Meghan Markle’s two bridal gowns cost £280K combined, apparently

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle leave St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle after their wedding

I was genuinely surprised by the fashion choices Meghan Markle – now the Duchess of Sussex – made for her wedding gown and “wedding after-party” gown. Very few people even had Clare Waight Keller on their short list for wedding-gown designer, so I’m glad that was such a surprise. Clare Waight Keller is a British designer who currently works as artistic director for Givenchy, a famous French fashion house. So Meghan’s formal wedding gown was actually made in the Givenchy atelier, with Keller’s in-house French team. According to the Daily Mail, the Keller-for-Givenchy gown cost about £200K. Which seems like a lot. Apparently, Meghan would travel to Keller’s Chelsea home for fittings and such, because there were few ways for Meghan to travel to Paris incognito. Keller is thankfully not a famewhore about pulling off the biggest fashion coup of the year. She only spoke about Meghan and the dress hours and hours after the wedding took place:

The designer who created Meghan Markle’s wedding dress said she was “truly privileged” and “flattered” to have been asked. Clare Waight Keller continued it was an “enormous honour” to have been given one of fashion’s most coveted jobs ahead of the royal wedding. She added that the “momentous” task left her feeling “enormously proud” when Meghan “looked absolutely stunning and radiant” on her wedding day.

The designer revealed that following the ceremony, Prince Harry told her that he thought his new wife “looked incredible”. Ms Waight Keller added that it was “an extraordinary thing to observe the whole ceremony” and see the “love in their eyes during the ceremony, it was just the most beautiful, poetic moment. I’m so proud to have been part of it.”

Givenchy’s Artistic Director said that when she was approached with the commission in January, the now Duchess of Sussex already “had an idea of what she wanted” and the pair “worked very closely together”. The 47-year-old said she wanted to capture the former actress’ “modern, fresh” style in the dress, but also make her “feel absolutely incredible in the dress and also I wanted her to feel like it was absolutely right for the occasion”.

Asked how she ensured any details about the dress were such a well-kept secret, Ms Waight Keller refused to give any details, but said the gown was created by a small team of ateliers in Paris. She continued that she wanted the bridesmaids’ dresses to echo the simplicity of bride’s dress, and also capture their “innocence and purity”. She added she was amazed at how “well behaved they were” on the day, adding that they all “so thoroughly enjoyed it”.

[From ITV]

So many were critical of the Keller-for-Givenchy gown, but as I saw it throughout the ceremony and I saw the way it “walked” in different kinds of light, I liked it even more. As I said on Saturday, I’m glad it wasn’t lacy or fussy or too big. The simplicity of the design really suited Meghan, and let’s face it: it wasn’t like she would have been allowed to go crazy. She had to be covered up. She had to wear sleeves. She had to look “modest.” It would have been frowned-upon if she went too body-con.

As for the second look, the party look – I’m still shocked that this beautiful, sexy gown is Stella McCartney. It’s gorgeous! Stella ended up speaking to Women’s Wear Daily about Meg’s second look/gown, saying: “I am so proud and honored to have been chosen by the Duchess of Sussex to make her evening gown and represent British design. It has truly been one of the most humbling moments of my career and I am so proud of all the team on this stunning sunny royal day.” According to the Daily Mail, the Stella gown cost £80,000 altogether.

Oh, and I’m including a close-up of the emerald-cut aquamarine ring Meghan wore to the wedding party. It was Diana’s ring.

The newly married Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, leaving Windsor Castle after their wedding to attend an evening reception at Frogmore House, hosted by the Prince of Wales

The newly married Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, leaving Windsor Castle after their wedding to attend an evening reception at Frogmore House, hosted by the Prince of Wales

The newly married Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, leaving Windsor Castle after their wedding to attend an evening reception at Frogmore House, hosted by the Prince of Wales

Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

197 Responses to “Meghan Markle’s two bridal gowns cost £280K combined, apparently”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. girl_ninja says:

    I loved both gowns. She looked like a dream! And her reception dress was fire!

  2. Naomi says:

    I loved both dresses, simple elegance and timeless. I think she did lose weight, and that’s why the fit was off. And it can happen losing weight that quickly, I did unintentionally due to stress and ill health. All the best Meghan, my republican heart wishes her happiness in her marriage.

    Edited to add: when she arrived and she is stood on that Chapel steps, the silhouette was gorgeous, the dress, the veil and the tiara just came together to look exquisite.

  3. Goats on the Roof says:

    I loved the simplicity of the wedding gown but thought it a dead ringer for Angela of Lichtenstein’s. The evening dress was so gorgeous and well-executed; I’m still in shock that it’s by Stella!

  4. sally says:

    The first dress was a snooze, the second dress too “Hollywood”. Also – why can’t she ever wear clothes that fit her correctly!

  5. Taxi says:

    The pale, barely pink veil was perfect. White would have looked inappropriately first wedding virginal.

    • MostlyMegan says:

      I think everyone is over the fact that white=bridal virginity.

      • LAK says:

        To think that a white wedding dress is merely copying a trend popularised by Queen Victoria which had nothing to do with purity or innocence and everything to do with showing off some lace that she had been gifted!!!

      • Erinn says:

        I got married at 24 and didn’t wear white. I am super pale, and I’d have looked like a ghost. I went with an off white, kind of ivory tone, and I loved it. I didn’t bother with a veil either. Too many things to go wrong for me, honestly. I’m clumsy enough without added fabric.

        I only heard about the Victoria trend earlier last week. I thought that was kind of funny, really. I figured it had to be a much older tradition than it actually was.

      • Taxi says:

        I still think white dresses & veils are appropriate only for first weddings. And yes, I know it’s done.

      • GameofScones says:

        But why Taxi?
        Like, who is being hurt by white dresses? Why would this matter to anyone?
        I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would ever think someone shouldn’t be allowed to wear whatever color dress they want on the special day they are paying for.

      • LAK says:

        Erinn: The Victoria and Albert Museum had a wedding dresses exhibition several years ago with collections of wedding dresses dating as far back as the 17th Century.

