (apart from the excessive price tag)? it’s kind of funky and retro…maybe it would’ve looked better with a different outfit thought, because the whole ensemble screams 1970s

    • Bellabumbum says:

      I think it’s a nice tasteful piece. Too expensive for my blood, but most likely a gift from someone outside the family. It’s lovely and quite classy for the style of a Duchess.
      Diana used to receive gifts from people all over the world, I seem to recall a Saudi Prince gave her a gorgeous sapphire necklace and earring set. I believe Kate can accept those gifts.

  15. Mich says:

    Maybe she can recycle it throughout the games?

    I suspect we are about to see her number of public engagements skyrocket.

  16. Nan says:

    ” She got a gold medal in waiting!! It’s because she stuck the landing.”

    Haha! Brilliant!

  17. daisydoodle says:

    well I guess her “honeymoon” with the press is over. Diana and Sarah had the same problem, no matter what you did, the press criticized them for something. She will be Queen of England someday, the royal family is loaded…what’s the big deal? If you ever get a chance to see the crown jewels in person please do, this necklace is small potatoes or rather tater tots to the rest of the gems…

    • LAK says:

      1. The crown jewels don’t belong to the royal family.

      2. Waity has worn ‘royal’ jewels on only two occasions – her wedding Tiara and the maple leaf brooch in Canada. Her engagement ring doesn’t count as ‘royal’ as that belonged personally to Harry/William to dispose of as they saw fit.

      3. £49K can buy you a serious piece of statement jewellery than this necklace.

      I think what’s more interesting is why HM hasn’t loaned/gifted her more of the family jewels necessitating her to buy her own baubles.

      • daisydoodle says:

        They want to see if she “sticks” Whatever, I know the jewels do not belong to the royal family, however, there are plenty of family items that will eventually go to her, if all goes well. As far as the Cartier piece, I’m sure it was either loaned or given to her at a considerable discount. Remember, us peons, pay retail, the rich do not…

      • LAK says:

        @daisydoodle – i just had a thought about why the palace had to clarify who/what/where this super expensive piece of jewellery came from.

        Charles pays for her ‘official’ clothes/accessories. He gets a tax write off for them. Which means we, the public, are paying for them in an indirect way.

        next year, we should demand to see a detailed account book rather than [cost of Kate] in total. If there is a £49K shaped increase in her clothing budget, we can then point to this piece of jewellery!! LOL.

      • bluhare says:

        Man, if you guys want jewelry porn, you should take a look at a book about the Queen’s jewels. Not the crown jewels, but her personal jewelry. It’s absolutely mind numbing.

      • LAK says:

        @bluhare – i went to the Elizabeth Taylor pre-auction exhibition of her Jewellery when it passed through London.

        i had such serious jewellery envy. And i don’t think the Taylor/Burton rock is vulgar at all ;) every girl should have one in their wardrobe!!

      • mayamae says:

        LAK -

        I love the legendary story in which Elizabeth Taylor is told by a woman that the ring is vulgar. She let the woman try it on and asked, is it vulgar now?

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: I bet that was a nice trip. Liz knew her gems!

        The book I saw was diamonds. Hardly a coloured gem at all, and it was the jewels from Victoria, Alexandra, Mary, and the Queen Mother. Mind numbing diamonds. Even I was at a loss for words looking at the size of some of them. And the Queen just wears them out and about.

  18. Laura says:

    1)If someone can pay 49000 pounds for a necklace for her to wear then Kate and the royal family can pay for their security instead of taking our tax dollars
    2) Kate doesn’t work enough for a damned you do or damned you don’t- she just don’t
    3) The palace is drabing on how normal William and Kate are – look she shops at Tesco yet she wears a $78000 necklace at 11 oclock in the afternoon for her only solo engagement in July, it is a recession and these people receive tax payer money so it will behoove them to be frugal
    4) It was a FU to people who legitimate criticize her lack of work ethic – she just doesn’t care, she got the ring, she can wear McQueen and the people gets to pay for her security while she shops – Marie Ant. actually had an excuse for her behavior she was 20 years old- Kate is 30 but could care less

  19. Ramona Q says:

    This necklace is really just one deck chair on the Titanic, isn’t it?

  20. RHONYC says:

    not when you can find one just as hot on QVC for a fraction of the cost. someone got gipped! ;-)

  21. Nymeria says:

    Yes, for a variety of reasons.

