The Duchess of Sussex's Maternity Fashion: October 2018 -

[Cagillo]

Yes except when they are on Tours etc then the government pays for at least some of their clothing if not all. Of course items she already owned wouldn't count.


LaRae

Thanks, I didn't know. They do not have a budget to follow? Or it is by the year maybe and she has maybe used it up with this tour.

Carol

 

[Zaira]

The DM is at it again!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6337615/Meghans-118K-royal-tour-wardrobe.html

While I did find many of pieces repetitive and entirely too expensive, the DM is being shady by counting things she has worn before the tour as if they are new

 

[Pranter]

Thanks, I didn't know. They do not have a budget to follow? Or it is by the year maybe and she has maybe used it up with this tour.

Carol

I am sure they have a budget ...and perhaps if something is too expensive they kick in for that item or contribute to the budget.

Typically they also wearing clothing/jewelry/shoes that they already own too to help out and also get more use out of those items.


LaRae

 

[Cagillo]

I don't know if this is the right thread for my question, but am I the only one who doesn't understand why she was wearing a trench coat on the beach, or shoes instead of sneakers on the beach or on the forest walk today? Sometimes I thought the type of clothes/shoes weren't what I would think to wear. I imagine someone decides ahead of time what she will be wearing.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Certainly Givenchy owes her one! How inept!

 

[MARG]

Interestingly, if she had worn a thong we wouldn't have seen anything. No, if a dress is not fully lined then a slip, either straight or gored, is an essential item of clothing.

Never mind, Meghan has now had her "underwear" moment and we all know she was wearing waisted briefs! But, at least it isn't the same old question.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Oh well, Duchess Meghan is back to her navy attire. I really like the pleated two-tone outfit. The Stellla McCartney navy just looks basic and not very interesting. I loved Meghan's look when she brought out the Antonio Berardi gorgeous dress again a few days ago. Since then everything has been rather boring navy as usual. And I suppose she will be back to black as well with the occasional green. We'll see.

But, Duchess Meghan is going to do what she feels comfortable doing. I'd really love to see her continue to mix things up colorwise, but I have no expectations that she will. I just wonder if it's simply her preference for navy or partly a desire to keep the clothing excess commentary understated by not doing anything exciting or unexpected most of the time. It may be a conscious effort by Meghan to not add to the media hoopla by kind of staying with sometimes boring/ same-old color scheme, but perfectly nice outfits. She's worn an awful lot of navy and similar looking outfits for the remainder of the NZ tour. There was a lot more variety earlier on, but still with a very laid-back ease, which I appreciate.

I can understand Meghan and Harry wanting to keep the media hoopla at bay, but I'm not happy about it. I'm sure they wish to not upstage with too much sartorial uniqueness and excitement which the media gloms onto. In general they probably want to lead a life that's focused on the projects and people they want to help, and to make it less about personal star quality and fashionista brilliance. I'm sad that Meghan has decided to keep her sartorial life mostly understated and that she won't be able to share much of anything about her life under the protective and media-angsty cloak of the brothers and the royal firm.

There has also been a lot of unnecessary OTT commentary about the cost of Meghan's outfits. She has been re-wearing a lot of her shoes, and she's worn a few outfits and accessories on this tour that she's worn before. Ditto for jewelry. The media clamor and excess is likely what's making M&H stay low key and understated to some degree I think. They do not want to give the media too much fodder to go OTT with. It's this tabloid culture media age we live in which has had Harry being extra-protective of Meghan and their privacy, which is completely understandable.

Despite being fashionably glamorous and much more open and sharing in her former life, I am sure Meghan has no problem with the down-low, ultra private, secure, uber-protected life she leads now. She has a really nice life with a man who's over-the-moon about her, and she's deeply in love with him. That's rare for anyone. Because of the slimy tabloid creeps jumping on everything she wears and spinning out stories to the nth degree, M&H are going to be protective of their privacy as much as possible, and do their royal duties as best they can with sartorial uniqueness likely being kept very understated. In general, I think they both have non-fussy, laid-back personalities and approaches to what they wear. Meghan was a tad more glamorous in her former life, but it looks to me like that's something she is now consciously muting.