        White dresses didn’t start appearing until after Victoria’s wedding dress, and even then, it wasn’t a universal trend. You still had dresses / outfits in all colours.

        It wasn’t until Hollywood romantic films started showing brides in white dresses that the trend became universal. It also influenced the universal fashion style in bridal gowns because prior to that one simply wore their best dress / outfit in whatever style they preferred even after white had become the go-to colour.

        Grace Kelly’s gown brought to the world by the costume dept from MGM studios was, and remains, the biggest influencer of universal bridal style.

        And it’s amazing how irrational people become when a bride veers from these trends. Innocence, purity, tradition etc are invoked in the name of following fashion instead of doing your own thing – see commenter below you.

      • Erinn says:

        That’s super interesting, LAK. Honestly – at one point I had considered buying a multi-colored gown. It had a water color effect – very subtle, but fun shades of blues, purples and pinks. Didn’t have it in stock to try on though, so I went with my ivory dress. Relatively plain in the front – but the back had a keyhole and a lace panel covered in sparkly beading.

        It just never occurred to me that I *should* want a white dress, I guess.

      • Cranberry says:

        I also think white works so well as a wedding dress is because it’s such a bold contrasting color with an elegant simplicity. In the past when clothes weren’t as disposable and mass produced, most people wouldn’t wear pure white. It gets dirty too easily, shows any spec of dirt immediately and doesn’t clean well. So as any big, public occasion dress it also becomes a sign of wealth. This is usually what weddings are about, sparing no expense and displaying your wealth.

      • otaku fairy says:

        “I think everyone is over the fact that white=bridal virginity.” People SHOULD be over it by now, but you’d be surprised. You should see how petty some people will get when a woman who isn’t ‘virginal’ enough wears white on her wedding day. Honestly though, that doesn’t even need to be a factor in what a bride chooses to wear. It’s 2018.

      • MerrymerrymonthofMay says:

        Agreed. It’s a tradition past its time

    • girl_ninja says:

      White would have been fine if she chose that. But winter white rarely looks good lighter skin tones. The tradition is antiquated.

    • Peg says:

      The veil was white, they had to wash their hands every thirty minutes when working on it.

  6. NameChange says:

    She looked amazing and she looked like herself, which is what matters. I love how unapologetic she is about herself, her family, her taste, etc. Wasn’t a fan until now.

  7. V4Real says:

    Looks like the same dress, she just removed the sleeves. Both are pretty. I like simple but eloquent

  8. Nicole says:

    I loved the look of her wedding dress worn one exception…didn’t love the off the shoulder look. I think it’s because she’s SO tiny that it didn’t work for me. I feel the same way about a lot of her jackets. But clean classic lines is what I expected from her and the train was DRAMA.
    The after party dress was an absolute knockout. Whew

  9. Alexandria says:

    I don’t know if it’s me but I began liking her wedding gown the more I look at it. Is that weird? Suddenly I could appreciate the structure and workmanship and how its lack of details just made Meghan’s natural beauty (and glow) and tiara shine. I still don’t know how the two gowns cost that much but ok. Couture right? What do I know?

    • Harla says:

      I thought it was just me! I did like it right away but wasn’t loving it, having now seen quite a bit I’m struck by the way it moved with her and how the neckline framed her face, it really is stunning!

    • bettyrose says:

      My guess is that as these were primarily designed as art pieces to be worn once and live forever in a museum, they were glossed with the tears of virgins , carted up the Himalayas to be blessed by monks whose vows of silence are broken once a decade, and then sprinkled with fairy dust. Not a criticism, honestly. Unlike most wedding dresses that will die slowly of moth infestations in someone’s attic, these really will be on public display for the rest of time, so when calculated over centuries, the cost is actually not so bad.

  10. LT says:

    I loved both gowns and thought she looked elegant and beautiful. I wish there were more pictures of the train with the flowers of the commonwealth embroidered. The train was a nice counterbalance to the simplicity of the gown, but we haven’t really gotten to see it.

  11. IlsaLund says:

    I loved both gowns…..she was simply beautiful. I’m sure the screaming will now start about the cost of the gowns. But didn’t the Daily Mail previously print that her gown was by Russo and cost $135,000?

  12. Clare says:

    I think she looked soo beautiful, although both gowns didn’t fit her quite right.

    What I am bothered by is the celebration of the ‘commonwealth’ on her veil. It’s like everyone has suddenly forgotten that it is in fact a celebration of very bloody colonialism. And the irony and insensitivity of colonialism being celebrated in lace/embroidery is particularly galling, given weaving/embroidery were some of the cultural practices that were decimated under the Raj. I personally find the whitewashing of that history (although nothing new), to be particularly disturbing in this context, and coming from someone who is meant to be particularly enlightened. In 2018.

    • LAK says:

      I’m salty about the commonwealth thing. Ever since they mentioned it in their engagement interview. Harry already has problematic imperialist views of Africa, so this commonwealth thing feels very patronising.

      • Naomi says:

        It’s interesting because I read some loved the symbolism of it. To be fair to Harry he gets to be part of an arcane institution were hes called HRH, him not having imperialists views about the countries his family benefits from the colonisation of a quarter of the world at some stage would be surprising.

        Let’s hope that Meghan influences Harry on the commonwealth rather than vice versa. She does read Chomsky after all…

      • LAK says:

        Naomi: It surprises me because despite his privilege and status, he is more imperialist in his views than his own father and grandparents who were raised in the Empire. I find it surprising in a person of his generation. Ditto William.

      • Naomi says:

        LAK, it is odd that they do have that awful paternalistic veil of Africa, I don’t know how true it is by apparently William stated how Africa needed to be depopulated! We’re do they get this from, if not from their direct family? Influence of aristocratic friends?

