Duchess Kate has so many green coats, you’d be forgiven if you thought this one was a repeat. For what it’s worth, it’s not. The style reminds me a lot of the green coat she wore for two St. Patrick’s Days in a row, and the color reminds me a lot of the Reiss coat she wore about a month ago in Wales. But this piece is new! Just what her wardrobe needed: another green coat that looks like everything else!
Kate wore this Sportmax coat to the Christmas Day church service at Sandringham. The coat costs around $1200-1895, depending on whether she bought it on sale. It has a shocking lack of buttons, but Kate did add that belt. Ugly belts are one of Kate’s “style signatures,” if you will. Kate paired the coat with a £70 dress by Great Plains, some Kiki McDonough drop earrings (they are reportedly her green amethyst drops), a Mulberry clutch and Aquatalia boots (I think the boots are old).
There was a lot of talk in the lead-up to the big royal Christmas outing: would the Cambridges bring George to church? Would they spend the whole day with the royal family or with the Middletons? Well, in a direct contradiction to the piece of royal propaganda in the Daily Express last week, the Cambridges did spend almost all of Christmas day with the Middletons, at Anmer Hall. Will and Kate went to church with the Windsors – leaving George and Charlotte with the Middletons – then returned to Anmer after church instead of joining the royal family for a Christmas lunch. However, it does seem like Will and Kate spent much of Christmas Eve with the royal family, having a three-course dinner and exchanging gifts.
I’m also including some photos of the Duchess of Cornwall, the Queen and the Countess of Wessex. I really, really love what Sophie is wearing – she looks amazing. She’s really come into her own, fashion-wise. And considering the Queen is wearing red for Christmas and no one else is, I kind of wonder if a memo was sent out to all the royal women: you can wear any color other than red?
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.
Honestly, it does seem like she has 500 of the same green coat. Oh the hardships of being a ‘princess’.
And I think by now we should all just give up hope of her ever removing her harsh eyeliner. It’s there to stay, I bet she never even takes it off at night to sleep, wears it in the shower etc.
How many coats does one person need ?! So wasteful.
The queen looks great though, Sophies outfit also looks great–and has faux fur. I don’t care for Kate’s hat–they look bolted to the side of her head. Beatrice has a nice hat. Lady Louise looks more grown up this year, and it seems her vision issue has been corrected—good for her.
I firmly believe one can never have too much of any piece of clothing but in the same color? She needs to pull away from that green.
Sorry but Sophie’s hat is awful! Those little saucer hats perched on the forehead are just silly-looking. Period! Give me a big hat anyday. IMO, Queen Maxima owns the royal hat game hands down, though I do like how Camilla rocks a slightly Edwardian look with her hats.
Kate looks nice but would it kill her to repeat one of her many many coats once in a while? She must have a coats for thousands of pounds! It is just so extremely wasteful that it borders on the obscene. She probably has coats that total more money than I spent on my English Masters degree!
She doesn’t need a new coat every time she steps out, she just needs a greater variety of accessories and a stylist to advise her how to use them to vary her look. She really needs one to help her put together a more flexible and sensible work wardrobe so she doesn’t spend so much on clothes. She needs to embrace the skirt, the blouse and the blazer – even if she doesn’t want to embrace a pair of well-tailored trousers. The reason her wardrobe is so bloated and expensive is that she buys outfits that can’t be mixed and matched because they are one-pieces like dresses and coat-dresses. She also needs to recycle her clothes more. She’s so spendthrift that it is embarrasing – and if I were British I would be livid, since it is essentially the British taxpayers that pay for her work wardrobe.
ArtHistorian…..I agree with you, that’s for sure. Kate’s approach to this is really beginning to unravel. She needs a professional stylist and she needs to STOP buying all these coats and dresses. Not to mention a gazillion pairs of black suede court shoes!!!!!
Kate is wasteful – thousands of dollars on coats no one can tell apart. I think she’s a shopaholic. I also wonder about all of her bespoke clothes – don’t they take multiple fittings when making a bespoke garment? How can you be with your children “all of the time” when you are having multiple fittings for custom garments?!?!
Wasteful and insensitive. That’s Kate and Wills.
AH, almost Nytårskur! Crossing my fingers for the Midnight Tiara not the rubies.
Me too! It’s been a while since the Midnight has had an airing – and it is such a beautiful piece.
http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.dk/2011/11/tiara-thursday-midnight-tiara.html
It really is one of my favorites. The one that jeweler made for Marie is awful, but the Midnight makes up for it.
AH, that was a big shock at the end of Margrethe’s speech. First he stopped running the winery and now officially retiring. I hope Henrik is okay health-wise.
Yeah, i was quite surprised! He is 81 but I also have a nagging suspicion that he may struggle with depression. I don’t have any proof, just a gut feeling.
I watch the speech every year. It is actually one of the most watched TV programs in the country. Interestingly, the speech started out as a tradition where during the reign of Frederik VIII where he spoke a few words at the annual New Year’s Banquet. However, the speech was only solidified into a national broadcast over the radio (and later TV) during the German Occupation in the 1940s. QMII’s New Year’s speechs has gotten progressively longer over the years and they are always transmitted live.
She was quite colourful in her clothing this year, with the orange blouse and the turquoise jewellery. Not my favorite outfit. The one with the aubergine watered silk she wore last years was really beautiful. I saw it at the exhibit of her clothes at Frederiksborg Castle this summer.
I didn’t watch the speech (don’t speak Danish!), but via the English translation I found it thoughtful and eloquent. Margrethe is one of the royal ladies I’d most like to spend an afternoon talking with.
Me too! It would be great to talk art with her. From what I’ve heard, she also has a dry sense of humour.
My imaginary royal tea party would also include Maxima (of course) and Prince Michael of Kent. He’s an expert on Fabergé (among other things) and I’ve seen in some programs where he really gave the impression of being an urbane, cultured and very knowledgable man.
I’d like to be at that tea party!
