Prince William & Kate ripped out a gorgeous £38,000 kitchen in Anmer Hall

wenn21432998

On Friday, we discussed the ongoing reports about Prince William and Duchess Kate’s endless renovations to Kensington Palace and how Kate asked for (and got) a second kitchen added to Kensington Palace Apartment 1. Apparently, the second kitchen was paid for “privately,” which is to say that William’s father paid for it, just as Charles also seemed to fund all of the interior design for Apartment 1, even the repainting after Kate painted everything a gauche shade of purple. I really didn’t give a crap about the whole idea of a second kitchen – what bugged me is that A) Will and Kate didn’t pay for something unnecessary out of their own pockets and B) if they were going to spend like drunken sailors on the renovation, why not make the main kitchen into what they needed in the first place?

Anyway, now that everybody is focused on what is being spent to renovate Will and Kate’s London abode, some questions are coming up about the endless renovation of Anmer Hall, the quaint mansion on the Queen’s Sandringham property that she “gave” to Will and Kate last year. Anmer Hall had residents at the time, and they were pushed out so that Will and Kate could move in. By that I mean that Anmer Hall was literally move-in ready and had already been renovated over the years. Except they wanted to put their stamp on the home, which apparently included ripping out a six-year-old, £38,000 kitchen. And adding £500,000 worth of landscaping. WTF? Here’s a video of the Anmer Hall kitchen that Will & Kate ripped out:

It’s gorgeous. I would love to have that kitchen. It’s beautiful and it’s just the right blend of country and modern. According to reports, the existing kitchen included “£17,000 worth of hardwood worktops; a large Aga costing £11,495; an £8,630 fridge, a white artisan espresso maker worth £630, and a £195 end-grain chopping block. Even the drainage board cost £275.” And it was all ripped out. A source told The Mail:

A royal source said the kitchen would probably be unrecognisable once Kate and William had re-designed it to suit their tastes: “The couple have decided to make changes to the kitchen at Anmer Hall and a lot of what was there is not there anymore.”

The refurbishments at Grade II-listed Anmer Hall are costing £1.5 million, which will be paid mostly by the royal family from private funds. The figure includes £500,000 to replace roof tiles and a further £500,000 to landscape the front lawn. A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman last night declined to comment.

[From The Daily Mail]

Sandringham is “privately owned” – meaning it belonged to King George VI, and now it belongs to Queen Elizabeth, and one day it will belong to Prince Charles and then William. I think this means that the Queen is financing the renovations of Anmer “privately.” I bet you anything that if the Queen put her foot down and Charles refused to finance this BS, suddenly that gorgeous six-year-old kitchen would have been plenty good enough for William and Kate. They just spend other people’s money because that’s what they’re used to, because no one says no to them, because they think they should put their “stamp” on something that is already working.

wenn21458994

wenn21467772

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

237 Responses to “Prince William & Kate ripped out a gorgeous £38,000 kitchen in Anmer Hall”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Annaloo. says:

    But but but she recycles her dresses! She’s just like us!

    Aw hail no. Royalty & the rich do what they want. Money is mobility. It’s also dignity…and I feel the dignity of the good people of the UK will be insulted with this kind of wasteful & decadent decision.

    • Xantha says:

      Yeah those times wear she repeats her outfits mean shit in the bigger picture. She might be “thrifty” in this one area but she and William sure as hell don’t cut corners anywhere else; not in vacations, not in home decorating, not in the amount of staff they have, nothing.

      • LAK says:

        I don’t think she’s thrifty because she barely works and wears her clothes only twice, mostly in different years, and only one or two pieces out of that year or previous year’s wardrobe. if she wore the clothes 4-5 even 6 times, set against the number of engagements she works then she’d be thrifty.

        That said, she is thrifty with her shoes, purses and jewellery. Then again, for all we know she may have multiples of those.

      • AM says:

        As far as thrifty goes, she wore 4 or 5 different pairs of black suede pumps on the last tour. Different brands, different heights.

      • FLORC says:

        I do appreciate a thrifty person when they aren’t spending thir own money.
        For how often Kate is seen shopping I wonder how many closets the size of my house she has full of clothes we won’t see to keep up the illusion.

        She’s shown us she likes a style and buys multiples with slight variations.

    • Megan says:

      Ugh — no repeats this summer. As someone who will never have the money or the body for fashion, I have to live vicariously and we are so far from red carpet season …

    • kyzmet says:

      Its not like she actually eats, looks like she survives on ciggy smoke and air to me, a waste of a good kitchen.

  2. Lara K says:

    I would love that kitchen too!

    These two are such whiny children! And I’m sorry, but royalty does not have “private funds”. Go far enough back, and it’s all public money in the end.

    I understand restoring a historical building, but ripping out a kitchen just for kicks is beyond stupid. When was the last time Kate ate anything anyway?

    • wolfpup says:

      I agree, a definite disappointment. I was struck by “go back far enough, and it’s all public money”. Quite frankly, I have lost respect for these two. They are not just like us; they are not quite human with all that blue blood.

    • HH says:

      Exactly! I don’t get how the Royals can have any private funds. It might be private *now*, but it was public money at some point. Not acknowledging that is like sitting and watching someone pull the wool over your eyes.

    • hmmm says:

      Nouveau riche conspicuous consumption at its finest. They are such a tacky pair.

    • lana86 says:

      exactly, what the hell “private funds” means

      • Maple Goodness says:

        ‘Private funds’ – what a joke. These people are leeches who feed off off public funds and always have.

  3. belle says:

    they make more money for GB than they spend anyway

    • thinkaboutit says:

      I’ve been to London many times and I can assure you, the monarchy had absolutely nothing to do with my reasons for wanting to visit. And trust me, the crown jewels and the castles are just as special without a queen currently sitting on a throne and certainly without these two lazy layabouts hanging around!

      • wolfpup says:

        +1

      • Zinjojo says:

        I totally agree! My husband is a Brit, and is no royalist but believes they drive tourism. I completely disagree – people will still travel to London and the rest of the UK the same way millions visit Paris every year, and we all know what happened to that royal family.

        It’s about seeing the sights and experiencing the history and culture of the place, who cares if there is a sitting monarch or not.

    • A:) old prude says:

      How do you know that?! We don’t even know how much they cost let alone how much they actually contribute.

    • Snazzy says:

      In all honestly, I’d be interested to see a study on that … seriously! Like a cost-benefit analysis type thing. Would be interesting to see

      • Arch says:

        I’d like to see that too, just out of interest. Even if they do bring in more money, they need to understand that the majority of their funds are coming from the hard working British public, a people who are having an especially hard time economically at the moment. Being seen spending money as if its doesnt matter so blatantly rubs it in the faces of the rest of us that we will never be as successful simply because we were born to our parents and not royalty. They have done nothing to deserve the way they live, Wills makes it very clear that he dislikes royal work but is happy to spend public money on his palaces. The royals do bring in an income, but they do not have the right to spend the money Britain earns on themselves.

    • Sixer says:

      http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711

      That tries to be even handed but ends up with no conclusion.

      http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances

      That’s from a republican slant.

      As I’ve said on here before, the real costs/benefits are so deeply obscured, it’s impossible to say.

      • Snazzy says:

        wow! yes, they really muddied the waters with that … maybe something more scientific? I don’t know – I mean, in a sense, you’re right, how to evaluate brand recognition, or the impact of charitable works, etc … but one thing the articles show is that it really isn’t that clear, and that there sure is a lot of emotion involved

      • wolfpup says:

        Channel 4 says that the Jubilee celebration cost the economy 1.2 BILLION! The royals spend money like it is inexhaustible!

    • notasugarhere says:

      The official reports from VisitBritain prove that the top 20 attractions in the UK have nothing to do with royalty. As many have said before, France’s tourism industry is doing just fine without royals. Tourists will still pay to visit palaces if there are no royals in them. If the royals were gone, many more of those buildings would be open to the public and making money.

    • Ennie says:

      Russia is not a monarchy and I would pay to visit Sn Petersburg’s palaces in a heartbeat, just as I did Versalles, and other palaces in France or Germany years ago when I visited. The castles and other landmarks are still there to visit, it is not because they are still alive and kicking that one visits. hey even in Prague they changed the guard, and it was exciting to see, and they do not have kings or queens there.

      • T.C. says:

        So many countries attract people with no monarch just historical landmarks: USA, India, Germany, France, Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, etc.

        When you visit England it ‘s not like you get to meet Wills and Kate . All you are doing is looking at buildings like every other place. It’s just Royalist PR to justify the existence of the BRF.

        Regarding the kitchen I just don’t care anymore. If the British people want to keep paying for these no working celebrities then go for it.