      • MrsBump says:

        +1
        The CW situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As one of the small african nations forming part of the CW, i cannot think of a single instance where that institution has had an impact on my life as a citizen, it was essentially a dead horse the British decided to bring back to life post Brexit. Being small and insignificant, we cannot afford to piss off Britain by voting out of the CW, so we stay and unwittingly contribute to this pantomine about Britain’s magnanimity towards us.
        I wish they’d just stuck to flowers of the British Isles, which would have been far more appropriate for a British princess.
        I feel the same about the charities (menstruation campaign in india and the well building initiative in africa) that Meghan has decided to highlight on her official page. It smacks of white saviorism to me, and i honestly much preferred reading about her charity work within her own community. I’m tired of reading about celebrities/royals and their charitable deeds in Africa/Asia. This contributes towards building this image of Africa/India as countries which are dependent on foreign aid from white countries. How will the west ever see us as equal if this is always how we are portrayed : sad eyed, hungry stomachs, arms outstretched for alms? India is well aware of the need to better access to menstrual hygiene products, they are tackling the problem themselves, by investing heavily in campaigns featuring their biggest male and female celebrities. A movie called “Padman” was recently released on that subject alone. Frankly there is no need for Meghan/British Royals involvement. Imagine if the Indians were to set up a charity to help the British homeless, it would be resoundingly mocked.
        So much of the aid given to us is essentially PR for the West and very often comes with string’s attached or is used to line the pockets to our corrupt politicians.
        We will and we are rising out of poverty ourselves. All this Royal Charity does is reduce us to bit players in our own stories.

      • Nic919 says:

        The commonwealth stuff means nothing for Canadians either. It’s really just navel gazing by the BRF and UK govt pretending they still have an empire when they stopped mattering as a superpower after WWII.

      • LAK says:

        MrsBump: 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

      • Ghaia says:

        Mrs. Bump I really like your comment. Some of these charity “efforts” of celebs drive me crazy. I read that Jessica Mulroney distributes shoe boxes of luxury goods to homeless. .. And everyone gets called a humanitarian this day. This used to be a protected term for those helping in wars that were accepted by both sides. And now Meghan Markle is being called one. Anyway your comment reminded me of the Africa for Norway video mocking the Western Aid to Africa, have you seen it? https://youtu.be/oJLqyuxm96k

      • LAK says:

        Ghaia: That is hilarious. Reminds me of a joke rants in Trevor Noah’s stand up routines
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aNqfFafXGLA

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cWlAgPJdHdA

      • Elaine says:

        @Ghaia, OMG that video is sooo funny, thanks for posting that! If one were a trickster I’d say post that on the KP twitter feed. That’d get their attention ;-)

        @Mrs Bump, +1000! I’m not from a Commonwealth country, it took my Ugandan friend to open my eyes to the patronization. But, god, just reading Harry’s quote from the engagement interview, I’m paraphrasing, but didn’t he say he wanted to make sure the ‘Youth thought about things the right way’ ?!
        And which way is that, Harry? Which way is the *right* way :-P

        I picture them going around handing out gold BurgerKing crowns, promoting the Monarchy to the poors and the ignorants, teaching direct Swahili to English translation of ‘I love the Queen’ and ‘Republicans sux, Monarchs Rule’…

      • Natalia says:

        LAK, Mrs Bump and others re the CW: 👏👏👏 for explaining… agree.

      • grizzled says:

        I’m American, so I look at the Commonwealth as a somewhat ignorant outsider. When I first started to think about it, I thought that it made a lot of sense. Most of the world’s 21st century problems will be felt the most in the nations of the CM — water issues, etc — so having an international organization of educated, committed, people to design and implement solutions seems like a good idea.

        On the topic of giving: my husband and I regularly contribute to Doctors without Borders and Heifer International (in addition to local food banks and public health clinics). Are we guilty of paternalism?

      • MrsBump says:

        Ghaia – thanks for that video!
        It’s hilarious and i’ll be sharing it within my social network.

      • MrsBump says:

        @Grizzled – i’m sure your heart is in the right place.
        Most of the issues of the 21st century relative to Global warming have been caused by the industrialised nations, like the US, Europe and very recently china/India. Sending us aid, while simultaneously pumping CO2 in the atmosphere and dumping plastic in the oceans is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound and honestly it feels a lot like western countries washing their guilt and responsibility with money.
        A tiny country like the Maldives spends much of its GDP on buying land in Madagascar so their people will have somewhere to resettle when parts of their islands will become uninhabitable. The unfairness of it all infuriates me.
        scientists have predicted that the next wave of migration towards richer countries will be because of global warming, we’ll see then if charitable western countries open their borders.

      • LAK says:

        Grizzled: In answer to your question, may i recommend a book called Dead Aid. And no offense, but yes you are.

        Keeping an entire continent dependent as that continents’ resources are mined for the enrichment of the west is no good.

      • Ms says:

        LAK, in your opinion, what would be the best ways we can help without being paternalistic? I will definitely look into the book you suggested and do my own homework, but wondering what you think would be helpful. The most obvious answer I can think of is not contributing to the hardship/exploitation. Thanks to all of you who contributed to this important topic. It never occurred to me contributing to something like Doctors Without Borders would be paternalistic.

      • Redgrl says:

        @clare & @LAK & @mrsbump – agreed with your original comments up thread. As a Canadian, I bristled a bit too about the whole “commonwealth” commentary.

      • CharlieCanada says:

        Mrs Bump, that was incredibly well said! It all seems so patronizing, especially when celebrities from Western countries come offering “aid,” but in reality they’re there essentially for photo ops with skinny brown children, just to make themselves look charitable and humanitarian.

      • Bonsai Mountain says:

        Well said, MrsBump, LAK, Ghaia, others. I’m happy for Meghan and Harry but I can’t handle the cognitive dissonance! Many of these countries are underdeveloped BECAUSE of what England did to them during colonialism. Everybody wants to perform humanitarianism – didn’t Georgina Chapman have a charity in India for empowering women? Yeesh.

      • Alice says:

        @Mrs.Bump
        I have been involved in conservation efforts in Madagascar long enough to know that things are not black and white as you present them. I don’t care at all about the Commonwealth but to claim that all African countries and nations are capable of dealing with poverty, diseases and overall situation themselves is a misrepresentation. In Madagascar, without the assistance invested in replanting forest, teaching and helping sustainable farming and boosting eco tourism while educating about birth control and family planning, the already 90% lost forest and endangered animals will be gone in a decade. A decade. That’s how bad it became because there was no help, no education, no support. These consequences would affect us all. It wasn’t someone else who cut down the forest and exhausted the land while killing the animals though, it was the local people. So, sometimes help is needed. The corruption, lack of education and resources prevented Madagascar from being able to deal with all this on its own.

