People: Meghan Markle is paying for her own clothes out-of-pocket until the wedding

2018 Commonwealth Day service

In addition to spending too much time thinking about what Meghan Markle’s wedding gown will look like and who will design it. I’ve also spent too much time thinking about who will pay for it. For comparison, when then-Kate Middleton married Prince William, the Middleton family wanted to chip in on certain things for the wedding, so they paid for Kate’s McQueen wedding gown and a few other things (the flowers, I think?). Meghan, on the other hand, was a working actress who supported herself financially for most of her adult life. Her clothes are her own – her parents didn’t give her a clothing allowance. Granted, Meghan was a celebrity, so she probably got tons of freebies over the years, as many celebrities get free clothes/jewelry/cars/whatever.

Meghan has been wearing some new stuff during her events since becoming engaged. She’s been wearing English, Scottish and Welsh designers and labels, and while it’s possible that could have been in her closet already, it seems more likely that she’s been buying new clothes for her royal events. Who is paying for it? Meghan? Harry? Or Charles?

When she stepped out at Westminster Abbey with fiancé Prince Harry for her first official duty alongside Queen Elizabeth on Monday, Meghan Markle’s $1,000 white coat from British designer Amanda Wakeley turned heads. Along with the rest of her enviable wardrobe — including the Sentaler coat she wore at Christmas to designer Welsh jeans from Hiut — Meghan’s chic style comes with a hefty price tag.

And it’s all paid for out of pocket — for now, by Harry and Meghan themselves, PEOPLE understands. Royals do not accept designer clothes for free. While assistants like Natasha Archer, who works for Kate Middleton, call in several options from designers, after they have chosen an outfit the others are returned and the one that is worn is paid for.

After her May 19 wedding to Harry at Windsor’s St. George’s Chapel, Meghan’s clothing budget for official outings will be covered by the money that Prince Charles gives to Prince William, Kate and Harry from his Duchy of Cornwall income of about $28 million.

Last year, the trio drew the expenses needed for their public lives (salaries and office costs and other expenses) from a fund of $4.8 million. (That part of Charles’s official outgoings also covers other aspects of his accounts, such as some capital expenditure.)

The eye-popping $78,000 cost of the Ralph & Russo gown Meghan wore in her engagement portraits sparked much debate when the pictures were released in December. Meghan, 36, earned an estimated $50,000 an episode by the end of her seven-year run on Suits, it has been reported. Harry’s net worth is conservatively estimated at around $25 million, according to Money. After Princess Diana’s death in Paris in 1997, Harry and William shared $20 million from their mother’s will. The money was placed in a trust that they couldn’t touch until they were 30.

Some insiders have said that Harry also received more than William from their great-grandmother the Queen Mother, who died in 2002. The reason? She knew he wouldn’t inherit the vast Duchy of Cornwall, which instead will pass to William when their father, Prince Charles, ascends to the throne.

[From People]

I tend to think this is a very late, very quiet confirmation that Meghan either paid for that $78K Ralph and Russo dress herself, it was already in her closet, she got it at a discount before the engagement or she just borrowed it for a day. Or all of the above, who knows? The thing I didn’t know was that Charles isn’t paying for Meghan’s clothes YET. Even though she’s undertaking events on behalf of the royal family, Charles doesn’t pay for her clothes until she’s married. Which brings me back to the original question: is Meghan paying for her wedding gown out of pocket? There’s speculation that Meghan is paying for it out-of-pocket, and that she’s decided to pay for their honeymoon too. Hm.

PS… Kate does accept freebies, she just accepts them when they’re filtered through her family. She also accepts discounts. We’ll see if Meghan is allowed to play by those rules.


Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, WENN and Kensington Palace.

Related stories

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

160 Responses to “People: Meghan Markle is paying for her own clothes out-of-pocket until the wedding”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Blinkbanana says:

    Borrowed, as is the norm for celebs during events etc

    • Imqrious2 says:

      It wouldn’t surprise me if British (etc) designers are sending freebies to her or letting her borrow clothes for these event. Could be why she looks a bit swamped in some of the coats (can’t alter borrowed clothes;have to return them). Just a thought.

      I like her choices, just think some seem a bit big on her. My favorite so far is definitely that black McQueen tuxedo suit.

      Can’t wait to see the wedding dress!!

  2. Alix says:

    Paying for all the clothes I wear while already working — “unpaid”, if you will — for the Firm? I don’t think so.

    • Clare says:

      I’m not sure having your homes, cars, security bills etc all paid for counts as being ‘unpaid’ – but I see what you’re saying.

  3. Rapunzel says:

    I believe this. Meghan has money. And I bet the engagement dress was a steep discount for promotional reasons. Not accepting for free is not the same as not accepting discounts.

    And can someone elaborate on this statement? “PS… Kate does accept freebies, she just accepts them when they’re filtered through her family. She also accepts discounts. We’ll see if Meghan is allowed to play by those rules.”

    • LAK says:

      The Middletons receive freebies which are then given to Kate. If you want to give Kate a freebie, send it to Pippa or Carole. It’s receiving freebies without appearing to do so.

      As for discounts, i don’t think this is a fair criticism of Kate because entire royal family receives hefty discounts on goods. That is allowed. Freebies are not.

      What is ergregious is when Carole or Pippa (and Kate during the dating years) demand the royal discount on goods and services for themselves.

      • Clare says:

        Right? As if anyone has paid list price for that fleet of Range Rovers and Jaguars…

      • Rapunzel says:

        LAK- that’s how I understood things. The discounts are normal, and freebies can filtered through non-royal family like Carole. What I don’t get is “We’ll see if Meghan is allowed to play by those rules.” Is Meghan gonna be prevented from accepting freebies her mom gets? I assume she’ll get some. How exactly could you stop this practice?

        Kate isn’t doing anything the royal fam can stop so how could Meg not be allowed the same?

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Lak

        So would it be possible to gift things to Meghan’s stylist/close friend, which wouldn’t count as gifting them to her directly?

        That would explain a few things to me….

      • magnoliarose says:

        Meghan’s mother isn’t interested in a profile of her own or attention. So far she hasn’t shown she wants to be involved at all socially.
        Meghan can do the same if she wants to find someone to filter her clothing through and I know already she is demand as a clotheshorse, but I believe she will do the deep discount route.
        As I said before no one paid 75 thousand for the Renee and Russo dress. It may be worth that amount, but it doesn’t mean that is what was paid and the designers would dress her yearly for free if they could. They can charge her 10 dollars and say it wasn’t free. Many many ways around the no gratis rule and they will find it. Diana did it, and I am sure she will too.

        She will also have ongoing income from syndication deals in the future. It is surprising how much that can be long-term since many shows are shown in other markets for decades. She will be a draw, and there will be more interest in the show.

      • LAK says:

        Bellagio dupont: Yes.

        For Kate, substitute stylist / close friend for Pippa /Carole.

        I think it’s highly unlikely that the other royals’ inlaws /friends didn’t /don’t do the same, BUT the Middleton are shamelessly open about their demand for the royal discount and or freebies at every turn.

        That said, everything about Dora indicates that she will follow the route of Sophie’s dad, Autumn’s parents and Mike’s parents ie they go about their lives without wanting or demanding they be included in the royal circle and when they show up, it goes unnoticed because there are low-key about it.