  4. Eleonor says:

    That’s because theydon’t have anything else to do.
    And I think the Royal Family should stop to enable them: they do what they want because there’s always someone ready to pay for them. I bet if someone told them “pay for the unnecessary new kitchen with your money” things would have been different.
    And if they really like to redecorate they should probably start a firm of interior designers.

    • Lucretia says:

      Agree completely, with everything!
      As for the kitchen: I like it because of the size and some of the equipment, but frankly I would not decorate it in that way; it’s not my dream kitchen. But in a period that’s still in recession, they should show a little self-discipline and hold off for a few years.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It is a lovely kitchen – I would love to have a kitchen like that and I don’t really mind if it isn’t in my ideal style. I subscribe to the adage: If it ain’t broke, why fix it! But then, I’ve never been in a position to acquire new things like computers, etc. just for the hell of it – I replace things when they don’t work anymore. I just bought a new memorystick today and the clerk looked at me really weirdly when I said that my old one only had 252 MB and was 6-8 years old! I really don’t like the genereal trend of just buying and throwing perfectly good things away – but then my dad grew up during the Occupation when everything was scarce so I may have picked up some habits from him.

      • wolfpup says:

        I like to buy nice stuff, because it lasts a long time, and looks good, the whole time too.

      • Oya says:

        Not my dream kitchen either. But I think a new paint job and replacing those cabinet handles would give it a lift without breaking the bank. But I’m not classy.

    • Maple Goodness says:

      Their own money is still, originally, public funds.

  5. Ilove6kies says:

    This is OT but….

    What happened to your hotness
    Will? That headline picture…yikes!!

    :(

    • Breebree says:

      I KNOWWWW, what happened? Awful! And they are spending crazy amounts of money and he can’t spring for some tooth whitener and rogaine?

    • Megan says:

      He needs to go to Mike Tindall’s barber. That comb over is only making it worse.

    • Kk says:

      I have never understood why he was considered handsome. If he wasn’t a prince, no one would ever have had his poster on their wall. Harry is cuter but still doesnt do much for me. The men of the world cup, on the other hand- thats what I consider eye candy.

  6. A says:

    I can’t believe I am about to say this because it seems like I am defending them and try do sometimes seem a little tone deaf, but seriously it’s “family” money means that it is their family money too as their jobs are to be in the family. I totally get why people shade them, but I think that’s looking at things through the perspective of normal people, and these people are so far removed from normal having normal people expectations of them seems somewhat inappropriate. Can they be annoying? Sure. Do they generally do more good than harm? Yeah, I’ll them that. If the worst that can be written about people in their position is that they spend too much family money and don’t do enough charity work, then it’s probably ok (cough cough prince Andrew cough cough Prince Albert)…

    • A:) old prude says:

      I actually don’t mind them spending money in KP renovations or even this place (although I so think money spent on George’s nursery and their bedrooms should’ve been covered privately as well and only the structural should be payed by us) , what I don’t like is them doing absolutely the bare minimum of work, still portraying themselves as thrifty, normal down to earth couple (when they clearly are not)( and the excuse that they aren’t senior royals or William isn’t ready to be a full time royal yet but when it comes all the perks, privileges, status, pulling rank etc they are all of sudden future Kind and Queen who obviously deserve to have all these things. I wouldn’t complain even if they stop lying about their pathetic, normal down to earth image.

      Just think about it, right now William have no job what so ever. He is basically sitting at home not doing anything royal or otherwise.

    • LAK says:

      The fine print in all their PR declarations about who is paying for what declares that these places are being renovated with mainly private money – keyword ‘mainly’ as opposed to ‘ ‘completely’ and then a year later we find out that ‘mainly private money’ actually meant mainly taxpayer money.

      And then they trot out the Palace spokesperson of lies to deflect from the huge bill that has been sent to taxpayers to pay. As an example for the KP apartment:

      This is the main hallway when Margaret first took it over:

      http://lh4.ggpht.com/-Ax2-EQCIF8k/UgDcnVA6PII/AAAAAAAB8k4/vD-wMhguLQU/image328_thumb.png?imgmax=800

      This was the same hallway after Margaret’s refurb:

      http://lh5.ggpht.com/-PI9NEqTxXRw/UgDcr1ZxhlI/AAAAAAAB8lQ/ssFFEBJIB8o/image325_thumb.png?imgmax=800

      more recently after charity refurb in 2012 -this is when WK toured it and decided they wanted it:

      http://lh3.ggpht.com/-MIwBJy_loUc/UgDcufBlCfI/AAAAAAAB8lg/16E0Yp8TVJg/s1600-h/image193%25255B1%25255D.png

      one of the other rooms [or possibly the same hallway] showing an exhibition of dresses that they put on:

      http://lh5.ggpht.com/-Tr6myag8tiE/UgDcyOSgoHI/AAAAAAAB8lw/1SLii-zNcKE/s1600-h/image%25255B69%25255D.png

      the spokesman has spent past week making statements that sound like they found the flat in the original state Margaret found it in and thus requiring major overhaul.

      Also buried in all the ‘asbestos/rewiring of historical buildings’ deflection is the actual invoice of the asbestos work = £500K/£600K respectively. Not £3M which was in addition to that figure for other rebuilds.

      Therefore, i will not believe that ‘mainly private money’ is true until i see next year’s accounts without exorbitant bills for the Anmer Hall refurb.

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Thanks for those links LAK! Margaret had a lot of work to do when she took it over. I wonder what her children, Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto, think of all the renovations and costs at KP.

      • MinnFinn says:

        Anyone know where I can get answers to some of my questions?

        1. Is there a detailed policy document for how QEII can and cannot spend the annual sovereign grant?
        2. Are SG expenditures ever audited?
        3. Is the SG a use it or lose it fund? i.e. anything not spent during a fiscal year goes back to government general fund?

      • LAK says:

        MinnFinn: SG = Sovereign Grant?

        #1. This is the Sovereign Grant act 2011. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/contents/enacted

        They leave her to use her judgement on how to manage the budget subject on the agreed expenditure items. Each set of accounts starts with a summary of what they expect/agreed to cover eg this is the 2013-2014 set of accounts:

        https://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Annual%20review%202013-14/Sovereign%20Grant%20Annual%20Review%20201314.pdf

        #2. It’s audited by the national audit office, the idea being that it will be more accountable and transparent than it’s predecessor.

        #3. The Royals are a government department as far as funding is concerned, so it should be a use it or lose it fund like other government depts, BUT!! in the fine print of it’s predecessor, there is a caveat that Monarch can’t receive any less money than they did the prior year which i presume carried over into the sovereign grant although the grant will be revised/reviewed every five years – note to self, must go read that thing properly.

      • Liberty says:

        Thanks for the links, LAK. Makes the point very clearly.

      • FLORC says:

        Well stated LAK.
        Let’s wait for the numbers to back up their claims.

        I just can’t with these 2 anymore. They don’t do nearly enough PR/goodwill events for me to not see how they’re treating the renovations.

        The money simply exists for them so why ot spend it needlessly.

      • MinnFinn says:

        LAK – Yes SG=sovereign grant. Thanks for the answers.

      • hmmm says:

        Wow, LAK! The place was truly in a state of ruin when Margaret took over. The latest pix show how gorgeous it looked before the wastrels ran rampant. Thanks for the links; they really put everything into perspective and show what blatant liars they all are. And the cost of asbestos removal was a mere drop in the bucket. Makes one wonder where all that money really went.

      • Tx says:

        My question is, what does “private money” even mean? Since these people don’t have jobs, where do they get their “private money”…? Does that really just mean taxpayer money that was invested years ago so just isn’t recent taxpayer money? Or do they get paid by the government as employees?

        No snark at all, I am truly interested to know.

      • FLORC says:

        Tx
        Me too! I don’t know the numbers well enough to answer that, but I wonder the same. They don’t really spend their own money. So, is it “private money” in the sense it was put into a private fun for the royals to use at their discretion? Or something like that?

      • India Andrews says:

        I think another magazine said the private money was Duchy of Cornwall money. Might have been the Telegraph or Express who had the info. Don’t quote me.

        Either way, I doubt William is dipping into his inheritance from Diana or Kate is hitting up mom.

    • Sixer says:

      Exactly, LAK. I really couldn’t give the chuff from a flying monkey what they do with their own (or daddy’s) money. But I need some transparency about exactly where the money came from because there is such perennial economy with the truth.

  7. Xantha says:

    I would really like to see what they would do if Charles and HM actually cut them off and refuse to support them until they become full time Royals. Will they stamp their feet and pout? Will William threaten to pull out of the line of succession? And if he did, would they stand their ground and remind him that he’s not the only one in line for the throne and say “Bye Bitch?” Or would they cave?