    • Jessica says:

      Harry has been directed by The Queen and PoW to focus on the Commonwealth. I wasn’t surprised that they incorporated it into their wedding. These countries aren’t bound to be in it; they can vote themselves out.

      • LAK says:

        The commonwealth isn’t a hereditary institution. The queen remains it’s head due to an unofficial agreement to keep her as it’s head until her death.

        She had to campaign hard for the past decade to get Charles installed for the term immediately after her death. Harry is being deployed to ensure that when they next vote, Charles’s tenure is extended.

        If not, Harry is more than likely out of a job because why should they keep him when he is there for purely PR purposes that only benefit the British Monarchy.

    • Addie says:

      I’m in agreement with everyone here from CW countries. Appointing Harry is a post-Brexit strategy to shore up markets in CW countries they once dumped when Britain joined the EEC/later EU). An an Australian, Britain doesn’t matter much and attempts to re-float the Empire here just don’t work. We don’t have the wall-to-wall brainwashing they do in the UK re. the royals. Here, they are celebrity fodder but there is always another one round the corner to gawk at and then forget.

      I thought the embroidered veil a very heavy-handed and unsubtle tool by the BRF, as yet another hint that H&M are going to save the CW. We don’t need saving, and certainly not by two middle-aged wannabe hipsters. They should stay in Britain and solve their problems first; goodness knows there are plenty of them.

      • Boudica says:

        Totally agree, Addie. HM booted us out of the nest back in the 60s/70s/80s when the UK wanted to cuddle up to the Common Market/EEC/EU, and now they want to cuddle up to us again because they’ve changed their mind and it suits them. Well stuff that for a joke! We aren’t interested any more. We won’t be used like by them any longer.

        Booting us out of the nest and continuing to cut the ties with us was the best thing they could have done because we like being independent of them now. The UK has no impact on our government any longer; we no longer have appeals from our courts to the Privy Council; HM is our Queen in name only and our Aussie GG performs her role perfectly adequately. We certainly don’t need her grandson and his wife coming over here meddling. Stay home and fix your own country’s problems! I bristled when I heard those naive comments in the engagement interview, and was astonished at the veil embroidering. It might have been appropriate in 1968, but not in 2018.

        And as for the argument the veil had to be so long because it had to include all those Commonwealth flowers… did it occur to any of the bright sparks there that there was a vast amount of unused space in the centre of the veil that could have accommodated the flowers; they didn’t have to go around the edge! The veil could have been half the size it was. Don’t use that argument to justify that long swathe of material.

        Having said all that, I loved both dresses and thought Meghan looked beautiful and that both of them are clearly in love and I wish them the very best for their future together. Just drop the anachronistic and paternalistic “the Commonwealth needs us” campaign.

    • RD says:

      DWB and Heifer International do a lot of good, non-”paternalistic” work in countries which really need help. Keep donating to them!

  13. Ellaus says:

    She looked amazing, so regal and chic. Any other adornment seemed superfluous after watching her walk the aisle. And the Stella McCartney dress was incredible, maybe much more her so sophisticated…. I only wished there were pictures or vídeos of her dancing in it… So sad there are none of the night celbrations.

  14. HeyThere! says:

    I did not like the first dress at all. The second dress saved it for me!

  15. Alix says:

    Over the course of a weekend spent reading lots of comments about Meghan’s look, I started to notice something. While we all are entitled to, and can revel in, our opinions on her hair/gown/whatever, it seems that there’s been, all over the Internet, a steady hum of criticism directed at all the ways in which Meghan did not look PERFECT on her wedding day. Is it not enough for any bride, royal or not, just to feel lovely and happy? Shall we lower the bar a bit for all women, brides or otherwise? It’s asking too much of anyone to be flawless, dammit.

    • grabbyhands says:

      Yeah, that’s why I had to stop reading most stuff about the wedding. I was really surprised at the amount of vitriol directed towards her for her gown choices, like it personally offended people that she didn’t choose something THEY would have liked to see. It was weird.

      Like, after all the drama this girl had to go through with her family, with the hateful comments directed towards her, isn’t it enough that she and Harry looked genuinely happy? Isn’t that how a bride should feel on her wedding day?

    • Onerous says:

      Someone asked Christian Siriano on his IG what he thought about the fit, as several people were commenting on it. His response was perfect – that she felt beautiful and happy and that there must be something wrong with people who feel the need to cut down a bride on her wedding day.

    • Llamas in pajamas says:

      Great comment. I mean, to me she actually looked flawless but you are absolutely right. At some point we must allow women to be people and prioritize things other than looks. She doesn’t owe beauty to us – or anyone. She doesn’t owe perfection. Etc.

    • minx says:

      My comments have been about her dresses which I think is fair game. We talk about fashion here. They both looked fairy tale blissful, I don’t think anyone questions that.

    • Natalie S. says:

      I was feeling a little that way but also thinking of all the times I’ve criticized Kate and wanting to be fair, I guess. But yeah, the woman had a terrible week and it’s her wedding day. The joy that shone through was beautiful.

      @Llamas in pajamas. +1

    • otaku fairy says:

      So far no British royal wedding dress has really been amazing (with those pictures of Princess Di’s being the worst!). Considering how limited they are in their options, I thought Meghan’s was pretty good. It was simple but just elegant enough to not be bland- the pretty veil was a nice touch. But like others pointed out, what stood out the most was the way she seemed to radiate happiness. That should shut some of the narrow-minded cynics up a little.

  16. Lucy2 says:

    I really liked both gowns. The ceremony one has both a classic look, but also a modern feel. I love the simple elegance of it.

