Meghan Markle’s $75,000 Ralph and Russo gown was ‘privately purchased’

'Suburbicon' Photo Call at the 74th Venice Film Festival

Yes, we’re still talking about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s smoldering engagement portraits. I would prefer to write about how hot they look together. But we’re going to talk about her clothes instead. In two of the photos, Meghan wore a Ralph and Russo gown from the AW 16/17 collection, described as a “black tulle gown with silk organza skirt, hand appliquéd with silk tulle ruffles and embroidered with gold feather thread-work.” The gown costs £56,000, or about $75,000. Which is A LOT. I’m not going to pretend that isn’t an insane amount to spend on one dress, especially a dress which… isn’t very versatile, you know? She can’t just wear this anywhere, to any event. Which isn’t to say that Meghan actually owns the dress…?

The Daily Mail checked in with Kensington Palace to see if they could any details on whether Meghan borrowed the dress, or whether she purchased it herself or someone purchased it for her. KP says, officially, that the gown was “privately purchased.” Which is purposefully vague. We know that British taxpayers didn’t pay for the gown, at least, but I seriously doubt Meghan bought the gown herself. I think it’s more likely that it was purchased for her by Prince Charles. Charles also buys all of Kate’s clothes too.

As you can imagine, Meghan’s expensive dress is already causing some controversy. The hardcore Kate fans are clutching their pearls over the idea that someone else in the family might be spending Charles’ money on extravagant clothing which will rarely be reworn. Anti-monarchy types are critical of Meg’s “let them eat cake” vibes. And then some people just shrug and think “hey, we don’t know what’s really going on here, let’s just have one nice thing without everyone pissing all over it.”

In the black-and-white closeup engagement portrait, Meghan wore a £690 Victoria Beckham sweater from VB’s 2018 ready-to-wear collection. While that’s an insane amount to spend on ONE sweater, I hope she does own that piece now and I hope she gets a lot of use out of it. A classic cream-colored sweater will always be in style.


Photos courtesy of Alexi Lubomirski via Kensington Palace.

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

392 Responses to “Meghan Markle’s $75,000 Ralph and Russo gown was ‘privately purchased’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Alexandria says:

    I like these two. But that price is a mis-step for them.

    • Annarotica says:

      I can’t believe they didn’t consult you first before they purchased it.

    • Squidgy says:

      I agree. It is so stupid to think that a $75,000 would not cause any controversy.

      • Veronica says:

        I’m reading people on twitter defend her from Richard Palmer’s tweets – it’s amazing how most Americans have no clue about the BRF. They are all saying that designers will give her gowns from now on, not understanding that they aren’t supposed to accept them once married, and that she can do what she wants. She’s an adult.
        No understanding of how much marrying into this family consumes you. Even your children if you have them and end up divorced.
        Americans are in for some surprises over this marriage.

      • FLORC says:

        As an American… Many Americans are surprised by obvious or apparent truths. Even worse if you get your news from tabloids. Which many do when it comes to British royal love lives.

      • KLO says:

        Its none of my business either but this amount for that dress is insane. Ten k, okk. But 75 k is not sane. Did the seamstress work on it for a year every day? Smh

    • annabanana says:

      At the rate she’s going Kate will look like the thrifty one. So tone deaf, was really looking forward to her and believe she will succeed as a royal, not anymore. She’ll most likely be another kate or much worse

      • Alexandria says:

        @Annabanana, I think let’s give Meghan some time. It’s still early to judge, with regard to her work ethic.

      • SoulSPA says:

        I slightly agree. Tone deaf 100% but the BRF are not known for their smarts or respect to the taxpayer.
        As for Meghan, I will give her the benefit of the doubt, for now. Since she’s not a royal yet and I’m afraid that until she starts working as a royal all discussions will be around her fashion and looks. And comparing her with her future SIL unless the fail came up with more imaginary dirt.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It took me a long time to feel negatively toward Kate, and I offer the same here. The dress will end up auctioned or in a museum. It is the only British Haute Couture Houses to be able to show in Paris during couture week since the Edwardian era.
        The French are very strict about it, and everything has to meet the standard.
        75,000 for a couture dress is not out of bounds or unusual. They are considered art.

      • Megan says:

        It’s Melania Trump level tone deaf.