    So many questions.

  8. InvaderTak says:

    I want a side by side of what they changed it to. What could they have improved that cost that much money? I might change the colors but that’s it! And that’s pretty cheap!

    • Chameleon says:

      Me too. I am wondering if they siphoned off some of that money into their own pockets? A 4 mio pounds renovation? For that money you could build 8 very nice very new fully equipped family houses with 3-5 bedrooms each.
      Now really, how can any renovation cost 4 mio pounds? Did they rip out the floors and ceilings? Bullet-proof windows?

  9. Hope says:

    Ya know what? Whatever. They’re the British royal family. We can balk and complain and wish it were different, but short of abolishing the monarchy none of it will ever change, least of all William and Kate who enable each other’s worse traits to no end. So whatever. Gut and redecorate and paint away, guys. Until you realize two big pretty mansions with all the fixings and tons of security without any real purpose for living and a public that can’t stand you won’t do you a damn bit of good in the long run. Have fun trying to turn the tide of public opinion in the next ten years, let alone the next couple!

    • Olenna says:

      Sad, but true.

    • Maple Goodness says:

      They will eventually be abolished. I may not be alive to see it but give it at least another generation.

    • Christin says:

      I am old enough to recall how badly the BRF’s public image was when Diana died. Then it seemed that public sympathy went toward William, which is so interesting now. He was basically how they bought time to stabilize their public image.

      Seems a waste now, doesn’t it?

      • India Andrews says:

        It is. I remember how he was supposed to be the savior of the monarchy and carry on Diana’s legacy. Boy, how he has been Windsordize and Middletonized over the years. Makes you wonder what Diana would say to him if she had the chance.

  10. A:) old prude says:

    Who wants to bet that tomorrow Kate will ‘recycle’ an old dress or wear a cheap high street dress because you know she is just like us and so down to earth??!!!

    • The Original Mia says:

      That would be a fool’s bet because you know darn well it’s going to be something recycled. Just to prove to us “haters” that she’s thrifty.

    • GracePM says:

      Maybe she “recycles” dresses because she’s too lazy to come up with a new look.

  11. AM says:

    These two are really getting it from the press now. Wonder what they’ll do to try to flip the script.

    • Dena says:

      Bring out George or find someway to throw Prince Harry under a bus.

    • Chris says:

      To be honest, they aren’t really. They get far more criticism in the US, which i’m always struck by. I’ve seen on twitter that a couple of the royal correspondents have also mentioned it too; people in the UK don’t really care,while in the US people seem to get so passionate about it.

      • maybeiamcrazy says:

        I am not from USA but I can’t help but be annoyed with W&K as well. Maybe because we don’t get the monarchy. If I was paying taxes to them I would be mad.

      • AM says:

        Everything I’ve seen from the last couple of weeks has been British press – that Richard Kay piece in the DM, this week’s Sunday Mirror piece, the various articles on the cost of refurbishment. It’s been striking to me because it DOES seem so out of character for the British press.

      • Dena says:

        Probably because we (Americans & others) sit outside the system so we may see it a bit differently (not necessarily objectively). It’s similar to when people who live in countries where universal healthcare and/or long maternity leaves are the norm turn around and say “the Emperor has no clothes” when they critique America’s market-based healthcare system. Some Americans don’t have a problem with it. It’s virtually all we know. Whereas others want a new or modified system–one that adds value (side-eye to the Cambridges).

    • Sixer says:

      People in the UK dislike change. I think that’s why. It’s a better the devil you know thing. Also, HM is held in genuine respect. And also, we have a history of dilettante and reluctant heirs who have toed the line eventually. Which Willnot will probably do, once he’s forced into the step up or give it up corner, like his ancestors before him.

  12. Chris says:

    All Charles’ money comes from the Duchy of Cornwall, which was set up to provide an income to the heir to the throne. Historically, there would usually only be one adult heir, as life expectancy was pretty low (usually, but not always). Obviously that has now changed, and it is likely in the future you will have several adult direct heirs, so, in my opinion, it is inevitable that the Duchy of Cornwall will fund them as well. Don’t really get how people can be surprised at that; it’s not Charles’ personal money.

    Serious question, I notice people are complaining about there being tenants in there. In the UK, if you own property and have tenants in it, it’s relatively easy to get them out, and they would have received compensation if they were asked to leave before the tenancy agreement was up. Is that how it works in the US?

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      It depends on the state you live in. In some states, such as New York, laws were made to protect tenants of lower income from being tossed out on the street if the owner of the building decided to turn it into condos and the tenant couldn’t afford to buy. This was a good thing, but it had the unanticipated side effect of making it very difficult to almost impossible to get rid of a tenant, even if they haven’t paid their rent.

      • FLORC says:

        State to State indeed.
        There are just so many laws protecting leaser and owner before and after buy outs.

    • Megan says:

      Chris – thanks for the info. Good point.

  13. Ellen says:

    So I actually interpret this as the Press Office telling people not to assume that they now know what William and Kate’s kitchen looks like. I believe that they probably ripped out a perfectly good kitchen (although: super-rich new buyers do this all the time, change perfectly good design just because they want to and can afford it) but I also think the focus is more on, “we don’t want anyone knowing what a private royal residence looks like apart from authorized photos so yeah, all the existing stuff? It’s gone” — whether that’s true or not.

    These two are very, very wealthy scions of a family whose senior members seem uninterested in telling their heir to work. If the Queen told William to take on more engagements, if Charles closed the cash spigots until William did some work — well then, William would hop to it. I do not understand why the family tolerates W & K’s utter laziness.

  14. PennyLane says:

    Okay, I never thought that this moment would happen, but I am here to defend Duchess Kate.

    That kitchen in the video is *gorgeous* and I gasped when I first saw it. It has everything that you could hope for visually….but it is not a cook’s kitchen.

    Some background: two years ago my fiance and I designed and built a house together. I am a cook and I love cooking, and we spent a lot of time researching kitchen design before we finalized the layout.

    Basically a functioning cook’s kitchen needs the following work areas:

    1) A food prep area – a wide space of counter for chopping vegetables, trimming meat, mixing sauces, etc. Basically an area where you can get all the ingredients ready and assembled before you start cooking.

    2) A food cooking area – i.e., a stove and oven/broiler. You want a good amount of counter space on either side of the stove to both have a setup area for stir fries or of you are making a pot roast or something an area to take the giant heavy casserole out to check the cooking process.

    3) A dirty dishes area. You are going to want a big double sink preferably in an inconspicuous part of the kitchen and next to the dishwasher where you can rinse dishes and temporarily store the dirty pots and pans. (We only had space for one sink, but we placed it so that people walking past the kitchen wouldn’t really see it.

    4) A guest sitting area where people can sit with a drink and appetizer chatting with the person cooking but still out of the cook’s way (often it’s a bar on the far side of the kitchen island).

    This kitchen has none of these things! The only sink is in the middle of everything, but strangely to one side of the gigantic kitchen island. The only space to prepare food is a 2 foot square area to the left of the sink; there is almost no counter space on either side of the stove; and the far side of the kitchen island, which should have a bar and guest seating, is instead still more storage space. It looks like there’s a table in the far corner but that is not close enough to the cooking area to be able to chat with the cook.

    It is an absolutely gorgeous kitchen, but it is not a place for making food. If I were touring that house for the first time and got to the kitchen I’d be like, “This kitchen is beautiful! I love it! But where am I going to cook?”

    So really, as someone who loves to cook and who recently designed a kitchen, this kitchen is so, so pretty to look at but there is no place to actually cook. Kate is in the right to rip it out and start all over again.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      It also has all wooden countertops. My kitchen has some wooden countertops, and they’re beautiful, but not practical for the food prep area, where you’re chopping things, etc.

      I still think it’s wasteful to gut it, but I agree with you that I’d want some changes.

    • Spikey says:

      Finally, thank you for taking the words out of my keyboard. I completely agree. And I say this as someone who plans on having the exact same woodburner in my next kitchen – it’s uses for everyday cooking are very limited.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Hmm…that’s funny because the chef I showed it to loved it.

    • MinnFinn says:

      @PennyLane – I agree it’s not set up for a cook. However, it is basically a galley kitchen (my personal fav) and by looking at still photos on DailyMail, it looks like some reconfiguring as opposed to ripping it all out, might turn it into a much more efficient space. I can’t state emphatically that reconfiguring would be acceptable because we don’t have measured drawings of the floor plan. BTW I also cook and entertain a lot. Plus I also had my kitchen gutted and redone awhile back after 2 years of on/off planning.

      If I didn’t have the money to tear it all up and/or if being wasteful mattered to me and/or if I was spending someone else’s money, here’s how I’d change that kitchen.

