Duchess Kate has already spent £57,346 on clothes this year, apparently

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attend a ‘Les Voisins in Action’ event during their state visit

After the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge made their two-day trip to Paris last month, people really started talking about how much money Kate has been spending on clothes this year. It’s always part of the discussion, of course, because there’s little else to discuss with regards to Kate, so of course we’re going to talk about her clothes and how much they cost. In 2016, Kate hit an all-time high, when she reportedly spent £174,000 or more on clothes, a figure I still think is low because Kate gets so many of her pieces customized and bizarrely tailored. Incidentally, when we say “Kate spent such-and-such on clothes,” of course she’s not spending her own money. She has her father-in-law’s credit card or something – Charles pays for her clothes for the most part. Anyway, Kate is keen to spend that money. She’s already spent about £57,346 so far on clothing just this year. The Daily Mail had a breakdown of her outfits and costs here.

As she becomes increasingly confident in her royal role and is thrust further into the international spotlight with more foreign travel, the Duchess of Cambridge has moved away from her favourite high street brands in favour of designer pieces.

Femail estimated that in 2016 she wore clothing worth £174,170, four times the value of her 2015 wardrobe, which came in at just over £43,000.

Now the popular blog What Would Kate Do has estimated the Duchess’ spend on new clothing, shoes and accessories so far in 2017, without taking into account the cost of any items she already owned. The grand total came out at a whopping £57,346 for the first quarter of the year.

FEMAIL also added up the total, calculating a slightly more modest £57,206. In any case, if she continues at this rate, 2017 will easily be Kate’s most expensive year yet on the wardrobe front.

[From The Daily Mail]

To be fair, the Daily Mail’s estimates include clothing that was already in her closet, which she then repeats. And Kate does do strategic repeats, although she’s gotten a little bit better about knowing which events call for something new. Basically though, if she’s spending that kind of money, wouldn’t you expect A) a better value for the money and B) better clothes in general? While I know some people would complain about the expense, I do think Kate needs a real stylist at long f–king last. In the past few years, she’s been “styled” by a secretary/helper named Natasha Archer, who is basically a yes-woman to all of Kate’s worst instincts. Archer reportedly encouraged Kate to “show more leg,” thus increasing the possibilities for even more Marilyn Moments. And considering that Kate is moving into full-time DOILY territory, can someone put a cap on how much money Kate spends on lace dresses?

The Portrait Gala 2017 - fundraising dinner

Duchess of Cambridge 42nd Street

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

104 Responses to “Duchess Kate has already spent £57,346 on clothes this year, apparently”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. pru says:

    Not necessarily related to DK, Kaiser, but your thumbnail picture choices as always on point!!

  2. dodgy says:

    I’d really have preferred Rexit over Brexit, tbh. The money that Duchless DoLittle spends on her clothes (indirectly) come from us, and our schools and national health services are suffering.

    • Guest says:

      The monarchy is losing significance anyway… guess the UK and other countries will get rid of it one way or another, especially because the young royals are nothing more than unemployed celebs.

    • Felicia says:

      I’ve often wondered to myself that since you guys never had a revolution and the details regarding who pays for what when when the Royal Family agreed to step down from being an absolute monarchy were probably negotiated and agreed to by all, why people complain about it. Not being a smart ass, but I suppose there was probably written agreements, aka legally binding documents. If those agreements were broken, could they take it to court and revoke your democracy? Strange question I know, but it occurs to me every time I see grumbling about what the Royal Family costs.

      • LAK says:

        Actually we had 2 revolutions within the period that we were constitutional monarchy on top of the revolutions when we were absolute monarchy.

        1. First one ended badly for Charles 1. Google Oliver Cromwell vs Charles 1. We became a sort of republic with Cromwell at the head for 11years. Unfortunately, as no one, including Cromwell, had come up with a better system of govt than the monarchical one, we reverted back on his death. Charles 2 was invited back with lots of conditions and caveats.

        2. The second revolution is the glorious revolution a few years later when we got rid of catholic monarch to install a protestant one.

        To sum, if someone can devise a govt that is different from our current system, that the majority can agree on, we’ll change to that. Until then, monarchy it is.

        The agreements to move from absolute to constitutional monarchy took power away from the royals to parliament. Charles 2 and William & Mary’s installation was agreed on conditions that put parliament at a better advantage than the royals.

        As a result, it wouldn’t take much beyond parliament writing the appropriate law to remove the royals if we wanted it.

        Also, the magna carta, created during absolute monarchy, specifically prevents monarch from upending democracy so removing the royals or revoking previously agreed arrangements wouldn’t affect our democracy.

      • frisbee says:

        We had a civil war 1642 to 1651 when Charles I was executed by decapitation, that was followed by a Commonwealth led first by Oliver Cromwell 1653 to 1658 followed by his son. We then reinstated the Monarchy in 1660 with Charles II and ended up with a King as head of state who is answerable to Parliament hence the UK’s constitutional monarchy that, ironically has probably kept it all going for so long. Parliament has held the purse strings ever since at least as far as running costs are concerned. That is never accurately reported in any case because the real cost of supporting this lot is concealed within several governmental budgets. There are no legally binding agreements or contracts that could be seen to be broken to depose them and it would take an Act of Parliament to pull it off at the behest of the will of the people, most of whom have better things to worry about. Royalty in the U.K is a lot like furniture you don’t really notice it all that much unless you bump into it.

      • Sixer says:

        Also, to note – in order to avoid any similar events post the French revolution, the British elites have always been very clever at making incremental concessions, a process that still continues today.

        Britain should be regarded as having achieved democracy by attrition rather than revolution.

      • dodgy says:

        @Felicia, to tell the truth, the Queen is still our head of state, and has powers that she can use, but doesn’t.

        For instance, allegedly, she’s the reason why we had to go ahead with Cameron and Clegg’s coalition government in 2010. Word has it, everyone wanted to rerun the election and she nixed it, so it’s not as if she doesn’t intercede (which is why I’m interested to see what happens when Brexit starts to break up Britain, in terms of the various questions being asked about our Union that the government seems unwilling and unable to answer – will she intervene then?).

        Republicanism isn’t so strong over here, because people do love the queen. But I think once she goes, daylight will totally flood into magic, and the unquestionable will be questioned.

        Divorce from the Royal Family would be more complicated than say, divorce from the EU, but I’d take Rexit over Brexit any day! Europe has enriched my life more than the Queen has done.

      • Tina says:

        @dodgy, where are you getting that? I’ve never seen evidence that anyone wanted to rerun the 2010 election, for the very good reason that a rerun would not have produced a different result. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 didn’t exist in 2010, so there would have been nothing stopping Cameron from calling a new election if he had wanted to, and certainly not the Queen. She simply doesn’t have the power to intercede.

      • Felicia says:

        Thanks to everyone for the very informative posts. Did a quick search on why does parliment pay for the royal family’s expenses and got to a Wiki page (so it may not be correct information). The gist of it is that until sometime in the 1700′s the Royal Family expenses were paid for by the Royal Family, but they also received the revenues from Crown Land, basically the real estate portfolio belonging to the Crown. One of the Kings agreed to the Civil list in exchange for the revenues of Crown Land going to the govt. The entry is long and you can google the same thing if you want to read it all. But that would seem to me that there was some sort of agreement, some sort of exchange. I will give you this, in return for that.

        They mention that the Crown Land revenues largely exceed expenses and that currently the Civil list is capped at 15% of the net revenues. So technically I suppose, it’s not “taxpayer” money.

        Education cuts… it’s funny how developing countries make an effort to educate their youth in order to rise out of poverty. Third world countries don’t. And some 1st world countries have a political class determined to “dumb down” the population and make it difficult to get a good education so that the “haves” will remain so, and so will the “have nots”. And yet they are willing to spend billions or trillions on military equipment, wars and surveillance of their own citizens. I think it’s easy to make a scapegoat out of people like the Royal Family for “waste” because it makes for a good distraction from where taxpayer money is really being spent. But maybe I’m just being cynical.

      • Tina says:

        @Felicia, the Sovereign Grant (it’s not the Civil List any more) percentage has gone up to 25% to pay for the repairs to Buckingham Palace. And in any event, the Crown Estates do not belong to the Queen, they belong to the nation. The Crown is not the Queen, it is basically the same thing as the State. It is not taxpayer money as it is not provided by taxpayers, but it belongs to the people of the UK.

      • LAK says:

        Felicia: again not correct. The crown lands, renamed the crown estates, do not and have never belonged to the royal family.

        Back in Norman times, an act of parliament created an estate to pay for the instrument of govt rather than impose taxation on the peasants. Govt then included parliament, army, general govt expenses. The royal household being a part of the govt, was included in the payments.

        The monarch simply managed the estates, but didn’t own them. The monarch had/ has separate privately owned estate.

        Unfortunately, successive monarchs mismanaged the estate such that it was in debt and expenses went unpaid. The monarch of the day would apply to parliament to raise one off taxes to cover the debt.

        George 3 didn’t want this responsibility anymore so he handed management to parliament on condition his expenses as head of govt continued to be met. These expenses are the basis of what became the civil list and later the sovereign grant.

        With time, the crown estates have gone towards paying govt services like police, nhs, social services and whatever scheme the treasury decides to pay for.

        The civil list used to be paid in arearrs and in a way that was difficult to manage because there was no easy way to budget it. So the govt decided the easiest way to impose a budget on HM and to ensure certain things were paid for eg Palace maintenance, they decided to take 15% out of the crown estates as the easiest way to ensure money was available and renamed it the sovereign grant.

        The monarch’s private wealth remains separate from the crown estate and the sovereign grant.

        If a decision is made to get rid of the monarch, the sovereign grant would cease to be paid to the royal family, and would simply be paid to the new head of state if that was the choice made or simply appled elsewhere in the treasury budgets.

        So going back to your original premise, this IS taxpayer money being funnelled away from govt programmes to pay the royals.

        And it is not the only govt fund with a portion redirected to the royal family. The depts of transport, the police, the army, local councils all contribute to the royals on top of the crown estates.

        Publicly available sources estimate the the family receives between £300M-£400M annually. Perhaps more because there are undeclared slush funds galore which we only find out about when the headlines declare that the queen is down to her last million – translation: the Queen has used up her annual allowance and raided all the slush funds such that only £1M remains in it. Please give her more taxpayer money to waste. She’s not touching her personal wealth.

        Ditto the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.

    • Sixer says:

      The headteacher and me and my fellow governors are having a meeting after the Easter holidays to work out which of the head’s proposals will be the cuts from our school’s budget next year. Almost £300 per year per pupil, we are losing.

      • dodgy says:

        @Sixer, oh my days. In my part of the woods, schools are asking parents to contribute money for texts and school supplies. There’s even talk of turning comprehensives into fee paying schools. It’s like the 1980s again under Thatcher, but worse.

        But you know, Theresa May wants to spend all money on new grammars, even though everyone knows it’s not for the poor, but for the comfortably well off middle-class parents who can’t send their children to Malborough, or Seven Oaks.

        A country that works for all, my arse.

      • Sixer says:

        Don’t start me on grammars!

        My school will be particularly badly affected because we are kinda neither Arthur nor Martha, as my grandmother used to say.

        We live in an area of the country where agriculture is one of the biggest employment sectors and wages are low. So average salary here is about 20% less than the national average. However, there is little outright deprivation such as you’d find in the deindustrialised areas. Also, we are rural so sixth forms have to cater to vocational qualifications as well as A levels because the nearest FE colleges are 20 miles away.

        This means that we get the cuts but we don’t get things like the pupil premium which ameliorate the cuts.

        We will have to lose at least one A level and at least one BTEC. At least one teacher and a couple of teaching assistants. Year 7s will get teachers who are not specialists in the particular subjects. Our library already has no librarian. It’s run by the careers officer, for heavens sakes.

        And we are better off than some because it genuinely is a well-run school with excellent parental involvement.

    • dodgy says:


      Hence me saying ‘allegedly’. Since the referendum, I’ve been reading tons of stuff (too much, really). I’m on my phone at the mo (travelling), let me try and find all this nonsense and get back to you. I’m still team #rexitoverbrexit though

    • Alexandria says:

      I think a poster raised the issue that it would also be as complicated to do a Rexit because the UK has the House of Lords.

  3. Megan says:

    How can she spend that much and look so bad? Charles should insist she hire a professional stylist.

  4. Kyra says:

    So what you are saying is that the entire yearly burden on the UK taxpayer for Kate’s wardrobe is a tiny fraction of what are American cousins are spending on Secret Service protection for Uday & Qusay Trump to do private business and holiday in Aspen?

    Seems like we got the better deal!

    • manda says:

      The infuriating thing is that Trump was such a vocal critic of Obama playing golf and going on vacation. I read somewhere that Trump’s secret service costs for trips for this first year will exceed Obama’s costs for his entire eight years. It’s the hypocrisy that drives me crazy!

    • LAK says:

      This bill excludes other items we are paying for.

      It’s cheaper to have her stay at home unseen. Since we pay for the home too, i guess we are screwed which ever way you look at it.

      • Megan says:

        @LAK you have 950 years of precedent and a constitutional monarchy. A first family of overt grifters is unprecedented in America. Criminal investigations may need to be scaled back in order to come up with the funding to protect Trump’s kids as they peruse international business ventures and his wife who refuses to move to D.C.

  5. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    And it’s only April. Her spending increases every year even thou her numbers don’t. As I’ve said on here many time she has to wear something new every time she’s seen in public, whether its clothes or accessories.

    I also think all the praise she gets for her ‘style’ has gone to her vapid head, she thinks she’s a fashion icon.

  6. PettyRiperton says:

    The killer part is those outfits are not even cute or stylish clothes to where you can say ok I see why she spent that amount on them.
    You can dress age appropriate and look great but Kate and her “stylist” are wack. They will have 1 hit out of 200 misses and think they did something.

  7. MunichGirl says:

    So much money for a frumpy look.

  8. OhDear says:

    How much of those clothes has she actually worn? It’s not as if she goes to that many work events or social events.

    • FLORC says:

      Ah! Well, that is a bit of a dark corner… we price what we see and hear about.
      Example.. all those striped shirts… clearly different. And lables casual wardrobe. We get a price from the retailer or a blogger/reporter, etc… if Kate buys something and never wears it in public or officially does it have a price?

      • Sharon Lea says:

        Very good point, she wore a very nice black coat with leather trim a few years ago to a night out with William, meeting friends, I think it was for someone’s birthday. It was super cute, but I have never seen it in public. The DM thought it was a high end coat, the cost was maybe a couple thousand.

  9. Jeesie says:

    I don’t really care about the figures, but what bothers me is how basic and outdated and similar everything is. For those costs the clothes should at least be nice and stylish, but it’s always either frumpy mother of the bride or flasher schoolgirl. Or the hideous jeggings and 2002 era wedges, which where does she even find those things on this day and age?

    She could just shop at Zara, H&M ect. and get things tailored, and she’d look so much fresher.

    • @ Jessie I totally agree with you regarding Kate’s jegging/legging/super tight super skinny jeans and the wedges.I don’t actually mind wedges with appropriate clothing but they look so dumb with skinny pants for royal work.I think Kaiser and many other regular posters on here have already said this -but I’ll say it too-Kate would look lovely in trousers and a cashmere tee or a nice button down blouse and blazer.She so needs to mix and match separates.She dressed better in the girlfriend years IMO than she does now.I don’t like being harsh on someone I don’t know but she really does have the ability to make everything she wears look drab and boring .

  10. Indira says:

    Well that’s all she is, a clothes horse.

  11. Meow says:

    Such a useless little twerp.

  12. anonymous says:

    I don’t know how british people accept this. Feel like we are back at the middle ages again when poor people had no choice but to feed the rich with their taxes.

  13. IMO says:

    The royals are such a useless bunch.

  14. what's inside says:

    What would it take for Kate to climb out of the depths of public scrutiny and redeem herself? Ideas anyone?

    • bluhare says:

      I think it would take her attaching herself to something, and having actual involvement in it that follows through and is much more than photo ops. A pattern of action, especially if it focuses on poverty or other underserved people. I don’t know if she has it in her to do it, though. I would think we’d have seen it already.

      And showing some attempt to economise. Not sure how she could do that and have it be viewed publicly, but something.

  15. my3cents says:

    Does she at least donate or auction off her clothes once she’s done with them?

    • notasugarhere says:

      While Diana auctioned off hers, I don’t see how it would be legal. Maybe Diana demanded ownership of her clothes in the settlement, and the BRF wasn’t going to fight it. Kate Middleton’s wardrobe ultimately belong to the taxpayers. Where is the benefit in her spending hundreds of thousands in clothes and accessories in 6 years – only to give it away and buy more?

      Angela Kelly needs to go through everything in the closets, fix the hems, re-tailor what is wrong, and make a working wardrobe out of it. Very few new purchases should be allowed, but a handful of three piece suits (skirt, trousers, jacket) should be added to make a basic, professional wardrobe.

      • bluhare says:

        How would it not be legal? Because Charles paid for them? They don’t belong to the taxpayers. Charles used Duchy of Cornwall money to pay for them (which is his income) and bought them for Kate. I get that he probably deducts the costs as business expenses, but if no one could resell clothing, that means that anyone who deducts business clothes as expenses on their tax return could not resell theirs either.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The simple distinction being these aren’t everyday people who earned the money themselves. Ultimately, the Duchy and things purchased with it doesn’t really belong to them. I don’t think HM’s work wardrobe belongs to her personally either.

      • bluhare says:

        Then how did Diana auction her clothes? They were purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall as well. By your logic she had no right to sell them either. She was divorced from Charles at the time of the auction so he had no more right to them. If he did the Duchy would have sold them, not Diana.

        Charles has a legitimate right to the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, and he maintains his and his children’s households with it. The bills for Kate’s clothes are paid by him, but I doubt they come with “Return to Charles when Done” tags. I don’t think you’re right here.

      • notasugarhere says:

        You’re welcome to believe I’m wrong, won’t change how I think about it. The income he gets isn’t “his” personally, it doesn’t belong to him. Those funds are to used to pay the costs of representing HM, and should be fully open to public inspection, criticism, and comment. They remain the funds of the people, not Windsor private property. That is why I think it is strange that Diana kept her clothes, but I suspect the Windsors weren’t going to fight her on it and as usual no one was going to call them on it.

      • bluhare says:

        nota, of course we can agree to disagree. However, I do not understand how you can possibly say that his income isn’t his! Of course it is. The Duchy provides the heir with an income. If he wasn’t the heir he wouldn’t have it; he’d be supported by the queen from the Duchy of Lancaster. Are you saying that Edward/Sophie’s and Andrew’s income isn’t theirs either if it comes from HM?

        The Duchy itself is not his, but the income from it is. He funds his and WKH’s offices. It’s like a corporation (him) and employees (them). When I take a paycheck it’s mine, even if I don’t own where it came from.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, bluhare, that’s what I mean if it is coming from either Sovereign Grant or the Duchies. Whatever handouts they are receiving aren’t “theirs”. It is to be used to enable the work, but in my book it doesn’t get to be called “theirs” in any way.

        They don’t get to take any portion of that income, squirrel it away in private accounts, and call it “theirs” years from now. As that money is in exchange for representing the government, every penny of it should be publicly accounted for – for all of them.

      • FLORC says:

        Hi ladies!
        Maybe this is more of a discussion over which pocket Charles uses to purchase his daughter in laws clothes? Which clothes can be counted as a write off. Which clothes have price tags that won’t inflate the overall budget number?
        Idk… looking for a new angle on this.

      • bluhare says:

        Heya FLORC!! How are you doing?

        As far as the pocket, I think it depends what it’s for. For general work wear my understanding is Charles pays out of Duchy of Cornwall money. However, foreign clothes are billed to the foreign office. so it depends.

  16. Eme says:

    I really don’t know much about tailoring for a princess but I have this amazing sewing book from the 1950s which explains what can be succesfully tailored and what not.

    According to that book, most ready-to-wear clothes cannot be propperly tailored because of many things, among them, tiny seam allowances. Shoulders and necklines are a no. Anything between the bust and the waist could ruin the garment.

    Custome designers and so on will tailor items for TV shows because the patchy work won’t show and only the siluette is important. But those alterations won’t work that well in real life. Maybe that’s why many clothes I see celebrities wearing have very strange bust darts and so on?

    I used to do small alterations for my aunt… But everything I sewed for her from scratch looked a 1000 times better than any ready-to-wear, tailored or not. If I could afford it, I would have a seamstress sew everything for me, even t-shirts (I am difficult to fit). Since I am broke, I do it myself.

