Camilla's Million Dollar Makeover

by Deidre Woollard (RSS feed)
Dec 11th 2007 at 2:02PM

Camilla Parker-Bowles will never be Princess Diana but that doesn't mean the sexagenarian can't be glamorous. Perhaps in anticipation of Prince Charles's ascension to the throne, Camilla has been getting more and more stylish. The Sunday Times tallies up the costs of the Duchess's makeover from the hair ( £40,300 a year) to the wardrobe ( £281,000) and her Philip Treacy hats (£13,650). Other costs include tooth whitening, facials, yoga classes and shoes. Just how much does it cost to be Camilla? The Times estimates £507,321.58 and that doesn't even include the all-important jewelry. The Brits seems to be in favor of the new and improved Camilla, the headlines have been full of tributes to her new style.

Tags: camilla parker-bowles, CamillaParker-bowles, england, prince charles, royalty

Filed under: Celebrity Shopping

Source

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 5 of 14)

Craig Dec 13th 2007 9:15AM

putting lipstick on a pig is always a waste of money.

Leslie Dec 13th 2007 9:16AM

Scree the new hair do...how about some plastic surgery...nothing worse than looking like a dress up bag lady

Old f*** Dec 13th 2007 9:24AM

Lipstick on a pig etc.

donna Dec 13th 2007 9:33AM

Really I don't understand what charles seen in her? She looks as old as his mother. There is not enough money in this world to make her look good. She will never replace diana! Diana did not need much to tend to her looks she was a natural beauty with a good heart. Maybe camilla could have used that money she wasted on herself to aid some charity like diana would have? I doubt it!

Kiki Dec 13th 2007 9:28AM

well--let me say at the end of the day she is still a Rottweiler as Di said--- may she be at heavenly peace!!!

Sierra Dec 13th 2007 9:30AM

May the Supreme Being (in my world He's called God) forgive all of you who have made such horribly cruel comments about anyone in this article -- especially Camilla.

You've managed to prove that beauty is, indeed, only skin deep (and obviously bought by most of you) -- but UGLY goes to the core.

;) Dec 13th 2007 9:35AM

her face doesn't sag down like in the picture...it sags back like a face lift when charles is bangin her

gracefe Dec 13th 2007 9:47AM

No matter what this woman wears or how much they cost, plus make-up she will always resemble a horse. She will remain an ugly woman.

Pat Dec 13th 2007 11:05AM

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's still a duck.... she's still a Rottweiler... ain't no amount of makeup or hairstyling can make that wretched creature look pretty.

Esther Dec 13th 2007 9:41AM

I don't care what she does to herself she will always look like the back end of a jack ass. I feel the same as most everyone else-she is the whore that Charles cheated on Diana with. I personally don't think that Charles should be in line for the throne. You can cover up s**t but it still stinks.

Steve Dec 13th 2007 9:38AM

Some of these comments are ridiculous. You don't even know Camilla and yet you spew out all this hateful crap. I would really love to see what you look like. Just shut up and go listen to Rush Limbaugh and learn some more hate.

T Wetra Dec 13th 2007 9:44AM

Camilla is looking very much better than she did before, her jewellry is from the Queen, beautiful dressess, coats, hats.
She will one day be most glam lady in the world, gotta love the Royals.

Jenna Dec 13th 2007 9:49AM

As far as looks - she looks softer and younger than in her earlier other photos.

As far as the situation - EVERYONE who was involved in this debacle seemed to have been doomed from the beginning. Royalty applies pressures and expectations that we (as mere mortals) have never known. Charles was forced to marry an acceptable GIRL, virgin, no less, under penalty of losing his right to the throne. There was no doubt he was in love with Camilla (and vice versa) prior to his relationship, and certainly throughout his marriage with Diana. There is no doubt that he was forced into his marriage with Diana. Diana knew about Camilla from the start, and she chose to overlook the "power of love." It was obviously through all the early dating, engagement, wedding & after photos of Charles and Diana, that there was no emotional attachment between the two of them.

Charles' choice was to live a loveless life (as the Queen and Phil, as well as many other royals have done)...or to say "f**k it, and follow his heart. I thought Diana was an extraordinary woman in so many ways - but it didn't work for Charles. I feel sorry for all of them. They all paid, and are paying the price, with Diana at the top of that list.

If Charles and Camilla are finally happy together - in their 60's, I say, "let them be." BTW - prince or not, Camilla is a prettier woman than Charles is handsome as a man.

trishthedish Dec 13th 2007 9:52AM

What a crude hag.

I don't see a difference - she still looks like the back end of a dog; A post-menopausal, homewrecking gas bag.

Prince Charles married a common whore. I suppose it takes a small fortune to look that cheap.

Ruth Dec 13th 2007 9:54AM

My grandmother used to say, "you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear." I never really understood it until now.

barbara Dec 13th 2007 9:54AM

Why drag her down, remember it takes two to tango,,,Charles is ever bit the low life all of you make her out to be. They both are factors in downfall of Diana's marriage and actually I blame Charles more than Diana as he was married to her,,,She is a disgrace as is he to even consider being a part of the throne of England....he should be by-passed.