      1. Get a new frig and relocate it to the left of the cabinet with the espresso machine. There’s a door there but I’m using my fiat powers to move the door so my frig can go there.
      2. Add width to the outer side of the island counter top so it overhangs. Add counter height chairs and now people can sit and talk to you while you cook.
      3. Replace the oven and hood but keep in the same location
      4. Install dishwasher under the island adjacent to the sink.
      5. Lack of counter space under the wall cabinets is not a problem for me. I’d do all my prep on the island.
      6. After the wood countertops get trashed, which will happen fairly quickly, replace them

    • FLORC says:

      This really come down to how stubborn a chef you are and how you adapt in cooking in different envirinments. Meaning places that aren’t the exxact same layout as your own kitchen.

      I’ve almost completed my kitchen renovations. We lived with it and decided it wasn’t for us.
      Wall to fridge to stove to small counter to sink really enraged us. And the counters were granit with the cabinets installed with lighting. It became more difficult.

      But our issues were functional issues. We would have to carry items out of the fridge to the other counter space across the room and place it on the stove if it wasn’t in use…
      These 2 are only renovating because they can.

      P.S.
      Aren’t the other residents in the area complaining Kate ordered tiles that the new money types get to make their new homes look old? And the tiles end up making the homes look cheap?

      • AM says:

        The tiles are meant to weather and look “old” in a few years…until then, they just look hideous. I do think the “new money” thing is where a lot of this criticism comes from and why it’s directed at Kate moreso than William – that only new money would do these kinds of renovations and so it must be Kate driving it rather than William. It’s unfair and classist but I would expect she’ll be criticized in this way for the length of the marriage.

      • hmmm says:

        I think William has as much of a nouveau riche mentality as she does. It makes him more “normal” don’t ya know, and ‘down’ with the people.

      • FLORC says:

        AM/hmmm
        Kate is new money so I agree her tastes do lie there. And Pippa’s Nico is Noeveau Rich. While William’s family is old money and many of his friends are old money he has gravitated towards New money.

        Still, I think William gives so much freedom to Kate for redecorating to keep her busy.

        On a side piece.. My Grandmother and the Queen are twins seperated at birth. I’ve come to realize this. And old money as my Grandmother was understated. Manners and appearance was Key. Homes were not terribly lavish, but the land they were on way pricey. Furniture was usually very old, but well cared for.
        How Kate and William are decorating is not old money. How they vacation much too often at certain locations is not old money. How they flaunt that wealth is…

    • M says:

      This entire discussion has the best comments on the thread!

      On the kitchen alone (not the cost or the royals), my first thought was “I don’t like it!” It is just not set up for a cook. And–again, totally my opinion–I don’t like the aesthetic. I would change the white cabinets w/ round knobs (fugly), not to mention the wooden island’s counter top (and that’s saying a lot given my home is a 115-year old Craftsman, so I love wood). It does not seem very functional, nor does it seem to have a lot of personality. My husband and I moved into our home and it was functional and attractive by all standards, but we’ve done a lot of work (ourselves, I might add–including plumbing and electrical) to make it either more historically accurate in terms of “style” or even more functional for our purposes.

      IMHO, a home doesn’t have to be in complete shambles for you to want to redo rooms to fit your own personality and uses…of course, it all depends on your resources (financially, physically –if you’re doing the labor yourself, etc). But that is a whole other issue…

    • Original N says:

      “Basically a functioning cook’s kitchen needs the following work areas:”

      It saddens me tremendously that for many in our society, “needs” have become synonymous with “wants” whilst those that truly need are ignored or forgotten.

      • PennyLane says:

        N, in a small kitchen the work areas can overlap – that is what my kitchen has: the stove is only about three feet away from the sink, so the cooking area and dirty dishes area overlap – also, the guest area is used as an extended food prep area. So multifunctional spaces are fine. But these functions are needed in a working kitchen if, for example, you’re going to cook a three course meal for eight people.

        Is cooking a three course dinner for eight people a need or some sort of inalienable human right? No, not at all.

        Does it enhance my life to be able to cook a large meal for a group of friends? I kind of feel yes.

        It doesn’t have to be a big or expensive kitchen (our kitchen has an electric stove and bottom of the line appliances), but a cook’s kitchen does need to have the above functionality to get the job done. Overlap is fine; it’s just that each work activity needs to be acknowledged and accounted for.

        It’s not a question of money – just planning and design. Expensive kitchens can be awkward and badly planned, and inexpensive kitchens can be well planned and easy to cook in. Unfortunately the kitchen featured in that video is one of the former.

  15. malina says:

    I haven’t followed everything on that topic so I might be getting it wrong but isn’t the idea behind the second kitchen that it’s a ‘family kitchen’? As in, the first one was professional grade for staff to cook for them and in this one they will be making their own scrambled eggs? Aside from the discussion on funding, if that’s the case I applaud them for insisting on it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I read somewhere that it was 3, because the staff have a kitchen too.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I totally understand the need and wish for a second family kitchen when the primary kitchen is a large, professional one with staff. If Kate loves to cook, this wouldn’t really be her kitchen – in the way that she would be in the way of the staff, etc.

      What I’m not so enamoured with is the gutting of a fairly new, lovely kitchen because I find that wasteful, but then I’m probably old-fashioned.

      • notasugarhere says:

        @AH. My understanding is that there is the big formal kitchen, this new “family kitchen”, AND a kitchen for the staff. Plus kitchenette for the two nurseries.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        That’s a lot of kitchens.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Well, four-five floors and 57 rooms. Have to fill those rooms somehow.

      • FLORC says:

        That kitchenette is a full kitchen. Bottle prep and steralizers along with stations to store, prep, and make Georges special organic purees. It was thought to be just a small station, but has turned into the kitchen likely the size our most of ours.

      • notasugarhere says:

        So is that four kitchens in the Kensington set-up? Formal, “family”, staff, and nursery?

  16. minime says:

    Pfff…I just come from the story about Tori and her mom and the only thing I get to think is: they are all the same, with the difference that these two are still being supported by their family. It is simply obscene to use money that they didn’t earn with legitimate work renovating something that was already luxurious and that 99% of the world population is unable to afford.

    • Rosalee says:

      William has his own piggy bank and doesn’t need to rely on daddy’s wallet, he inherited his mother’s money – I think it was 35 million pounds(?) so he can afford a new kitchen for his home.

      • FLORC says:

        Keep in mind his money has sat untouched in a high yielding interest account since he got it.
        All expenses are picked up elsewhere.

        And while Royals have their own money they hate spending it. So, when you hear another royal is picking up the bill for large expenses it’s not far off to wonder where that money is coming from.

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        Didn’t William use some of his inheritance from Diana to buy the new home for the Middletons? Otherwise they do seem very skilled in the royal habit of expensing everything to others.

      • FLORC says:

        CynicalCeleste
        That has been heavily speculated, but never confirmed. Same along with how William loaned the Midds royal furniture for their new estate.

  17. RobN says:

    They were extremely rich people who were asked if they’d mind moving out before their lease expired. They made a statement that they were happy to do it; maybe they didn’t like the kitchen either.

    • LAK says:

      They are Kitchen designers who ran their business out of the barn and had the pictures on their website as an example of their work. They were compensated for their losses so that they could move immediately.

      http://www.nakedkitchens.com

    • notasugarhere says:

      How do you know what the finances of private citizens are? We have public documents to guess at things like William’s inheritance, but it seems like an enormous leap for you to state “They were extremely rich people”.

      They are high-end kitchen designers, a field which probably doesn’t do well when the economy tanks. Did you expect them to make an unprofessional public statement about how angry they are and that they hoped HM and Bill+Kate would sod off?

      They probably built that kitchen both for themselves and as a way to showcase their talents for years to come.

      The designers have not yet commented on the ripping out of their custom dream kitchen, have they? They did issue a statement before to the tune that they hoped W+K would love the kitchen.

    • FLORC says:

      RobN
      They said they were willingly and happy to move, but the Queen “compensated” them with motivation.
      Simple speak.. Queen bought them out so William and Kate had no more excuses not to show up to the mandatory Christmas gathering.

  18. Megan says:

    Since the previous residents are kitchen designers, I assume they installed that kitchen as a marketing tool for their company. Which is smart on their part.

    But having recently renovated a kitchen not even half that size, I can tell you that $65,000 gets eaten up very quickly. Since the appliances and cutting boards were over half the cost, I am guessing the cabinets are counters are made from cheap materials that photograph well.

    • DameEdna says:

      I think you’re spot on about a marketing tool. It’s pretty unusual to undertake such refurbs in a property not your own. And when you subtract the cost of the Aga, the fridge and the other bits and pieces, that’s not an expensive kitchen.

      It doesn’t look like a terribly practical one either. Anyway….their house, their choice.

    • FLORC says:

      I’m sure the quality of the kitchen is out there somewhere, but have a few things to go on.

      They had a multi year lease for Amner Hall and weren’t too close to the end. They entertained there. Would you risk a cabinet not being the very best while showing off your work in person when that was your livelyhood? It makes sense if they build that kitchen as a model only for pictures and not day to day use over years and years time.

      Dame Edna
      It’s their house, their choice. Absolutely. It isn’t there money though. And since they’re not using their money and the taxpayers are eating the bulk of the cost on a residence they will be in for maybe only a few weeks out of every year they should be able t live with that kitchen.
      Or pay for it themselves out of their own pockets.

    • Chameleon says:

      $65.000 – that is a very very very expensive kitchen. Get real. Those home improvement shows on TV are not the way most people live.
      Most people don’t wast that much money on their kitchen. Most people don’t even waste half of that money on their kitchen.
      But most people do a lot more cooking and food preparation during their life in their $5.000-$15.000 kitchens than Kate will ever do in all her kitchens together even if she lived to the biblical old age of 200 years. And that is why it is such a waste to give her several kitchens in EACH of her residences.

      And I bet in very few years Kate will want to re-do her kitchen when she finds out that her social circles don’t admire her nouveau-riche tastes.

      • Megan says:

        Chameleon – have you ever priced appliances? Just replacing appliances costs more than $5,000.

  19. kibbles says:

    The Royal family seems to be completely tone deaf to the current economic climate around the world and how bad it looks that they are gutting this gorgeous kitchen. Even in better economic times, it would still appear wasteful to destroy a fabulous fairly new kitchen and spend part of £1.5 million for a newer one. The fact that it is the family’s private money is irrelevant at this point. A lot of people, already frustrated with austerity measures and high unemployment, will view private funds to be synonymous with taxpayer dollars and whatever that was pillaged from former colonies. It’s money from the blood, sweat, and tears of normal human beings who struggle everyday to survive. Even if you think they have the right to spend millions of their own family money on a new kitchen, this is just plain bad publicity for a couple who is already viewed by many as lazy and spoiled. I don’t know what else to say about these two because they never seem to learn.

    • GracePM says:

      +1

    • DameEdna says:

      But they DO have the right to spend their “own family money” on a new kitchen….just as we all have that same right. You could make the case that it’s bad PR but that’s an entirely different thing.

      • notasugarhere says:

        But that “family money” eventually comes from The Duchy, which goes back to the taxpayers when the monarchy is ended. Charles is the current steward, not the owner.

      • Chameleon says:

        All the money from the Duchy goes to the taxpayer – except for what is given to the Royal Family who receive some money TO DO THEIR ROYAL DUTIES TO THE PUBLIC.

        Kate and Will do hardly do any royal duties.

        So basically the taxpayer is funding the Royal Family and their lazybones.

  20. RobN says:

    I just tore out a perfectly nice kitchen in the house we bought and replaced it with one that was more in line with our contemporary style. Didn’t seem like such an outrageous thing to do. If you have the money, and they do, you change things to match your style, you don’t just live with something you don’t like.

    Personally, I could never live with hardwood countertops. Put a hot pot down and you’ve ruined them. I’ve got friends who have them, mostly cause they’re eco-friendly types, and, if you can get them to admit it, they all want them gone, along with their very trendy cork floors which sop up water and warp.

  21. Chris says:

    Rebecca English on Twitter just now:

    “Duchess of Cambridge,Patron of Place2Be, today attended the charity’s annual conference at The Royal Society of Medicine with Prince William”

    “As we are seeing more regularly with the young royals,the engagement was not listed in advance as she was deemed to have attended privately.”

    Wonder why they are not advertising visits in advance?

    • AM says:

      So they can make it look like they’ve been doing this all along. Even though, to me, them leaking every one of these visits shows that they haven’t been making these visits until now.

      • Chris says:

        But they have been doing this for ages. There have been loads of events over the last few months that have only been added to the court circular (that is where they are, they are not really advertised) after the event, so there are no photos and the press cannot plan to get there. Royal reporters have been discussing it quite a bit. I get that is is easier to do an engagement if you don’t have the press following you.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Chris, please note the dates and times of the “loads” of events they’ve done since January that were not listed on the CC. I’m not buying it until I see the proof.

      • MinnFinn says:

        @Chris,

        Possible reasons for not putting engagements on their court calendar in advance.

        1. It’s easier to do an engagement going commando under your dress if there’s no press following you with a camera.
        2. If no one knows in advance the days you have engagements, then no one knows the days you have off and are free to shop, attend a wedding at a hotel owned by a despot, take a private jet to Spain to hunt etc.. Thus making it easier to shop/party/hunt under the radar without being papped.
        3. Just cuz and you can’t make me. Sticks tongue out.

      • FLORC says:

        Chris
        Many of these events are not on the list because they were not originally intended.
        List the dates of these clusters of events. I will list the scandals that happened immediately before the events were listed.

        They really do make their own schedules and keep them extremely light. To avoid listing their events brings criticism. The criticism has only gotten worse so that PR tactic is terrible if it is one. And those secret charity visits have been disproven by the charities themselves.

      • hmmm says:

        FLORC,

        Agreed! There is absolutely a positive correlation between scandals and upswing in appearances.

        @Chris,

        There have not been “loads” of unlisted events.

    • The Original Mia says:

      This is called damage control. It wasn’t on the calendar because if not for all the negative stories from this weekend plus the roaring success of Harry’s Brazil/Chile tour, they wouldn’t have trotted Kate out for this meeting nor advertised her attendance.

      • Ana Maria says:

        This. What a difference between the brothers; while Harry looks genuinely happy to do his duties and to engage with people, William…with every new picture of him the “Prince Albert vibe” comes on very very strong…

      • wow says:

        @Ann Maria

        Lol @ “Prince Albert vibe” for William. Minus the black mistress and multitude of OOW children he’s fathered, of course. And the notion that Kate looked thrilled to be pregnant with George whereas Princess Charlene…well, umm, cough. :)

        My thoughts:
        Harry has less stress, pressure and expectations on him than William does. I think that is part of the difference. Plus you just can’t fake being genuine. I mean, you can, but not for this long. Harry is just more at ease with the public. Not everyone has that gift.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Referring to the race of the mistress is low rent.

      • Olenna says:

        I agree with Dame; there was no need to mention the mistress’ race. He’s had other mistresses and they weren’t mentioned, which seems to imply you think they are acceptable because they’re not black.

    • maybeiamcrazy says:

      Kate’s ‘secret’ visits to her charities and now W&K’s unplanned visits. Don’t you get it? They actually work but we don’t know about it because they are discreet. *rolling eyes*

    • A:) old prude says:

      See all of their ‘private meetings” considered official while Harry public duties are not even considered official let alone his private meetings.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sentebale, Walking with the Wounded, and the Invictus Games – none of those count as they are all done on his personal time.

      • What? says:

        WOW. I had no idea that Harry wasn’t getting Royal “credit” for all those appearances and efforts.
        I’m impressed.

  22. FingerBinger says:

    Meh. I like the floor,but I can see why they renovated the kitchen.

  23. Skins says:

    How dare the peasants complain. Even though Kate doesn’t eat, if they want to spend millions of the peasant tax money on kitchens or whatever, that is their god-given right as Royalty! Let them eat Cake!

  24. Megan says:

    I realize this is a completely frivolous and irrelevant comment, but William really needs some Crest White Strips.

    • FLORC says:

      He smokes too. You have to be on top of those stains to keep them away. He strikes me as the type of guy that never really cared about his appearance.

      • wow says:

        @Florc

        Yeah, I guess he figured he doesn’t have to care about his looks being that he is a prince who will one day become King.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “he is a prince who will one day become King”. Not at this rate he won’t.

  25. ann valor says:

    It is a beautiful kitchen – it’s also a photograph from about six years ago, not a current photograph, and as several have already discussed, it’s not a functional kitchen for cooking – ESPECIALLY if they intend to cook large meals for family. PLUS, I guarantee you they paid the contractors to remove, not demolish, each piece for use at another property, or sold it, or simply allowed the contractors to take them as a pay bonus, which is common practice. You all have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, so why keep bitching? Every time there’s an article discussing Kate’s wardrobe you all flip, even though most of these stories are sourced from DM which is notoriously 1) wrong and 2) hyperbolic. Every figure they’ve ever produced for the value of anything is grossly over-inflated. Their stated “cost” of Kate’s wardrobe is actually the retail value of each piece – and since she notoriously buys almost EVERYTHING on sale, if you want a better idea of how much she’s actually spending, and how often she recycles items, and how often she participates in non-publicized activities, try going to a different source of information. You know, not a trash-talking gossip blog.

    • Chris says:

      Agree. The DM is notoriously rubbish. It’s hilarious reading people taking it at face value.

      • Chris says:

        Chris # 2 here:
        I’m glad someone’s criticised the Daily Fail! I’ve been horrified to see it cited all over this site as a reliable and reputable source.
        Its odious mission includes setting women against each other, in promulgating feelings of guilt and inadequacy, so that we take our eyes of any important issues. It’s a deeply misogynist rag that panders to readers’ prejudices, gullibility, and subsequent bitchiness.
        This is why I take with a pinch of salt royal stories of insider info from various ‘courtiers’.
        But misinformation notwithstanding, I’m gobsmacked by the depth of affront and outrage expressed by non-British peeps on CB: why take it so frightfully personally??!! And why, if so disgusted, devour every rumour and factoid with such devotion?

        Hey ho, I’ll nip away now and read the Financial Times (not)…don’t you adore pink newspapers? Byeee :)

      • ArtHistorian says:

        If wish I could afford a new paper subscription – there’s a wonderful weekly paper here in Denmark that is very good. In depth political analyses, a great cultural section as well as sections on new science and research in the humanities. Fortunately, it is available in libraries. Just a question, pink newspapers?

      • notasugarhere says:

        @AH. Some UK newspapers are printed on pink paper. Example: evolution(dot)skf(dot)com/paper-in-the-pink/

    • notasugarhere says:

      Wow. So glad you deigned to join us and put us all in our proper place here on the “trash-talking gossip blog”

    • MinnFinn says:

      “So why keep bitching?” Funniest thing I’ve ready today. Thanks.

    • Megan says:

      Ann Valor – I may only be speaking for myself, but I think it is fun to argue about the royals. For me, it is pure escapism from the not always fun demands of my personal and professional life. Yes, I get a lot of what is reported about them is false, and I get that argument made by many (including myself) aren’t always grounded in fact, but that doesn’t really matter to me because it’s the debate I enjoy.

      • FLORC says:

        I agree Megan. It is escapism for some. And fun. And not alwasy harsh criticism.
        For others it isn’t though. They pay the taxes to fund the Monarchy nad are not ok with much of the spending/behavior. And that is there right.

        AnnValor

        As said above. It’s not merely trash taking to those who pay for the lifestyle spoken of here. And their opinion should be valued greater than mine imo. I bicker and have friends who pay taxes to the Monarchy. They actually pay in and feel their money is poorly spent on those who do not work.

        For the rest… I’m with Olenna
        You’re hypocritical. We’ve all had our moments where we complain about the gossiping on gossip sites… If nothing else I hope you see why this is so funny to me.:)

      • notasugarhere says:

        @FLORC. I agree and see no reason why you should “lighten up”. We all have the right to complain, especially the taxpayers who will/are making their displeasure known.

        @Megan. The UK is technically defined as a “constitutional monarchy” not a democracy. And a suggestion: What about sharing your opinion without telling others what they should or should not think or feel?

    • Olenna says:

      Well, alrighty now. There’s nothing like being virtually bit*h-slapped by a fellow gossiper for gossiping on a gossip site.

    • Suze says:

      Good grief, you’re right.

      Why bitch on a site called Celebitchy?

      I have seen the light.

    • itsetsyou says:

      “… so why keep bitching?” – umm, when in Rome/Celebitchy do as Romans/bitches do?

    • minime says:

      “ESPECIALLY if they intend to cook large meals for family”

      ahhhhhhh Now I see it. Kate will actually become a housewife and she will cook for the ALL family, like for all the times that she will receive the Queen of England and entourage with some roasted pheasant. Yes, I can picture that. Now everything makes sense.

      • Suze says:

        I laughed at that too.

        I believe Kate likes to cook but for heavens sake she isn’t going to do it that often. It will be wealthy woman hobby cooking.

    • India Andrews says:

      @ Chris as for Kate and William coverage, I see pretty much the same things on the Mail that I see on other sites like the Express and Telegraph. I don’t read the Times since they want a subscription and I don’t want to pay. Maybe someone cam speak to the William and Kate coverage from them. As for magazines such as Hello, it is about as hard hitting on William and Kate as People magazine, which means it is as soft on William and Kate as a marshmallow

      Back to the Mail in general, I’m completely aware of the hyperbolic tone of the Mail. Commentators, myself included, have called the Mail out on it on the message boards. The same for the other things you mentioned like the misogyny and racism. I try to see past the tone and find the substance. I suspect a lot of other people do too.

      Back to Kate and William in the Mail, I also go on site like Getty Images and do Google image searches of blogs and Twitter to find more pictures than the Mail will run, especially the pictures they won’t dare run like ones of Kate sloppy drunk or overexposing herself. I even found one of her wearing trousers. Not skinny jeans, actual dress trousers. How often does that happen? I do the same things with stories about Kate and William.

      As for the Mail, I don’t find that many people, who don’t seem to be paid as astroturfers on comments pages, who are running around calling Kate thrifty, classy, humble and hardworking. She had the benefit off the doubt right after the wedding but she wasted her opportunity. I suspect that’s why so many Kate apologists have to resort to calling the critics trolls, jealous, haters, ugly fat women with twenty cats and other things. Deep down, they know the critics are right. She isn’t a humble, thrifty hard working compassionate woman trying to make the world a better place than when she exited Carole Middleton’s womb. Kate’ll do just enough charity work to keep the peasants from breaking down the gates of KP or Anmer and taking away her privileged life, but that is it.

      As for William’s coverage on the Mail, I think he would rather be a wealthy aristocrat and part-time pilot and the Mail really has tried to prop him up in the public eye and shift the blame for everything wrong with William and Kate’s job performance to Kate, when in reality, William is no better than his wife. He had to do 15 flight hours a month for the RAF and they had to tell him last December to increase his cockpit time or face losing his job? And what did William do? He quit, did a gap year in his thirties to decide on more of the same. The Mail has tried to smooth over things for him but the public on their comments board isn’t buying it. I loved it when some William apologists told me I had better hope I never needed William to fly in in his helicopter and rescue me because it gave me a chance to point out most likely, my hero would be William’s long suffering stand in because William would be at a wedding or a shooting party on a friend’s estate. That impression doesn’t just come from the Mail. It comes from many sources and I suspect the royals are releasing secret meetings with charities to minimize the damage done by Kate and William’s lazy, spend thrift ways with very little given in return.

  26. Jocelyn says:

    That’s so much money! I’m gonna pull out a classic-” That could have fed an entire village.”

  27. A:) old prude says:

    Both Queen and Charles are tone deaf, entitled and old school lavish royal who think royals are god given gift to peasants and people should be grateful to pay for them. I’m not at all surprised that they are paying so much for William because I believe they believe as a future king he deserves the obscene lavish lifestyle, just look at them how they live. Why this is really firing back is because William and Kate PR insisted that they were different then the rest of gauche royals who want to live a down to earth, normal, simple life. If they hadn’t put out this PR image from the beginning I’m sure all this renovation wouldn’t have been such a big deal because British media knows that exactly how royals live. It’s their own manufactured, false image of humbleness and being thrifty that’s coming back and biting them in their posh, royal ass.

    • hmmm says:

      ITA. They believe they are divinely entitled to everything. Full stop. And so it continues with William. But it’s not only the hypocrisy, FLORC. It’s the fact that the Dolittles are lying, lazy, feckless wastrels and times are different. I think that the problem is that the BRF hasn’t factored in the internet/social media. They got away with a lot more in the olden days.

  28. faun says:

    William really does have big yellow horse teeth.

    • FLORC says:

      In that filtered picture of George, Lupo, Kate and he looking out the KP window he has whiter teeth than Kate.

      • wendi says:

        That, I don’t get because her teeth are veneers (i.e. fake) so you’d think they would present better (whiter) in photographs, no?

      • FLORC says:

        Smoking and tea, etc.. can stain veneers quite easily.

  29. linlin says:

    It’s also a very classic and neutral design and they could have easily and cheaply adapted it to their taste with changing out hardware or repainting, so there’s really no reason to rip it out.

    • vava says:

      If that were my kitchen, I’d paint it, change the counter tops, change the sink, and add seating on the other side of the island so I could watch my houseguests cook for me! ;-)

  30. Liberty says:

    I like the kitchen they’re ripping out; it looks like my last kitchen per layout. I cooked a lot, had parties, and it was very functional. no issues, people hung out and talked to me… it worked.

