Meghan Markle's Wedding Dress


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
That one should be enlarged, the people faded out, and then hung in a prominent location in their home.


LaRae
 
The dappled light was striking in the video.
I loved the veil, especially how large it was. It had a freedom of it's own and the flowers showed up against the darker floors and stone. The way the sheerness of the veil was like a cobweb in the dew, almost, and it was very beautiful near the floral archway.
I liked the symbolic inclusion of our flowers. I also liked how the veil crept after Meghan Markle, kind of like nature's trap; a snail trail. Weird, but I also thought of the fun of a toy metal Slinky on the steps... rather a silky version.
The gloss in the fabric was ulluminated by it's sheerness. The master stroke by the designer.
The dress showcased the veil and the bride.
 
Last edited:
O-H Anglophile said:
I like this photo as well--


https://s.abcnews.com/images/Entert...oyal-wedding-rt-jef-180519_hpMain_4x3_992.jpg
Click to expand...
This picture makes it official in my mind, the veil should have been shorter or the train longer. I suspect the veil needed to be that length to fit all the symbols. On top of that the train is one of those toilet paper trains, where it just hangs from the brides dress like toilet paper to a shoe.

Bit the veil is lovely and along with the tiara, it's the best thing about her wedding look.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
This picture makes it official in my mind, the veil should have been shorter or the train longer. I suspect the veil needed to be that length to fit all the symbols. On top of that the train is one of those toilet paper trains, where it just hangs from the brides dress like toilet paper to a shoe.

Bit the veil is lovely and along with the tiara, it's the best thing about her wedding look.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the length of the veil is intended for the dramatic reveal to go with a simple dress. They could've always made the flowers smaller.
 
It's very brave to have a veil this long without bridesmaids imho. The pageboys did a good job and it all worked out ok but she was left to her own devices a few times.
 
Last edited:
MARG said:
Actually, I think she took the idea of the train from the Queen's train, light and ethereal.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's exactly what I thought when Meghan walked down the aisle - the two pageboys carrying the veil in that way was very reminiscent of the Queen's wedding - https://www.theweddingsecret.co.uk/magazine/royal-wedding-dresses-queen-elizabeth/.

On a more practical level, 53 flowers had to be represented on that veil and had to be spaced and sized well enough to be distinctive when viewed, so the final dimensions of the veil when the embroidery was worked out may well have resulted in the length it was.
 
Last edited:
sophie25 said:
Yes I agree, the veil can get away with being longer than the train but in this case the huge veil and MUCH shorter train looked like two separate entities and I don't think it worked which was a shame.
Click to expand...


But it's not possible to have a long train without considering the overall balance of the look. The train, in this case, was an integral part of the dress, not a separate attachment from the shoulders. If we consider the weight of her dress,a longer train would have made difficult ascending the chapel steps. The sketch I'd done had a series of three, soft, Camelot type cowls eventually becoming a train. Such would have pulled her over backwards. I loved the juxtaposition of clouds of gossamer fine veil against the structure and precision of the dress.
 
Last edited:
I just read a reaction on Quora (otherwise very interesting) who said the veil, with its 53 flowers, was a celebration of the British imperialistic emipre.


I find a bit odd how anyone would thing a mixed race woman from America would celebrate British emperialism.
 
the veil, with its 53 flowers, was a celebration of the British imperialistic empire.
Click to expand...

What NONSENSE .. the Commonwealth is a FREE association of 53 Nations of EQUAL stature, Member states are at liberty to leave if they choose and new countries to join if they wish.
Imperialism was/is about force, and fortunately that is in the [increasingly] distant PAST.
The inability to 'move on' [unlike the BRF], says more about those so 'STUCK', than it does about the modern nature of the vibrant Commonwealth.
 
Last edited:
Pranter said:
Fashion Maven explained (and she would know) already about how it would be impossible to even lift her arms if the dress had been 'fitted' tighter than it was.




LaRae
Click to expand...
Thank you, I will go through Fashion Maven's explanation then. However, right fitting is not necessarily about having a "body hugging" or tighter dress. It's about fabric falling properly without creases. [emoji6][emoji257]
 
wyevale said:
What NONSENSE .. the Commonwealth is a FREE association of 53 Nations of EQUAL stature, Member states are at liberty to leave if they choose and new countries to join if they wish.
Imperialism was/is about force, and fortunately that is in the [increasingly] distant PAST.
The inability to 'move on' [unlike the BRF], says more about those so 'STUCK', than it does about the modern nature of the vibrant Commonwealth.
Click to expand...

I agree that the remark about "Imperialism" is nonsense but it is also true that there are sensitivities around past relationships and there are people from Commonwealth countries that didn't like the fact that she used their national flowers on her veil.

The reasons given were that if she had been a commonwealth citizen it might have made sense but she isn't. She has no role in the Commonwealth (she hasn't - Harry does). It was "presumptuous" of her to have done this.