    Please, don’t be fool by “you can tailor anything and make it fit you better”. It doesn’t always work and it can be very expensive.

    I also read somewhere that whatever Kate wears sells out immediately. Maybe that’s why The Firm allows to such an absurd expenditure on clothing?

    • LAK says:

      Your last paragraph…not true.

      She buys stuff and sits on it for a few months such that by the time she finally wears it, it’s sold out or perhaps a few items left. The media spins the story that it is sold out when it was never available in the first place.

      On the few occassions when she wears current season stuff in the period it’s available, it doesn’t sell out.

      • Eme says:


        It makes sense that it was a media fabrication and now I understand how it works.

        She could at least wear things that are avalaible and promote British fashion…

      • LAK says:

        Eme: so much anout WK is a media/PR fabrication.

      • FLORC says:

        Just to add LAK
        There have been maybe a handful of occasions where it was a recent clothing purchase and did sell out. That maybe there were only 5 pieces of inventory In Total certainly helped. Notably the children’s clothes as well.

    • bluhare says:

      I love custom made clothing. I used to sew and loved making clothes for myself. Sometimes I wonder why I stopped. Probably because going to the store is much easier!

      • Eme says:

        Going to the stores is still tempting for me too! And everything is so pretty and so edgy… If you can find nice things in your size, why not?

        But I’ve come to realise that it takes me less time (and usually money) to sew a pair of jeans than to find jeans that fit me. Sewing has done wonders for my self acceptance and I don’t feel so much like a freak anymore.

        Nowadays I just shop gym stuff… And inspiration.

        Since Kate seems to have so much free time, maybe she should take up sewing and save the tax payers a hefty sum.

      • eggyweggs says:

        I also stopped sewing because I could just find it in the store more easily. Plus, I’m nowhere near as good as I should be! But you’re inspiring me, Eme. :)

      • Lady D says:

        I’m dying from envy over here, you guys. I’ve always had great admiration for those that can sew their own clothes. I took sewing in grade nine and failed spectacularly. I’ve taught myself crocheting and embroidery, I even went on a knitting bent for a while, but sewing eludes me completely. You’re so lucky that you can.

      • LAK says:

        Lady D: now it’s my turn to be jealous. I learnt how to sew and embroider in school. Crotcheting and knitting failed to stick.

      • bluhare says:

        Now I want to get a sewing machine again, and sew!!! I was so proud of a corduroy jacket I made myself, with a collar, placket and cuffs. I think that was my finest sewing moment.

        But you’re right; making my own slacks and skirts would save money and fit me better! I’m starting to feel inspired too.

        LAK — I learnt how to embroider (and darn a sock!) in school, and I can still embroider, needlepoint, and cross stitch. I remember knitting too, but I’m so horrible with the tension that if you wanted me to make you a jumper, I’d have to send you baby patterns. By the time I was done with it, it would probably be your size!

      • LAK says:

        On top of the lessons, we were handed our uniforms unfinished as we unpacked for each new term and a week to complete the job.

        Basic structure machine sewn, but we had to finishe the edges of the collars and sleeves, hem, darn, add buttons, embroider badges onto the patterns outlined on shirts or sports kit, button holes had to be embroidered rather than simply sewn. The edges of the cardigans had to be crotched. For PE kit, we had shorts AND a skirt set. The skirt set came with big pants to be worn under the skirt that required an elasticated waist which you had to do yourself.

        We had 4 weekday uniforms ( friday was mufti day though your hair had to be washed, brushed and ready for inspection for hygiene reasons), 4 cardigans, 7 pairs of socks, 2 PE uniforms and a sunday uniform.

        It was thought all this industry was character building and giving us the necessary skillset for life. That’s why uniforms were handed out AT school AFTER your parents were long gone. No chance of parental help.

        You could tell the young kids at school by their uniforms because uniformly, they were poorly finished. By second year, you’d become an old hand.

        And sixth formers were showing off coz their uniforms looked professionally done.

        You can imagine how much i luxuriated in finished, shop bought uniforms when i moved to Britain.

      • Eme says:

        LAK, was it some sort of trend? My grandma used to make me dresses when I was a child, however, I had to polish the seam allowances and finish the hems by hand… I treasure most of those dresses to this day and have never been fond of topstitched hems. But oh, boy, I feel your pain!

        bluhare_ I am not nearly as good a seamstress as my grandma was… But nobody seems to notice except myself. There is a great sewing community on Instagram (#sewcialists), vlogs with sewalongs, free patterns all around (Atelier Viccolo, Deer & Doe, LoveSewing Magazine…). I apologize because it is not of my business, but yeah, I am totally encouraging you to try sewing again :)

        Lady D – The first time I attempted to sew a dress with a commercial pattern and without my grandma’s supervision I managed to construct the bodice of a huge and totally out of proportion wrap dress. What a mess! My grandma was dead, my mom couldn’t sew… I gave up. Years later I tried again. Maybe I was more mature? Maybe I got better with the measuring tape? I don’t know what happened but suddenly I was sewing OK fitting skirts, then tops, then dresses and finally, pants and coats. It’ s a journey but for me it’s been very liberating.

        Sorry, I just enjoy sewing quite a lot… I can’t help myself.

      • bluhare says:

        Thank you for the tips, Eme. I will look for some of those. Sewing makes a lot of sense; I have a friend who’s an accomplished seamstress. She did theater costuming, and also made me some slipcovers that are to die for. I also had her make me an evening outfit inspired by a YSL design we saw in a magazine. That was so fun!

      • FLORC says:

        Jealous… I can’t even thread a sewing machine.

    • Defbunnie says:

      @EME That sounds awesome, what’s the name of the book?

      • Eme says:

        The book is “Fashion Sewing by the Bishop Method”. You can check it out at https://openlibrary.org/books/OL5855028M/Fashion_sewing_by_the_Bishop_method

        It is a little gem and I used it a lot when I first started sewing. All the Singer Sewing books are great as well, and there is one just on fitting.

        Just get this book, one of the many free patterns around the internet (many sewing magazines offer them as templates), a sewing machine and you are ready to go.

      • Eme says:

        Or you can just use it to see if something is worth tailoring or not…
        Another great book about fitting clothes is “Fit for Real People” by Pati Palmer. That one is more about how to modify commercial sewing patterns but it helped me to understand why ready-to-wear does not fit almost anybody right.

    • Cee says:

      You’re very correct. I recently purchased a beautiful day dress at Zara and it shrunk before I could even wear it. The extra hems were very, very small but I managed to make the needed alterations (plus losing 2 cm with exercising lol)

    • rose says:

      If you want inspiration to start sewing watch the Spanish series The Time In Between on Netflix. It’s about a seamstress/spy in the 1940′s and the clothing is so beautiful! The sale of sewing machines spiked in Spain. I’ve dragged out my old one and am learning again. So many great tutorials on Youtube

  17. Brittney B says:

    “To be fair, the Daily Mail’s estimates include clothing that was already in her closet, which she then repeats.”

    You gave her too much credit.

    The DM’s estimate was based on the same criteria as the blog, hence the close numbers. And this is how the blog did it:

    “without taking into account the cost of any items she already owned.”

  18. Wren says:

    For so much money, I would expect her clothes to look better. She has the worst taste.

  19. Abby says:

    Actually this tally is by a pro-Kate blog and does not include pre-worn clothes. It’s only new purchases. They left out a few things like some of her jewellery in Paris, as they weren’t able to ID it. Some of the prices listed are estimated, as she has worn many bespoke pieces this year, so the number is very likely above 60 000.

  20. MizFabulous says:

    Why does she insist on always trying to look so damn twee? In that black tank dress in the photos, she looks STUNNING. Young, beautiful, stylish and downright sexy. All of those other outfits look like she’s playing dress-up in her grandmother’s closet with the goal being to get her maximum frump on. Never in my life have I seen someone so desperately in need of a stylist!

    • mar_time says:

      I like the black dress, as well as the red one she recently wore but she pairs the dresses with AWFUL, UGLY jewelry and cheapens the look. She has no sense of style, it’s as simple as that. If she did, she’d have some fun pairing colors and patterns and separates to create interesting outfits. She lacks the eye for fashion

  21. Llamas says:

    Why does she need everything bespoke?

