How much money is Duchess Kate spending on clothes for her 6-day tour?


In this post, I’m using photos of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge from their last big overseas trip, the Australian and New Zealand tour in 2014. I’m doing that because we’re going to talk about clothes, more specifically the clothes Kate will be wearing for the India-Bhutan tour, which doesn’t start until April 10. We still don’t know which designers Kate will be using for the tour, but several outlets are running previews and I guess we should start to get excited about Kate-in-a-sari. Do you think that will even happen? I would love to see her in a sari, but I think it’s far more likely that she would wear a British Indian designer, something with Indian flavor but very much a formal gown. You never know though, maybe Kate will whip out a sari.

The Telegraph did a big story on what Kate will wear, but there isn’t much new info here. She’ll take 12-15 outfits for six days, she’ll have “daytime dresses and evening gowns” and hopefully at least one pair of jeggings, I’m assuming. Kate’s team – including her secretary Rebecca Deacon – did a “rehearsal trip” to India to scout locations, take photos and prepare the color story of what Kate will be wearing. Still, a royal source insists: “She is in charge of it herself and takes an interest in paying tribute to the host country with nods to their culture and local style on at least a few of the engagements. The important factor on this tour is the heat, so that’s an issue that plays a big part in the choice of outfits.” She’s likely “commissioned” some special pieces as well as looking for some stuff online. She will be traveling with Natasha Archer – who acts as her stylist (very poorly, I might add) – and Amanda Cook Tucker, who is her hairstylist/wiglet tamer. No one has any idea how much Kate is spending on clothes for this tour, but I think we can assumed that she’s easily spending $40,000 or more.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail’s gossip girl (The Girl About Town) had this interesting piece of news:

The Duchess of Cambridge is to cement her title as the Queen of Norfolk by hosting a £10,000-a-head ultra-exclusive party for 80 members of the county’s high society. The lavish gala will be held at Houghton Hall, Palladian stately home of the Marquess and Marchioness of Cholmondeley, and a short drive from Kate and Wills’ Anmer Hall. Kate’s name features on the invitation and the party is in aid of the East Anglia Children’s Hospice, the charity of which Kate became a patron in 2012.

Tickets start at £6,000 per head and those who pay £10,000 are invited to stay at Houghton with the Marquess and Marchioness of Cholmondeley after the party on June 22, ten days after the Queen’s 90th birthday celebrations. The ball will include a champagne reception, a lecture by writer Anthony Horowitz, live jazz, a magician, and food by top chefs including Tom Kerridge.

The event is another sign that Kate will host more charitable events after Her Majesty turns 90 and will be good practice for Kate the working Royal, with an impressive list of grandees attending the proceedings in Houghton’s marble-clad Stone Hall.

[From The Daily Mail]

Since I’m an Anglophile, I know that “Cholmondeley” is pronounced “chumly” for British reasons. While I always applaud the very idea of Kate going to work and raising money for charity, of course the only way they’re getting Kate out of the house is by getting her to attend a fancy party full of posh people. I understand that is the definition of modern charitable fundraising, so why is it like pulling teeth to get Kate to attend/co-host charity fundraisers? Also – will Kate and William ever open up Anmer Hall for a fundraiser? Why must the Marchioness of Cholmondeley open her home for Kate’s fundraiser?



Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

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

202 Responses to “How much money is Duchess Kate spending on clothes for her 6-day tour?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Erinn says:

    I have to say – that all (valid) complaints about her aside, I do love the vast majority of her wardrobe. I’d love to have so many of the pieces she owns.

    • oliphant says:

      LOVE that white dress she’s wearing at the beach- probably the only nice thing i’ll ever say in relation to her.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree. I like a lot of her clothes. But I’m 59. I think she usually looks nice. I wish she would update her hair and makeup and get more comfortable with the gorgeous jewelry she could wear, but generally, I think her clothes are pretty.

      • Allie May says:

        I had a lovely color photograph book on Diana that I recently gave to my niece, and it featured a lot of pictures with Diana wearing the Queen’s jewels. Kate doesn’t seem to be interested in wearing them, I guess. It’s disappointing.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        I like her style too. Especially the lack of jewellery.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The lack of jewelry? She has 3-4 small diamond pendants at $3000 each. Her charm necklace is $12,000. Her earrings average $4000 a pair. The lack of big jewelry doesn’t mean she’s thrifty. She spends a lot on small, boring jewelry.

      • vava says:

        notasugarhere, I love how you bring these things up. Kate has the most boring (albeit expensive) jewelry of anyone I’ve ever seen. That charm necklace for $12000! GAG. If I were in her position, I’d be doing something much different, that’s for sure. (work-wise, and wardrobe-wise…..)

      • ladysussex says:

        Kate has worn some of the Queen’s jewels at state dinners, but really so many of the pieces are really outdated. I think they need to have their jeweler amend a lot of them to make them more fashionable.

    • unknown says:

      I like some of her outfits, I just wish she would pair them better with the accessories. Her unkempt hair ruins some of her look. The white dress could be worn so many different ways. Pulled back ponytail followed a colorful pair of flats would very cute.

      • vava says:

        Hi Unknown, I agree. Her shoes and accessories are where she needs some help from someone who has a clue. This Natasha person is not doing a very good job. And that hair, more often than not, it’s just ‘off’. I guess she thinks having her extensions flying around is a good look? Ultimately though, I’d rather see her work on her speeches, work on her interactions with people and forget all this fashion stuff because it’s just so meaningless. But Kate gives the impression that’s all she’s really interested in, and so it’s no shock that she has some of the derogatory labels she has.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Her look is bland, especially considering the cost. She lacks in every area and squanders such great opportunities. It’s mind boggling.

  2. Zimmerman says:

    Exactly, Kate must think she’s too uber posh to host such a gathering at her own home. It’s not like she would have to do anything except show up to the events, but she probably can’t manage that requirement and does not want guests lurking overnight. Wouldn’t want anyone to get one glimpse of the children either!

    • LAK says:

      People would know what their home looked like!!!

      ….but to be honest, Anmer hall is a farmhouse unlike Houghton Hall. I’d rather spend an evening at Houghton Hall. Much more to see. It’s one of the grand houses of England.

      • Dena says:

        Or could it be that the Marchioness is Kate’s Norfolk mentor? Perhaps Kate, Carole & Co, have been looking around for Kate a few upper crust friends to serve as guides and all around foil. Kate is probably clueless in her new world and totally without a network.

      • LAK says:

        They’ve picked the wrong couple as mentors. They are far too social for WK’s privacy concerns.

      • COSquared says:

        Pippa seems to be the only one with a posh circle of her own. Kate’s ‘circle’ seems to consist of Bill’s childhood friends and no one else except Emilia J-P is a pre-Bill chum.

      • LAK says:

        Cosquared: Emilia grew up with Billy and Harry. I’m willing to bet that Kate befriended Emilia precisely due to her closeness to Bill. And it paid off because Emilia duly made the introduction….

      • bluerunning says:

        Which trumps- Posh or Aristo Posh? I’m guessing the title will open doors that just plain ol’ money can’t reach?

      • COSquared says:

        I think aristo posh. ‘Aristo’ doesn’t necessarily = titled, as there are many untitled toff families. The Middletons aren’t aristo posh, more Nouv’ Posh.

    • Betti says:

      Well she did ‘host’ the editorial team of HuffPo UK at her ‘home’ Kensington Palace, for the day and she only showed face for 45 mins and then went off shopping down kings Road.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I thought that was in their staff offices at KP, not their private residence.

    • Tara says:

      While it is a very interesting article, and I agree that the role of the monarchy is going to change after Queen Elizabeth dies, I am very hesitant to believe that the monarchy might be abolished in England and switching to republic simply because its not actually very easy to change styles of government.
      Please, someone correct me if I am wrong, but Britain does not have a written constitution (aside from the Magna Carta?). If you open up the can of worms of changing the style of government from what it is i.e. a constitutional monarchy, you have to replace it with something…while getting everyone to agree to the replacement, and get everyone to agree on the guidelines for changing the constitution (this amending formula debate was a huge issue in Canada in ’82 when Trudeau Sr. repatriated the constitution from Britain to Canada). I feel that if any change is going to be made it will be about duty and finances surrounding the monarchy, simply because the alternative is too timely, and opens up the government to massive, massive debate.

