General News for the Duchess of Cambridge 1: November 2010-February 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I always think these articles about new royals spending habits are rather tedious and pointless. Of course they are going to have to up the ante on how they dress, Kate recycles and wears clothes from years ago and still the expensive designers throw a hissy fit. Part of the job requirement for these women is looking good, and to do that they are going to have to spend some money.
 
As a previous poster said, would people be satisfied if Kate appeared in a cheap-looking outfit to still the outcries that she spends too much? She's a royal duchess and has to appear and dress the part, and I think her mixture of high street and designer clothes is a smart blend and she's done well for the most part. If she has the money to spend on looking good for her position, I don't have a problem with that. The royals live in a more rarefied world than mine.
 
Last edited:
excuse me: none of the costs of the trips that charles and camilla or william and kate have performed or the cost of the events they perform (such as cars, drivers, or any other assistance) comes from charles's private allowance. those are diplomatic or representation costs which are of course not covered by the royal family themselves. so if charles' budget changed, it may well be because of kate's spending (clothes or otherwise), or on the wedding or on the costs of having one more person in the house but by no means it can be blamed on the engagements they have performed.

So why did they mention travel income and expenditure in this?

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/Annual Review 2011.pdf

And they also mention press staffs. Amazingly nothing about clothing.
 
Actually only foreign travel at the request of the Foreign office is paid by the government, and that does include a special clothing allowance. Security is also paid for by the government.
Other than that their expenses in the UK, and private visits abroad, are paid for by their own household.
 
I didn't say her McQueen outfits are high street, but most of what she wears are high streets

Anyways when is the press going to list the price of Beatrice and Eugenie Valentino, McQueen, Erdem, Louboutin's outfits for the public?



They should borrow and takes freebies like celebs do and other European Royals are rumor to do


I don't think Kate should take freebies; that makes her into a shill for a fashion designer! Remember the criticism about Fergie when she tried to get designer clothes for free, and Zandra Rhodes replied "I don't need the publicity!"

And good point about the other royals and their clothing! Almost every female in the RF wears more designer clothing than Kate does, so why is she the one under attack?
 
because her clothing spending is a story and will sell papers and generate clicks on stories.

I was actually shocked the number was so low. She has done a great job mixing it up - old and new, desinger and High street, outlet shopping and bespoke. Not to mention.... the accessories she is having to build up her wardrobe from scratch - hats, shoes, evening bags. She is obviously good at taking care of her things and Im sure these staples will be around for a long time. For as much scrutiny as she falls under, i think she is doing an amazing job.
 
Am I the only one who has no problem with this arrangement? This is the business of being royal. I don't have a problem with the Order of Precedence or the expense. It is what it is, I expect royals' life styles live vastly different to my own. When folks complain about how much CP Mary, Catherine etc I shrug. They're royals, they're photographed and critiqued here and elsewhere; they're expected to have a quality and wide variety of clothing.

These traditional arrangements wherein Prince of Wales pays the expenses of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry or Order of Precedence are fascinatingly archaic but charming rules. They're interesting but I see nothing controverial about either topic.
 
Kate's Scouse brows secret: £15 powder makes them look heavier
Ever since the Duchess of Cambridge faced the world with more defined eyebrows, rumours about their transformation have abounded. Had they been tinted? Tattooed? Threaded, tweezed and tidied to perfection? In fact, it can be revealed that the secret of Kate’s face-framing look is rather more modest – a £15.50 eye shadow powder from a department store make-up counter.
The picture of the "eye-shadow" in the article is actually Bobby Brown Creamy Concealer kit (which, incidentally, I absolutely adore).
The eye-shadow in question is most probably this one; I also use them to define my brows sometimes. I'm a brunette like Kate (although my hair colour is slightly lighter) and the shades I use are "blonde" (a medium ash brown for soft definition), "wheat" (ash beige for a bit stronger definition) and "hot stone" (ashy brown for very strong definition). Kate is probably using either "hot stone" or a mixture of "hot stone" and "wheat".
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who has no problem with this arrangement? This is the business of being royal. I don't have a problem with the Order of Precedence or the expense. It is what it is, I expect royals' life styles live vastly different to my own. When folks complain about how much CP Mary, Catherine etc I shrug. They're royals, they're photographed and critiqued here and elsewhere; they're expected to have a quality and wide variety of clothing.

These traditional arrangements wherein Prince of Wales pays the expenses of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry or Order of Precedence are fascinatingly archaic but charming rules. They're interesting but I see nothing controverial about either topic.
No. You are not the only one who has a problem with this arraingement. Catherine is now a member of the BRF and whilst she is not a full-time working member, like Maxima, Letizia, Mary, Marie, etc., I do think that as she is just starting out, initially it will be expensive to create a base wardrobe.

IMO she would be well advised to stay away from the High Street as she is in danger of becoming the one thing she said she didn't want to be . . . a clothes horse! One company is set to re-release one particular outfit and I am betting it will be more expensive than the original release. Regardless, I don't think it's a healthy thing for the media are able to accurately cost out every item of clothing she is wearing at any one engagement. It really takes the gilt off the gingerbread and makes it all seems very cut price and tacky!

