Wait, Duchess Meghan’s jewelry collection is worth more than Kate’s collection?


The Duke And Duchess Of Sussex Attend A Commonwealth Day Youth Event At Canada House

The Duchess of Sussex has a really nice jewelry collection. I believe she came into her marriage with some lovely pieces – earrings, rings and bracelets – which were probably accumulated from her actress years, either gifts or smaller pieces she purchased for herself. Her taste in jewelry has always reminded me of Jennifer Aniston’s collection – Meghan and Jennifer Aniston both seem to prefer smaller earrings and delicate-looking pendant necklaces and simple rings, often stacked together. Prince Harry has given Meghan some of his mother’s jewelry too – there’s the fantastic aquamarine ring, and smaller pieces like a pair of butterfly earrings and a nice bangle. When Meghan attended Trooping the Colour, she wore a new eternity band which Harry reportedly gave her for their one-year anniversary. So… how does all of that equal a £600,000 jewelry collection worth more than the Duchess of Cambridge’s collection? I truly do not know. But the Daily Mail is trying to make it into a thing, because look, Meghan is wearing JEWELRY.

When Meghan wore an eternity ring at Trooping the Colour this month, during her first public appearance after the birth of baby Archie, it was clear it had a special significance. Not only is the £4,350 diamond band believed to have been created by Harry Collins, the Queen’s personal jeweller, but it was given to her by her husband to celebrate their first wedding anniversary. The ring is the latest in an extraordinary collection of jewellery that Meghan has amassed in the past year, which has now been valued at a staggering £600,000.

It includes Princess Diana’s £75,000 aquamarine ring that Meghan wore on her wedding day, £60,000 Cartier drop earrings, and a set of £4,275 pearl and diamond earrings which were a gift from the Queen. In fact, the 91-piece collection, which boasts seven necklaces, 23 bracelets, 26 rings and 35 pairs of earrings, is so significant that it eclipses that of her late mother-in-law. But while some items cost as much as a modest home in some parts of the country, Meghan is also a fan of more affordable jewellery, sporting many pieces that can be bought for under £100.

Jeweller Grant Mobley, who valued some of Diana’s heirlooms, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The Royal Family is one of the best examples of how diamond jewellery can stand the test of time, be passed down from generation to generation, and only grows in emotional and intrinsic value over the years.’

Even the Duchess of Cambridge doesn’t have such an impressive collection: she owns about 60 pieces of jewellery, including Diana’s sapphire engagement ring worth an estimated £300,000, and her ‘Saudi Suite’ – a wedding gift from Crown Prince Fahd which contained a sapphire watch, earrings, bracelet, ring and necklace.

[From The Daily Mail]

I still don’t know how Meghan’s collection is worth £600,000, or how her collection is worth more than Kate’s. The only thing I’ll buy is that Meghan simply has more jewelry than Kate. Meghan has so many smaller pieces which she mixes and matches, stuff which is more appropriate for day events and the kind of meetings and daily activities which make up a professional woman’s work week. Kate, on the other hand, tends to favor larger pieces like her sapphire suite, and larger drop earrings from Kiki McDonough, many of which she picks out for herself. I just think Kate has bigger pieces and more expensive pieces, while Meghan prefers smaller, less expensive stuff, and a lot of it. But the Daily Mail is gonna do their thing and try to get people mad about “Meghan’s spending habits!” and “how dare she wear jewelry!” and “she’s breaking protocol by wearing stackable rings!”

The Duke & Duchess Of Sussex Visit Sussex

BRITAIN-LONDON-QUEEN-93RD BIRTHDAY-CELEBRATION

SWITZERLAND-DAVOS-WEF-U.S.-BIDEN

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid and Avalon Red.

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

159 Responses to “Wait, Duchess Meghan’s jewelry collection is worth more than Kate’s collection?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. perplexed says:

    Why would it be hard to believe she might have a more expensive collection? It might not be intentional — it could have happened by accident depending on what she’s gifted with.

    I guess I made the assumption they borrow everything from the Queen or wear whatever Diana used to have. It didn’t occur to me that they have their own jewellery — whoops.

    The article didn’t sound like a slam on Meghan (not if it’s stating facts) — but more like an advert for diamond jewellery.

    • Becks1 says:

      It’s definitely a slam on Meghan. I appreciate that it did point out that she wears a lot of more accessible pieces, but the fact that it makes a point of saying that Meghan has more jewelry than Kate(which makes sense, since Kate tends to wear fewer pieces at once and also wears the same jewelry over and over again) without mentioning the value of Kate’s collection is what makes me roll my eyes and think the article is aimed at dragging Meghan.

      • perplexed says:

        It just seemed like an advert for diamonds to me (i.e this is why diamonds are timeless blah blah blah or something to that effect and these are the brand names attached to them). They didn’t say whether her wearing the jewellery was negative or positive and in general they write articles about all of the royals like this. I don’t see what’s different here. The royals are walking advertisements for jewellery, clothes, champagne, and everything else.

      • Becks1 says:

        Because it makes a point of comparing Meghan’s collection to Kate’s, and implying that Kate’s isn’t worth as much and that Meghan’s eclipses even Diana’s (which, LOL for days.)

        I don’t have a problem with Meghan’s jewelry being worth 600k. But the Mail could have written an article about Meghan’s jewelry without those throwaway lines about Diana and Kate in there.

      • perplexed says:

        It does make a comparison, but I see it simply as a point of fact. I don’t see the implication that it’s either negative or positive, especially since the comparison is preceded by the quote about how the Royal Family proves that diamonds can stand the test of time (maybe implying the rest of us should be buying diamonds too).