      • profdanglais says:

        It’s not that Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, it’s that there’s no single document called “The Constitution” like in the USA. Instead, the UK has centuries of Acts of Parliament along with statutes, court judgements, treaties, etc, that make up its laws. I’m pretty sure that Parliament could abolish the monarchy fairly efficiently if it had enough support from the public and knew there would be no serious opposition from the Royal Family. It’s actually a lot easier to change laws in the UK than to amend the US Constitution, which is a hugely laborious process requiring ratification from the states, etc etc.

      • Sixer says:

        Yes to what profdanglais says. We have a constitution but it is called “unwritten” because it is made up of jurisprudence and legislation.

        There would be a constitutional convention. On reaching agreement at that, there would be a referendum. If it passed, legislation would be presented to parliament and we would become a republic. The legislation would overwrite all previous legislation mentioning “the Crown” with “the republic” (as reference to the state, not the monarchy itself). Crown property would pass to the nation.

        The referendum, legislation and changeover would be easy. Getting a quick agreement at the constitutional convention would be tricky.

      • Katy says:

        I have a question for you guys that may seem stupid but I’m American and I really don’t know. Would the royal family then be made to get real jobs and work in the real world? What about all of their palaces and jewels, antiques, etc? Do all of those things belong to the British people?

      • bluhare says:

        Sue Townsend wrote a great book on that very topic, Katy. It was written over 20 years ago — Diana and Charles were married, and QM and Margaret were alive — but it’s funny as all get out. A republican vote passes and they’re all out and living in council houses. I think it’s The Queen and I.

      • profdanglais says:

        @Katy, that’s a really interesting question. Historically, of course, when monarchies have been removed from power, it’s generally been by murdering them and appropriating their wealth. Britain does have a non-violent removal and replacement of a monarch in its history with the Glorious Revolution, and when James II was removed from power, he fled to France. I suspect that if the Royals agreed to step down, they would negotiate some sort of arrangement that would allow them to keep a place to live and maybe a small income, but it would be an unprecedented situation so who knows how things would go down?

      • LAK says:

        Katy: in a nutshell, Yes.

        Should we abolish the monarchy, they would have to give it all back with exception of their personal property. They might negotiate a goodbye settlement, but that would be it.

        There is a very clear line as to what belongs to them vs what belongs to the state. They don’t always emphasise the line, so it seems blurred to most people eg the duchies were created to fund the activities of the heir to the crown (cornwall) or the monarch (Lancaster). Should we abolish the heir and the monarch, the duchies would revert to the govt to do with as they saw fit because the roles for which they were created wouldn’t exist anymore.

        Ditto the crown estates from which they receive 15% of the profits on the basis that they are doing a govt role (head of state). Once that position has been removed, that 15 % will revert back to the treasury or be diverted to fund whatever version of head of state role is in a republic.

        Either way, we would cease funding the Mountbatten-Windsors.

        Regarding the jewels/antiques/palaces, they would become public exhibits and museums as some of them already are.

      • Sixer says:

        Katy – they would be rich enough not to work. The BRF has its own money and property. It only “owns” state property and income in trust for the nation. If we became a republic they would, for example, give us back Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace and others (owned by the nation) but keep Sandringham and Balmoral (owned by them). Likewise, we would get the income from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster (owned by the nation) but they would keep the income from their private trust funds.

      • kori says:

        There were actually articles on this not so long ago and British legal experts were split on what would be considered state vs personal property. It’s actually fairly convoluted. Some things are obvious–Windsor vs Sandringham but jewelry, artwork, etc are most certainly not. There would probably be a settlement ala the former german monarchies. Some estates (and artwork, jewels, etc) were kept by the state as historic items (ie Crown Jewels) while others were either given possession to the family outright or compensation was given. This was especially true with artwork and land. In many instances a family trust was set up so that some items given to the family but still with historic national value couldn’t outright be sold at some point.

      • notasugarhere says:

        bluhare, when I read that Townsend book all I could think was, “Poor Edward” at the end.

      • vava says:

        William would be ill-advised to destroy all the vintage ivory – it must have tremendous value. But, maybe it’s owned by the UK and not the Royal Family? Can you weigh in on that, you guys?

        Plus, it’s so old at this point, he’d be foolish to destroy it. That ship sailed long ago.

      • Tina says:

        The rules on ivory are fairly complicated. The short answer is that they are so complicated that the vintage ivory probably doesn’t have as much value as you would think.

        Now, to give a plug to my Tories, their manifesto includes an absolute ban on the sale of Ivory, no exceptions for antiques. But they’ve got a lot of other things going on, so that is unlikely to be enacted any time soon. At present, you can sell antique Ivory as long as it is “worked” (meaning no plain tusks). Good luck getting an export licence though, so it will almost certainly have to stay within the UK (and, for the moment, the EU). So it has limited value.

      • ladysussex says:

        It will be interesting to see what happens with “brexit” as far as the inner workings of the British govt.. But it’s hard to tell really what the true number of Brits is who are for getting rid of the Royals. There is a very loud minority, of course, who complain bitterly about them. But when Vanity Fair did the piece about “The British Invasion” and they interviewed a lot of Brit celebs, most of them called themselves “Royalists” and talked about their favorite Royal. I know many Brits who also call themselves Royalists, and then a few who think they are just outdated and unnecessary.

    • Stini says:

      If you’re talking about Britain rather than England, it’s James II and VII, profdanglais.

      • profdanglais says:

        Quite right, sorry Scotland 🙂

      • Anne tommy says:

        Actually the current UK throne holder should be Elizabeth II of England and Elizabeth I of Scotland, given that Elizabeth I was never queen of Scotland. But that tends to be swept under the carpet.

    • paddyjr says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if there were at least a referendum once Queen Elizabeth is gone. The Queen Mother was beloved because she was a steadying force and example of a shared history through the Abdication Crisis and World War II. Queen Elizabeth has carried on that sense of duty and tradition since she was a child. Both women seemed to treat their positions as caretakers of the realm and seemed to really care about their people, changing with the times at some points, carrying on with tradition at others. To a certain extent, Charles and Harry carry on that work ethic. William and Kate don’t seem to care about their position, only the perks. As we get farther from the steadfast royalist generation and the millennial generation and younger come of age, how long will it be before people get tired of financing W&K’s lifestyle as they think nothing of ending a 115-year tradition and not even working 100 hours a year?

      • Janis says:

        I hope you’re right, paddyjr. I seriously think if things don’t change with Bill and Cathy Normal, their lack of respect for the taxpayers and their allergy to work will be the downfall of the whole Institution. Enough is enough and I’m not even a Brit.

      • Anne tommy says:

        Debate about the merits of the particular individuals concerned is very secondary to the fact that monarchy is inappropriate for an allegedly modern democracy. There are lots of lovely people about, but they don’t get to be Head of State, not having had the foresight to come out of the right womb.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Once the Queen passes, I expect many countries in the Commonwealth to go Republican. Even sending Harry to the Bahamas to charm the PM again won’t work after that!

  3. BendyWindy says:

    I assume that “getting her to hang out with posh people” is difficult due to social class. I think Kate is insecure about being middle class and not the right sort. From what I understand about old moneyed uber-rich people is that they have an ease of privilege that probably intimidates her. Not to mention, other than her kids she has nothing to talk about. Well and tennis. She’s not particularly clever and doesn’t have any hobbies or interests.

    • LAK says:

      I’m still amazed at her inability to discuss a subject she has a degree in, whilst being married into a family of people with superb examples of everything she studied. Ditto hubby’s friends.

      That would be an easy conversation piece.

      • Liberty says:

        LAK, I’ve worked on a few projects for a few fine arts museums. Many of those involved were brilliant and articulate people. But a large handful of assistants were quite he opposite, so much so that I thought they would have trouble working a till in a cheap fashion shop. I learned that this latter group did have fine arts degrees, but many were the children of donors, and were simply rather indolent or cosseted. No effort, or nothing had sunk in, or somehow they got through it “with help” and now enjoyed their undemanding, small-effort-at-work lives thanks to big donor parents. The lack of effort day to day was astounding, but accepted; “well, her father gives us X, so….” These were 20-30 somethings, and this was recent.