      • AnnaKist says:

        $75 000 for an Australian designer is unheard of. Sure, we have some talented designers here, but I’m finding it hard to believe this price. It’s the equivalent of 10% deposit for a half-decent flat or an average-sized, unrenovated house in an outer-outer Sydney suburb. I’m holding off on the judgment, until the price is confirmed. I’ll be extremely disappointed 😞 if someone thought paying that much for a bloody dress was not utterly obscene.

      • Jt says:

        You know for a fact she was aware of the cost of the dress then…
        Let’s not make blind assumptions.

      • FLORC says:

        It’s expensive, but I’m not seeing how it’s outrageous. This is a big event. Engagement photos. Like wedding photos. You glam it up. Especially at this level.
        If she keeps it up. Crazy outfits. Tone deaf behavior. I’ll side eye it. Like Kate. She gets time. A few passes.

        The thought is this will become some way to benefit a charity.

        We will see.

      • LAK says:

        Florc: has she or KP actually said it will benefit charity or is this wishful assumption by the public?

      • FLORC says:

        No one in an official capacity to my knowledge has said this. I’m assuming. Others are assuming.

        Thought process is much like other gowns or fashion accessories, this gown will be used in some form to benefit a cause. Down the road.

        And I’m hoping for this. Because 75k… ouch. Also, there’s talk and a spotlight on this dress. To auction it or put it on display for charitable purposes. Easy.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Couture dresses like almost always end up in a Museum. It isn’t the sort of thing you can wear over and over again.
        I doubt she will be wearing couture on a daily basis, but some women regularly buy couture. Suzanne Saperstein, an American was the number one buyer of couture for well over a decade. Daphne Guinness, Lynn Wyatt, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, Queen Rania, Susan Gutfreund and other socialites and royalty who aren’t well known or prefer privacy are loyal customers.
        It is all handmade, and some gowns can easily cost 150,000 and more. Daywear is easily 25,000. They are considered investments because they appreciate over time; fashion auctions break records with mint condition couture like early Chanel, Charles Frederick Worth (English born, Paris originator), Patou, Poiret, Dior, Balenciaga, Vionnet, etc.
        The price was leaked to smear when they know full well the nature of the dress and the nod to British designers. They also know she is going to donate it or auction it eventually.

    • AV says:

      The price is a misstep, period. They paid as much for *that* hideous nasty frock as they could have for a small home. That dress is so g-d ugly I want to set it alight. The top looks like bedazzled UnderArmor, and that skirt is straight out of a cleaning cupboard. I just don’t get it. The photos are gorgeous, but that dress is absolutely hideous. No dress costs $75,000. It’s so stupid I’m about to spit nails. I love this lady, and I’m SO excited for them to be getting married (gimme that live tele-feed, baby!) but….my god.

    • Sherry says:

      I don’t agree. It’s the dress that was her engagement photo dress. She should own it. She has great taste and as long as it’s a private party who purchases the dress, who cares how much it cost?

    • HeidiM says:

      Perhaps Harry bought it for her? He’s not poor in his own right. And if he wants to lavish her with a few things why not?

      • Saucy says:

        @HeidiM (1) because H doesn’t buy it for her, we do out of our money in a circular way out of the Duchy (his fathers ‘estate’ essentially funded by us, the taxpayers) (2) the why not and the tone deafness is because of the austerity the government has put us in for the last 8 years which has resulted in increased homelessness, foodbanks in a first world country whilst the queens unemployed children and grandchildren and their spouses go round for Christmas lunch on a Wednesday when the rest of us plebs are at work paying for it! I’m a proud Brit but this is an embarrassing institution that needs to end.

      • Dana Marie says:

        For $75k I’d rather have been gifted real estate….or jewelry. But real estate to me is the way to my heart.

      • Unoriginal Commenter says:

        @HeidiM–I believe that KP is vague on purpose, which is frustrating. People have no idea if this was purchased by Harry’s inherited money, Meghan’s private money, or Duchy money. I mean, Meghan isn’t crazy wealthy, but she’s likely bringing a $1-2 million in to the marriage and marrying in to, what is it? Like $30 million that Harry inherited (likely without a pre-nup). Maybe she decided she didn’t mind shelling out $75k of her own money to get this dress because she loved it so much (if she even paid the full amount).

        All that being said, it doesn’t matter when considering it from @Saucy’s POV–it does look especially tacky in light of austerity and such. Of course, I am in the US so my opinion on this matters very little. I really liked the photos, though. Probably would’ve have liked them just as much if she was wearing a $100 dress, however.

      • Cranberry says:

        @Unoriginal Commenter
        Meghan doesn’t have enough $ to buy this dress herself. She made some good $ as a supporting-primary character on a cable tv show for a 7ish years. Despite a good income, it likely cost quite a bit to keep up her charming lifestyle among the well-connected Canadian set. A $75K dress would have taken a big chunk of her own savings. I highly doubt she is using any of her own $ if she is as clever as I think she is. After all, there’s bound to be a prenup.

      • Odette says:

        Meghan seems to be into fashion — I could totally see her buying this as a present to herself. She just finished a 7-year stint on a show, she’ll probably never have to buy a house or a car — so she bought herself a fancy dress as an “end of job” present. Don’t see the big deal here.

      • Kaz says:

        Saucy – Harry inherited a lot of money from his mother. He has private funds which are nothing to do with our taxes.

      • Tina says:

        Harry inherited about £10m from Diana. Not enough to spend £56k on a dress without a qualm.

    • Veronica says:

      This is a major misstep. And unless Meghan bought it, or Harry bought it from his inherited money, the taxpayer DID pay for this. All of the funds for the royals, including wardrobes, come out of the Duchy, which belongs not to the Crown, but to the people. Not A Sugar explains this all of the time.
      I was just reading about homelessness increasing in England and the NIH making cutbacks, so this was the height of stupidity. A dress or gown under $1000 would have been fine.
      They SHOULD have asked one of us. We live in the real world. It is obvious neither Harry nor Meghan has the slightest clue about being “normal” as he supposedly yearns for.
      Next up – their vacation after New Years.
      And please, before you say how this is fine, be fair. If Kate did this, people would have had her head. And no one knows if Meghan will be a workhorse, or end up just like the rest of them.

    • Payal says:

      Not only that but one’s wearing a ordinary suit and the other’s wearing a full-on evening gown with an illusion top and feathery ball gown skirt. I was expecting her to have better taste than Waity.

    • Mika says:

      Meghan is worth about 7million dollars. She has made millions on her own. She unlike Kate had this dress in her wardrobe already . She had this dress last year. This is a grown woman, who made her own millions and can wear the beautiful dresses she acquired or purchased herself as long as they are lovely and she loves them. What the hell is the problem?

      Kate did not work or buy any of her own clothes ,Kate was basically supported by her parents during the dating years or kept by William during the dating years. I respect the hardworking Meghan and she can wear any beautiful dressed SHE paid for or earned as long as it looks beautiful.

      I think it’s faux outrage. I’ll be damn if someone is going to tell me I can’t wear a outfit I bought when single with MY Money. Meghan looks stunning. I doubt the public was concerned about her gown, it was basically the hate fuelled Daily Mail. Always looking to create something.
      Meanwhile Kates wardrobe cost for just a few outings are astronomical and she never worked or paid for a dress , her parents paid for her and then Charles. F

      • Veronica says:

        Where did you read Meghan bought this last year? I didn’t see anything about that anywhere.
        And Kate has NEVER spent 75K on a gown for pictures. Her wedding gown was expensive, but not just a regular gown.

      • Snappyfish says:

        The Duchess is Cambridge’s parents paid for her dress. When it was in the exhibit after the wedding it wa noted the dress was on loan from The Middleton’s who paid for it.

      • inthekitchen says:

        @Veronica – Kate may not have worn a 75k dress, but she did purchase a 75k Cartier necklace…so what’s the difference?!

        Actually, the difference is that Charles (AKA the tax payer) most certainly paid for the necklace while Meghan’s dress was most likely not purchased using tax payer funds. My guess about Meghan’s dress is that the Suits studio purchased it for her as a wedding/engagement gift.

        Another difference? Kate could certainly have worn that necklace several times over – since it was very plain and could go with many different outfits – but we’ve never seen it again! So, a one and done 75k necklace.

        But, regardless of who paid for Meghan’s dress, I agree with others that it was tone deaf and way too expensive…just like Kate’s necklace.

    • HIDI says:

      what makes you think that the price is a MISSTEP for them , i feel that costly gowns are usually worn by the royals (even minor ones ) in OUTINGS

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      Yes, I adore Harry and Meghan and I applaud them as a couple, but I found this dress to be wildly inappropriate to the occasion (an engagement photo, ffs)–and honestly, I’m surprised at Meghan for this misstep. I’m not a royal, nor do I know much about RF protocol, but in all except this, she has shown so much savvy and social conscience that it makes no sense to me…it’s a bit like the over-compensation of a poor country cousin who finds herself overdressed to an embarrassing degree when she shows up for a visit with wealthy, aristocratic in-laws at their country place and finds them all dressed in outdoorsy garb and ready to go on a stroll in their wellies, headscarves, and anoraks

      But all that said, though I agree with those who don’t love the skirt half of it, I think the top of the dress is lovely and Mehgan looks gorgeous. She would have looked pretty smashing in this dress at a ball.

  2. Annarotica says:

    The monarchy isn’t funded by taxpayers.

  3. Inas says:

    Mom loved Diana all her life , I showed her Harry fiancé, she did not like her . She Said so actressy and like to pose. Not so natural despite her simple style.

    4 me she has full right to wear what she wants no matter the price.
    But I do feel she’s lil annoying with poses.

    • Hollie says:

      With all do respect … she is an actress. And these photos were purposefully taken very differently from will and Kate’s to either play into that, show more personality, or whatnot. Royal lovers are so insane with this pose and elegancey drama.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      She’s an actress, she can’t help with the posing for the camera, All celeb’s do it, they are actually taught how to pose on red carpets etc..

    • Snowflake says:

      People are a lot more used to posing for pictures these days. Snapchat, Facebook, online dating. People post pictures all the time. Plus, she’s an actress so she’s had to pose for headshots. On the red carpet. This reminds me of how some people say Obama is a con man because he’s well spoken. I don’t think posing is the real issue

    • annabanana says:

      Of course she’s posed, they’re taking a picture. Is she just supposed to stand there?

    • SoulSPA says:

      There are poses and poses, models and models, photographers and photographers. Very, very few are that blessed with beauty and the ability to express something through image. And few photographers have raised picture taking at an art level.
      The pics are meh. What is important besides the optics is actual good and steady work. #royalprivilege #publicfunds #whenthehoneymoonisover

    • Beth says:

      These overdramatic poses look fake and stiff. Her clutching and always hanging onto him looks a little silly too.

      • Rosalee says:

        If they didn’t touch one another you would be complaining they’re too cold and stiff your magic eight ball said they would divorce within five years. Have you seen people in love? They can be very physical attentive towards one another. Of course Megan is more comfortable in front of a camera she maybe an actress but she’s not acting in love, she actually is in love with Harry. I watched the footage of Megan’s first meet and greet in Nottingham they were delightful as a couple and very attentive to the crowd and each other. As for the dress and sweater she got a bargain..the coat she wore at the first engagement photo shoot was sold out in minutes. Designers want her to wear their clothing they will discount her clothing by a large percentage depending on the event or announcement. Right now these photos have saturated gossip sites and media outlets and people want to know who designed her clothes. It was reported years ago Diana saved British designers. Megan put two Canadian companies in the international spotlight, Birks must be delighted.

      • island_girl says:

        Oh my goodness. Imagine that, a woman holding onto her future husband. The gall!

    • Nancy says:

      Magnoliarose: From the old SNL days EXCUSE ME!!!! Lol. Okay, Kate won’t be the Queen, but honey she will be married to the King. She may have given birth to a future King or Queen, the woman earned her swag!

      • magnoliarose says:

        Yeah, I know that skit, and you made me laugh inelegantly. Lol
        I do love the little sugar dumplings George and Charlotte.

        If the monarchy survives after Charles, I hope she has figured it out. When Charles ascends, and if she hasn’t changed then I would probably defend her because it would be a case of she is just who she has always been.

    • Cee says:

      If you think Diana did not pose or use her angles and image to her full advantage, you’re very naive. Diana was THE image/PR player in that family.

    • Cranberry says:

      I get that vibe from her too. I’m not against Meghan at all, and overall it’s good that the stuffy royal monarchy gets a good jolt of the modern, diverse world. But, sorry, Meghan has been coming off a bit too celebrity-actressy. Not stuffy to be sure, but not so natural and artless either.

      My take is that Meghan has always been ready for stardom. She’s always used her charm/acting skills to carve some celebrity career path whether as big league Hollywood actress or as tv and lifestyle celebrity. Imo, she kind of treats this as what it would be like if she were an Alist famous Star with fans around the globe aka Nicole Kidman, Taylor Swift, J-Lo, etc. It might seem the same type of role as a royal with all the adoring fans everywhere, but it’s not quite the same.

  4. Talie says:

    No way in hell they paid sticker price…but I’m surprised it wasn’t borrowed. She’s probably a sample size. Anyway, I’m sure she’ll wear it to some function just to make a point.

  5. Other Renee says:

    When you’re trying to endear yourself to the people of a country experiencing economic troubles wherein many citizens consider the monarchy a financial burden, perhaps such an expensive gown was not the best choice regardless of who paid for it.

    I believe Kate’s Blue Issa engagement dress cost under $600.

    PS Why is she often pictured hanging on him?

    • Annarotica says:

      One would think that maybe she just wanted to wear the gown of her choice in her engagement photos. Meghan Markle doesn’t exist for your consumption. She doesn’t need to be sterilized and striped of personality in order to be digestible for the masses. I love her dress, I don’t care what she spent on it, and it’s her life. She’s harming no one, remember that.

      • Bella Dupont says:


        I’m a massive fan of Meghan’s as well, but damn….this was a bad choice. Its the exact opposite way to ingratiate yourself with Britain (which is going through a pretty hard time in many ways).

        What’s even worse for me is that I don’t think Meghan’s beauty/effervescent nature is enhanced by her clothes or style…..i think she shines DESPITE her weird/ill chosen fashion picks. I think the picture could have looked just as nice, with something that cost say #500 or maybe at the most, #2,000. So this was an own goal in more ways than 1.

        The point is that despite the fact that she can afford to wear the absolute most expensive clothes on earth, she has to CHOOSE not to because it really encourages the negative narrative some people are desperately trying to build up about her: Superficial actress, gold digger, neglectful of her parents despite being rich herself, only with Harry for the $$$….etc. It just reads very, very badly.

        She has to be a lot more disciplined and savvy than that. I’m pretty disappointed and am just hoping there’s a reasonable explanation in the end. (Like maybe they got the price of the dress wrong).

      • Mrs. WelenMelon says:

        MM is just a woman in love so leave her alone, eh?

        But the entire point of publishing these engagement photos is to offer them for public consumption, scrutiny, and comment. These are not photos taken for family and friends. They are for publication.

        The hope is public reaction will be positive. There are ways to game that. It would have been more astute to choose something less pricey.

      • milla says:

        She is about to be member of brf. Her life is not about her only, but about millions who are still supporting the monarchy. Rules are not the same for a working woman and for a royal. She has duties. This is just a beginning.

        Harry may be 6th in line, but he is loved by the Brits. Every move they make in public will be watched and analysed. Meghan will be treated same as Kate and it is mostly snarky and unflattering . People will always find sth to criticize. But that is the price for getting into that family. Men always have it easier.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Daily Mail is the one who put out the amount it would cost if sold to normal people, but it is very unlikely she paid the full amount. That said, why do I see outrage about this engagement dress, but so many of the same people “concerned” about the potential cost of this dress don’t also freak out that Kate annually spends about 200k per year on outfits, most of them looking alike. Kate has never had a job so she never actually used her own money but her parents and then Charles. Meghan could easily have purchased this dress if it was discounted since she had this thing called a job for many years.

        I think criticizing what Meghan spends once married and paid for by Charles is fair game but right now, that is not the case. And it’s based on a sketchy number by the Daily Mail too.

      • Veronica says:

        If she wants the British taxpayer to support her, she had better start thinking of what they think of her choices or the “breath of fresh air” she will bring to the royal family is its demise.

      • minx says:

        Well, no, when you are part of the “royal” family you ARE there for public consumption, that’s the whole point. The public allows them to live this lavish life. But irritate the peasants emough and they could storm the Bastille, so to speak.

      • Bella Dupont says:


        I get you’re trying to defend Meghan and I applaud you for that, I’m constantly doing that myself.


        This is serious stuff…’s the one thing that will make her more despised than you or I could ever imagine if she’s not careful. If you know her personally, you better tell her – she’s not in the same situation as Kate. Kate is the future Queen and is English and white. Meghan is a woman of colour and marrying someone 3 rungs lower than the future king…..the level of tolerance for their excesses are is just COMPLETELY different. Even Diana was criticised for her outlandish spending on clothes, so people take note.

        I think she’s a wonderful lady and has real potential to be the first Meghan (not even the next Diana)…..but her path there is very, very narrow and unnecessary stuff like this will turn her into the next Fergie (heaven forbid).

      • CMiddy says:

        I agree with Bella DuPont – I love Meghan and am not a fan of Kate at all but this feels like a miss-step. Of course she wants to look amazing in photos but god she would look fantastic in Topshop! Noone was expecting high street – but that amount of money (even if comped which is what I suspect – trade for wedding dress) was always going to get the attention of the media here … feels very “off-brand”, not least because (as others have mentioned) the political / social climate in England is absolutely toxic at the moment. Happy holiday season all!

    • Squidgy says:

      “Why is she often pictured hanging on him?” – she most likely choose that pose to create an impression that they are very tight and close together. She does come off a bit posing but she is an actress.

    • Snowflake says:

      Omg, she’s in love! Jfc. If she wasn’t touching, y’all would comment and say she didn’t love him. I hope she knows what she signed up for. Poor woman

    • SoulSPA says:

      She was hanging on to him also in the engagement interview and the pics taken in that occasion.
      I was late in seeing the video from behind the scenes re: VF cover shoot. Mindbogglingly touchy and smiley and feeling good with the photographer too. I felt second hand embarrassment. I’ve never seen someone like that, in public, with a person who’s not their partner. Or on the red carpet to sell movies.
      She also shows she’s wearing the pants. She knows it, he knows it, she’s in.

    • Redgrl says:

      @other Renee – well put! She’s is often clinging on him in photos. Hopefully just nerves – iirc the clinging was worse in new situations like the engagement announcement which would be nerve- wracking…

    • magnoliarose says:

      I wouldn’t use Kate as a fashion example. I thought you guys didn’t want to compare the two? Lol.

    • Maria says:

      I agree. It’s not a good start. Sends the wrong message.

    • Veronica says:

      Totally clueless and tone deaf.
      Not much hope for any difference from the rest of the lazy gang here.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Kate’s wedding dress cost over 100k….

      • Veronica says:

        As Bella DuPont above pointed out above, this is dangerous territory for Meghan to be wading into. Kate will be the future Queen or consort. I don’t know the rules. She is also British. Meghan is marrying someone 3 steps down the ladder, and is not British. Any excesses on her part will not be tolerated, and this is a dangerous path for her to be starting down. If she asked me how to undo this PR mess, I would advise her to auction the gown off for a British charity and buy a wedding gown under 10K.
        The only person who is happy about this PR for Meghan at the start of her marriage is Carole Middleton. Carole is chuckling right now.

      • CeeCee says:

        Kate’s wedding gown is an entirely different topic. She was marrying the future king in a nation-building celebration.

      • notasugarhere says:

        $400,000 not $100,000, plus she had a separate custom reception dress. No matter whom she was marrying, that Madonna inspired pointy-boob knock off of Grace Kelly’s gown was not worth that much. Not even for all the handmade lace in the world.

  6. Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

    75,000? I want to believe an extra 0 was added by mistake? 75,000 for this dress seems utterly absurd.

  7. gnerd says:

    Barely care about the Royals. HIGHLY interested in how this write up would have read if Kate bought a 75k dress lol

  8. Erinn says:

    I have to say, I love the fern like embellishment on that dress. It’s insanely pretty – and it makes for a great photo.

    Some of their photos are kind of awkward – the one where she’s clasping on his arm and he’s leaning over a bit is kind of silly looking. Nobody does things like that naturally – especially not sober. Not at all saying she’s drinking because she’s clearly not drunk for her engagement photos – but the only time I’ve seen people look as exaggerated as that are college kids who are laughing their asses off and stumbling out of a bar.

    The photo of the two of them on the stairs though – that is just insanely beautiful.

    I’m not someone who thinks a photo of a (posed) second in time is indicative of a relationships health. Most of us aren’t going around having professional photographers instruct us on how to pose (because let’s face it – that’s what’s happened here. A professional had a huge hand in making sure the composition of the shot and their pose was *just right*) so I’m sure there are plenty of family photos of myself and my husband that the people who are *body language armchair experts* would be saying our relationship is doomed. Photos like that exist for the last 13 years I’m sure. We’re both somewhat awkward/self-conscious when the attention is on us – and it only gets more apparent when a camera is hauled out. I think for a future anniversary we’re going to legit have a couple of drinks (not drunk) and have some photos done because I think that’s about the only way we won’t be overly awkward.

    Both Meghan and Harry are used to having cameras around, and being front and center in their daily/working lives – so if THEIR photos had been anything other than poised and relaxed I’d have been really surprised.

    But damn – that photo of them on the stairs. I want one like that. And I want the top portion of her dress – just something slightly different for the bottom half.

    • magnoliarose says:

      It was done by hand. I didn’t even research her dress, but I like that Meg wore a dress from the only British design house that is allowed to show for Paris Haute Couture week. For a design house that is the highest honor for fashion designers and the dresses are museum-worthy.
      This one will be in a museum, and it will hold up forever because of the quality. The Russian Imperial dresses are still beautiful as are Marie Antoinette’s and Empress Josephine’s. The costume museums in Paris, New York, Italy and Japan, are incredible.
      The Smithsonian First Lady exhibit is fascinating, and some dresses are so drab but then once I found out who the wearer had been it made sense.

      • SilverUnicorn says:

        “It was done by hand”. The price of the dress is OTT anyway, even if embroidered by hand.

      • SoulSPA says:

        I slightly agree @SilverUnicorn. The price is insane and choosing it was tone deaf. But big fashion houses command high prices because of their reputation, designers, quality materials, respected and highly-skilled workers, the high number manhours put into that particular piece of work, number of people involved, their salaries, high overhead costs because that dress must have been made in reputable workshop. So in a way I can see why it cost a lot of money but still, that price is very high. That said I’ve never heard of the fashion house before and I still don’t know how reputable they are.

      • SilverUnicorn says:


        I worked for the three of the most famous luxury designers in the world (one was Gucci), and I rarely ever saw a price like that for a non-bridal dress (mainly luggage, bags, anything made with leather or jewels), even made by hand.

        I am also surprised the dress was not donated to her for free, given her media exposure at the moment.

      • SoulSPA says:

        @SilverUnicorn, I do appreciate your comment. Many thanks 😃

      • Eve V says:

        Thanks for all the info you’ve provided in your comments on this post. I personally love the dress, and am glad it will probably wind up in a museum.
        Since I am extremely doubtful that this dress was purchased at full price, and it could have been purchased by Megan herself, I am going to hold off on criticizing her. These are her engagement photos! She should wear whatever she feels beautiful in! And everyone saying that Kate would be torn apart if she had done this– um, yeah, cause the only thing she has done since getting married is spend astronomical amounts of money and doing the bare minimum-work wise.

      • Olenna says:

        @Eve, well said. The amount of repeat criticism from some people here over the estimated cost of a dress and agonizing over its *perception* is bordering on obsessive. We get it, folks; you think it’s too extravagant. Well, it’s Meghan’s life, not yours. She’s not a royal and most Americans and Brits don’t care. When and if she f*cks up as a royal, bleat on about it all you want. It won’t change anything, just like it hasn’t changed anything said about Katie. And, as if going on about it daily in those royal gossip sites isn’t enough, some folks come and try to press their faux concerns on another audience. They’ve managed to suck the entire entertainment value out of following this engagement on CB because they’re overly invested in finding fault in her. Just like with Katie, I’m giving MM the benefit of the doubt before she marries into that jacked-up family. But trying to follow this engagement on CB with some lighthearted good cheer is obviously not going to happen.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I know what you are saying SilverUnicorn but couture is never sold in stores, and you have to be well connected even to get a look at a collection and what the designer is offering. It is a very private exercise.

        You are welcome. If you get a chance to see a world-class costume collection you should. These dresses are painstakingly stored and cleaned, sometimes repaired but they are so fragile they usually can’t allow them to be exhibited year around.

        I am here for good lighthearted cheer. I like glamour and wouldn’t have said a word about Kate if she had bought some lovely couture pieces early on. If she stepped it up, I would think she should since she repeats. A few beautiful couture daywear dresses, coat, and separates would be nice, and she could recycle them for years. 100,000 is half her allowance and she would get a ridiculous discount and could add some pieces every year.

    • babykitten says:

      “Some of their photos are kind of awkward – the one where she’s clasping on his arm and he’s leaning over a bit is kind of silly looking. Nobody does things like that naturally – especially not sober. Not at all saying she’s drinking because she’s clearly not drunk for her engagement photos – but the only time I’ve seen people look as exaggerated as that are college kids who are laughing their asses off and stumbling out of a bar.”

      I think Harry is much more touchy-feely than William, and Meghan seems very physically affectionate as well. But the top pic of her clinging on his arm does seem a little awkward. He’s kind of pulled over, and rather than clasping her hand, his hand is just kind hanging there like he wasn’t sure what to do.