        Obviously Dora’s race will elicit several op-eds about the inclusive royals accepting a Black woman in the family, but apart from that, everything about how she’s handled herself indicates she will remain low-key / non-grifting / non- thirsty as she has always been.

      • Liberty says:

        Thank you, LAK, I have said this repeatedly too. Some of my work is in the business and have friends in various sectors of the business in 8 countries, and there is no way she paid full price for that gown. Particularly for a last season gown. The stated price represented a bit of a mark-up. Subtract the mark-up and you have the cost of a small fashion ad. The ad exposure equivalent here is well worth far more than that. So offering the gown to her for a far lower price would be no loss to the house. It became part of royal history and the photos will be viewed aagain and again, and many designers would find that very appealing as well.

        To sum up: nothing like full price.

      • SK says:

        I actually think the royal family should be allowed to accept free clothing from British and Commonwealth designers. If those designers want to send them the free clothes and it saves money overall I just don’t see a problem with it. The promotional value for those designers of the Royals wearing their clothes is massive. It would be a boon to British and Commonwealth fashion and it would save money.

    • windyriver says:

      With respect to the Rene and Russo dress: most likely Meghan got it before the official engagement, when considerations of discounts and freebies for royals wouldn’t apply; so Rene & Russo could have made any arrangement they chose. It’s not like they wouldn’t be aware the engagement was likely to happen, even if they weren’t told specifically what the dress was for. Still the potential for enormous PR for them whenever Meghan chose to wear the dress.

      • Clare says:

        Guys, Renee Russo = actress
        Ralph and Russo = designer

      • magnoliarose says:

        I should know better but had a brain lapse and child distraction. lol

      • windyriver says:

        Ha ha of course! My awareness of Rene Russo goes back much further (model before actress) than Ralph & Russo, so I guess that’s what automatically comes up earlyish on a Friday morning…

  4. sunnydeereynolds says:

    Lol. I guess her PR team are trying their best make people forget about that super expensive engagement dress.

    I still don’t buy that she paid for that dress. $70k is not that affordable for a C-list tv starlet.

    • AmyO says:

      It is when you consider that she won’t have another personal expense for the rest of her married life. I don’t think she paid full price for it, but just saying. It’s not like she has a mortgage and car payment.

    • Des says:

      Excuse you, Suits is not a C-list show and someone who earns 50k x 16 per year can definitely afford what looks like a discounted sample size made available to a high profile celebrity for a high profile event.

      However, this is obviously PR because that’s what celebrities do – they have PR teams that manage their reputation.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Yeah, see I hate to be contrarian but Suits is definitely a C List show. I’d never heard of her prior to Harry, and I vaguely knew of Suits, but def not the stars. And she’s a co-star (it appears those two guys are the leads).

        If I had to categorize I’d say
        A list tv show: This is Us, Law and Order SVU, Greys Anatomy, Scandal, Sopranos (in their day)
        B list: something on Netflix or streaming service (like Stranger Things, Ozark) that hasn’t hit mainstream but is well received and popular with its followers.
        C list: Suits, Royal Pains (when it was on), USA shows like that Chrisley show?

      • Sarah754 says:

        Suits definitely isn’t a C list show… It’s on Netflix!

        I’m in Australia and have friends who watch Suits (beginning well before Meghan and Harry). I’d say it’s comfortably B list.

    • Cee says:

      Suits is not a C-list show! I don’t understand why Suits is always used against Meghan, diminishing her vast success as an actress. She might not be Jennifer Lawrence or Angelina Jolie, but she is successful, even if this fact grates people.

      I have said this on this board numerous times, but Suits has a very big international audience. I’ve been watching it ever since it premiered. I now watch it on Netflix because I don’t pay for cable but even at work I have co-workers who love the show and have watched all available seasons more than once.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Cee

        It’s just a convenient, rather cynical attack point for her detractors.

        Having said that, she had other sources of income…..her blog(s) and fashion ventures would also have been great additional sources of income.

      • Jamie says:

        I don’t know if suits was a C list show. Out of my circle of friends, only me and one other person watched more than one season of it. And we’re all avid tv watchers.

      • Imqrious2 says:

        I’ve watched Suits since the beginning, as has my entire family, and a large group of friends and acquaintances. I personally have turned a lot of people on to it. I love the show, esp. when Gina Torres was on. I can’t wait for it to start again (March 28th here!). Don’t know how season 7 will go, without Mike and Rachel, (and with Katharine Heigel joining), but I’ll give it a chance.

      • Maria says:

        I’m totally hooked on that show. To me it’s like Mad Men.

      • Cee says:

        I’m from Argentina and most of my family watches it and so do many of my co-workers and friends. IDK what to tell people who claim Markle is not famous. I’ve also been told on this blog that I’m lying lol

        I read somewhere that there might be a spin off with Gina Torres!!!! I hope this does happen. IDK where the series will go w/o Mike and Rachel but hopefully the next season will be an interesting one.

      • teacakes says:

        Suits is a show I’ve never watched, but any show successful enough to be getting a remake in another country (Korea) after a seven-years-and-counting run can’t be paying peanuts.

        The amusing thing was going to the site where I like to read my Korean drama discussions and finding it buzzing with Suits/kdrama fans who were quite keen to find out who would be playing Rachel in the Korean version since they liked Meghan in the role …no one seemed to realise or care that this was the person who’d just got engaged to Prince Harry.

      • Lilly says:

        I watch it too and this will probably be a theme for years to criticize her, even longer at the Daily Mail I’m sure. I’m so happy for them and at least here the positive and intelligent commentary outweighs the other.

      • SlightlyAnonny says:

        Yeah, I wouldn’t have put Suits as C-list either. I had never watched the show but I had heard of it, I’d heard of the two leads, the glorious Gina Torres, and even vaguely of Meghan (but mainly as a biracial girl who could be passing until they cast her black dad). I know people who loved it and I even think it got write ups on ew. Was it A-list? Probably not. But it was a solid B-List show that people knew of and watched.

      • Veronica says:

        Suits is, in my view, a C List show. Not one person, young or old, even knows it where I live – NY. And where did they get that 50K per show salary from? That seems high for a character part in a little known cable show.
        My question is did Wills, Kate and Harry’s expenses come from a 4.8 million dollar fund, or were their expenses 4.8 million last year? That seems quite high for three people with less than 500 one to two hour appearances between them?

      • Cee says:

        @Veronica – then you must know every single person living and working in NY. *rolls eyes*

      • Veronica says:

        @Cee, don’t put words in my mouth, thank you. I said no one I know has heard of it. Everyone I know has heard of Grey’s Anatomy, CSI, Law and ORder, and many people I know have heard of The Closer, or Major Crimes or other cable shows.

        Why do people insist on making her career more than it was? One person here said she had “vast success” as an actress. Come on!! She was working, yes, and good for her. But “vast success”? It makes people side eye everything said after such a claim.

      • cee says:

        @Veronica – you basically said it “Not one person, young or old, even knows it where I live – NY.” You didn’t say “not one person I know”. You did generalize even if I now know it wasn’t your intent.

        And to me, someone who was on a show for 7 years with enough rating to keep being renewed, qualifies as “vast success”.

    • Olenna says:

      Most people don’t give a damn about that dress. It’s the media that keep churning out stories and rehashing old news. And, the people who don’t like Meghan who keep bringing it up, insisting that she paid the declared retail price. Maybe you didn’t read the article and grasp how much money she made, or you can’t relate to making that much money and spending it on luxury items, but she could easily afford that dress. It’s her money, so why be suspicious about how she spends it? Do you question how every celebrity and actor spends their own money?

      • Guest1 says:

        @Olenna. Vogue mentioned it. R&R and an estimate of the cost have been stated. I’m not going by the DM reports because evidently, they get things wrong lol. Their wedding gowns are elaborate, but Meghan could ask them to create anything elegant and chic which speaks to her own taste.

      • Veronica says:

        How do you know that most people didn’t give a damn about the expensive dress? I think that dress was a misstep and rubbed people the wrong way. My evidence is the continual discussion of it, and the comments about it, even on twitter.
        What makes you think it wasn’t important?

        I did, finally, watch Grilling with Meghan on youtube and a clip from 90210. The 90210 clip was silly, but I just kept imagining Kate having made that Grilling video and what everyone here would be saying about her?? :)

      • Olenna says:

        @Veronica Trixie, it’s obvious you ignored what I said about the media and people who don’t like Meghan. Otherwise, you’d know that I’ve said what I had to say about the topic. If you want to spar, ask the Twitter crew to get into it with you because I’m not interested in having this conversation with you. Why? Because you have a unreasonable nastiness towards MM that just doesn’t warrant repeated discussions.

      • Veronica says:

        Everyone who doesn’t blindly worship MM is not nasty towards her. I think she is smart, hard-working, beautiful and actually way above Harry’s pay grade. I don’t think she will live up to her feminist talk of many years about being an independent woman. She has given up everything to marry Harry, and I think it may be a tough adjustment. I also would bet that she will not be allowed to work more than Kate, cause it will make Kate look bad and that is NOT going to happen, so I think she may be bored to tears.
        I am also surprised that she is tone deaf about spending on clothes. I don’t care who bought her engagement gown, or what she paid, that retail price should have been a red flag over wearing that in the pictures. People mocking or discounting the average person’s resentment at that kind of spending is why we ended up with fake populist Trump and Britain ended up with Brexit. Optics do matter.

      • @whatever If Kate had made the 90210 video or done anything, we would have been happy that she is applying herself and working. You do realize that it is acting don’t you. I suspect Kate/lots of women/the Queen (Gasp) do that in real life and I don’t think any less of them for it.
        2018 not 1818
        Of course she has new clothes that apply to her new role. You might have to get over it coz i suspect she is going to build a working wardrobe and that means a lot of new clothes.

      • Princessk says:

        @Veronica….I have watched Grilling with Meghan, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Somebody on DM keeps making constant references to it, making out that it is salacious, which it is not.

      • HelenaTroy says:

        I don’t care about the engagement dress but boy did I get lost on their Couture page. The past two collections are packed with pieces I’d wear the hell out of and this is sth I haven’t said about a couture brand since Galliano for Dior, i.e its the biggest compliment J can possibly make. Elegant yet daring, exquisite handwork and detail to fabrics, geometry, symmetry, etc. Breathtaking pieces there. I also saw a gown in which I’d marry again tomorrow. It is not their end of the show wedding gown but a wonderful spring piece with an elegant design and intricate embroidery. I’m hooked.

      • jwoolman says:

        If she didn’t buy new clothes from British designers, wouldn’t people be complaining about that? I doubt that her closet was naturally full of such designers before.

    • magnoliarose says:

      She is considered B list. You can’t be C list on a seven year series even on cable. I know it burns some people, but they will have to live with the truth.
      For a single woman clearing about 250 to 300 thousand a year or more from her side projects is a good living.

      • Bea says:

        Yep and it doesn’t appear Meghan was living an extravagant lifestyle. While working she definitely lived on par with her means.

      • Guest1 says:

        If someone thinks the Ralph and Russo gown was already in her closet, they have no idea how haute couture works. There are only a couple of thousand or so regular haute couture clients in the world.
        @Magonlia I think R&R stated that the dress was 56k GBP. I do believe there was a discount involved, but I don’t think it was a mere couple of hundred/thousand. Ralph and Russo’s clients are not the type to be swayed into buying more because a celebrity is wearing their creations. For their accessories and ready to wear line, I can see them drumming up great PR for those pieces. Kensington Palace said the gown was privately purchased and I think Harry and Meghan bought it together. Imo! They are designing her wedding gown, so it was a good choice going for the only British couture house. Oh, and I agree with your last comment! For a family, 300k a year isn’t a lot in certain areas, but for a single girl like Meghan, it was definitely a good living. We don’t know how she saved or invested, either.

      • Jamie says:

        I literally just googled the difference between a C list and a b List actress, lol.

        B-list” actors are usually television actors or less successful movie stars. Some “B-list” actors include: Nicholas Cage, Katherine Heigl, David Morse, Samantha Morton, and Pierce Brosnan. “B-list” actors usually never headline a film by themselves; this means the supporting actors are usually fairly notable too.

        A “C-list” actor is a character actor that’s known by face and not by name. They are usually still good actors, but they receive less notoriety than an A or B-list actor.

        I am not sure about you, when the new first came out that she was dating harry. None of my friends or colleagues could place who she was. I watched the first 3-4 seasons of suits and i saw her and was like hmm she look familiar. I wasn’t able to place her either until the article said she was in suits and then i was like ohh she is the girl. So yea, most people don’t know who she was, those that watch suits could place her but I dunno how many knew her by name.

        I wouldn’t put her in the same list as Nicholas Cage or Katherine Heigl. So she was definitely C list.

      • Olenna says:

        @Guest1, I hope what you say is not true about the chosen designer. After seeing this runway example of a Ralph and Russo wedding gown, my mind went to the dark side with a line from the movie Carrie, “They’re all going to laugh at you.” Let’s hope she wants something more simple and traditional.

      • Krill says:

        Jamie, male actors have far greater potential for financial success and exposure than female actors. There are not only fewer opportunitíes but internalised audience biases lead them to gravitate to white male actors so that a really truly bad action film starring Nicholas Cage will out earn a moderately bad action film by every actress currently on the market. In fact, recently there was a piece about how theres now no longer a woman who can greenlight a none franchise film with a plus 100m production budget with just her name. This is why A list carries different meaning for actresses just in the same way that you have different track and field races for men and women. You must look at those lists with those career glass ceilings in mind or prepare to rank every actress from Dame Judi to Emma Stone two rungs below Gerard Butler.

        As for Meghan. A C list actress wouldnt be picking up $50,000 per episode. From what we know of Hollywood pay practices, this is an actress they very clearly valued.

      • Ari says:

        R&R would heavily discount that dress or “loaned” it knowing the publicity the Royal Engagement pictures would serve them. Anyone in the business knows this and if you think she touched that $75K then…. hate to break it to you. She didn’t.

      • Whatever says:


        Piper Perabo picked up $75,000 per episode for Covert Affairs (shown on the same network as Suits) she also got 1 Golden Globe nomination. She was paid more than Meghan and received a nomination for a prestigious award. What does that mean for Perabo then?