Now people can dismiss this but it has obviously struck a nerve with some people. I'll admit I hadn't thought about it at all but I think it is valid. Much has been written on these forums about cultural appropriation etc so I don't believe that these views should be dismissed.

I assume she asked about this and got the go ahead but it is an indication of the minefield that surrounds the BRF and the Commonwealth.

And don't shoot the messenger - just passing on stuff that I have read.
 
cepe said:
I agree that the remark about "Imperialism" is nonsense but it is also true that there are sensitivities around past relationships and there are people from Commonwealth countries that didn't like the fact that she used their national flowers on her veil.

The reasons given were that if she had been a commonwealth citizen it might have made sense but she isn't. She has no role in the Commonwealth (she hasn't - Harry does). It was "presumptuous" of her to have done this.

Now people can dismiss this but it has obviously struck a nerve with some people. I'll admit I hadn't thought about it at all but I think it is valid. Much has been written on these forums about cultural appropriation etc so I don't believe that these views should be dismissed.

I assume she asked about this and got the go ahead but it is an indication of the minefield that surrounds the BRF and the Commonwealth.

And don't shoot the messenger - just passing on stuff that I have read.
Click to expand...

She had no role in the Commonwealth so far, but she does now. Now she is a part of that same Commonwealth. And she wants it to be a part of their wedding. The sad part is that they are damned if they do and daamed if they don't. If the other countries had not been represented in some way, plenty of people would have found fault with that as well. You can't change the past and I'm not really sure if there are any countries that have not at some point, been both the oppressor and the oppressed. Wether we like it or not, it is a part of the worlds history.
 
Thank you, I loved the dress in the overall and agree that lace had become a bit boring ;)
 
Jacknch said:
I agree, that's exactly what I thought when Meghan walked down the aisle - the two pageboys carrying the veil in that way was very reminiscent of the Queen's wedding - https://www.theweddingsecret.co.uk/magazine/royal-wedding-dresses-queen-elizabeth/.

On a more practical level, 53 flowers had to be represented on that veil and had to be spaced and sized well enough to be distinctive when viewed, so the final dimensions of the veil when the embroidery was worked out may ell have resulted in the length it was.
Click to expand...

I can't rave enough about that veil(Meghan's). It really is one of the (two) most beautiful Royal wedding veils ever, imo.

I also agree with the poster who said it was a very brave move to go without adult bridesmaids while navigating a 16 feet long veil. Those two little pages were amazingly confident and the bride was never left floundering, unlike poor Charlene Wittstock in 2011who had all those adult attendants seemingly standing around while she tried to manage a Court train and veil during her 2 hour long wedding!:bang:
 
Last edited:
My favorite royal bridal gown has been HGD Stephanie for several years. Until now. This was by far my favorite. I love the classic simplicity of her gown with a fantastic batteau neckline with that absolutely amazing veil. The veil actually was very simple - except around the edges- and against the backdrop of the dress, and on the steps of the church.. amazing. Add that tiara - perfection.
 
cepe said:
I agree that the remark about "Imperialism" is nonsense but it is also true that there are sensitivities around past relationships and there are people from Commonwealth countries that didn't like the fact that she used their national flowers on her veil.

The reasons given were that if she had been a commonwealth citizen it might have made sense but she isn't. She has no role in the Commonwealth (she hasn't - Harry does). It was "presumptuous" of her to have done this.

Now people can dismiss this but it has obviously struck a nerve with some people. I'll admit I hadn't thought about it at all but I think it is valid. Much has been written on these forums about cultural appropriation etc so I don't believe that these views should be dismissed.

I assume she asked about this and got the go ahead but it is an indication of the minefield that surrounds the BRF and the Commonwealth.

And don't shoot the messenger - just passing on stuff that I have read.
Click to expand...


The thing with the BRF and the Commonwealth (the Realms specifically, but all the Nations in general) is that they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.


A member of the BRF tries to be involved with the Commonwealth in some way, and they're condemned for being British Imperialists.


A member of the BRF neglects the Commonwealth in some way, though, or is perceived as doing so, and they're condemned for not caring about the Commonwealth and only caring about Britain.


I hadn't realized that the veil had a flower from every Nation - I had thought it was just the Realms, but I have no doubt that I just misread/misinterpreted the statements on it - but I find it absolutely beautiful that Meghan did this. Because while she didn't enter that church as a member of the BRF or the Commonwealth, she certainly exited it a member of the BRF, and has made an effort of emphasizing her connection to the Commonwealth in the past - she might be an American citizen, but she did spend the last 7 years largely living and working in Canada, a Commonwealth nation.
 
:previous:She did. Along with California poppy and wintersweet, which grows in their garden at KP.
 