Besides, we like a "Princesses" to be a little more special than we are. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
In the movie Diana Her True Story there was a segment of Philip reading negative media coverage of Diana's spending on clothes. If that really did occur it would appear that this is just something the British media will always whine about. It is clearly better to spend thousands rather than expect freebies like Sarah did. The fact that a week ago Kate was criticized for recycling, turns this new story into a non-issue. Any woman who marries into any RF is going to have to spend a lot on clothes. Im sure even First Ladies have to up their costs when their husbands are sworn in. Just imagine the whining if these women wore something from Target, Wal Mart, or Dillards.
 
:previous: Exactly! Most ordinary people shop Target, Wal Mart and Dillards. Princesses or, to be more correct, Duchesses, need to shop a little more "Dream Factory"! Then, of course, the tabloids can try taking the high moral ground. It's a bit of a stretch but at least it keeps us entertained. :ROFLMAO:
 
The article claims that all sorts of designers send Kate clothing for free, because they re desperate for her to wear something so they can benefit from the "Kate Effect."

She wouldn't have to pay a penny for her wardrobe if she didn't want to, but perhaps she is right to insist on paying the going rate for everything? She often wears dresses on more than one occasion; I really don't think anyone could possibly do better when it comes to spending (unless she accepted the freebies, of course).

What do the others do? The York girls, Sophie, Zara all wear designer outfits, and they don't have access to Charles' income. Does the Queen pay or do they accept the freebies?
 
There's a bit of a difference between the British high street labels (Whistles, Reiss, LK Bennett etc.) and shopping for clothes in Walmart. These brands don't produce cheap crap. Generally, the sort of 'middle market' high street that Kate goes for allow her to look elegant and classy without seeming 'cut-price' or 'tacky'. Kate obviously likes their clothes because she's been wearing them for years now; she's not doing it to look down to earth with the ordinary people, but because they produce stuff that she likes.
 
Am I the only one who has no problem with this arrangement? This is the business of being royal. I don't have a problem with the Order of Precedence or the expense. It is what it is, I expect royals' life styles live vastly different to my own. When folks complain about how much CP Mary, Catherine etc I shrug. They're royals, they're photographed and critiqued here and elsewhere; they're expected to have a quality and wide variety of clothing.

These traditional arrangements wherein Prince of Wales pays the expenses of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry or Order of Precedence are fascinatingly archaic but charming rules. They're interesting but I see nothing controverial about either topic.

My post #482 agrees with you as well. Kate's a duchess, a princess, and now a member of a rarefied circle that demands she looks her best. She'd be nailed against the wall if she wore cheap, low-quality clothing.
 
Last edited:
If there is anyone that is in a position to beef about what Kate has spent on her wardrobe, it'd be her father-in-law who most likely has been footing her wardrobe bills and I've heard no complaints from that sector yet. I think Kate is doing a remarkable job of setting an example that if you buy quality, it will serve you well and that outfits can be mixed and matched to get more wear out of them. Sounds like a sensible person to me.
 
Does anyone know how other females in the RF finance their clothing expenses?

Beatrice and Eugenie wear designer dresses, so does the Queen pay?
(Andrew's income is not that large -well, comparatively- so I expect the Queen must help out?)

What about Anne, Sophie, Zara? Who pays for everyone?
 
I doubt Charles is bothered by Kate's clothing costs, after all Diana wore very expensive designer clothes. I KNOW she was the Princess of Wales, but still she didn't wear cheapies. I would think that the York girls would be paying for their own unless they accept freebies, they do, after all have independent incomes and are not really doing royal duties so there is no reason for the Queen to foot the bill. She has already set up trust funds for these girls. I doubt Anne cares much and she clearly recycles. I would think that Sophie would be the pinched in the clothing department although one would think that the Queen would pay for her "working wardrobe. There is no reason for anyone supplimenting Zara unless it is her mother, IMO.
 
Well the Late Queen Mother Set up a Trust for each of her great- grandchildren so Zara does not need anyone to pay for her clothes. Guess a second trust from HM and the DoE exists as well for her.
 
Kit said:
Well the Late Queen Mother Set up a Trust for each of her great- grandchildren so Zara does not need anyone to pay for her clothes. Guess a second trust from HM and the DoE exists as well for her.

Also, she has a job. She's got a line of children's riding clothes, plus I'm sure she gets paid to campaign some of the horses she rides. Her horse for the Olympics, for example, is not owned by her, she rides him for the owners.
 
Am I the only one who has no problem with this arrangement? This is the business of being royal. I don't have a problem with the Order of Precedence or the expense. It is what it is, I expect royals' life styles live vastly different to my own. When folks complain about how much CP Mary, Catherine etc I shrug. They're royals, they're photographed and critiqued here and elsewhere; they're expected to have a quality and wide variety of clothing.

These traditional arrangements wherein Prince of Wales pays the expenses of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry or Order of Precedence are fascinatingly archaic but charming rules. They're interesting but I see nothing controverial about either topic.