        A comparison with Katherine Heigl’s career tells you what level Meghan was at…

        Meghan – Guest appearances in TV shows here and there, 7 seasons on Suits, Hallmark/Lifetime movies in her free time away from Suits.

        Katherine Heigl- good run on Roswell before having a good run on Grey’s Anatomy. 1 Emmy win and 2 Golden Globe nominations. Lead Actress in movies such as ‘Knocked Up’ and 27 Dresses, both critical and commercial successes. …Even with this success Katherine is a B-Lister (as mentioned above) Meghan’s success is no where near this so she is a C-Lister (at best).

      • Olenna says:

        A, B, C, or D list aside, Meghan had a good run on a successful TV show. It comes off as petty when people try to reduce her acting career to some ambiguous letter system that speaks nothing to the money, media attention and devoted followers it brought her. Just because some of you didn’t know about her until she started dating Harry doesn’t mean she didn’t already have some standing in the TV industry. Bottom line is she was paid a decent, steady salary that allowed her to purchase luxury items, if she wanted to, and not because she was trying to flaunt wealth some believe she didn’t have.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I am familiar with Haute Couture and how it works. There are regular costumers and then celebrities. Celebrities are used as the advertisements to get the name out there to support the Ready to Wear and accessories. The regular customers get private invitations to view the line and put in their orders and have fittings. Designers value their input and opinions since they bring them prestige.
        As slender as Meghan is she could have acquired the sample and had it tailored for her. Whether she did or not I have no idea. There are only rumors that they were eager to dress her and the engagement was known to some well ahead of the announcement.

        As for the obsession with her rating. I maintain what I said. C listers do not work on long-running series. Character actors can be B list and not famous. Some people knew who she was and others didn’t. The ratings are also a reflection of the medium. A list movie. B list movie. A list TV. B list TV. Even for Reality stars, the K family are A reality. Housewives B to C. For some they are A only because of name recognition but work wise they are B.

        At this point, it no longer matters because as a royal she is A double plus for life. So if you want to believe C go ahead. A then give her props for improving on it far beyond most celebrities on the face of the planet.

      • Pandy says:

        Agree with Jamie. Totally C list. Never heard if Suits prior to the royal boyfriend

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Agree w Jamie. I love her and think she’s awesome (see any of my previous comments in the last year and a half since we heard about her) and no I’m not racist but she and her show are C list. Not that it is a bad thing, there is always someone more famous, making more money, etc. This is not a competition or a smear campaign!

      • Scram says:

        I want to know why people are using Katherine Heigl as an example. She’s had many accomplishments in the past, yes, but her current career has her joining the much disparaged Suits in its last seasons. And only a couple of years ago she was shilling cat litter and Nyquil in commercials. Put her in Meghan’s place and I doubt many of you would be quite so complimentary about her career. Though her earlier resume would give defenders more to work with I guess.

      • “I’m not a racist but…..”
        Plus a ranking ABC automatically means a competition.
        IMO she had a job which more than we can say for others and her career was more established than all of Harry’s exes.
        In my eyes she wins this competition based on work experience when in comes to wives of Windsor. The only one than can even compete is Sophie.
        Which is why both these women bring credibility to their roles.

    • Helen Smith says:

      In the US Suits is a C list cable legal drama. Maybe even D list. It is what it is. Only 1.3 million people in the USA watches Suits. The rest of the world may have to wait for Netflix but here Suits is on television so we have some data for the USA. Compare that to the Big Bang Theory’s USA viewership with 12.8 million viewers.

      Even on a D list cable show no shade should be shown to Meghan’s hustle because only 1% of SAG members live off of acting. Giving up her day job means Meghan has beaten the odds.

      • @Helen Smith 1 important distinction between say big bang theory and suits, is that suits is on cable while big bag is on network television.
        So you have to pay extra to even access cable tv while cbs is free and everyone has access.
        In general it’s more difficult for a cable show to have network numbers.
        2 million viewers btw ages of 18-35 is ratings gold on cable which is why it lasted 7yrs and counting.

      • jwoolman says:

        1.3 million viewers for a cable show is considered very good today. There are hundreds of cable channels so there is a lot of competition for viewers. It’s not like in olden times when there were only three networks. Also today the show never really dies, thanks to streaming services that archive old shows and channels that do reruns in syndication. So money keeps coming in.

        No show is going to stay on for several seasons unless the network is happy with the number of viewers, which translates into what they can charge advertisers. They also don’t continue to use actors who drag the show down unless related to the producer,
        so she must be decent.

        I don’t watch much but cartoons and really old sitcoms myself, but even I had heard of Suits. Haven’t watched it because I don’t watch anything more dramatic than Absolutely Fabulous these days, but I probably would have at least tried it back in my youth.

      • Evie says:

        @Helen Smith: I applaud Meghan Markle for getting a terrific education and supporting herself quite nicely in her chosen profession. Yes, acting is a notoriously difficult career in which to make a living. $50K per episode is nothing to sneeze at and as others noted, the majority of actors have to fall back on other work and don’t make a living doing it fulltime. But all the same, Suits is NOT Game of Thrones. Meghan was never going to become a household name working on that show.
        Meghan had fair to middling success as a character actress. Good for her. But let’s face it, she’s not Grace Kelly or Angelina Jolie. No shame in that, few reach such stratospheric levels.

        As for her clothes, of course Meghan’s going to get discounts. And why not? Every time she wears something, it’s free advertising and a BIG sales bump for the designer. Sounds like a mutually beneficial arrangement to me. A close friend of mine from high school was a well known, high end costume jewelry designer in NYC whose pieces were regularly featured in all the top fashion mags like Vogue. They’re worn by A list actresses, models etc. Once a year he hosted a sample sale at his NYC headquarters and the place was swarmed by A, B, C, D and Z listers all looking for deals, LOL!

      • Helen Smith says:

        Guys so many people either have cable or satellite in the USA. USA network is basic cable. No need for upgraded cable or satellite to see Suits. So you can’t account for the difference in audience between Suits and The Big Bang Theory by saying one is cable and the other can be picked up with rabbit ear antennas.

        Let me repeat the second paragraph where I say Meghan shouldn’t be thrown shade for her role on Suits given how she has become part of the 1% of actors in Hollywood who are able to quit their day jobs. That makes her successful by Hollywood standards. Even if Suits is a small show on a small cable network. You can give Meghan her due without exaggerating her place in the Hollywood hierarchy as so many seem want to do now that she is engaged to Harry.

    • melone says:

      She is a C-list actress, and Suits is a C-list show. Come on. Don’t make her stature in Hollywood bigger than it is.

      And there is no way she makes $50k an episode. She’s not even the lead on that show.

      • Whatever says:

        “Come on. Don’t make her stature in Hollywood bigger than it is.”

        Your right. This is absolutely what is happening here.

        It reminds me of the time Meghan and her PR team put out that story about the Bond Girl audition. They want people to believe that she is making a huge sacrifice by giving up a promising career to marry a Prince (like Grace Kelly) Lol and that she would be a loss to the acting world. Upgrading her stature through hearsay gives that myth some more life.

      • @veronica The only one’s talking about her stature in Hollywood are her detractors trying to find a reason to belittle her. She did not need to be an A list actress to capture the heart of a prince.
        As a C or Z list actress (whatever tickles your fancy), she has proven to have an easy going affability and the gumption to take on a role that clearly intimidated both Chelsea and Cressida.

      • melone says:

        @Amy: People brought up the C-list thing because someone here said she is B-list. She is not. She is not even the lead character on show! You know who is B-list? Priyanka Chopra, her supposed BFF. And she is nowhere near Priyanka in terms of career success.

        In the same way that you bring up her detractors, I always counter with: Why do her fans try to make her stature in Hollywood bigger than what it was?

  5. Birdy says:

    Wasn’t the engagement photos coat a loan? I think the label tweeted or issued a press release stating they had providing it to her stylist.

    • Luca76 says:

      Yeah and while she’s done ok for herself as an actress she’s no A lister or even B lister on her own. Highly unlikely that she can afford to drop nearly 100 grand on wardrobe in six months even if her bank balance is the stuff of my dreams.

      • Olenna says:

        Read the article, again. She could afford the dress but it’s highly unlikely she paid the retail price.

    • LAK says:

      Birdy: The Palace confirmed in a statement that the engagement dress was privately purchased though they didn’t elaborate by who or how much.

      If Ralph and Basso tweeted that it was a gift then they are directly contradicting the Palace.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I would be surprised if they did that.
        Any designer who does Haute Couture is used to their clients wanting privacy and secrecy. It is kind of a society of its own. Discretion is part of their appeal.

    • ScottieIsBack says:

      Link to the designr’s statement ? This is the first time I hearing this.

  6. Who ARE these people? says:

    Wait, the article says the duds are paid for by Meghan AND Harry. He has more money.

    • Natalie S says:

      Right, it could be Harry gifting it to her. Or it could be Charles but he isn’t claiming it on his taxes as a work expense or he could be claiming it. Charles’ financial affairs are protected by the government so we’ll never know.

    • Becks says:

      Yes, Harry paying for her clothes is a very different story than Meghan paying for them all herself. But even if she is – its a wise investment. She’s buying fairly classic pieces that she can wear for years, and she seems to be buying mostly separates, coats aside, so that will also give her more use out of them. Spending 50 or 100k on clothes (if that much) before her marriage is not a bad use of her money, considering what she is marrying into.

      And as a random, I saw – LONG AGO – that show on VH1, “the fabulous lives of….” and it was about Harry and William and based on what I remember, Harry’s private wealth is substantial, even without his mother’s money and without accounting for the “official” royal money. I can remember more details but I may be wrong so don’t want to share info based on a show from 15 years ago lol.

  7. Clare says:

    Wonder if this little statement/reveal has anything to do with her wedding dress being rumored to cost circa 500k?

    • Guest1 says:

      I think those articles have stated that Meghan is paying for the honeymoon, not the wedding gown.

  8. Royal Suitor says:

    Meghan is also recycling a lot of her existing wardrobe. Many of the coats, shoes, and tops had been seen pre-engagement especially the Canadian designers. It’s not like she moved to London with an empty closet. I think the article is less about justifying cost of the R&R dress (who wants to bring that up again) and more about explaining that her pre-wedding wardrobe isn’t on the British public’s dime.

    • Guest1 says:

      Exactly. I thought it was obvious that she was paying out of pocket because some of her new pieces haven’t fit her properly. When the allowance kicks in, I expect to see better tailoring lol. no one should really be tallying her clothes budget before the wedding. It’s her money, she can buy what she likes. I guess there are some gifts/discounts too. I noticed her best friend/stylist Jessica is a rep for the jewellery brand she’s been wearing. There could be a crossover there?

      • Royal Suitor says:

        If you’re talking about Birks jewelry, Meghan had been a client for a couple years. Yes, I assumed Jessica was the connection. Again, many of the earrings and rings were pieces that she already had. That’s not to say that she didn’t stock up knowing the discounting rules were about to change. The tailoring thing confuses me. Meghan has talked about the importance of good tailoring and how fitted the clothes on Suits were. Not sure why it hasn’t been a priority in London.

      • Scram says:

        Paying that much out of pocket should make tailoring even more of a priority. Why is she dropping so much cash on clothes that don’t fit. It just looks silly from where I’m standing. At 36 she’s lived enough to know that at least some of her clothes will have to be fitted to her body type.

      • Olenna says:

        @Scram, I like Meghan but I, too, do not understand why her clothing doesn’t fit better. I’ve mentioned before on CB that she needs a good stylist and tailoring, and the main reason is because petite women just don’t have a lot of options for good fit and style in the higher range of clothing lines. Burberry might make a piece or two, but petite sizes are to hard find or non-existent in the better brands or designer wear. In terms of her own style, I think Meghan is used to being dressed by someone else and it’s possible she may not have a good instinct for what compliments her figure, or she may lack attention to detail, or she really does have mediocre taste. I guess only time will tell how she operates in the fashion department. In the interim, I think she should look to Queen Letizia for inspiration who may have a few misses here and there, but for the most part is always stylish and put together.

  9. Becks says:

    Oh and remember when Kate and Will got married, it was a big deal that her family “helped” pay ( I think they paid 400k, but obviously the wedding cost a great deal more than that) because traditionally the royal family pays for the entire cost when someone marries into it. So Charles was prepared to foot the entire bill.

    • Guest1 says:

      Kate’s parents paid for the 250k wedding gown, so I don’t know why people bring that up over and over again. It’s not like Charles and the Queen paid for it. I know you didn’t bring that up, but I’ve seen comments complaining about her dress. At least the Middletons pitched in. IIRC, they also paid for separate events for Kate’s side of the family, which is normal for the brides family to do.

  10. minx says:

    I can believe it.

    • I can too. If they RF was paying for her clothes that would be bad PR. I don’t believe any of them are that stupid, honestly. Plus, Meghan has her own money.

      • Addie says:

        Maybe not that stupid, but they are very dishonest – they refuse to be transparent about their spending of public monies, and even successfully lobbied to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The BRF is pretty much ONLY a PR exercise; that doesn’t stop the inmates from spending what they want. They just cover it up.

        In the case of Meghan’s dress, there are other elements at play – severe austerity measures for years that have seen health, education and other essential services slashed. That’s when people start to look sideways at royal expenditure, at the little work Harry has done while racking up huge security costs in romancing Meghan 4 days out of every fortnight. If KP wanted to kill the dress story, all they had to say was that the dressed was purchased, lent or whatever the truth is. I don’t understand why KP finds it so hard to be truthful and speak with clarity.

      • magnoliarose says:


        That is not on Meghan or Harry or William or Kate. The problems with the BRF started long ago. They were allowed to be opaque and continue to do so with little complaint. They have been treated like special beings since birth, but they aren’t responsible for who the public puts in office. The politicians are accountable for austerity and policies that affect society.
        It isn’t fair to suddenly become fiscally minded toward one soon to be member of the BRF when the public voted for to hurt themselves with Brexit. Suddenly Meghan is supposed to be given less to show the public she is worthy? As everyone points out, she isn’t married to the future king. She isn’t the person who should be looked upon to set examples first and foremost.
        Where is the outrage for the Cambridge expenditures? They spend more than everyone, and the Middletons got a massive upgrade on their house from taxpayers’ money? What about all of the remodeling and the years when single William was jetting off wooing women and sometimes Kate? All those Maldives holidays had security teams, and he wasn’t doing a jot to earn a living. Skiing and constant luxurious holidays for the two of them had security teams.

        If the claim is how much they cost as a whole, I think that is valid but focusing on Meghan only is questionable. To concentrate on Harry’s travels is a bit petty. He can’t go anywhere without security, but he has a right to the love life he wants. There is no alternative.
        The bulk of the complaints should be in William’s direction since he spends the most and hasn’t stepped up. He’s the heir. What cracking career has he ever had?

        It is dysfunctional all the way around, but I doubt much will be done about it.

      • Nic919 says:

        Let’s also include the new tennis court at Anmer (they already had one) who took over a portion of the common area on that property. They sure can’t be using it now since they are supposed to work.
        Meghan wore a dress which is virtually guaranteed to have been discounted and because the Daily Mail said it cost a certain amount, that was taken as gospel truth even though we just saw yesterday how they were totally wrong about the privy council order wording story. And arguing about whether or not Meghan is B list or Z list is besides the point. Meghan had a job. She had been working working almost two decades, as it normal for women who are 36. Trying to diminish her job is just to make Kate, who never did any work or even charitable work, by the age of 28, look better. Sophie had a job, Diana at 19 had a job, but they don’t get discussed because the reality is that Kate was the lazy slug and Meghan has more in common with Sophie, who has proven to be competent and hard working as a royal. And seven years later when it is still a wonder because Kate is showing her face almost once a week, we have seen that her poor work ethic at 28 is barely changed.

  11. Barry Iris says:

    People are forgetting Meghan lived in Toronto while working on Suits.

    She was paid in US dollars while living in Canada so she would have saved a lot of money.

    • nic919 says:

      It is also pretty likely that the production company paid for her living arrangements. She never owned the house in the Annex, but it was rented.

  12. Umyeah says:

    I hope she chooses to wear brands that are a little more attainable. Like how Michelle Obama had great style but rarely wore super high end brands for every day, follow her lead Meghan.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I agree. I hope she mixes it up. In my opinion, a person with a great style can do it regardless of labels. But it is nice if women can feel like they can buy something similar without refinancing their house.

    • HelenaTroy says:

      She’s worn a number of pieces from brands which are in my wardrobe (e.g Burberry pants) or high street, i.e. jumpers. Mostly her coats are on the higher price end but the Canadian ones are also attainable with a bit of discipline or an eye for a good sale.

  13. Ari says:

    Meghan has her own money but most higher profile people rarely really pay anything full prince. It is loaned or heavily discounted (or given as a gift aka FREE) in exchanged for the PR to come with it. As Meghan was a private citizen (and actress) for many years she benefited from this.

    I don’t think anyone really believed she (or anyone) really payed $75K for that engagement dress. The press alone paid for that 10x over. It was loaned. They can talk around it with a “privately purchased” but we know the truth.

    Also a lot of the stuff Meghan has worn has been stuff already from her wardrobe. Just a quick look at any of her fashion blogs and you can see these coats have been around for awhile. So she is recycling plenty and whatever is new likely is being paid (discounted) by her and Harry.

    Until then Charles and later William will give them their “allowance” also whatever the Queen leaves for Harry in her will as well which I am sure will be a pretty penny.

    • Elaine says:

      @Ari,”full Prince” Lol! I’m sure that was a typo, but I think its entirely accurate.

      How will Meghan be paying for things from now on?

      Full Prince.

      Signs every check ‘full Prince’
      Goes to restaurants, Maitre’d waves away the check with a knowing whisper “Its ok, she’s full Prince.”

      Being in love has it rewards.
      Marrying a Prince: priceless ;-)

      • Ari says:

        Haha…indeed. I actually hope Meghan is smart and keeping her own money in a nice secure account collecting insane amounts of interest.

      • spidee! says:

        Haha, just let me into the secret of where you can earn insane amounts of interest will you?

    • Evie says:

      Diana’s father the Earl Spencer also put money aside for Harry, since he was “the spare.” So the Ginger Prince is doing pretty well for himself. Reportedly Harry has a closer and warmer relationship to with Charles, and is well taken care of by the monies from the Prince of Wales duchy. So Harry can afford to buy Meghan a few outfits and accessories :-)

  14. Tan says:

    If the clothiny budget is fixed, whatever Kate gets to spend now will be almost halved.

    Maybe that is why she is not making so many appearances this late in this pregnancy, to justify buying them.

    However, the budget will be skewed toward Kate I think, since she is wife of The Heir’s heir.

    But Meghan can mix and match and wear perfectly affordable clothes. So I doubt it will hinder her fabulous style.

    Most of her dresses are my kind of style. I sort of like most of them. Except the ralph and russo gown. I found that tacky

  15. Enough Already says:

    For the next three years Meghan will have to be extremely circumspect about what she spends due to her citizenship application. For the next three years she still has to complete a US tax return and any red flags or discrepancies will trigger an audit. So even after the wedding royal financial advisors and tax attorneys will stipulate Meghan’s spending and how to get around certain issues delicately. The rf will absolutely not allow all of Harry’s income sources to come under scrutiny by US officials. After three years it won’t be an issue.

    • Clare says:

      Assuming she gives up US citizenship. If she remains an US citizen she would be liable for US taxes regardless of any other citizenship she acquires.

      Also it takes 5 years to attain UK citizenship through the spousal sponsor route, not 3 years.

      • Ari says:

        Meghan is not keeping her citizenship and I also doubt it will be 5 years because I believe the moment she gets pregnant they will fast-track her so the children are not dual citizens.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No statement has been made that she will give up her US citizenship, but that she will pursue UK citizenship. Palace did not give any statement about whether or not she would give up US citizenship, become dual, or give up US citizenship after she gains UK.

      • Clare says:

        @Ari I’m not aware there is an option to ‘fast track’ citizenship in under 5 years for a non-EU spouse. That would take an act of parliament to change the actual law…which…ummm..noo.

        There would be an insane outcry if MM is allowed to circumvent the law – sure she will go the VIP route where they go to her to do the biometrics etc (lols at her waiting in the Croydon office applying to ILR) – but I very much doubt there will be any ‘fast tracking’, that isn’t also available to anyone else with money. The current law required residence in Britain for AT LEAST 5 years prior to ILR being granted, and one must have ILR before applying for citizenship.

        Also, her kids would only be dual citizens if they APPLIED for American citizenship, after being born in the UK. They would be entitled to it, sure, but American citizenship isn’t something you automatically acquire upon birth if you’re born outside the US, you have to register for it; they could choose not to.

      • CairinaCat says:

        Things might be different for her because of who she is marrying, but when you become a citizen of another country you do NOT keep your US citizenship.
        When you become a citizen of another country you have to give up your US citizenship. Because the US demands this.

        If your British and become a US citizen you can have a dual citizenship because England dies not require you give up your British citizenship.
        Some countries let you keep it some don’t
        My husband will lose his Danish citizenship when he becomes a US citizen.
        My son however , born in the US, while his father was still a Danish citizen(and I’m a US citizen), will always have dual US and Danish citizenship

      • notasugarhere says:

        Dual citizenship depends on countries having agreements about it. Some countries have an agreement with the US that allows dual, others don’t.

        Princess Madeleine’s husband Chris is a dual US-UK citizen.

        Marie-Chantal of “Greece” was a US citizen for many years in addition to UK citizenship. She renounced in 2011.

        Maxima was given Dutch citizenship by a special act, just like Mary was given Danish citizenship through Mary’s Law. Maxima was unable to give up her Argentine citizenship, because Argentina doesn’t allow citizenship to be renounced.

    • jwoolman says:

      She doesn’t have to file a joint return with her husband. Why would his income and expenses have anything to do with the US tax authorities? Only her income would be taxed. If she’s not paying for much on her own and doesn’t have much to deduct, her taxes will simply be higher. If she’s not drawing income except passively through investments, that will lower her US taxes.

      I doubt that even under the Trumpster, the IRS is likely to be poking into her spouse’s financial affairs. They can just read the newspapers to see what they’re doing….

      • notasugarhere says:

        There is spin on tumblr and other anti-Meghan sites, that she should be required to claim all of the royal housing, security, and clothing expenses from the Duchy as part of her “income”.

  16. Alexandria says:

    I was one of those who felt wearing that dress was a misstep for a future royal (not celeb) then, and I’m ready to move on. I don’t doubt its price but I really doubt that was the price paid. I think Meghan could pay for it herself. And it’s not going to diminish my support for her. A WOC needs all the support she can get once she earns it, and I hope she can get to do all the charity work she can do alongside Harry.

  17. Pandy says:

    Harry pays most if it I bet. I’m sure she hits up Harrods on his account.

  18. Saucy says:

    I have a fashion business related question (tangentially to the thread, obvs!): forget the big fashion houses like Dior/Chanel etc. (I know they make their money not from couture but from accessories, perfume, make up and the mark-up is phenomenal) but what makes a label successful? One that is sold on Net-A-Porter and in Harrods (I’m trying to give internationally recognised names). Think: Self-Portrait in terms of pricing but more ethnic (i.e. Indian embroidery)? It’s purely a question out of curiosity as I’m not in the industry but have always been fascinated by it. If anyone can recommend any books/websites to read about the business of fashion – I’d love that! x

    • magnoliarose says:

      I don’t know about particular books, but maybe someone else does. But it may help to look at websites of the top fashion design schools. FIT, Parsons, St Martins are the ones I can think of at the moment. They may have suggestions.
      Maybe someone else can think of some. I don’t think there is a formula or a one size fits all since designers come to it in so many different ways just as artists and chefs do.

      Good luck. I wish I had some answers.

      • Saucy says:

        Aw, thanks for replying @magnoliarose! It’s only for my own curiosity – I read Fashion Babylon which is how I learned Chanel No.5 costs pence to make and sells for £50!

        If anyone has any other sites/books to recommend about fashion, I’d love answers on a postcard :-)

      • magnoliarose says:

        The markups are criminal. That much I know. lol
        You are welcome. :)

    • kg says:

      I have friends that work in fashion and the markup is something like 70% for brands like BCBG

    • PiMo says:

      It is tricky. A lot of big brands are part of conglomerates, biggest are LVMH and Kering (Salma Hayek’s husband’s company). They own many fashion brands, accessories, cosmetics, watches etc. If one brand is not making money, it can be offset by others if the said brand has prestige. These are huge companies and the numbers involved are equally as big.

      I cannot give examples, but through the years I have read many famous fashion designers, fashion companies go out of business. The retailers’ markups are big. Their contracts are brutal. On top of that, department stores, retail industry in general are in trouble.

      Inventory that is not sold in season can be sold by out-of-season companies like TJX at cut down prices. This helps with the inventory management but if a lot of your inventory ends up in places like that, it damages your brand. Big brands are very wary of their goods ending up in places like that and have staff to check stores if anything ends up there. They also check online, ebay, etc to make sure nothing of theirs is sold at ridiculously low prices. It is all about managing your brand.

      I find all of this and the concept of Veblen goods fascinating.

    • dillon says:

      production cost x 2.2 = wholesale price
      wholesale price x 2.2 – 2.5 = retail price
      there are variations but this is the industry standard for apparel.

      given that R&R is making the wedding dress, the engagement photo dress was most likely part of the deal, sold at a discounted wholesale price, or sold at cost (assuming it’s a sample, not made to order for MM. given the time frame, that doesn’t seem possible). It wouldn’t be in R&R’s interest to do only one of the two portrait dresses.

  19. Scram says:

    That engagement dress will haunt her forever. I too think it was a misstep and ugly on top of that, doesn’t matter who paid for it and how much it cost. If the rumors are true and her wedding dress is more than Kate’s I’m going to assume she has no sense going forward.

    I wish she’d mix and match more and go with some lesser known designers and lower price points. There’s no reason for so much of her clothes to be near $1000. I don’t think she’s naturally very stylish though, so my hopes for that are dwindling. Also, if she’s spending that much on money the clothing should fit. Get a tailor. Seriously.

    As for the people obsessed with her celebrity ranking. Who cares. C, D, or Z-list she still made a better living that the majority of Americans while doing honest work. Even if it makes you feel better to say it, putting her on a low rung is hardly an effective dig. Plus, it’s pretty subjective and not something that can be clearly argued.

    • stinky says:

      ALL of this!

      • No one knows the cost of Kate’s dress and no will know what MM’s dress will cost but that won’t stop DM from being DM.
        This is their line of attack and they will keep at it no matter what she does. My advice is keep your head down and keep working coz there are people out there that will never approve of her.
        She should mix and match but i don’t think she should change her price point. She owned these pieces before so that was her lifestyle so I don’t see why she should change who she is.

    • Veronica says:

      As a woman who was married already, and marrying the soon-to-be 6th in line to the throne, not the heir, if Meghan has the sense people here think she seems to have, she would get a lovely gown off the rack for under 10K and have it tailored. There are amazingly gorgeous gowns in that price range, and this would be the smartest thing she could do, plus put the price tag out there all over the place. Frugal Meghan would be a big hit.
      However, I would bet she doesn’t have sense, as you said, and will spend more than Kate did on her gown, which will certainly not endear her to the average working plebe. Can you imagine the headlines everywhere? “MM spends $400K on second wedding gown to 6th in line.” Especially if she doesn’t pay for it herself. The optics on that are just not good.
      We shall see, I guess.

      • Naroula says:

        Why stop there. Since this is her second wedding why not a second hand wedding dress? And how about not all this fuss with this big wedding, she and Harry should just go across city hall and sign the registry instead of bothering the queen the rest of the Royal Family and all their guest.

        People need to stop policing how POC spend their hard earned money.

    • Scram says:


      I was basing my opinion off the Everlane and Aritzia she wore for official showings pre-engagement, but after looking into it a bit more I can see that she did have a thing for more expensive coats and accessories in her candid style.

      Given the current state of things, I do think it would be smarter to mix and match and include lower price points. Yes, it’s confirmed that a couple of her coats and maybe some jewelry is old, but a lot of what she’s worn is at least new to us. There are times when I think some of her older stuff would have looked, fit, and photographed better. Like her burgundy Burberry instead of her black Stella for that one engagement.