  17. Beth says:

    It’s ridiculous that a wedding dress that is so basic and looks like it came from David’s Bridal would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Her second dress looked better, but it was still pretty basic, and nothing special. If someone is going to spend that kind of money on dresses, I’d think that they’d make sure that they at least fit well. Like all excited brides, she looked happy no matter what she wore, and her happiness made her look gorgeous

    • Elisa says:

      ITA, 200k for this ill-fitted, basic dress really is ridiculous. She is drop dead gorgeous and has a great body so it blows my mind that her stylists don’t manage to dress her properly.

    • minx says:

      I have to agree. She looked gorgeous, etc. etc. The wedding dress just didn’t fit well and the more I looked at it, the less I liked the fabric for a May wedding. It looked wintry to me. The second dress was sexy and va voom but the fit could have been just a bit better. Again, she was beautiful and they looked deliriously happy, just commenting on the dress, not Meghan.

      • Alice says:

        I figured out my issue with the wedding dress was the chest area. While Kate had two rockets ready to launch, Meghan acquired two cheeseburger boxes out for delivery. Her breast looks really bad in the dress and it shows it’s a fitting issue because there is no shape underneath and on the sides of the bust while thete is lots of fabric pulling in the wrong direction and wrinkling. And the sleeves which look like steel pipes installed on the sides. The evening one is poorly fitted under the arms and leaves and ugly wide opening when seated or leaning. This is often an issue with this kind of dress but at this price…. shouldn’t be. It’s not like she bought it from Old navy. This is just my fashionista heart broken. I’m a fashion gal and have expectations of haute couture.

      • minx says:

        Alice, yes. Her breasts looked slightly askew in the wedding dress and I doubt they are, lol—just incorrect fit or lining or both.

      • H says:

        She has a wide waist and very high hips which makes her look like there’s no waist line. Also her bust area is a normal size so no noticeable prominence there. Her legs are sticks down from her knees. She is good looking overall but needs good tailoring to adjust body inconveniences.

    • Beatrice says:

      Agree. Meghan looked beautiful and happy, but I thought her wedding dress was boring, incredibly basic, and ill-fitting. I can see nothing that justified a cost $280,000. If she had gone with a Ralph and Russo, the workmanship of those dresses would have made it easier to understand an exorbitant price. The Stella McCartney dress was great, but at that outrageous price???

    • holly hobby says:

      Yep she overpaid for something that you can find off the rack. I’m talking about both dresses. There is nothing special about them.

    • whatever1 says:

      £200k for a plain, basic dress is downright ridiculous. You could get the same results from sewing white bedsheets together for a fraction of the price.

      Miranda Kerr got it right with her wedding dress. It was her second wedding as well and she also wanted to wear something that was sleek, sophisticated and timeless. But her dress had that special ‘something’ that gave it the WOW factor when it could have easily turned out as boring and basic as Meghan’s.

      Meghan’s second dress was nicer, however. I still have a hard time believing it was Stella McCartney though, everything she usually makes is fug.

    • RD says:

      She looked great in both gowns, but the prices are absolutely obscene (especially for such plain, simple designs) and, especially for someone who’s supposed to be sooooo concerned about poverty and social justice.

  18. Snowflake says:

    I loved the ceremony. Especially when the choir sang stand by me, that was beautiful. Also enjoyed the sermon above love. Harry looked nervous and it was sweet, seeing him tear up. Meghan was just so calm and perfect, it’s like she was born for this. She’s going to do great!

  19. grabbyhands says:

    Echoing other comments -

    I liked the simple cut of the wedding dress, it just looked like they had taken measurements and some time after the final fitting she lost weight so it looked like it was a skosh too big for her, which to me made the gown look bulky and wrinkly instead of smooth.

  20. Brunswickstoval says:

    Who paid for the dresses?

  21. Louise177 says:

    I really liked both dresses. I think people forget that this was Meghan’s second marriage and it was required that she had to dress conservatively. Also she’s not going to be queen. It would be ridiculous to go over the top. That’s why it baffled me that so many are comparing her to Kate.

  22. Becks1 says:

    I ended up loving both gowns. I loved the ceremony dress immediately – simple but stunning, and that veil was just gorgeous (the pictures of her going up the steps and then the aisle with the veil trailing behind her are amazing.) I think it fit; if you saw her walking in it, it was fine. I think there had be a little room, especially given the material, so that she could sit and move about in it.

    For the evening gown, my first thought was “oh that’s kind of boring.” I thought she would go more sparkly or dramatic or something. I still liked it, I was just underwhelmed. but I’ve watched the video of her leaving Windsor Castle and getting into the car a few times now and wow. That dress had drama and looked gorgeous. so I have ended up loving it. And the jewelry, her hair, that car -all just perfect.

    • dj says:

      OMG! The wedding dress was perfection! MM likes that neckline because it is repeated from a suit she has worn in the past. It shows her beautifully toned shoulders and elongates her neck. The dress was so elegant in its classic simplistic lines. It is reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. I personally would not want my wedding dress to fit any tighter than this was especially with the length of the ceremony and the sitting during the ceremony. But, obviously, Megan loved it and that’s the most important thing. This dress will stand the test of time (as I said right after the wedding) and people will appreciate its loveliness even more!

  23. aquarius64 says:

    Both dresses were great. This is Meghan’s second marriage so a bejeweled, bedazzled lace fest would be too much. No Disney princess, no Say Yes to the Dress poured in, sprayed on gown, nothing that said Hollywood bride. Her veil with the 53 flowers of the Commonwealth, one flower was a poppy, representing her home state of California. Meghan had enough bling with the Cartier earrings and bracelet and the Queen Mary diamond bandeau. Less is more.

    • Dee Kay says:

      This comment made me cry…I didn’t realize that she had one of the embroidered flowers be the California poppy (I am Californian). One flower to remind her of where she came from…and one parent to witness her marriage…and that’s all she took with her into this marriage. Lovely. She didn’t need to bring anything from her past, no baggage, just a beautiful flower and her wonderful mother. And with that, she enters her future, and will make of it what she (and Harry!) will.

  24. Jessica says:

    Nice to see a woman get the honor. So many men are at the front of an industry catered to women.