    To put it simply, the Windsors use taxpayer money for run-of-the-mill things (security, restoring part of Windsor Castle after a fire, the Kensington Palace remodeling, and so forth), yet they spend obscene amounts of their personal money on “toys,” such as cars, jewelry, vacations, and clothes.

    It’s this general principle that is so offensive.

  22. Reece says:

    zzzzzzz…Fine. I don’t think so, as long as it’s hers and not something Charles bought. It’s cute & boring. It must have diamonds on it. No way would I pay that much for gold.
    That dress looked better on Chelsea Clinton. (credit to person put up the link yesterday)

  23. Hope says:

    Oh Kaiser, your “stuck the landing” line just made me giggle so freaking hard :) Thanks for that!

  24. HME says:

    Well seeing as it was a gift, therefore NOT paid for by Charles or taxes, I agree that she shouldn’t be critized for wearing it to this particular event. Personally I think Cartier should be the ones to critized for the fact that that tug necklace cost so much!

    But she really does need to drop this whole ‘discount Duchess’ nonsense.

  25. garvels says:

    Her husband is worth millions,so I really do not see what the big to do is about him buying her some jewelry. Wealthy movie stars buy and wear expensive jewelry all the time.

  26. The Original Mia says:

    She can wear whatever she wants. That’s her right. My right is to say it’s ugly and cheap looking despite of the price.

    She couldn’t find a real Olympic memorabilia necklace? They couldn’t make her one? There were other options for the Frugal Waity than an ugly $78K necklace.

  27. RHONYC says:

    in the last pic, is that the Queen’s stunt double…
    or did she just have a bumpy night? 8O

  28. Dani says:

    Even if she wore a fancier, more lavish piece, equaling the same price but from a different designer, everyone would still hate on it/her. If she wore something cheaper, more practical, she would probably still get picked on because of how ‘fug’ she is or how ‘tacky’ whatever she’s wearing is. She put up with Will for 10 years before he settled for her, she deserves a lot more than just that necklace (which I do love, and if I had the money I’d get it or accept the gift), regardless of the fact that she’s royalty now.

  29. Sachi says:

    It still looks utterly cheap, just like its owner/wearer.

    I wouldn’t pay $1000 for that piece of ugly jewelry, let alone $78K. Tasteless and boring. Huge waste of money.

    I doubt Charles paid for this. Charles wouldn’t have paid for such an ugly piece of jewelry.

    Camilla has some really nice baubles that Charles gifted her. He has taste. Whoever bought this necklace for Kate has none.

  30. Benny says:

    She should be criticized for making an expensive necklace look cheap and tacky, and old. She drags expensive clothes and jewelry down to her cheap and tacky level. It’ s a waste.

  31. Emily says:

    That is one hideous necklace. And why doesn’t she ever put her hair up? It’s summer! God she’s boring.

    How’s Charles’ garden doing? I’d rather hear about that.

  32. rose says:

    I wouldn’t have maybe minded it another time (though the necklace is not to my personal taste) but it was 9AM!!

    Why couldn’t it have been brought out for an evening event? Or better yet, as others have been saying, saved for a private event seeing as she can’t afford much more criticism these days.

  33. Sachi says:

    It’s interesting seeing some of the comments on here excusing the price of this necklace and saying that it’s Kate’s right to wear such an expensive piece because of her position as Princess and that since she has the money to do it, she can blow it on whatever she wants.

    Remember Paris Hilton? Remember the attacks on her spending and lifestyle?

    What’s the difference between her and Kate, aside from Paris having a sex tape? Both had no careers, both depended on their parents’ money, both spent their 20s chasing after a man/men, both had no goals and ambitions.

    But at some point, Paris launched her own business and after she faded in the media, she focused more on her brand and expanded her business ventures. Her business is profitable in other countries, so she’s making bank.

    But she’s still criticized for her past and for being a rich heiress. People begrudge her origins and mock her lifestyle. Nobody wants to take her seriously. She’s always gonna be the dumb blonde that most people couldn’t stand. She’s still called names because she’ll forever be branded as useless, and the media doesn’t care enough to do a whitewashing on her character like they are doing now with Kate.

    But Kate also lived the same existence, did she not? Her past is just whitewashed for those who are willing to believe every lie the Palace and the media comes out with to make Kate into some innocent, country girl who can do no wrong.

    Why is Kate excused and defended but women like Paris are criticized? Why was that billionaire’s daughter buying a condo worth $80 million in New York different from Kate spending $78K on a simple necklace?

