Georgina Chapman will host a Marchesa show during NYFW in February

74th Golden Globe Awards

Georgina Chapman and Harvey Weinstein have both been “in hiding” for months now. I believe – strongly – that they are hiding separately. Weinstein was in some kind of weird rehab situation, and God knows where he is now. Georgina reportedly went home to England for a bit with their kids. She’s said to be reassessing everything, from her marriage to her business connections and more. She suspended her fashion line, Marchesa, in the wake of her husband’s outing as a rapist and a serial assailant/predator. Many thought that Marchesa wouldn’t even survive post-Weinstein, or that it shouldn’t survive post-Weinstein. Well, Chapman is hoping Marchesa will have some kind of comeback! I’m not sure about this, Georgina.

Georgina Chapman‘s Marchesa line will hold its first presentation since the New York Times and New Yorker published exposés about her husband, disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.

Chapman, who separated from Weinstein shortly after the allegations of sexual assault and harassment came to light, has remained in hiding; however, her brand is slated to host a fashion show on February 14, the final day of New York Fashion Week. The show will take place at 4 p.m. ahead of the Marc Jacobs presentation.

Marchesa’s last presentation took place during Bridal Week in New York on the same day that the New York Times exposed Weinstein, leading to his termination from his own company. The brand had been scheduled to host its Spring/Summer 2018 collection preview roughly a week after the scandal broke. At the time, Marchesa’s public relations team emailed members of the press saying the preview was postponed and that, “we will be in touch once a new date has been determined.” The reps didn’t get back in touch with a new date.

Chapman’s high-end label is already feeling the after-effects of the scandal. Jeweler Helzberg Diamonds dropped its engagement ring collaboration with the company because of its association with Weinstein. Although some former fans are protesting the brand, Chapman’s company received a $6 million investment from a mystery donor, and Meghan McCain donned Marchesa on her wedding day.

“The scandal erupted and everybody was like, ‘Are you going to keep the dress?’ And I was like, ‘Why should the two women designers be punished for a man’s disgusting behavior?” McCain, 33, told People of Chapman and business partner Keren Craig. “I just didn’t wanna feel like the people who had worked there and make their livelihood should be punished as well.”

[From Page Six]

Back in November, The Hollywood Reporter did a lengthy article about whether Marchesa can survive as it once existed, and the short answer was no, mostly because the majority of celebrities will never wear Marchesa on the red carpet again, and that was a large part of her business. But THR’s experts also said that if Chapman consciously downsized her brand to just include ready-to-wear retail and bridal, Marchesa could totally survive. I do think that’s the future of Marchesa at this point: bridal and ready-to-wear. She shouldn’t mess around with NYFW and trying to get celebrities to wear her clothes at this point.

Met Gala 2016 - 'Manus x Machina: Fashion In An Age Of Technology'

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

78 Responses to “Georgina Chapman will host a Marchesa show during NYFW in February”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Crowdhood says:

    I don’t hold her responsible, I’m sure he employed much of the same Intimidation tactics at home as he did st work. But who would wear this line now on TV?! Nobody wants to have THAT conversation on E! News! “I’m wearing Marchesa because Matt Damon said there was a hierarchy of abuse and anyway I’m obsessed with feathers and glitter.”

    • Enough Already says:

      Why are you sure he abused her? Asking for a friend.

      • Crowdhood says:

        It’s just my opinion. Generally, with patterns of behaviors like Weinstein’s, It isn’t something that can just be turned off. In my previous job I worked with a ton of domestic violence victims. Not an expert by any means, just going off of my previous experiences.

      • Jayna says:

        I read an article by a man worked for him in his offices, and Harvey was feared and horribly abusive towards those in his employ, men and women. There’s no wife his wife wasn’t on the receiving end of his violent temper. Who knows if he was physically abusive, but verbally and mentally abusing her and intimidating, when he’s doing it with his height and weight towering over her, almost certainly.

      • babykitten says:

        I agree that it’s very likely that she was abused. After the scandal I googled pictures of them throughout their marriage, and there was a general vibe I noticed when they were together with their daughter. While I doubt that she knew the extent of his crimes, I think only an abused woman would stay with a man like HW and his reputation.

      • Enough Already says:

        I think it’s limely but not a slam dunk. One of my college professors gave a lecture on the Madonna/Whore Complex and I’ve never forgotten it. To me this is like assuming Melania Trump is “obviously” being abused by Trump. cosby was famous for putting Camille on a pedastal. Jerry Sandusky’s wife angrily defended him and allegedly knew what was going on under her own roof. Some things are not as they seem.

        This is an unpopular opinion but sometimes beauty and the beast is actually Bonnie and Clyde.

    • FLORC says:

      I hold her responsible for making horrible gowns. Majority look itchy and unflattering. And I believe she was fine with it being a contractual obligation for Weinstein movie actresses to wear her clothes on the red carlet. She didn’t want it earned. I believe she felt it should be handed.

      Not a matches fan. Horrible Weinstein aside.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      We really have neither proof nor “rumor/gossip” that he was abusive to his wife. This appears to be more projection and the anti-feminists view that women are not capable of evil e.g. they are always victims. I don’t know if she was evil or not but she *was* a co-conspirator in forcing actresses in Harvey’s film to wear her clothes against their will.

      As Selma H. said about Harvey forcing her to be naked and act out a sex scene, she wouldn’t mind doing it on her own but doing it because Harvey “wanted” her to (taking away her choice) made her physical ill and needed to be medicated temporarily. Imagine dealing with Harvey’s harassment and then topping it off with him dressing you (via his wife), literally controlling what goes on your body. I’m sorry but I would find that disgusting and would burn that dress afterwards “accidentally”. Because I don’t even want to think about what he does to those dresses when they are returned.

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is what bothers me deeply. It is humiliating and violating to be forced and dominated without being able to fight back.
        Unless she says that he abused her, this narrative should be retired.

  2. RBC says:

    I have to wonder which celebrities would want to be seen in the audience at the fashion show? Also can you imagine the media mayhem covering the show ?

  3. Stephanie says:

    Read the room lady! FFS!

    • Heylee says:

      THIS! I’m not going to assume anything about her knowledge or complicity. But I sure as heck will not but anything from her even if I loved it. It is the principle of the matter for me and Marchesa cannot be divorced from Weinstein.

      • Sherry says:

        Exactly! As long as Weinstein has a financial interest in Marchesa, that line is doomed. He would have to sell every share to Georgina and her partner, but even then, the very name “Marchesa” will always be tainted with Weinstein and his abuse.

        They could probably continue to do well with bridal, but Marchesa’s days of being considered “couture” are done.

      • Amy says:

        Georgina isn’t even divorced from Weinstein yet. I don’t think she should do a show while she’s still Mrs. Weinstein. Get the divorce, distance yourself majorly from him on all fronts and then maybe do a show. I don’t know what kind of financial arrangement they had when married but did money Marchesa made go to Harvey or into a joint bank account ever? If so would it still go into the joint account while they’re separated but not yet divorced?

      • Skoochy says:

        @Amy, she gets more money in the divorce settlement if she hangs on for 12 more months. I’d absolutely stall and hang in there after what the f*cker has done to her career and her reputation because he couldn’t keep it in his pants. Bleed that swing dry, Georgina!

      • magnoliarose says:

        She knew what he was when she married him. She did this to herself. The sisterhood train left the station a long time ago.
        Keep it his pants?! Let’s try that again.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Lol seriously! There is a tone deafness here that makes me think that she really doesn’t get it. She lived in a bubble and continues to do so. She seems to be trying to be defiant about it and it will backfire on her.

    • SlightlyAnonny says:


      Sidenote: I think she knew something, at the very least, I think she had to be aware that all of these women were wearing her dresses in some part because of her husband, either through coercion or to curry favor, not because of the Marchesa aesthetic (gag).

      That said, in either case, if she were smart she would have thought “let me lay low, see if I can garner sympathy as the abused/unknowing/whatever narrative works wife and then stage a triumphant relaunch in two seasons.” There is no way she needs this money so she is either stupid, greedy, tone deaf, or morally bankrupt. Possibly all at once.

  4. Naptime says:

    Bridal and ready to wear have ALWAYS been her bread and butter. The company likely loses money on those red carpet looks. Having celebs wear her stuff is just PR, not a money maker.

    • Bridget says:

      You know that Marchesa basically only does gowns right? That’s why the red carpet is SO important to their business model – it showcases the gowns. They actually don’t do a ton of custom work, what we see is typically from their lines.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        Yes but her money was not made from red carpets and celebs. Those gowns were PR and free. The bulk of Marchesa’s business is bridal and private sales.

      • Bridget says:

        They didn’t make money on those specific gowns, but the red carpet was their primary means of advertising.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You can’t buy that level of advertising. The images are shown all over the world, and the actresses were often mocked or sometimes on the worst dress of the evening lists.

      • Bridget says:

        Everyone has duds sometimes. But those images are broadcast to millions of people and picked up on blogs. Millions of eyeballs for the price of one gown (and another woman’s dignity). It’s why Rachel Zoe was so prominent for a while there – her celebs were getting huge play.

  5. Snowflake says:

    I wouldn’t buy anything by her.

    • Call_Me_Al says:

      Why not? Because her husband is an abuser? That’s like saying, I’m not going to hire Mrs. X to (design my home, do my taxes, build my garage) because Mr. X is an asshole. It’s a bit like financial abuse.

      • Call_Me_Al says:

        She is not responsible for his behavior.

      • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

        She is not responsible for his behavior agreed, we are holding her responsible for *her* behavior in working with Harvey to coerce his actresses to wear *her* clothes. I’m sorry but she was his partner in forcing women to not have a choice in what is worn on their own bodies. Were she his male accomplice (like Harvey’s brother), I’m 100% your opinion would be different.

        Why should we hold her to a different standard because she’s a woman? Who do you think the secret source who just dumped money into her account is?

      • Korra says:

        She is not responsible for his abuse, but her brand was built on a decade of abuse, sexual assault, bullying and coercion; consumers are allowed to judge with their dollars. If consumers refuse to buy from companies who test products on animals, create hostile workplaces for women and minority workers, underpay their labor, create economic disparities or hurt the environment, why is this any different?

  6. Astrid says:

    The only women that wore her ugly dresses were probably coerced into wearing them on the red carpet.

  7. Enough Already says:

    Felicity Huffman stated that Chapman was complicit with actresses being forced to wear her gowns but when asked by Women’s Wear Daily she said she never knows who’ll be wearing Marchesa until she sees them on the red carpet. I just can’t.

    • KBB says:

      I don’t recall Felicity ever calling her complicit. She just said Harvey made her wear the brand.

    • Enough Already says:

      You’re right, I stand corrected. An LA fashion publicist said Chapman was complicit and when asked iabout the red carpet situation Huffman said “yes, it’s true.” This is not the same as Huffman going on the record saying Chapman knew actresses were forced to wear her gowns. It’s my opinion that she absolutely knew but of course it is just my opinion.

  8. Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

    “Where he is now”? I hope the police know where he is.

  9. Hollie says:

    She does still have to or should show at NYFW even if she’s not hoping for red carpet appeal. It allows buyers to get a first look before market and editors to see if there’s anything they want to pull for photo shoots. She’d be smart to keep it low key but even her RTW line will be $$ and sold into Barney’s bergdorfs etc so she’s going to need those people at her show

  10. Mia4s says:

    No interest or sympathy. She sold herself into marriage in exchange for a career because she’s mediocre. Oh and any celebrity or well known model who goes near this would be crucified. Disgusting.

    “a $6 million investment from a mystery donor”

    Was his name Rarvey Reinstein by any chance? 🙄

    • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

      Mystery as in **anonymous**, ** donor**? And not an **investor**? There is something fishy about this. Is it ok to accept such a large “donation”, not know where the money comes from?

      • KBB says:

        Lol I didn’t even pick up on the wording but you’re right. Is it mysterious to other people or to Georgina? She’d have to be an idiot to accept money from Harvey right now.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Lol. Rarvey the infamous zany mystery donor strikes again!

  11. Lucy says:

    Ugh, no. Terrible, terrible idea which will probably end up falling apart anyway.

  12. babykitten says:

    I would think that Georgina feels some responsibility to her partner and her employees. Any idea who the mystery donor was? I’m hazarding a guess – her brother-in-law?

    And of course she’s not hiding out with Harvey.

    • KBB says:

      Brother in law like Bob Weinstein or a sister’s husband?

      • babykitten says:

        Bob Weinstein. I have no idea why I think this, other than the fact that he has tons of money, and reason to feel affection (and maybe pity) for her.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Bob Weinstein has no heart.
        He was born with a rare condition that allows some human beings to walk among us with a big cold dark empty hole in his chest that somehow sustains him. Ask Ellen Barkin.

    • Katie says:

      Bob Weinstein’s a monster too. If it was him then it’s a pay-off to stay quiet.

      Chapman and her family are wealthy. It’s probably a family member, or it could just be her bailing out the company while trying to make it look like other people still believe in it.

  13. Snazzy says:

    I don’t know guys … I think she’ll be applauded as a survivor of sorts? If she sells herself as a “Harvey survivor” or somthing along that line?

  14. SoulSPA says:

    “Her brand is *slated* to host a fashion show on February 14, the final day of NYFW ahead of the Marc Jacob presentation”.

    Someone please help me out here, with thanks from my side as always. What does “slated” mean? Is it fait acomplit for sure-sure? Or maybe?

    And does the date – final day – mean anything in terms of significance of the designer? And the fact that it’d be before Marc Jacob’s, whose name I know from long back as being a reputable designer?

    • Enough Already says:

      Slated means scheduled with the understanding that plans could change. It is a word that reflects the dact that teachers used to write on slate boards with pieces of white chalk.

    • LAK says:

      There is an official fashion week branded diary that tells interested parties when and where to go view the shows. As a designer you want to be in that official diary because it’s publicity and legitimacy.

      Marchesa have been placed in the 2nd to last time slot in the diary for now. If everything holds ie no more negative publicity, investors pulling out etc then the show will go ahead as planned.

      Name-checking Marc Jacobs in their Marchesa PR is just to dazzle people because Marc Jacobs has nothing to do with Marchesa, but people will be impressed to know Marchesa is showing just before an establishment brand like Marc Jacobs.

      • Bridget says:

        The Marc Jacobs name check is just to try to convince us that they’re not in a dud timeslot, right?

      • magnoliarose says:

        It is a weird timeslot since Siriano and Naeem Khan are on Friday the week before. There are only 4 shows on that day, Michael Kors…oh now that makes sense they are connected through Project Runway. *drums fingers on desk in thought* Leanne Marshall is from Project Runway but not a big editor or buyer pull. I think there is some favor exchanging going on.

        New York is the first week of the exhausting month long non stop fashion month. NYC, London, Milan, Paris. The models who book a ton of shows are near collapse by Paris along with the buyers, editors and all the players in these frenzied circuses.

    • SoulSPA says:

      Thanks @Enough Already and @LAK.

  15. Neelyo says:

    Too soon, honey, too soon.

    Nobody’s in the mood for your frou frou bordello doily dresses.

  16. Georgia says:

    I don’t want to pull a MattDamon here but there’s a difference between having people forced to wear a dress ( which they don’t have to pay for anyway) and being complicit in rapes and abuses.

    Until Georgina’s knowledge of the situation is clear I wouldn’t cancel Marchesa and compromise the livelihood of all the designers, seamstresses and various employees that work for the brand.

    • Annabelle Bronstein says:

      Exactly this. Everyone in Hollywood uses their connections and leverage to get ahead. Honestly, most people in cutthroat industries do the same thing.

      If we still revere Coco Chanel despite mountains of evidence that she personally assisted Nazis to advance her business interests, I think Georgina can show at NYFW this year, despite HER HUSBANDS crimes. We just don’t know enough to assume that she was involved in any way.

    • Skoochy says:

      Yeah, same. Why are we shunning her business for his mistakes? We have no idea what she knew or whether she was even abused herself. I really hope she wasn’t, imagine having suffered at the hands of that swine and then have your career tank for his disgusting behaviour? But we don’t know what she knew, I’m not willing to dismiss her business like that (for all the red carpet looks I purchase frequently from Marchesa! But you get me)

  17. Wren says:

    Why not? I say she should go for it and try to make her business work. If she were a man, we’d all be cheering her on to throw herself into her business and make a success of it on her own. If she’s smart, she can get through this. There’s a very wide gap between “my husband encourages actresses to wear my designs” (which they do not pay for) and “my husband forces actresses to wear my designs with threats and coercion”. So far I haven’t been convinced that she was cognizant of the latter.

    Personally I think most of her dresses are absolutely hideous, but I hate a lot of fashion and think much of what I see in stores is super ugly, and people love it and buy it anyway.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      No, if she were a man she would be treated like Trump’s sons and business partners. Instead she is being treated like Ivanka Trump was in the beginning-an innocent women who is a victim of her father. Trump’s sons were always the villain from the beginning as is Harvey’s brother. No one in the press is caping for Harvey’s male associates or family members. But our society tends to infantilize White women until more details come out showing they are complicit. Every report about this women comes across as shady but we want her to be a victim.

      • magnoliarose says:

        This is what makes me want to scream. I can’t imagine why anyone would think a rapist’s fashion line should just go on ahead and show knowing everything reported. He is the money behind it and has always been a partner. It boggles my mind. He is directly connected to it and very involved with the brand.
        It is such a slap in the face of the victims and incredibly callous.
        I don’t think a man would get a pass. A WOC forget it.
        The awards are shown at this time…Oh well.

  18. Tiffany says:

    This is a company with employees who livihood depends on working, so of course I would like to see things up and running again.

    But also, maybe get a different designer from here on out. Ice skating chic is so 1990′s . Stop it !

  19. Bridget says:

    Marchesa was never organically successful. It was always driven by Harvey’s connections, both celebrity and business. By multiple accounts, Harvey was heavily involved in the label. Aside from the MASSIVE stigma now associated with the brand, do they even have the business connections to make it work? If I remember correctly, the label needed at least one big cash infusion, so it wasn’t making a ton of money as it was. It’s a line that is literally composed entirely of gowns. There is no resort or “regular” lines of clothing/handbags/etc (which are actually what makes the $$$ for fashion labels).

  20. Valiantly Varnished says:

    It’s way too soon to be doing a show and she is shooting herself in the foot by doing this. Who will come to that show?? Does she think any fashion publication would be caught sitting in the front row? Let alone celebs? She should just lay low for awhile and focus on re-structuring her business. She makes most of her money from bridal wear anyway. She could quietly start working with brides again and make a profit. But this just smacks of defiance and tone deafness

    • K says:

      Buyers and that is who the shows are for they are who matter. They are the only people who matter at the show because without buyers she can’t make money. Andy yep the stores will come they’ve come to other designers knowing situations involving the actual designer not a spouse.

      • Bridget says:

        1) I’d like to hear a comparable situation. Fashion is forgiving, if you have the right friends, but even then there are limits. Not to mention, Harvey was heavily involved in Marchesa.

        2) there are no buyers for Marchesa without Hollywood. As a brand, it’s relied heavily on its celebrity connections. Showing at fashion week does not guarantee that anyone will attend.

      • K says:

        Buyers for department stores and her non red carpet looks are different and sell. Bridal she is one of the top gets, and fashion is gossipy this will be the show to go to.

        Sorry for all those who don’t want it to be true but everyone is going to want to go. And I bet her fusion line is just fine.

      • Bridget says:

        What do you think Marchesa produces? It’s all gowns and a few cocktail dresses. There is no difference between their red carpet stuff and what someone like Saks would buy. Ready to wear only means that it’s not custom, and Marchesa is obviously not a couturier. The dresses that they try to get actresses to wear off the runway are the same ones that are being sold.

  21. K says:

    Fashion week is about designers showcasing for buyers and magazines not Hollywood. Hollywood comes because they get press but they don’t matter. She is working to show buyers to sell her line to places like BG, Saks, Neimans and Barney’s. If the line looks good enough she’ll get the headlines about overcoming Harvey.

    Also she is currently a featured designer in the Saks Christmas windows with the likes of Gucci, Prada, Jason Wu, Fendi, Naeem Khan etc. From a business stand point she should show. She might not be on the red carpet but she’s not dead.

    • magnoliarose says:

      No she shouldn’t. Not this year. Her brand is uniquely connected to Hollywood. It isn’t like others.

      • K says:

        Well then let Saks know because they have her featured, and trust me the fashion is good at keeping secrets secrets.

        Sorry but she employs a lot of people, she’s started the clothes and she’s having a show. I doubt stars will come but I bet that will make it great for actual people trying to work.

    • Bridget says:

      Marchesa was built on the Hollywood connection though. Their biggest asset was the exposure their gowns got on red carpets. Those celebs at the shows? Get the pictures in blogs and websites, giving a ton of free advertising. Do you really think that buyers will be that interested in Marchesa gowns on their own? Not so much.

      Also, that Saks window was likely a contract already in place before everything hit. Custom work for a specific theme. Marchesa is kryptonite right now.

      • K says:

        If Saks wanted to change they could and would have- this isn’t speculation. I work in Fashion. And whether orders are placed is completely dependent on current trend of sales not media sales, margins and what the collection looks like.

        But every buyer is going to want to be there this has a lot of gossip. The show will get a ton of press, if it’s good she will have over come and survived HW.

        People can not like it but it’s smart to have a show right now. Everyone is looking at her and they haven’t been for a bit.

        Again I’m not saying she is going to be a huge success I’m sayinf the show is a smart businesss move and that fashion over looks a lot.

  22. Pandy says:

    I’m picturing lots of shredded dresses … rips on seams etc. I know, mean joke. Seriously though, she would already have had most of these designs done I’m betting.

  23. Whatever says:

    Has she filed for divorce yet?