        The article does state that she’s also a fan of more affordable jewellery too.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right, but if they were doing a simple comparison, they would value Kate’s jewelry. They don’t. They mention her engagement ring, and then just note that Meghan has more pieces than Kate. If the article was just “how much are these royal jewelry collections worth,” then they should mention Kate’s monetary total like they did with Meghan’s.

      • perplexed says:

        Looking at the wording again, it says her collection is more impressive, not expensive. I can’t really tell if they’re saying she spent more.

        Either way, my assumption is that all of the royals spend a lot on stuff the rest of us could never afford. And they’re given gifts. I don’t know if I’m viewing the article through the lens of royals-are-rich-no-matter-what, but my default assumption is that all of them live differently than rest of us. And we hear about Meghan, Kate, and Diana because they’re prettier than Princess Anne and Camilla.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Doesn’t Kate have a single Cartier necklace worth roughly 100k? It’s plain rings she wore with a bad stella dress I think.
        It think this is just clever pot stirring like with clothes or event numbers. This is just an attack on Meghan.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, she does, along with a 50,000+ tanzanite set that is made up of a few big solitares. This IS just another attack on Meghan.

      • PurpleHoulihan says:

        And this article isn’t happening in a vacuum. It’s part of the larger DM (and other outlets’) narrative that Meghan is uppity, flashy and living above her station. That’s not just about pitting two women against each other. It’s a racially-charged narrative.

        Especially when Kate’s collection is definitely worth more ($300K for the engagement ring, plus $100K for the Cartier necklace is already $400K for just two pieces, plus who knows how much for the Lover’s Knot Tiara and all of her other personal jewelry). They’re purposely skewing numbers and not even bothering to fact-check. There’s nothing newsworthy about it. Because that’s not the point. The point is to reenforce — in context with all their other coverage — that Meghan is greedy, ostentatious, and acting like “new money.”

    • Bella DuPont says:

      I would **KILL** for Kate’s jewelry collection.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Kate’s is clunky or extremely minimal. It’s her style. Most of the beautiful pieces she wears are loans.

    • Betsy says:

      I agree, its ridiculous how everything is now just ‘stop lying about megan’. She constantly wears new designer clothes and tons of expensive jewelry. I have no doubt this is true and htat she takes full advantage of her new position.

      • minx says:

        Yeah, Kate and Meghan aren’t shopping at Claire’s for their jewelry. They both have very nice bling. I don’t see how it can be determined that one’s collection is more valuable that the other’s, because NO ONE knows exactly what they possess. It’s just another way to pit them against each other.

    • ProfPlum says:

      It’s kind of a slam when you consider that Kate has spent as much on jewelry in the same period (and then some). This twitter account keeps receipts. https://twitter.com/Mielle01787296/status/1142911412215394305

      • dj says:

        Thank you. @ProfPlum. That twitter feed shows the receipts & pictures of Kate Middleton’s gigantic jewellery collection of the last 18 months! Not even close to Meghan’s when. You see the photos and estimates of Kate with each outfit. I can see how it is pretty clear it is a racist slam on Meghan. I was not sure before I saw the photos and estimates.

    • Lory says:

      I don’t read it as a slam either. The article makes it a point to mention that Meghan also wears smaller, less expensive pieces. It also adds that while Kate has fewer pieces she does have one that’s valued at 300.000 pounds which is half of Meghans entire collection. None of Meghan’s pieces mentioned are that highly valued. So if they were trying to slam Meghan wouldn’t they have left that out?

  2. Julie says:

    A lot of her basic, small pieces are still worth 4-5k, and as you say she has a lot of them. It adds up. Add in a few pieces worth tens of thousands and you can get to £600,000 easily.

    • Eliza says:

      Meghan’s outfits tended to average out to more than $4k each time, even in her least expensive clothes due to new jewelry. Pippa Smalls is very expensive as is Ecksand and Birks which she has the most from these. The press is out to get her, but i think we can agree she previously spent a lot on very same-same small jewels. She’s not loaned much from the queen, and has only work 3-4 diana items so i understand the want to build, but they’re so similar it’s not an interesting collection. Not as bad as Kate’s kikis though.

      • Peg says:

        Well her tiny jewelry may not be interesting to you, but the daily mail is interested.
        Most of Meghan’s jewelry was purchased before she met Harry, the receipts are out there.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The Daily Fail is interested in what type of toilet paper the Sussexes use.

    • Yup, Me says:

      But Meghan also had a J-O-B and her own money to spend while Catherine spent years being a royal adjacent Sloan Ranger type (not really a big jewelry look). They were cultivating different looks, styles and skillsets.

      Also, counting things that she has received as gifts from her husband or his family seems silly.

      • skiff says:

        Okay, but the article specifically talks about a collection she has acquired in the past year since her marriage. The actual wording is “amassed” over the year. (gotta love the hyperbole) Not sure if this is true or the 600 pound pricetag, but it’s what the article is saying.

        It’s shade, because it’s implying she’s collected these pieces over the year and it’s bigger than even Diana’s collection. Clutch my pearls. As far as if it was gifts a lot of Kate’s & Diana’s were also gifts, plus the Queen for that matter and this is stated in the article. It’s just what they do. It just makes her seem more obsessed with the perks of royalty. Next we will hear her obsessing about tiara’s or something. The only thing I can say at least these digs are away from the racist crap and back to just gold digging fame whoring crap. I guess that is a tiny step better.

      • Blue Orange says:

        I do wonder though, If Megan Orr Kate ever left their husbands, would Diana’s jewellery be returned?

  3. Birdix says:

    She seems such a good-natured person, I wonder if she could possibly have imagined all the different ways people would come at her. This defies logic—why would her collection be worth more than Diana’s? And notice they don’t value the Saudi suite…

    • Bella DuPont says:

      Noooo……the Saudi suite is clearly worth zero $ or £. Not until a similar set is gifted to Meghan. Then it’ll be valued at £50-100 million. Conservatively.

