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!

soop Thu 12-Jul-12 12:15:08

Nonu Nah! Anger saps me of energy that I can put to better use. smile

nanaej Thu 12-Jul-12 10:15:40

anagram I think this year particularly the focus on the 'wonderfulness' of the royals has been strongly promoted in press & media so reiterating an opposite view is just redressing the balance!!

Nonu Thu 12-Jul-12 10:09:54

No soop are you?

Anagram Mon 09-Jul-12 11:39:00

Well, I think we all realise that what you say is true, vampirequeen. I don't see why it has to be reiterated so often, though.

vampirequeen Mon 09-Jul-12 11:05:23

Does it matter? Whatever it is, and no matter how many others they have, it will live an incredibly pampered and privileged life being deferred to and kowtowed to by people who work a damn site harder than they ever will.

And before you ask....no I'm not angry just realistic.

Anagram Mon 09-Jul-12 10:48:11

I read somewhere that it is actually going to be put in place soon, and in any case would be retrospective if Kate had a child before it happened.

absentgrana Mon 09-Jul-12 09:56:23

Annobel I don't think they have done away with precedence for male succession yet. It has to be agreed by all the Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is the head of state as well as by the British Parliament. They've just talked about it. I suppose it's not desperately urgent as there's the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge before the question arises and, if the Cambridge's first chid is a boy anyway, that's another generation taken care of.

soop Sun 08-Jul-12 13:06:30

Nonu Are you as angry as you appear to be? hmm

Nonu Sat 07-Jul-12 21:59:53

your are so observant , would I could be the same . xxx

Anagram Sat 07-Jul-12 21:28:38

You're repeating yourself, Nonu.

Nonu Sat 07-Jul-12 20:56:48

Queeny wouldn"t want any one to rain on her parade now would she , and that would if william and kate announced a pregnacy , but we will see !

Annobel Tue 03-Jul-12 22:23:18

Even if it's a girl, now that all that nonsense about male succession has been done away with. Not that I'm in favour of any succession.

merlotgran Tue 03-Jul-12 22:19:33

That's a bit unfair, Nonu. The Queen already has two GGC so why would she not be delighted with another, especially as the baby will be next in the line of succession after William?

POGS Tue 03-Jul-12 21:56:54

I would think the Queen would be more than happy to have another great grandchild. Why the hell wouldn't she?

Another GGC would be a joy for any family, they are human too not some alien species.

Anagram Tue 03-Jul-12 21:46:23

Yes.

j04 Tue 03-Jul-12 21:40:43

I think the Queen would be delighted to be presented with a future heir to the throne to top off her jubilee celebrations. smile

Nonu Tue 03-Jul-12 20:29:51

well of course William and Kate can"t produce an heir too soon as it would deflect from Queeny jubillee year and we can"t have that can we ? she has to be top dog however modest she likes to present herself

Anagram Tue 03-Jul-12 19:38:35

It's a vicious circle though, isn't it? Imagine the controversy - 'we can't send them economy, what about security? If they got hijacked or kidnapped, the public (not to mention the rest of the world) would have a field-day!'
So First Class it is, then, no matter how many teeth have to be gritted...

Annobel Tue 03-Jul-12 19:28:19

Send them in Economy. That would soon curb their enthusiasm.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.