"Let me put it this way. It seems to me, that her image is 'ordinary woman.' Therefore, high-street shopper. And I just think she should be an extraordinary woman, wherever she gets her clothes from. It doesn't meant you are an elitist, it means you are an exceptional woman. Why not be exceptional? Your clothes communicate something about you."
Here's the thing: there are countless exceptional women in the world who can only afford "high-street." Does this somehow diminish them? Last I checked, ordinary and exceptional had nothing to do with clothing. After all, hasn't it been said that it's "not about what you wear, but how you wear it?"
An ordinary woman doesn't become extraordinary because her dress tag says Vivienne Westwood (or insert-any-other-designer-label-here); similarly, an extraordinary woman doesn't become ordinary because she's wearing Topshop/Forever21/Target/Whatever.
Michelle Obama, a woman who is extraordinary in her own right and not just because she's married to the President, is still pretty frickin' exceptional even if she wears pieces from Target or J. Crew.
My slight indignation has nothing to do with Kate Middleton but at the comment directed at her. You can replace the name Kate Middleton with any other and I wouldn't think any differently. My issue is Westwood's apparent belief that ordinary women shop on the high-street ("her image is 'ordinary woman.' Therefore, high-street shopper). Again, I say, some truly extraordinary women can only afford high-street fashion. Where an exceptional woman buys her clothing should and does not diminish her.
Just my two cents... Have something to say about this?
Hit me up in the comments! =)