        Ever since, I’ve not been surprised by K’s apparent lack of skills, even though she earned her degree. It can happen, and I doubt it’s simply within that field. What surprises me is that she does it in public, and expects millions for it, unlike the anonymous sorts I dealt with.

      • LAK says:

        I hear you, Liberty.

      • hmmm says:


        What a helpful explanation. It certainly puts some things into perspective for me. Thanks!

    • Locke Lamora says:

      Coming from a country where we amost have reverse snobbery going on, and where private schools and universities are thought to be for stupid people, the thought of being ashamed of being middle class is so strange to me. One of the good things that came out of communism is that we don’t have old money or such moronic things like nobility . All money is new money.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        No offense, but I’ll take most forms of government over communism. And I wouldn’t brag about the fact that education is thought to be for stupid people. How bleak and sad.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        I don’t know, a lot of people here thought they lived better during communism. Working class people with no political aspirations certainly did. And a lot of the good social policies we have are left over from communism ( for an example, we have one of the best maternity leave programs in the world). However, Yugoslav communism was much more open than the Soviet one, because of the fact that Yugoslavia was the only country to free itself from the Nazis completely on it’s own, which later enabled the Tito-Stalin split and the non-aligned movement.

        I didn’t say education is for stupid people. Education is very very valued here. I said PRIVATE education. And in my country it certainly is. Private schools and universities are, thank God, rare. But the people who have the absolute worst grades, but mummy and daddy have money, they go to private schools, do nothing, buy their degree and then get a job in daddy’s company and do nothing for the rest of their lives.

      • Sixer says:

        GNAT – have you ever lived under communism? If not, how can you judge it? As Locke says, there were distinct advantages alongside all the (frequently exaggerated) disadvantages. Access to healthcare. Access to high brow culture. Secure housing. Free (and very high quality) education available to all. And doesn’t it sound appealing? That the only good thing private education was good for was buying Plastic Pretend Degrees? Look at Liberty’s comment above for the delights of incompetence the western education system often confers.

      • Tash says:

        @Sixer I had to chuckle at myself when I read your comment re education. I’m from an ex-YU country and education there was brutal for little old me. I was a C student but when I came to US, I started high school and was on the honor roll after one semester, the top 10%, etc. Keep in mind I barely spoke English when I came here. I knew my colors, numbers, curse words and stuff like that 🙂

      • vauvert says:

        Product of a communist education here (Romania) and the truth is a mixture that depends on which country you lived in, as communism was not exactly a single vanilla flavour.
        Ours was pretty draconian, and getting worse – in the seventies you could still buy food without huge lineups, by the late eighties 24 hours waits for a chicken were the norm, our sugar and flour and oil were rationed, the butter too. Education was free, and everyone was supposed to complete a high school education – we eradicated illiteracy in a few decades. That being said, my school in a rich neighbourhood in the capital had very different results than a school in the country.
        Free healthcare was great – except it was not really free. We loved and died by bribes. We never got anything done – or done in a speedy, rational manner without a bribe taking place. I had surgeries as a kid, my grandparents needed medical care as they aged, and a lot of money and goods (coffee, scotch, cigarettes, soap, nylons, imported perfumes etc. traded hands.)
        After managing to get out two weeks before the revolution started, I agree with GNAT – anything is better than communism.
        As many of my countrymen left behind discovered, some of them mourned communism; not because it was good, but because they lost the stability they had grown up with for a scary, chaotic new world. Looking back, if I would not have already been in Canada after the revolution, I would have left anyway. Part of the problem is that the same old former party officials continued to maintain power, only now instead of running assets officially owned by the government, they took ownership directly. Instead of living in government owned homes, ad having cars and drivers paid by the party, they can openly boast about their mistresses, Bentleys and multiple villas. Nothing changed except the degree of visibility in that area.
        Talking about the education issue: during communism all education was free, and getting into a university was HARD. In my year, there were 20 spots in the foreign language faculty. There were 700 candidates. My parents spent tens of thousands in private tutoring fees to help me prepare, and I made jot – but there were people who had tried three years in a row and failed.
        After the revolution, private schools opened. The people who had never managed to get admitted into the state owned universities jumped at the chance to get a degree. These unis never got much respect – because they were an escape for the rich and not very bright/hard working… Not sure what it’s like right now anymore, but that is what I think Locke was referring to…

      • Locke Lamora says:

        See, I was born after communism fell, but according to my family, it wasn’t nearly as draconian. They could travel abroad ( shopping in Trieste was the norm) , they could work abroad ( my grandfather worked in Germany for 30+ years), they never lacked food, the only restrictions were with electricity and gas in the late 80s. Thing were pretty harsh after WW2, but in the 60s things got a lot better. If you were a good student it was very likely you will get into university. Social mobility was very good. My grangrandparents were illiterate, my grandparents were factory workers and both my mum and uncle have master’s degrees.
        Of course I’m not saying communism was good, mainly because of the totalitarian aspect, but economically, for working class people, it was good. There is still a lot of nostalgia for those times ( just google Yugonostalgia).

      • MinnFinn says:

        Really interesting insights about communism in your home country vauvert. Thanks for posting.

      • vilebody says:

        Yeah communism isn’t so bad . . . excepting nearly the 100 million who died because of its brutal regime. I cannot believe how anyone can say that a regime who employed artificial famines, no freedom of the press, and “traitor quotas” has its faults be “frequently exaggerated.”

        My great-grandparents did not have the luxury of being able to look back at communism with a nostalgic lens because they were victims of that cruel, evil system. A system that roughly killed as many people as every single war in the 20th century combined. I am literally in shock that anyone could even partially justify such genocide. Do you not realize this is like saying that Nazi Germany wasn’t all that bad because plenty of people (the blonde haired, blue eyed ones) had a swell ol’ time and great education throughout the 30s?

      • Locke Lamora says:

        Again, vilebody, I was just talking about the economical parts, and again, communism wasn’t the same in every country. I am specifically talking about Yugoslav communism, which was not as brutal. There were crimes commited, and I absolutely condemn them, but, there were crimes commited in every country in the history of the world.
        Sometimes on this site I feel like I’m talking to a wall.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        I am not saying communism was good, were it good it would have lasted. What I am saying is that there were some aspects of it that were good, like the lack of private education.

      • vilebody says:

        No, Locke Lamora, you are being incredibly insensitive to the point of insult.

        Your family can look upon communism with a rosy lens because they did not have to deal with the intense persecution that so many others did. I don’t care if it was because you were in Yugoslavia or because of some other circumstance. At the end of the day, your family/friends weren’t one of the 100 million who were deported, starved, or killed. Congrats.

        Does it not occur to you that things were great in certain areas as a direct result of the atrocities going on in others? While some areas had plenty of food, others were forced into famine BECAUSE their rightful food was redirected. Some areas may have had housing, BECAUSE others deported from their homes to make way for said housing. University degrees were encouraged BECAUSE unskilled labor was unneeded thanks to the prisoners in the Gulag.

        Once again, because this clearly didn’t sink in the first time: you are like Hans Aryan talking about how economically things were great in Nazi Germany. Yeah, you are against Nazis themselves because they are totalitarian and you condemn their war crimes, but war crimes happen in every country! At the end of the day, in some places in the good ol’ faderland, their economic policies were pretty beneficial to the average Hans. Geez, it’s like I’m talking to a wall!

        Whereas my point is that sure, things might have been economically great for a very privileged sliver of society, but it came at a huge cost. In Nazi Germany, a good economy was due to stealing property from persecuted peoples and preparing for a devastating war. Similarly, in the Soviet Union, your and your family’s privilege came at the expense of millions of others, including mine.

        Edited: grammar and removed a line about Neo-Nazis and nostalgia.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        Vilebody, I am very sorry about what your family has been trough, I did not mean to come off as insensitive. But you are mixing apples and oranges. Just because two countries had the same ideology does not make them one country, or makes their history shared. You couldn’t say that the US and Rwanda are the same because they are both democracies?