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      A) To hide her long torso and wide shoulders, she often raises the waistlines of dresses and dress coats. You can spot this by checking against the original and by the obvious god awful tailoring.
      B) She changes the original designs so that people can’t copy her. She’s clearly bought into the fawning press coverage she gets painting her as a ‘style icon’. She thinks that she’s some sort of fashion genius she can change designs and make them look better.

      She’s not dressing for her silhouette, she taking designs meant for other silhouettes and changing them in a ham fisted way to fit her body type. If she has a professional stylist who knows what they are doing she shouldn’t need to alter designers to suit her, she would be wearing styles that compliment her silhouette.

  22. Joannie says:

    I dont like everything Kate wears but the majority of the time she dresses well with class and whatever she wears sells out. Everyone has their own taste based on their body type too. Kate has a lovely figure and can wear anything well. Unfortunately she is restricted and cannot wear whatever she wants.

    • Laura says:

      Agreed. For the most part, I like what Kate wears. I think she looks classy and very lady-like (except for when she wears the spray-on tight pants…not a fan of those.)

    • bluhare says:

      For the most part I agree, Joannie. I think her taste in most things is pretty good, but she could really stand some accessorizing lessons. and she’ll need how to wear bling lessons going forward too.

      And Laura, I couldn’t agree more about the skin tight pants.

      • Joannie says:

        Love skin tight pants!! And I agree bluhare, she could accessorize better. I dont like a lot of jewellery myself but she could use a little help in that department. It’s the finishing touch.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        When you look at the pieces individually they are pretty nice but she, or should i say her PA come stylist, can’t put a good look together to save her life. THAT’S one of the big things (along with the terrible tailoring) that annoys me the most about her style. There have been a few occasions where the whole look has been on point.

        I used to work in fashion and worked with many great professional stylists – she could look amazing if she bothered to hire a pro and took their advice instead of the amateur and her mother.

      • bluhare says:

        I didn’t say I don’t like skin tight pants, Joannie. I think she should wear more tailored garments for work wear. That’s all. Let your painted-on flag fly at home!

  23. Redgrl says:

    For all that $$ she really should look put together and stylish. But no… I really wish she would cut her hair…

    • Joannie says:

      I think her hair is gorgeous and should be long. It suits her.

      • ABC says:

        I do wonder just how much of it is actually her own, the wiglets appear to have completely taken over in some pictures. How I’d laugh if one of them fell out, after wasting £57k+ on clothes in 4 months (much more than my combined annual household income) she deserves a bit of humiliation the useless sponger.

  24. Kitty says:

    Maybe she doesn’t have good fashion sense which isn’t bad. Some do some do not. But Diana wore custom made clothes all the time. Just imagine the bill of Diana’s clothes.

  25. corporate stepsister says:

    I wager Carole and Pippa are charging clothing expenses to the privy purse.

  26. Jessica says:

    Am I the only one who doesn’t care how much royals spend on clothes. We expect them to look nice and once they get the money it’s theirs to do what they wish. Complaining over how much they spend on clothes or their security is a waste of time in my opinion. They’re are plenty of other things to criticize.

    • msthang says:

      Jessica, Would it bother you if it came out of your own wallet ???

    • corporate stepsister says:

      Kate isn’t working, that is why people are critical; she isn’t supposed to spend money on herself to wear in private, she’s supposed to spend to look good at appearances.

  27. Kaz says:

    I think Mama Carole has quite a big hand in finding Kate suitable clothes actually.

  28. Starlight says:

    I think it was James Whittaker who said let’s hope she doesn’t turn out like Fergie – all goes to her head like a girl in a sweet shop or words to that affect. I am thinking maybe she is enjoying the pick and mix counter at Woolworths and she has to be seen in something plain sweet and colourful on every occasion. Capricorns are notorious clothes buyers so no surprise that Kate spends spends on outfits to the point of having a spending complex. If you lump them altogether they do look all the same just a different button or different belt same cut and colour peach, green, red, blue. Nothing really jumps out and you don’t dream of wantng to go out and buy it or actually wear it. I am sure she gets freebies but her wardrobe must be the size of a Warehouse.

  29. Vinot says:

    Increasingly confident is the new keen