      Plus, she’ll also be criticized for greedily accepting such wildly inappropriate gifts and the argument will be made that she pressurized the giver into gifting her those items through some other inappropriate, non-protocol means.

      And of then course, their origin, conflict history and how blood drenched they are……etc. Where possible, it would be really amazing for them if they could even find a criminal angle to the story……

      Fun times eh? Always fun.

    • ytmer says:

      I’m really confused about this suite. The sapphire Saudi suite was gifted to Diana. Kate didn’t wear anything from it. She has sapphire earrings which was probably reset from something Diana had but Diana’s famous earrings were cabochon cut whereas Kate’s are faceted sapphires.

      • Mary says:

        @ytmer, I am confused about this suite as well. Kate has not worn any of it and, given that Kate has already appropriated (worn) a lot of Diana’s nicer jewels, I was hoping that this set would go to Meghan. Is this info being leaked for a reason or did they just make this up (this is the first time I have heard someone indicate that the Saudi set went to William in any division)?

    • Algernon says:

      I assume Diana’s jewelry is worth more now than it was when she alive, because they are now legacy pieces. Around the time of Will and Kate’s engagement I read the sapphire engagement ring is now “priceless” because of its legacy as Diana’s e ring. Whatever both Meghan and Kate have from Diana is worth more *because* it was Diana’s.

  4. Loretta says:

    I love Meghan’s jewels. They’re so modern (and I prefer smaller pieces)

    • HeyThere! says:

      Same!! I love dainty, modern jewelry! Her jewelry is always on point with me! Love it!!

    • Lady2Lazy says:

      First of all, I don’t understand why they love to bash Meghan with Waity Katie spending so little times performing duties for the monarch. Until Meghan came in to the picture, Kate was happy in her little bubble. BTW, princess Anne was the front runner again for the number of engagements for the previous year beating out everyone except the Queen, I believe.
      I also adore smaller pieces, in fact that is why I love Etsy. My husband bought me an antique ruby ring and every Christmas or birthday my daughter is walking around with a little bauble from Etsy. I love that there are some many vendors who are utilizing old gold and stones create something new. I love Etsy!

  5. Becks1 says:

    So, honestly, I can kind of believe that Meghan’s jewelry is worth that much, given that she has a few significant pieces and lots of smaller pieces that probably do add up to a significant amount, and maybe 600k is on the high side, but maybe not completely out of the ballpark.

    But the only way I believe that Meghan’s jewelry is worth more than Kate’s is if we are only counting about the pieces that Kate “owns,” right now we see Meghan mostly wear jewelry that she owns, and for any significant event Kate borrows from the vault. And even then I don’t really believe that Meghan’s jewelry is worth more than Kate’s. I notice the article does not give us the overall value of Kate’s collection, besides mentioning her 300k engagement ring, but merely how many pieces she owns compared to Meghan, which makes sense, since Meghan owns a lot of smaller, trendier pieces.

    • Harper says:

      Kate wears those kiki McDonough earrings and those are a couple grand a pop, and she seems to have a pair in every color for every outfit. I’d love to see a total value just for those.

      Kate doesn’t seem to wear that much else, other than her rings. When Kate blings up for dinners, she borrows from the vault. Why would Kate worry about buying her own things, anyways, if she has access to the goodies?

      • Becks1 says:

        Right, exactly, so its hard to compare. I think we have seen Meghan in very little borrowed jewelry, and Kate often wears borrowed jewelry.

        The other significant jewelry from Kate that comes to my mind is her diamond wedding earrings, which were gifted to her by her parents and I’m assuming were not cheap, although I cant find a price estimate now. And she does also wear a fair amount of Mappin and Webb, which also isn’t cheap.

    • Erinn says:

      I think some of it is the overvaluation of diamonds and the names attached to the designs. You can get an absolutely stunning piece precision cut and completely designed by the person buying it from a smaller jeweler for much less than what you would pay from a celebrity designer.

      I had a sapphire gemstone cut this winter – it was beautifully precision cut which is leaps and bounds above what you’d buy at a chain. I even chose the pattern it was cut into. I then brought my stone to a goldsmith in town and had him create the ring based on a specific idea I had in mind. I paid under 500CAD for something that you would pay 1000USD+ in a store or online for, and the quality of the stone is better.

      I honestly think that they’re looking at the high end of the price chart and making guesses. It’s definitely possible that Meghan’s collection is worth more than Kate’s – but I also suspect that there’s a lot of leaning towards the higher price potential. It makes it sound more exciting, and the designers who are attached to the pieces end up getting more publicity for it.

      I also liked her engagement ring better with the plain gold band. I’m not a fan of the pave for that particular piece.

      • blinkers says:

        Where do you find stones that haven’t been cut yet? I’m really interested in your process now :)

        I’d love to design a piece of jewelry for myself. Recently got divorced and miss my rings.

      • Erinn says:

        blinkers I befriended a gemcutter I had found on reddit. They work out of Montreal – cute gorgeous stones. I had almost bought a cutting machine and started doing it myself, but I’m a very very nervous traveler so going off in search of raw material wasn’t going to be something I’d be able to do easily. I also don’t live in an area with a ton of natural gem resources.

        I ended up with a Montana Sapphire – the cutter traveled to get like 20lbs of the raw. I know they do commission work quite often – they’re stagandfinch.com – but they’re currently away in Thailand getting some certifications. But if you can find someone who does precision work in your area there’s some amazing people doing stunning work. Heck, if you’re near Montana you can even go on expeditions to dig up your own sapphires – it’s a huge tourist thing now. “AlternativesLapidary” is another precision cutter that you can find on etsy. . earthstreasury.com is another one who deals with montana sapphire a lot, but also other gemstones. They have a TON of beautiful non-traditional designs as well. My sapphire is from stagandfinch – but I was able to request Arya Akhavan’s design “Ruination” for the cut and specify exactly the shade I was looking for in the stone.