    Re the wood — it can be sealed with a laminate or an oil-seal (You have to sort of keep reoiling and cleaning, but you’re cleaning countertops anyway). You can burn it if you lay something hot on it, but an unfinished top can be sanded. That said, I don’t even put a hot pot down on my current stone countertops though, so never have had an issue. I use pads, trivets. And cutting boards….I like to retire them regularly.

  31. Lucky Charm says:

    Just my two cents, but while that IS a perfectly nice kitchen, I can understand why they would want to change it. If it were up to me, and I had the funds available to do it, I would change it, too. Butcher block is fine, but not for the entire kitchen. Maybe just an island or separate workspace. I don’t like the wood hardware, or the fact that the island doesn’t have room for stools or chairs at the bar. To me, that looks more like the mock kitchens you see at design stores (where they showcase the counters and cabinets available to redo your kitchen), more than it does an actual working kitchen in a home.

    Anyway, the worst thing about this is the fact that they are 32 year old parents, and STILL not paying for their own home/clothing/vacations/life style themselves with their OWN money. Talk about taking Trust Fund Kid to the next level! Once we were adults, my parents stopped funding our lifestyles. We were expected to get jobs and pay for our own way. And the same with my kids.

  32. Jasrina says:

    Because their lazy asses do SO much cooking!

  33. Stephanie says:

    I am not at all surprised. They have no touch with the reality of what a common person or family deals with.

  34. Wren33 says:

    One the one hand, it is ridiculous and an example of having way too much money. On the other hand, we are about to close on a new house, and I am looking into doing about $5,000 of new painting before we move in, just because I think the existing colors are hideous. The house is only 4 years old and the paint is in perfectly good shape – I just know it is going to bother me and it is much easier to paint when you are not living there yet. I think this is the same thing on a different scale. I imagine since they are already renovating they want to get everything they would want changed done at once.

  35. Dena says:

    Sounds like the comments are moving in three directions:

    1. Meh. So, what. They have the money. The rewards of privilege.
    2. Yeah, they have the money but can live with the kitchen they have. Why guy it if it will cost tax-payers so much, particularly when u add in KP?
    3. Totally frivolous. Lifestyle status symbol.

  36. anne_000 says:

    I’m thinking the expensive appliances in the ‘old’ kitchen were either brand new or barely used if they were for demonstration purposes for the previous tenants who were kitchen designers & using it for demos.

    I find it funny that W&K are so into kitchens. Three at KP & ripping out a ‘new’ kitchen at AH. K doesn’t look to be an ‘eater,’ a foodie, nor even a ‘cooker.’

    I don’t know why they need all these new kitchens for. Are they going to host lunches and dinners for loads of guests at AH? Or cook it themselves?

    I’m thinking the persons who will use all these four kitchens the most are the cooks, not Kate nor Will. So basically, I think these multiple kitchen projects are just to make W&K feel good, and not because they’re trying to get the most functionality out of them for their own selves.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      The whole trend of the kitchen as a status symbol is quite common. A few years back it was all the rage in Denmark – lots and lots of people spent a lot of money on fancy kitchens to “reflect their identity”, even if they actually didn’t use them that much. It is simply another form of consumerism, branding and the idea that you reflect your identity in what you buy – though that argument can be turned around to say that people assemble identitites from what they buy, what they wear, etc. – which is quite intriguing if you think about it – creating/broadcasting a “unique”, personal identity from mass-produced and -marketed consumer products.

      • Megan says:

        There is no room in my house more used or more personal than the kitchen. The concept of “hearth and home” has been around for thousands of years. The kitchen is essential to a home.

      • Suze says:

        A modest kitchen, an older kitchen – even one that (gasp) is six years old! – can still be the central hearth and home of the household.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Yes, the kitchen is essential to the home – I couldn’t agree more. I love to cook and was lucky enough to get a fairly big kitchen in a small apartment and it was the room I spent the most time decorating to get the most efficient use out of it. I was commenting on a general trend I have observed where the kitchen has become a means of conspicuous consumption to both impress and create an identity – because the kitchen has become a much more integrated part of modern architecture. Rather like the way in which the parlour was the place where people of means would spend their time and entertain (especially in Victorian and Edwardian times where the kitchen had staff and was tucked away – not a place to entertain guests.)

        However, I’m a scholar – it is a big part of who I am, which means that I am always, unconsciously and consciously, contextualizing things debated in various ways and places. And one of my fields of speciality is the study of identity in various historical contexts and that and its trappings changes throughout history in relation to the social-economic structures of a given society. In our modern age, identity is very much bound up in and with consumerism. In a way, none of us are free of it. It is not just a personal choice, but a socio-ecomonic structure that has become embedded in the conditions of modern life. There are actually some very interesting studies on the emergences of the modern department store and how they engendered a new type of shopping combined with entertainment and leisure.

      • Megan says:

        ArtHistorian – FYI, Americans find it incredibly tiresome when Europeans lecture us on consumerism

      • India Andrews says:

        I read some of those articles in history class about the rise of the middle class and improving work conditions leading to more leisure time. At the same time, department stores, professional sports and so forth are developing to meet the demand.

        I just think it is funny. Kate is so skinny she must barely eat and yet, she has to have so many kitchens.

  37. Megan says:

    Didn’t Diana hate going to Sandringham for Christmas? Maybe K/W are expecting all of the younger royals to sneak over to their house for the holidays. ;)

    • FLORC says:

      I hate going to my inlaws. Doesn’t mean I don’t go.
      And lol! Considering who the younger royals are that’s hilariously not likely.

  38. Emily C. says:

    William is hideous. It’s not his features, particularly; it’s his smile and his attitude. He’s just a disgusting person. Far from the first future king of Britain to be so, and luckily he can’t be as horrible as many of them were, but he can only coast on the goodwill generated by his grandmother for so long. The British people have gotten rid of unpopular monarchs before, and now when it wouldn’t even take bloodshed… well.

    • Chris says:

      “He’s just a disgusting person”

      My god that is such a crazy thing to write about someone. I don’t get it, it’s like people on here are writing about a public figure that bears no resemblance to the public figure other people see. If you read some of the comments on here without knowing who people were writing about, you’d think people were writing about Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.

      • MinnFinn says:

        @Chris, Interesting. I also don’t get it. It’s like Buckingham Palace press office releases statements about Will & Kate that bear no resemblance to the public figures most of us see.

      • Emily C. says:

        He’s an incredibly wealthy man who was born to astronomical wealth and privilege. What he does with this is… go on lots of vacations. Except he doesn’t have to pay for them because taxes do. He could do massive amounts of good, and instead chooses to do less than nothing.

        Yep. Disgusting person.

      • India Andrews says:

        Not to mention him expecting Kate to be on call for him, him cheating on her while they dated and who can forget the jumping on the table to shout he’s free. Oh yeah, prince charming.

        I don’t think many people believe Kare would’ve waited a decade for him if he had been an impoverished commoner.

    • Chris says:

      How many ‘vacations’ (normal people call them holidays) has he been on this year? Spain and that fancy one with Kate? That’s not many.

      I’m pretty sure he and Harry pay for holidays, unless they are given freebies. I know that happened with Harry’s vegas holiday. Imagine that happens a lot with famous people.

      • Chris says:

        ‘Normal people call them holidays’….by ‘normal’ do you mean ‘British’? Aiiee! Steady on now.
        (Chris #2)

      • notasugarhere says:

        - Hunting trip with ex-girlfriend to Spain the weekend before he gave a speech at the anti-poaching event and ranted about destroying all the ivory in the Royal Collection

        - Trip to the Maldives, a country where they prosecute and flog teen rape victims. Left behind the 8-month-old baby, the one they insist they have to take care of full-time so they cannot work more. Spent roughly 100,000 pounds of taxpayer money on airfares for the security staff (plus the staff accomodations and food at $500/meal all paid by taxpayers).

        There may have been more.

      • FLORC says:

        Don’t forget the 2 vacations built into their tour. And during his bespoke program there was more than just the spain trip. He left the school for quite some time and didn’t return home.

      • Ayre says:

        This type of disagreement is one of the reasons I find these threads so fascinating in terms of how we criticize public figures. I DO think they’ve taken lavish vacations that are tone-deaf and criticism-worthy. (Thinking specifically of the vacation they took during flooding emergencies in the UK.)

        But including a weekend hunting trip to Spain and the side trips built into the tour as “vacations” isn’t, in my opinion, valid criticism. They did a good job on the tour. Same thing with the bespoke program of studies. That was a good thing he did there, and so many people here were reaching and reaching for reasons why it was yet another failure.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles (age 65) and Camilla (age 66) in Canada: Total of 41 engagements in 4 days

        Will (age 31) and Kate (age 32) in NZ/AU: Total of 48 engagements in 19 days, plus two vacations/breaks built in

        I think it is valid criticism. Even when W&K show up to “work” they are remarkably lazy.