    • Violet says:

      Actually, women have designed the last few royal wedding dresses: Maureen Baker of Susan Small designed Princess Anne’s; a couple, David and Elizabeth Emanuel, did Diana’s; Linda Cierach did Sarah Ferguson’s; and Sarah Burton did Kate’s. The Queen’s and Princess Margaret’s in 1947 and 1960 were both done by Hartnell. After that it was all women.

      But I do agree that men remain at the forefront of the industry. But that is changing!

  25. Tig says:

    I was pretty underwhelmed by the gown as well- she looked radiant and was clearly happy in it, so that’s what matters.
    Honestly, folks here thought the comments posted about her gown were harsh? Head over to the Kate Middleton dress article- these were nothing in comparison. The most consistent comments I saw here were about the fit/fabric.

  26. megs283 says:

    I thought she liked beautiful. I like how the second dress is sexy but without showing a lot of skin.

  27. aang says:

    The prices of these dresses, not just these, but couture in general are crazy. My daughter bought an off the rack prom gown that fits her better than either of these dresses fits MM. And same daughter has had 2 bespoke dresses made for her, structured satin with swarovski crystals and embroidery, one designer from Australia, one from Ireland, and they both fit like a glove and were exactly what she asked for. And they cost a few thousand each, not tens or hundreds of thousands. Why are these so pricey?

    • Alice says:

      Haute couture often misunderstood. Haute Couture was created as a celebration of not so much an unique design as everything in design had already been done sometime ago but to showcase the exquisite combination that can be achieved between rare fabric (or extremely expensive fabric for different reasons), design idea, hand labour as most couture clothes are literally stitched by hand and those seems must be perfection so it takes many hours, and the legendary detailing of couture garments as in embroidery by hand, seems perfected, hand stitching of decorations, beads, etc. This whole package is haute couture and it costs a lot because of all those components. Add the price for the brand name and alterations by masters of the trade whose hours are paid high and there you go. Because of all this it is unacceptable to me to not end up with a perfectly fitting dress. But I’m not actually a fan of either designer and it’s not really a big surprise.

  28. BB90 says:

    She looks beautiful!

    But the dresses were not tailored correctly.

  29. ValiantlyVarnished says:

    She looked stunning in both gowns. And she looked like herself. She didn’t change her own aesthetic and sense of style.

  30. WingKingdom says:

    I simply can’t understand the costs of these dresses. What is the number based on? I don’t believe it’s what was paid- no doubt the designer benefits from the exposure enough to do it for cost.

    I’m sure the costs were high: good fabric, secret fittings, travel costs for the dressmakers, hours of labor- but that doesn’t get me anywhere near the cost of a lovely house.

    • jetlagged says:

      I don’t know that we’ll actually ever know the true cost of the dresses, but the figure being thrown around sounds like it is in the right ballpark. The average couture evening gown costs in the six figures – even if it’s like this one and doesn’t have much embellishment. The fabric for the wedding dress wasn’t off-the-shelf, it was milled especially for this dress.

      I can’t imagine Meghan (or Charles, or whomever actually paid for the dress) having the nerve to ask for a discount. The bride is marrying into one of the wealthiest families on the planet, the least they can do is pay full price.

    • Violet says:

      @WingKingdom – oh the lovely house for them will run quite a bit more than the wedding ensembles, trust us! :) However, most of the fabrics for these gowns is specially woven to individual specs, everything is done by hand, the embroidery on the veil probably took something like 130 hours – and the baseline prices for all of this at a house like Givenchy probably starts high.

    • Egla says:

      They gave very specific numbers. I think those numbers are given for US to know if we will ask for a HC dress. I think some discount might have happened there but anyway we are talking rich people here that really can afford this and more. I think the fabric of the dress had no stretch in it that’s why the dress couldn’t be to tight otherwise she might not move at all. Anyway I think I expected her to wear something like that and the veil with the tiara were drama enough. All in all it was good. The second dress was good. Trust if it was to tight she would look cheap. Those dresses are modern enough without the need to be skin tight. It flowed over her body.

      My sister bought a wedding dress for 250 euros and paid a little something for the alteration in some places. it fitted her like a glove, she looked like a sexy princess, was what she wanted and she wasn’t sorry to give it away (to me) to use. I won’t as I don’t have her body and taste but that’s another story.
      IF I ever get married with a white dress I think I will have it made following my taste. No HC for me but there are people that can make me the kind of dress I want and it will be simple and elegant and one I can dance all night with. I am cheap like that. No dress changes for me.

    • PrincessK says:

      A hand stitched wedding gown costs a lot.

  31. tomatoejane says:

    The dresses fit. Again, the hubris of some commenters who think that a couture house doesn’t know how to fit a gown for how they want it to look. It didn’t fit the way you would have liked it to fit. Look again and take off your preconceptions. Like all art, the gown challenges as well as delights. Watching how it moves and her supreme comfort in it, I agree that it only improves over longer scrutiny.

    • Amy says:

      The vast majority of people responding to comments that the dress didn’t fit properly are saying that it’s because Meghan lost weight due to pre-wedding stress. That indicates that this is NOT how they wanted the dress to look, as it’s only how it ended up fitting on the day.

      And there are plenty of (often justified) criticisms of pieces produced by couture houses, whether wedding dresses or otherwise. That’s how fashion/gossip blogs work. And thank god for that, as I couldn’t get through a work day without Go Fug Yourself!

    • minx says:

      Respectfully disagree. And i wouldn’t accuse anyone of hubris because they had a different opinion. IMO they didn’t fit.

    • Olenna says:

      @tomatoejane,
      I so agree on the fit and construction. TBH, after her initial entrance to the church, most of my focus was on her beautiful face and that fabulous tiara! But, the wedding gown was structurally perfect for her; it matched her character with simplicity and strength. Plus, the classic lines gave an old world impression of elegance and refinement, and really fit the moment. The fabric was gorgeous and thankfully did not overwhelm; it needed no adornment.

  32. Vava says:

    I liked both gowns. The only thing I would have changed if it were up to me would be to shorten that veil. Just seemed too cumbersome to deal with.