      • vilebody says:

        Hmm seems as if my reply was either eaten up or not published which is frustrating because I spent far more time on it than I should have (I missed Jane the Virgin for it!)

        But the gist was my conflict with your claim that communist economics was good for the working class. The reality is that redistribution is never from the wealthy to the proletariat. It’s always just redistribution among the proletariat, which is unsustainable and eventually leads to resources being unfairly distributed to avoid widespread revolt. Yugoslavia didn’t have to deal with this as much as the USSR, mainly because of outside “aid” from the US, but wasn’t immune. There was still a secret police for dissidents, mass genocide, and slave labor camps. So again, things were great for a working class person with no political aspirations . . . if you weren’t one of the tens of thousands killed or enslaved. The Yugoslavian economy would have been very different if they had repatriated the tens of thousands of POWs instead of massacring them, had not seized the USD $7 billion in assets from ethnic Germans (this number includes POWs, but they seized from all ethnic Germans, even those that fought for the Allies), or hadn’t killed dissidents from the South that wanted more money for basic things like healthcare (the infant mortality rate in Kosovo was 52/1000 compared to 11/1000 in Slovenia) or education (illiteracy rate in Slovenia was 1% compared to 18% in Kosovo).

        Anyway, that’s all I have to say and we can agree to disagree. What inspired the long rant originally, actually, was Sixer’s comment. The fact that anyone can say that a system that has caused 100 million deaths has its “disadvantages exaggerated” is absolutely gut-wrenching.

        Now . . . back to the royals (and Jane the Virgin)!

    • anne_000 says:

      It seems as if Carol’s mother raised her daughter to think of herself as better than others. Then Carole did the same for her kids. Kate was raised as if she belonged in the upper classes, so that’s the only class she’s familiar with.

      Carole controlled who they were friends with and which circles they ran with, so the thought of them ever hanging out with regular, middle class people to the point of feeling one of them seems unlikely.

      And so Kate seems to come out with more regularity to events that involve hobnobbing with rich folks than she does to events in which she has to mingle with the middle or lower classes.

      I think she fears and hates hanging out with the middle to lower class folks.

      • Liberty says:

        I tend to agree with this perspective.

      • Emily C. says:

        Kate’s family is rich and she grew up rich. She’s “middle class” in the English sense of not being nobility, but in North America she’d be considered upper class. Of course she only wants to hang out with other rich people — that’s what she’s always been. Born rich, raised in a bubble of wealth and privilege.

  4. LAK says:

    If only she (and William) put in this level of prep for the content/knowledge of the tour.

    Seriously, at this point ahead of his tour, Harry had released very detailed tour plans as well as what he was hoping to accomplish with each stop.

    Instead WK’s tour is all about sightseeing and being well dressed. Something that should be taken for granted, and not the main event.

    Seriously, they first thing they did on their previous asian tour was look at a plant!!!! And look very pretty whilst doing so. No particular reason why they decided to go look at said plant except that they could use the photo op to invoke Diana, as they are doing with the Taj Mahal.

    • COSquared says:

      Funny how there’s emphasis on her involvement in selecting outfits, yet do you remember the Solomon Islands/Cook Islands clothing scandal? The Cambridge handlers were blamed for that mishap, which makes me think TeamCambridge is making sure THEY won’t get the blame for any mishap on this tour.

      • LAK says:

        Ha! I remember that.

        Have you noticed how everyone, including their own team, is going out of their way to emphasise that the Cambridges are responsible for themselves. Everyone, Palace and external employers, clothing designers alike make sure the public know that all decisions are made by the Cambridges so that blame for any mishaps is directed properly.

      • Betsy says:

        I don’t remember that. What was it?

      • COSquared says:

        The older generation of grey men must have taken notes because Diana made a point of blaming the grey men for making life difficult so I guess this is their way of making sure that whenever the Cambridge marriage hits the fan, the courtiers would be seen as blameless. However, I think the Firm and it’s grey men will ALWAYS get the blame for anything that goes wrong with these 2.

      • Mika says:

        To Betsy: She wore a dress by a designer from a different Island.

        “At an official dinner to celebrate the nation’s culture, she wore a pretty sundress which she believed to be by a local designer – but which was actually made more than 3,000 miles away in the Cook Islands.”

        Read more: http://
        Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      • Jaded says:

        @Betsy – she unwittingly wore what she thought was a dress designed and made on the Solomon Islands during her visit there, however it was actually made over 3,000 miles away on the Cook Islands.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She also went to the trouble to have a gown made in white and gold with hibiscus flowers, a national flower of Malaysia. Went to all that trouble but ignored the dress code in the conservative country and wore what (to some of them) was an inappropriate neckline.

    • The Original Mia says:

      My sentiments exactly! All this effort for her wardrobe but very little, i.e. none, to know the names, culture and history of the places she’s going. It’s embarrassing how uninformed and simple her interactions can be.

  5. Sixer says:

    They always go for shalwar kameez if they try Indian clothes, the British poshies-on-visits. They’re useless at saris. I predict no Indian clothes (she’s awkward enough in western clothes, FGS, imagine her in unfamiliar garb) but an outside bet on shalwar kameez.

    Bloody hell. I had a remark to make on clothing! I feel like a true Celebitch now.

    • vava says:

      LOL, Sixer.

      It will be interesting to see Kate’s wardrobe on this excursion. I’ve pretty much given up on any notion that there is anything of substance to her, aside from her appearance – and even that is questionable at times. Keeping my fingers crossed that Princess Parvenu can avoid flashing, crotch clutching, or over-the-top manic facial expressions…..I know that is a lot to hope for, though.

      • vauvert says:

        I am afraid that is a vain hope, vava.

        The only way she knows how to hold her hands is in that horrible, shoulders hunched, crotch clutch. I am not aware that there is a royal clutch requirement that forbids her to carry any other type of bag, but considering I have seen the Queen elegantly carry a handbag on her arm and wrist many times, I presume this is yet another of the many “Kate decides herself” silly things.
        She probably read in a teen mag when she was 13 that a clutch held for dear life in front of her bits is the only posh pose, and isn’t able to shake it. Out of her many annoying behaviours this one tops it for me. Lack of good posture will kill any decent outfit, it portrays a lack of confidence and polish and just generally she looks like she’d rather cut and run. The only time she appears at ease and animated is at tennis games, and even then I think she “acts” over the top happy – all the manic grins….

        I am sure their PR people will try to spin and explain and create sound bites, but they are so uniformed on every topic that there is zero chance of them uttering anything intelligent or educated. The clothes and wigs and eyeliner drama are the least of the problem.

    • LAK says:

      I predict that she will wear something from Beulah London. The label owned by one of their friends that was specifically set up to help indian ladies trapped in the sex trade. It won’t look Indian, but Kate will get points for it.

      • Sixer says:

        Being a fashion ignoramus, I do not know this label. But I agree that’s the likely outcome. Wear something red and gold in silk with a tenuous Indian connection but actually pretty much entirely western, and, as Betsy says, they’ll call that close enough.

        Compare Harry getting his face painted or being asked to put on some cultural item and away he goes, fully aware he’s a beetroot red Britisher looking as far away from authentic as it’s possible to be but managing to combine gameness with a bit of willing and respect. Neither of the Cambridges could EVER pull that off.

      • LAK says:

        I think William might be game, but Kate has demonstrated in the past thst she thinks it’s all silly and wouldn’t participate. Besides, she hates being touched, which is why all her public embraces/touching strangers are so awkward.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Their clothes are pretty cute and I could see her in several of the dresses/skirts. But it seems like too much of a political statement as opposed to just “Look, this was made my an Indian designer. I did my job.” Sex trade? Possibly human trafficking? I don’t see her going anywhere near that.

      • LAK says:

        She’s worn their dresses on a few occassions. Most memorably the day after her naked balcony pictures were splashed all over the media.

      • COSquared says:

        Most famously when she wore a quite short, light blue Beulah to a mosque(that Asia-Polynesia tour seemed to have more mishaps than engagements). In defence*sarcasm*, she was merely trying to SWF Diana who also once wore a light blue, short dress to a mosque.

