Duchess Kate’s 2020 wardrobe cost roughly $127K, not including repeats

The Duchess of Cambridge marks Remembrance Week

At some point during the spring lockdown, the Duchess of Cambridge began Zooming her fingers to the bone. She Zoomed so hard, like a Top CEO! And by that I mean, she was doing about one or two Zoom “events” a week. And for each new Zoom event, Kate debuted a new dress. It was… strange. Many theorized that Kate spent her lockdown shopping online for new Sister Wife frocks. I think that theory is probably true. Kate no longer has a need to perform her thriftiness – when You Know Who was around, Kate really tried to make “Thrifty Kate Wears Repeats” happen in comparison to a certain duchess’s pricey new clothes. Well, that changed this year, no surprise. Kate has dropped stupid money on a parade of fugly dresses, coats and weird sh-t from the 1980s. The Daily Mail has the 2020 summary on Kate’s wardrobe costs.

Shopping for a wardrobe which needs to offer options for dizzying public engagements and glitzy galas as well as visits over Zoom and snaps with the family, is a costly business. Now FEMAIL can reveal that the Kate Middleton, 38, has worn new clothing worth a grand total of £93,914 in 2020, a decrease of her £103,075 wardrobe total in 2019.

While it is an increase on her 2018 total of £68,334.23, it is less than 2017, when the Duchess wore new clothing to the value of £119,000.

Her most expensive look came in March as she arrived at Dublin International Airport in large part due to her £17,300 Asprey Daisy Heritage earrings. But despite opting for some more expensive labels, the Duchess has been recycling more than ever for royal engagements, wearing head to-toe new looks on a rare six occasions.

The Prince of Wales is understood to cover the costs of Kate’s wardrobes for ‘work-related’ engagements through his official household budget, funded by the Duchy of Cornwall, but it is not clear whether the Duchess pays full price for outfits or receives discounts.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah over the course of a decade, it went from “royal women are forbidden from receiving discounts” to “we have no idea if Kate’s clothes are being heavily discounted.” That’s because it’s well known that Kate does ask for discounts. She was asking for discounts even when she was a royal girlfriend. That being said, I do think she buys a lot of ugly Sister Wife stuff online, which means a special duchess discount is unlikely. I also think she spends stupid money on getting sh-t “bespoke.” And her coat addiction is a real problem – Keen Kate must need a warehouse to store all of her f–king button-slathered coats. Anyway, £93,914 (roughly $127K) is a ridiculous number considering what we did see her wear and considering that she was basically Zooming for six months!

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visit Ireland on the first day of their 3 day visit

National Service Of Remembrance At The Cenotaph

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attend the EE British Academy Film Awards 2020 in London

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visit Ireland, Dublin

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

186 Responses to “Duchess Kate’s 2020 wardrobe cost roughly $127K, not including repeats”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. L84Tea says:

    I’m sitting back and quietly waiting on the outrage from the BM and British taxpayers. I will pack a lunch.

    • Myra says:

      I actually want to hear from the optics people. They rode Meghan hard and she got all her new clothes during the non-pandemic era. All that money on all those ugly frocks and coatdresses, too.

      • Ann says:

        From what I understand Meghan was getting discounts and comped clothes before she met Harry. She was a popular actress on a successful TV show, and also looks amazing in most clothes. Designers probably paid her to wear their stuff!

    • mytwocents says:

      L84Tea, you’ll be waiting a while, most comments are, ‘but she’s worth it’ and ‘they’re counting jewelry in this amount, that’s not fair’. There is no outrage!

      • Kalana says:

        Yeah, I’ll bet they think she’s worth it. It’s all qwhite right to them.

      • PEARL GREY says:

        They often counted Meghan’s engagement ring, bridal jewellery, gifted jewellery and items she owned prior to even meeting Harry, so Kate’s faux fans should be happy that she’s being treated “fairly”, since we are always being told that both duchesses are treated the same way.

        It is funny however that they now want to consider if Kate’s clothing has been bought at a discounted price. They never wanted to consider if Meghan’s clothes cost less than the listed price and went out of their way to inflate their guesstimate prices for her bespoke pieces, but now that the focus is back on Kate’s wardrobe costs and they want to defend it, suddenly it’s “oh, maybe she got them at a discount”.

      • missskitttin says:

        How can she spend so much yet look so antiquated and homely? She needs to stop using that Amish stylist.

      • trashaddict says:

        Missskittin you read my mind. Except please don’t insult the Amish. I’m sure they have twice as much personality as Waity Kate.

    • Alexandria says:

      There will be none. Accept that this will be the future QC based on who she married, not her capabilities. Nobody’s having a revolution.

      • Lorelei says:

        What drives me insane about this is that she wears so many “bespoke” pieces by McQueen, Emilia Wickstead, etc., and no definitive prices can be attached to those. So the Fail just doesn’t count them at all, when it reality it could double the figure they published here. It’s such bs. Kate knows what she’s doing.

        And you’re right— with Meghan, they would speculate, “a similar Givenchy might cost upwards of (whatever made up figure) ££!” but with Kate they just list it as zero.

  2. Emily says:

    That’s a lot of money to look stupid. And it doesn’t even include what she pays her stylist.

    • Gruey says:

      I actually looked though that DM article and damn! That women has 3 speeds: button coat, hideous sister wife dress, and sport-ish (her best but still boring look). The pictures are so repetitive it’s crazy!!!

      • Emily says:

        Yup — all of her looks are the same, which makes her clothing budget even more ridiculous.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “all of her looks are the same, which makes her clothing budget even more ridiculous.”

        I completely agree!

      • MuttonChop says:

        I admit that I’m a bit jealous of her coat collection, but mainly because I don’t live in a climate that really necessitates a coat for more than a couple of months each year. However, I don’t understand why she leans in so hard with the frills. She looks so much better in her sporty stuff. I wish she’d dress in more streamlined clothes and lose the frills.

    • carmen says:

      Stylist? Wait a minute, a paid expert comes up with these selections?

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Her “stylist” is still her P.A., Natasha, isn’t it? I can’t believe anyone else would have just as bad taste as she does (other than KeenKate of course)!

