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.