        It’s an addictive wormhole to get yourself into. I didn’t know precision cutting was a thing until I started considering buying a machine myself – and oh my god it’s amazing. They really are focused more on showing off the sparkle or the color of the stone compared to chains or big jewelers who are more worried about getting the biggest amount of carats from each piece of raw material.

      • Felicia says:

        @ERIN : You’ll find a number of the precision cutters on GemologyOnline.com as well, including Ayra. For sheer eye candy, check out Sutra Gems on FB. This guy did a series of “Mandela” cuts that are amazing!

      • Erinn says:

        Felicia – half my insta feed is gem cutters. I have a serious problem ahhaha. If you look at competition pieces it’s just absolutely mindblowing what can be done. I don’t even bother walking into my local jewelry stores anymore – a whole new world has been opened to me haha. Sutra Gems has some absolutely stunning pieces!

      • Felicia says:

        @ERINN Most of my Insta is also gems, jewellery designers and gem cutters. It’s the perfect antidote to reading the news…

      • Lorelei says:

        @Blinkers, I don’t know where you’re located, but I (well, my husband!) has had great luck here in NYC in the Diamond District. I got exactly the ring I wanted, with a much larger stone than we would have been able to afford if he’d gone to a regular jeweler. A friend of mine was determined to get a ring from Tiffany’s around the same time, and it cost more than five times what mine did even though they’re essentially the same exact thing. I personally don’t understand it since that little blue box is just going to sit in a drawer collecting dust, and once the ring is on no one knows or cares where it came from, but to each his own, I guess! And we have a relationship with the jeweler, now, and have gone back for less expensive pieces. They will work with you to create what you want.

        That said, the article was DEFINITELY a slam on Meghan and it’s ridiculous. There is absolutely no way that all of Meghan and Kate’s jewelry can be accurately valued, especially the gifts. I guess it was a slow news day and they needed something negative to run about Meghan. But the estimates they give are complete nonsense and should be ignored (like everything in the Fail).

        If I took anything away from that article, it’s that it is incredibly shady that Kate was allowed to accept a gift from the Saudis.

      • blinkers says:

        Erinn & Lorelei, Thanks so much for the tips!! I’m not close to those areas but I’ve traveled a lot the past few years. …looks like I’m going down the rabbit hole, yay!

    • Algernon says:

      If they’re estimating her collection at 600k, at least half of that is her engagement ring. Back when she got engaged, jewelers estimated her ring’s value at around 350k, though because it contains diamonds owned by Diana, it is “priceless.” If one of us rubes was to buy a comparable ring, though, they said it would run about 350k. I can believe her collection is valued at 600k if half of it is just that one item alone.

      ETA: I bet the aquamarine cocktail ring, also Diana’s, adds another big chunk to the value. Just those two pieces could be most of the $ of her collection.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Alegernon – yeah, the more I think about it, the more I can believe its worth 600k. Jewelry can add up fast, especially if you have a few significant pieces in there like she does.

        I just cant believe that Meghan’s collection is worth more than Kate’s, considering her e-ring, eternity band, Cartier watch, Cartier necklace, wedding earrings, and other significant pieces that have been described as “gifts” (so personal items, not loans.) I cant even imagine the cost of that ruby and diamond necklace from 2011 (by Mouawad apparently, I just googled lol), etc. She wears a lot of pieces on loan from the vaults but not entirely.

        This article just seems like a way to stress that Meghan is so over the top when it comes to material things and Kate is just normal ol’ Kate.

        ETA and I know the article doesn’t specifically say how much Kate’s collection is worth, but it def seems like it is trying to imply that its worth less. If Kate’s jewelry WAS actually valued at less than Meghan’s, they would have def come out and said that. Its like they are saying just enough to let people draw their conclusions.

      • Algernon says:

        I can’t believe Kate’s isn’t worth more, too. Her e ring alone is estimated to be worth 500k. This article is just another anti Meghan hit piece.

  6. Lowrider says:

    Lol…adding jewelry she did not purchase nor does she own. Assigning a cost to the ring when they don’t even know where it was purchased!

    The article is designed to get the Meghan haters foaming at the mouth. Let’s see who falls for it…

  7. Rapunzel says:

    Worse is there is now a story on the fail saying she changed the band on her engagement ring. It shows two photos and the ring looks the same! Definitely an agenda against Meg.

    • Enn says:

      Her ring has changed. The band has pave diamonds now, so I’m guessing they took the three stones from the original and put them in the new pave setting. Lots of people change their engagement ring settings, but I’ve only done one within a year of the wedding (the bride wanted to upgrade the look to go with her blingy wedding band).

      • Rapunzel says:

        Enn- proof? Cause it look the same in the pics. I saw no pave diamonds.

      • Angry Bird says:

        Or her fingers got bigger due to the pregnancy and she figured, “Hey, why not?”

      • Enn says:

        If you Google “Meghan Markle engagement ring” you’ll see links to Elle, T&C, and other sites.

        https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/jewelry-and-watches/a28157762/meghan-markle-redesigned-engagement-ring-photos/

        I started in jewelry in the late 1990s, trust me, I can spot a redesign.

        It’s entirely possible that she wanted something more delicate, which is what the new setting looks like, and her fingers swelled so she figured she’d do it now.

      • Eliza says:

        It’s a new band. I doubt this little post partum anyone would resize their band because it will go back down with more time. I think she wanted to match the new eternity band.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Enn- I can see it in the link you posted. The fail’s pics weren’t clear enough and it looked identical. But it’s obvious in your link. Thanks. Good to know it really was changed and not just a made up thing. As for why chan ge, I suppose because it goes better with the eternity band? Whatever. It’s nobody’s business.

      • Becks1 says:

        I like the new band better, lol. I wonder if its not a redesign, but a completely different ring like the article mentions could be a possibility. Maybe she swelled a lot during pregnancy so had a “dupe” made of her ring for the last few months and the first few appearances? (likewise I believe that Kate often wears a duplicate engagement ring and not the real thing). It seems weird to me that she would have a new band done a year after their wedding, 18 months after their engagement – if she didn’t like the yellow band originally, she could have changed it before it was ever public. It doesn’t entirely go with the eternity band – my first thought upon reading this was that she had her band redone to match the eternity band, but that looks more like its channel set.

        I prefer the pave band but that’s just my preference.

      • Enn says:

        @Becks yes, it’s definitely a new setting. She may have kept her original with the thought of making it a mother’s ring, too.

  8. perplexed says:

    After seeing the photo of her with the stackable rings, I think I can believe her collection is worth that much. To be honest, I’ve never seen anyone wear that many rings before among celebrities.
    I can’t tell if that was a good fashion statement or not. Even J-Lo might limit the hand to just one big rock. If you’re going to wear that many rings, it does make it easy for journalists to come up with article ideas.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Is this a comment a joke?

      • perplexed says:

        Does it matter? The number of rings she was wearing on one hand did seem like too much to me. That number of rings on one hand (unless it’s fake silver jewellery worn by teenagers) is meant to be NOTICED, will be written about, and in general I do think most people limit the number of rings they wear on one occasion.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @perplexed then you need to get out more. There is nothing unique or out if the ordinary about how Meghan wears her rings. I live in a major city and women do this all the time. They literally sell STACKABLE ring sets in jewelry stores and even for costume jewelry.

      • perplexed says:

        Regular people aren’t wearing jewellery as expensive as hers. There’s no comparison between a regular person wearing stackable rings work a measly hundred bucks and a celebrity wearing jewellery worth thousands of pounds. Yes, I live in a major city, and most people look like they stepped out from a Real Housewives franchise (though they certainly have less money than the royals). Comparing regular people to the way royals look seems futile to me. There’s no comparison because nobody cares what regular people, even in a city, are wearing, and generally regular people are allowed to have taste that’s a little superficial without people caring.

        I don’t doubt that what Meghan is doing is not unique, which is probably why I don’t think it’s a great fashion statement, considering how expensive her jewellery might be. When J-Lo, who is as garish as they come, has less rings on her hand than a royal does (Ihe photo in the Daily Mail where she has rings on each finger seemed excessive even by regular people standards), it is a little noticeable and people will ponder how much jewellery is in your collection when you come from a family as rich as the royal family.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @perplexed so let me get this straight: you think Meghan shouldn’t wear her jewelry stacked because people might ponder how much it costs? But you’re cool with Kate showing up at casual events in giant diamond earrings, right? No one is “pondering” her jewelry. And why do you keep bringing up J. Lo?? It’s a random and not at all valid comparison
        Im frankly tired of all the policing that goes on around Meghan. You don’t like that she stacks her rings? Okay. Then don’t stack your rings.
        And like the Daily Mail – stop expecting a black woman to bend over backwards in her choices to make people who will always hate her anyway happy.

      • skiff says:

        I thought everyone was pondering what jewelry and clothes the royals wear? They’re royals what else are we supposed to look at? I mean we are all looking for Diana pieces on these two. Kate just doesn’t wear that much jewelry, especially on the less formal occasions. Sure she wears her ring, earrings, maybe a necklace, but sometimes not even that. Meghan likes jewelry. Mostly dainty pieces, but lots of them. I’m not a fan of stackable rings on each finger one or two maybe, but to me it looks tacky too. Most of Meghan’s pieces I do like a lot, and if it was her choice to redo her engagement ring band she has a good eye and it was well done. It’s prettier that way.

      • perplexed says:

        I’m not going to bother answeing a question where words are put in my mouth but 4 diamonds on one hand doesn’t look pretty to me, no matter how much money the diamonds are worth. She can wear whatever she wanrs but I’m also free to think it looks whatever. I doubt she cares what I think though, so carry on Meghan and you do you …and I’ll have an opinion from afar (as is everyone’s prerogative).

    • PleaseAndThankYou says:

      @Perplexed

      What… is your problem? Why are you attacking Meghan over… stackable rings? First of all, you need to get out more or pay attention to your surroundings, because wearing multiple delicate (and sometimes not delicate, even!) rings, including midi rings (I won’t upset your delicate sensibilities by explaining what those are!), on your fingers is a fairly typical practice. Especially amongst younger people…
      Second, you fundamentally do not know what you are talking about here; the attempt at comparison fell flat. J. Lo does occasionally wear very large, flashy, diamond and platinum rings. That is not the same thing as Meghan wearing delicate gold rings that are SHOCKINGLY designed to be worn the way she is wearing them. Stacked, and in multiples. So, you’ve decided to have an opinion on something that you barely actually understand. It seems like you have some stuff to work through. Oh. And try looking at some fashion blogs? Even a Vogue?

  9. Alexandria says:

    Lmao it’s true. The press are obsessed and need HM for sales.

  10. Truthiness says:

    Based on history and use, Kate’s engagement ring is at least $1 or $2 million. Can you imagine if it went to auction? A single Diana dress can be $100K so you can’t tell me her ring is $300K.

    • Enn says:

      When you appraise jewelry, you look at what it would cost to replicate that exact piece at today’s prices (then I always tack on 15-20% to account for inflation). Kate’s ring is actually not *that* wow when you break down the stones and gold (or is her setting platinum?), because it’s just an oval sapphire and round diamonds. You get into higher numbers when you go with larger stones because they’re more rare – think rocks like JLo’s pink diamond.