I have no problem with it whatsoever. She needed to build an appropriate wardrobe for her new role, and, if anything, I would anticipate the costs rising as she becomes a full time working royal over the next couple of years. I was actually surprised the number wasn't higher.

It would be a very bad idea for Kate to start accepting freebies or highly discounted clothes from designers, IMO. She, (or I guess Charles), can afford to pay full price and she shouldn't be beholden to any designer or shop.
 
Thanks Hermione I forgot to mention it. She was also campaigning for Range Rover and Rolex. All the grandchildren are well provided for financially so we don't have to worry about who is paying for their clothes
 
Does anyone know how other females in the RF finance their clothing expenses?

Beatrice and Eugenie wear designer dresses, so does the Queen pay?
(Andrew's income is not that large -well, comparatively- so I expect the Queen must help out?)

What about Anne, Sophie, Zara? Who pays for everyone?
The Queen doesn't cover for any private expenses of any members of her family.
Prince Andrew pays for Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Edward - for Sophie, Princess Anne and Zara pay for themselves.
 
Last edited:
The Queen doesn't cover for any private expenses of any members of her family.
Prince Andrew pays for Beatrice and Eugenie, Prince Edward - for Sophie, Princess Anne and Zara pay for themselves.


But unlike Charles, Andrew, Anne, and Edward lack a private income; they are supported by the Queen.
So that means she does pay for everyone, even if indirectly.
 
But unlike Charles, Andrew, Anne, and Edward lack a private income; they are supported by the Queen.
So that means she does pay for everyone, even if indirectly.
All of them - Andrew, Anne, Edward and even their children have quite a sizeable private fortune inherited from the Queen Mother, and other relatives.
The Queen covers for expenses of their official engagements only, never private ones. Of course, indirectly Her Majesty might have already made provisions so that her children and grandchildren (other than the Wales family) are well provided for.
 
A few designers have complained that Kate doesn't wear enough designer gear; that she should leave Zara alone and go much more upscale. Even the Daily Mail's own Liz 'sperm stealer' Jones wrote an entire article about how Kate should ditch the £185 LK Bennets for the £600 shoes of some up and coming British designer.

Kate has got a decent mix going at the moment. Some of it's high street, some of it's couture. She has repeated many of her outfits (much to the DM's annoyance), and even worn clothes that she's owned since long before her engagement. She hasn't done what some princesses have and simply bought almost the entire Prada collection every season. She doesn't have a dresser or a stylist and gets it right most of the time.

I think she's doing ok so far.

I agree with you, EIIR. Although I'd like to see Kate in 15,000 gowns, she is playing it smart with what she is currently wearing. Some of her outfits (mostly the high street stuff) I don't care for. She hasn't had too many misses with the designer designs, but they are not couture and, frankly, she doesn't yet need couture. When I consider what I used to pay for business suits, 35,000 for Kate (assuming this includes undergarments, shoes and accessories) so far, I wouldn't say it is too much.

As for borrowing clothing from couture houses, some do, some don't. I don't really have feelings about this at all. I, personally, wouldn't do that but it is OK by me if others do.
 
Last edited:
:previous: I would assume the borrowing in Kates case would be more of the last minute unexpected situation. For example (and I dont know) it woudln't surprise me if the Amanda Wakely gown that Kate wore to host the reception at Clarence House in the POWs absence was borrowed. It didnt look like her usual style (albeit it was lovely) and I beleive it was mentioned to be from Amanda Wakely's archives.

It is a designer she has a relationship with, knows her sizes and she needs something last minute. Another possible candidate for a borrowed outfit may be the knit Anne of Green Gables that she wore in Canada. That too was 5-6 years old and seemed more of a themed homage to her trip to PEI... and again an existing relationship with McQueen.
 
All of them - Andrew, Anne, Edward and even their children have quite a sizeable private fortune inherited from the Queen Mother, and other relatives.
The Queen covers for expenses of their official engagements only, never private ones. Of course, indirectly Her Majesty might have already made provisions so that her children and grandchildren (other than the Wales family) are well provided for.

I heard that, except for a few small bequests, the Queen Mother left her entire estate to the Queen, to avoid inheritance tax.

I also read that ever since the Civil List was eliminated for most of the BRF, they all get funds directly from the Queen (which is why they are happy to undertake various engagements on her behalf).
 
I heard that, except for a few small bequests, the Queen Mother left her entire estate to the Queen, to avoid inheritance tax.

I also read that ever since the Civil List was eliminated for most of the BRF, they all get funds directly from the Queen (which is why they are happy to undertake various engagements on her behalf).

The Queen Mother left most of her personal collection (jewellery, art, and similar) to the Queen to avoid taxes. However, she also set up trust funds (which, if all necessary boxes are ticked, are also exempt from taxes) for all her grandchildren (except Charles - who had an income from the Duchy of Cornwall) and great-grandchildren.

I did mention that the Queen uses the Civil List to cover all official expenses of members of the Royal Family who do engagements n behalf of the Crown - but not their private ones. She may fund them privately - but not from Civil List.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1908696.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1974678.stm
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ueens-children-and-grandchildren-12504-2.html
 
and she has provided homes for all of them - her children, not her grandchildren
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom