Meghan Markle's Wedding Dress

[soapstar]

However, Kate and Megs are contemporaries, and Westwood and Emilia are at different price points as well.

I find it extremely weird that a designer would make such remarks about a client, but oh well.

I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see the media making a big deal about Kate wearing EW. By the time Kate comes back from maternity leave in the fall, the story will be so old and everyone will have moved on. I guess the media could try and make a story out of it, but will anyone really care at that point? I honestly doubt it.

 

[Curbside]

I guess we'll see!

 

[ACO]

I tend to agree it will be old news unless Kate showed up next week rocking EW for Trooping. That would definitely make some headlines. I don’t see that happening.

 

[Abbigail]

Even if Kate stopped wearing EW, the media would find some other reason to pit the two against each other. This is unfortunately going to be their reality. The media is going to forever compare the two, and the best thing for them to do is just live their lives and not let the gossip magazines dictate what they do.

If Kate like EW she should wear it. I'm sure Meghan wouldn't hold it against her. I mean, I doubt Kate held it against other members for wearing Westwood.

I'm sure Meghan wouldn't hold against her. My point was more so about fanning the flames in the media. Of course the media will always try to find a way to pit them against each other but why voluntarily give them a narrative to run with? And make no mistake, if Meghan avoids EW designs but Kate is seen wearing EW any time soon, the media will try to make something of it. They will not forget just because the story is no longer getting media attention. Indeed, Kate wearing EW would present the perfect opportunity to revisit the controversy. Kate can obviously still wear EW if she likes. I'm just saying it wouldn't be the smartest choice.

 

[Osipi]

After reading through this discussion of Emilia Wickstead, I'm of the opinion that should Kate or Meghan or anyone in the public eye happen to decide to wear one of her designs, it would purely be that they actually like what they're wearing, feel comfortable in it and its their own personal choice and aren't chasing designer names.

Then again, there are people out there that would wear a potato rucksack if it had a designer label on it no matter how it made them look. If anything, all this media fuss over a statement Emilia Wickstead has made has basically brought her name to the attention of people who, until this time, had never heard of the woman. Me for one.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

People will make a big deal of anything and will find anyway to put Kate vs Meghan just like they try to put Kate vs. Camilla. Neither Kate or Meghan should worry about potential headlines regarding what makes them happy as long as what makes them happy is appropriate.

 

[duchessrachel]

The Duchess of Cambridge may not stop wearing EW but she would be smart not to wear any of EW's designs for awhile. Otherwise, you can bet there will be headlines stoking the Kate vs. Meghan flames. I'm not sure why Kate would invite those headlines. It's not as if EW's designs are so hard to resist or there aren't plenty of other British designers to choose from.

I feel the same way. I have been wondering, though, why Beatrice and Eugenie continue to wear Vivienne Westwood after her disparaging comments about Kate (or at least I read on here that they do continue to wear them)

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Monarch cathedral veil. Chapel is much shorter. It's actually longer than typical cathedral as well. Usually cathedral veils are between 9ft to 10ft. Meghan's was 16ft.

In one article I read that Meghan's veil was 16 ft. However, another article expressed that the veil was 15 ft. in length. Which is correct: 16 or 15 feet in length?

 

[jacqui24]

In one article I read that Meghan's veil was 16 ft. However, another article expressed that the veil was 15 ft. in length. Which is correct: 16 or 15 feet in length?

Most I’ve read say 16. Haven’t seen any 15. But either way, they are both monarch cathedral.

 

[Countessmeout]

Anything over 10 feet is considered a monarch veil (130 inches).

In an interview with the designer about the dress, the veil length was stated as 5 meters, which is over 16 feet. I would take that as the accurate length.

 

[Pranter]

IIRC the official length was 5 meters..which I think is 16.4 feet.


LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

IIRC the official length was 5 meters..which I think is 16.4 feet.


LaRae

Ah! So that's where I got the 16.4ft. That's why I said most said 16ft. I thought I remebered 16.4, but thought it was such a weird number.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

So i was in the bouquet thread and I came across another gown similar to Meghan's: Princess Miriam of Bulgaria, the front not the insanity going on with the train.

 

[Pranter]

Ah! So that's where I got the 16.4ft. That's why I said most said 16ft. I thought I remebered 16.4, but thought it was such a weird number.

Some folks do persist in using the metric system


LaRae

 

[MARG]

Your wretched decimal currency was inflicted on us here and then we went totally metric. On the downside, I still think in inches and feet, on the upside . . . I don't know if I'm overweight!

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Is Meghan the first British/English bride whose veil was longer than the train?

 

[jacqui24]

Is Meghan the first British/English bride whose veil was longer than the train?

No. The Queen's veil was also longer than her dress. In fact, I think the train on HMQ's dress is even shorter.

 

[Lady Sarah Chatto]

@XeniaCasaraghi ITA!

I had forgotten the rule about bare shoulders! It's nice that the Queen approved Meghan's dress, since that is the Duchess's preferred style. It was tastefully done imo, the off the shoulder look.

Sorry for going OT, but could anyone direct me to any thread that may exist about the Princess Royal's wedding dress (from her first marriage). I was watching some youtube videos of these earlier Royal brides and I was curious as to what the Princess Royal's inspiration was - a Tudor or Elizabethan style perhaps?

 

[Countessmeout]

No. The Queen's veil was also longer than her dress. In fact, I think the train on HMQ's dress is even shorter.

The queen has a full court train which was said to be some where between 13-15 feet from what I have read (most say 13).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion...-dresses-years/queen-elizabeth-wedding-dress/

According to this, her veil was actually shorter then the train

The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Royal Flashback of the Day: Queen Elizabeth II's Wedding Gown

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The queen has a full court train which was said to be some where between 13-15 feet from what I have read (most say 13).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion...-dresses-years/queen-elizabeth-wedding-dress/

According to this, her veil was actually shorter then the train

The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Royal Flashback of the Day: Queen Elizabeth II's Wedding Gown

Except the train was made of tulle not the fabric of her dress, so it was like a long veil-but it was attached to her shoulders not on her head.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

@Lady Sarah Chatto http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4328

 

[Catherine Helvin]

I'm afraid less isn't always more in my books, as I don't do plain and ordinary. I still feel Meghan's dress could have done with just a little bit of beadwork and/or embroidery to give it a lift.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

People Magazine stated: 'The Inspiration for Meghan's look was Audrey Hepburn's wedding dress for her intended nuptials to James Hanson.'

 

[Pranter]

Unless Meghan or the designer confirms that I wouldn't take that as Gospel.


LaRae

 

[TLLK]

People Magazine stated: 'The Inspiration for Meghan's look was Audrey Hepburn's wedding dress for her intended nuptials to James Hanson.'

CyrilVladisla-Audrey Hepburn was engaged three times and married twice. She had three different wedding outfits made but only wore two and neither of those look anything like Meghan's.



The first gown that she had made was never worn by Audrey as her engagement was broken off. She asked the designers to donate it to a "poor Italian bride." This is the gown that Audrey never wore that People Magazine seems to believe was the inspiration.


https://www.brides.com/story/tbt-audrey-hepburn-wedding-dress

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Whether or not Audrey's dress that she never wore served as Meghan's and Clare's inspiration, I think it's true that Meghan admires Audrey's classic iconic style, which is similar to a Parisian aesthetic, but still uniquely Audrey's own timeless look. I do think Meghan is inspired by Audrey's timeless style, but that Meghan is also guided by what works best for her own body. The wedding dress had clean lines and a distinctive laid-back elegance combined with sophisticated glamour.

Overall, I thought the wedding dress was elegant and stylish, and that it will stand the test of time, even though I'm not over-the-moon about it. Obviously, it's the gorgeous veil and the stunning tiara that truly enhance the dress. The dress' simple styling with sleeves is rather close to what many of us expected in the beginning once we realized that Meghan likes simple, flowing more closely fitted lines (a la Carolyn Bessette Kennedy's wedding dress). For St. George's Chapel, then, Clare and Meghan got it right in melding Meghan's casual yet sophisticated aesthetic with royal protocol. But it was the Stella McCartney after-party dress for the evening that is truly Meghan's vibe. It's just not what she'd wear to a traditional royal wedding.

It's so cool that Meghan got to have her cake and eat it too, with two dresses for her wedding day! M&H were a vision fit to behold for both formal/ traditional and snazzy/ up-to-date wedding styles.

Oops and thanks for the spelling correction @O-H Anglophile. Indeed!

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Overall, I thought the wedding dress looked quite elegant and stylish, even though I'm not over-the-moon about it. The dress will surely stand the test of time. But I think it's the gorgeous veil and the stunning tiara that truly enhance the dress. The dress' simple styling with sleeves is rather close to what many of us expected in the beginning once we realized that Meghan likes simple, flowing more closely fitted lines (a la Caroline Kennedy's wedding dress). For St. George's Chapel, then, Clare and Meghan got it right in melding Meghan's casual yet sophisticated aesthetic with royal protocol.

Carolyn not Caroline.

Carolyn Bessette Kennedy was John Jr's wife and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's sister-in-law.

https://www.google.com/search?q=car...AhUl9YMKHbnxAZcQ9QEIKTAA#imgrc=wbj-rNKaZUCJzM:


https://www.google.com/search?q=car...AhWM_YMKHRUXDywQ9QEIKTAA#imgrc=jfaKoFdXYx8yHM:

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The very first photo of Audrey was the picture used in People.
Audrey Hepburn Wedding Dress Photos, Ceremonies, & Dress Replicas

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Meghan's dress looks nothing like Audrey's. I think People are just grasping at straws. Actually none of the real wedding dresses of Audrey's look too good.

 

[MARG]

It has a bateau neckline. And there ends the similarity. Every wedding dress can and will be compared but just the neckline? Really?