They obviously have to wear something, and they will always be polished and appropriate, but not very often will Meghan dazzle us, I'm thinking. Especially not with the media drumming the Diana and Kate comparison angles, or harping so much on the cost of Meghan's wardrobe. Media needs to STOP taking that tack. Prince Charles pays for much of Meghan's working, royal duty wardrobe. But, as we can see, Meghan mixes it up with pieces she already owned, as well as some of her own former jewelry and new jewelry, some of which was gifted to her by Harry and by close friends, and by the Queen and Prince Charles too apparently.

In any case, it's none of the public's business how much Duchess Meghan's clothes cost, because taxpayers do not pay for Meghan's wardrobe. Plus, Meghan has her own wealth, and the royals are obviously also vastly independently wealthy.

BTW, I'm not particularly over-the-moon regarding Meghan's collaboration with Waight Keller of Givenchy. Not much of what Meghan has worn by Givenchy has been particularly interesting. There are the usual comparisons to 'Audrey Hepburn style' of course, which Meghan likes. But in general, what I've seen so far by Givenchy is just okay.

My favorite designs Meghan has worn have been by Berardi, Herrera, Erdem, Mouret, Oscar de la Renta, McQueen (I liked the McCartney after-party wedding dress), Brandon Maxwell, some of the little known online brands, and even Wu and Wickstead outfits have been more memorable than Givenchy. The most outstanding thing by Givenchy is of course, that gorgeous, one-of-a-kind, very symbolic and meaningful wedding veil.

 

[Pranter]

Tour clothing is covered by taxpayer money.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

Tour clothing is covered by taxpayer money.


LaRae

I believe they get a fixed allowance. Anything over that is covered by Charles.

Oh well, Duchess Meghan is back to her navy attire. I really like the pleated two-tone outfit. The Stellla McCartney navy just looks basic and not very interesting. I loved Meghan's look when she brought out the Antonio Berardi gorgeous dress again a few days ago. Since then everything has been rather boring navy as usual. And I suppose she will be back to black as well with the occasional green. We'll see.

I thought the Stella McCartney was oddly plain at first. She usually does something. Not a lot of emphasis on color, but there is usually something going on with the design if she's going for a dark color. Then I saw the cloak. Completely understood why.

 

[Pranter]

Yes..they get X dollars and past that they pay for it (or Charles etc). Point being..in the situation of tours the taxpayers do contribute. Which is why the media makes it into a big deal.

Past that, private clothing purchases, IMO are their own business and they can spend what they like.


LaRae

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Yeah, so there is a fixed taxpayer allowance for part of Meghan's working wardrobe. Thanks for pointing that out @Jacqui. Still, she is mixing in clothes, jewelry and accessories that she previously owned, along with gifted jewelry. And Prince Charles pays the rest, which is probably a good portion of the cost. Prince Charles has clearly been fiscally responsible and he is very interested in sustainability. Meghan has also been quite interested in wearing brands that have a focus on ethical, sustainability practices, and use of natural products. If taxpayers don't wish to pay the 'fixed' allowance amount for Meghan's working wardrobe, which we don't know how much that is, then get rid of the royal tours and the royal pomp and circumstance altogether. I don't think the royal family will care too much. As Prince Philip once said, they will all be quite happy to 'go away quietly' and tend to their own lives in private.

So yeah, all the jealousy and faux belly-aching over what Meghan or any royal wears is just that, jealousy and faux belly-aching by tabloids to stir something up. The British public should get an understanding of what it will be like for their country without the British royal family and it's ancient traditions on display. And then see how they like that. Like it or not, Britain's royal family gives the entire British economy a boost in so many ways. And quite clearly, the current royals have always paid detailed attention to cutting back however they can on upkeep of the palaces, etc., and in general on streamlining the number of royals who are included on the civil list allottments. That's what the whole 'Prince Charles is streamlining the working members of the royal family' has been all about.

