‘Inexcusable’: Internet loses it after Princess Kate wears Chanel bag to Holocaust memorial
The Princess of Wales has stepped out for an event in London – and one small choice has sent the internet into a complete frenzy.
Royals
Don't miss out on the headlines from Royals. Followed categories will be added to My News.
What does the name Chanel bring to mind?
Cropped bouclé jackets, the quilted handbag, the little black dress?
Style, sophistication, and someone with plenty of lovely spondulicks to splash around the place?
But what of that of the beaky broad behind it all?
MORE: ‘Scandalous’: Royal Family’s $260m payday slammed
Quite simply, Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel was, in the words of an academic paper from Harvard, a “Nazi agent”. Specifically, she dobbed in her Jewish business partners to the Nazis to try and (unsuccessfully) wrest control of the company; had a lengthy relationship with a high-ranking Nazi officer that continued for years after the war; and in 1944, after France’s liberation, was briefly arrested before fleeing to Switzerland.
Old Coco might have known her way around a hemline – but she was a horrid human being.
I know this is not what you expect to have to plough through when you click on a story about les royals, but this quick history lesson is imperative to understand why and how Kate, The Princess of Wales has just set off a social media meltdown.
Monday was Holocaust Memorial Day, with King Charles in Poland to mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, while back in the UK, Kate and Prince William led commemorations. At a deeply moving London ceremony, the Waleses’ vowed that the nation would never forget the incomprehensible horror of the Holocaust.
It was, quite obviously, a moment that demanded sombre reflection, poise and a resolute focus on the survivors.
So why in god’s name did Kate choose that day – that very day – to wear Chanel?
When the princess arrived at the London Guildhall for the event, she was wearing a black ensemble accessorised with a bag from the brand, the iconic interlocked Cs on clear display.
Video from the event shows she was still toting the bag when she met with Holocaust survivors Yvonne Bernstein and Stephen Frank.
Join me now in issuing forth a long and plaintive, “whyyyyyyyy Kate”? Why the inexplicable, confusing choice to wear a Chanel handbag on that day of all days?
Social media took incensed and immediate note of the princess’ accessorising, calling out her “lack of awareness”, the “faux pas” and with one X user posting, “Unbelievably insensitive. Expect William dressed in Hugo Boss to match?”
One commenter pithily noted, “she would have been better & less offensive with a ‘Aldi’ bag …” Agreed.
But others rallied to the Princess of Wales’ defence, arguing that after the war, Gabrielle’s Jewish partners – brothers Pierre and Paul Wertheimer – went back into business with her and that Pierre’s grandsons still privately own the firm, meaning that Chanel is a Jewish-owned label.
(After the October 7, 2023 attacks, Chanel is reported to have donated $US4 million in support of Israel).
That’s a weak argument, if you ask me.
The idea that the princess wore Chanel as a show of support for the Jewish community is hardly a strong one, given that Gabrielle’s indisputable involvement with the Nazis means that her legacy is a deeply tainted one.
If Kate had wanted to wear an outfit from a Jewish designer, she has plenty to choose from including Paul Smith, Christopher Kane, Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren, Tory Burch, Calvin Klein, Marc Jacobs and Stuart Weitzman.
Also, none of the rest of the Princess of Wales’ outfit – a Catherine Walker coat, a Boden cashmere top, Roland Mouret trousers and Russell and Bromley pumps – came from Jewish designers or companies, aside from Kate’s vintage five-strand faux pearl necklace, which came from Jewish-owned vintage jeweller Susan Caplan.
I am truly mystified here.
This whole situation is made even stranger by the fact that Chanel is a brand that the 43-year-old only occasionally wears and is far from one of her workhorse staples. The princess owns only three of their handbags and in nearly 14 years of royalling, has only worn their clothing twice. (And once was during an official visit across the Channel in 2017, when it was pretty much diplomatically mandated).
For a woman known for her fluency in sartorial semaphore – her ability to speak volumes with nothing more than the subtle application of an earring or choice of a particular shade of burgundy – I am truly baffled by whatever rationale or lack thereof was at play.
Kate cannot be ignorant of the degree to which her every style choice is obsessively read into, like some recently unearthed ancient scroll. Every time the mother of three wears a piece of jewellery given to her by the late Queen or which came from Diana, Princess of Wales, it sets off a giddy flurry of headlines about how she’s supposedly honouring them.
So what exactly was she trying to communicate with her Chanel bag – or can this all be attributed to inexcusable cluelessness on her or her dresser’s parts?
That the princess opted for a piece for such an important event that was so open to interpretation ultimately makes this an undeniable blunder, her usual savoir faire and savvy having deserted her.
One final thought – imagine for a moment that this scene had played out but starred Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. The Instagram, X and TikTok servers would, by now, be melting down under the incalculable weight of anger and scorn.
Daniela Elser is a writer, editor and a royal commentator with more than 15 years’ experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles
Originally published as ‘Inexcusable’: Internet loses it after Princess Kate wears Chanel bag to Holocaust memorial
‘Low’: Princess’ newborn under attack
Something truly gross happened just minutes after Buckingham Palace announced the birth of Princess Beatrice’s new daughter.
Secret Meghan note shared without warning
One of Meghan’s oldest friends has published a secret message to the duchesss, admitting she hadn’t warned her about it beforehand.