Gransnet forums

Chat

Kate's clothes bill

(145 Posts)
gracesmum Tue 26-Jun-12 16:23:55

So the Duchess of Cambridge spends close to her husband's salary on clothes does she? Attagirl! A woman after my own heart.
I was so impressed that she wears things several times, borrows/shares with her mum/buys high street fashion especially in the sales/ seems quite thrifty. I am glad her FIL foots the bill, Camilla clearly has him well trained.
Apparently Kate could spend less if she negotiated discounts with designers or accepted "freebies" - but what a meal the press would make of that!

POGS Mon 02-Jul-12 12:42:40

Like a lot of questions on here, your response will be whether you are left or right of politics or Republican against Monarchist. We are all so stereotyped.

I think she should have a good wardrobe of 'workwear'. She obviously is happy to be in jeans and t.shirts but for goodness sake she has to dress appropriately for certain occassions. She probably spends less than most celebritites do on their clothes.

She would look pretty b----y daft turning up in a Primark frock for a state occassion just to please Republicans.

She is very likeable and natural and I beleive she will, given those who hate her and what she stands for leave her alone, become a good embassador for this country. I hope she works hard for her chosen charities and uses her influence to do good for the country.

She may be like Princess Ann and The Queen and recycle a lot of her clothes and mix and match. Poor girl was accused of having the same shoes on all the time, now she is accused of spending too much, can't win can they!

Greatnan Mon 02-Jul-12 16:20:56

Not sure I am stereotypical of anything in particular, Pogs. I hope I look at every issue on its merits. I am neither right nor left wing, just compassionate.

nanaej Mon 02-Jul-12 16:36:09

I do not know if Kate is likable as I do not know her which is why I do not hate her either. I do not like the celebrity status of the royals nor the fact they are heads of state by dint of birth.

merlotgran Mon 02-Jul-12 16:54:30

The advantage of having a head of state by dint of birth is surely that they know their destiny from day one. They grow up fully aware of what is expected of them and how they should behave. OK, there are a few lifestyle blips with the younger Royals but they mature just like anyone else. We are the ones who bestow celebrity status on them and expect them to respond accordingly.

vampirequeen Mon 02-Jul-12 19:51:36

To be born into it seems a bit unfair. What if they just want a quiet life? What if with the best will in the world they're not cut out for public appearances? Seems unfair to make people suffer by dint of birth.

Surely you should have the choice if you're going to be in the public eye and open to all the constant observation and criticism that goes with the territory.

Don't make the mistake of mixing my views on clothes expenditure and tax handouts with repubicanism. I can see arguements for and against a form of monarchy. I can also see the value and pitfalls of a republic.

johanna Mon 02-Jul-12 19:55:16

Noblesse Oblige!!!!!

Anagram Mon 02-Jul-12 20:13:27

Quite, johanna. They don't have a choice - that's just the way it is.

nanaej Mon 02-Jul-12 20:16:48

I would be less of a rampant republican if Brit royals were more like the Dutch /Danish royals..a bit less in yer face! If GB was to be a republic there are systems that i would not want... who knows the name of the German president ?(no googling!)

johanna Mon 02-Jul-12 20:27:56

ana
I wanted to add that we have not seen a lot of the" Oblige "for the past thirty years. Except for H.M , the younger generation have not taken this on board.

For me, it started when Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson. For a Prince to marry a woman who had already been someone's live in for 5 years??
Some folk may say that we live in modern times and that lots of people have had relations before they get married.
I can accept that. But do not expect me to curtsey .

Anagram Mon 02-Jul-12 20:32:55

Well, I think if Fergie had buckled down and just got on with the 'job' her past wouldn't have been a problem. I wouldn't want to curtsey to anyone either, but I think Cherie Blair was pushing it a bit - she just came across as rude!

merlotgran Mon 02-Jul-12 21:21:56

If our royals were more like the Dutch/Danish ones, nanaeJ, wouldn't we soon start wondering what they're for? We are used to the pomp and ceremony of the huge occasions and seeing news coverage of royal goings on practically every day. Whether we love them, loathe them, take the mickey out of them or queue up for hours for a glimpse of them, they play a big part in defining Britain. Most of the world recognises the Queen in photos but would they know any of the European royals?

vampirequeen Mon 02-Jul-12 21:47:54

I'm not sure I want my country defined by one family though.

j04 Mon 02-Jul-12 21:50:22

I would love to curtsy to the Queen. So long as I didn't have to say anything. I know that would go spectactularly wrong.

j04 Mon 02-Jul-12 21:52:47

That's not how you spell spectacturlarly is it? I have tried several combinations of the letters but I can't the red line go away. Sorry.

j04 Mon 02-Jul-12 21:53:38

make the red line.

Never mind

merlotgran Mon 02-Jul-12 21:58:30

Not entirely defined, vampirequeen but our monarchy plays a large part in Britain's identity and I think/hope in a positive way.

j04 Mon 02-Jul-12 22:03:39

Whoever said on here that none of the modern royals dress elegantly, (since Queen Mary?!!!) haven't they noticed how good the Queen looks these days?! confused

merlotgran Mon 02-Jul-12 22:06:52

I agree, jO4 The Queen's outfits have definitely taken a turn for the better. The hats are a bit samey but there's a clever use of colour in her clothes.

Anagram Mon 02-Jul-12 22:12:23

And the fashions of Queen Mary's time were much more 'regal' anyway - our present Queen can hardly traipse around wearing full-length gowns all the time.

vampirequeen Tue 03-Jul-12 06:29:10

Apparently Queen Mary wanted to update her wardrobe as fashions changed but her husband was very set in his ways and didn't like the new fads so he insisted she continued to dress in long skirts.

whitewave Tue 03-Jul-12 09:22:11

Can someone enlighted me as to how one can manage to pay out more than £38K for a train ride in the UK?

absentgrana Tue 03-Jul-12 10:19:09

Greatnan That's a bit having it both ways, isn't it? You seem to have a certain respect for the Princess Royal and her 500 or more engagements a year, but suggest that only those in direct line to the throne should receive financial support. So who should pay for her travel (sometimes abroad), etc. to these 500 or more engagements?

vampirequeen Tue 03-Jul-12 16:55:59

Oh I'm sure they don't find it very difficult to spend £38K on a train. I can't see them being on the 8.45am from Kings Cross can you...not even in First Class.

merlotgran Tue 03-Jul-12 18:35:59

I suppose the only way to save money on Royal travel costs is to cut down on their engagements but then people would complain they're not doing enough. The Duke of Gloucester apparently took a scheduled flight to Tonga to pay condolences following the death of the King of Tonga. How come the trip cost over £90,000 when nobody knows him from a bar of soap?

Anagram Tue 03-Jul-12 18:42:32

Quite. It's those 'hidden' expenses which really rile me - I have no problem with the royals being paid out of public money, but it's the never-ending add-ons such as travel, staff and accommodation which make me cross!