VF: Duchess Meghan spent half a million dollars on maternity clothes

The Endeavour Fund Awards

Because the Duchess of Sussex is on maternity leave, there won’t be much real news about her until she gives birth. No appearances, no public events, no new photos. She’s just resting (hopefully) and not paying attention to the shady smears. It’s also given fashion/royal journalists a chance to take a step back and assess Meghan’s maternity style, which came at a steep price. It’s the cost of being a working royal during one’s pregnancy – Meghan would have gotten tons of grief if she didn’t do many events during her pregnancy, but since she worked throughout, she needed new clothes to accommodate her changing figure. But did so much of it have to be high-end bespoke?

The Duchess of Sussex has been a style influencer since her Hollywood days, but the “Meghan effect” became even stronger after she became a royal. Since announcing her pregnancy, Meghan Markle has stepped out in no less than 75 showstopping outfits, and her growing belly has been no barrier to her style.

Known for her love of high-end designers and monochrome palettes, her trendsetting choices have earned her kudos from the stylish set. The fashion-loving royal has showcased designs from some of her favorite labels, including her bespoke Givenchy dresses, but she has also thrown in some more attainable picks. When she wore a cream dress from H&M’s Mama range to visit the Mayhew animal charity in January, it sold out as soon as the photos hit the wire. (She did pair the dress with a cashmere Armani coat and stilettos, though.)

According to new data gathered by fashion search engine Love the Sales, Meghan’s maternity wardrobe is the most expensive one in recent times, costing nearly half-a-million pounds. The company sifted through images of Meghan on Instagram and tallied up the likes from the top 100 posts for each outfit. Her most “liked” maternity outfit was the silk Givenchy gown she wore in December for the British Fashion Awards, which received over 356,000 likes online. Her least “liked” outfit was also by Givenchy, a sheer sweater and skirt combo she wore in October, which pulled in only 39,000 likes.

“Over the past nine months we’ve seen spikes in our online traffic which coincide with Meghan wearing a new dress or outfit. Searches for ‘what maternity dress is Meghan wearing’ spiked every time she was photographed,” said a spokesman for Love the Sales. “She’s under pressure to look the part which is probably why she has worn a lot of high-end brands. She’s also been quite daring at times with her maternity looks.”

[From Vanity Fair]

Even last year, I knew this would become a thing, the whole “Meghan spends too much money on clothes” thing. And even though I’m a Meg stan, I agree. She’s spending too much money. Yes, we can argue about some of the numbers (and I agree, some of the figures are grossly inflated). But it’s weird, to me, that she’s left herself so open to criticism on this too – considering how much time, effort and money it takes for her to get bespoke items made from Givenchy, at some point would she realize that it really would “look better” if she worked in more mass market pieces? That’s something Kate has learned to do, although Kate started out by wearing mass market brands almost exclusively and then Kate brought in too many bespoke high-end pieces (coatdresses mainly). Then Kate had to learn how to not get drunk on the fact that she could get everything specially made and buttony bespoke (especially since it all looked the same).

Not to mention that for a new British duchess, Meghan isn’t supporting British fashion houses and British mass market lines as much as she should. I’ve always said that she needs a full-time British and Britain-based stylist, because that’s one of the first things that will happen: Meghan will start using her sartorial platform to promote the brands and labels from her new home country. Again, I’m saying this as a stan – Meghan has bizarrely left herself open to this criticism.

The Duchess of Sussex makes her first visit to the National Theatre


Pregnant Meghan Markle greets members of the public while leaving the Association of Commonwealth Universities in London

Fiftieth anniversary of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

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

318 Responses to “VF: Duchess Meghan spent half a million dollars on maternity clothes”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kittycat says:

    Meghan must be guided by someone in the palace regarding clothing right?

    Ultimately Prince Charles was picking out the bill but I hope she gets more use out of the clothes.

    • Daphyllis says:

      Doesn’t really matter who pays, it’s still excessive.

      I’m a Meghan fan, but I think she (sadly) cares more about easy access to designer clothing than she does about the optics of wearing designer piece after designer piece. She would have reigned it in my now otherwise.

      • AnnaKist says:

        I don’t mind Meghan, either, but half a mil on maternity clothes is obscene. That money, regardless of where it came from, would have been better spent on something life-changing and lasting: a couple of homes for needy families until they got on their feet and passed the homes on to others in need; a donation to a hospital for equipment; extra money to fund breast cancer nurses or staff or amenities in a mental health unit…the list is endless. I know the ladies and gents need to look well turned out, but that much money for clothes for three or four months? It’s antics like this that make some people detest the Royals.

      • Eirene says:

        Kate got lambasted for spending half of Meghan’s spending.
        Meghan: 500.000
        Kate: 250.000

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate has spent millions over the years so where does that number even come from? Even taking the DM numbers at face value she’s spends about 250k per year which after 8 years gets to 2 million. And those numbers don’t even include the jewerly which this article cleverly doesn’t mention is included for Meghan’s total.

      • Megan says:

        Spending half a million pounds on a wardrobe for nine months is excessive. And it is tone deaf given the economic hardships many are facing in the UK and the financial uncertainty of Brexit.

      • Eliza says:

        1st year Kate spent 55k, second 105k in pounds. She’s slowly increased her budget over time but she’s spent less over the first 5 years than Meghan in her nearly 1 year. Don’t get me wrong Kate’s budget is too high as well, both need to understand the optics. But Kate definitely started with more high-street.

      • minx says:

        Yes, it’s just too much, period. Kate would get roasted if she had spent that on maternity clothes. Let’s be honest.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        I feel it is excessive too.

      • Roux says:

        It really is a crazy amount of money and I think that this is part of the bigger picture with Meghan and who she aspires to be vs who she really is. I remember reading a story about Meghan giving away all of her high street branded clothes once she felt she’d ‘made it’ and she replaced the wardrobe with high end clothing.

        Fast forward a few years and she’s married a prince and spends half a million JUST on maternity clothes, whilst they attempt to market themselves as being aware of the social and economic pressures of Great Britain and general magical unicorns. The two don’t go together and it’s that level of disingenuity that I think will continue to cause problems for Meghan.

        There is nothing wrong with a woman climbing that ladder but I feel it should be honest and not at the expense of others.

      • LahdidahBaby says:

        Yup, it’s just too much. Love her, and hate the racist bs thrown at her in publications like the DM, but because of this I have to admit I’ve lost a bit of the glow I felt.

      • A says:

        To be fair, Kate’s numbers are less, likely because her engagement numbers in her first year of duchessing are much less. All of these tallies only account for the outfits that are worn for public outings. And Meghan has been doing far more of those in her first year of marriage than Kate did at the time, so it makes sense that her tally is going to be a lot more than Kate’s.

    • STRIPE says:

      American here. I’ve never understood the defense that “Charles pays for it.” Where does he get his money….? It’s all ultimately from the taxpayer, correct? Can someone educate me here?

      • sus says:

        Charles gets money from the Duchy of Cornwall and it is meant to finance his family including his sons and daughters-in-law. He gets that money because he is the prince of Wales. If there was no royal family, ie no monarchy, it would be public property instead.

      • Megan says:

        The Duchy of Cornwall was established in 1337 as a way for the POW to derive an income. Since 1993 Charles has paid income tax, but he deducts what he considers royal expenses. So basically Meghan’s wardrobe is tax deductible.

      • Millenial says:

        I guess I would need more education on land ownership in Britain. Because, I assume that technically, the Duchy lands are private property in a way? Like, sure, if they abolished the monarchy I could see the argument to make it public land… but then, the aristos/earls/marquess etc.. some of whom I imagine were given land by kings centuries ago for loyalty or winning wars… get to keep their land? I’m confused about how that would be fair.

      • Desolee says:

        Someone on here (comments) used to really explain it often and well (I assume since I didn’t check other sources) , however I don’t remember how it works- but I think the monarchy does own certain land and the nation pays them rent for use of that land. I don’t think the taxpayers give a blank check for clothing, so if the royals want their legit income spend on clothes, who cares.
        The controversy is more their security costs which are more a blank check the Govt pays for. Did I get this right ?

      • Eirene says:

        The Duchy of Cornwall is owned by the British taxpayer who is entitled to its profits. The British taxpayer merely “allows” Prince Charles to draw an income from the Duchy = aka make the Duchy pay his bills.
        So yes, the British taxpayer is paying for all of Kate’s and Meghan’s clothes via Prince Charles.

      • Elaine says:

        LAK used to explain it. And explain it well she did 😉

        Here’s the best way to understand Charles’ money situation. When he was divorcing Diana, and needed to pay her alimony, he did not use any Duchy funds. Because he couldn’t. He had to borrow cash from Mom (the ‘Queen’ to you and me).
        Like Trump and the White House/Air Force One. They can use it, decorate it, maybe change the curtains. But it is not theirs.
        So no. Charles does not now, and never will, own the Duchy of Cornwall.

      • Wilma says:

        The duchy of Cornwall is a Crown estate, meaning that it is owned by the Crown and raises revenue for the Crown (as an institution, not a person). If there was no duke, it would still be property of the Crown (it’s not property of the monarch and it is governed by a special council and the monarch has actually very little to say about the way the Crown estates are run) until there would be an heir to the monarch again. It’s not public property either. Charles doesn’t need to pay tax, but he voluntarily does (and I think that he should). It’s a very particular and peculiar arrangement unlike anything to do with the way property is organised in the rest of the UK or the world.

    • Clare says:

      If she is indeed being guided by someone then they are doing her a huge disservice.

      It doesn’t matter where the money for her clothing comes from (the tax payer pays for many other things, including refurbishment of their homes, security etc – maybe they could use their ‘personal’ wealth [which btw, where did it come from?] to take some burden off us? Instead of asking for more more more? Before you argue with me please check how much funding for the brf has increased).

      The optics of this kind of spending are bad bad bad. I dislike Meghan least of all the brf (my dislike is rooted in dislike of the institution, but she seems perfectly nice/kind), but this kind of spending on clothing is insulting.

      • Daphyllis says:

        I personally feel that being guided by someone is no excuse. Meghan is smart and it’s clear she pays attention to what’s written in the press—look at the letter she wrote her dad and then the interview with her friends in People mag. She knows she is getting crap for her spending and she continues to spend, spend, spend. If she wanted to change the narrative around her clothing choices, she would incorporate fewer designer and bespoke pieces, but she’s not doing that.

      • Eirene says:

        Meghan wore a dress for her engagement picture whose price was in the higher five figures. She received some cricitism for that but apparently it wasn’t loud enough.
        Seems like Meghan “told” the common folks about her spending habits in her first big official picture.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Meghan and Kate both spend too much on clothes. Wearing a coat (or dress for that matter) that cost 5,000 pounds really gets people’s goat when most people cannot even afford a 500 pound coat (or dress). It also really does not make any difference how many times the 5.000 pound article of clothing is re-worn or “recycled” as it still gets people’s goat.

    • velourazure says:

      Does she actually pay retail list price for all her stuff or are there discounts/freebies involved? The designers certainly get a sh*t ton of PR from dressing royals so maybe they don’t pay as much as is reported?

      • bonobochick says:

        This is what I also wonder but it tends to be skipped over instead of finding out if she’s paying listed prices or if there are discounts / freebies involved

      • Daphyllis says:

        Royals don’t accept freebies. Kate has gotten criticism from accepting gifts through Pippa, so Meghan shouldn’t be going down that road either. They may negotiate prices for some items but I think we generally don’t know what they get discounted and what they pay full price for. Either way, it’s insulting. You either have someone who has married into insane wealth spending half a mil of taxpayer funds for a few months’ clothing OR you have someone who is incredibly wealthy (by marriage) taking deep discounts so they can gobble up as much designer stuff as possible. And at a time the whole country is in turmoil! It’s tone deaf and selfish.

    • spankFD says:

      Prince Charles, indeed.

      If I were him, I’d consider the half million well spent, an investment that got Wills and Katey off their sorry a**es to do some actual work. And Meg ha made the royals look relevant and almost aspirational. Boom!

    • Some chick says:

      It’s still her first year. It’s quite possible that she intends to be pregnant again, in which case she could store and rewear her classic items, just as Kate does. Otherwise, it’s pretty simple to take things in, especially well made garments. You know if she wore all Zara or H&M she’d be criticized for looking “tacky” and “cheap” and also for those lines often knocking off original designs from other houses.

      I recall criticism of Harry for wearing shoes that appeared to be worn, and I never see commentary on what Charles or William or Harry spend (and Charles is a clotheshorse par excellence!) so I wonder what the “perfect” solution would even be. I’m starting to suspect that there isn’t one! o.0

      • MsIam says:

        The “solution ” for these haters would be for Meghan to disappear completely. Although then they would have to find new targets to throw darts at.

    • Ravensdaughter says:

      Exactly. She has to be like the rest of us and wear the same clothes in subsequent pregnancies!

    • Dee says:

      I guess because the majority of the commenters here are American that they don’t understand what is happening here. This woman has spent over half a million dollars of tax payers money on clothing made specifically for her that can never be worn again. A THIRD of the Scottish populace lives under the poverty level. Unemployment is at an all time high and that nation is facing Brexit. As a Canadian please get your head out of your asses and stop praising this second rate actress for marrying into a family that has murdered millions, stolen their land and forced their religion and laws on their subjects. Her spending is egregious and disgusting in light of the political atmosphere and I can only hope that the commenters here will stop making excuses for her behaviour and see just how disgusting this extravegance is.

      • Eyfalia says:

        She did not SPENT this amount. The clothes are WORTH that money. So stop blaming her for something she has not done.

  2. SK says:

    Yeah it’s excessive. And the thing is, she can get similar and nicer things at way cheaper price points. Letizia does this really well and Megs needs to learn how to do it. Mix the expensive with the nice but more affordable. Often the mega expensive stuff isn’t classic enough anyway and weirdly you can get better stuff elsewhere. If she’s going expensive she should at least be trying to wear British and Commonwealth designers as that then gives them a nice PR boost and is more excusable.

    • Elisa says:

      Right? That’s one of my pet peeves, too: her clothes often are ill-fitted and look budget, although they are extremely expensive. And wearing Givenchy after Givenchy dress is kinda tone-deaf.

      • minx says:

        Yes. I think she loves beautiful clothes (who doesn’t) and for the first time she can really spend…it would be so tempting. I would be tempted! But she needs to dial it back. Otherwise it’s Ariana Grande…I see it, I like it, I want it, I got it.

      • Muffy says:

        There’s no reason to spend so much money and not have a tailor fit it to you properly. My biggest complaint about Megan’s spending is that her clothes constantly gape, pull, or skim the ground.

  3. SK says:

    Yeah it’s excessive. And the thing is, she can get similar and nicer things at way cheaper price points. Letizia does this really well and Megs needs to learn how to do it. Mix the expensive with the nice but more affordable. Often the mega expensive stuff isn’t classic enough anyway and weirdly you can get better stuff elsewhere. If she’s going expensive she should at least be trying to wear British and Commonwealth designers as that then gives them a nice PR boost and is more excusable.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Letizia does amazingly well on her budget, which is much much smaller than the 2 Duchesses and she is Queen. But Letizia could look fabulous in a black bin bag as she has a aura of glamour about her.

      • SK says:

        That’s very true and I think fantastic posture and confidence play their part in that. Posture is everything!! But she also has a knack for pairing high and low perfectly and for selecting inexpensive pieces that still look classy and expensive (sometimes from Zara etc.). I think Meghan needs a proper stylist and she needs to have some goals and limits in place when selecting clothing. Limits on price and budget and the amount of non-British/Commonwealth pieces selected. Goals for using a high percentage of British and Commonwealth designers, for mixing in nice high street or mid-range designer labels (there are loads of smaller designers with beautiful clothes that cost in the 100s rather than the 1000s who could certainly use the boost in profile), for re-wearing pieces mixed and matched with different things (but not too often of course).

      • minx says:

        SK—exactly, I’m always harping on posture. Meghan’s used to be good, now she’s sticking her head forward and letting her shoulders go, but I’ll chalk it up to a first pregnancy. The first time around you’re kind of shocked you have this bump to carry around, it affects everything. Kate’s posture is just terrible and getting worse. She’s her way to a dowager’s hump if she doesn’t correct it. And Meghan’s tab for maternity clothes is extremely careless for this point in history. Why open yourself up to that criticism?

      • LivePlantsCleanAir says:

        SK – EXCEPT….we have heard numerous tales about British designers going out of business (issa)…let me re-emphasize…….GOING OUT OF BUSINESS!…because a duchess (whichever) was wearing their designs. ‘kate effect’ megan effect’ can be very effective in destroying a small business with that “boost in profile”.
        ALSO, maybe…just maybe…..1. they are planning on having two kids and 2. it’s quite possible Megan is paying for some of the items personally. ALSO, regarding the home….the Crown is paying only for structural work. Megan and harry and paying for their personalized options. Not like Miss Kate, who had the taxpayer pick up a renovated kitchen that had very recently already been renovated. I don’t usually pit one against the other, but we’re doing it here in this thread if we only stay focused on ‘what Megan spends’….

      • Spikey says:

        @ Digital Unicorn And so does Meg. She’s extremely beautiful, I don’t think she’s that much shorter than Letizia and she knows how to carry herself. I’m willing to argue about a lot of things concerining Meghan but not about her “auro of glamour”, as you put it.

      • SK says:

        Okay so Issa made poor business decisions off the back of their boost in PR and that is where they ran into trouble. They tried to expand too much too quickly and it didn’t work out. They overextended. There were detailed financial takes on it at the time. If a label makes smart business decisions then the interest from a Royal wearing their clothes can only help them.

        Kate also overspends and could take some lessons from Letizia. However, in this instance I believe she spent half of what Megs spent? Still too much in the current public mood but less than Megs.

        I didn’t mention renovations and neither does the article so I’m not going to get into that and go off on a bunch of tangents.

      • Tina says:

        Issa was not a typical case. Camilla al Fayed bought a 51% stake in the business, at which point it was guaranteed that Kate would never, ever wear Issa again. Retail is a tough business and it has to be carefully managed, but it was not the royal effect that did for them, it was a combination of factors.

  4. Digital Unicorn says:

    If true then yeah its a bad look and I will call her out on it the same way I call Katie Keen out on her spending habits. And yeah it would be nice to see her supporting more new/upcoming British designers. Both Duchess have developed a habit for bespoke couture and I am not here for it esp as I am a British taxpayer aka the people who fund their lifestyle (Charles expenses clothing for public events).

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Kate has a new stylist because her old stylist is on maternity leave.

    • LivePlantsCleanAir says:

      Bespoke vs mass market so the companies don’t go out of business….c’mon folks!

    • Nic919 says:

      If you go to the Love the Sales site they admit that at least a third of that amount if for jewelry which is not something they do for the others. They also don’t actually list out the costs of the outfits themselves and then use amounts for bespoke items as reported by the Daily Mail. Marie Claire and now Vanity Fair have now run with this half mil number without even digging into it and people are taking it as accurate.

    • Eirene says:

      Kate spent/spends around 250.000 a year on clothes whereas Meghan spends about 500.000 a year on clothes. Given that Meghan spends twice as much it seems appropriate that the shouting out will be louder?

    • Nic919 says:

      Seeing as Kate has spent over 2 million on clothes to date then the shouting should be 4 times as much. There’s no reason for Kate to wear anything new anymore by that logic and yet she does.

    • Silas Marner says:

      If these websites were confident about their work, they would list price by item and show their sources.

      A game of telephone between the Daily Mail and this website is irresponsible journalism.

      I do not believe a website that does not show price per item and a source for that price. And if the person’s wardrobe cost is being compared to someone’s else’s, then both wardrobes must be priced by item and sources provided. If they cannot manage that, then they cannot confidently state their findings.

      This is exploiting Meghan for clicks and attention.

      • Bichon Lover says:

        Thank you, Silas Mariner. I can guess that Meghan paid however much for anything, but it’s only guessing. I bought a brand-new car in December. I paid about $3500 less than the people who bought the same car in September. I guarantee that Meghan doesn’t pay retail for ANYTHING. They can’t accept free clothes, but they can accept discounts, much like free trips on private airplanes.

  5. LoonyTunes says:

    Eff em all. If she’d worn mass markey looks, then she’d get grief for that (like Michelle Obama). There’s no winning with people who want to hate you.

    • Ina says:

      The royal family is worth bajillions. Half a million is pocket change. Did anyone take a tally of Kate’s maternity clothes with 3 pregnancies?!? Emphasis on 3!! How about taking a tally of how much the country is supporting W&K and their 3 royal children—and now talks of “brooding” and possibly a 4th mouth to feed. Give me break.

      • fifee says:

        When 1 in 5 of your Scottish subjects is living below the poverty line, yeah its a slap in the face. Doesnt matter how much is being spent on any one person or any family its excessive whatever way you look at it.

    • HK9 says:

      I’m just gonna say it-I don’t care. She’s working and no matter what she does no one’s gonna be happy. They did the same with Diana (I remember I’m that old) so this is not new. BTW, I had to get two outfits this weekend and I spent $500CDN-at.the.mall. I wasn’t in expensive stores either. That’s what it costs now, so if I close my eyes and make myself a duchess it’s about right. She’ll probably get pregnant in the next couple of years and pull all of these out again and what will they say “Oh-can’t she get something new??”

      • mynameispearl says:

        you might care if you came from here though, N Ireland taxpayers contribute to the Royals too and we are the most economically deprived area of the Uk, and we are about to get monumentally f*cked over by Brexit. So yeah, if it takes half a million quid to clothe someone for work for 1 year, I’d prefer they didn’t ‘work’ as much frankly. Their work is essentially just Royal PR, and this seems like bad PR to me.

        If the Royals didnt visit the charity, but instead donated the cost of their outfits/security costs etc, the charity would probably do so much better… but that’s not what its actually about.

      • Ina says:

        Yup exactly!

      • Chaine says:

        Exactly. As long as Charles feels it is a good enough investment that he keeps forcing over the $ for her wardrobe, it’s no one else’s biz.

      • HK9 says:

        @mynameispearl I get your point. The fact is though, that’s not the way it works. The family has to not only be a patron but keep the charity in the public eye to raise money for them. My point is, we can’t do the pie in the sky thing when we critique, because that’s not how the royals work. If they were actually working on the system you describe by all means, but currently they work the way they do so there are costs that go along with that. She’s an easy target, but it’s not the right target. Let’s be real, if the amount of money was very low, would it make the lives of those being affected by Brexit any better? (BTW-I’m Canadian so my tax dollars fund it too)

    • Va Va Kaboom says:

      This isn’t really a “damned if you do…” situation in my opinion. Half a million dollars on maternity clothes is outrageous for a public figure living off the public dime. Just because there are people who will criticize her no matter what doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be criticized for legitimately bad decisions. And a bespoke high-end designer maternity wardrobe that costs even half this reported number is a bad decision.

      I’ll say this though. Much of her “maternity” wear wasn’t maternity and fit her body badly because of that. I suspect, and genuinely hope, she bought regular clothing in larger sizes with the plan to have them tailored once she’s given birth. At least she’ll get much more wear out of it, though the price is still crazy.

      • Lady D says:

        As has been posted above, at least 1/3 of that amount is from gifted jewelry.

      • Va Va Kaboom says:

        Forgive me, $333,333.33 on bespoke designer maternity clothes is outrageous.

      • MsIam says:

        If you back out the jewelry then the amount is not much more than what Kate spent. Especially when you consider Meghan is starting from scratch. As has been said we don’t know the cost of a lot of the items, only “guesstimates” . What you should be asking is why is Kate spending that much on clothing after 8 years when she probably has enough clothes to fill two houses. Meghan has also worn pieces she previously owned and I’m sure she will continue to do so into the future.. But being pregnant forced her into buying a lot of new stuff, especially for the tour and the Morocco trip.

      • Lady D says:

        There are no receipts whatsoever. Just the gleeful malice of the DM making up prices and publishing them as fact. They also include the cost of purses/shoes/jewelry that she already owned.

    • Eirene says:

      Michelle Obama got a lot of praise for her high-street (= not overpriced) looks. I am no fan of the Obamas but they both could wear anything (designer clothes or dead cheap brands) and outshine anybody standing next to them. They both have glamour / aura / charme …

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Erm Katie Keen wore high street for the first few years of marriage and was praised for it. Still does to a small degree. I have never seen her blasted for it.

    • DemureQuietLady says:

      Yes, because fair criticism = wanting to hate someone.

    • Elisa says:

      Oh please, there is a lot of room between bespoke, high-end designer clothes and wearing stuff from H&M or Zara. Ideally she should find some (British!) designers in between regarding price, mix high street with designer clothes, do more re-wears and there would be less criticism. Just take a look at all the comments on here by posters who are usually very supportive of Meghan. Like Kaiser wrote: Meghan has left herself open to this criticism.