        Truly, the number of looks that Kate actually got “right” in all her married years…you can count them on both hands, and still have a finger or two left over (as to WHICH finger, welI…I’ll leave up to all of you! 😄 )

    • Truthiness says:

      I think that number is way too low, maybe they are not counting fashion investments that are not worn yet due to the pandemic. I think that is the lowest number they could try to BS everyone with.

      • MyOpinion says:

        @ Truthiness, I looked at the list and she did get quite a few sprinkles of bling along the way, and she wore a vintage gown from Oscar De Le Renta, I think, which showed no price, which cost a fortune. But the number of coats and handbags she bought were ridiculous!! To top it all off, she still looked horrendous! All that money and no taste!

      • Lorelei says:

        @Jan I actually loved a lot of her clothes back in 2011 — 2012 or 2013, but then she started with the identical coatdresses in every color of the rainbow and it all went downhill from there. But she did wear some nice stuff, especially during the girlfriend years and the first couple of years she was married. I loved the dresses she wore on that first tour to Canada, and the lilac gown in (I think?) Los Angeles.

        @Truthiness the number is definitely too low. They don’t count anything “bespoke” and she wears a LOT of bespoke stuff, even if it’s just another boring Wickstead dress in a similar color to one she already has.

        @MyOpinion: imo she’s good at technically wearing repeat clothing, so all the press is about how thrifty she is, but then she pairs it with insanely expensive new jewelry and handbags which goes virtually unnoticed. She sneaks a lot in that way because most people pay attention to her dress or whatever.

      • Mar says:

        I agree. She has worn way more than 119k in clothing in one year. I’m in Miami and that’s a pretty low nimber to spend on clothes to most people with a lot of money that go to a many events.

  3. Belli says:

    Does this include bespoke stuff for which we know the price is either £0 or £100,000 depending on which Duchess is wearing it?

    • Amy Bee says:

      No, it doesn’t which was irritating because when Meghan was there, Kate did re-wear a lot more of her clothes but she also wore a lot of bespoke items so that people were unable to calculate how much she actually spent on clothes.

      • Belli says:

        Which is one of the smartest things she’s done, to be honest. Imagine if she applied that energy for strategic thinking to her actual work.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They can do estimates on the bespoke. If there is a version of a McQueen available that is similar, but Kate had buttons and flaps added, you can guesstimate that price or higher for bespoke.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Belli, I suspect she didn’t come up with that idea to wear more bespoke herself.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She’s worn loads of bespoke from the beginning. Even when her stans claim she’s wearing ready-made, it is clear the stuff has been custom made and redesigned based on something that IS available off the rack

    • Mignionette says:

      Aside from expensive, I also think ‘bespoke’ is code for ‘free’.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not at all. Kate has regularly worn 8000 pound bespoke day dresses from the beginning, all of which was charged to the taxpayers.

  4. Mac says:

    I guess it costs a lot to look that bad.

  5. Sofia says:

    I honestly don’t believe the clothing costs are ever accurate as in “this is what the royals actually pay!”. I truly think a lot of them get stuff at heavy discounts, especially their bespoke stuff where they might get a discount for ordering in “bulk” or something, especially from Catherine Walker and Alexander McQueen

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      There was a designer… Zara? In the early marriage years that defended their designs because Kate was always seen in their stuff and it was awful. It came off like they didn’t want their name attached to Kate like her clothing choices represented their label.

      So I doubt many designers are thrilled with Kate wearing their stuff. And sure, some items sell out, but that can be exaggerated if the items were limited to begin with. Kate buys custom. Not mass produced off the rack all the time.

      • mu says:

        The designer was Issa (Zara is a brand not a designer). And she actually went broke because of Kate. Thre dresses were so high- demand that she actually couldn’t keep up.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Issa doesn’t sound right as this feels like the 1st time hearing that name. And the article didn’t read as they were struggling to keep up so I think the Issa stuff is unrelated. I’ll do some digging.

        I used brand and designer interchangeably. My mistake.

        Edit: she was wearing Erdem and Packham a lot at the time.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Wiglet Watcher I hope you can remember because I’m intrigued! I don’t think it was Zara or Reiss because they profited from her; everything she wore from them sold out immediately. And as someone already mentioned, demand for Issa went through the roof after she wore that blue dress during the engagement interview.

        I believe you that this happened, I am just so curious who said it!

      • Nic919 says:

        She stopped using Issa because Dodi Fayed’s sister invested in the company.

      • swirlmamad says:

        @mu, Issa was what Kate wore for the engagement interview, right? Very sad for the designer either way.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Issa gave her freebies during the decade of waiting. The payoff for all those freebies was supposed to be the engagement and purple dresses Kate wore after she was ‘official’.

    • Nic919 says:

      Officially royals aren’t allowed to accept discounts and while Kate certainly did that prior to the engagement along with Carole and Pippa, she shouldn’t be getting credit for discounts she is not supposed to be given. After all, we still have people going on about the cost of a dress Meghan wore once in an engagement photoshoot with no proof that she ever bought it.

      What needs to happen is a detailed accounting of what is claimed as a tax write off by Charles for her coat dresses and buttons. She is going on a decade of wasteful spending on clothing that she rarely rewears.

      • Isabella says:

        Magazines always borrow clothes for fashion shoots. I doubt that frock is in Meghan’s closet.it’s too tied to that one occasion. I am sure many stars borrow dresses for red carpet events. It is good advertising. Also, Meghan was stunning in that dress. Kate’s clothes are boring. I also hate her headbands. She is beautiful and I wish she’d get an exciting stylist.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She takes freebies sideways through Carole and Pippa now. Jewelry, fur hats, fur gloves, etc.

  6. Gail says:

    Fugly, yes we will go with that 😄. Is it me or does that picture with her in the cream and gold dress on the red carpet with Willy leaks , she looks close to tears. He probably gave her a special dose of his put down encouragement. Also that pink and black dress with the ruffles on the neck is giving me a rash . It’s an entire next level fugly . People better be giving her these god awful clothes to wear for free because of not someone is punking Kate big time .

    • L84Tea says:

      I believe that pink ruffle monstrosity was from the Ireland trip. I consider that weekend trip to be the absolute worst set of clothes Kate has ever worn. Between the fug I’m-in-Ireland-so-let-me-dress-like-a-leprechaun green print she arrived in, to the Andes Mint candy wrapper dress, to the workin-9-to-5 ruffled granny dress, she was a complete disaster. What made it even funnier, though, was that it all happened the weekend Meghan looked iconic.

      • Aidevee says:

        I quite liked the pink ruffly dress 🤭!

        Seriously though- I think it takes real talent to spend that much razzle for so little dazzle.

        Go Kate, I guess.

      • SarahCS says:

        ‘That much razzle for so little dazzle’ may be a late entrant for my phrase of the year. THANK YOU. Im chuckling so much right now.

      • Lorelei says:

        @L84TEA, could not agree more. I was appalled at her clothing on the Ireland trip. It honestly seemed as if she purposely picked the most hideous things she could find, as if she was going to an “ugly sweater” Christmas party or something. It was unbelievable how each outfit was worse than the one before it, especially everything green.

      • windyriver says:

        The only thing she looked good in, in Ireland was the white Reiss coat, which I really liked – possibly because she’d bought it at least 10 years before during a different style incarnation, prior to getting married.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    So, no outrage that Kate spent so much money on new clothes…I see.

    • Nic919 says:

      Was there even an article about what she spent in 2019 this time last year? If so I don’t recall anything prominent because it was easier to go on about Harry and Meghan not being in the UK for the holidays. So I do find it interesting that the cost of clothing articles are starting to make a reappearance. This was an annual thing until Meghan showed up and then they were very quiet on Kate’s spending and focused on Meghan.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        They focused so much on Megan’s spending they even counted her previously owned and privately purchased jewelry to her annual total. And they would not calculate anything bespoke from Kate as they wouldn’t guess a number. So, it became 0.

        This whole thing is silly. Kate is wasteful and she gets away with it.

  8. Harper says:

    Seventeen thousand pounds for a pair of earrings to wear to arrive in Ireland? Kate must have been really pissed that she had to go on that tour and decided that she was going to get paid in jewelry.

  9. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    Don’t forget her penchant for military-inspired boob flaps. That must have set Charles back a few grand.

  10. Gail says:

    Forgot to also say that in that green dress with the green coat, her laugh is like demented laughing. Hope they were no little kids around because they would have thought Halloween came early

  11. janey says:

    it’s an absolute disgrace, especially in the year we’ve just had. Think how many families she could have fed for that amount? Or patronages she could have saved…

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      THIS. Just once I would like to see a royal donate at least as much money as clothing costs to their patronages and other worthy charities.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate could donate some of the stuff she hasn’t worn in years to an auction and raise money for them. Most of her stuff isn’t classic but there are some people who would pay for it.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Diana was the one who auctioned off her gowns for charity.

        Apparently, from what I read, Kate (or her aide rather) SELLS her stuff online for her and Kate pockets it.

        I would truly like to know…do ANY of those pampered poodles actually DONATE REAL MONEY to ANY charities??? ESP. in private, w/out the fanfare?? I’m not talking of a “patronage” to “fundraise”, but their own, PERSONAL, HARD CASH/CHECK. Has anyone EVER heard of this?

      • windyriver says:

        Speaking of Diana’s auction, have you seen that her iconic John Travolta dress is now back? I was surprised to see it appear earlier this year in a tv piece done with Lucy Worsley. Turns out Historic Royal Palaces bought it from a private collector late last year for 260,000 pounds (yikes), shortly before the pandemic hit and everything closed down. It went on display at KP at the end of July when it reopened to visitors.

      • what's inside says:

        The amount of waste from BRF is truly mind-numbing, but what really gets me is how completely foolish they are.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        I’ve never heard of any BRF member donating privately or using their own private funds as a donation. Only fundraisers and auctions.

        I’d guess the whole family is so poor and greedy they hoard all they can manage while keeping their hands out for more.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nic I’ve been saying this for so long — Kate could auction some of her clothing and donate the proceeds to her patronages without having to do a THING. It would be such an easy win for her and for the recipients of the $. There are definitely stans who would pay for her stuff (not Diana-level money, but really no one can be compared to Diana, except for maybe a few of Marilyn Monroe’s more famous dresses).

        It would be such good PR and would cost her nothing, but of course, nope. I’m not surprised to hear she has aides resell things and then pockets the money. As if she doesn’t have enough already 🙄

      • Nic919 says:

        @lorelei, I do recall you mentioning this in the past. I do suspect that the reason why we don’t see auctions is that she has no idea what she has and she’s likely given some of the outfits to Pippa or Carole, especially in the early years.

      • Carolind says:

        What’s Inside – we are stuck with them. Your country actually VOTED Donald Trump into office and then there was your first lady wearing outfits with offensive slogans

    • tcbc says:

      @(TheOG) Jan90067

      If it was truly private, we would never hear of it. But I’m guessing probably not? The more disposable items are probably resold via consignment, and the more valuable pieces (both in terms of cost and potential historical importance) are likely put in storage.

      And honestly I don’t object to that? They are historical artifacts of a kind. I bet once the queen dies, there will be a huge exhibition of her clothes at one of the British Museums.

  12. CMS says:

    She didn’t even really go anywhere? She has been on Zoom calls since March.

    • Seraphina says:

      Right, the world has been in a pandemic mode since late February.

      • Thirtynine says:

        Yeah, I can’t understand why a hundred thousand pounds in a year which a lot of people spent in their pyjamas. Her engagement numbers per cost of clothing will be interesting to see. And just on the amount of clothes she has which are similar- seriously, where are they all? A decade of coat dresses and baby doll frills and now these 80’s sacks- there must literally be hundreds of the things? Whole rooms somewhere must be full. I’d really like to see a documentary on how those huge wardrobes are arranged.

    • Lizzie says:

      I guess the UK doesn’t have the food lines that we have in the US. If you had so many people lined up for miles for a box of food there would be heck to pay for spending that kind of money on clothes during a pandemic.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        We DO have that. Melanoma Dump. WHO do you think pays for those hideous jackets and too tight dresses she wears on the few times we see her walking to and from the helicopter/airplane? It is ALL charged to US. ANYTHING you see her wearing, in public, WE pay for.

      • Lizzie says:

        Really? I have never heard that the first lady’s wardrobe is taxpayer funded. I thought a lot was donated or discounted from designers but still payed for by the first family.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Agree with Lizzie. The US taxpayer DOES NOT fund the FLOUTS’s wardrobe in any way, shape or form.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        It’s not the same from what I’ve heard for every first family because not all grift the nation. Like the sitting potus can renovate the east wing for themselves and that is covered by tax payers. But some first families like the Obamas cover those costs privately.

        Same with work attire. It can be paid privately or can be said to be funded as a cost like security and staff. It really depends.

      • Lorelei says:

        I honestly have no idea exactly what the rules are traditionally for a First Lady’s wardrobe, but in this case you can bet your life that somehow we taxpayers paid for every single thing Melania touched during the past four years.

    • February-Pisces says:

      Exactly, where’s the DMs outrage? Oh wait I forgot kate can do whatever the f*ck she wants. She should not have bought anything new whatsoever for her zoom calls. Whilst the whole world was suffering Kate was pretending to care by doing zoom calls but was technically profiting from it by being given a new designer wardrobe for her efforts. Nearly £100k for clothes to sit at home in? It’s appalling, that money could have paid for 3 NHS nurses. Meghan had the right idea by keeping her zoom working wardrobe as basic as possible.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        There was Metric F*^K-Tonne of outrage (5K comments in six hours) on Kate’s clothing expenditure in the Daily Fail comment section of this article.

    • FC says:

      She needed a $4K Peter Pan collar to create that 5 question Survey Monkey.

  13. ABritGuest says:

    the 2020 total not being marginally less than the 2019 total (allegedly) when majority of the year Kate has been on zoom is interesting. Where are those optic folks? Especially when Britain is facing economic crisis because of the pandemic & Brexit& record food bank use. Apparently according to the royal circular Kate’s 2020 engagements was only down 5% from previous year so her numbers were practically the same as in 2019 even though there was no pandemic with enforced closures in 2019.

    Interesting that the Fail has the query on whether Kate gets discounts (I bet they do so I doubt these costs are accurate) & makes clear Kate’s wardrobe is funded by Charles’ office not billed to the taxpayer. If this was Meghan..

    • Amy Bee says:

      But they never made that distinction when Meghan was there. It was she was spending tax payer’s money. Now, the press and the Kate stans are saying the Duchy of Cornwall and the Sovereign Grant are not taxpayers’ money.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Funny you should bring that up because the trolls at The Daily Gestapo consider “Duchy of Cornwall” funds/proceeds to be tax payer money whenever they are discussing the Sussexes.

    • Lorelei says:

      @ArbitGuest this jumped out at me, too. How on earth?? She was on lockdown for months on end. It seems impossible but our Kate managed to do it!

  14. TIFFANY says:

    Even if we were not in a pandemic, I think the number would have decreased because her numbers would have decreased, like it has every year she has been married.

    This is an embarrassment and someone needs to do a story on it.

  15. Rae says:

    I would like to know whether she genuinely wants to look the way she does, or if she’s dressing to fit the ideals of her fan base?

    • Gruey says:

      She used to do tarty yet ugly high street looks so I’m guessing she’d like to be a bit sexier. She used to do more florals from companies like Erdem and I remember sort of liking one of those dresses. I actually remember it because it was an article about how the dress was too $$$ (so before Meghan obvs) and I felt kind of defensive of ol Tweedlekeen. That’s kind of how I felt about her before Meghan: vaguely aware and thought she was fine. Boy did that change lol!!!

      Edit: this is the dress. Not quite what we are seeing these days. Floral, but sexier for sure https://fashionista.com/.amp/2017/01/kate-middleton-erdem

      Edit2: ok now you sent me down a rabbit hole. Google purple Prabal Garung Kate Middleton. We would Never see a dress like that on her. You will find quite a few of these sexier shift dresses from days past. I think some grey men intervened and told her not to be such a fashion plate.

      • Nic919 says:

        Her early years looks were very Essex and she might have transitioned to something more sophisticated but part of the issue has also been the flashing and unweighted hems. She seems to not have swung the pendulum all the other way, although it is possible to dress more conservatively and not be a sister wife. Kate just doesn’t have style and neither does her stylist.

      • L84Tea says:

        Yes! I used to love when she dressed that way. It looked good on her. Look up the beige dress she wore when she first met Michelle Obama–Kate looked stunning. But that look of hers appears to be long gone.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Gruey: when it comes to Erdem I either absolutely love or hate Kate’s dresses. I adored the two blue ones she wore on her first Canadian tour (I think one was lace and one was jacquard), as well as the one you posted the link to. I also really liked the floral Erdem that Eugenie wore for some photo shoot; not sure if it was her engagement photos or just for a magazine. And I didn’t hate the one Kate wore to some event at the V&A; IIRC it was tweed with a burgundy belt and some interesting buttons?

        But when she wears a bad Erdem, good lord are they hideous. There are so many to choose from but there was a mustard yellow one and something in a light blue velvet (I think?) that were so ugly I couldn’t even believe William allowed her to step outside looking like that.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Kate dressed better when she was still a girlfriend and for the first few years of her marriage – once she started having children thats when she went full on twee matron. There was a period when she went from dressing like she was still in college to dressing like her mother – she’s the latter now.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Allegedly, Angela Kelly gave her a make over that’s why she started dressing like the Queen.

      • Sofia says:

        I really enjoyed her sloane ranger dressing of the girlfriend years. I also enjoyed a lot of her early years of marriage dressing.

        She’s gone downhill in terms of dressing after Charlotte’s birth.

      • L84Tea says:

        That’s how I have always viewed it too. I loved her preppy sloane style during the Waity years and the first few years of marriage–when she actually used to dress a little sexier. She lost me when she traveled down the button path to sisterwife hell.

      • GRUEY says:

        I honestly wonder if the total loss of all sex appeal in her dressing is a sign of defeat, maybe by her husband’s cheating. She’s fully submitted to having a horrible marriage and is so demoralized she doesn’t give a shit anymore. At least, this is what I would think if I saw an acquaintance go from tarty shifts and skirts to sister wife dresses. That or they had become much more religious.

      • Mignionette says:

        @GRUEY – it would seem that way.

        She is still relatively young and seems to invest a lot in botox and hair extensions, yet at the same time dresses like a woman who is very sexually repressed,

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Here’s a theory: maybe she DOESN’T WANT to appear sexy for PwT anymore. She’s done with having kids, and perhaps she is quite content to have him wandering in others’ gardens (as long as he is discrete. I think the Rosebush foray only happened because it was rubbed in her face). She may be *quite* content to look like a frump….EXCEPT when she’s going yachting with Ben, or meeting with Justin Trudeau. Then she likes being flirty.

      • February-Pisces says:

        I dunno I think kate is still desperate to be desirable (maybe not to Willie). She spends a hell of a lot of money on beautifying herself, she’s jealous and insecure of any woman within her vicinity and she’s always twirling her hair and fluttering her eyelashes for any attractive man she sees (Ben Ainsley, harry etc) . I think she would love it if the worlds press called her “the most beautiful woman in the world” but I think even that’s pushing it. Instead the press opt for “she has a new found dazzle and confidence” when they are told to embiggen Kate’s looks. I just think the terrible dresses are down to her lack of style. Plus a lot of her dresses do look better on other people, but as soon as she wears them, they look dead on her. Inner confidence can do wonders for someone’s style, but she doesn’t have that.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Amy Bee that actually explains a lot, if Angela Kelly gave her a “makeover.” She must be, what, at least in her 50’s or 60’s? Probably older than Carole. So the ton of coatdresses and prim, matronly dresses makes more sense now.

        Also I’m lmao at “sisterwife hell”

  16. OriginalLala says:

    How did she manage to drop six figures on “work” clothing during a pandemic when basically all her events were over zoom?!?!?! what a waste this woman is…

    • Nic919 says:

      There was no reason for her to spend any money on new clothes this year, especially once the pandemic started. While the awful Ireland tour clothes had already been spent, once things were in lockdown she should have done repeats. Especially while doing zoom calls.

      There is a compulsive need for new clothing from her almost as if she needs to be bribed with shopping in order to do any work.

      • Shoo fly says:

        Jackie O compulsively shopped as a pressure valve. Perhaps Kate does the same — under considerably less pressure.

      • Nic919 says:

        Gee I wonder what Kate and Jackie O, wife of noted adulterer JFK, have in common?

      • Tessa says:

        Jackie had more to her than Kate . She worked for a living and later became an editor at a publishing company. Apparently her father in law talked her into staying so his son could be President.

      • Thirtynine says:

        I mean, I’m not using public funds for my clothes, but I get recreational shopping. It’s something I have to be really watchful of myself for. I could easily be Kate-like in my shopping habits if I didn’t take a lot of care, worry about the environmental effects etc.

      • Carolind says:

        Jacke Kennedy had marvellous taste and has been said elsewhere worked for a living later on. Old Joe Kennedy persuaded her to stay with Jack Kennedy and old Joe and Jackie got on very well.

    • Lady D says:

      She spent $2500BP a week on clothes for a year straight while zooming.

  17. Digital Unicorn says:

    Of course they BM are not outraged about Top CEO’s out fo control spending habits – too busy being outraged at a toddler talking.

    My theory on her spending is that during the dating years she often wore high street, rented designer clothes and borrowed from her mother and sister. Given the people she was desperate to get in with she buys all the bespoke high end designer gear she can to fill a void and to show the aristo’s that she to can dress in high end designer clobber like them. Kate is still the sloany who is desperately trying to fit in with the rest of the crowd. Plus there long has been stories about how her mother and sister used to ‘borrow’ clothes she would often wear to public engagements.

    • Seraphina says:

      I always forget there is another part of Kate’s world, the one where she tries to fit in with the Aristo’s who will never quite accept her.

  18. Mumbles says:

    But wait, I thought she was just normal yummy mummy Kate in Norfolk with her down-to-earth home? I don’t even think a banker would pay this much for his wife’s clothes. Imagine your clothes budget being a *multiple* of the average income. I know daddy-in-law pays for this and so it’s technically and strictly not the taxpayer’s dime, but I just don’t see how this doesn’t create resentment among the people. Abolish this out-of-date institution.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Well actually it is taxpayers money as Charles expenses it as its for ‘work’. There was a bit of a scandal a few years ago when it was discovered that he expensed a nice bit of bling for Cams.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I remember something about Charles supposedly paying Cammie’s personal bills plus expenses on her privately owned house with Duchy of Cornwall funds and it caused quite a stink in the British Tabloid Media for a couple of days.

      • Lorelei says:

        @DU I remember reading a while back (probably here) that if Charles pays for something for her to wear to “work,” she’s not supposed to wear it out for personal events? (This seems dumb and wasteful imo, but I think most of what these people do is dumb and wasteful, so.)
        And remember how hard she was trying to hide in those paparazzi photos of her going to a birthday party for either her mother or Pippa? She was really trying to cover herself up, and she was wearing a red dress she’d previously worn on a tour, so Charles definitely paid for it. She usually doesn’t look so distressed even in pap pics, so I wonder if she was breaking the rule by wearing that dress to a family party.

        No idea if this is true but this thread reminded me of it!

    • windyriver says:

      The emphasis that Charles is paying for all this is interesting, considering he just did a major spread last month in British Vogue about “his lifelong commitment to sustainable fashion” and how they “used to take our shoes down to the cobbler in Scotland and watched with fascination” as they were resoled.

      No doubt he’s something of a hypocrite, and no doubt also “what Kate [William] wants, Kate gets”, but he can’t be pleased at this type of article, especially given the current environment.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate is allowed to shop like this in order to stay quiet about the cheating. The RVO was only one of the things they did to get her to come out of hiding last April.

      • windyriver says:

        Very good point! Though the original point also remains – how contradictory it is to try to build a reputation for sustainability in fashion while also shelling out big bucks for Kate’s constant additions to her wardrobe. Still, I expect Charles is used to this routine by now in many things where the Cambridges are concerned.

  19. equality says:

    I bet there was no outrage like there was at the thought that M&H bought Archie a playhouse during a pandemic. And she re-wore (not recycled) clothing on 6 occasions? I can top that number by an extreme amount.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The trolls, bots and paid poster at The Daily Gestapo are still pushing the narrative that the Sussexes spent 7,000 BPS on the playhouse for Archie. Proof via Google that the playhouse was already on the Montecito property when they bought it does not seem to phase these haters.

      • Alexandria says:

        Harry should sue them then donate more to charity.

      • Tessa says:

        I notice the numbers vary that the playhouse ‘cost’–the trolls/bots have different numbers depending on who posts. Even though it’s easily proven that it was there with the home, they don’t want to hear about THAT to spoil their narrative.

    • SarahCS says:

      Same, I recently splashed out on a pair of £50 ($70? $80?) joggers (tracksuit bottoms? not sure best language for US equivalent) and I really had to think hard and remind myself a) I’ve bought next to no clothes this year and b) these are literally all I wear day to day as I only do a smart top half for my work video sessions.

      Ooh I’m so thrifty.

  20. Mina_Esq says:

    How…? I think her styling is what throws everything off. She doesn’t know how to make these expensive pieces work for her. When you’re wearing $120,000 worth of designer clothes, you shouldn’t look that basic. Someone needs to sit her down and advise against all the matching and theme-dressing that she likes to do. Then they need to show her a photo book of Queen Latizia as an example of how to pull it all together. This is ridiculous.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The green goat she wore on the Ireland tour and pictured above would have looked wonderful and stunning over a white or cream dress. Why and how does Kate miss the bar so badly every time?

      • Mina_Esq says:

        I knooow! The green dress was crying out for a black coat, and the green coat was also crying out for something more neutral (beige? Cream?). You can’t mix a jewel tone with that shade of green dress! I enjoy styling Kate in my head lol She is such a fashion victim 🙂

      • Lemons says:

        Kate is the definition of basic, which is fine, but she also, unfortunately, believes her own press as being the best thing since sliced bread for society. She desperately needs a professional stylist who can at least make her look regal and modern, but instead, she has someone who can do neither. Considering her body type, her current stylist has really failed at their job.

        Meghan was close to finding this balance and closer than Kate has ever been in her 10+ years on the scene, which is just depressing.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Thing is, you CAN do color mixing to great results, BUT… you need the confidence to pull it off. A Blue- Red and Amethyst is one example. Royal blue and Emerald, or Emerald and Amethyst another. AND it has to be tied together with a great shoe. It can’t all be matchy matchy.

  21. Mignionette says:

    @Kaiser that thumbnail is mad – lol

    The maniacal grin never fails to crack me up.

    • kelleybelle says:

      It’s frightening, isn’t it? As is that green monstrosity under the green coat. The green on that tour was comically overdone. I’m floored every time I see pics from that tour. One green outfit would’ve been nice, but no …

      • Nic919 says:

        I was waiting for her to do a jig to complete the Irish stereotypes when I first saw that outfit. She’s been to Ireland before so it’s really offensive to theme dress like this all the time. And childish too.

      • Chrissy says:

        It’s like she was trolling the Irish on that tour.

      • Nyro says:

        She actually looks amazing right after she has a kid and before she loses the baby weight. She is normal sized and her shape is filled out. Twenty pounds would do het A world of good.

  22. Lizzie says:

    She went matronly when she realized she couldn’t compete with Meghan’s beauty and style. Expensive matronly. If she were smart she would re-wear the immense amount of clothing she has purchased for the last decade and only buy new for very special occasions. Then she could claim to be frugal and it would be big news when she did wear something new.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Yep, she’s got enough clothes to last her a lifetime. She wouldn’t even need to buy new shoes for awhile.

    • Shoo fly says:

      Yes, and she also went matronly when it was decided that her arms, legs, chest and collarbone should not be shown to the public. Some of her public clothing is being chosen to hide that she is thinner now than at any point since her wedding.

      • kelleybelle says:

        People who have met her actually say she is “painfully thin.” Pas bon.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        There was a photo taken of Kate early on that showed how heavy handed she was with makeup. Almost stage level thickness. But what stood out in that photo was how thin she was. She only ever looked healthy while pregnant when she put on healthy weight.

  23. Merricat says:

    Kate is a classic example of someone who looks like she can wear anything, but none of it looks quite right on her. I’ll bet she thinks with M gone, she should have twice the clothing allowance.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      For me it is not what Kate wears that makes me scratch my head but how she puts her outfits together. Most, but not all, of the pieces Kate wears are quite stunning on their own but Kate always seems to pick the wrong shoe or wrong jacket.

      I must give Kate credit where it is due as I believe her clothes are expertly tailored and fit her to perfection. It is just that the total optic of Kate’s fashion comes of as wanting. I have seen experts put together outfits at TJ Maxx that look much better than what Kate’s stylist puts together.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        They weren’t *always* expertly tailored. Don’t forget all the waistlines that were WAY too high for her longer torso. Or the ones that were PURPOSELY raised to try and give her the image of longer legs.

      • Dee says:

        Kate’s worn some Emilia Wickstead dresses that were tailored so badly, I wondered if the designer had it out for her.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Dee & (TheOG) Jan90067 – I agree with you. However, I stand by my original comment that most (90%) of what Kate wears fit her body very well.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I never understood how all her outfits look dead on her. She’s tall and thin like most models so she should be able to carry any outfit, yet she manages to age everything she wears. I’ve seen celebs in the same dresses and they seem to look good. I think her clothes wear her rather than the other way round. I don’t think she has any natural style, so she throws ridiculous amounts of money at clothes thinking the more expensive something is the better it must look on her.

      • Q says:

        She’s tall-ish (but not model tall) with an athletic build.
        She has wider shoulders in proportion to her hips. Her torso is long and legs shorter (the opposite of a models body who tend to have longer legs and shorter torsos), and over all looks “strong”, not lithe like a skinny models. Kate’s bones are wider than a models.
        I believe there’s a term for different body shapes but she’s an athletic for sure, you can tell she has to starve herself to be that skinny because it looks unnatural and her face looks drawn (when not Photoshopped) and her wrists and ankles is a clear tell.
        Her body is actually hard to dress. The only time you can’t tell her off body proportions is when she wears loose long dresses that have no waist emphasis but even then her shoulders betray her.
        She looks best in smart casual outfits with slightly loose pants with an ever so slightly hiked up hem. The problem with kate is she goes too high with the waist hemline to make her torso shorter but it has the opposite effect and instead all you see is her trying to hide her torso with an overexagerated hemline close to her ribs. It looks ridiculous.
        Less is more.
        A nice tailored blazer with cigarette pants look great on her. The frilly, cutesy stuff doesn’t suit her body or her face. It looks jarring. Either she looks frumpy or like an old lady trying to look like a child. You need to be an ingenue to pull that off and kate is anything but.
        She also needs to stop with the jeggings. Those super tight skinny jeans are so unflattering on her! I hate saying this but her legs are shaped like a frogs. They don’t have a nice shape to them and can look quite masculine. I don’t know why she likes to wear those awful pants to show them off…yikes.
        With a good stylist she could actually look good! I have seen exactly ONE outfit where she nailed it.

      • Amy Too says:

        I think her problem is that she wears everything so earnestly. She never wears something for fun, or to be silly, or shocking, or retro, or trendy, or stylish, or weird. She styles everything to be so earnestly prim and proper and then she has zero personality either, so she can’t even add the fun or style with her wit or interactions. Someone else could wear that awful pink ruffle dress and style it completely differently and probably look great. Or they still might look silly and weird but they’d be wearing it ironically BECAUSE they wanted to look silly/weird that day. People could wear some of the stupid sister wife dresses she wears but style them as bohemian or even straight up Victorian with like button boots and a big hat with flowers and ribbons on it and they would look stylish. Not my style, maybe, but they would be dressed in a type of style/fashion. A lot of the stuff Kate wears is kind of retro/throw-back, but rather than leaning in completely and styling it in a cool, retro way OR modernizing it by adding crazy shoes and cool jewelry, she plays it so straight and ends up just looking dated. Some clothes are meant to be for fun or to give a certain effect. I don’t think the designer of the ugly pink ruffle dress was thinking “this is for anyone. Any middle aged woman working in an office could wear this.” They probably thought “this is a fun and silly and slightly retro party dress for young 20-somethings.” But Kate treats every single item of clothing as if it’s meant to be serious and earnest, worn with beige pumps, and wearable for anyone in any position for any event.

      • February-Pisces says:

        I work in fashion and used to own a vintage clothing shop, so I have a appreciation for retro styles through the decades. So I wouldn’t have any problem with Kate recreating looks from the past. There’s a guy on Instagram whos in his 20s and he wears only period outfits from 19th century and he looks absolutely amazing. He dresses like that every single day and has built up a massive following.

        I agree that the problem with Kate’s style is that she wears dated clothing in a serious staid way. She doesn’t have any quirks or personality that brings her looks to life, hence why everything she wears looks dead on her. If she had a genuine passion for Victorian styles or 1940s fashion (the 2 eras she takes from the most) then that would be great, but she actually doesn’t. I don’t even think she sees the resemblance her outfits have to the past, and that’s why her style falls flat, and why so many women don’t rush out to buy what she’s worn.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Amy Too that’s it! She does wear everything too earnestly! The theme dressing wouldn’t be so ridiculous if she was even the least bit tongue-in-cheek about it. You nailed it 👏

      • Amy Too says:

        And I also want to add that she has no self-confidence in how she dresses or styles things, no concept of tweaking something or wearing something in a different way to make it more original or more “her.” She wears everything exactly as it is made. So if something has buttons all the way up the neck, she buttons every single button, when really, the designer probably intended you to leave some of those buttons undone. If it has ties, she ties them into a perfect little bow every single time, rather than maybe leaving them untied or tying them in a fancy knot or something. She buttons or zips her coats all the way up and seems to think once she is in her “look,” she cannot change it in any way like by taking the coat off or undoing a button. She seems like the type of person who would buy a pant suit and then it would never ever occur to her that she could wear the jacket and pants separately land not always together. Same thing with a twin set. She seems like the type of person who feels like her shoes and bag always need to match her outfit. If she were a regular person and didn’t get to buy a new outfit for every single outing, she would be the type of person who repeated outfits exactly every single time she wore them. “This sweater is worn with this skirt. Always.” “This suit must be worn with this blouse every single time I wear the suit.” “I always wear these shoes and this one necklace with this dress and only this dress.”

      • Thirtynine says:

        I think the Pakistan tour long tunics with pants looked good on her. Much nicer than what she usually wears, and she looked more comfortable and free.

      • equality says:

        @Thirtynine The Pakistan looks were her only outfits that I could see myself having an interest in wearing.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Kate doesn’t know how to accessorize and neither does her stylist! CP Mary’s stylist really knows this! IMO Mary is the best dressed royal woman in Europe and that is because she got a very good stylist (one of the top tier in Denmark) from the very beginning. Her style before she married wasn’t that great but when she became engaged she got the stylist and since then she’s had great style with a few rare missteps.

        Kate either doesn’t use a stylist or her stylist is an amateur with no eye. That’s the only explanation. She spends a ton of money on clothes and her looks are rarely any good. You can count her good looks on one hand – and she’s probably spent over £1 million on her wardrobe by now.

      • Carolind says:

        Q I agree with what you say except Harry and a lot of other people have said she has marvellous legs. Harry was going to put this into his speech at their wedding but it was thought it would embarrass her too much.

  24. Mignionette says:

    What is most shocking about this figure is that fact that she did very few physical engagements this year i.e. even less than usual. So spending $127k during a pandemic year when she has had months off on holiday is just crazee.

    This is basically the cost of Kitty’s zoom wardrobe sans hair, makeup etc and other sundries.

    But of course the Gammons will say jack shit bc the blanco Princess is above all reproach.

  25. Emmy Rae says:

    I don’t care that much about Kate but I always read these posts because they are so funny, every time. “Top CEO” “Sister Wife frocks” “Zooming her fingers to the bone” it all cracks me up.

    You’d think she could just rewear all of her dresses and shirts since she never took her coat off when she was doing events before.

  26. Merrie says:

    Her style is so blah. The only time I like what she wears is when she’s dressed in casual clothes (jeans and boots with a plain top — no ruffles or buttons!). When she goes fancy or CEO Kate, it’s like stepping back to the 80s or military cosplay.

  27. Wetcoastbestcoast says:

    I love that photo of her in the black coat looking all Dowager Countess. In the wise words of Emma Thompson, “she looks like a slapped ass”.

  28. MA says:

    This woman has no taste or style.

    Also I’ll never forget the palpable outrage and discomfort that people, even White Feminists had for the black princess who was building a starter wardrobe as a Royal but none for the white one with a decade worth of clothing under her belt.

    • HeatherC says:

      Starter wardrobe AND maternity clothes for a first time mom.

    • Kalana says:

      White feminism. So many supposedly progressive women were exposed by how they targeted Meghan while pretzelling themselves to make excuses for Kate.

      There’s clearly one woman chasing the money and lifestyle with no interest in giving back and it isn’t Meghan.

      • Nic919 says:

        I don’t know how any modern woman can do anything but condemn that Kate did nothing in her adult life but be available for William. And once married she continued to do nothing but siphon off material things paid for by the tax payer and has done nothing in return. She can’t even keep up with the paltry work the other royals do.

      • Kalana says:

        Nic919. Choice feminism where you contribute nothing to feminism but benefit from what others have done. But Kate can’t even support the choices of other women. She went on a podcast and actually tried to throw shade at Meghan because she didn’t want to stand outside the hospital right after giving birth. As far as Kate was concerned, THAT was how she gave back, by doing a photo-op for the monarchy and her own pr.

        BTW, I don’t think it was an accident that the press were not told Meghan was going into labor until after Meghan had left the hospital. It is 100% certain the press would have invaded her privacy and taken a pap photo of her and all the supposedly feminist Karens would have blamed Meghan for it saying she should have posed. Bill must have been incandescent he couldn’t hurt her in that way.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Ma, agreed, it was disgusting. And they always counted every piece of jewelry — which they never did with Kate — even if we knew it was a gift or if Meghan had been photographed wearing it BEFORE she ever even met Harry. It was so blatant and gross.

      They might think they’re “feminists” but they are very much not.

  29. Jaded says:

    She needs to go for a much more tailored look. The ruffly sister-wife nonsense just looks silly on her angular frame.

  30. ican'tanymore says:

    I either love or hate what she wears – I’m never indifferent. When Meghan was trying to “fit in” with the royal vibe, I HATED her clothes. When she has been herself in her style, I’ve been 100% in. Who knows how much pressure there is from the top to look like the future head of the church and therefore Saint Mary cosplay? Dunno.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I did not care for most of Meghan’s clothes either when she was a working Royal.

      • Lorelei says:

        Same. Meghan’s own style, pre-Harry and post-BRF, is great. But when she tried to fit into their formal, stuffy mold, it just didn’t work. So glad she’s gone and following her style is fun again now!

  31. Jane Margaret Blake says:

    William. That’s why she dresses like this and why she spends so much money. As William lost his looks, her clothes became more and more dowdy so as not to outshine him. She dressed a bit younger, more fashionable and occasionally sexy in the first few years because he still had hair in the year or so after the wedding. Now he’s a “generous 2” as some commentator put it, and she has the sister wife look going (far more dowdy on the whole than her mom, IMO). But she gets to spend a ton because the money is still coming from her father in law. I think Charles’ semi-authorized biographer got it right: W is angry (though I’d change that to verbally abusive) and micromanaging and she’s trying to maneuver around him. I think her treatment of Meghan was awful, but I also think she’s treated badly at home. And though I wish she wanted to work hard and was passionate about causes, QEII, Charles and William don’t want someone like that, just an obedient person who won’t outshine them and will take whatever they dish out.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      As there are so many, which Charles bio are you referring to? I want to read it!!!

      • Jane says:

        The book was Charles at 70 and he got a VF profile. The bits about William were occasionally pretty awful. Laineygossip as well as Celebitchy delved into it.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Jane I’d never thought about it that way but this is a very interesting theory!

  32. Laurinroc says:

    And precisely 2pounds went towards the masks that she never friggin wears, right?

  33. Liz version 700 says:

    That is stunning. I literally paid for law school for $30k less than her yearly coats. That just makes me dizzy.

  34. Kim says:

    You have to give her credit. She knows her style and stays in her lane – modern frump.

  35. Le4Frimaire says:

    That’s a lot of money for a lot of fugly clothes. That Irish trip were the worst looks, as well as all those prairie dresses. There is nothing frugal about the royals and their spending, apart from the cheap Tesco puddings they gift their staff. They all spend too much money and pretend they don’t. The public don’t really seem to care either. They are more obsessed about the cost of a baby play house or scented candles in Montecito, which has nothing to do with their taxes.

    • Sofia says:

      The Irish trip was one of her worst sartorial wise. The white coat, coral sweater and I liked a black top she wore but I disliked everything else – especially that ruffle neckline top

  36. mlouise@hotmail.com says:

    She can spend a ton or ‘repeat’, still she is one of the worst dressed ‘celebrity’ and worst dressed ‘european royal woman’. She tries to channel others and does not understand it looks OFF and terribly odd, Diana did HERSELF, like Sofia from Sweden; like Meghan, like Maxima, etc. you do YOU Kate, whatever that means, you dressing like yourself will always look better than you trying to be someone you are not.

  37. NomNom says:

    Such lovely photos, money well spent. *barf*

  38. Julia K says:

    Give her a break. It must be very difficult to let her personality shine through via her outfits when she appears to be devoid of personality. Throwing money at a problem usually is futile

  39. Fraylock Fartlemeyer IV says:

    How positively ghastly and unbecoming.

    • Nyro says:

      One of the derangers put if a tweet the other day celebrating Kate’s fashion over the past year and none royal watchers happened upon it and dragged her outfits mercilessly. I almost felt bad for the mugxits.

  40. Nyro says:

    That lime green peplum dress and hunter green coat ensemble that she wore in Ireland has still got to be one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen a public figure wear. I can’t believe she looked at that and thought “oooh, I’m about to twirl on these haters today, honey!”

  41. RoyalBlue says:

    I thought her clothing was dreadful this year. She dressed like a bag lady when she went out in those oversized coats that were not tailored to suit her. To counter her earlier history of wearing flimsy skirts that blew up in the wind she went full on sister wife.

  42. Implicit says:

    She literally could’ve bought absolutely nothing in all of 2020 and that would’ve been a statement that would’ve been understood around the world. SHe really has no clue how to Royal

  43. yinyang says:

    I bet they’re somewhere hot right now. Usually when they’re quiets that’s where they are. Prepare to see Zoom call with no backgrounds and tanned skin.