      Yes, the history makes it uber valuable to a collector, but if it were lost or stolen, it would not cost a million dollars to remake.

      • Truthiness says:

        The ring is not replaceable and it’s not just valuable to collectors. If someone steals the Mona Lisa, you can’t just paint a new one and call it a day. If it went to auction there would be a bidding war well into 7 figures because of its provenance.

      • Enn says:

        Truthiness, it’s 100% replaceable as a material object and I know because we had a rash of rings just like it when W&K got engaged. I’ve also done it with tanzanite and aquamarine.

        Anyone can paint a new Mona Lisa. It’s the original artist that makes it priceless. The ring is only invaluable because of its history, but no, sourcing the stones and casting a new setting would not be a million dollars. I’m looking at it from the manufacturing, design, and retail side.

        “Yes, the history makes it uber valuable to a collector, but if it were lost or stolen, it would not cost a million dollars to remake.”

      • Felicia says:

        @ENN
        I also have a hard time believing the £75k ($95k usd) price tag assigned to the aquamarine ring. It’s somewhere around 25-30 cts from the looks of it. In what fantasy world is aquamarine of that saturation going for circa £3k ($3,800 usd) a carat?

      • Enn says:

        @Felicia I’ve always thought that. A good quality aqua should be pale, like water. That looks like a blue topaz to me (and I thought it was until the wedding).

      • Felicia says:

        @ENN:
        I’m not a fan of the pale aquamarine. The Santa Maria material (or African equivalent) is, imho, much much nicer. With a price tag to match… :(

      • Bella DuPont says:

        Yes, most Aquamarine tends to be a very pale blue/green shade and Aqua with this level of saturation is definitely rarer to find (especially with no heat treatment)…..but you can definitely find it; if you have the budget for it. ;-)

        Also…..I don’t know…..I kind of view Topaz as the poor mans Aquamarine (as far as blue stones go), hence I can’t imagine members of the BRF investing heavily on such a stone.

      • Lorelei says:

        But Enn, we’re not talking about replicas. I understand what you’re saying but we live in a world where provenance does matter. Look what people pay for dresses, jewelry, artwork etc. that was owned by Jackie O., Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor and of course Diana. That DOES factor in to how much something is worth.

    • Melly says:

      Exactly. Kate’s engagement ring alone is easily a million. And the Saudi Suite is probably easily another million.

      • leena says:

        But it wouldn’t have cost anywhere near a million.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Most press accounts say that Prince Charles purchased Diana’s engagement ring from Garrards for about $37,000 or about 26,000 pounds. That is a HUGE leap up to a million dollars in value….

      • Deedee says:

        This is why I think Kate wears a copy. C’mon, who wears something priceless while ziplining or shoves it into the bowl of dough with the scouts? They probably kept Diana’s in the safe all along.

  11. Enn says:

    Meg came into her marriage with some nice pieces. She was a professional woman in her 30s. Didn’t she buy herself a Cartier watch when Suits was renewed? I always think women should treat themselves if they can.

  12. Smalltowngirl says:

    So the article doesn’t say that Kate’s is worth less than Meaghan’s, just that it is less impressive and she has less pieces. I mean, the article is still ridiculous but the wording is careful that way. I think they are two different women, plus Kate will have more access to the royal jewels and it makes more sense for Meaghan to build her personal collection.

  13. GR says:

    The thing that bothers me is the hypocrisy: none of the royals genuinely earn the crazy amount of money they have, and none of them live cheap – if it’s not clothes or jewelry, it’s horses or cars or vacations – but somehow Meghan is the only one they’re willing to criticize for these things.

  14. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I can believe it. But mostly because Meghan had her own collection before she married Harry. Lots of delicate but still relatively expensive pieces. Add the larger more expensive items from Harry and the Queen and it makes sense. I used to love big jewelry pieces when I was younger but now I tend to wear smaller more delicate items that are worth more.

  15. DS9 says:

    I would imagine Harry was left more of Diana’s personal pieces than William simply because she would know William’s wife would have greater access to the royal shit.

    Also, those sentimental pieces would be valued higher just by association.

    So I doubt her collection is worth more than Kate’s but I wouldn’t be shocked if it was.

    I think people in general are just shocked at how far a cable television actress’s salary can go.

    • Peg says:

      I think Diana’s money and jewelry was to be divided equally between her sons.
      Guess that why people like Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep and other movie actresses are appearing on cable tv.

  16. RoyalBlue says:

    Oh I took it as a diss on William for not spoiling his wife like how Harry spoils Meghan. (I kid)

    It’s just click bait because they know people want to bash the DOS. If they are looking at jewelry the ladies purchased themselves, naturally Meghan would have more. Kate never held a proper job for long far less purchased anything of significance for herself. If they are commenting on items they have been gifted by someone then that’s on cheapskate Bill. I hope they are not talking about loaned jewels because Kate wins that hands down.

  17. Mignionette says:

    This story sounds like a “stitch-up”…..

    Remember the story about Meg not being allowed to borrow jewels from the Royal vault and then Tiara Gate….

    It seems the Fail et al were laying the ground work for this story or possibly trying to flush out a RF comment (which we received in the end).

    The implication here is not just that Meg likes bling, but also that she shuns RF bling at cost to the public purse to buy her modern ‘nouveau riche trendy’ bling….

    They are trying to stitch her up and all for lack of access and comment,

  18. Aliama says:

    Apparently the emerald and diamond set Kate wore to the 2018 BAFTAs was worth 1.2 million all on its own. So these numbers are definitely BS.

  19. Original Jenns says:

    If the way this is written is correct “she owns about 60 pieces of jewelry, including Diana’s sapphire engagement ring worth an estimated £300,000,”, then the engagement ring alone is worth 300,000 pounds, and so we don’t have a total of Kate’s jewelry. So technically, all this is saying is that Meghan owns more pieces than Kate, not that Meghan’s is worth more. Which is a nice little party trick by the Mail to make her look like a “Let Them Eat Cake” royal by comparison. They do mention her affordable jewelry preference, but it’s much further down in the article. I’m surprised they didn’t bring up that Kate, as Future Queen Consort, has access to all sorts of royal jewels that Meghan is denied and will someday have access to all of them.

    • Becks1 says:

      Exactly, its a party trick. Technically the Fail isn’t saying anything wrong here (if we assume Meghan’s collection is worth 600k), but its definitely encouraging the readers to make a certain conclusion, which is that Kate has less expensive jewelry than Meghan.

    • Mignionette says:

      That engagement ring price keeps changing. At the time of the Engagement, even the Fail valued it at circa 165k GBP . It seems to have appreciated 135k in one year alone…

    • skiff says:

      Everyone is obsessed with the Meghan versus Kate comparison, but the real dig is Meghan’s collection was bigger than Diana’s.

      • Becks1 says:

        Which just made me laugh. Suuuuuuure. I mean maybe on a piece by piece basis(although I cant believe Diana only had 90 pieces of jewelry), but not in terms of monetary value.

  20. 10KTurtle says:

    Breaking news: royal princess wears expensive jewelry!! Details at 5 &10…

  21. Maria says:

    Are they counting Kate’s Cartier watch and twelve pairs of Kiki McDonough earrings which go for at least $1500 a pop? Or the Mouawad ruby/diamond necklace and bracelet? Or the emerald set from the BAFTAS? Etc Etc.
    Meghan’s jewelry costs a lot, but she had several pieces before marriage. Kate has a few pieces from before marriage but you could count them on one hand.

  22. Leyton says:

    The Emerald Set Kate wore to the BAFTA’s in 2018 is said to be worth over a million. That was one night worth of jewelry.

  23. Cale says:

    Etsy has a seller that creates CZ replicas of both of the ladies’ jewelry. I have a couple of pieces bexause I admire both their styles!

  24. Peg says:

    The dailymail found a goldmine in Meghan, even on maternity leave, they still need her to get hits.
    The Sun, had to lay off workers and Meghan was only out of sight for a month.

  25. Lanne says:

    The only way her collection could cost that much is if they are including her wedding tiara. The only way Kate’s collection could be less is if her tiaras and loaners from the queen are not included. Double standards abound. WOC aren’t supposed to have nice things is the subtext of the story. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

    • Mignionette says:

      I think that is only part of the story with these RR’s. For sure Meg being a WOC really irks them as she lords it up over them.

      The real issue however is that she refuses to acknowledge them and play along with their media games and narratives the way Kate does.

  26. PhamLand says:

    Oh thank you!!
    The dailymail found a goldmine in Meghan, even on maternity leave, they still need her to get hits.
    The Sun, had to lay off workers and Meghan was only out of sight for a month.
    PhamLand

  27. Nicegirl says:

    I prefer Meghan’s style to Kate’s at every turn; especially jewelry. I’m not a fan of the Kiki McD’s.

    • Deedee says:

      Or that huge Cartier Trinity “Olympic rings” necklace Kate was wearing for a few outings. Kate covers most of the necklaces with her hair, so you don’t really get to see them.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      Same.

  28. ytmer says:

    I think my favorite piece of Meghan’s jewelry may be to blame. It’s the Cartier bracelet she wore on her wedding day with baguette diamonds and it costs 246,000 pounds.

    • Becks1 says:

      In general I loved Meghan’s wedding jewelry – the bracelet, the earrings, the earrings for the reception, that cocktail ring with the dress – it was all perfect and gorgeous.

    • Peg says:

      Honestly, where did you get that figure from?

    • Lady D says:

      Was the Cartier bracelet bought, borrowed or given to Meghan?

      • Lucylee says:

        Thought it was a gift from Charles. Didn’t he gift Kate with a similar piece?

      • windyriver says:

        Edited – as mine posted the one above appeared. Also believe I heard at the time the bracelet was a gift from Charles.

      • ytmer says:

        Kate had a bracelet with yellow stones she acquired around her wedding and most people thought it was a wedding gift of some kind, yes. We don’t know the make or what the yellow stones are but the diamonds are round and significantly smaller.

  29. Kylie says:

    It is hard to compare. Kate has had access to loans from the vault for eight years and the palace can be deliberately vague about any new jewelry that appears. Meghan hasn’t really had a major loan except for the tiara on her wedding day, but I suspect more loans are on the way, especially when Meghan starts going to big events. I’m more interested in whether she will wear the tiara from the wedding again or if the Queen will loan her something else since there are several tiaras in the collection that have gone without a wearer for years. Even though Meghan’s personal style favors smaller jewelry, I don’t see her refusing if the Queen offered to loan her one of the big necklaces from the vault.

    • Peg says:

      I can see her declining a large necklace, this is the woman that asked the Queen her preference on which side to get into the car.

      • Kylie says:

        I’m not sure how you think those two things are the same.

      • Becks1 says:

        I can see her declining a big necklace because from what we have seen, Meghan definitely seems to prefer delicate, smaller necklaces. I think she would go for some statement earrings or a statement bracelet over a necklace if she was given the choice (but no clue how much choice the royal women like Kate and Meghan have over the jewels they are loaned.)

      • Kylie says:

        My point wasn’t so much about a necklace in particular, it could be any large piece of jewelry. I don’t agree that Meghan would decline. Meghan knows exactly who she needs to stay in the good graces of and declining a jewelry loan would be difficult to do without it being taken the wrong way.