      • vava says:

        yes, Sixer, I can’t imagine Kate being at ease, like Harry is. And LAK, I’d forgotten the numerous times it was painfully obvious that Kate does not want to be touched. Both those Cambridges seem like cold fishes to me. I’d take Harry any day over them.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Wow, that’s how much attention I pay to her clothes. Wouldn’t have thought she’d go there.

    • Betsy says:

      You know why I think she will wear something Indian, shalwar or lengha or what have you? Because when Diana was in Pakistan (which, let’s be honest, close enough for these two), she wore their clothes. Can’t miss that parallel to Diana, can they?

      • Sixer says:

        Yes! Close enough – could be their motto, although we might say close but no cigar and be more accurate! Another tick for shalwar over sari.

      • LAK says:


        So, we predict, Beulah London and a Shalwar Kameez.

        Also, replacating Diana colours in outfits for similar stop on their tour including Taj Mahal.

      • lower-case deb says:

        “taking charge of her own wardrobe”
        read: if the dress ain’t weighted, it ain’t our fault yo!

        i also think: something recycled… the faux sari McQueen gown she wore to Singapore state dinner.

        and perhaps its just me, in the lengthier Telegraph article, the use of the phrase “against the backdrops” grate me the wrong way. am i turning into an SJW in the worst se sense? but such country with such rich history and people are nothing but backdrops for Royal Project Runway??

      • vava says:

        Maybe she’ll wear a dress made from sari fabric?

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        Agreeing with these designer predictions but I do think she will also don a sari. Girlfriend loves a theme party and loves dressing in ‘costume’…. I think she will do it…

      • Jib says:

        At some point, she wore a white gown with gold overlay that looked like an Indian design. It was gorgeous, but she probably won’t recycle.
        I chuckle when I read she’s in charge of all this. That means someone will be offended.

    • Jaded says:

      God can you IMAGINE the potential wardrobe malfunctions with Kate in a sari?!?!? And she’d probably pair it with wedges of doom.

    • Janis says:

      Sixer, maybe they have short skirted saris now. If that were the case, Kate would definitely wear one. We know how she loves to show off her legs.

      • Betsy says:

        I can’t fault her there. If I had those pins, I would live in skirts.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She can do whatever she wants in her private time. On the job, hemlines to the knee or lower are the requirement no matter how much some people dislike it.

      • vava says:

        Betsy, you’d probably wear some underwear, and also avoid having your hems fly up. 😉

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Sort of not the point, but I love saris. I think they are comfortable, feminine and flattering to all body types and ages. I wish it wouldn’t be weird if I wore them all the time.

      • teacakes says:

        @GNAT – saris can be gorgeous but the blouse and the kind of shoes that ‘go with’ them are a damned pain. I hate wearing sandals or heels, having to alter my gait in a costume that already needs a ton of care to avoid unravelling/tearing mishaps, is a very tense time.

        It killed me inside (in a good way) to see one of my younger cousins last year wear matching suede sneakers with her sari at a wedding after-party. Topped off with an Adidas jacket for warmth when she went out for a smoke!

      • Sixer says:

        Best mental image of the day!

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I am with you, GNAT. I love saris! I bought one on my sole trip to India just for fun. A few years ago I was invited to a costume party with a Hollywood/Bollywood theme and decided to wear it. I studied several YouTube videos about how to fold and drape it properly, but the night of the party I ended up calling my friend at the veritable last minute to come help me. It is a LOT of fabric to manipulate! Miraculously we succeeded in getting me secured into it so it would not unravel and I would not inadvertently flash anyone (take heed, Katie Bucket!).

        Then my date arrived and informed me that he wanted to drop by his country club for a drink first. Ummm, okay. Fortunately his club is full of obscenely wealthy eccentric people who seemed to think it was utterly normal for a random non-Indian woman in a sari to be drinking in the bar on a Friday evening! I did not actually have “Wear a sari to a country club bar” on my bucket list prior to that evening, but I ticked it off all the same.

        The best part? When we finally arrived at the gala, an Indian woman whom I did not know and who was dressed in a sari far more magnificent than mine made a beeline for me and said, “You look beautiful! Did you drape that all by yourself? You did an amazing job!” When I admitted that my friend and I had only just learned how to do it from YouTube that very evening, she showered me with even more compliments. Perhaps she was secretly thinking, “This poor idiot girl has no idea how to wear a sari,” but I felt very pretty and wished I could wear saris more often!

      • teacakes says:

        @Sixer – I know it sounds insane, but my cousin is (and I say this with some jealousy) ridiculously stylish. Way more than Duchess Dolittle could ever hope to be.

        @Bearcat – honestly, drape is everything when it comes to making even a simple sari look good, so if the lady was complimenting you, she probably meant it!

      • Sixer says:

        I believe you, teacakes! I, sadly, am one of those for whom the word stylish can only be applied to other people. I could never carry off a sari, with or without sneakers.

      • kori says:

        My mom had a pen pal in India back in the 60s. She sent my mom the most beautiful green silk sari. It is a heavier silk, not so filmy but not super-heavy. My mom still has it.

      • yellow says:

        I agree!

      • vava says:

        I have some saris, too. The fabric is wonderful. I don’t wear them in a traditional fashion, but have used them to create other garments – and they are luxurious and choice. 🙂

    • suze says:

      Who wouldn’t wear a shalwar kameez if they could?

      I’d wear one every day if it were remotely practical here.

      • teacakes says:

        I find more and more people ditching the salwar part of it and going with leggings under the kurta. Which looks terrible. Or jeans, which are pretty common among Indian college students.

        otoh I think trackie bottoms under a kurta are quite a cool look – so much more practical than messing around with salwars when you need the loo, and so much more flattering than leggings that inevitably leave people looking a bit half-dressed (churidar-style is the way to go if you must wear super-close-fitting bottoms).

      • Magnoliarose says:

        They are beautiful. I bought some jewelry from an Indian company that I still love after 10 years.

  6. hmmm says:

    Sounds like the Cholmondleys are hosting the entire event, not Dolittle. She’s going to show up for 25 minutes and look her version of pretty.

    • COSquared says:

      25 minutes? This dinner will be filled with poshies, so she’ll probably stay for the entire duration of the dinner. If this was an event with the unwashed masses however…

    • Dena says:

      I think they took pity on her.

    • kaiko says:

      Like that “her version of pretty”…HA! You got it!! 🙂 But I’m a big meanie though cause, to me, she’s always looked like a dude in drag. Very masculine jawline and facial features, boyish figure, and that terrible posture… kinda like a gawky teenage boy.

      • teacakes says:

        Really? I find her decidedly plain but her features have always looked like those of a generically ok-looking girl, nothing dude-like or angular about her face at all. I’d actually find her more interesting to look at if she did have a hint of androgyny about the face.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ hmmm

      I agree that it looks like other people are going to do all the work, have it at somebody else’s home, and mostly what Kate is going to do is have her name attached to it and probably show up and take a lot of credit. Sounds like what happened with the roller skate charity party where other people did the work and all Kate did was show up and lie down on the floor.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, hmm. They’re doing all the work, she’ll show up for a blink of an eye and get all the credit.

  7. potatopie says:

    PS – she ISN’T spending a dime on her clothes – Charles will pay for it all.

    • Betti says:

      As this is an official tour on behalf of TQ and gov- the taxpayer will pick up the tab so you can be positive that these outfits will easily go into 3 figures – my guess is around 150k and that is included accessories on top of her stylist and hairdresser going. And you can guaratee that EVERY outfit will be new and that’s why we won’t see her for the next few weeks – too busy shopping on the tax payers money. Which is why i think this article was written – a sly dig at her and her outrageous shopping habits.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Estimated $65,000 for the Australia tour, and I expect a lot of new clothing for this tour too.

  8. vava says:

    That photo of her running on the beach in her tall wedges, just cracks me up.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      It is absurd looking. Lol. You’d have to pry those wedges off after a hard fought battle.

  9. Sarah says:

    Did anyone see the dailymail article with Pippa running about town. Many commenters were saying she was pregnant. Anyone hear more about that?

    • Mika says:

      Yes – I saw it and think it is just an unfortunate angle in bulky clothes. No way is Ma Middleton going to let Pippa get pregnant without the ring! That Matthew lad she’s seeing is rich and posh, but he has no title.