Meghan's veil was originally worn by Princess Victoria Mary of Teck at her 1893 wedding. Meghan's tiara was one that had belonged to Queen Mary. Is there any written report that Meghan chose the veil before the tiara?
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Meghan's veil was originally worn by Princess Victoria Mary of Teck at her 1893 wedding. Meghan's tiara was one that had belonged to Queen Mary. Is there any written report that Meghan chose the veil before the tiara?
Click to expand...



Source of your information?? All released information says the veil was designed by the same designer that did her dress. I think you’re wrong with your statement.
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Meghan's veil was originally worn by Princess Victoria Mary of Teck at her 1893 wedding. Meghan's tiara was one that had belonged to Queen Mary. Is there any written report that Meghan chose the veil before the tiara?
Click to expand...

Looking at Mary of Teck's wedding veil, there is nothing similar. Mary wore her mother's 'floating lace veil' which left her face uncovered in the ceremony.

https://www.theweddingsecret.co.uk/magazine/iconic-wedding-dresses-queen-mary/

Meghan's veil was new, and the design worked on by the designer of her dress.

https://people.com/royals/royal-wedding-meghan-markle-veil-commonwealth-connection/

Mary of Teck's wedding dress had the flowers of the different UK realms included in it. Maybe that is where the thought comes from??
 
Zaira said:
Well, someone is feeling very catty. Sorry you were not the designer Emilia :argh:
I rarely find Emilia's pieces to be well done. Something always looks off with them. But I also feel the same about Stella but loved Meghan's evening gown from her lol.

Meghan's £200k gown was identical to one of mine, says designer | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Criticizing a royal bride's dress and styling :ohmy: Sure fire way Emilia of getting a royal customer in the future. :ermm:

Kate's dress looked like other designers. I don't recall them calling out McQueen. Sour grapes Emilia, sour grapes. But I guess maybe she realizes Meghan's style doesn't match her fashion designs, and she wasn't likely to have Meghan buying her clothes anyways.
 
Just because something has no embellishment doesn’t mean it looks the same. The train is different. The bateau neckline is different from off shoulder. The seams are different. I expected better from Emilia. Her dress isn’t anything different from a generic off the shoulder gown. Meghan’s is differently designed and intended to hold differently than Emilia’s. And I didn’t hear anyone say it looked like hers and I watched multiple channel’s coverage.
 
Last edited:
jacqui24 said:
Just because something has no embellishment doesn’t mean it looks the same. The train is different. The bateau neckline is different from off shoulder. The seams are different. I expected better from Emilia. Her dress isn’t anything different from a generic off the shoulder gown. Meghan’s is differently designed and intended to hold differently than Emilia’s. And I didn’t hear anyone say it looked like hers and I watched multiple channel’s coverage.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There were a few designers mentioned that morning, when Givenchy hadn't been announced yet. And I don't even recall hearing Emilia then, she had fallen out of the top ranks some time before.

Glad I am not the only one who sees the differences in the two gowns.
 
Meghan's dress was stunning in its simplicity. The material was rich and of such amazing quality. The train added some body and drama. THE VEIL! Just swoon. The veil and tiara was perfect. Coupled with the dramatic stairs, the excellent sunlight and the gorgeous flower arch? It was a truly iconic sight!

A simple gown worked for a modern gal like Meghan. Plus, anything more ornate would have clashed with Chapel I think.

The sum of the different parts made this IMO an unforgettable royal look. It has left a big and lasting impression on me, and I was someone who was skeptical about what her choice would be. But I gasped when she came out of the car and started up the stairs.

So Emilia, your opinion is noted. But your sour grapes are showing. There is a lot of daylight between Meghan's gown and Emilia's...
 
Very foolish to comment IMO. As someone else has said she's unlikely to have Meghan's custom in the future. Please ...... Emilia Wicksted and Givenchy? The comment reeks of sourgrapes.
 
Zaira said:
Well, someone is feeling very catty. Sorry you were not the designer Emilia :argh:
I rarely find Emilia's pieces to be well done. Something always looks off with them. But I also feel the same about Stella but loved Meghan's evening gown from her lol.

Meghan's £200k gown was identical to one of mine, says designer | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

I came here to post about this. Emily's version of Meghan's dress looks droopy in the waist, to me, and kind of common. Don't know why someone who already dresses royalty--both Kate and Meghan--would say such a thing. Maybe she was drunk or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iceflower
The Princess of Wales's Daytime Fashion Part 3: July 2023 -
8 9 10
Replies
289
Views
34K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
iceflower
  • Locked
The Princess of Wales's Daytime Fashion Part 2: March 2023 - July 2023
13 14 15
Replies
421
Views
46K
iceflower
iceflower
JessRulz
  • Sticky
Prince and Princess of Wales, Current Events 1: Sept 2022 -
3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
28K
Chimene
Chimene
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
Staff of the Prince and Princess of Wales 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
18
Views
3K
tommy100
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom