£176,664 spent on Princess Kate to cover 138 engagements

[tatalan]

Princess Kate wore £176,664 worth of clothing for 138 engagements in 2022.

How do you feel about this?

Kate's most expensive fashion year yet! Princess of Wales wore a record £176,664 worth of new clothes in 2022

Fine thanks for asking

I feel another Father Ted meme coming on

This has been discussed lots of times . Members of the Royal Family are not allowed to accept freebies
but that doesn’t mean they are paying full retail price either, I bet she gets a special price from brands like McQueen which she wears a lot.

Thanks for that . I was just making a general comment in reply to the poster who suggested the POW doesn’t pay for her clothes however you are correct in that there is a bit more to it.

I don't actually take issue with the amount spent on her clothes - obviously she's a senior Royal so has to dress for that status.

However the very low number of engagements she undertakes, in my opinion, are not acceptable. I don't get the argument that she has three young children and that is why she can't do much - she is privileged to have a massive amount of help, and the children are all in school now. I just get the feeling she loves all the perks but doesn't understand the concept of noblesse oblige.

Time will tell I guess, but if the monarchy want to remain relevant after this particular generation are gone, then they'll need to modernise and up their game.

She works part time with her engagements, two and a half days a week every week of the year, but I'm absolutely sure she reads up on those engagements and works from home doing her research in the days before, so she is more like full time. So similar to many working mothers. She's also a mum with 3 kids. Princess Anne's children are grown up

Time will tell I guess, but if the monarchy want to remain relevant after this particular generation are gone, then they'll need to modernise and up their game

^^ This.

There’s a lot of ‘worn before’ in that list.

Taxpayers don’t pay so it’s really none of our business is it.

'Taxpayers don't pay ' is not accurate
Taxpayers 'pay' in two ways:

Taxpayers paying for the royals whether they want to or not

Revenue denied to the public as it is taken by the 'royals' directly , the crown estate for example .

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/record-100m-taxpayer-payout-royal-27360820?intsource=amppcontinuereading&inttmedium=amp&intcampaign=continueereadingbutton#amp-readmore-target
'Royal' finances are also famously murky .
Local councils pay when there is a royal visit . Councils which are struggling to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled
If a 'royal' is going to turn up to a food bank for an attempt at a bit of PR the least they could do is cover their own costs
But no ...

The Crown Estate belongs to the Crown.

Do you have similar gripes about the Westminster Estate?

If a 'royal' is going to turn up to a food bank for an attempt at a bit of PR the least they could do is cover their own costs

It's PR for the food bank. The King has donated 800 fridges and freezers from his own money.

If we had an elected head of state, they'd still make public visits and the costs would still fall wherever they do now.

And the indirect revenue they generate? Working with industry, foreign tours promoting British goods. Tourism etc. When a royal turns up at a charity that charity's profile increases along with donations That's how it all works. They are nothing more than a PR company for the Uk and I'm sure worthwhile financially

When a royal turns up at a charity that charity's profile increases along with donations

No, it doesn't.

Have a read here

If a charity finds having a royal patron doesn't benefit them, it's up to them to get rid of the royal patron. They must think there is benefit to them despite what Caroline Fiennes thinks

I don't suppose it would be that easy to say 'we don't want you' would it? They hope it would improve donations and revenue but as can be seen, it doesn't to speak of.

As I said previously, there is a feelgood factor for the volunteers.

The report was quite woolly. No evidence of this or that. But that doesn't mean there aren't benefits. Does having a royal warrant increase sales? You'd think not. But clearly companies want one so there must be some effect.

Prince Charles was president of the Mary Rose Trust. I don't know if he helped financially but he gave a party and invited the owner of the Tog Mor crane and the Mary Rose Committee and then brought about the situation of the owner offering the use of the crane for free to raise the ship. So there's an example of how having royal patrons can be an advantage.

I wouldn't call this woolly, but there you go

A database with 3 million entries. Every charity in England and Wales; every item in every set of financial statements it had reported in each of the last 25 years.

@Roussette You've misread that. It says royal patronages don't increase revenue, it doesn't say high profile royal visits don't. I've given to a charity (Q Camilla's visit to children with life limiting conditions at Christmas) because I've seen this. You're being ridiculous if you say a visit reported on local or national TV by any campaigner or celebrity doesn't generate revenue. The 'three dads walking' was generating donations when they were on the air.

I'm afraid I'd rather believe a carefully researched report taking years and a helluva lot of hard work than you saying you saw a Royal attended a (very worthy) charity so gave a donation.

"You're being ridiculous if you say a visit reported on local or national TV by any campaigner or celebrity doesn't generate revenue" I didn't say that. You obviously haven't read the whole article. Very few of the charities get royal visits.

The Three Dads campaign was brilliant, they were wall to wall on BBC quite rightly and hope they did well from it.

The Princes Trust has helped thousands of young people, duke of Edinburgh award scheme ditto. People never heard about osteoporosis until Camilla started talking for the charity, William and Harry and headspace, William and the Earthshot award, Catherine and children's charities. It's not only about donations, but raising awareness and giving something back to communities.

Of course other people do plenty (rashford et al) but the Royal Family do a huge amount.

@Roussette you didn't read what I said. I said when a royal patron turns up, donations increase. It's pretty obvious it raises the profile. Patronage I didn't mention.

Osteoporosis... nobody had ever heard of it. Please do not say that. It is hereditary (in our family) and it is very well known. Not just by us. By very many.

Princes Trust is very worthy. I know someone who was helped from it.

But have you read the report? 1% of charities got a royal visit last year. 1%. You are not reading what it said.

What the report says is 1% of charities got more than 1 public engagement in the year. 26% appear to have had at least one public engagement. And of course there could be far more 'engagement', just not in public.

Princess Anne's work with Riding for the Disabled is one RF charity connection I really admire.