    Both women are obscene and wasteful, but Kate gets a pass and we have comments about “she can’t win no matter what, poor her” or “she’s a princess, her husband is worth millions, let her spend the money on whatever!”. Is it because she has an HRH in front of her name now? Is being a Princess all it would take for people to turn around and start praising someone whom they would have vilified if she were just plain “Ms. Middleton”?

    At least those other rich girls don’t rely on the taxpayers to pay for their security. At least they won’t be relying on the taxpayers for their future expenses, unlike Kate who will depend on the taxpayers for her existence if she gets to the throne as William’s consort.

    Kate should be criticized about her spending habits, her behaviour, her attitude, etc. because it might keep her grounded. Praising and defending her all the time will make her even more arrogant and obnoxious than she already is. If we all gush about her supposed beauty and loveliness (I don’t see it) and nothing else, we’ll get nothing from her but superficiality, and she won’t progress beyond being a clothes horse since it seems that that’s all it would take for some people to kiss the ground she walks on.

    • LAK says:

      @Sachi – that last paragraph is the main reason Fergie ended up in ruins.

      If Duchess Marie Antoinette Middleton isn’t reined in, we will get Fergie 2.0 if we aren’t there already.

      Also, we are already paying beyond her security. Are you forgetting her tax payer funded new Flat at KP?

      All her wardrobe worn at ‘official’ functions is a tax write off for Charles nevermind that she makes no separation between her ‘private’ wardrobe and her official ‘wardrobe’.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Duchess Marie Antoinette Middleton! Hahahaha! Love it.

        She’s surely going the way of Fergie and if she thinks being William’s wife will protect her, I think she’s in for a rude, rude awakening.

      • arlie says:

        LAK, what I wrote about Sachi applies to you too. I come on here just to read your comments. Keep it up, both of you! :-)

      • Sachi says:

        @LAK – Oh yes, the KP flat as well that is worth $3 million in renovations and decorating, courtesy of the taxpayers.

        Some don’t seem to realize that while it is a part of Kate’s job to look like a Princess, it’s also her job to represent the people of the UK. Royals can be great ambassadors for their countries. They are, and should be, the representatives of the people who support their lifestyle and allow them to indulge themselves in the first place. Kate, and Fergie before her, flaunting their arrogance and their “I don’t care what anyone else thinks” and “I deserve everything I have” attitudes are very far from the image of many in the country who are suffering from the economic crisis.

        I feel like a broken record every time I talk about her, but Princess Letizia of Spain has truly gotten the idea of a modern-day royal down to a T. In light of Spain’s economic problems, she hasn’t worn many of her jewelry since 2009. Her wardrobe is still affordable. Her hair for daytime events is just brushed and kept away from her face. No 3x-a-week hair blow-out at the salon like Kate. No brand new McQueen outfit to see people struck by tragedies. No flaunting of her wealth and position by shamelessly going shopping right after visiting sick children and her families, or taking a helicopter to go from one place to another. No sh*t-eating grins while attending the funerals of fallen Spanish soldiers, or comforting their families. No inane, stupid comments about the most trivial of things.

        Letizia is the only Princess who actually wears affordable clothes that the majority of the public can buy for themselves. The rest of the women who married into royalty and became Princesses still keep up with the lavish, spoiled lifestyles while asking the government for more money for their personal use! They all wear Chanel, Valentino, Prada, etc. as if the citizens in their countries aren’t facing recession and cost-cutting.

        She is, IMO, everything that Kate is not, and everything Kate can never be, even if she tries.

        By the time she was Kate’s age (30 years old), Letizia was already an award-winning journalist who has an impressive body of work, and who has reported directly from war-torn Iraq, from Ground Zero during 9/11, and from Washington during the year 2000 elections. A true professional, a true hard-worker and she has carried those qualities and applied them to her role as Princess. She’s no clotheshorse, but a modern, functioning royal in a time when many royal families are nothing but anachronisms.

        Letizia is Princess Anne’s equivalent in terms of hard work and dedication to her role as Princess. In terms of charisma, compassion, warmth, and sincerity, Letizia is like a 2nd Diana.

        Now, Letizia is a great representative of Spain. She is not the “Ooh, I’m a Princess! Let me show you, my adoring public, the designer stuff!” like other royals, but more “I’m a working, functioning, professional royal. Look at my brains, not my clothes.”

        Kate, on the other hand, is on record (engagement interview) for saying she doesn’t care what anyone thinks, except for her family and William. So perhaps her arrogance will not be helped by the media and public’s criticisms at all, since she’s so far up her own arse to begin with, and doesn’t show any sign of modesty. You gotta wonder if her giggling at somber events and inane comments come naturally to her and she thinks it’s just her being cute, as opposed to gaffes that she must use as learning curves and prevent in the future.