Frankly, most likely the cost of clothes for any royal is the least of the expenses accrued on official royal tours. Quite a number of people are employed by the palaces and by the royals on their personal staff, and I doubt these workers would be happy when they are out of their jobs. So they in particular surely don't want the royals to go away quietly. Britain's prestige in the world is already taking a hit, and they are worried economically by Brexit. The cost of Duchess Meghan's clothes is NOT even close to being any kind of problem. But tabloids can keep up with that nonsensical distraction. And Meghan will continue keeping her sartorial profile even more boring and low key

Yes..they get X dollars and past that they pay for it (or Charles etc). Point being..in the situation of tours the taxpayers do contribute. Which is why the media makes it into a big deal....

The media makes a big deal because that's what the media does, period. And that's my point, the media is making OTT noise for the sake of OTT noise on whatever they can glom onto. It's gotten worse over the years. And the royal brothers are having none of that happening to their wives nor to their private family lives, after what they experienced their mother and their parents in general having to endure.

Yes, I think this state of affairs has affected Meghan's low-key sartorial decisionmaking. She's a laid-back California girl in any case. But I think she's being even more understated, low-key and conservative as a result of feeling the need to purposely not give the media anything extra to bray about. The media will nitpick and make fodder out of anything and everything, as we can see with the 'dress tag showing' nonsense, the 'underwear' lines nonsense, and earlier this summer, the 'gasp too much shoulders showing' nonsense. Meghan reacted to that latter ridicuolousness by wearing a shoulder blanketing cape in her next public outing. In fact, the gorgeously styled pink Carolina Herrera dress was so boss and sexy, the outcry was mainly about jealousy. Pure nonsense too. I've seen Meghan wearing outfits later on that were just okay, which the media randomly claimed were 'stunning.' The media is just all-over the place, so I would not ever try to justify what they do.

... I thought the Stella McCartney was oddly plain at first. She usually does something. Not a lot of emphasis on color, but there is usually something going on with the design if she's going for a dark color. Then I saw the clock. Completely understood why.

I missed 'the clock.' Please explain.

 

[jacqui24]

Yes..they get X dollars and past that they pay for it (or Charles etc). Point being..in the situation of tours the taxpayers do contribute. Which is why the media makes it into a big deal.

Past that, private clothing purchases, IMO are their own business and they can spend what they like.


LaRae

But the media makes it a big deal for other regular engagements too.

I missed 'the clock.' Please explain.

Cloak. Damn typos.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Yes..they get X dollars and past that they pay for it (or Charles etc). Point being..in the situation of tours the taxpayers do contribute...

Another thing to remember: clothes expenses are more than justified with the amount of dollars generated by what Meghan wears for the mostly British or local Commonwealth country designers she tends to wear. Harry & Meghan are worldwide attractions, and they are very responsible in their public profiles and pursuits. They are moneymakers and extremely positive pr for the royal firm. Why don't we see the frickin' media braying more about that! Because the tabloid media always want to focus on stirring something up in a negative way. M&H are so NOT about negativity.

I am sad though that the very real and special person Meghan is fairly much ends up being smothered and cloaked by the institution she has married into. She's a very special, remarkable person with so much to offer the world, beyond her savvy clothes sense. But I love and miss the edgy sartorial rockin' Meghan too! And I especially miss how open and sharing Meghan used to be with her fans.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Tour clothing is covered by taxpayer money.


LaRae

I’m not sure about that. The UK pays for flights there and back, the host countries pay for food, lodging and travel in country but I’ve not heard they pay for clothing.

I think Prince Charles pays whether it is engagements in Britain or engagements on a tour.

Meghan is not the first or only Royal to have her wardrobe analyzed and misrepresented.

 

[Pranter]

According to some of my friends in the U.K. ..their taxes are used to cover clothing expenses on Tours...and at least some of the other official engagements.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

I've heard from long time royal followers in UK that, when it's at the request of FCO, they get a certain amount to cover expenses including clothes. However, it's usually not sufficient and Charles covers the rest like he does for regular engagements.

 

[muriel]

Tour clothing is covered by taxpayer money.


LaRae

Do you have a published source for this, or is it a guess?

 

[iceflower]

Let us please get back to the topic of this thread.

As said before expenses can be discussed the "Royal Wealth and Finances"-thread where the discussion has been led before.

 

[Spheno]

"Meghan's missed a trick! Less than a THIRD of the 74 labels the Duchess wore on the royal tour were British brands - and US designers were her favourite"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...iled-showcase-British-fashion-royal-tour.html

Duchess, 36, wore labels such as Burberry and Stella McCartney on royal tour
She favoured US brands, wearing 25 different labels by American designers
Of the 19 British brands she championed, 11 were an accessory or footwear

While royal women are expected to practice 'diplomatic dressing' while abroad by showcasing fashion from the host nation, it's also a chance to fly the flag for British fashion by wearing UK designers.
However, Meghan fell short of championing UK labels during the royal tour, wearing only 20 British designers out of 74 labels - the value of almost £118K.
Designers from the US were LA-born Meghan's go-to, wearing 25 different American brands - and some on multiple occasions.
Celebrity stylist Lucas Armitage told Femail that Meghan seems to have missed a trick in not taking the opportunity for more obvious promotion of her adopted home.

 

[jacqui24]

"Meghan's missed a trick! Less than a THIRD of the 74 labels the Duchess wore on the royal tour were British brands - and US designers were her favourite"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...iled-showcase-British-fashion-royal-tour.html

Duchess, 36, wore labels such as Burberry and Stella McCartney on royal tour
She favoured US brands, wearing 25 different labels by American designers
Of the 19 British brands she championed, 11 were an accessory or footwear

Most pieces of clothes were by Commonwealth designers. Martin Grant won big.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

More bellyaching over nonsense re attempting to dissect which designers the Duchess of Sussex wore on the South Pacific tour. Meghan marrying into the royal firm has boosted the British fashion industry, and indeed fashion industries around the globe. Because there is such increased interest in general in the British Royal family due to Meghan & Harry marrying, and due to Meghan's savvy fashion sense, that interest rubs off via increased interest in the fashions of other royal ladies. Not to mention a freshened, updated style vibe all-around for all royal ladies and men too!

And I would add that many designers and clothes manufacturing firms are inspired in general and specifically by Duchess Meghan's style. Just as we've seen copying of Meghan's wedding ring, the gorgeous veil embroidery, and the clean, classic ines of her dress, we also see designers being inspired by many styles Meghan wears (boatneck, etc), and in general by her laid-back vibe. As I said earlier, Meghan has promoted little-known manufacturers like Outland Denim in Australia and Hiut Denim Company in Wales, and she promotes designers who focus on sustainability practices.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

So the british media are continuing to badmouth Meghan and finding things to complain about on the tour?

 

[Countessmeout]

"Meghan's missed a trick! Less than a THIRD of the 74 labels the Duchess wore on the royal tour were British brands - and US designers were her favourite"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...iled-showcase-British-fashion-royal-tour.html

Duchess, 36, wore labels such as Burberry and Stella McCartney on royal tour
She favoured US brands, wearing 25 different labels by American designers
Of the 19 British brands she championed, 11 were an accessory or footwear

Meghan was on a commonwealth tour. She wore a number of commonwealth designers as well as British. But of course the media needs something to complain about. Almost all of her looks had at least a few commonwealth of Brirish pieces included.

As for reporters complaining it was only accessories or shoes Those are designers and brands as well. An important part of the industry, and they need just as much promotion and support.

She wore 31 British or commonwealth labels.

And at least 2 labels whose designers are British, even if the brand is not. Aquazura and Givenchy. So showcasing the high talent if Brutish trained designers in the international market.

 

[W.Y.CII]

Really tired of these nonsense from Daily Fail. As some posters said, she chose a lot of commonwealth brand in this tour. And what impressed me is she also picks ethical brand which benefits some communities. Choosing local brand is not the only approach the royal ladies can use.

 

[muriel]

"Meghan's missed a trick! Less than a THIRD of the 74 labels the Duchess wore on the royal tour were British brands - and US designers were her favourite"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...iled-showcase-British-fashion-royal-tour.html

Duchess, 36, wore labels such as Burberry and Stella McCartney on royal tour
She favoured US brands, wearing 25 different labels by American designers
Of the 19 British brands she championed, 11 were an accessory or footwear

As some of you may have noticed, after the wedding but prior to the trip to Australasia, I was critical of Meghan's unwillingness to wear British fashion brands whilst carrying out engagements in the UK. That said, I thought the tour wardrobe was a good mix of local Aus and NZ designers and British fashion. There was a fair amount of the N American fashion and some Givenchy, but not too out of proportion. So all-in-all, I think she got the mix right, and therefore, I disagree with the DM story.

Meghan was on a commonwealth tour. She wore a number of commonwealth designers as well as British. But of course the media needs something to complain about. Almost all of her looks had at least a few commonwealth of Brirish pieces included.

I don't believe you can generally refer to Commonwealth designers in the context of a Commonwealth tour. Aus and NZ brands whilst in Aus and NZ make sense. For the people of Aus and NZ, Canadian brands are just "foreign", and she could well have worn any European or NA brand, from their perspective.

 

[jacqui24]

Unless a tour is only being seen in the country they are visiting (and I don’t think we are going to need to argue that it’s definitely not the case here), there is no reason why she’d only have to stick to one to build bridges with different commonwealth countries as much as clothes can. She wore plenty of pieces from Aussie and Kiwi designers. They seem happy with how much she wore and didn’t see any problems with her wearing other countries. There is a fine line between being polite and wearing a good amount of designers from the host country to show goodwill versus overkill.

And since we are on this subject, I recently saw a transcript of what Meghan and Harry recorded for the exhibit. Not gonna go into unrelated matters, but Meghan did talk about choosing Clare Waight Keller, and her being a British designer. And I know some of us speculated before that her loyalty is to CWK rather Givenchy, now we have confirmation. And I get some has one way of looking at CWK as working for someone else, but isn’t that important to highlight as a connection to the rest of the world in Brexit? I mean, my understanding is that it’s not a total cut off to the rest of the world, or even European countries, but rather building relationships outside of the EU organization. And it seems to me, in a lot of these conversations, those that are working abroad showcasing British talent and what they can do get ignored. But aren’t they important as well since this could potentially affect them and they are the best examples of what British talents can do? She’s also worn Aquazzura and Paul Andrew in the past, who are both British designers. Meghan herself is an immigrant, so it only make sense that she’d want to highlight them.

And with CWK, she’s also a working mother who happens to be the first female Artistic Director of Givenchy. Whose designs also feature simplicity and clean lines. It’s no wonder Meghan and her work well together and Meghan would want to support her. I’ve no doubt that if she leaves Givenchy, Meghan wouldn’t look back.

One last thing after a quick glance at that DM list. For God’s sake, couldn’t they at least google before they publish? Manolo Blahnik is NOT Italian. He was born in Spain and his business is in London. The only formal training he’s had was in England.

 

[muriel]

Unless a tour is only being seen in the country they are visiting (and I don’t think we are going to need to argue that it’s definitely not the case here), there is no reason why she’d only have to stick to one to build bridges with different commonwealth countries as much as clothes can. She wore plenty of pieces from Aussie and Kiwi designers. They seem happy with how much she wore and didn’t see any problems with her wearing other countries. There is a fine line between being polite and wearing a good amount of designers from the host country to show goodwill versus overkill.

As you may note from post 835 above, I am not making any negative comment on the spread of Aus / NZ, British and other designers but on the general categorisation of Commonwealth designers being acceptable on a Commonwealth tour. Things don't really work like that. Supporting Canadian brands whilst in NZ or Aus is pointless to the local people!

And since we are on this subject, I recently saw a transcript of what Meghan and Harry recorded for the exhibit. Not gonna go into unrelated matters, but Meghan did talk about choosing Clare Waight Keller, and her being a British designer. And I know some of us speculated before that her loyalty is to CWK rather Givenchy, now we have confirmation. And I get some has one way of looking at CWK as working for someone else, but isn’t that important to highlight as a connection to the rest of the world in Brexit? I mean, my understanding is that it’s not a total cut off to the rest of the world, or even European countries, but rather building relationships outside of the EU organization. And it seems to me, in a lot of these conversations, those that are working abroad showcasing British talent and what they can do get ignored. But aren’t they important as well since this could potentially affect them and they are the best examples of what British talents can do? She’s also worn Aquazzura and Paul Andrew in the past, who are both British designers. Meghan herself is an immigrant, so it only make sense that she’d want to highlight them.

And with CWK, she’s also a working mother who happens to be the first female Artistic Director of Givenchy. Whose designs also feature simplicity and clean lines. It’s no wonder Meghan and her work well together and Meghan would want to support her. I’ve no doubt that if she leaves Givenchy, Meghan wouldn’t look back.

Just because Meghan seems to mistakenly believe wearing Givenchy, irrespective of who the designer at Givenchy is, is in any way supporting British industry does not make it right, IMO. IMO, Meghan is wrong on this, and I would hope she would eventually work it out.

 

[DeeT]

I thought Duchess Meghan wore a nice mix of fashion & labels on this tour, some items she purchased prior to joining BRF. I like that she some of the clothing and accessories she chose brought attention to important causes. Her fashion has better impact on real issues than a rubbish article in the Daily Mail that misses the mark on real news.

Meghan wore her Outland denim jeans several times over a few days on this tour. It’s an Australian brand, but regardless of the country of origin, it’s wonderful that the company’s founder announced that the impact of Meghan wearing their brand will help several more vulnerable women who have escaped human trafficking to get employment.

Fashion crosses many countries, whether it’s the artistic director, headquarters or where the clothes are actually made. IMO, it’s silly to nitpick on Meghan wearing Givenchy because it is a French fashion house. Several fashion houses are also owned by other groups. Alexander McQueen is a British fashion house owned by Kering, a French conglomerate.

 

[Osipi]

I'm going to sound weird here but to me, a person that isn't really all into designers and brands but looks at the article of clothing itself mostly, the items that Meghan wore on the tour that stood out for me were the ones that made a difference.

The Outland jeans (which a report says she wore 6 times) gave a boost to the women in Cambodia that make the jeans to avoid poverty. She wore Veja shoes that were made from plastic bottles and other materials. Seeing those, I bet she felt Charles smile from oceans away. Then there's the unique piece of macaroni jewelry which skyrocketed Gavin to international fame and boosted his work for a stillborn children cause.

What Meghan wears *does* matter and its seeing the impact of these items I've mentioned that has cemented an opinion for me that Meghan *would* be wise to up her game with British made clothing. When people pay attention to even the smallest detail, the smallest details need paying attention to.

As far as the DF goes, know what I'd like to see? Someone actually writing an article on Meghan's clothing but along with listing the price paid for an item (say Outland jeans for example), do a bit of research and figure out just how much revenue the Outland women brought in because she wore the jeans. Like her joint effort for the cookbook, her initiative with the project skyrocketed the sale of that cookbook and benefited the Hubb Kitchen immensely. Could the DF do a check and balance article? I doubt it. They'd have to do actual research.

 

[jacqui24]

As you may note from post 835 above, I am not making any negative comment on the spread of Aus / NZ, British and other designers but on the general categorisation of Commonwealth designers being acceptable on a Commonwealth tour. Things don't really work like that. Supporting Canadian brands whilst in NZ or Aus is pointless to the local people!

Just because Meghan seems to mistakenly believe wearing Givenchy, irrespective of who the designer at Givenchy is, is in any way supporting British industry does not make it right, IMO. IMO, Meghan is wrong on this, and I would hope she would eventually work it out.

Like I said, it’s not just limited to Aussies. People around the world, including Canadians, are watching as well. This isn’t touring in the 80s or 90s.

And it’s interesting how you didn’t discuss the issues I brought up in her supporting British talent that are doing Britain proud. Your way is only one way of supporting Britain and, in this connected world, limited. The Aussie seems to get it. Martin Grant is an Aussie, but he is based in Paris. Did you say Aussies say it’s French? No, they proudly claim him because he does showcase Australian talent. And them claiming him as Aussie designer isn’t just limited to this instance either.

As for contributing to the British economy, does Givenchy not have sales presence in Britain? Do they not have people overseeing and running their operations in Britain? Do they not pay taxes on income generated from sales in Britain? If we want to talk about ultimate beneficiary, McQueen is ultimately benefitting French too.