  6. Louise177 says:

    Isn’t Meghan’s budget approved? If she’s given an amount to spend I don’t think she deserves the criticism. That being said she doesn’t have to spend it all but she’s also probably used to buying from high end designers. As much as people like to make fun of her “D-list acting career”, Meghan was on a successful tv show for years and used to certain designers.

    • Eliza says:

      If you look back this is not the case. She wore a lot less expensive brands. She never wore Givenchy, Prada, Chanel, Dior pre-marriage. She did wear Roland Moret before, but that’s the ‘biggest’ name which is expensive but not the Big French Houses expensive.

      I think she got carried away with an unlimited budget and just ordered a lot of fairytale designers, because she wanted to look the part, instead of thinking about the image of how it comes across in Brexit-era. Kate spent about 100-150k the first years. In 6 months, Meghan spent 3-4 year’s of Kate’s wardrobe. It’s shocking. She needs to bring in a good tailor and rework these pieces so she can wear them again. It’s about the work more than the clothes. And she’s serious about the work, so she should let her work shine instead of these bad stories coming out – its rare she has under $4k in new clothes per event, why should that be the headline?

      • MsIam says:

        Ok, fine. But if that was supposed to be a major concern then why were the purchases approved? Shouldn’t the whole bunch of the royals (Charles, Harry,etc.) be considered clueless if no one pointed that out? Meghan wasn’t the one signing the checks. I think whoever was guiding her was told to make sure she had a certain image as the granddaughter- in -law of the queen. And the reason why the cost of the clothing is an issue is because the media and the trolls make it an issue. When Kate wore that white one-shoulder McQueen gown to the BAFTA awards there was not one peep about Brexit, the hard times, people can’t buy their medicine, etc. What they did say is ethereal, goddess, etc. And the dress was gorgeous. But how much did that cost? Why did she need to buy that when she has probably a hundred other gowns?

    • Kebbie says:

      She wasn’t wearing bespoke Givenchy, that’s for sure. I think it’s BECAUSE of her history as a “d-list actress” that she’s indulging herself this much. The brands that are falling all over themselves to dress her would never have returned her calls when she was on Suits. She got to see the glamour from afar, but she wasn’t walking the big red carpets or going to award shows. She was close but couldn’t touch it for 10+ years, now she can.

  7. Rhys says:

    It’s just a usual case of someone getting drunk on designer’s clothes. Has anyone seen that home made video of Meghan driving around LA, talking about choosing to buy pants at a certain place because there its “a little bit less expensive”? The kind of wealth she is enjoying now hasn’t been available to her even when she was a working actress on a successful show.
    I agree, it doesn’t look good but so can see why it happened.

    • magdalene says:

      That was when she just finished college and since then has done very well for her self. She was wearing designer clothes and her closet was amazing before Harry.
      Sophie Wessex wear the same designers that Megan wear but nobody has tallied up her costs. Can y’all just allow the woman to live.

      • Aang says:

        I’m sure the 4.5 million British children living below the bread line would like to just be able to live as well. The entire lot of them need to be binned.

      • Rhys says:

        She was hardly a couture connoisseur when she was an actress in Suits. She still wore Aritzia not long before she met Harry. Not quite Old Navy but hardly on par with Dior.

  8. Melissa says:

    Are royals not allowed to borrow clothes? Hollywood celebs borrow red carpet outfits almost all the time, and I find it strange that there’s no mention of Kate and Meghan ever being lent outfits. It seems like designers would be as happy to have their designs seen on the duchesses as on other celebrities. Is there a rule against the royals doing this type of borrowing?

    • SK says:

      Yes and I think it’s silly. They should just allow them to borrow or be given clothes by local designers to help give PR boosts. As long as they spread the love around. I think it’s gets too political though and they’re not allowed to accept gifts so… 🤷🏼‍♀️

    • Eliza says:

      Correct. Royals are not supposed to trade favors. They are soft-political figures and it could be seen as bribery. They do it occasionally – see their Land Rovers. But Kensington Palace detailed in a statement long ago that the cost of wardrobe was paid for by Charles duchy.

      However – The Duchy is state-owned meaning if there was no royalty the profits would go to the state/government. So many tax payers feel it’s their money being spent because it belongs to the state, and while Charles pays taxes it’s not the same amount as the average Joes.

      • Some chick says:

        I’ve always wondered why the Land Rovers were ok, but not clothing. They wouldn’t wear it if they don’t like it, and if they do wear it, it’s going to be the same endorsement regardless of who pays.

        Taken to its logical conclusion, the no endorsements policy would mean everything they wore would have to be bespoke. And even then, everyone would be trying to guess which designer made it!

    • Gia says:

      Exactly! Why can’t the royals borrow clothes from designers or have their stylists borrow from designers/fashion houses like celebs do? These designers do it because of the free marketing they get from the celeb’s exposure. Right now Meghan/Charles not only pay for her outfits but the label/brand gets identified pretty quickly and is still free advertising for the designer/brand.

  9. Ads says:

    “And even though I’m a Meg stan, I agree. She’s spending too much money.”

    I agree too. This is literally the only thing she does that irritates me. I have a theory though: I reckon she buys all of her own clothes – at least at the moment. And I reckon that as a feminist she resents others telling her what to do with her own money. This would explain why she has been wearing more rather than fewer designer items since this particular aspect of the criticism began. I also think that she has not embraced British fashion and British stylists (yet) because of the unrelenting criticism she has been subjected to by the British media. She is a naturally hard working woman so she throws herself into the service element of her role as part of the BRF, but she won’t go that extra step for the moment.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      ADS my gut feeling is she is either buying her own or borrowing or getting at discounted prices e.g from Givenchy if she uses them 75% of the time. The point is no one knows so this is all speculation. I think people’s focus on women is what they look like and not who they are. Men are spoken about for what they have to say. The gender bias is sickening. So zoom in on women’s clothing and ignore the men. I honestly think this is all BS and allow people to spend what they can afford. It is nothing to the public. The funding has been private for 600 years.

    • Eirene says:

      It is not Meghan’s own money.
      Prince Charles hands money from the Duchy of Cornwall to Meghan, Harry, Kate and William. But the Duchy of Cornwall is owned by the British taxpayer who graciously allows Prince Charles to draw some money out of the Duchy. The money that Charles takes from the Duchy can’t be used for other purposes which it would be.
      And I really wonder if it is a good investment for Britain when some Royal women spend six-figured sums on clothes.

      • Ads says:

        “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established by Edward III in 1337 to provide independence to his son and heir… The current Duke of Cornwall, HRH The Prince of Wales, is the longest serving Duke in history. The revenue from his estate is used to fund the public, private and charitable activities of The Duke and his children.”

        People keep stating that it is owned by the taxpayer and this is completely untrue.

      • Tina says:

        When the Duchy was established in 1337 there wasn’t a distinction between the monarchy and the state/government, “l’état c’est moi” and all that. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are not like any other private property (such as that owned by, say, the Duke of Westminster). They are regulated by Parliament. The Duke cannot sell or transfer the assets. When there is no Duke (such as when the Queen was Princess Elizabeth) the Duchy reverts to the Crown. Charles receives no money from the Sovereign Grant because he is expected to take care of his official duties from his Duchy income. It’s a weird hybrid. You can’t say either that it’s Charles’s private property or that it belongs to the taxpayers, because neither is technically correct.

    • JinnyBye says:

      I don’t think she’s buying her own wardrobe. She’s wealthy in her own right, but not that wealthy. Even if she was getting really substantial discounts on all the high end designer pieces, if she’d been paying for her own wardrobe this whole time she’d have burnt through more than half her savings by now.

      It’s technically possible I guess, but she’d have to be insanely financially irresponsible to think it was a good idea.

      • Ads says:

        My rough calculation – based on the no doubt hugely exaggerated tabloid reports – is that she has spent about £750,000 on clothes since getting married to Harry. Prior to that she was widely reported to be worth about £3.5 million. So no she would not be bankrupt as a result of that level of spending.

        Also I’ve done a bit of research and according to Vogue, the Royals are allowed to borrow clothing from designers. And it is something Kate is known to have done before. See:

        If true, it is entirely possible that Meghan has been borrowing a lot of the designer pieces she has been wearing.

    • Kebbie says:

      lol you’re giving her way too much credit. They’ve already said Charles is paying. I like Meghan, but she’s like a kid in a candy store. She needs to get it under control if she cares about those optics. From what I can tell, she doesn’t.

  10. vanna says:

    I know Vanity Fair is up there and not tabloidy like the daily fail etc. but the timing is interessting and it really cements my believe that there is something about the Cambriges/Chumley story that they are desperately trying to deflect from.
    As for Meghans spending – I don’t mind? I guess UK tax payers could be mad, but I see it as compensation for being thrown under the bus and having to endure the british media BS.

    • Saffy says:

      It’s not compensation for anything. She chose the life and knew what it would entail – time to buckle up. That doesn’t give her the divine right to blow through millions of pounds worth of clothing, while preaching to people about poverty and climate change alongside her dim-witted husband. It smacks of hypocrisy.
      Oh, and Kate was thrown under the bus for years for the public and media alike, but was never defended by anyone. Three guesses why.

      • Lady D says:

        I doubt she had any idea of the level of vicious hatred thrown at her since she got married. Absolutely nobody in that family has had to endure the racist hate attacks she has and still is enduring. It’s not fair to say that she knew world-wide racist attacks would be part of the job.

      • vanna says:

        @saffie I remember that they talked shit about Kate too. But that was never even close to the racist, putrid smear campaigns that Meghan has had to suffer since she started dating Harry. And apparently some of those started inside the RF so while she might have expected some pushback and negativity from the press and RF, I don’t think anybody could have reasonably forseen the backstabbing from Camp Cambridge and the outrageous extent of the BS thrown at her.

        Generally I do agree that she spent a lot/too much. But I still think she deserves her retail therapy and it’s not like the money would have fed hungry mouths otherwise. Even if it’s hypocritical. And I doubt Harry is dim witted. He’s not the sharpest tool in the box, but he’d no dummy.

      • MsIam says:

        So now it’s million of pounds worth of clothing is it? You don’t know Jack so stop. And how much did that white McQueen one-shoulder gown or that pink Gucci gown that Kate wore this year cost? Yes she has worn coats multiple times as has Meghan but in every article I could find I couldn’t find anything about the price of those gowns. (The white McQueen dress was custom, I know.) I did find lots of articles about a “vision of lovliness”, “a goddess” and even comparison to a “Disney princess”. I didn’t read any hollering about Brexit either. Now the press throws out numbers with no basis for the most part and you act like it’s gospel.

    • Kebbie says:

      I don’t think so. This information is already out there, they’re just compiling it to make a new story. They want clicks and to sell magazines, Meghan stories give them that.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I do not think Vanity would write anything that they did not have “on the record”. They may withhold the name of the source but it would have to be “on the record” to get published not just making the rounds via reliable people?

      • Kebbie says:

        Vanity Fair only summarized the information from Love the Sales

    • ProfPlum says:


  11. Elena says:

    That’s just too much money. It would go a long way if she and Kate both dialed back the spending.

  12. Momoftwo says:

    It’s actually a half million pounds in the article, which is definitely more than USD$500K

    • STRIPE says:

      Good point. Per google 500k pounds is over $655k.

      • Kebbie says:

        Good God. And this figure is just maternity, correct? So it starts with the Australia trip in October and ends in March? $655k in five months? That can’t possibly be right.

      • Kebbie says:

        I looked, they start the tally before her pregnancy was announced in October.

  13. Originaltessa says:

    That’s soooo much money on clothes. And I’m not saying wear Target maternity clothes. There are beautiful well made clothes out there that don’t cost the equivalent of ten years salary to an average person. That’s nuts.

    • Mia says:

      I’m not nor have ever been pregnant but Target has some nice looking clothes and they don’t look cheap. I have purchase pieces from the George line at War-Mart. Always get compliments and the fabric is nice.

    • megs283 says:

      ha. Target maternity clothes… SO GLAD I’m done with those!!!!

  14. Ira says:

    Didn’t Diana get assistance from Vogue UK in her early days of being Royal? Meghan should contact or ask someone (Victoria Beckham maybe) to introduce her to Edward Enninful.

    • HK9 says:

      Diana got a stylist from Vogue but it was well into her being a royal, you can actually see the improvement a few years in if you look at the photos chronologically. But that wouldn’t help with price much. The person who needs a stylist from Vogue is Kate, who’s current stylist can’t get proportions right.

  15. lana86 says:

    She’s sooo cute in beige!!! Also yeah, she spends fortunes , and she gave a poor woman a banana with a cheerful message, I remember lol. Anyway she’s a doll, best of luck to her and a baby!!

  16. Enn says:

    I think Meghan has been fit for her entire adult life, and because she’s short waisted and that bumped popped early she didn’t know what to do with it. She can’t show up for work in leggings and a tunic, you know?

    With that being said, she needed (home stretch now) an actual stylist to help her dress through the pregnancy for her events. I’m talking a real stylist, who understands fabrics, silhouettes, separates, etc. and can help a pregnant woman in the spotlight dress well but without breaking the bank.

  17. Nopity Nope says:

    I wonder how much of her maternity wear can be reworked as non-maternity? If so, then I can see why Meghan and her style team would feel like the investment is worth the high price tag. Otherwise…the optics are pretty off.

    • Cate says:

      A lot of the stuff looks like it was non-maternity bought in a larger size. So theoretically they can be taken in. But I imagine she’s having to buy 2+ sizes up from her “normal” to accommodate the bump and weight gain, so…getting things taken in is going to be expensive (basically remaking large chunks of the clothing, not just taking up a hemline or something simple like that), and probably not look as good. I remember Kate had some nice maternity dresses from that Seraphine line, which is based in the UK and very nice but still quite affordable.

    • kacy says:

      The tailoring would be close the half the purchase price on a bespoke item.

    • MsIam says:

      @Cate and @kacy it’s not that big of a deal to do the alterations. A good portion of the cost of sewing garments comes from the fabric so that won’t be an issue. And what would be the difference if Meghan lost a lot of weight through dieting and had her clothes altered as opposed to buying a whole new wardrobe? People do that all the time.

  18. OriginalLala says:

    I don’t understand how the royals get carte blanche for clothing spending when it’s taxpayer money. Why can’t they be given a firm yearly clothing allowance and they have to just work within that budget? It’s insane what they all spend on clothing considering it’s not their money…so out of touch, all of them.

    • NotHeidisGirl says:


    • Col says:

      It’s not taxpayer money. charles funds it.

      • Chrome says:

        No, ultimately it is taxpayers’ money. Charles is permitted to access a portion of the Duchy of Cornwall profits to fund the activities himself as the Prince of Wales. He fudges it and also includes his sons’ families under general household expenses. He’s not supposed to do that. The sons should really be included in the Sovereign Grant. Harry and Meghan will be transferred to the SG once Charles is King. No way will William fund Harry and Meghan, but nor i he meant to. But you have to remember the Duchy belongs to the public, NOT to Charles. It is not private property.

    • Ads says:

      You guys, just use google! It is not taxpayers money! this is absolute nonsense!

      The money comes from the Duchy estates and was bequeathed by Edward III to his son – to then be handed down to all heirs to the throne. It was never publicly owned. it is privately owned. You can read it for yourself on the publicly accessible website: https://duchyofcornwall.org/about-the-duchy/

      I get that people think Meghan spends dumb amounts of money on her clothes – and I happen to agree. But this need to distort the truth so that it looks like she is wasting money intended for public purposes – well that smacks of a hate campaign.

  19. MattyLove says:

    What Meghan wants, Meghan gets 😉😉😉

  20. Jodi says:

    Listen, she’s one of the most famous people in the world. Who cares what she spends on clothes. She’s hardly the only famous person who does it. And honestly, if she didn’t, she would be blasted for not looking the part. It’s a lose lose situation. Girl, JUST DO YOU.

    • Monicack says:

      You realize she is not a private citizen right? Taxes fund her lifestyle.

      • Jodi says:

        again, she’s hardly the only person in the world who does this. where’s the outrage for ALLL the other tax funded famous people who spend gobs of money on things. if you’re going to be outraged, be outraged across the board.

      • Jodi says:

        again, she’s hardly the only person in the world who does this. where’s the outrage for ALLL the other tax funded famous people who spend gobs of money on things. if you’re going to be outraged, be outraged across the board.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Jodi, please name one non-royal tax funded person who spends a Metric-F*&K-Tonne of Money on clothes.

    • Snowflake says:


    • I agree with you, Jodi. Honestly, until I see every person in the RF called out for what they spend I don’t want to hear about what Meghan spends. Also it’s not an honest tally as they’re including gifted jewelry in her total, and I’m sure that’s not the only thing they’re doing to come to that figure. It’s more than obvious she’s being singled out.

      I’m tired of these ladies, Meghan and Kate, being the ones held up to a standard that’s not being applied across the board.

      • windyriver says:

        Agree with all this. In particular, it’s very clear this isn’t an honest tally.

        And with her Hollywood background, trash family, and as a WOC, Meghan would definitely have been criticized if she didn’t look the part; she got enough “breaking protocol” and other BS articles as it is by people who don’t think she should be where she is. Definitely a lose-lose situation.

        She’s only been married for what, 10 months? And had to ramp up her wardrobe pretty quickly to meet her appearance and patronage obligations, including an extended royal tour – plus a pregnancy. We’ll see how things evolve as more time passes…

    • LoveBug says:

      Wow, such a careless comment.
      Just because some other people do it, doesn’t mean Meghan should too.
      If I see someone jumping off the bridge, doesn’t mean I will do so also!
      I actually really like Meghan and I still think of her as breath of fresh air in the stuffy BRF, but this is extremely bad optics, regardless of who is paying for her wardrobe.
      I appreciate very much the cost of being a young woman ( 28 years old ) in the corporate world. I had to invest money in my wardrobe, some items were really expensive designer pieces that although very few, still cost a small fortune, but I bought it with a very strategic plan in place.
      I can’t imagine the pressure she must feel while in such harsh public spotlight and being pregnant for the first time, so I feel for her, but she has access to so much more than ordinary people, we can’t even imagine. She really has no excuse in my opinion to spend that kind of money.
      It’s a real shame, because I believed her to be a lot more reasonable, thoughtful and practical.
      I realize that she is far from only one spending a fortune, but that is not an excuse in my book.

      • Wilf says:

        Lovebug – what are some items you have found worthwhile to invest in?? I’m in the same situation and find it very difficult to find reasonablely priced women’s suiting that doesn’t look cheap or unprofessional. I live in Canada, but have tried Theory, Atitzia, JCrew, club Monaco, for midrange options and find them somewhat lacking or out of touch – like, no I cannot wear cute dress shorts, or cotton pencil skirt to work In a corporate environment 🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️

      • LoveBug says:

        @ Wilf :
        I’ve been lucky enough to find a few really nice pieces on sale at Holt Renfrew and Brooks Brothers. Banana Republic and Club Monaco don’t have much to offer for a corporate wardrobe, but I did find 2 lovely silk blouses at Club Monaco and a pair of pants at Banana Republic. I’m also Canadian, so I understand the issue.
        Last winter I got a great quality thin cashmere turtleneck to pair with my suits for the cold Canadian winter days from JCrew.
        I’ve had the most luck with Brook Brothers and Holt Renfrew, I watch for their sales.

  21. Maxie says:

    All royals should copy Queen Letizia. She knocks it out of the park every time, looks modern and doesn’t break the bank. Kate’s style borderlines on royal cosplay in a bygone era and Meghan spends a fortune on European designers.

    Meghan is more hip than Kate and could change any young British designer’s career overnight but she picks Givenchy or Oscar de la Renta all the time. It’s should a simple fix that would earn her massive PR points.

    The could also borrow accessories from each others. Jewelry, purses, hats, etc. It would kill the rumours and save money from time to time. It would be fun to see them wearing something that belongs to the other one in their next joint event.

    • MattyLove says:

      What a great idea about sharing clothes! That would shut down all the SIL drama talk!!

  22. Ainsley7 says:

    I agree that Meghan should have a British stylist because she needs better hats. I don’t think the stylist needs to be British for her to wear British clothing though. I’m not sure what is going on because she had been favoring British more before the wedding. Jessica was said to be her stylist then too. So, what changed?

  23. Erinn says:

    I know there’s going to be the typical “but did Kate get criticized during her pregnancies!?” questions. But it’s not the exact same. The Brexit stuff SHOULD give her pause. But honestly, I think she doesn’t give a crap. Maybe because she’s taken so much garbage from the media that she feels like it’s a big eff you. Who knows. But there’s no way we can talk about how worldly and thoughtful and clever she is and then just write it off that she is being kind of dumb when it comes to clothes budgets. You can’t go on about how she is three steps ahead and the best duchess to ever duchess and then excuse this kind of thing. She either understands the optics or she doesn’t. There’s no way she hasn’t seen and heard the criticism. I’d also be less critical if some of these outfits weren’t so bad. Some hit it out of the park but some of the things she’s worn were just SO bad and even if they can be taken in they shouldn’t be. But at the same time I think the whole astroturf outfit was the kind of thing a 70+ year old royal would wear and there were so many people praising it as absolutely wonderful while commenting that Kate looks too matronly. So who am I to judge. I think she would get a lot more leeway if she’d picked up more pieces from British designers – especially up and coming ones. I just can’t believe that she’s oblivious to the criticism and that nobody has told her to watch it – which makes me lean towards this being a big “eff you” from Megs.

    • Gemima says:

      @Erinn, agree on all your points. There is no way someone as savvy as her doesn’t see how this looks, or is unaware of the commentary around her spending. Unfortunately it’s an eff you to the taxpayers, during austerity times.

    • glor says:

      Erinn: really well said, thanks. Yeah it’s pretty ill-judged, conspicuous fabulosity where really it’s so not necessary: people who enjoy her will enjoy her even in some Marks & Sparks outfit, which she wears with such panache. (Mind you, I’m ALL for a Beckham collab!)
      . It’s a tricky one to articulate without riling people here, but there’s a risk of a Liz Taylor (first name that came to mind) flashiness display, and it needs to be tweaked back to duchessing and delighting without that tiny degree of unnecessary glamour**
      She thrills her fans anyway….the future looks bright for her and its early days still, isn’t it? (Isn’t it?)
      Bloødy hard to find the right tone I should think, when suddenly the fashion world is your oyster.
      (And Chazza is famously a keen indulger of ladies’ style; maybe he has let things get a bit unregulated there!)
      Ach……it’ll settle down, and perhaps the baby coverage all over the media shortly might discreetly bridge the gap into a less dazzlingly arrayed style? If Meghan is taking any notice, that is; maybe none at all, and she intends to forge ahead. Well…..that’ll sort itself out too, I’m sure.
      ** I’m thinking (off the cuff) that maybe she is determined to maintain a highly glam vibe in the belief that this is what a younger generation, with a new monarch, willl be demanding anyway!

    • Ads says:

      @Erinn, re “…I think she doesn’t give a crap.”

      This. She is bound to be aware of the criticism. Even if she herself has not been reading the stories about her excessive spending, her friends, her PR people, heck her mum, will have seen the articles calling her out. And whilst a lot of the other things she has been criticised for have been BS, this is a legitimately problematic area for her.

      I said above that I reckon it might be that she buys her clothes with her own money and therefore wont be told what to wear. If so, this is understandable, but nevertheless counterproductive. Wearing less expensive British designers is an easy win! She should just do it!

    • Kebbie says:

      If she looked like Cate Blanchett every time she stepped out, I think I’d be more forgiving, as shallow as that sounds. But sometimes she looks awful and then you see the price tag, and it’s just confusing and frustrating. I’m not a British taxpayer though, so 🤷‍♀️

      It seems like she’s intentionally setting a precedent that this is how she’ll dress. Rather than slowly upping the glamour, she’s just like “I wear bespoke Givenchy, Dior, and Prada. Get used to it.”

    • Lady D says:

      Maybe, just maybe, she didn’t pay the wildly inflated price that cheap gossip rags say she did? I mean admit it, we are all guessing on the price of her clothing, none of us know for sure what her actual bill is, and like they said above, the rags are included gifted jewelry in the clothing totals they present.

      • Kebbie says:

        I thought they couldn’t accept gifts or unfair discounts?

      • MissyS. says:

        My theory is that she is not paying full price. I think designers send clothes to Jessica, and she then gives them to Meghan. Meghan wears the clothes once, and then sends them back to the designer. I think that is also the reason why many of her clothes are not perfectly tailored. Meghan gets the clothes for free or at a discounted price while the designer gets a lot of publicity.

      • Lady D says:

        Kebbie, I meant gifts of jewelry from her husband, new family, wedding, etc. shouldn’t have been included in the total.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @MissyS, The Royals (like the FLOTUS) cannot accept freebies but they can accept discounts. I doubt whomever is paying for Meghan’s working wardrobe is actually paying anything even close to the going wholesale price.

    • Elisa says:

      you summed it up perfectly!

  24. Zapp Brannigan says:

    Meh could be worse, she could be spending it on flights to Lolita Island like Randy Andy. Wonder if we will be hearing about that again soon, rumours have been brewing again.

    Seriously though I would expect better fashion and fit for that price point from anyone.

    • Darla says:

      Well he was one of many coverups and I personally would not call it Lolita Island. I believe many of those girls, those kids, were not willing. I root for all of this coming out, all of it! Whether it be a royal, a trump, a clinton, shine the light, shine the light.

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        Apologies but I thought that Lolita Island was the nickname that Epstein had for the island, my comment was not meant to minimize the abuse that the young women suffered.

        I would also love for it all to come out, and I am sickened at the reverence that the Queen receives while using her power to cover up Andrew’s involvement in this. The few write up’s about his involvement disappeared in record time never to be mentioned again, a true flexing of power yet she is often treated as a nice old Nanna, who deserves her gin and slippers in her dotage. This would not be the Windsors first brush with covering up the abuse of minors by those in their circle, the stories are out there dating back to the 1960’s

      • Darla says:

        Zapp, you may be right about that. Ugh. It sounds like something he would name it. No apology needed!

      • jan90067 says:

        Zapp, while it’s absolutely insane that Acosta (the lawyer who gave Epstein his sweetheart deal) is STILL in his cabinet position after censure by a Federal Judge for not adhering to the law at sentencing (Dung-heap Don the Con does love his scummy buddies), when this has popped up on the news, Pedo Andy’s pic is right there alongside Epstein’s, Clinton’s, and Dershowitz’s. I don’t think he’ll be excluded, at least here, in the states.

        Whether the British Press reports on it will be another matter.

  25. Deanne says:

    I really like her and wish her well, but the optics of this are terrible. The cost of the clothes was estimated at a half a million pounds which is an insane amount of money. Much more than $500.000. Surely she can’t be that oblivious to how this looks?

  26. Pinky&lovee says:

    Doesn’t Charles release his expenses in June? I honestly think most of the clothes Meghan wears ( even Kate) are seriously discounted or freebies, hence why she wears a lot of Canadian labels. The problem is I don’t think she is allowed to say that publicly. As much as I think Charles likes Meghan, he will never approve that budget on clothes. It’s funny how it’s been reported that William advocated for more money for Harry and Meghan to have their own court(I don’t believe it) yet, I am to believe Charles gave her half a million on clothes alone? Yeah, All this number is just the media are pushing.

  27. Karen2 says:

    That black outfit is absolutely gorge tho. She’s behaving just like the skint aristo Di & church mouse Fergie did when they married royal. Girls gotta look good & theres no way either Kate or Meghan should wear cheaper than Amal.

    • jan90067 says:

      As much as I dislike Amal, I have to ask, WHY are you bringing her up here?? She is a PRIVATE citizen, using her own (PRIVATE) income to buy her clothes (or borrow them).

      Meghan and Kate are NOT private citizens.

      Apples and oranges.

      While I don’t expect them to shop at Target and Walmart, I would think that *SOMEONE* should explain optics for certain things at certain times. As many have pointed out, Leticia does mix high end and mid-priced items with panache. Perhaps the bespoke couture could be reserved for *very* important occasions (ie: Trouping, State Dinners, etc). There are VERY nice clothes that won’t cost up to $10K an outfit. I do think each Duchess *should* employ a tailor/seamstress on staff to alter/fit their clothes to them, as well.

      As always, JMO 😊

    • Kebbie says:

      Amal was independently wealthy, and then married one of the wealthiest, most famous movie stars in the world. I’d expect her to wear more expensive clothing than someone living off taxpayer money.

  28. Darla says:

    I’ll tell you what’s going to happen when things get worse and worse, as they will, because of Brexit. There is going to be big trouble for all of them, and if any of them cannot see the moral rot in parading around in high fashion while people lose benefits, jobs, their medicines…it will become an explosive situation.

    • Chrome says:

      You are 100% correct. All the royals over-indulge themselves because there is insufficient oversight of their expenditure. They generally keep their extravagances on the down-low. Not Meghan. She flaunts it. And when she’s not pulled up, people realise the rest of them are spending up big too, at their expense. It’s not sustainable, let alone desirable, especially in such an economically distressed climate.

  29. bonobochick says:

    Interesting timing of this article from VF.

    I like that RRs are constantly digging through her trash to find receipts to factually quote on how much her clothing costs! It must be well worth their time to dumpster dive.

    Also, have the UK media done a tally of the maternity clothes cost of any other member of the royal family EVER? I am curious.

    • jan90067 says:

      I’d like to see a dumpster dive on the cost of CHARLES’ clothes! While I know he will “mend” things, I’d bet a *LOT* that ALL of his shoes are custom, and ALL of his suits and shirts are. And what about Camilla? HER clothes are pretty much *ALL* bespoke, as are TQs. Let’s start figuring out Camilla’s, too.

      Point is, they’re all spending a fortune on clothes. We just get the younger Duchesses’ costs.

      • bonobochick says:

        True. Like, if they’re going to run down costs, and they’re still estimates and not actualized, then is should be for every member, not just those they want to stir it up about. And if they’re going to include jewelry, it should be noted explicitly and also be for all or none regarding paid price.

    • Deedee says:

      Well, she is due any day, so when would you write about it?

  30. Lanne says:

    But why the pile-on right now? Why all the hit pieces when she hasn’t been seen in two weeks? It gives more credence to the Turnips rumors. Meghan is being thrown under an 18 wheel truck, right before she’s about to give birth. I know the uks in brexit shambles, but that’s not her doing. KP, BP, and CH are really mucking this all up. If the clothes rumors are inflated, all it would take is some “insider” stating it to a RR. Even if it isn’t inflated, they should say so anyway, as to apologize for how horribly she’s been treated. The rush to defend Kate makes the royals look worse. Why aren’t they defending Meghan? This is so ugly.

    • guest says:

      Deflection from that little rumor about William. Nothing else to trash her about so go after this. Although I think DM had this story out first.

      I agree meghan spends to much on clothes, however i hope she never touches a British fashion house. Forget them.

      • shania says:

        “I hope she never touches a British fashion house. Forget them.” Why is that? Have British designers done something to her?

      • Saffy says:

        Sorry, you hope she “never touches a British Fashion house” – why’s that? She’s in our country and representing our nation, so it might be a good idea for her to wear something from a British designer once or twice. There seems to be some obvious disdain for Britain from some people, which makes me laugh; she’s joined our royal family, so respecting our customs and traditions is a must. Otherwise, we’re happy to revoke our taxes from paying for all the crap this woman feels she needs (and before anyone attacks me and says stuff like “The duchy of Cornwall pays for her clothes”, I’m not just referring to her items of clothing).

        Oh and to the poster, the cost of her wardrobe was £500,000 (GBP) – NOT US dollars. That equates to about $655,000.

      • Ty says:

        Maybe the entire rf should be thrown out and she can get back to being the shallow instagram influencer that she is and shill to her heart’s content. Hypocritical lectures about feminism and self sufficiency while wearing astronomically priced clothes paid for by others will stop happening.

  31. Loretta says:

    I love Meghan style. Timeless,elegant but also modern. It reminds me Audrey Hepburn and Jackie Kennedy.

    • jan90067 says:

      Meghan *has* said she really likes (fashion-wise) an “Audrey Hepburn” vibe, hence the Givenchy connection. She has mentioned before how much she admired Hepburn.

  32. Sam says:

    She might think she’s the Queen and Prince Phillip thinks he’s Steve McQueen behind the wheel.

  33. Weaver says:

    No one one has any idea what Meghan is paying for these clothes. I’m certain she gets discounted prices or possibly rents some of her clothes.

  34. Peg says:

    It’s a small World, Kate’s new stylist is a friend of the former racist editor of British Vogue, the Stylist was let go/fired when a black man became the new editor of BV, well he got rid of most of the sloane rangers.
    The former editor is bitter as heck and keeps putting her foot in her mother, when called out for her racism, her boyfriend is who wrote the hachette piece on Meghan for Tatler.
    Vanity Fair is still bristling from being called out for their BS, about gender fluid baby Sussex.

  35. Lulu says:

    That is an absolutely ridiculous amount, especially when it’s buying her absolutely no goodwill at a time when she’s under attack for other things that aren’t her fault. It’s not even the fact that she’s dropping so much money on high-end fashion, it’s that it’s not British fashion, which would help stave off some of the criticism. I know that she probably accrued a large designer wardrobe in her career as an actress, so some of the stuff she wears might be older pieces bought with her own money – but if that’s the case, she can wear those in her private time. If she’s going to be a public figure in Britain, she really really needs to start thinking about the optics. There’s been a lot of talk recently about how Charles really wants to slim down the monarchy and lessen the expenses because he recognises how bad it looks when Andrew jaunts about on private planes (and probably the whole Epstein issue as well). That’s a much-needed change for the monarchy, but both Meghan and Kate have to reign in their wardrobe spending as well.

    And honestly, Meghan needs to get herself a better stylist. She’s a stunning woman, but aside from a couple of looks, a lot of her wardrobe actually looks pretty drab and unflattering, which is insane considering the price tags on them. Kate’s worn some hideous things in her time, but on most of her recent outings, her outfits have looked far better on her than Meghan’s. Meghan’s wardrobe in Suits was on point, she should probably be trying to aim closer to that look than anything Jessica M whips up for her.

    • CoffeeAddict says:

      No. All her designer stuff is brand new. In 2018 she was wearing Spring 2019 designers.

      She was an actress that lived comfortably – no where near the way shes living now. She was an unknown face and was headed down the road of lifestyle blogging before she met Harry. Her days as an actress were numbered and she also knew it. I know this bothers a lot of people…. but it was her reality.

      I do hope she rewears the stuff, but so far shes shown no inclincation to repeat outfits. Meghan likes designer outfits.

      • Bren says:

        Meghan has a history of repeating since she married in.

      • MsIam says:

        It would be hard to re-wear outfits since she is pregnant and getting bigger every month. But for the record, I believe that she will wear some of the clothes that were not strictly maternity wear. Pretty much everything can be taken in, altered, etc,. in some way. The clothes that were strictly maternity wear were the cheapest ones she wore, with that one dress costing less than $50.

  36. SV says:

    I would take this more seriously if it wasn’t obvious they were taking the highest possible price point for everything Meghan does. I’d be willing to entertain a realistic examination of Meghan’s spending habits, but I haven’t seen one yet. Meghan is someone who knew far more about how the fashion industry really works than maybe any previous Royal bride. That extends to what things really cost. As for British designers it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them got off on the wrong foot with Meghan. I am reminded that Meghan made a point in her fashion awards speech that she has known many of the people in that room for years.

    • CoffeeAddict says:

      And yet she runs after design houses who wouldnt have given her a second look if she wasnt a duchess now.

      • Mich says:

        So what? She is a duchess now.

      • Silas Marner says:

        I don’t understand this criticism. The same goes for Kate Middleton or even Diana. Their status is their titles.

      • Mae says:

        Well I doubt Kate was wearing bespoke McQueen pieces everyday the whole time she was waiting for Wills. She was mostly in high street clothes and not designer clothes. Same with Diana. Same with Sophie. All the married in ladies upped their fashion choices once they became royals. They all started wearing ridiculously priced clothing they never would have worn before.

      • Bren says:

        ” design houses who wouldn’t have given her a second look if she wasn’t a duchess now”

        This is the heart of the matter and why Meghan is heavily criticized. Basically how dare she live up to the standard she married into.

      • Kebbie says:

        @Bren But the designers she is wearing are not typical of royals. The Queen isn’t wearing Givenchy. She’s wearing designers that dress movie stars. Kate does it too with McQueen. If they don’t want criticism they should do what the Queen does rather than pay for the name of a fashion house. Given that she’s continued wearing bespoke Prada, Dior, etc., despite criticism, I think she just doesn’t care. She likes expensive designer clothes and she’s going to keep wearing them.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        As as she keeps wearing them she will continue to look like s^#t!

    • Bluthfan says:

      Yep and they are including jewelry which they didn’t include for Kate’s totals.

    • CoffeeAddict says:

      @Bren, please read my comment in context of the comment i was responding to.

      I get it a lot of people here are Meg stans, but its really tiresome when every comment is a ‘oh, you’re attacking Meghan’. How are we supposed to have a discussion if every discussion has to end with ‘youre racist’ or some other sarcastic comment because every Meghan critic is viewed with the racist lens.

      For clarification, OP implied that Meghan not wearing British designers could be that she got off on the wrong foot with them while she was in the industry, and i pointed out that shes also wearing a ton of designers who wouldn’t have given her a second look if not for her current position.

      She is the face of the BRF and its the obligation of royal members to help boost the economy in whatever way they can. She’s in an incredible position of power to help upcoming british designers and put them on the map yet she continues to dress in clothing thats beyond reach for the avg person. Also, I am not saying the burden to help upcoming designers should fall on her. I am only suggesting, as a lot of other people are, that mixing it up will only help her PR. Optics are everything.

  37. Elena says:

    She worked a lot throughout her pregnancy. I think if she had reworn some of these items more often there would be less criticism.

  38. Well-Wisher says:

    Daily Cancer included the suggested price for earrings that Royal Meghan wore while she was in Togo although they were borrowed. That move the net to 250,0000. After checking the list that includes reuse (bags and shoes) I need to see receipts. The People’s Mag item based on the 5 friends indicate that Megjan will be self defined. The tabs are furious along with the bus throwing.
    It is what it is. No receipts no facts.

    • Well-Wisher says:

      Just saw the virtual BabySussexshower to benefit three charities and let the users of social media show their support for the duchess. It brings a positive spotlight to kind social media users the charities and indicate goodwill towards the Sussexes.

      • Giddy says:

        I absolutely love that and donated to one of the charities. For those who don’t know, on Twitter the #GlobalSussexBabyShower was started by someone calling themself Baby Sussex’s Au Pair. It listed three of Meghan’s favorite charities, and urged followers to either donate to one of them, or to the charity of their choice in honor of the SussexBaby. Evidently it has been a huge success already, and is an incredibly positive thing!

      • jan90067 says:

        They did a segment on this on Good Morning America, as well as on the local news here in L.A. They interviewed some spokespeople from the various charities, who spoke of how their donations have spiked quite nicely.

        I think this a wonderful idea. God knows that people will send items to Polo Baby (hand made blankets, toys, stuffed animals, and the Royals will usually donate them off to hospitals etc). But here, sending to specific charities in their names…I quite like this!

      • MsIam says:

        @Well wisher, I agree! And I notice that none of these “but Brexit” folks have chimed in on this. They are too busy focusing on made up numbers about clothes.

  39. Eyfalia says:

    If I was in her place I would get two dresses in two designs in maybe 6 different colours plus two coats also just 2 designs in maybe brown and black and these would be my working clothes and I would wear them to every public event. Honestly I am fed up with this costing discussion. We know she hardly pays anything for these clothes. Who was talking about Givenchy before Meghan? I mean there was a gap between Audrey Hepburn and Meghan. Even the maternity clothes were either loaned to her or she paid a minimum price for them.

    • Kebbie says:

      Emma Stone wore Givenchy when she won her Oscar, Rosamund Pike wore a gorgeous red Givenchy when she was nominated for Gone Girl, Cate Blanchett wore that incredible lilac couture Givenchy to the Oscars several years ago, Zoe Saldana wore that purple fluffy Givenchy I think also to the Oscars. If you hadn’t heard of Givenchy since Audrey Hepburn, you weren’t paying attention to Hollywood. It’s a staple on red carpets and always has been.

      • Eyfalia says:

        Oh yes, the big gowns for special occasions like the Oscars. Meghan wears street style, skirts with tops and so on. I hardly saw anybody do that or maybe I looked at the wrong magazines. I always liked the Hepburn fashion, but who doesn’t. And you are right, I am not paying much attention to Hollywood.

    • BabaBlacksheep3 says:

      “Who was talking about Givenchy before Meghan? I mean there was a gap between Audrey Hepburn and Meghan.”. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh harder 😂😂😂. Please take several seats with this nonesense.

  40. MarcelMarcel says:

    I’m a republican (I live in Australia. In the 70s Prime Minster Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor General. The Governor General is the Queens chosen representive. I just don’t think that unelected officials should have that much power in a democracy. Also tourism is one of the major reasons cited for continuing with the British Royal Family and places like Versailles get plenty of visitors without a royal family in power).

    However, I don’t really know much other women with Meghan’s social status spend on maternity wear? And it’s hard to judge without really knowing a comparable example? Beyond that if Prince Charles or Prince Harry have helped fund her wardrobe then I feel they are equally responsible for assuming it’s an acceptable budget.

  41. Becks1 says:

    I agree that the spending on maternity clothes is a problem. I give her a pass for her other expensive clothes from last summer etc because she was building her wardrobe and can wear most of that stuff for years. She doesn’t need high end pregnancy clothes for years and years. So I do think that her spending has been a misstep, and I’m surprised at it because it seems to me that she should be more aware of that. Like Kaiser said, it has left her open to criticism, and I’m surprised that she has made that mistake.

  42. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Im calling BS on this story. Charles (who pays for Meghan’s clothes) hasnt released his budget yet so there is no way of knowing what was actually spent one way or the other. But it’s a great contributor to the evil-Meghan narrative, I guess.

    • HK9 says:

      VF says the figures were sourced by a fashion search engine. This are not the Duchess’ actual receipts. That’s what the clothes she bought were valued at, not what she actually paid, because we’ll never know. Most people took this as fact when it’s guess and everyone’s taken the bait. Adding up their retail value ok fine, but I’m not naive enough to think she paid that-they never do because every designer knows the value of the publicity they’ll get on the clothes is worth more than the price. I think this is much ado about nothing.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Not the actual receipts…you are so correct!

        Meghan probably says…”I want that dress to wear to this event……I will pay $1,000.00 USD”……….the designer (rubbing his hands together in excitement) says “sure Duchess, you can have this $10,000.00 dress for $1,000.00 if you wear it to XYZ because I cannot purchase that kind of PR and advertising from the Daily Fail for $9,000.00 USD”! The designer than sees his retail grosses for sunglasses, costume jewelry and handbags (where the real designer money is) multiply by a factor of 100 in a period of three months!

    • Kebbie says:

      Will his budget specify what was spent on the wardrobes of Kate and Meghan individually or will it say “Clothing – XX”? I ask because if it’s a lump sum places like the DM will ratchet up the estimates and say “Meghan’s designer clothing accounted for 97% of Charles’ clothing expenditures!” Or something equally ridiculous.

      • Chrome says:

        In the early days of Kate and William’s marriage, Charles did list their actual expenses and people pounced on the excessive spending. After that, Charles has listed WK and H under general ‘household expenses’. So, no, we’re never going to know the real costs.

  43. JinnyBye says:

    It’s ridiculously excessive. It would be ridiculously excessive if these were normal clothes she could keep wearing throughout her life, but for maternity clothes it’s really nuts.

    What I find really odd is she’s spending the most on very fitted clothing that’s only wearable while her bump is a very specific size. These aren’t items that can be adjusted much, not without ruining them. They can’t be made into non-maternity wear, and if she carries even a bit differently in the future she won’t even be able to re-wear these items during future pregnancies. You’d think she’d at least save the big bucks for more flexible designs that could be worn throughout much of pregnancy and post-pregnancy.

    Also, to be clear, even if she’s getting discounts and freebies, it’s still a really bad look. People accept that the royals will be draped in ridiculously expensive clothing for the important stuff, but wearing Givenchy for the day to day duties when Zara would have been just fine doesn’t go down well.

    • Kebbie says:

      At least half of the money was spent on her wardrobe from the Australia trip in October and she didn’t look pregnant at all. I mean she could have easily not announced the pregnancy until after that trip. People would have speculated, but she didn’t “pop” in photos until December when she wore that one-shoulder Givenchy gown to the fashion awards.

      I think her bigger issue is that a lot of the stuff she wore before she popped was more trendy than timeless, so I don’t know that she’ll be wearing them again anyways.

      • Peg says:

        Then it would’ve been Meghan thinks she is too good to drink Australian alcohol or to participate in crocodile wrestling matches.
        It was her choice when to announce her pregnancy.
        All this rehashing is tiring.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The only Royal that gets away with wearing very very expensive clothing is Anne, The Princess Royal. Princess Anne buys 5-10 new outfits a year (including hats) and plans on wearing them for the rest of her life. She has worn clothes in the last two years from the 1980’s. Princess Anne’s clothes never go out-of-style because her clothes were never in-style to begin with. Her clothes are what she wanted, what looks good on her body type and she always looks regal.

      • Kebbie says:

        @Peg Not to be rude, but did you read the comment I was replying to? My point was that she can re-wear all of the “maternity” clothing she wore before her belly popped, if she chooses to. It won’t need to be altered much at all.

    • MsIam says:

      How do you know the clothing cannot be altered? I am quite sure that she has access to master tailors who can take in the waist and bust which is where most of the excess fabric would be. And if it is a “bad look” for Meghan, then it should apply to all of the Royal women, including the Queen who gets ALL of her clothing custom made from the hats on down.

      • CoffeeAddict says:

        Do royals have a history of altering clothes? I keep reading people suggesting that maybe she’ll alter it and wear it, but when has it ever happened? I can only recall one instance recently when Kate altered that hideous, floral gown. Kate repeats, but even she doesn’t have a history of altering. You may as well get a new gown for the cost and energy it takes to alter these high end dresses.

      • SpilldatT says:


        The royals do alter clothes.

        QEII does, as does Princess Anne. They have things they have worn for over 20 years, sometimes slightly altered, sometimes re-purposed into making slightly newer things, changing buttons etc.

        Princess Victoria of Sweden, has worn things her mother, Queen Silvia wore years ago. Princess Victoria and her sister Madeleine has also worn each other’s gowns etc. In Luxembourg, the Grand Duchess Maria Teresa has loaned her gown to her daughter-in-law, Countess Stephanie on at least one occasion that I can recall.

        So altering, re-wearing/re-purposing/borrowing clothes isn’t that unusual at all.

      • CoffeeAddict says:

        @ SpilldatT

        I meant the BRF (no one really pays attention to any other Royal family). So it looks like with the exception of the Queen and Anne doing it occasionally, it isn’t all that common. It stands to reason that it likely won’t happen in Meghans case and it won’t be a pattern for Kate either.

        At best, we can hope that the Duchess’s repeat outfits. It’s so silly of us to expect it really, it’s just a drop in the pond (or whatever the saying is).

      • MsIam says:

        @Coffee Addict it was all over the press that the hideous green and black McQueen gown Kate wore a few weeks ago was altered into a different style. And most of the clothing Meghan wore can be taken in at the bust and waist which is not that difficult. If it gets you 2-3 or more years of wear from an outfit it’s worth it. But let me ask you this, if the dress was “too expensive” but it would “cost too much to be altered” so it can be reworn then what is the solution? Let the dress hang in the closet?

  44. HeyThere! says:

    I love me some MM, but half a million on clothes in less than a year is insane for anyone on Earth. I don’t understand though….they could have told her ‘no’ if it was too much?? Right?

    She had some amazing fashion moments in my eyes! That being said, I don’t invision her being pregnant again and re wearing all her pieces?! Lol She will want new show stopping pieces. Not like ‘oh I already wore this to that one state dinner/royal event, I’ll wear it again!’ Maybe Kate is told she can spent a certain number and goes under out of being conservative, and were MM is like ‘okay I can spend 500k- LETS DO THIS!’

  45. Andrea says:

    Lately, I have been feeling stylish in LulaRoe. She doesn’t have to wear designers, she chooses to!

  46. Mae says:

    So this price is taken from all her maternity clothes? Like from the beginning of the Australia tour (probably even earlier if they are counting months), until now? So everything she wore from JULY 2019 to MARCH 2019? SO BASICALLY NEARLY HER ENTIRE WARDROBE SINCE HER MARRIAGE?

    If the actual price is true (which let’s face it is probably a gross exaggeration because as has been speculated in most royal fashion blogs, the royals don’t actually pay full market price for many of their designer pieces), and you look at it from the perspective that it’s the price for her clothes from July-Dec. 2018 (she used her budget for 2018, and it might have been bigger since she’s building her wardrobe and went on a long tour) And her clothes from Jan.-March (she used some of her budget for the year, since she will be on maternity leave and the rest of her budget will be for the last half of the year only).

    EHH, I can see her spending 350,000 last year. And maybe another 100,000 or less this year so far (she probably have more budget for the last half of the year when she returns from maternity). I don’t think that’s unreasonable for the royal ladies. As someone mentioned above Kate spends around 250,000 a year. Last year was Meghan’s first year and they took into account that she needed to build up her wardrobe, she was going on tour, and she’s pregnant.

    • Kebbie says:

      They start with the blue Jason Wu dress on September 6th and end with her visit to New Zealand House in a black Gucci coat on March 19th. Six months, 77 outfits.

      They break down the outfits by most/least expensive, most liked and then the full timeline with photos and dates:

    • bonobochick says:

      I think the article also includes DoS’s jewelry but DoC’s. They also used a search engine to estimate costs.

    • Mae says:

      And do they also use the speculated price of bespoke pieces? Or do they not include that in the total price. For example, the Oscar de la Renta “birds” dress she wore in Australia, there was no retail price for it. But the blogs added the “price” for it by looking at similar dresses (4,000 usd) and for some reason they reported it as 10,000 usd. Or what about the red Valentino dress from Morrocan tour. It’s bespoke but they looked at what they “think” the dress would have cost and printed that as if it’s the actual cost of her dress.

      Yeah…nope sorry but based on my calculations on ONLY those clothes with ACTUAL VERIFIABLE PRICE TAGS (and not including shoes and bags she’s reworn or jewelries), this total is completely WRONG.

  47. Mia says:

    I love me some Meghan #meyhive #sussexsquad but IMO her style was much better before becoming a royal. She needs a stylist and someone to tailor her clothes. If I could get in anyone’s closet it would be Kate’s and Her Majesty the Queen for her coats and jewels. I think she should wear more affordable clothing and designer pieces for the big events. The Royal Family should at least allow British clothing stores and designers to give them clothing. Prince Charles has always been a snazzy dresser, do we ever hear how much he or the Duchess of Cornwall spend on clothes?

  48. Marigold says:

    It’s a shame she didn’t spend a good portion of that money on a proper tailor…

  49. Bluthfan says:


    I see you Cambridges throwing Meghan under the bus to stop the wandering Willy stories.

  50. Casey02 says:

    Be prepared for this… the longer Meghan isn’t seen the more the media will pick pick because without Meghan the BRF is a snoozer!

  51. Sof says:

    I’m not a Meghan fan, however I think she mostly wears high end designers for ethical reasons. Mass market brands often exploit their workers (especially Zara, I don’t understand people praising Letizia for wearing that brand) and pollute.
    Yes, I understand that the price of some of the pieces she wears is obscene but we don’t know if she’ll wear them again in the future, maybe they’ll be her staples.

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      I’m in that spot, too. I wish I could afford more ethical brands myself. I would like to see her do something with these pieces when she’s finished with them that would benefit a charity or something. I don’t know. She definitely isn’t paying full price but the optics are still bad even when ethics are considered, because the public mostly doesn’t care. It’s a tough place to be in and I’m glad I’m not her.

    • Eliza says:

      Surely then buying local would be better for the environment? Made and sold in UK? And her “ethical” clothes are her more moderately priced clothing. It’s really the French Couture that puts her budget so high.

    • CoffeeAddict says:

      lol seriously?

      These are also brands that produce fur coats – not exactly ethical.

  52. Abby says:

    my personal opinion is that Meghan is going to keep this up as long as she’s the fall-girl for W&K. “you want to ruin me in the press? more Dior!”

    • AryasMum says:

      I don’t know. Meghan is far too intelligent to deliberately damage her reputation out of spite.

  53. Cady says:

    Does anyone actually believe royals pay full price for ANYTHING?

    • lucy2 says:

      Right? Especially when there’s so much publicity surrounding everything she wears, and the companies benefit from it.

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      Of course they don’t. Meghan didn’t pay anywhere near full price for that overkill of an engagement dress, either. But we’ll never know how much any of this actually costs.

  54. Nicegirl says:

    I wonder if this wardrobe is also intended for use during future planned pregnancies?

    • CoffeeAddict says:

      If she has another pregnancy planned, its gonna have to be really soon because shes already 37/38. She wont repeat the same wardrobe so soon. Maybe for a third…not for the second if its happening next year.

  55. Lala11_7 says:

    I call BS…

    Until I can see some receipts….


    • Exactly. And not just for Meghan either, it better be for them ALL of them or I don’t want to hear about it. It’s wrong to single Meghan out when it’s apparent that the costs are not even honest, and include things that she had before, were gifts from others, etc.

      I can understand people not wanting a monarchy, but that is a separate issue. To act as though it’s okay to point out just out one person when they ALL do the same thing is completely disingenuous.

  56. Lucylee says:

    She is damned no matter what she does. The wardrobe has a lot of coats in it. Some of them are pre-pregnancy. I was complaining because most of them could not be buttoned. Which suggests she has plans to incorporate them into post preggers wardrobe. Shoes are reworn and if they are added to cost of each outfit that makes cost inaccurate. Ditto for jewelry.

    • Lanne says:

      500000 lb figure likely includes the 250000+ cost of jewelry gifted to her, and possibly even the cost of borrowed earrings. Add that to likely not paying full price, and shoes/bags she already owned, and the number is more likely 100000. But that doesn’t generate clicks, does it?

  57. Casey02 says:

    I love the comparisons between the Queen. All of the Queen’s clothes are designed for her including her shoes. Nothing off the rack. Some actually believe the Queens spends less than Kate/Meghan in her wardrobe. You people are Crazy. The Queen doesn’t complain because she spends more than Kate and Meghan combined!! It’s odd that people believe the Royal Family thinks like the average Brit or American…breaking news…they don’t. Kate loves to fool the British public, I bet she wears bespoke pieces and designer fashions at her “turnip” parties, LOL!

    • Kebbie says:

      I think it’s more about appearances. No one can put a price tag on the Queen’s clothes because they’re not designer. Meghan and Kate to a lesser degree open themselves up to criticism by wearing Givenchy and McQueen.

      • MsIam says:

        @ Kebbie So to stop the criticism, Kate and Meghan should have all of their clothes custom made instead of buying from designers? That makes no sense at all.

      • Kebbie says:

        I was thinking they could just sprinkle in some cheaper stuff more often. Why would designer or custom be their only options?

        ETA: By designer I meant actual fashion houses not just name brands, maybe that’s the confusion?

  58. SJR says:

    Aren’t most BRF outfits free to them? The designers free publicity is priceless. Charles strikes me as a tightwad, I bet he pulls strings to get free items.

  59. Chris says:

    Eh it seems to this American that *all* that royalty is is expensive clothes and homes and other things. If they didn’t live ensconced in palaces and expensively renovated “cottages,” and in ultra high-end bespoke clothing, what would these people be? The whole lot of it is trappings and suits; there’s nothing that passes show.

    • Casey02 says:

      Chris, it’s the ultimate scam. Some Brits actually call the Queen…The Tupperware Queen because she’s frugal…LOL, it’s just delusional thinking. The Queen lives “high on the hog” …have you seen the Crown, someone has been literally putting her clothes on her since she became Queen!

      • Tina says:

        No one in the UK actually calls the Queen the “Tupperware Queen.” (It might have been a particularly sycophantic headline once.) And no one actually thinks she’s frugal.

  60. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Sit down, because I’m going to say something shocking: the royal family is extremely wealthy. They have castles, diamonds, gold pianos, and yes, expensive clothing. If anyone has a problem with that, then you have a problem with the very existence of the royal family.

    Because as long as British royalty exists, it is BETTER FOR THEM TO SPEND THE MONEY than to hoard it. Buying stuff puts that money into the stream of commerce. If you object to them HAVING money, then you need to get rid of the royal family. But if you only object to the “spending” part, then I think you’re wrong — spending is the only way to put that money back into the economy.

    • MissyS. says:

      I never understood why some people get upset over the cost of clothes, but completely overlook the very opulent lifestyle the royals live. They all live in palaces and own expensive estates while riding around in helicopters and golden carriages. Might as well get rid of the entire royal system if you are concerned about optics. Having a hereditary monarchy is unfair whether Brexit is happening or not.

      • Gemima says:

        @Mrs Krabapple, @missys, quite a few of us object to having a royal family at all though. It’s not like I think we should totally have a royal family, but they should dress like us. The objection to the excessive wardrobe is part of the critique of the idea of royalty. At least that’s how I feel. Is Meghan the worst of them? Is a duchess’ wardrobe the worst expense ever? No and no. We’re simply talking about what the article has brought up, and in terms of PR and “optics” what one of the most popular and visible young royals is wearing is very relevant to an economically suffering country. I’m saying that this isn’t just unethical but also looks stupid and unsavvy. Now you might make a point that the tabloids are all fixating on her and not other things. This is obviously true, but it’s also a form of whataboutism.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        To Gemima – it’s the “optics” part I don’t understand. We all know they’re wealthy, but are we not supposed to SEE that they are wealthy? Because what’s the difference? Is the problem simply that they are wealthy, or is it that they spend that wealth? My point is that for the sake of the economy, it’s better for the royals to spend than to hoard. If it’s a matter of “I don’t want to SEE them spending” then that’s what I don’t understand. It’s not like I can live in denial and pretend they don’t have insane wealth, whether I “see” them spend the money or not.

        If as you say, quite a few members of the public don’t like having a royal family at all, that’s a different issue. And I think that’s why the ROYAL FAMILY doesn’t want to be seen spending money, because it reminds people that maybe they should get rid of the monarchy. But I don’t understand why the PUBLIC doesn’t want to be reminded. It’s the public’s call what to do with that knowledge.

      • Arnk says:

        They are only wealthy by the virtue of their position. They didn’t earn their wealth. What is it that they do anyway? Supporting charities and wherever else they show up and wave is not worth the lifestyle they are afforded. They are public figures and the UK is facing a lot of uncertainty due to Brexit. The UK isn’t doing so well and many places might be hit hard by Brexit (like Scotland and also Northern Ireland). For them to be spending so much of “their” money in this kind of political and economical climate is reckless and shows that they don’t care at all. And when I say them I mean literally all of them.

        Also, in Meghan’s case, the money she spends (or doesn’t I don’t know if they pay full prices or not, but it still looks bad) doesn’t put money back in the British economy. Givenchy is still a French company even if the creative director is British.

    • Gemima says:

      @Mrs.Krabapple, I definitely see your point. Like, what’s the point of pretending right? In fact it’s quite patronising when the royals are sold to the public as “normal”, “thrifty”, etc. However I think the idea is even if people know you have (unfair) level of wealth, it’s not exactly wise to be seen as flaunting said wealth. Also, I’m British and most people don’t really talk about the royals, but this kind of negative story makes people talk about them, if that makes sense? Like a regular British taxpayer may not give the royals much thought, but then they see this half a million spent story, and suddenly they’re like wait a minute, why am I paying for this? Now, many royal family watchers might say what about xyz spending, what about this other thing. But the average person doesn’t follow the RF that closely, they just react to the bigger stories. For example there was outrage when there were stories about the cost of Buckingham Palace renovations some time ago. You might not really think of the royals in a daily basis but when you see this story, you do feel outraged about it. Which is a good reason that the RF should generally refrain from flaunting their wealth, especially during austerity times.
      Edited to add: just read your last para again and yeah, when people talk about optics they are saying it’s not good optics/good PR for them. It’s exactly because the royals don’t and shouldn’t want to remind people how much they spend that spending lots seems… not wise.

  61. DS9 says:

    It’s odd to me that we’re counting shoes, coats, jewelry and such as maternity wardrobe. Some of what she wears will be wearable after the baby is born. I was wearing a coat this morning that I purchased while I was pregnant with my 7 year old.

    500k is excessive for any wardrobe but it’s misleading to call the whole thing a maternity wardrobe.

  62. MsIam says:

    I think this sounds like the $500k baby shower story. I think somehow the press like that number. It sounds “believably” extravagant, lol!

  63. HeyThere! says:

    They would call her tacky and cheap if she wore affordable clothes….she can’t win. If they(the royal family) had an issue with her spending it wouldn’t have happened. Period. Now, as a basic bitch(LOL) I can’t fathom spending $20,000 a year on clothes, let alone $500,000. BUT if someone was like ‘here spend this!’ I would have a blast!

    • Ali says:


      Other than that lady on another thread who said she married a 1%er, most of us can’t fathom a $500k clothing budget so it sounds crazy expensive but for how much money that family is sitting on, it really isn’t.

  64. h3Rh1GHN3SS says:

    she is not spending too much. who are we to judge she has the money sheesh

  65. Sofia says:

    Was the gown she wore in Morocco really $100,000? I remember reading about it and not believing it.

  66. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Another negative Meghan story. So I guess the meltdown of William’s marriage is still happening.

  67. Ana says:

    She should take this platform to wear clothes made in England or Portugal or other European Union countries that treat people right and pay them Fair wages. Sadly all these brands go to the Asian market for factories to get the clothes made for a laughable price and then bring them to Europe or the USA at outrageous prices that we must pay if we want to look minimally fashionable. I did not mind Megan spending a lot of money in clothes because that is her job, to look great and to call the attention towards all of her charities. But I think she could help a little bit with the fair trade in clothing in all that…

    • CheckThatPrivilege says:

      I’ve wondered if fair wages are part of any of those brands’ platforms.

  68. FredsMother says:

    Refund! Half of the maternity clothes were ugly. She could do altered High Street labels with a few classic big designers and spend a fraction of the 500 large. I Stan for the Duchess of Sussex but that is way too much money on ugly clothes.

  69. CheckThatPrivilege says:

    If this is true and not a gross exaggeration put out by others, it’s an obscene amount of money, even if most of it had been spent showcasing the work of British designers — but at least that would have been a small bone to throw to critics. No matter how likeable, down-to-earth, gorgeous, personable, caring, open-hearted, hard-working, etc., one is in many ways, there’s no way to even begin to justify that expense. Get while the getting’s good before the sun goes down on the monarchy.

  70. Lorina says:

    As others have said… How do we know this amount is even close to reality? Are we even able to know?
    If true, half a million is insane. But that’s a given, IMO. It’s probably not true.
    Anyway, IMO, they all spend too much. That whole lifestyle… It’s all just too much, IMO.

  71. ElizabethR says:

    Did anyone see this thread with background on some of the backlash re: Tatler piece? Really interesting context here:


  72. Casey02 says:

    I bet Kate goes on Maternity Leave with Meghan. No need to “pretend” to work if Meghan isn’t actually working. I’m sure she’s planning a fabulous holiday somewhere and the fickle Brits will say she deserves a break!! Meanwhile hounding Meghan for taking a long leave!

  73. Jessie says:

    Could it not have been her own money?

  74. liriel says:

    Drunk on clothes. Drunk on NY baby shower. It’s just obscene. Are clothes really worth it? Like after a few bespoke couture aren’t you kind of done? I’d care about PR and British designer more..

    • MsIam says:

      Why don’t you ask Kate and the Queen this question too? Hell ask all of them that question of you feel it’s “obscene” to spend a lot of money on clothes and trips.

      • liriel says:

        Kate is hated for her spending and she spends way less $ than Meghan as a future queen consort, more high street, repeats, even Kaiser mentioned this.

  75. CoffeeAddict says:

    I don’t think Cams are behind the Smear against Meghan because you don’t do that to your family when you’ve been through so much together the way William and Harry have.
    But I do think William shoud’ve flexed a bit and gotten the smear campaign against Meghan to stop. He clearly has clout with the media and it wouldn’t hurt him to pull in favors to help Harry and Meg, His fault is not doing anything and thats…sad.

    • MsIam says:

      Perhaps the reason William doesn’t speak up is because it suits his purpose for them to bash Meghan? If that’s the case then it’s not sad it’s vile and manipulative.

  76. Princessk says:

    Firstly, Meghan is not stupid.
    Secondly, she is given a budget and has to spend it.
    Thirdly, these numbers are simply estimates we will never know exactly what the costs of these outfits are.
    Fourthly, l would bet my bottom dollar that most of these so called ‘maternity’ outfits will be adjusted to use when she isn’t pregnant.
    Fifthly, Meghan is generating far far more revenue for her new country the U.K. than she will ever spend on clothing, which is a good investment in terms of returns.

    • Peg says:

      Did you see for the first time in years that London surpass Paris in the number of vistors, and they’re calling it the Meghan effect, that must be killing the nutters.

      • Princessk says:

        Yes, and hardly any newspapers reported the fact that the Meghan Harry factor was behind London becoming the top destination.

      • Peg says:

        Vistors to Windsor will be up this Spring also.

      • ex-Mel says:

        “Yes, and hardly any newspapers reported the fact that the Meghan Harry factor was behind London becoming the top destination.”

        Well, they may have been saving the joke for April 1st; it really would have been a good prank. The reality, of course, is that people in continental Europe (and elsewhere) anticipate travelling to London to involve considerable more trouble and expense once Brexit comes into effect, so it’s “now or who-knows-when”.

      • Tina says:

        I love Meghan as much as anyone, but it’s because the Chinese visitors are coming here and not Paris, because of the gilets jaunes and shops closing on Sundays in Paris. And the weak pound.

    • Jimmyjam says:

      Firstly, while Meghan is unlikely stupid, there’s no evidence that she is particularly bright either (see writing messages on bananas for prostitutes)
      Secondly, she likely doesn’t have a budget (or her spending would not be so out of control) and even if she has a budget she doesn’t have to spend all of it
      Thirdly, while these numbers are estimates, even with a margin of error, the spending is astronomical
      Fourthly, I’ll take that bet
      Fifthly, there is no proof Meghan is generating revenue that outstrips her spending

      • liriel says:

        Yeah, exactly. I agree with all of this. She chose to spent that much money, inflated cost or not. Maternity clothes! She’s definitely not stupid but she’s probably not exactly an intellectual. She’s a strong powerful but is Serena William’s smart? Probably not. Is Michelle Obama smart? Hell yeah.

  77. Lilly (with the double-L) says:

    This is another shrug from me. No matter what she does will be highly criticized and then the story will be construed and twisted into some gauche American or not so subtle biased thing. I think she looks appropriately duchess-y and isn’t embarrassing anyone.

    Aside from that, what’s up with Vanity Fair? Their stories haven’t really been compelling or indelible for me and I’ve been a somewhat loyal reader through a couple editorial changes. Although, I got a subscription when #presidentmiller went in on them and cancelled it when their stupid Hillary stuff was put out there. But, they just haven’t kept my interest lately.

  78. topsy says:

    Who cares?

    I can’t help laughing that so many people are having fits about what this woman spends on clothes. MAYBE. Because nobody has really seen her Visa bill so the only people who know are the people paying the bills. And they’re not talking.

    The one thing I will say about Megan is that she gives good value for cash invested. She’s worked her ass off since she arrived. If the other duchess doesn’t spend so much money on clothes, it’s probably because she doesn’t work as hard as Megan does. Katie Keen and Normal Bill didn’t get off their butts until Megan showed up to make them look bad in comparison.

    And isn’t it interesting that right around the time news is spreading that William might be getting a bit of strange on the side, yet ANOTHER story pops up about a pregnant woman who hasn’t been seen in public for weeks. If saying that she MIGHT spend a lot of money on clothes is the worst that can be said about Megan, she’s still miles ahead.

  79. Beech says:

    How much do you think Prince Charles spent on his wardrobe? He enjoys his finery and he had suits made by McQueen. And his horses and his humting gear and . . .

  80. Belle Bayless says:

    I think it’s unfair for everyone in here to rain on her parade. Talking about the girl behind her back is stressful, don’t you think? Princesses are supposed to wear tiaras, diamonds and designer clothes. They should have drivers assistants maids and bodyguards. Not only that it’s normal for them to get papparazzi. Princess Henry of Wales has what every little girl dreams of: to be married to the “prince”. As a bonus, he is rich and his family is rich. She is beautiful and perfect so it is the best combination. If the Prince is in love with the girl she is not using him. If he loves her and wants to spend his money on her then yay. To be a member of a royal family in a rich country like England is the best achievement. She is more successful than everyone else in the world, even Serena and Priyanka. It hurts some of the people in here to read about her success and happiness because she’s perfect – perfect hair, perfect body, perfect face. Can we please be happy for her and allow her to be a princess instead of writing negative and toxic comments? Please.

    • AryasMum says:

      Landing the heir’s brother is more successful than Serena’s tennis championships, the GOAT??

      • Lorina says:

        Because marrying a rich guy is an achievement? What is going on…

      • liriel says:

        Yeah, exactly! It’s terrible that a tennis legend is less successful that an actress who married a prince by anyone’s standards!

    • Lorina says:

      Wait, what? This is… weird.
      ”Your daddy’s rich and your mama’s good looking…” So perfect?

    • Jimmyjam says:

      Wow Belle, I’d like some of whatever you’re drinking…

    • Ty says:

      r you 12 living in 1950s?

      Every girl dreams od being self sufficient and being able to stand on their own two feet.

      And it says a lot about you and your mindset that you define her success as being married to a rich guy. Errm that’s the patriarchal nonsense 21 century is trying to break out.

  81. HeyThere! says:

    Just for the record BAYLESS….I never once wanted to marry a prince as a kid, or adult. She’s living my nightmare. LOL Literally never dreamed of marrying anyone. Is that weird? So to say that this is what everyone dreams of is false. I did not dream of this. Peace be with you!

    • Lorina says:

      Me neither. Never played wedding and such as a child… To pretend like this is every little girl’s dream is…

  82. A says:

    I don’t know if Kate is an appropriate comparison to Meghan, especially in her early years, because Kate did a LOT less appearances and engagements than Meghan did. Any tally that tries to total the amount that Kate spent during her first year is bound to be much less than Meghan by the simple virtue that she was seen in public a lot less. If she did an equivalent number of appearances, and her tally were still less than that of Meghan’s, then yes, I’d accept that Kate is more thrifty and savvy with her fashion choices than Meghan. But that simply isn’t the case here.

    That being said, I do think Meghan could be a lot more conscious of what she’s spending going forward. I think she’s happy and excited about being able to afford so many wonderful clothes, and it’s clear that she has a passion for what she’s wearing that Kate simply doesn’t exhibit. Her style isn’t always in everyone’s wheelhouse, but it is distinct and unique, and I do think that she has the ability to make the most while spending a fraction of what she’s currently spending. At the end of the day, optics are everything, and given the constrained circumstances that so many British people are facing currently, it looks really bad to have such a high bill.

    • liriel says:

      Yeah, but she doesn’t wear british designer, wears expensive MATERNITY clothes, love Givenchy, barely wears high street. She knew that each year they add up the expenses and for someone so in touch with people she proved it to be false!

    • Libellule says:

      You can always compare cost/appearance (plus add inflation difference to Kate’s clothes if you want to compare first year of duchessing). It would be much better considering the difference in number of appearances.

      However I still believe the cost of Meghan’s clothes is much too high

  83. get on top says:

    Thanks for sharing us a great information that is actually helpful. She is a very lucky woman

  84. gun mayhem says:

    Thanks for sharing this valuable information to our vision. You have posted a trust worthy blog keep sharing.

  85. Tina says:

    Lol. Let’s put spending into perspective shall we… http://ufonomore.com/blog/costs-2018

    In 2018, royals that spent the most in order ceteris peribus:
    1) Meghan Markle – USD509,000 not including wedding dresses
    2) Mary of Denmark – USD145,000
    3) Sophie Countess of Wessex – USD92,000
    4) Kate Middleton – USD85,000
    5) Charlene of Monaco – USD65,000

    As you can tell, it’s quite blatantly excessive, and Megs has spent at least 4x more than the other royals.

    • liriel says:

      Even given it’s her first year (wedding dress excluded appropriately of course) as working royal it clearly shows Meghan at top and the second place – 509 vs 145 what a gap! She knew it’s bad pr and she so doesn’t care. For the British designer either. She does lots of things right but her childhood dream “win an oscar” clearly shows here. Nothing wrong with wanting to be rich and famous but tone it down!

    • Princessk says:

      People just don’t listen. These figures are all just wild estimates.

    • Tina says:

      Another Tina? I am aghast! I would never suggest that Kate only spent $85k last year. Bespoke ain’t free.

  86. Gemima says:

    So apparently there was an article in Forbes about Meghan’s spending which disappeared over the weekend. Intriguing because this does seem to indicate some level of protection for Meghan by the RF? Anyone managed to read it before it disappeared?

  87. run 3 says:

    Her fashion is getting more and more beautiful, I admire her very much