  10. HollyG says:

    I kind of float through stories about Kate’s ornamental uselessness, but am I understanding this correctly? She sent her “stylist team” to India to scout locations and write color copy for her whatever she’s going to wear? How on earth is that a good use of anybody’s time and money? And what does it say about either her priorities or her real contribution to her job, which apparently is to wear things?

    • Locke Lamora says:

      It’s not any more uselles than everything else these people do. Their entire existance is a waste of money.

    • Robot Dog says:

      On of the articles flat-out refers to the locations Chopper & Chutney are visiting as “backdrops” for Kate’s outfits & poses. These fools could save everyone a lot of time & trouble by turning one of their extra kitchens into a studio with some green screens.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      I noticed it and rolled my eyes hard. They don’t get it.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      When I read that, I thought of two things. Firstly, Indian women dress way more conservatively than Katie Bucket. At the same time, they will expect her to dress up as – from what I understand – being underdressed is considered extremely rude to one’s hosts. When I went to India as a member of a lawyer delegation, I was advised to avoid wearing short skirts or sleeveless tops. I packed knee length skirt suits and dresses, and even those – which were modest by US standards – seemed a tad risqué in India. Duchess Laze Quitter cannot afford to have ANY wardrobe malfunctions, so it sort of makes sense the advance team went there at least in part to determine what outfits will be comfortable and modest enough in the heat while also being appropriate for their various events.

      The other thing I thought was, “I bet they haven’t the first clue what to wear to visit a Mumbai slum.” I hope to high heaven neither she nor her team decide to dress her casually for that event. As wretched as some of the Mumbai slums are, she will be visiting their homes. The residents deserve to be treated with the same respect she would accord any other dignitary hosting her, and that includes wearing an appropriate dress or suit, not jeggings and wedges.

      • kori says:

        This was the argument made by Queen Elizabeth (consort) during WW2 when visiting bombed out neighborhoods. She was all dressed up and replied to critics that people would put on their best to visit her home and she should do the same.

  11. Mika says:

    Natasha Archer needs to take a backseat and go sit on a couch! Catherine Cambridge is tall and lanky enough to be a beautiful clotheshorse and work it – unfortunately, she is failing to light the fashion world alight! She needs to forget trying to copy Diana and find another lady to emulate. If she chose a modern day version of Jackie O or Chanel or Audrey Hepburn, then she could be really something, but she just doesn’t strike the right balance in anything she wears!

    We all know by now that she has very little intelligence a la Mellie Grant on Scandal, so she needs to work her assets and she is failing, miserably. These people are leading this poor Duchess up the wrong path and the Duchess Dolittle doesn’t even have the intelligence to see where she is going wrong!

    She needs to burst that bubble she is living in and get her hands dirty with some work, because I truly believe her days are numbered as a Royal. Let’s give her and William 15 years and that’s it! The UK will become a Republican.

    • Betti says:

      We now have a name to go with the terrible tailoring work that’s regularly seen on Waity’s badly tailored designer clothes. They’ve clearly got a stylist sewing – cheap and bad move.

      • HK9 says:

        Serious question. I’m a Canadian who goes to London for two things: to hug my relatives & buy beautifully tailored clothes. Simply put, the UK has some of the best tailors on the planet. How the heck did Waity manage to find the only bad tailor in the country?? :-0

    • LAK says:

      Mellie Grant knows enough to maintain a positive public image.

    • anne_000 says:

      The article says that it’s Kate who makes the decision on her styling and clothes. She also does her own makeup. So it doesn’t seem to matter who her stylist is and that the person is not doing a stylist’s job in full, but is mostly a conduit to acquire clothes. More like a clothes assistant. There have been posts on another blog in which they showed that the clothes/shoes/jewelry Kate wore has not been taken care of, not tailored properly, and reconfigured in such a way that it looks worse than what the designer had planned.

      Even when there were stories that the Queen tried to get her own people to advise Kate after a lot of Marilyn Monroe moments, Kate seemed to ignore this help.

      So it’s all on her. Doesn’t matter what other people say. The only people she seems to listen to is William and Carol who both seem to have poor tastes and sensibilities themselves too.

  12. Tough Cookie says:

    I hope someone remembers to pack the royal panties for this visit.

  13. Cee says:

    She’s always shopping and barely works and now spends yet more money on clothes for another tour abroad. Why not wear the clothes she buys and nobody sees?

  14. rosiek says:

    Well, if Kate can assist this hospice with fundraising in a major way, then good on her. Most significant fundraising is done among the wealthy, they simply have more disposable income.

    I also admire that she tries to wear local designer clothing while on state trips. People will always complain about the royals.

    • LAK says:

      EACH has finally wised up to the fact that if they don’t have fundraising galas full of posh people, Kate won’t attend. All her other patronages have galas, and Kate attends.

      She’s barely helped EACH fundraising efforts in the past. And by barely, I mean a re-gifted baby hamper for one fundraising drive, so poorly wrapped that no one bought it despite the label identifying where it came from.

      EACH cancelling a fundraising event for lack of public interest, meanwhile Kate chose the week of their event to go on holiday. Didn’t publicise it.

      They used PGtips’s first birthday as an occasion to raise some funds, but again, Kate didn’t help them publicise it resulting in poor sales.

      Kate has been such a poor patron that they eventually recruited Ed Sheraan (sp?) As a celebrity patron to better results. And Ed has been a muvh more visible patron.

      I’m curious to know what she has been promised to remember that this is one of her patronages because 2 engagements on their behalf in 3 months is positively industrious for her. Mind you, both engagements follow her preferred activities, shopping and galas, so perhaps EACH really took notice this time.

      Community fundraising and meeting the receipeitns of her charity’s efforts is not Kate’s style.

      • Guesto says:

        Poor EACH, stuck with someone so careless and useless.

        I was reading something on Camilla recently and came across this quote from her about the causes she gets involved with – “I think if you mind a lot about things that it makes it much easier to do. I can’t do things that don’t come from the heart, really. You have to mind desperately about something.”

        And it shows in the care and thoughtfulness she puts into everything she does.

        The pathetically useless Kate clearly doesn’t mind at all.

      • kori says:

        That’s why osteoporosis is one of camilla’s most favored charities. It afflicted her mother until her death at 72 as well as her grandmother and I think Camilla suffers from it as well. She also became involved with one of her mother’s charities involving disabled children.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        These facts make me dislike her even more. What is even the point of her? She’s useless and rude.
        She throws away good chances to turn things around and refuses to lift a finger.

    • anne_000 says:

      There’s only so many rich-folk galas one can hold and only so many rich folks that will donate significantly. But there are tens of millions of regular folk in Britain that can be inspired to donate.

      But Kate doesn’t do what’s best in PR for charities. Why not?

      Anyhoo, the last time she did something for EACH, she showed up to an opening for EACH’s charity shop and spent only 20 pounds, even though she came wearing a $1000 coat and however much the rest of her attire cost. This was the day after refusing to show up for the Irish Army’s Shamrock ceremony.

      At the shop, she had a child patient show her the purse the girl wanted, had the girl open it up, talk about it, then without buying it for the girl, she said somebody should put a reserve sticker label on it so that nobody else will buy it. Then Kate went on to try on hats in showing off for the cameras and looked at brooches.

      Kate missed a prime PR opportunity. She should have bought that purse for the girl, who has a potentially fatal condition. Then the girl would have had some nice memories about the event in her potentially short life.

      Kate could have not only come out of it looking a generous person, but also a caring patroness of the charity and brought more attention to the shop. Instead, she bought a book and a figurine, which most people will forget, but if she had bought that purse for that girl, it would have made the event more memorable and therefore have gained more news coverage for herself and the charity shop.

      Anyhoo, so glad that other people are working to hold this fancy rich folk event, and hosting it at somebody else’s house, do most or all of the work, and what Kate gets out of it is credit and enjoying the company of other rich, privileged people.

      • Guesto says:

        @Anne – honestly, I feel stabby anger towards her for her ongoing failure to understand, take note and get behind what patronage actually means and involves.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        I’m with Guesto. She’s insulting,

      • Canadian Becks says:

        Kate actually spent only £10 at the charity shop. The figurine was £8 and the book was £2.
        It would have been a nice gesture, in her capacity as the patroness, to have made an equal donation and given them £20 and tell them to keep the change- Lord knows that’s little enough, given that she was sporting thousands of pounds worth of clothes that was purchased with money for which she never had to lift a finger.

        I don’t like when rich people lend their name to a charity, exhorting the regular 9-5 folks to give generously, when they themselves have the means to finance the charity drive by just writing a personal cheque.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Wearing brand new $650 Prada shoes to the charity shop was a nice touch…

    • Emily C. says:

      Most significant fundraising is NOT done among the wealthy. It’s done among the middle class, in both proportion of income and sheer numbers. By a long shot. The wealthy do not give much at all, and when they do, they expect large returns.

      The people who give by far the highest proportion of their incomes to charity are the lower-middle class and working class. But the middle class has more money to give, so though they tend to give less proportionally, they do pull ahead. The wealthy have by far the most money to give, but except for the occasional trust and “gala,” they usually don’t do it. And when they do, the proportion of their wealth that they give is miniscule.

      I worked at the United Way for a while, and these statistics are extremely important to or any charitable organization. You’ll get more money having a pizza lunch for factory workers than a gala for rich people. The galas are to raise the profile of the organization, but the real work is elsewhere.

  15. LadyElenor says:

    do you think she has multi-colored slippers? rainbow style? do you think she secretly yearns to bust out a pair of red vinyl thigh-high boots because all she wears is nude shoes…? ugh. and WHY CANT she wear something more than once?!?!!?!? my god!

  16. CynicalCeleste says:

    There is only one Queen of Norfolk and that is the Queen of England.

    • anne_000 says:

      There’s a gif of Kate asking a pleb if that person wants to meet King George one day. I take this to mean that she already thinks she, William, and George are the most important players in the monarchy right now and that QE2 and Charles are nothing more than obsolete placeholders.

      • addie says:

        The monarchy will be long gone by George’s time, and with any luck, Kate and William will miss out too. The BRF should be transitioned to private citizen status to live off their private funds, with public residences and duchies’ revenue returned to the public.

  17. Magnoliarose says:

    Those two will find away to be disasters in some form.

  18. lower-case deb says:

    one question: why does the Press Office of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge not release any substantial pre-visit positive pieces…

    so far, it’s Gala Party for exclusive guests
    and shopping for fashion and treating host countries as Backdrops.

    still waiting for news about project briefings and inter-organisation meetings ala Harry’s Nepal visit.

    are such meetings so unbelievable with regards to these two, that they just don’t bother to spin it?

    galas and shopping… is this what we have to look forward to now?

    • anne_000 says:

      @ lower-case deb

      They dropped news recently that they’re going to have a reception at KP with young Indian and Bhutanese people who are students or work with organizations that deal with charities and businesses or whatever. I can’t remember the details properly right now.

      But then, that’s a party. It’s not like the briefings and meetings that you mentioned Harry had for his Nepal trip. And I doubt that W&K will attend the reception with learning as their goal. It’ll probably be more like a quick meet-and-greet with their eyes on the ticking clock waiting eagerly to leave. Unlike how it might be with this fancy gala where, if they attend, they will stay for a longer period of time as the rich folks will be there to hobnob with.

      It just shows how vapid W&K are.

  19. Rae says:

    I think I am getting a little too addicted to the Duke and Duchess DoLittle stories. I gleefully click on to them straight away. I know it will be juicy and full of much needed criticism.

  20. Lainey says:

    I’ll believe it when it happens. Her name was on the invites for the Centrepiece gala in KP too and yet just before it happened it was a ‘misprint’. That or they’ve finely wised up on how to get the Cambridges to work – GALAS.
    In other news BAFTA have announced another co-president who’ll help William with his heavy workload. Reads to me like he’s been fired without actually been fired.

    • LAK says:

      Barbara Brocholli (for film) is a good choice if glitz and glamour is all one cares about. And Greg Dyke (for TV) is a longstanding BBC man and football chairman. I’m not sure either is a good appointment for their areas.

      That said, it’s definitely a way to bench Normal Bill without firing him outright. He might prove useful at a later date.

      Same thing happened with EACH and Kate. Except they did try to fire Kate, and the Palace talked them out of it, so they hired Ed Sheeran as a celebrity Patron.

      Now EACH has wised up to galas as the lure, Kate is proving useful again.

      • Natalie says:

        But does anyone care anymore to pay to gawk up close at Kate Middleton?

        It is mind-boggling how she has squandered her capital in just five years.

      • LAK says:

        Exactly Natalie.

      • teacakes says:

        @Natalie – I feel like at least 50 percent of the goodwill she had at the time of her wedding, was partly the responsibility of Sarah Burton and the house of McQueen because they made her look so damn good and not like the dullard wannabe wifey Sloane she was.

        Now we’re five years removed from that beautiful wedding dress and the ‘girl next door married her prince’ PR line, and the press has pretty much emperor’s new clothesed her.

      • COSquared says:

        @Teacakes: That goodwill came automatically with who she married. Even if she walked down the aisle in a grass skirt and cone-shaped bra, she’d have still had that goodwill.

      • teacakes says:

        @COSquared – oh yes, the beloved eldest son of Diana angle – and people still liked him back then too. But Burton definitely bought her a LOT of image brownie points, a good dress can do a lot (as all the fuss over Pippa’s arse – handily highlighted by that nice little row of buttons on her own dress – proved)

      • Natalie says:

        It was amazing how everything reset when W and K got engaged, and maybe it was too easy and they couldn’t value it. The dress definitely helped and the palace sweeping in to protect her image.

        But Kate has had a front row seat for fifteen years to how much William gets away with and who he really is behind the pr. I think she’s lost perspective and forgotten one of the most important lessons about marrying a royal; even if your royal spouse protects you, the “married in” will never receive the same amount of protection and deference as the actual royals. William can bully and bluster all he likes, the rules are still different for Kate.

        William’s an idiot but he’s the idiot who gets to dip into the red boxes, has a life time of iconic moments, and will be king. He will get near endless chances and a very lowered bar for achievement because the country watched him grow up. Kate has to keep working on building her own iconography.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Lainey

      Thanks for the heads up on the BAFTA appointment.

      Seems like they recently appointed a vice-president for TV and now a vice-president for film. I agree with you that the new appointment(s) were to cover William’s lack of involvement.

      And yes, if you want W&K to show up, you have to throw galas with rich people, not have them go mingle with the great unwashed, like the Irish Army or charity recipients.

  21. anne_000 says:

    It sounds so superficial of her to order a team to spend time and money (taxpayers’ I’m assuming) to travel all the way to India and presumably Bhutan too just to see how to best make those countries nothing more than ‘backdrops’ (as Robot Dog pointed out above) for her vanity and self-centeredness.

    It would have been better for her PR to say that it was to collect information about the protocols and cultures in order to inform Kate on what is important to each country instead of it being about what is important to her, her appearance.

    And then the sugars chastise others for criticizing her shallowness. Yet, she keeps proving her critics right.

    • LAK says:

      That’s how clueless her team is.

      Or they seriously hate her such that they are willing to tell the public this story that is either the unvarnished truth or a lie designed to make her look bad.

      She’s too dim to know that this is a negative story.

      • anne_000 says:

        It’s because they’re reconnoitering the climates of unknown landscapes on foreign planets of which nobody in the UK has any previous knowledge. It’s impossible for Kate and her staff to get any information on these distant planets called India and Bhutan from domestic sources, even from the internet.

        I don’t know how Harry managed to go to Nepal without sending out a team too to figure out what to wear. I wonder if Kate had to send out teams to planet Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the various planets in the constellation Asia.

        And of course, nobody but nobody goes anywhere abroad here on Earth without first sending out clothing-focused discovery teams. It’s absolutely not a show of extravagance and self-obsessiveness.

      • MinnFinn says:

        I wonder who leaked the story because it does not seem fabricated. Also, a fashion scouting team did a pre-Oz/NZ trip too. But I think that was leaked after the tour was over.

        As for what designers she will wear, definitely at least one McQueen. She’s worn at least one McQueen on all of her previous tours.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ MinnFinn

        Didn’t she do one or more of her most embarrassing Marilyn Monroe moments without underwear in Oz or NZ?

        Proves that this great idea of having a fashion scouting team isn’t useful while one still refuses to use weights in the hems, wear underwear, refuses to accept the existence of wind and gravity, have a need to appear sexy , and don’t mind flashing the world.

        So what’s the point?

      • vava says:

        @anne_000……………it all goes back to what LAK said. Kate is too dim on this issue.

        She will (IMO) have some fashion faux pas on this trip. She has on every other trip, and given her lack of interest in being a PROFESSIONAL, we will continue to see hems flying up, crotches be clutched, and probably some cleavage and weird hairstyles. Kate has to sex it up, one way or another. That’s her drill.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      Someone, somewhere is allowing these stories to flow freely. I keep thinking these leaks are on purpose. If I were Hyancith Caro Bucket, I’d be concerned. If they allowed the Charles and Diana to end in divorce given how popular Diana was, they could ditch Doolittle easily. I hope she realizes that being George’s mother does not exempt her from being dismissed, but I think she’s too thick to understand this.

  22. Maggie says:

    I like most of her fashion choices as well. Some a little overly conservative but she is always dressed tastefully and with class. Mind you she has a beautiful figure to carry them off too.

  23. Div says:

    I can’t believe someone took a rehearsal trip to India just to plan her outfits around the location….the (needless) money that must be spent on her and Will.

    • word says:

      What a waste of money.

    • LAK says:

      All royal travel to foreign places, whether for work or vacation, have a forward team that go months/weeks ahead to recce the destinations/stops of the journey. It’s a hidden cost of operations that is scarcely mentioned.

      That recce information is used to plan to the smallest detail.

      What is astonishing with this article is that the standard recce has been presented as specific to Kate’s wardrobe. We are told that the reason for her visit to India, per the recce, is to showcase her wardrobe against the backdrops!!!!!

      No other purpose of the tour.

      Her team are either completely inept or they hate her and are undermining her.

      • Christin says:

        They are so clueless, it seems more like a satirical show. You cannot make this up.

        I found the ‘green screen’ reference by Rocket Dog to be hilarious. They may be using one, just to further plan how her outfits will look against the backdrops.

      • Ravine says:

        LAK — The article is for the “Lifestyle” section of the paper, and it seems to have been written by a royalty/society staff journalist and a freelance style journalist. So it’s not surprising that “the standard recce has been presented as specific to Kate’s wardrobe” in this article — the authors are not interested in or knowledgeable about the kind of trip you describe; maybe they don’t even know, or care to explain, that this kind of thing is standard for royals, presidents, PMs, governors general…

        But if you read it carefully, there is nothing in it to suggest that Kate “sent her ‘stylist team’ to India” as one commenter put it above. We aren’t in fact “told” any such thing. The actual article says:

        “The official tour starts in Mumbai on April 10, and the Duke and Duchess will travel to [list of places]. A small team have made a rehearsal trip to India and Bhutan, on which Kate’s private secretary Rebecca Deacon made notes on factors to consider about the locations the Duchess will visit, so that she has an idea of what outfits will and won’t work.
        “The team took a photograph of every place the Duchess will visit, so that she can use these images as a guide to determine how formal she needs to dress and what colours will look best against the backdrops.”

        Breaking it down:
        -“A small team”: not “Duchess Kate’s style team.” Indeed, the previous sentence refers to both the Duke and Duchess, so nothing suggests that it’s specifically Kate’s team.
        -“on which Kate’s private secretary Rebecca Deacon”: It seems Kate’s private secretary was on the team, which doesn’t seem surprising. No one else is specifically said to be part of the rehearsal trip, so we can only speculate. My (completely uneducated) guess would be Will’s private secretary, some security people, some PR people and a protocol advisor or two. Meanwhile, Kate’s PA/stylist and hairdresser are said to be going on the actual trip, but it doesn’t say that they’re on the rehearsal tour.
        -“made notes on factors to consider about the locations the Duchess will visit, so that she has an idea of what outfits will and won’t work”: she took some notes pertaining to fashion; it doesn’t mean that was her sole reason for going. (It might be, but we can’t assume.)
        -“The team took a photograph of every place the Duchess will visit, so that she can use these images as a guide”: we don’t know how much time they spent on this or what else they were doing, so again, there’s nothing to indicate that this was the main purpose of the trip. The phrasing “The team took a photograph” is admittedly odd and implies that more than one person was involved; it’s possible that Rebecca was the only one doing this. That, or the “team” did take photos, but it was for several reasons (e.g., to brief W&K on how the events will take place, to brief the security team specifically, etc.) and Kate’s colour palette was just the one the reporters misleadingly zeroed in on.

        I hope this has been reassuring. 🙂 That being said, I don’t doubt anyone’s predictions re: 100K or more going toward underwhelming-to-unfortunate Kate outfits!

      • Magnoliarose says:

        I vote for they hate her. I have a hard time believing someone is not aware.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Wasn’t there also a ridiculous statement in the KP release, making it sound as if every tourist who goes to the Taj Mahal is only doing it to remember Princess Diana? So so so so desperate for good PR that they have to throw Diana into an official press release?

  24. Alexa de Vere says:

    Geez where do you all find the energy to be so persistently nasty about her?!
    She stays away: you complain.
    She prepares to come out: you complain.
    She actually does something: you complain.

    I am so glad I am not Kate and have to read this, it’s like being in Mean Girls!

    • anne_000 says:

      She stays away to do little to nothing for anybody else and still gets the equivalent amount in benefits of a million or more welfare recipients, yet while society at large expects the latter to go to work, somehow she’s allowed to live with a different standard?

      She prepares to come out by sending out a team to the other side of the world in order to study up on how best to look good for the cameras at every locality she’ll visit, which would include the Mumbai slums too. Because this is what’s important about her being there, right? And as the article reports, these places are to her as ‘backdrops.’ Forget the people, the culture, the history, the efforts of organizations trying to benefit others, etc. She needs a t-shirt emblazoned with ‘Being Pretty is Everything!’

      Yes, she actually did something. See above. Also, she plans on attending a rich folk’s party that other people worked to create and is held at somebody else’s home and then expect credit for it.

      I doubt Kate reads this. It’s not one of the scientific journals she’s been reported to read.

      Does anyone actually think that all this effort to look good in India and Bhutan is about work?

      • Liberty says:

        She stays away: you complain. [Because she is paid a hefty fortune and given homes precisely not to stay away, while her 90-hr-old in-laws work so hard]

        She prepares to come out: you complain. [Because her “out” is not about work, it’s about hair-flipping, making inane faces, expressing boredom or disdain, and trying to meet more celebs while looking down her nose at normal people — something her actually born-royal BIL Harry or MIL the Queen do not do, you see; and her “preparation” is repeatedly apparently just more hairstyling and shopping twaddle versus even basic intellectually curious, courteous preparation to properly do the job she chased down for 9+ years]

        She actually does something: you complain. [Do…what? Make a 20 minute bored charity visit once a month, make odd faces during a ceremony of remembrance, get her hair done instead of handing out shamrocks for an hour to the Irish Royal Guard whilst snottily announcing she doesn’t want people to “expect” her to show up and do the job she’s supposed to do?]

    • vava says:

      Alexa, Kate doesn’t read this. Remember? She doesn’t care what people say about her.

      It pretty much boils down to the views on how a professional woman should behave while on duty. In Kate’s case, being ‘on duty’ doesn’t happen very often.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      Kate had so much good will and people made so many excuses for her. She has only herself to blame.

  25. Starlight says:

    Manequin. – sorry couldn’t help myself the word just popped into the air

  26. james says:

    I honestly find her too masculine and skinny, she would look much better with some weight on and her hair is still a mess, overrall, shes not elegant in a Royal Way, she mostly looks like a secretary in an office, shes royal she needs to be more sophisticated and chic like the european royal ladies!!

  27. 600Purple says:

    Anmer Hall is not really as grand as Houghton Hall. It’s not on the same level.

  28. Dorcas munovi says:

    You’ve discussed this young Kate so much,forgetting she can’t be admired by the whole u.k.