      • Peg says:

        How would declining jewelry you don’t want to wear offend anyone one

  30. leena says:

    Well most of the jewelery we see Kate wearing does not actually belong to Kate, it belongs to the royal collection so a bit of a false comparison really.

    And £75,000 for an aquamarine ring???

  31. Ty says:

    Smaller pieces can be expensive.

  32. perplexed says:

    Why aren’t they counting the tiaras? I’m sure that would skyrocket the value of both women’s collections. The Queen’s tiara is probably from stolen jewels from colonialist times, though.

    • Becks1 says:

      They don’t own the tiaras. I think they are only counting what is owned personally by Kate and Meghan. The tiaras are on “loan.” Sophie’s wedding tiara, however, was a gift to her IIRC, so if we were including Sophie, the tiara would be part of that.

      • Kylie says:

        Sophie’s wedding tiara includes pieces that belonged to Queen Victoria, so I don’t think that was gift. It is said that the Aquamarine necklace tiara is Sophie’s property.

      • Becks1 says:

        I’ve read that it was gifted to her by the queen, but I think a lot of that is speculation since it has never been seen before. And I kind of hope it goes back into hiding at some point (I really dislike that tiara, LOL.)

      • Brandy Alexander says:

        Becks, Sophie’s actually looks a lot better since it was reworked. I think she wore it to the Trump State Dinner. Much better than it looked on their wedding day.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Brandy – I saw that! I do think it was better, but I still don’t like it, LOL. But the reworking definitely made a difference.

  33. Mumbles says:

    This monetary estimate has to be an exaggeration by the DM. Let’s assume she’s gotten big-ticket items since her engagement/marriage that total £250,000. That leaves £350,000 that she bought on her own. She’s been out of college for 15 years so that’s about £27,000 a year? Or put another way, if she bought 70 of the 91 pieces of jewelry on her own that is still like £5000 per piece. I don’t doubt the size of her collection but her subtle, dainty pieces aren’t going to cost £5000 per piece.

    • Fanny says:

      I saw the price tag on one of those subtle, dainty pieces. It was a pair of earrings. I thought they would be a few hundreds dollars. They were 800 or 900 pounds. I was shocked.

      As she does with her clothing purchases, Meghan tends to go for designer pieces that are priced way, way above what the materials are worth. And very few of the pieces (outside of her eternity rings) are classic designs that will stand the test of time in a jewelry collection.

      • Mumbles says:

        Fair, but even at that price she needs to have bought a whole lot of them to get to that pricetag.

  34. asdfa says:

    This…kind of sounds like nonsense to me. Kate’s engagement ring alone is worth more than all of Meghan’s jewelry

  35. Mignionette says:

    It seems to me like the FAIL are going to keep this hate campaign going until they get the access they want to Meg on their terms (delusional).

    They know that the thirst for Meg content within both camps i.e. those who love her and hate her is INTENSE. This new Princess is click bait heaven.

    I also think Meg’s position on not engaging is the right one. The Fail and friends obviously make more money by vilifying her and pitting her against Kate so any deal/ truce she strikes up with them is utterly pointless.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      It’s been brilliant. By not engaging, she and Harry have repeatedly shown how clueless and mendacious that pack of sleazeballs is.

  36. kerwood says:

    Well, if she has a bigger collection than Kate, I say good for Meghan. They didn’t mention how much Kate’s collection is worth. And while they were comparing Kate to Meghan, they forgot to mention the 10 years that Kate spent sitting on her ass trying to snag Normal Bill. Meghan never had the luxury of a rich family to pay her bills while she tried to catch a rich husband. Meghan was working, so anything she brought into her marriage, SHE PAID FOR.

    People are so desperate to compare Meghan and Kate but in the end Kate comes across looking like a lazy, passive, do nothing who happened to win the big prize. Not a hardworking, well educated, accomplished woman who EARNED what she has.

    I don’t think Kate’s friends are doing her any favors.

    • leena says:

      Kate has a good degree too.

      • kerwood says:

        What shame she was too busy running after a man for TEN YEARS to put her degree to any use. What a role-model for young women!

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        She does, and it was really disappointing that she didn’t do anything much with art in her patronages.

  37. kerwood says:

    Oh, and I forgot to mention that one of Kate’s big pieces is her engagement ring that Diana wanted HARRY to have. What kind of person does something like that?

    If Harry spent a fortune on an engagement ring after the one his late mother’s was snagged, take it up with Normal Bill.

    • leena says:

      How do you know that Diana wanted Harry to have the ring? Was it stated in her Will?

      • violet says:

        It was my understanding that William went and asked Harry if he would mind if Kate was given the engagement ring, and Harry said Yes, take it. I don’t think William snuck it out under cover of night.

    • notasugarhere says:

      William chose first and chose her watch, because he had used it to learn to tell time.

      Harry chose second and chose her ring. Harry’s surprise at Kate wearing the ring? Story for another time.

  38. Tourmaline says:

    I would definitely rather have Meghan’s engagement ring (old setting/new setting) than Kate’s Big Blue. I know the sentimental factor, etc. but Kate is basically landed with a ring that a 19 year old girl whose betrothed didn’t love her, picked off the Garrard’s jewelry tray in 1981 because it was the gaudiest one. IMO.

    • notasugarhere says:

      A ring globally associated with an unhappy marriage? Not the best symbol for a new marriage, but William is a cheapskate.

  39. Myra says:

    Meghan out of sight but still very much on their mind….what power she has over the ignorant

  40. Here In My Jammies says:

    Maybe Harry is more generous with the jewelry? Maybe Meghan likes more jewelry than Kate? Who knows? No one really.