      • Ayre says:

        Only my opinion. Not trying to change your mind, just offering a different perspective.

      • Megan says:

        AU/NZ is a lot bigger than CA. K/W spent a lot of time in transit on that tour.

      • India Andrews says:

        You need to go over to Duchess or Diva. She keeps track of William and Kate’s vacations and public appearances even though lately she has been sliding because she is tired of repeating herself when it comes to them.

      • India Andrews says:

        Some people said many of the Australia appearances were vacation activities. I can remember wine tasting, yacht racing, zoo trip, play date, etc.

        Take out all of the appearances where Kate and William are entertained by a sporting event, a movie, an art gallery installation, or drinking booze at a winery or distillery and you have a very short list of appearances.

      • notasugarhere says:

        @Megan. I’m more than a little concerned about the quality of your education.

        Australia: 7,741,220 sq km

        NZ: 267,710 sq km

        Canada: 9,984,670 sq km

        @India. Yes, most of what W&K did were vacation activities. Ex. She was only at the hospice for 15 minutes.

  39. Godwina says:

    I am officially revolted by these people.

    • caz says:

      Me too. What a frivolous continual waste of money on endless holidays & reno’s. I expected far far more from wombat. Off the royal bandwagon. Harry is our only hope.

  40. Lucia says:

    I don’t know why are people surprised that they spend so much money renovating their homes from taxpayers and royal money. Why not? Imagine how many people lived in those houses/apartments? I would renovate as well…although the kitchen looked okay, if they want a more modern one, why can’t they? William will be king one day, so he does whatever he wants…although all English royals do…even the aristocrats and every rich person on this planet like to spoil themselves by certain things.

    So again, why is this surprising or news worthy?

    I don’t get it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      1) Royal money is taxpayer money. They are spoiling themselves with money desperately needed for other things.

      2) The UK is in the midst of a economic crisis and has been for a very long time. 1 in 4 people cannot afford to pay to heat their homes. These two layabouts flit around on vacation, refusing to work, and then prance off to a gala and expect people to believe they care about the homeless?

      3) He will not be king at this rate.

  41. Algernon says:

    Am convinced they have terrible taste. That kitchen is beautiful and I lust after that Aga.

    • hmmm says:

      I always wanted an Aga. Never could afford it. Never will. Pure kitchen p0rn. I wonder if either of the Dolittles even know what an Aga is. What a waste! I wonder if they tossed it.

    • Megan says:

      Algernon — in matters of taste, there can be no dispute. You think that kitchen is beautiful, I think it is hideous. And that’s ok.

    • FLORC says:

      Algernon
      Moving into my house I hated the kitchen. Functionally it was a disaster. Sink, stove, fridge all in a row with no counterspace near or between them. We renovated it, but in doing so made it our own with our own tastes and styles.

      I understand Kate wanting to make the homes her own and not live in a home designed to anothers taste. However, when it’s down to living in a perfectly functional and nice kitchen or lavishly spending tax payers funds to rehab another kitchen and for a vacation home… Overkill. The true numbers really do these 2 in and that’s why we see more of them lately. Because come next year the numbers will be out and it will not be good.

  42. wow says:

    Such a waste of money. But unfortunately those are the type of perks that are allotted when you are Royal. Thats the way it was before Will & Kate and this will be how it is for future Royals…unless things change…which they won’t.

    I wonder though, when any of these Royal couples visit underprivileged children etc…do the thought ever cross their mind of how much they waste during these renovations? Like instead of just using money because it’s there and free, why not donate a good portion of it to their charities.

  43. Dany says:

    Williams polo shirt says:
    “centre point – give homeless young people a future”

    “child bereavement uk – rebuilding lives together”

    oh my…. the irony.
    He takes it very serious… REBUILDING a 38k kitchen in one of his many HOMES

    • Dena says:

      He’s a job creator!

    • wendi says:

      Absolutely!! I guess wearing the shirt is the closest he’s planning to get in terms of actually “doing” something for these charities.

    • Megan says:

      I’d like to know how much those polo matches actually raise. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that reported. Anyone know?

      • ArtHistorian says:

        No – it is actually a very good question and something I often wonder about: how much do that popular form of charity – glitzy events – actually raise for charity (when all the money spent on the event is subtracted)?

  44. Word Girl says:

    I’m not a fan of the style of the kitchen and can understand doing kitchen upgrades–yes, but a full remodel– no. If I were 1/2 of WK, I would be cost conscious. I would swap out the kitchen counters and cabinets, but I would see how much money I could get by selling them or at least donate them to a poor person. There is also the option of repainting the cabinets and changing out the ugly cabinet nobs. Its mainly the countertops that could benefit from a replacement; that would make a huge difference. No need to rip the whole kitchen out and start from scratch when there are folks in their society that don’t even have a damn roof over their own heads. I think the people here and on other sites that are complaining are just bugged by wasteful spending when there are people out there in need.

    • wolfpup says:

      yep.

    • vava says:

      Yes. This.

      change the hardware, paint the cabinets, change the countertops and maybe the sink situation and add seating on the other side of the island for the viewers to enjoy their appetizers and cocktails while someone does the cooking.

      • wolfpup says:

        And donate elsewhere to someone in need. Maybe other rich people would follow the leader.

  45. wolfpup says:

    There is one thing that I have learned since following the royals. It is how the 1% lives. The royals have entitlements even beyond that. It is odd, isn’t it, that the rich and their growing wealth, is not taxed (like capital gains tax) nearly so much, as the income of the ordinary man.

    Capital gains is “interest earned” by wealthy investments, and all they have to do is sit there, while their money/investments make interest, and skidildle on the taxes. Yeah for them.

    If I am wrong on any point feel free.

    • Faye says:

      For interest-earning income, the principal was already taxed before it was invested. And interest on investments is taxable (or else my accountant has been lying to us for years!). Just because you earn interest on money that you earned or inherited doesn’t mean you should get lumped into the same category as the Royals, who live it up as the “1%” on someone else’s dime.

      • wolfpup says:

        I totoally agree with you as far as getting lumped in with the royals on interest bearing accounts! That’s normal man stuff. What I’m talking about is capital gains taxes, that the uber rich are not taxed for.

      • FLORC says:

        This is funny in a not funny way. The royals only pay taxes because they agreed to do it. And it’s not a flux rate on income and holdings. I’m not sure if it’s a known number

  46. M.A.F. says:

    That was already a lovely kitchen. I firmly believe that the only room in a house that should be white is a kitchen. The only thing I would have done to the room was go to Anthropology (or any other hardware store depending on price) & buy a bunch of different knobs for the drawers. Other than that, I would have left it.

  47. someone says:

    Since the last tenants were renting – maybe they took the appliances they added along with them when they left? By that I mean the fancy stove, refrigerator etc. What tenant would pay to add those knowing they’d have to leave them when they go? I’m not a fan of wood counter tops, I’d change those first off. I wouldn’t care that they cost the previous renter $34,000 – they’d have to go.

  48. Jag says:

    I truly don’t understand how some gorgeous things, like that kitchen, aren’t good enough for certain rich people. That’s when they show their true colors.

    I was liking them somewhat, but after this, I just can’t. They’re too much like my aunt and uncle on my father’s side who lived in my grandmother’s house after her passing, even though they had no intention of making it a permanent residence and they hadn’t made arrangements with my father to live there. (He and his brother were bequeathed the home together.) While they were there, they had a designer come in, and when they realized that to make all the changes to the quaint little house would be over US $60k, they decided to move elsewhere. When we got to go into the home after they left, they had taken all of the frames from all of the photos, stolen her silver, and taken anything of any value from the home. I truly dislike such disgusting people as they!

    • FLORC says:

      That’s so awful!
      And sad..Some people just feel entitled to things. They’re not stealing because it’s owed to them for some reason. Ugh. A truly terrible quality entitlement is.

    • India Andrews says:

      My aunt stole from my grandparents while they were alive and living in the house. We had antique quilts from the 1800 s made by female ancestors. My aunt took them, sold them quietly and put cheap mass produced ones in the top of the closet in their place. She did similar things all around the house. Replacing family heirlooms and selling them while keeping the profits to herself. My grandparents who were nearly blind at that point couldn’t see well enough to know the quilts and other family heirlooms were missing and had been replaced by cheap reproductions. When my grandparents died, my aunt who could get to their house in four hours while it took my parents two days had all of the locks changed and only would let my parents look through the windows. She is truly a despicable woman. I have nothing to do with her and don’t plan on attending her funeral or sending flowers when she dies. My heart goes out to you FLORC. I know first hand how ugly people can become when they feel entitled to take things.