    • arlie says:

      Sachi, I mostly lurk on here, but I love reading your posts more than anyone else’s. You have extremely astute, well-thought-out comments and arguments against all the Waity idols. I’m reading down the posts and thinking all the exact same things you wrote, and then I get to your post and just rejoice that there’s at least a couple of smart, rational posters on here. You, and LAK too, thank you both for helping me stay sane amidst all the misguided Waity fawning.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Totally agree. You & LAK provide a great insight into the RF & the public sentiment in the UK. I appreciate the truth you bring to the malarkey put out by the Firm.

      • bluhare says:

        Wait a minute . . . LAK!!! Arlie likes Sachi more than us!

      • Sachi says:

        @ arlie – Thank you! I hope you stick around and read/post more. We can use some more rational posters in here who are not “jealous haters”, as some of Kate’s fans like to call her critics. :D

        @ The Original Mia – Glad to be of help, no matter how small as internet comments. :) I grew up in a country which had fought various countries and colonists in order to be a Republic and gain independence, a country that had pulled out 2 corrupt Presidents through “People Power”, and where the government and the President are always under criticism from the press and public, so I guess I learned not to drink the kool-aid from a young age. Imagine the changes when I moved to Canada, and then to England and have to deal with the idea of royalty (which was the head of the Spanish colonization of my country, something that we were told never to forget) in the modern world. I’m predisposed to be averse to royalty, LOL, except for when they truly impress me. :D

      • arlie says:

        Bluhare, I know you’re teasing :-) , but I was just writing off the top of my head. I should have included LAK in there too, and you, and all the other intelligent, unbrainwashed posters here on CB. It’s just that i love LAK and Sachi’s long, in-depth responses that articulate brilliantly what so many of us are thinking. I scroll down, reading dozens of comments and building up several good arguments in my head, and then I get to LAK and Sachi’s posts and they’ve already written everything exactly as I wanted to say it only better!

      • bluhare says:

        arlie: You are correct. I was teasing. Sachi knows her stuff.

  34. Sara says:

    I think she should invest in a private makeup tutor and purchase quality makeup. Love her but her makeup is just wrong. The wrong colour for her and way too heavy. I don’t think she and her sister will change their makeup styles. I would love for her to have a makeover including hair, she would be amazing.

  35. taxi says:

    We don’t know that she bought it. Could have been a gift. It’s hers, she can wear it anywhere she likes. Would you be criticizing her or the necklace if you believed it to be costume jewelry from a department store? Ease up, people.

    • LAK says:

      This is where she is showing lack of judgement and failure to learn and improve. It’s been more than a year in which every time she steps out, people cost her outfits. If she hadn’t been aware of this point before, then she should have been made aware by the report on her clothjing and public response a few weeks ago.

      The clothes worn on official engagements are tax deductable meaning that tax payers are indirectly paying for them.

      The Palace had to clarify how she came to be wearing such an ultra expensive piece of jewellery because it would have gone down like a lead balloon.

  36. Lia says:

    She can afford it. What’s the problem? Should everyone who’s sitting down to dinner at a fancy steakhouse tonight feel guilty or bad because some people can’t afford more than a White Castle burger? No, of course not. I don’t begrudge others if they can afford to buy things that I can’t. I’ve learned to live happily with what I have and not spend time worrying about what anyone else has.

    • LAK says:

      As a poster unthread pointed out, the royal family use tax money to pay for ‘essentials’ and their own money to pay for ‘toys’.

      rocking up in an ultra expensive piece of jewellery when the countryt isn’t doing well is simply a lack of Judgement. It isn’t as bad as the McQueen at the riots visit but the point remains the same.

      If this sort of thing was acceptable, or tolerated as it used to be, the palace wouldn’t have felt the need to clarify.

      • Shannon says:

        So I don’t get it – you’re mad that they spend their own money on things they like?

      • LAK says:

        @Shannon – surely you understand the difference between people on welfare and others not on welfare? Would you be happy if you paid someone’s ‘essential bills whilst they kept their money for themselves to spend on entertainment?

        We, the tax payers, are currently paying for security, housing at KP, some portion of the grooming/clothing bills (for official functions) for Waity. That is what I call essential. And yet, she is able to spend (privately we told, not gifted because the palace would have said so),£49K for one piece of Jewellery for herself. If She has that much cash lying around, then she can pay for her own essential bills eg her own home or should I say William should pay for their home.

        Why do you think the royal family is so rich? Apart from the historical reasons, it is fact that they spend as little of their money as possible whilst the tax payer ends up picking up a large portion of the bill. Cumulatively, divided by entire family, they tell you that it’s only pennies but it is not because certain items are not put into the public realm and it’s only a few of them. That receive the money meaning a truer reflection of cost would be a lot higher.

        Some people have compared Kate to Jen Aniston, but I don’t think Jen has ever asked anyone to pay for her essentials. She’s earned her money fair and square, and if she decided to spend it wearing a tiara all day, we wouldn’t begrudge her that.

        Kate, by contrast, hasn’t earned any money, barely works and yet is spending it large. Ditto William, but he is sensible enough not to flaunt his extravagant purchases in our faces.

        Further, we have the option of stopping Jen’s paypacket by NOT watching any of her output. We don’t have that option with the royal family. There is an actual law that prohinbits them being voted out. So the only way round this is a republic. Something Duchess Marie Antoinette seems not to realise.

  37. kellyinseattle says:

    She should be given some sort of prize for marrying that schlep.

  38. Christine says:

    Again, the most blah hair of all time.

  39. jes_sayin says:

    Sorry, but so boring.

    I’m still befuddled… how does she pick out the dullest, blah looking clothes (that includes the wedding dress and the Princess Di ring) with all that money and designers at her beckoned call? Unbelievable.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I don’t think she picked the ring. I think the royal handlers thought it would be a good idea to evoke images of Diana in order to make the public accept Kate. Kate probably didn’t have any say in the matter.

      First, that ring is cursed. All it represents is a failed marriage, where the groom never loved the bride and only married her to be a brood mare, then cheated on her from day one. Then they divorced and Diana died tragically at a young age. Who would choose THAT to be a symbol of their marriage?

      Second, the ring will always be Diana’s, not Kate’s. Whenever anyone sees the ring, it is Diana they will think of, and Kate will never get out from under her shadow.

      And third, if or when this marriage ends, Kate will not be allowed to keep the ring the way Diana was. It has too much connection to Diana and the public won’t stand for giving it away out of the royal family.

      So I seriously doubt she wanted that ring. But the decision wasn’t hers to make.

  40. Kate says:

    I don’t really care how much it costs, given it was very likely to have been a wedding present from some suckup. What bothers me is that it’s absolutely hideous. She could borrow from the most impressive jewellery collection in Western Europe, and she wears that?

  41. clieu says:

    I guess 78K is really nothing for her by now, their honeymoon suite costs 6500 per night and that was for 10 nights, and how many of these luxury holidays they take each year? every other month? – that necklace is merely one holiday(she missed), or less

  42. Ali says:

    Good Grief! She is the wife of the man who will one day be King of England! She will be given presents by wealthy people throughout her life to come…. including billionaire Arab Princes for whom that sum of money is small change…. Grow up, people – it’s one of the perks of the job; to make up for the complete loss of privacy, never being able to have an “off” day, and never getting to retire…
    This is so unfair – If say, Jennifer Anniston was wearing the same necklace, no one would say ANYTHING. I think the necklace is rather tasteful, actually.
    Anyway, bit silly making a fuss over this when one day she will be wearing millions in jewellery in her position as first Princess of Wales and then eventually as Queen….

  43. Elise says:

    How can one compare Kate with Jennifer Aniston? Kate’s job is to serve the British people. The mere existence of the Royal Family is dependent on the British people. If the British decide to not have a monarchy tomorrow, what will Kate and William do then? Britain is also on the verge of a double-dip recession, or are people simply going to ignore that?

  44. Sunny says:

    Worlds most famous welfare family. Seeing as they depend on taxpayers for “essentials” or however they are being cleverly defined these days, yes she should be criticized, gift or not. If someone is receiving government money here in the US to pay their essentials, I criticize if they’re walking around with an expensive phone I cant even afford or wearing designer clothing, or driving lux cars. All of us struggling people not on welfare pay for that! same with the british royal fam…I find it terribly disrespectful to shamelessly walk around wearing such a thing knowing most of the country that you now serve is struggling to get a job, pay bills, take care of their children, go to school….

    • Shannon says:

      By that logic we should be outraged that they haven’t sold the royal jewels and historic palaces to pay for their food. I mean, the welfare comparison only goes so far. Especially because Kate was wealthy before she married.

      • LAK says:

        @Shannon – Perhaps you are not old enough to remember how we forced the Queen to pay for her own castle repairs and upkeep in 1992 resulting in their being opened up to the public every summer. And we took back the yacht in the 90s. Funny, She hasn’t managed to buy her own yacht again….

        Kate came from a wealthy family, BUT it wasn’t £49K baubles wealthy.

        If anything, i would wager that it was a gift rather than her paying for it out of her own pocket.

        Her lack of judgement as to when it is appropriate to wear such extravagant things is what is causing all the disquiet. It’s not as bad as McQueen to visit riot victims bad, but the point remains te same.

  45. pwd says:

    Possibly showing off, cause last time DM has an article comparing her with Andy Murray’s gf who was wearing Rolex watch

  46. Amy says:

    I could buy that necklace for 12.50 USD at Forever XXI. No need to spend the equivalent of four years of college just for a label. Ugh.

  47. Val says:

    I think it is a pretty necklace, but all I see is gold. For that much $$, I could snag one hell of a diamond or other gemstone necklace. Cartier, Tiffany & Co., etc. = OVERPRICED.

  48. gg says:

    I haven’t read the article but upon looking at that photo, as a jewelry designer and a huge fan of Cartier, that is the bugliest necklace I have ever seen! What a waste of $.

  49. Mar says:

    I do not like her outfit , nor the necklace- maybe it looks better in person- usually I love what she wears.

  50. Brittney says:

    “She got a gold medal in waiting!! It’s because she stuck the landing.”

    …I have never laughed harder at a line by Kaiser. And that’s saying a lot!

  51. bettyrose says:

    I’m sorry if someone said this already, but jewelry is an investment. It’s not nearly as extravagant as an expensive purse or car which don’t hold their value. For someone who can easily afford it, I don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s not like she’s in danger of being mugged.

  52. Meanchick says:

    I have a better title. Should Duchess Kate be getting so much freaking attention? I mean really, she’s boring and all I see are articles being jammed down our throats about this plain jane woman. She is not interesting and she is not, nor will ever be like Princess Di.

    • Ducky La Rue says:

      @Meanchick: LOL, I misread your post – thought that “I have a better title” meant that you, my dear Lady Meanchick, had a better title than Kate. So you were obviously the Duchess of Something Better (but I wasn’t sure what that was, and I did want to know). :-D

      And then I read it again and realized you were referring to the title of the article. Doh!

  53. Ashley says:

    Woah, when did she wear a 100K necklace while meeting the homeless? The only time I know of her meeting the homeless was for Centrepoint and the Slave Lake fire damage and I don’t think she wore jewelry either time.

    In reference to: And it’s not like (this hasn’t happened) she wore a $100K diamond necklace while meeting with the homeless.

  54. raven says:

    I find it unnecessary considering whenever her and the Prince want to tour Canada, Canadian taxpayers are left footing the bill for their travel and whatnot.

    • not a royal fan says:

      Totally agree. Still baffles me as to why Queen Elizabeth is our dollar bill considering she lives over there and couldn’t give a hoot or lift a finger to help those in genuine need abroad much less in her own backyard.

      Kate says a lot about herself. When she’s putting on costly jewellery, she’s telling the world “I’m royal, I’m better than you, I’ve attained the highest status now”. The Aristocratic system will be enforced once that hyena gets the throne and that’s just judging by the way she enjoys her notoriety. She enjoys it way too much. she’ll make sure her child marries into royalty. nothing less will do and we’ll foot the bill for more visits from the parliamentary puppets.

      Must be hard for the upper class to bow to her though. The Societal Rules that Aristocracy enforced which put them on a pedestal above us lowly peasants and working class in the long run put egg on their faces. The snobs are bowing to a lesser being – someone from the working class who didn’t actually work… Ironic.

  55. Mara says:

    Maybe it is a gift from her husband .

    • Luise says:

      Regardless of the source of the necklace, the woman has no sense or sensitivity in wearing such an outrageously expensive piece of jewelry out in public when her subjects, YES her subjects, are all suffering in a major recession in such hard economic times.

  56. not a royal fan says:

    As someone said “The British Throne has been bathed in blood for centuries…”

    Think of it… on the doorsteps of the throne of England, while they were lapping in such luxuries, many many many children were dying and being abused. (George Mueller’s Bristol Orphanage). If anyone should be on the throne, it’s the men and women who lost their lives for the good of mankind or those like Mother Theresa. And I wish he’d put away his “Diana” card. There are more children in worse situations or have experienced the horrors of the loss of both parents than that Parliamentary Puppet William. Just saying.