You’d definitely be invited 😉
I have a theory that it’s tattooed on. I have a relative with the same raccoon eyes and she’s got hers on permanently. It would explain a lot.
Many have had that inked on theory and it’s been debunked on a regular basis. I’ve posted numerous photos showing it’s not inked on. A small examination is all that is needed to see its not a tattoo.
Its not tattooed she just tightlines with a cream liner. Makes it easy to get the same look over and over.
Maybe the eyeliner is tattooed on? My boss has her makeup tattooed on.
It’s not.
I hope Harry marries a fashion minimalist obsessed with “paring down her basics” and only wears neutral sack dresses. Imagine the Royal Journalists and their despair.
I totally just pictured Angelina Jolie walking to church with the queen. Lol
The Queen looks cute.
I like Kate’s hat, it’s awesome. Suede, do you think? Nice hairstyle too. As for the coat, it’s OK I guess. I’m not a fan of the under the bust belt though. I think it looks better on the retailer’s website. I dislike those boots how they ‘pool’ at the ankle.
“What is that-velvet???”
Looks more like velvet than suede.
I know this is ridiculous, but it bothers me that the fascinator hat thingy and the coat are different colors of green.
Agree on the rest of your points.
I think the colors clash too. 🙂
The color clash is killing me too! She’s done it several times before, whyyyyy…
The hat is made of felt per royalhats.wordpress.com
I liked it better on the retailer’s website as well. Waity has it belted so high.
I wonder if she will wear this ugly green coat or one of her other ugly green coats in March to the Irish Guards shamrock presentation. (That has always been my favorite royal event because of the Irish wolfhound
She constantly belts things high to make her legs look longer. She has an incredibly long torso to short leg proportions. The belt creats the illusion of her waist…. when really it’s belted up under her boobs. She does this all the time.
It’s not incredibly long. Just longer than most. Some have near equal lengths between legs and torsos.
Empire waistlines are popular to those with these proportions.
They all have style except Kate. She just wears the same coats …in different colours!
Did the queen pop into a rite aid and buy the cheapest umbrella she could find? Haha that thing looks budget.
But I don’t really give an eff about any of them. What a yawn.
the queen chooses this type of umbrella on purpose so that crowds can always see her even if it rains.
She commissions them from the retailer and has them trimmed with the colour to match her outfit. She only uses this type so she can be seen.
We had these when we lived in HK, back when it was still under British influence.
I have one like that for when I am in Vancouver. If the rain is coming at you sideways, this style is great for keeping you dry as you can really bring it down, kinda like the bubble of silence in Get Smart. They aren’t the nicest looking but they are actually useful. They also don’t get blown inside out which is another bonus.
LOL! Bubble of Silence? Loooved, Get Smart!
Except the queen always carries it like a regular umbrella.
Camilla has started using the same type of umbrella, only with black trim not a match-each-outfit trim.
Kate looks nice but incredibly boring. Like usual (unless of course she is flashing the royal biscuit).
The queen tho- so bold and feisty! Harry looked amazing in his coat too and he stayed after everyone else bolted to speak with well-wishers in the rain. Such a gent.
Of course he did. Would you expect Normal Bill and Kate, neither of whom ever look comfortable with people, to stay after and greet well-wishers? Please! Meeting the plebes is just below them!
Maybe someone could give Kate some credit for wearing her hair up. Oh okay, I will.
I like the coat, but the belt is unfortunate.
Overall, I think she looks great.
I also like the coat and I don’t mind the belt.
I like Sophie but hate her bunchy outfit, fox collar (shame!), and the silly fascinator that is preparing to fly off her head and mate with a mockingbird.
Agree. Her entire look is just overdone; the only thing missing is a fur muff. I can see Joan Collins wearing this ensemble.
Fur notwithstanding, it’s the shoes I can’t un-see.
I think it’s faux fur, but I could be wrong.
I just can’t stand this outfit. It doesn’t fit, it rides up, it’s super flashy and somehow frumpy at the same time, way overdone for a walk home from a “country” church, and it makes the wearer look ten years older than her age.
I think you and I are the only two people who think that way suze. I didn’t like it either and in the photo of her going up the steps it looks too tight.
Count me in B.
I’m with all of you. This is one of Sophie’s worst Christmas looks. Lady Louise looked great, which makes for a nice change-up in the Wessex household.
If it didn’t look so tight i’d not hate it. Just wrong measurements all over.
Sophie looks like she dressed for a completely different event to the others.
I just bought that coat. I am now very excited to wear it, it looks great.
I hope it looks better on you.
Neither of the kids have got dimples, have they? Nobody on William’s side has dimples, while Kate looks to have two, with the one on the left side being very pronounced.
I never noticed, but you’re right. Supposedly, dimples are caused by a separated muscle and are hereditary. Charlotte might show them later once she starts losing some of the baby fat in her cheeks.
Didn’t Diana have one dimple, also? Sometimes I think it’s a dimple and sometimes it looks like the laugh lines that comes with a mature face.
Neither of her two boys ended up with dimples, but Kate’s side have a few people with dimples.
Carole once mentioned the Middleton dimples, so Kate gets this from her father. I think little George has them, too.
It’s lovely to see that Louise has finally grown into her first grown-up coat. Last Christmas she was still wearing an overly short version of a little girl coat.
Yes! I noticed that too. Last years coat was way too small and juvenile for her.
Kate looks standard issue. I want to like Sophie’s outfit but frankly, I think it looks purely frumpy, at least in that photo.
+1.
I loved Princess Anne’s coat though.
The price of her coat would cover four or five of my student loan payments for the year, depending on the exchange rate at the time.
Oh man, I wish! I’m paying $1,300 a month! Killing me. So I see clothes like this, like Kanye West’s clothing line and I’m just boggled at *how can you think this is a good idea*??
Yeah, that’s what I should be paying, but since we moved (yay, military!) I havent been able to find a job, I pay the “hardship” portion of my loan— still nearly 500/mo.
Mainly, I’m just jealous.
1300 sounds like a dream!