  33. Lucy says:

    I honestly had no idea of what to expect, but these two simple, delicate, timeless gowns were a lovely surprise. Mostly because they didn’t distract me from her eyes, smile and face in general.

  34. TheOriginalMia says:

    Loved both dresses. Still can’t believe Stella was responsible for tht gorgeous, sexy gown. I thought Oprah’s dress was an aberration (I like it.), but no…she had a masterpiece waiting for us for later. Meghan got her money’s worth from those gowns. Classic, simple and elegant.

  35. Millennial says:

    My only beef with the wedding (and Will and Kate’s for that matter) is with the exorbitant cost and wastefulness. First, the two gowns thing – I get the desire for a huge cathedral gown but it’s not practical for a night time reception. Why not find one gown that can do the work of both? For all the talk the royal family does about sustainability, they don’t practice what they preach.

    And don’t even get me started on the flowers. The amount of flowers (and trees) used at both weddings is outrageous. The churches are pretty enough on their own. They do not need all that extra adornment.

    • ladida says:

      I totally agree. And then the pastor delivers a sermon about poverty on earth **awkward**

    • violet says:

      @Millennial – this is a conflict with the whole royal thing that I don’t think can be successfully resolved. Let’s face it: a marriage like this brings with it the high life and a level of privilege and luxury that most of us can’t begin to imagine. It’s just not realistic to figure that people who gain access to it aren’t going to use it and enjoy it. Goes with the territory. It’s the monarchy’s big challenge: to hide the fact that the people who really get the most benefit out of the monarchy are the monarchs and their families . . .

      • Addie says:

        In other words, they live a lie while they steal from the taxpayer whose income is forcibly removed to fund wasteful lifestyles. It can be resolved: cut the money and pay a modest salary to the monarch only. The rest have to earn a living. Place most of the palaces back into working museums/offices. Security provided only for official functions; private stuff, they pay. As for charity work which is just a filler to justify getting their hands on public money, that can be done in their own time. Just official engagements connected to the state need to be paid for. These people are not special, just bog ordinary, and rather lazy.

      • Violet says:

        @Addie – well, I’m not British so I’m observing from afar so it isn’t for me to say, really. It all made sense way back when religion and the monarchy seemed to be more tied up together. We don’t live in an era when Christianity was interwoven into daily life so much as it was then. Then the Enlightenment and democracy struck, and the monarchy had to walk a pretty fine line between moving with the times but retaining their privileges, a line it is still walking. I just don’t see it continuing to do that forever, no matter who marries in with the veneer of changing anything. Real change would have been Harry and Meghan declining the ducal titles and announcing that they did not want people curtseying and bowing for starters. I’ll tell you, I wasn’t thinking about it too much because of all the romantic aura around everything, which is really irresistible (I’m as much a sucker as anyone else for white veils tiaras and carriages) till I saw them zoom off in that blue Jaguar. Suddenly I thought to myself, oh yeah – that’s the real bottom line here! Somehow, it was the car that brought it home to me, not the cost of the dress or anything. Funny how that works sometimes.

    • Olenna says:

      The gowns I have no qualms with; haute couture costs, period. Diana’s dress was priced at about $115K, and Kate’s at $434K. The flowers were OTT, but there’s not much that could done about the security unless they’d married in a secluded location without media and televised broadcasts. Thankfully, the flowers were donated after the ceremony. http://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-21/royal-wedding-flowers-shared-out-to-charities/

  36. YankLynn says:

    I read this weekend that Doria wore a red Stella McCartney to the after party. Interesting tidbit from the CBS wedding coverage. Gayle King, long time friend of Oprah, was one of the wedding reporters. In pre-wedding chit chat with Tina Brown about which rumored designer made the dress Gayle assured the audience and the other reporters that it was NOT Stella McCartney. She knew but didn’t say then that McCartney and team had been re-making Oprah’s dress and perhaps they all discussed what dresses she was making and wasn’t making that night before the wedding.

  37. violet says:

    I agree with some that the fineness of material and detail on the dress just wasn’t visible on TV. That was somewhat true of the work on Kate’s dress in the back especially as well. As I live in NY, I was able to see Diana’s dresses at Sotheby’s years ago, and dresses I thought I hadn’t liked in photos were much more impressive in person when you saw the quality of the materials used and how they must have moved IRL.

    I think the wedding dress was a bit underwhelming on one hand, but on the other, I think it struck the right quiet note given this was the bride’s second wedding and she isn’t an ingenue. I loved the veil, but I agree with some who said the length was a little out of proportion to the train.

    Adored the McCartney dress. Re the huge aqua – I’m not crazy about it on Meghan, who is a much smaller more fine boned girl than Diana. Diana got this ring when she had to take off the large sapphire engagement ring, I think it was a “statement” replacement (“lost one big ring but got me another!”). But Diana was over 5’10″ with big hands and could carry it. I think it’s a bit OTT for Meghan. I’m sure however she wouldn’t have thought of refusing it, any more than Kate would have refused the large sapphire. Both rings reflect Diana’s taste for BIG.

    • Maum says:

      I agree the ring is OTT- it’s a touch Kardashian-esque.
      It would look perfect reset as a pendant.

    • homeslice says:

      Diana was tall and could pull off a lot with the clothes and jewels. Ducking for cover here, I don’t care the Aquamarine (it’s too big!) but I would kinda die for the sapphire…but I’m very parital because it’s my birthstone :)

    • grizzled says:

      I think the ring looks great worn as an evening party ring, even on Meghan’s fine bones. It would look absurd as an everyday sort of a ring.

      • Jayna says:

        I hate huge stones like that. I love aquamarine rings, though. But that ring is not pretty. I have friends who love big, bulky stones like that. I never have. I prefer a pretty setting and smaller stone.

        It’s just a matter of preference.

      • Violet says:

        @grizzled – I love aquamarine, but I have to agree with Maum, whose suggestion that the ring be reset as a pendant I think is a fabulous idea. The aqua ring also dwarfs the engagement ring (not to mention the hand), which wasn’t the case with Diana’s large sapphire because that was her engagement ring. I wouldn’t have picked either one, both are in the “cocktail ring” category and I’m not partial to those, but the sapphire one is definitely more appealing to me. Doesn’t the Queen have a whole aquamarine set, I could swear I’ve seen it?

      • Lizabeth says:

        The aquamarine ring is pretty large. It fit Diana’s frame and coloring but isn’t something I’d want to see Meghan wear too often. She seems to favor more “rustic” natural shades..brown, grey, camel shades, black, rust and burgundy reds, earthy greens, and so on. And those shades are quite flattering on her. A honking bright blue aquamarine–whether a ring OR a pendant– isn’t likely to go with her more “everyday” clothes unless she changes her usual color scheme for royal events. (And I hope she doesn’t.) Still, it was sweet of Harry to give it to her. And for formal events where she might wear a white or silvery gown it would look great.

  38. Tea Bags, baby! says:

    I think the best dress moments were when she got out of the car in the beginning and when she was standing on the steps after the ceremony. She obviously wanted all the focus on the effect of her train and then her face in the chapel (perfect for TV.) She had a big picture vision, I think.

    It is all a manner of personal taste obviously-I have friends who very much disliked the dress and trashed it as we watched on TV (which rather ruined the viewing) but then, their own wedding dresses this past year were that strapless lace mermaid number and strapless corset waist with big skirt you see on every bride on Say Yes to the Dress with their boobs up to their chin. Not my style but I said they were gorgeous on their wedding day and kept my comments to myself (up to this post haha.) Meghan’s reception dress is rather close in style and fit to my dress for my ceremony next spring and was totally my style.

    I think if we had seen the opposite-more ornate and lacy, the public would have said it was ostentatious or slutty or trashy or cheap or boring because it’s what everyone else wears. Nobody would have been happy wither way but at least this way, we were all definitely surprised.

  39. Joh says:

    I imagine the fit was almost exactly what was wanted.
    She looked beautiful AND comfortable and that is true luxury.
    It was a modern dress that gave a nod to hundreds of years of history.
    If we could see the workmanship and hidden details of the dress I’m sure the price is justifiable.

  40. Ally says:

    Some fabrics lend themselves well to lose-fit, some do not. Meghan’s second dress was not skin tight, but it fit her and moved beautifully.
    Her first dress bunched and wrinkled. This is not because the dress was not form-fitting, but because it was ill-fitting. I can’t believe it cost 200K.
    The suggestion by some commentators that people don’t like Meghan’s dress because we only want puffy, skin-tight princess gowns is ludicrous. (My wedding dress was neither a ball gown, not skin tight.)

    • minx says:

      Ally, I could have written this comment. I’m married 40 years in June and my dress was a long sleeved, simple scoop necked straight dress. It has actually has aged pretty well in pictures, considering it was the 70s, which were not exactly a high water mark for good fashion 😂. I’m tall and my dress was altered to fit me perfectly; it cost about $300 which was, I thought, scandalously expensive at the time.

  41. Catherinethegoodenough says:

    I was underwhelmed by both dresses at first glance but since Saturday I’ve entirely come around. Decades from now ppl will still be nitpicking about Diana’s (so poufy!) and Kate’s (those nipple darts!) wedding dresses, but Meghan’s will stand the test of time.

    Does the SMcC reception dress have a train? I can’t tell for sure. If so, I wonder how she managed that all night!

  42. Tea Bags, baby! says:

    The sketches were released and the dress definitely fit like in the design, so it was ‘meant’ to be that way.

  43. YvetteW says:

    I am a fan of the understated wedding gown. I still rave about Caroline Bessette’s dress. Coupled with a diamond tiara , what else do you need?

  44. Reece says:

    I loved both dresses! I’ve honestly been holding back arguing with people about how great the ceremony dress. The beauty of that dress is all in the simplicity and the construction.

    And yes I was surprised as well that the second dress was Stella McCartney. Even broken clocks are correct twice a day. lol

  45. Claire says:

    I felt the dress was tasteful but rather bland at the same time. The whole wedding was lovely. Her mom made me miss mine. Looking at her in the church gave me a warm feel and she appeared so demure. Loved the reception dress. I don’t find MM glamorous or pretty but she has a nice smile and sparkly eyes.

  46. Keira aka coconut says:

    Anyone know who the woman in black was unfurling the veil as MM got out of the car?

  47. pimo says:

    I’ve criticized and will continue to criticize her engagement dress. It was unnecessary, over the top, insensitive and the fog around who paid for it was really bad optics.

    But this is expected. She was going to wear a haute couture wedding dress and that is how much it costs. Same with the Stella dress. They are custom made, many appointments with the head designer herself, custom fabric, alterations, etc…

    Re: the Commonwealth angle, so colonialist, insensitive and offensive. White saviour complex. I just cannot.

  48. CynicalCeleste says:

    Proud moment or humbling moment, Stella? Decide!
    Pet peeves: 1 – people who don’t know the difference between humble and proud and 2 – who take to social media to go on about how humbled they are.
    Opposites, people.

  49. Mieke1963 says:

    I just read a piece about the after party. It sounded like everyone was having a blast. Could be all fantasy, but it sounded quite right. I guess Meghan and Harry did have the day of their lives.

  50. Dahlia says:

    Only one person really matters when it comes to thinking if she looked perfect or not: Harry. I’d say Meghan, too, but we women are good at finding all the flaws in ourselves. But more important than how she may have felt she looked, I think she came across as someone who seemed so happy and comfortable in their choices for that day. And that’s more important than the “perfect dress”.

    And you’re right, it’s time we stopped putting down other women, and embraced feminism, which isn’t about anything more than a strive for equality for all and inclusivity, and support. It’s okay not to like someone and what they say or stand for, quite another to attack on weight and looks.

    For me I thought she looked beautiful. And more important, they both looked in love. He looked at her like she was the world, and the most beautiful thing he’d ever seen in his life.

    The dress suited the day, the venue and the formality of the occasion, especially it being a royal occasion. Like it or not, they have their ceremony and rules they follow.

    The first was right for such a wedding, and the second a knock out. And they both looked radiantly happy throughout.

    And yes, I loved Harry cried.