Now, THAT dress

Most surprised to see this at Breitbart and the commenters were hardly fashion buffs, except a few here and there but the article was good:

Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, royally missed the mark on her wedding day to Prince Harry, now the Duke of Sussex, with her bland and ill-fitting Givenchy gown.

Meghan, an American, was expected to ditch the princess-like lace of Kate Middleton’s iconic Alexander McQueen wedding dress. But, her Givenchy gown and Queen Mary’s Diamond Bandeau headpiece was not a match for a royal wedding.

While the A-line gown’s most noticeable feature is an awkward half off-the-shoulder, half bateau neckline, the bulky fabric of the dress is what crashes this ensemble from the start.

Simple is beautiful.

If designed properly.

This Givenchy gown, designed by the Parisian house’s new Creative Director Clare Waight Keller, should have been draped and cut with a sleek silk crepe, the same used by Hervé Pierre to design First Lady Melania Trump’s Inaugural gown.

Instead, the gown looked like it was made from a down comforter: unbreathable, heavy, uncomfortable, and hot for spring. Even the three-quarter sleeves of the dress were a bore. No ruffles, no lace, no pizazz, no glamour. You’re marrying Prince Harry, couldn’t you doll it up a notch?!

Then there’s the hair, veil, and headpiece. For as much as I despise veils (glorified mosquito netting), this veil’s intricate handmade details on the ends were a touch of class to an otherwise horrid look.

But the length of the veil (16.5 feet!) is strangely out of balance with the basic Givenchy dress. The two elements are competing here.

Meghan’s headpiece, which includes 10 brilliant diamonds, is gorgeous (obviously) but not with this hair.

Imagine, it’s your wedding day. You’re becoming a princess. And how does Meghan fix her hair? I know! Swept back in a bun with tendrils falling out!

No. Absolutely not. Someone stop her from making this life-altering mistake!

Here’s the rundown: The dress is stale, the veil is too ornate for the dress, the neckline is too in-between, the sleeves do not add anything to the dress, the hair literally looks like you’re going to a baseball game, and the tiara is far too magnificent for such a hairdo.

One commenter did seem to know what it was about too:

Too bad Givenchy put their name to this dress! It was a total disaster.

As for the fit of the dress, they really missed the mark.

The neckline looks like it was supposed to be a boat neck which would have been pretty if not for the thickness of the material used. The whole bodice fell clumsily in folds instead of following the line of her body as an A-line dress should.

Then there’s the matter of the hemline, which should have been only long enough for her toes to peep out when she walked instead of turning under when she moved.

The headdress of the veil was far too long and should have been considerably shorter to accompany the dress length in the back.

Her hair would have been attractive if worn in an up swept hairstyle with a few curled tendrils poking out.

She will have to look at these photos for a long time and she will probably wonder what she was thinking when she chose this outfit!

I was thinking that myself – the cut was unflattering but I can understand it because she’s known for having no waist and so that had to be disguised – hence the eiderdown material. I agree about the hair too – that jet black hair needed to be severely up, gloves would have helped too but let’s not insist on those on a hot day.

The neck is a sloppily thought out mess and the material is in folds – it’s way too plain as well compared to the headpiece. I was thinking that Givenchy would be embarrassed but then the name of the designer – Clare someone modernist female with not a clue – she was given the task and that explains all.

Interesting that the writer could see it, I could see it, other commenters could see it, but the great fashionisti could not.

22 comments for “Now, THAT dress

  1. Ubermouth
    May 21, 2018 at 11:34

    I find most wedding dresses miss the mark.I loved Diana’s(for the time but would be dated now).I hated Kate’s.The silhouette of the bottom half beautiful but did not like the cut of the mismatched top half.
    I have to say that,although it could have been more form-fitting,(and the neckline called out for a show-stopper necklace)I thought the dress gorgeous,the veil gorgeous and the bride equally so.One piece of royal jewellery(which she may have been expecting) would have transformed that dress.Shame she wasn’t loaned one.(Did not like the bandeau at all).
    I think the simplicity of the gown was classic,timeless and spot on.
    I think her reception dress was chic and classy also,as was his suit and they both looked so elegant as they left for the reception.
    Myself,I would have refrained from wearing Diana’s ring so quickly as it looked too grabby and disrespectful.

    • May 22, 2018 at 04:14

      The dress didn’t fit her, it was in folds. She was walking around in a duvet.

      Kate’s on the other hand [at her wedding] was delicate and feminine. Remember that word? Feminine? She’s not particularly feminine in general with that jolly hockey sticks manner and harsh body but the dress eased that somewhat and Pippa was all curves and bottom – now she had style.

      There was a comparative pic made of the other bridal dresses [sent by fos]:

      … and what came through was what the women inside them were like, how they carried the dresses. You could instantly see the women who were comfortable in their sensual femininity … and then Meghan standing classlessly like a demi-man.

      There was a similar stark comparison in the rebooted Bond movie years ago where Naomi Harris [in the promo] stood beside Berenice Marlohe:

      Interesting that Metro called Harris “hot” because she showed more flesh but she lacked all grace, having been living like an entitled, grotesque demi-man all her life. If you look at her, she just stands there with zero style, front-on like a man.

      Berenice M though exuded curves and wiles, stood, sat and moved like a woman, even though the basic material is not particularly alluring in her case. Look how little flesh she’s showing and yet she has panache.

      Anglosphere women are too horrified to act feminine today, they’ve grown up entitled, with scrambled brains, it’s almost tantamount to a loss of power to be feminine, so they playact at it in a movie or at a wedding and it is with varying degrees of grotesque. You did see the Americans making fun of Pippa’s tea advertisement dress – at least Pippa was slightly more feminine than usual and not just because of the baby bump.

      Meghan Markle has that demi-manliness in shovel-loads but you could see she’d made an attempt this time at femininity in a paint-by-numbers way but when I saw that it was not just a female designer who’d designed the dress – Clare someone or other – but also a British designer, not Givenchy nor any of the real couturiers, then it was clear what had happened and the heart sank. Hell, I could have done a better job – at least I know where women’s protruberances are and how they move.

      The difficulty is getting “women” in the Anglosphere to see this – that modern feminism has killed femininity which, after all, is a woman’s main asset.

      They’ll never admit it because, in a boiling frog way, they’ve never known it and instead will bellyache on about how they can STEM as well as any man, keep up with any man on the front line of battle – but none of that addresses the sad fact that they have the shape God gave them and then gone right ahead and spoilt it, trying to be men and only coming across as a grotesque parody of men.

      It’s not beautiful.

  2. Mark Matis
    May 21, 2018 at 12:48

    Actually, the ensemble is pure Markle. What else would one expect?

    THIS is what the UK now has to live with. As if Chuckie and Camilla weren’t bad enough…

    • Chuckles
      May 21, 2018 at 13:35

      Gewollt, aber nicht Gekonnt.

      • The Blocked Dwarf
        May 21, 2018 at 13:44

        Small ‘g’ for ‘gekonnt’ I think .

        (trust me, it *mattters* in German).

        • Chuckles
          May 21, 2018 at 17:39

          I know, write in haste, repent at leisure.

  3. May 21, 2018 at 14:05

    A Gentleman does not criticise a lady’s dress. He simply accepts that she will wear something awful and he will bear up. Leave dress-ups critiques to other ladyfolk. Safer that way.

    (PS. Diana’s looked like she come along in her bed)

  4. fos
    May 21, 2018 at 14:37

    Quite so, James. Just seen this – compare and contrast:

    (I hope this is the right way to upload an image here … )

    Not quite a shapeless sack of potatoes – but going in that direction.

    • May 21, 2018 at 16:49

      Yes, what I think it comes down to is she’s not feminine, she’s feminist.

  5. fos
    May 21, 2018 at 14:47

    Does this work, I wonder:

  6. fos
    May 21, 2018 at 14:48


  7. Ubermouth
    May 21, 2018 at 22:24

    well,at least Harry was wearing frills!
    So,what did we think of Lilibet’s get up?
    I loved it,especially the hat with the beautiful flowers.

  8. Ubermouth
    May 22, 2018 at 07:44

    lol Did you see Chelsy’s face at one point? All unbridled disdain.

  9. May 22, 2018 at 23:59

    I thought that Meghan looked stunning and elegant. The way she dressed brought attention to her face showing off her eyes and smile. The dress brought attention to her rather than what she was wearing. The veil has a particular significance which has not been mentioned in the article or the comments.

    Based on the critique above I obviously chose the wrong sort of wedding dress when I got married. But I don’t think so, neither do my family or friends 😉

    • May 23, 2018 at 13:12

      I’m sure you’d look stunning in it, Cherie.

  10. The Blocked Dwarf
    May 23, 2018 at 06:50

    Regarding the dress itself I have no opinion but, watching the ‘highlights’ that The Bestes Frau In The World, insisted I download for her- no doubt a psychotic’s ‘thing’, I was rather surprised to see she had not practised getting out of a car in a dress with more train than the GWR. I don’t think a bride has looked less feminine ever. She stomped around as if those white shoes were Doctor Martens boots.

  11. Distant Relative
    May 31, 2018 at 08:38

    I confess to succumbing to curiosity and watched the rerun on WaPo YT of all things. Its merits were there was no commentary and I could skip the boring bits. Nobody seems to have mentioned the colour of the dress – white? Who is she kidding? Interestingly most of the staunch church-goers I have spoken to (despite my best efforts to avoid the subject!) see that as an affront to humility and good taste. I tend to agree with them.

    The impression I got on first sight was she was wearing a shift like those unfortunates in days of yore on their way to the scaffold. Maybe someone was sending a message.

    Here’s the bride in another unflattering ensemble. Is she or isn’t she? Photoshopped or what?

    The RF has been out with the domestos removing the parts of her bio most likely to cause them embarrassment btw.

    • May 31, 2018 at 09:19

      “a shift like those unfortunates in days of yore on their way to the scaffold”


  12. May 31, 2018 at 11:05

    I await someone deploying the abortion/pregnancy arguement favoured by ‘certain types’ of female. A man should not have anything to say about dresses unless he wears one himself. There must be at least one transvestite trawling your blog, James. Let us hope he has good taste, whenever he decides to join these comments. Perhaps even better taste than Mz, the Duchess, Meghan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.