Now let me go and cry over my degrees
My best dressed is Louise by far. She looks gorgeous!
I don’t care for the coat, but then again, it looks a bit 70s-influenced to me, and I’m not a fan of clothing from that era. HRM is on point, as always.
The green of her hat clashes with the green of her coat.
Always. She must think it’s stylish.
You can tell Kate’s boots are old, because the toes are all scuffed up and losing some of the suede. She looks nice, but then she always looks nice when wearing this “uniform”. She has the money, she needs to change up her style at least once in a while! Perhaps she can consult with Princess Madeline of Sweden?
I loved how her boots looked in pictures from 2007, when they were still brand new. I considered getting a pair in 2011 when the fan sites revealed the brand. I don’t get why Kate doesn’t just buy a new pair.
Because she’s so THRIFTY!!
I use belts like that too. A small waist doesn’t just accentuate itself, you know. I’m not built anything like her, though. If a short curvy girl , say Reese Witherspoon or Elizabeth Moss, rocked that look would it get better reviews?
It isn’t accentuating her waist. The belt is 8cm above her natural waist. This is her typical fool-them-about-leg-length move.
I’d say at least 15cm
So you guys totally agree this would look awesome on Elizabeth Moss? 😉
Boring. Boring. Boring. Why is the belt positioned under her boobs? It looks ridiculous, especially with her awful posture.
The Queen, Sophie, Lady Sarah Chatto, and Anne were my faves. Sophisticated ladies.
Lady Sarah Chatto is often overlooked in the royal fashion parade, but she dresses beautifully. She tends to favour the 1947 christian Dior look/style.
And her wedding dress/tiara are still my favourite royal wedding dress/tiara.
Yes, Lady Sarah looked wonderful as usual! And Harry gave her his umbrella which was sweet.
Mia, she has the waist raised on most things she wears to convince you her legs are longer than her torso (they aren’t). Although this coat already had a high waist from what I can tell.
Yes LAK, thank you re- your observation; Lady Sarah.
She does IMO, have that retro aura about her. Quite mature and classic.
http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2012/10/readers-top-10-wedding-gowns-9-lady.html?m=1
I love the pop of color with the full flowers!
It’s all lovely.
@Nota – It doesn’t work. It never works, but she tries it all the time.
She has a very long torso to short leg proportions… so she is always creating the illusion of a higher waist (hence, longer legs) with the ridiculously high-placed belt to offset her actual body proportions. She does this with all her coats and dresses and even skirt/blouse outfits.
Could you tell me where you were able to see the pictures of Lady Sarah at Christmas? I checked the Mail but didn’t see any, but maybe I missed them. I loved her wedding gown as well.
https://royalhats.wordpress.com/tag/lady-sarah-chatto/
Scroll down to see Sarah’s gorgeous coat! She looks warm too.
We need more pics of Harry 😉
Yes Snazzy, quite true, quite true indeed.
She simply does not have an eye for style, and I don’t think she ever will.
You know, she gets close and then she throws in a clunker.
I know. Why won’t she just get a stylist??
She really should. She has good taste in clothes for the most part. Some of them are really lovely, but then she blows it with bad accessories. I’m not the best accessorizer either but I think I’m better than she is. She’s had a couple of more formal dresses that she chose to put that leather belt that’s more suited to trousers than a nice dress!
Plus she needs someone to show her that she doesn’t need to wear a flying saucer on her head every damn time she needs to wear a hat!
Quite often in the twitter photos of random people snapping shots she looks great. Great style imo. Although, i’m bias since it’s similar to my own. I like sweaters and collar shirts. FMORC calls it sporty preppy.
When she’s more often knowing there will be cameras her RPOs will not tackle she dresses differently. Forced almost. the sporty preppy style looks like she’s comfortable in it. The other doesn’t.
For a point of reference her Christmas photo had that ideal casual style that she appears comfortable in.
The coat is blah, she has so many of them. Loved princess Anne’s coat.
It’s worth noting that there were 2 church services. One private for the RF only and the other with the public. The.Buckets only showed up to the 2nd one and even then she couldn’t wait to make it all about her and her £2k coat. Slap in the face much for the people who have lost everything in the floods in the north of England.
According to another site, for the second walk to church she was wearing $2500 worth of new Michael Kors.
Right. I saw that suit, then the cost and couldn’t believe she spent that kind of money on a dowdy “country-look” outfit. For just two days of pap walks, her extravagance really puts Betti’s comment about flood victims in a better perspective.
She has a very similar outfit, in brown, from about 10 years ago. Could have just worn that, but no, had to spend more money.
$2500? I saw that outfit. I’m sure any ‘normal’ woman could find a similar outfit with a similar quality at some department store for $2000 or more less.
Her Christmas outfits this year look like they could have come from a local theater group’s collection. One from the 1940s and the other from the 1970s-90s.
Oh I loved Anne’s coat too. Very stylish. Loved the asymmetry of it.
so i love this look….. but im partial to jewel tones and hunting/vamping colors….paired with black
so my quick analysis of Kate… is that she would loved to be thought of/perceived as a quintessential English Rose (sophisticated, air of aristocracy, discretion, elegantly chic, timeless, classic style)…. however with the sausage curls, then pressured into mom hair, flubbing of speeches, fiddling with her hair, and heavy cleopatra like eyeliner, marilyn monroe wind skirt moments, and just over all vibe of self consciousness…. she just comes of as a over grown college sweetheart nothing more nothing less…
I would have to agree, she just can’t carry it off. There is no there there, there doesn’t seem to be any inner strength or drive. She could have been so much more.
Well, at least Kate knows what she likes (repetitive).
The colour is nice but I thought the entire look appeared a little too high waisted and it looked odd with the boots. Anyway, the hat is nice, fairly innocuous.
Kate looks nice in burgundy- would like to see more of that colour.
The belt’s only purpose seemed to be to hold up her boobs.
Hold up? Oh my, I never noticed. Kate has lost so much weight I thought she would be flap jack; up and back 🙂
ps- I quite like the chignon look with her hair during xmas day church walk. It’s a 10/10.
Her padded bras do that, don’t they?
Her brooch is of acorns, which is the Middleton symbol. So if they can’t be there in person (not invited), then they were there in spirit. I wonder if it was an **** you to the RF for not caving in to the Middletons.
A nearly $2000 green coat for one outing. Because she couldn’t ‘recycle’ by wearing one of her gazillion other coats that cost thousands of dollars each too. And because she doesn’t have enough green coats, right? It costs more to have her seen in public than it’s worth.
Does she rent a storage facility for all her clothes?
The close-up of the coat’s stitching makes it look old fashioned. Overall, she looks like a middle-class 1940s housewife.
…………….
Love Sophie’s get-up, except maybe the hat. She looks like she’s straight out of the 1920s especially with the blonde hair.
…………….
Like the Queen’s coat. If it was redder, it would look fierce, which I prefer.
…………….
Like Louise’s coat on her. Age-appropriate and makes her look good.
…………….
I saw a gif of this stroll. W&K went up to the wheelchair-bound attendees and wouldn’t shake their hands nor accept anything from them. Harry of course did the opposite.
She should have reworn that lovely one she wore to her first St. Patricks Day. It was fabulous.
I love that coat!
Why wouldn’t they shake hands with the elderly wheel-chair bound? Don’t they want to touch the great unwashed? SMH So tacky and disrespectful especially since it usually takes a great deal for the wheelchair-bound to get around. At least Harry showed some class…
My lord, this is putting the bitchy in Celebitchy 🙂 I think it looks good. Very safe but nothing objectionable. It’s church!
I think she looks very stylish and pretty!
I think Kate looks great, it’s a cold morning church visit, what’s she supposed to do go high fashion?
I probably own about 7 green coats all very similar, can’t even count the amount of similar brown boots I own, I like to collect them so I can see why she owns loads!
I think Sophie looks over done and too flashy for the occasion, plus her shoes are making my eyes melt.
I think spending nearly $2000 on a coat is what she would consider going ‘high fashion.’
She owns loads because she has her FIL’s credit card. It’s not like she’s working to make that kind of money to buy things on her own dime.
Other people may have several green coats, but they usually wear them more than one to three times.
Did tax funds buy you duplicate coats and boots? It’s totally different to buy similar items with your own money and with equivalent to public funding or welfare checks.
It has crossed my mind that maybe and I say maybe, when she chooses a coat or dress or boots etc she gets them free from the Company because any company who manages to get her to wear one of their items is a win win in the retail stakes. Let’s face it she only has to wear a make and they sell out or are put on the map. It’s like seeing the Middleton family driving those four wheel drive vehicles I wonder if they have been given them.
From what I understand she does not accept gifts/comped items.
Starlight
While they are to refuse free items, but can except steep discounts WK have stated they do accept freebies. And often if you hear Pippa or Carole or any Midd gifted Kate, William, George, or Charlotte anything it’s because they were gifted it by a company and then as a loop hole gave it to a Cambridge so it’s not buying favor of sorts. This is often exposed from the company itself waiting to take credit for what Kate has now via her family. And that they would custom make an item (like the “G” necklace post George’s birth pippa gave Kate) for pippa to gift. They take full credit they made it, sent it to a Midd and wait for the free publicity.
With this Kate has been seen so often shopping with arms full of bags not counting online shopping or delivery services I doubt this was free.
Since it’s used for business we will see it added into the tax write off. If it was free this “should” not happen.
1 thing is certain. Kate has not had to support herself at all. There is simply money.
Bluhare
Around the time of the helicopter ride being exposed KP put out a statement saying they accept gifts like these from friends and in a very general way do not refuse gifts as many others do for obvious reasons.
They are independently wealthy Florc. I highly doubt tax dollars pay for everything.
Maggie
They have wealth, but do not use it. Charles notoriously pays for Kate’s upkeep and shopping. William notoriously does not and well covered he refuses to use his wealth for even personal vacations.
So do tax funds pay for everything? No. It does cover majority of the end of the year tax write offs say anything. The rest is reported and admitted as gifts.
Simply put Kate has no money of her own that isn’t an allowance from an adult in her life. If they paid via their independent wealth so much would be different. It’s a long false claim people carry on that wk can maintain their lifestyle of mansions, palaces, shopping spree on a handful of hours worked a year.
After taxes, William’s inheritance is estimated around $10 million. That would not support their current lifestyle. The cost of purchasing Amner alone, if they had to buy their own home like most people, would take most if not all of that.
As a known skinflint, he’s not paying for himself or his family if he can get the money elsewhere (Duchy). They spend the better part of $ 4 million a year “allowance” from the Duchy just for starters. The deal is they receive the lifestyle in exchange for being working royals – except they barely work. Summing up, the money they spend isn’t theirs.
Maggie
No one is saying they do not have wealth of their own. Because they have it does not mean they use it.
They have not paid for their own vacations as this is documented in the press and on record.
They do not pay for the large majority of their private expenses. Homes, staff, taxes, and general cost of living are not from their pockets of money earned.
For tax purposes others have those receits.
If you have a link of annual expense reports disproving my/Nota’s statement i’d enjoy that read. I know the expense reports regarding how the public and their family supports WK is easily found on official sites, gossip sites, etc…
A while back I do recall a link was posted for you with sort of an equation. How much William’s lifestyle costs to how much he has in the bank to how much he currently spends annually on just personal activities. Assuming he only kept a single residence. In short, without Kate and his kids down to only AH William could support his family in full for 2 years. After that they’d be broke.
Like I said Florc taxpayers don’t pay for everything. How do you know they paid for this coat? Taxpayers pay for specific things such as security, perhaps some clothing when on official business, travel, childcare etc that is related to official business. If Charles wants to throw them a few gifts or money that’s his business as he is independently wealthy. The queen has made tremendous amounts of money through her horses. They have other means of income. If the royal family were to disappear England would suffer monetarily. It’s not hard t o figure out.
maggie, you seem to think you have insider information. What we can find is documented evidence, in Charles’s taxes, that he pays for her clothing. To the tune of $50,000-100,000 per year since the marriage. He takes the costs off on his taxes as a business expense too, so double dipping. This is part of why her habit of mixing personal and work clothing is so troublesome, because it shows she has no concept of personal vs. work money.
Charles pays for all the household staff and their general household costs, as shown in the released accounts. All of that money, from the Duchy, ultimately belongs to the taxpayers it does NOT belong to Charles. He takes all of it as expenses out of the Duchy, proving it is Duchy money. Sixer or LAK can enumerate the ownership on that again.
You don’t know how much money the Queen has made through her horses. I’m sure she wishes she’d made “tremendous amounts” but where are the receipts to prove it?
The official tourism agencies of both England and the UK disagree with you, as they have proven consistently that the royals do not bring in any net benefit. They cost $600 million a year but are worth nothing close to that when it comes to their value to the People.
maggie
The coat will be added to Charles’s write offs like years before.
How do I know this coat has been paid for by Charles? Simple. She’s wearing it during a work event. That means this is a work expense. There’s no doubt she’s not having this as a write off and time and time again this is proven.
I can’t stress enough how often this is proven. If she is wearing it as a work outfit it’s paid for by tax pounds. And tax filings do support this entirely.
I’m not sure how else to phrase that because they have a few million in the bank does not mean they use it. Especially when time and time again on official documents they list how they use massive amounts of public funds for daily/private life.
P.S. Much like how tax funds go directly to security Charles and his Dutchy funds go directly to Kate’s work wardrobe and shopping. She will buy a work outfit with private funds and later wear that work outfit in private collection. The reverse has never happened unless you can prove otherwise.
P.S.S. The Queen’s finances are not well known. “tremendous” cannot be proven. And she’s also extremely cheap when it comes to spending outside her family. This can and is proven often. And the facts of it all are horrible.
They’re not independently wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Any money that has ever come in these people’s hands has been at the expense of someone else.
Wrong!
Kindly enlighten us, maggie. What aspects of their lives do W&K pay for themselves?
@RosesAreRed, you are absolutely right.
The cost of the Royal family is an estimated 50 million annually. They bring in approximately 700 million in tourism alone. Get rid of them and you will see that amount drop. They contribute an enormous amount with outreach and charity. If you would take a moment and remove your bitter glasses and look at their contribution objectively you just may see the reality a tad differently. This doesn’t even cover the goodwill they bring to Britain. You can’t even put a dollar figure on that. Any cost that William and Kate incur outside of their allowance for public events is out of their own pocket. Have you ever considered they invest their inheritance and have made vast amounts of money from that?
They cost $600 million annually. The official tourism agencies for both England and UK overall have proven they do NOT have any beneficial effect on tourism.
All of their security, whether on engagements or not, is paid by the taxpayers. That includes all the security upgrades at her parents house, roughly $1 million.
William inherited $10 million. I’d love to have his investment bankers if you think they could live the lifestyle they have on that. The Duchy accounts show that their household expenses (the better part of $4 million a year) are paid by the Duchy which is ultimately owned by the People not Charles.
Maggie
Your information is not accurate. Simple truths and logic can be the toughest to accept with such confirmation bias as I think is in play here. To read they do not cost the burden they are is pleasing so it’s accepted more easily and without question to any facts that can go against te claims.
We here time and time again offer facts and links countering this argument you repeat. And repeat like no one has ever given you this easily accessed information before.
Yes, they are with millions in the bank. No they do not spend that when they can spend the funds from others. This is all spelled out on the books at the end of the year filings. To claim those filings are wrong is blind.
What’s the deal with the brooch? I read somewhere it was Kate’s ode to the Middleton coat of arms because it has acorns and oak leaves? Huh? Maybe this is Kate’s way of incorporating the Middleton family ala Diana wearing the Spencer tiara?
And agree with everyone that mixing 3 different green colors and fabrics is not stylish – at least in this case.
I do like the suit and black hat outfit she wore on Sunday to church.
I don’t think it was incorporating the Spencer family as a deliberate act. Diana wore the Spencer tiara because wearing the Lover’s Knot gave her a headache.
I think it would be easier for her to be accepted into the BRF if she and Bill wouldn’t keep pushing the Middletons into everybody’s faces. She should have worn something that wasn’t a constant and critical reminder that the BRF didn’t invite the Middletons into their Xmas activities as if the latter should be considered full members too.
Yup. The three different colors. Not what a professional stylist of ‘high fashion’ might have done, but maybe a middle-class housewife who has nothing else to wear might have.
I love Kate’s look, and that under the bust belt is what Carven has been doing in their modern coats latelly.
The belt positioning is not high fashion. It’s been consistently panned for years. It’s only done to accentuate a small frame when proper tailoring has failed. You can tell this is the case as the fabric is buckling.
It’s a last minute empire wasitline and nothing more.
This sounds like when Kate worse a bespoke Burton gray dress that had a frayed hemline. Not on purpose, but from poor quality. Sites carried it like frayed hems were a trend.
Kate has short legs in relation to her torso so she’s trying to make her legs look like a Victoria Secret models long, long legs by giving herself a false waist right below her breasts. It an old trick for girls with short legs. Smoke and mirrors.
I’ve always noticed how short her legs are when she wears jeans.
But the “smoke and mirrors” doesn’t work if a woman is tall with long legs. Kate is tall with short legs. A women with extra curves and long legs looks pregnant wearing empire waists. I personally love empire waists but only in certain clothing such as a long formal evening dress, not heavy coats.
5’5″ or 5’6″ is not tall.
She is 5.7, above average height for a woman
Kate looks amazing. All of the royal women look lovely!
I like how Will and Kate split up their Holiday time to include both sides of their family equally. It works out rather well.
This is good. Now if this can only be continued without the planted back and forth nonsense in the press and their PR I think many would hold their tongues.
It’s very important William and Kate appear united with the Monarchy. Even if they want to live a country life on public pound. They must put forth an image of unity. This is all PR that needs retuning.
Why is the belt so high? Could she be pregnant?
It’s explained in detail all over this thread.
To sum, it’s an empire wasitline meant to make the torso look shorter and legs look longer. It’s a style used by many who are not with child.
It should not be a flag used to gauge that if accuracy matters.
I think she is. She looks so tired and pale.
Kate looks tired and pale without pregnancy. It’s from light foundation and being too thin.
If anything when pregnant she starts to return to a healthy weight and gets a glow.
Florc you are a expert in everything! Even her foundation. Amazing!
Given the high-def photos we have of her, it isn’t difficult to see when her foundation is the wrong shade for her skin.
maggie
i’ve never claimed to be an expert so please do not call me one.
And as Nota pointed out you can tell in photos her foundation does not match her skin. There’s the line on the jaw and neck where you can see it wasn’t blended.
Now with pregnancy? Yea. It’s my job from a few angles to know as much as I can. With a masters in the field i’m as much an expert as anyone who holds certifications, degrees, and continued education with over a decade of on the job experience. I wouldn’t call myself an expert though.
Lady Louise is growing up very gracefully and dressed just right. Stylish, not childish, age- and occasion-appropriate.
They finally bought her a coat that fits!
The Queen is adorable!
Kate is such an utter waste of space.
Robin Hood after sex reassignment . . .
To go back to a slightly earlier topic, the British Royal Family costs each British person 56p per year, about 1 US dollar per person per year. Fact. You can see that on any website. In all honesty not a great deal of money to be going on, and on and on about.
The Sunday Times does a special supplement each year – The Rich List – and the Queen’s personal (as opposed to what is owned by the British people) fortune was estimated in 2015 to be £340M. For the first time she dropped out of the 300 richest British people.
The Daily Mail says the Duchy of Cornwall is worth over £400 million but I don’t know when they said that.
Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House are owned privately by the Queen. When Edward VIII abdicated, the new King George VI had to buy them from him.
Caroline
That estimate is not entirely true.
LAK posted a respected site that covered this before.
The 56 is an averaged sum. Meaning it counts every citizen no matter than age (infants to elderly) or their ability to pay (disabled/poor). And that the sum of 56 goes to a pool that does not cover their full cost. Only some pockets. Not the upkeep of public buildings they do not own, but only care for. That falls under another area so any cost needed does not get counted.
And there’s much of their wealth that they are only caretakers of and cannot claim outside of their post within the monarchy. Not like a private income or ownership.
And then let’s touch upon taxes. Even for privately owned items. They never paid until they offered to and even that is what they choose to.
Lastly, because it’s late here. The Queen is not that wealthy because it’s hers. It’s the Monarchy’s and she is the head. It’s hardly hers. Like a CEO might claim many assets like a company car and homes as theirs and a part of their wealth since they use it as their own. Should they leave their job it stays with the company.
Ofcourse, there is the part with how the BRF tries to rewrte laws so they can claim such things as their own. I think LAK and Sixer often enlighten us to how Charles wishes to take ownership of public land and Dutchy. He can’t, but he’s trying like it’s already his right. Open to corrections from Nota, Sixer, LAK, or anyone tht can offer a few seperate locations to support findings.
That sum (from the pro-monarchists BTW) does not include the massive security and travel costs, often hidden in the local council or police budgets. I’d love to see the accounts for the Berkshire area forces for the past few years.
Nota
It’s extreme. They actually ended up downplaying it greatly to avoid the attention and future budget questions. Famously cutting down the 2 helicopter fly overs of Middleton residence to only 1 a day.
The final and accurate tally should also include surrounding towns as they are also on call for any time Kate (or George) goes to her parents.
Caroline, I don’t care what they tell the masses, I bet it’s a hell of a lot more than that, do you really think they would be truthful, some folks really cling to charades, and of course perks, if they took away the Duchy, would they do that crap for free!
Just to reiterate when the British public are told by Parliament the amount the royal family costs and that it is £0.56 per person per year, this is actually true. The figures are all given in parliament. I don’t know if you understand either that many of the parliamentarians are fiercly opposed to the royal family including the head of the opposition and the main establishment Sunday newspaper the Sunday Times as well as it’s stablemate The Sun. If there was any fixing going on that would be delighted to reveal it. This is Britain though and our government is open and transparent. To say otherwise is the equivalent of saying President Obama is paid a salary much greater than that revealed to the public.
As I stated previously and then FLORC more or less repeated, we all know the main palaces and other treasures belong to the nation but the upkeep would be the same whether the royals are there or not.
As I said previously the Sunday Times estimates the Queens personal fortune to be approx £350 million. This obviously does not include the stuff that belongs to the nation.
Yes, it is unfair that all this belongs to one family but there are other families with loads of money not obtained in a politically correct way. It is the way that Britain works though and only the business of the British people.
The royal family does cost a lot more thant those Pounds 0.56 per person per year. As that doesn’t include the security costs which are astronomous. The Queen and some other Senior Royals have 24/7 protection and that is expensive.
And either one talks about the “costs” of an office holder (e.g. the Queen, President Obama)
OR one talks about the “salary” of an office holder. For example: the costs which come up from the US President are far far far greater than the US President’s salary. The security for the US President is simply very very costly.
The British government isn’t particularly transparent. The letters and wishes of Royals which are delivered to the British government aren’t transparent. Nobody knows what Prince Charles demanded in his “black spider memos” to the British government.
The Queen as head of state of Britain never let’s her own opinion about politics be known. That has nothing to do with being impartial. But a head of state must admit which policies he supports and which he opposes. That would be transparency but it is not.
British Academies aren’t particular transparent.
The process of turning a school into an academy or handing it over to a school chain isn’t transparent.
The process of selling assets owned by the British State isn’t transparent nor can you file a suit against that.
Official sources please from eveybody that says the RF costs the British citizen more than 56p per year and I don’t just mean wandering websites.
Whoever is head of state is going to have security and protection costs so a queen or political head of state is irrelevant. Prince Charles especially though is trying to downsize the British RF to those more or less directly in line. Remember too that those countries with political heads of state also have all the previous presidents and their families to cover so the BRF does not make any difference to the security side of the equation.
The politics of a political head of state must be known but the British monarch is politically impartial. It would not work if the monarch was favouring one party over another. Charles interferes with causes but not politics.
Pondering thoughts – what do you mean about flood victims? That is completely to do with global warming where some countries have been dragging their feet regarding implementing policies. It is also to do with Britain’s elitist Conservative government. There are very wealthy, privileged people in every country.
It also says a lot for Britain that so few supposed areas of non-transparency were given.
PS the letters of Prince Charles were released a few weeks ago.
That figure does not include anywhere near true costs. The massive travel and security costs are hidden, which is why the estimates of $600 annually are far more accurate.
The cost of having an elected Head of State would not be $600 million a year, nor would it involve a dozen members of that person’s family also incurring massive travel, security, and staff costs.
The astronomical security costs are hidden for “security reasons”. One such example was the furor over $1million+ cost of the security door at their rented farm house in Wales. Freedom of Information requests got hold of it, then someone started screaming about security breaches if the info gets out. That’s how they hide a lot of the costs.
So much for “thrifty Kate”.
Apparently she gets a new outfit for every public appearance.
Oh yes, and what about the flood victims?
Notsugarhere – You are wrong about the security. What about ex Presidents and their families who need security. As well as four Obama’s we have two lots of Bushes which must surely include the daughters of the last Bush. We have the Clintons including Chelsea, the Carter’s. Will Nancy Reagan still have security? As you are such an “expert”on the British Royal family, you must know surely what all this costs in your own country. Could you give me the figure, please? I bet it is a darn sight more than any British figure.
It is also the choice of the British people to have a monarchy. Some of the comments here prove that a lot of people on the forum do not understand it. I agree it is unfair one family should have all this money but hey what about the Rockefellers, the Vandervelts (sp?).
What about presidents who have bought votes and corruption in counting. At least even William and Kate are better than a Donald Trump or Sarah Palin. There is no moral highground here on either side but leave another country alone.
No, I am not wrong about the security. Their security costs are massive and hidden, hidden so well you’re convinced they don’t exist.
Are you implying that only people from the UK and Commonwealth are allowed to express an opinion on the British Royal Family? Guess I’d better check that First Amendment again.
It would be more accurate to compare the US President to the PM, although that may cause you to start screaming, “What do you want, President Blair?!” as if that was the only option other than a constitutional monarchy.
Many of us understand it is a choice, and there are many UK citizens on this site. I’m waiting for Sixer and LAK to chime in in particular. Monarchy is a choice, but it is not a choice that needs to cost $600 million a year. It is not a choice that requires that members of this family live in such extreme luxury at the expense of the People.
“The cost of having an elected Head of State would not be $600 million a year, nor would it involve a dozen members of that person’s family also incurring massive travel, security, and staff costs. ”
This means there would be one person, not a dozen members of the extended family doing engagements as the situation is now.
Carolind
You’re very off topic bringing in elected USA presidents into the BRF complete costs ncluding security discussion. It’s meat and cheese. Both are foods, but so different.
And who is calling Nota an “expert”? You are the only 1 using that word.
“leave another country alone” I just can’t even know where to begin with that. If we don’t live there we should turn a blind eye?
As it is now, the costs for the BRF far outweigh their worth. Same treatment goes to corrupt other royals and politicians No matter the country or goverment.
Now regarding US presidents. There’s a lot of variables. Most common search results on it will show the DM with a very inaccurate and click baiting billion+.
Leaving the presidency they are offered a few members of the SS to go with them. The costs of such is supplemented for a few years, but not lifetime as many publications like to claim. It’s private costs.
While in office just for their security it’s much greater. It includes costs of full and complete staff, training them, housing, with expensive items like AF1. Maintenance regarding it and the escort crews and their jets. This cost is much greater because of the more power their yield and more travel they do.
You just can’t bring them into the same conversation. It makes no sense and strays too far off point.
Just been checking, in 2012 the US President and his family cost the US 1.4 billion dollars. The British RF cost 60 million dollars and was second cheapest European monarchy. If the British RF have hidden costs then so, in the same proportion, will all the others.
The President of the United States earned his position on the global stage. The British Royal Family has not.
I posted above that was a bloated and click baiting number. Had you looked into the claims you’d see there’s far more than security for a single family or person involved there. It’s just inaccuate to go off of a top page google search and the DMOnline.
To add most of WK costs appear to be for extensions of them like family and not work related. Only because they exist is money spent. Like the upgrades to Midd residence. The wrongful use of the RPO’s on private citizens like the Midds without a royal member present. RPO’s are strictly for BRF members only as they are tax paid.
Please educate yourself on this topic as many should be aware of true costs. It’s not a quick search and requires reading/digging, but if it matters to get the figures correct it’s worth it.
Obama sucks!
Notasugarhere – I like President Obama but I would say the Queen has also earned her position on the global stage. Have you ever actually been in the UK? It is much harder to dislike people/a race if you have personal dealings with them. Travel really does broaden the mind.
I’ve traveled globally including parts of the UK. Why do you think valid criticism is the same as dislike? You can like something and still question how it is run or even why it exists.
She has worked in a role that was handed to her. VERY different from earning it for herself.
Nota
Clearly if you don’t live somewhere you can’t understand the people or the places. We should keep our opinions to ourselves and our own countries. Especially if we question what an establishment feeds us for information. Words to live by.
Yes, FLORC. Good advice for the New Year. Believe everything the politicos and their taxpayer-funded PR guru tell us.
😉
The two are different. One is a monarchy, one is a Presidency. This is not to say an unelected monarch is always worse than an elected president. The queen has absolutely nothing to do with constitutional matters. Her role is merely as a figurehead.
What I am emphasising to you though this is the choice of the British people and it is nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with you.
There are faults with every single country in the world but as long as the country is more or less kind to its people courtesy and the desire not to get into conflict stops most people from criticism.
I could not care less about any other royal house. I do not care about the French presidency etc etc etc etc.
If we were all to be stating what we don’t like about other countries, we would be in a constant state of war with everyone else. I am not going to go down the same line as you have.
Carolind
The Queen has absolutely a role in power. And she has used it. To claim she is a figurehead is to not understand the power of her position and that it is used. This is no secret.
Your argument seems very off point. I see the connection you’re trying to make, but it’s missing a few links in the chain. How we are even on elected politicians in other countries in regards to BRF private spending of public funds for personal use is a bridge too far.
You think it “kind” to spend $600 million a year on a monarchy when 1 in 4 people in the UK cannot pay their heating bills and 1 in 4 children in the UK live in poverty?
We should all sit quietly in our corners and never learn about anything outside our own borders? We should never research, explore, and discuss pros and cons, and learn interesting things from people around the world? We should continue to make assumptions, only believe what the press or the people in charge want us to believe, and keep solitary as an oyster?
You think the world would be so much better if we all shut our mouths, never engaged with anyone or anything outside our narrow view, and hid in our corners playing with our toys?
BTW, every time they visit the US and play silly PR games, it is US taxpayers who foot the bill.
Yes; I do think it would be better if we shut our mouths.
Do you not know that if the majority of British people wanted rid off the monarchy it would be gone like that? Just as Scotland – and I am Scottish – recently had a referendum to decide if they wanted to stay in the UK.
Please do not interfere in something that does not concern you. It is another country’s culture. I will say again – no country better than any other. To assume otherwise is breathtaking arrogance. My last post on the subject and my last visit to this portion of the site.
Removing the monarchy is Far more difficult than you make it sound. There are many things in our lives that are too woven in to remove easily. In theory it sounds easy enough, bu the reality of it simply isn’t. And it was by vote. Because voters are always highly educated and fully informed on the issues before voting. I’m sure no one voted for the Queen to stay because she was “adorable”.
So, it’s arrogance to want to know of other countries. Breathtaking arrogance infact.
1. How arre we interfering in the UK’s inner working in this discussion? We can’t be. That statement is flawed.
2.I don’t think anyone is claiming 1 country is superior to the other. We all have corruption. This is hardly denied. I also fail to see how elected official in other countries is comparable to a BRF and their lifelong birthrights.
3. shutting our mouths and keeping to ourselves is how horrible things happen. Tragic acts of violence in the world all came about by people refusing to question and pay attention. Failure to regulate funds all came about from not asking questions.
And i’ll say it. Winston Churchill had no right prior to his political career to give Adolf the side eye and by your logic he should have kept everything to himself. Because simply it wasn’t his country and therefore not his business. You should tell this to the Associated Press also.
If you read nothing else please read this. Shutting our mouths, focusing only to our own country, and not looking outside of that for world views, educations, life experience, cultural studies sounds like a mentally stunted nightmare to me.
I’ve traveled as much of the world as I could. It’s worth knowing, worth understanding, and worth sharing.
I will reply to this but it really is the last time as I think we are going round in circles. I am not going to point score here but speak from the heart.
First of all I have travelled round a lot of Europe and been to Russia and Ukraine. I was on a coast to coast tour of the US last year. Could only get a little flavour but loved it. Going back to NYC and Boston in May. I was in Philadelphia many years ago.
I am ashamed of some of Britain’s past and think there were also lots of reasons for both world wars.
There are many atrocities in the world which should not go unpunished but for the more minor stuff by and large we cannot interfere with other countries just because we don’t like it. It’s like going into your neighbours house and trying to tell them how to run it.
Regarding disentengling the monarchy, yes, it could be done. What you have to remember is that last year there was a vote in Scotland as to whether we should stay in the UK. It was quite close and if it had gone the other way Scotland would have been disentangled so it would not be any worse disentengling the monarchy. Other countries have got rid off their monarchs.
The royals here have been on sticky territory lots of times but we as a people have chosen to keep them. They are more popular in England than in Scotland. Yes, I think there is loads wrong with the system but at the moment it is what I and the rest of Britain want.
Regarding the comments about child poverty, that is a terrible problem world-wide. Also though figures can be inerpreted in different ways. Look at the UNESCO figures in the Washington Post in 2013. Frankly, though all figures can be interpreted in all kinds of ways and nobody on a forum like this knows any “real” figures. The people that do don’t blab them.
We should all – including me – respect each others cultures though and realise that we are different and moving at different rates. Also what would not be right for one country is for another.
The reason I visit this forum? I was not too keen on the Middletons either.
notasugarhere, Ditto, and may-be they should use the monarchy money for those kiddos living in abject poverty, but something tells me it would be used for something else other than poor folks, I personally think that if churches were really about what they are supposed to be about there would be no homeless,and no children going to bed hungry, and if royalty was really about the poor, they wouldn’t be living such ostentatious life styles!
it is not just up to the monarchy and Churches to help with child poverty; it is up to us all. We can all at some stage in our life help out in a voluntary capacity for Red Cross, Save the Children, UNESCO etc. We can help in charity shops, donate clothes and other stuff, put in a little bit of money each month. We can do different stuff for charity and get sponsored. Lots of young people do go away abroad on various trips and qualified medical professionals give up holidays to help abroad. It is not just child poverty though but disabled, old people that need help. Churches do help. I don’t go to Church a lot but the Church I do go to gives free meals once a week to people in need; not a lot but something and so do loads of the other Churches. I think Churches are going out into the community more now.
Putting this back on topic there is a programme in Britain tomorrow night about the 40th anniversary of Prince Charles’s Trust which helps young people and is a great success. Yes, the monarchy costs a lot but as somebody else said if there was no monarchy it’s not those that deserve it that would get the available money but some fat cats. We should ALL be doing something to help those less well off.