Kate Middleton Dazzles In A $7.1 Million Safiyaa Dress At Wimbledon

On paper, if you had to choose who would be a more consequential brand ambassador between a bright young thing with 183 million Instagram followers and a rugger mum from the Home Counties, the choice would be painfully easy.

Now a dollar figure has been attached to all this and will you look at that – Prince George’s mum, who never forgets to bring the half-time oranges.

Daily Mail reports that company Launchmetrics has calculated the media impact value for the various brands and sponsors connected with Wimbledon and on an individual level, Kate has just served up an ace.

Kate choosing to wear Safiyaa was worth $7.1 million in media impact value for the British brand.

It’s not often that we are presented with such a neat and easy means of quantifying – and comparing – the wider impact of Crown Inc but this makes for an instructive moment.

The scoffing question that often gets asked about King Charles is, does he have any real power? He cannot order anyone to the block, attempt to retake Normandy or even force Sir Keir Starmer to take hedgehog preservation more seriously.

But that very logical, tangible measure of muscularity doesn’t take into account the wider cultural footprint of the royal family and most especially Kate.

The Princess of Wales has global clout like never before.

Even before the mind-bending events of this year, Kate enjoyed a hugely influential position, not only style-wise but as a public figure too. When the art history graduate opened her mouth, the world tended to listen, at least for a while and at least until their eyes glazed over as she earnestly made the case for early years support and the internet got a bit bored and went to look at cat videos. (Kate’s early years work is hugely important stuff that could change an untold number of Britons’ lives but it’s not exactly scintillating stuff.)

Likewise, what the princess wears has, for 13 years now, been more reported on and excitably covered by various blogs and social media accounts than some minor wars.

However her diagnosis and temporary retreat from public life this year has upended the old calculus, presenting us with a real time lesson in the economics of scarcity value.

Which brings us to what might be a highly controversial question — is the princess now as big as Diana, Princess of Wales in the style icon stakes?

Recent years have seen a sprouting of Instagram and TikTok accounts and even books devoted to celebrating the late princess’ enduring fashion, especially her evolution from Sloaney pearl-wearer (no pie-frill collar too big!) to 90s Versace glamazon and pantsuited power player.

For Diana, clothes were a means of transmitting and communicating what was going on in her inner world, an unspoken declaration of defiance and independence, every Armani two-piece or slinky little number positively oozing symbolism.

Same same but different for Kate. When she picks a demure dress for an outing she’s not sending coded messages about her own personal emotional state, like a sartorial windsock.

But like her late mother-in-law the princess understands innately the power of what she wears.

Going into the decision-making for her Wimbledon get up would have to have been the knowledge that whatever she wore would draw global eyeballs and an unholy level of attention.

Kate’s selection of Wimbledon look brands is a statement in and of itself – consider what she picked. Safiyaa is not only homegrown but female-founded and produces pieces to order to minimise waste. The princess paired the frock with gold earrings from a London-based sustainable jewellery brand called By Pariah. Women, environmentalism, supporting British businesses.

What unites Kate and Diana is that not only have both women’s influence grown parabolically but they have and are using it to say something.

And what also unites them is that as time goes on, their global cultural resonance and import has, and is only expanded and continues to expand. At this rate, someone is going to need to alert Nasa.