      At least her pieces are separates and easy to rewear. I hope we’ll be seeing them restyled again and again in the future.

      And, this last bit applies to @Veronica too, I’m not saying it’s what she has to do. I agree that she’s built herself up to a certain standard of living so I wouldn’t suggest that she throw that all away in an attempt to meet the approval of strangers. Still, it’s simply smart for someone in her position to be aware of the optics and to adjust accordingly sometimes.

      • what price point would be acceptable? This sounds like a race to the bottom. There will always be a cheaper outfit to wear. I personally think that $1000 is pretty decent for a role representing the state.

  20. Samantha says:

    I read in a comment that Cressida, the Ex lived on a small budget and she had to pay for all. That was one of the seperation causes. So maybe it is true Meghan has also to pay for a lot. Oh, it is not Meghan someone else is paying

    The whole is a business deal, Harry is obviously not in love with her. Look at pictures of Chesley and Harry.

    • guest says:

      Yeah I’m sure harry is totally not in love with her….🙄

    • magnoliarose says:

      Oh my. That is some fertile imagination you have there. lol

    • Skylark says:

      @Samantha – So you read in a comment something which you decided to believe because it suited your perspective, despite it lacking all and every type of logic? Ok then.

      • Samantha says:

        It was also an artikel in a German royal magazine. I can give you the Link, you can translate it with Google.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You mean Cressida, a girlfriend and never a fiancee, had to pay for her own clothing and expenses while dating Harry? Gee, the horrors.

      Harry and Chelsea were young love, often papped when they thought no one was looking. I see no comparison to a relationship over a decade later, when both parties are more mature and aware of avoiding cameras.

      • Samantha says:

        Yes, Cressida and that I also found in an article after Research. She had to pay by herself. Harry and Wilhelm and Kate getting money from the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles).He has a yearly budget from 28 Millionen Dollar. Kate and later Meghan are not allowed to get designer clothes for free. They have to pay for it. Kate Middleton comes from a very rich family.

        To be in love has nothing to do with being mature. You see it, my dear and Prince Harry is definite not.

        Remember the decreased Prince Frisco from the Netherland ?

        Look at the Wedding pictures he was not in love with Mabel too, he was supposed to be gay.
        I do not asume that Harry is gay, but he is not in love and that is a business marriage.

      • @Samantha we are still waiting for that link.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Samantha, there is nothing wrong with women paying their own way in this world. Even if they are dating a prince. Cressida chose to be in a relationship with Harry – and if she paid her own way during that, good for her. They did not marry, so why on earth would the taxpayers have to foot the bill for her via Harry?

        A business marriage? Look to his older brother. A transactional relationship in which he gets to live however he wants, with the Middletons getting the status and attention they craved for decades in exchange for letting him.

        If Harry were to make a business marriage? He would have picked a convenient aristocrat.

    • Princessk says:

      @Samantha…..just look at the pictures of Harry WITH Meghan…..if you can bear to.

      • Samantha says:

        What do you see in the pictures ? Like Lady Di and Charles. He was never in love with her. Business marriage and we knew how it ended. Look at the Norwegern couple, Mette and Haakon, they are in love.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Mette plays the victim and Haakon dances to her tune. He needed someone he could “rescue” and always defend and she fit the bill.

  21. Samantha says:

    Concerning the citizenship, why the heck should she give it up ? Taxation ? Ha

  22. stinky says:

    her R&R dress is heinous.
    im hatin on the dress, btw…
    not her.

  23. Unoriginal Commenter says:

    She likely didn’t pay $75k, but even if she did, who cares? I get it was considered tone deaf by some, and I can see that argument. But literally everything they wear (Kate, Meghan, hell probably even the Queen) is tone deaf. They literally wear halos of DIAMONDS on their heads. *shrugs*

  24. Petty Riperton says:

    She didn’t pay full price for the engagement dress. Celebs or anyone with a little fame gets discounts regular people don’t get. Of course she paying for her own clothes she’s not in the family officially many of the things she’s wearing now she wore when they were dating. You would think after a year and a half of following her moves the media would’ve picked up on that.
    For a C list show it has a following, besides she has no kids or relatives to take care of. She’s been on the show for 7 years so I’m sure she has a nice nest egg.

    • Skylark says:

      I’m sure she has a nice nest egg but I don’t see why she should be having to spend it when her loaded and indulged fiancé is the reason why she’s having to upgrade her wardrobe in the first place!

      I totally get the need for transparency as far as royal spending goes (and I say this as a London-dwelling, die-hard, pitch-fork-wielding republican who would dance a jig if the lot of them were ‘evicted’ tomorrow) but I feel really bad for Meghan that she’s the one bearing the brunt of this current scrutiny when (a) so much of what she wears is ‘old’ and (b) it’s coming across as if she’s being held to higher and less friendly, more picky ‘media’ standards than countless marrying-ins before her.

  25. Egla says:

    Almost all of my friends that got hooked up (engaged, married or just in a serious relationship) were and are still given money or are gifted things from their men. Some more some less. One of my friends even gave up completely shopping because her husbands likes to buy her clothes that she chooses on the Internet. He has better taste than she does and likes to spend on her. So it’s no strange that Harry might buy her things. Why wouldn’t he? He can afford more than she does, may be generous with her and also understanding of the new role and the requirements. As far as I’m concerned she can and should wear beautiful clothes. She will be out there for us to comment. Let her be beautiful.
    In fact she should hire as her personal stylist the person that dressed her for Suits. That may be a whatever letter show you like but the female costumes are perfect. Her character wears some fine clothing (makes you think how much money are they paying a paralegal there as she claimed not to take money form dad?). Yes I watched the show all these years.

    As for the prices, sure they cost this and that but I am sure they get deals. Even I can sometimes go to a store and not pay full price for something and I am nobody.

  26. Dissa says:

    I loved how she was showcasing more Canadian designers! Hopefully she’ll still do that in the future.

    I love how she’s paying for her own garments (perhaps with Harry’s help) … she’s an independent woman with her own career so why not?

    No doubt there ARE a lot of freebies as outfits these people wear tend to sell out in minutes (see Prince George and Princess Charlotte lol)

  27. Samantha says:

    Kate is a very rich heir. Meghan has money too. They need it. That is why they are marry rich girls. Father is a spender. Queen is stingy.

  28. bikki says:

    I clicked on this article because I always love what she wears <3 her j.crew coat from week or so ago was awesome.

    but I just got this weird feeling seeing her with harry – sorry guys, I don't think they'll last. I guess only time will tell

  29. Luci Lu says:

    She’s smart, pretty, and she’s marrying the love of her life….a prince, no less! This useless, boring story, and the stank ass ‘hater comments’, don’t mean jack shit!

  30. For the reason that running is a sky-scraping bearing leisure interest, it often leads to injuries of the joints, OMBitegF tendons,Fitflops Sale Clearance UK Op3XcS Belstaff Jackets For Men OAQzru, ligaments and muscles. Strengthening the muscles of the let down body, ankles and foundation can help right absorb the bearing (also called ground answer forces) the body has to endure while running, portion you stay put injury-free. Designed for runners, to worth its own burden trendy gold, for the r