  9. Josie says:

    I just think the current trend of reporting a bunch of random twitter comments isn’t actually reporting. It’s not much different than judging MM’s popularity based on the DM comments section. “Random people say random things” — OK then.

    I thought this was a bit of a throw back to the days when royal engagement photos actually included a ballgown portrait. Diana did it, Sarah Ferguson did it, Anne did it. I think they’ve misread the room to think now is the moment to bring that luxury back, but whatever. “Royal family spends royally on wasteful extravagance” also isn’t news.

    (I’m in the States and a small-r republican.)

  10. Beth says:

    I don’t care if it’s a woman I admire or dislike that’s wearing the dress, that’s an insane waste of money. Was 24 karat gold thread used to sew it together? That money could have been used for so much more important things, not an overpriced dress for a few pictures

    • Des says:

      Welcome to the world of haute couture. You will be saddened to hear there is an entire industry of these gowns and they support hundreds of thousands of craftspeople around the world who do indeed work with gold and silver thread among other high priced materials. Whatever you do, please do not subject your delicate sensibility to fashion blogs which are full of this kind of excess.

    • Enough Already says:

      Art is subjective and fashion at this level is indeed art (beaus arte). Life, in general, is tolerable because of art.

  11. SoulSPA says:

    Don’t they just love that short and not so sweet passive voice? “Privately purchased”. By whom? Why not “X purchased the dress”?

    I do like the dress, maybe I am one of the few. The cost *is* exorbitant and unless she wore it again a few times in the future, I am afraid she put a foot wrong right from the start. Unnecessarily. She could have chosen a much, much cheaper one equality if not more beautiful. #disappointed

  12. Katydid20 says:

    Its beautiful but I can’t imagine spending that much on a dress. Well, mostly because my student loans are the amount of that dress lol.

  13. Jb says:

    It’s a fabulous piece. Highly doubt she paid full price. But it’s not my money…and she looked amazing so perhaps we can move on.

    • HK9 says:

      I don’t think she paid full price either. For the amount of publicity, they probably gave it to her for a fraction of the price. It’s her engagement photo and she gets to wear whatever she wants. I used to work bridal, and I’ve seen people take out loans for a dress. They can actually afford this shit. I’m not losing sleep over this.

  14. Red says:

    I love Meghan. I think she’s beautiful and I love that she’s angering racists. I think if she liked the dress, she should wear the dress. It’s not my style, but she looks great in anything really. However, I also hate how much people piss on Kate. So I’m here to watch the same people who would poop their pants if this was Kate, do mental gymnastics to defend Meghan on this.

    • Alexandria says:

      I think while there are Celebitches who love to criticise Kate for anything, there’s also a fair amount of Celebitches who don’t like to compare the two and can also criticise both their professionalism and work ethic. Just makes it a vibrant site I guess. For me personally I don’t fancy talk about Kate’s face or body. Fashion wise I actually think she’s alright most of the time even with her button love.

    • Nancy says:

      I have become more of an admirer of Kate, since Meghan is currently stealing her thunder. As the future Queen, she needs to remain elegant. I don’t know that racists are angered about Meghan. Would others like her solely because of her ethnicity. She is who she is. I do predict, however, a future much like Diana’s, that being in the headlines on a regular. Just don’t take the shine away from Harry!

      • Alexandria says:

        Hmm I don’t really see Meghan stealing her thunder. The press is building her up for now. I hope Meghan can emulate Sophie. I still think Kate and William (I have no idea why Kate gets all the blame) should improve on their numbers.

      • Peeking in says:

        Kate is not a future queen, she will never be queen. Kate will be William’s Consort.

      • Nancy says:

        Oh Lord, I know Kate won’t be Queen, geez, magnoliarose just scolded me. I never followed the royals. I did admire Diana. I think the reason Meghan is getting all this attention is because she too, is different which equates to interesting. Whatever, it’s the Friday before Christmas and my spirit is bright!

      • magnoliarose says:

        The racists are angered about Meghan. I don’t know how you can even think they aren’t when it is proven every single day.
        Maybe some of us like Meghan because she is more to our taste and contemporary. We are around the same age and I do like ethnicity. I think it is interesting.

        My thinking is Kate appeals to older women since she dresses a lot like an older British woman. I can’t relate to that. My grandmother and mother don’t dress like that or my aunts or cousins or anyone I know.

        Funny thing is I never notice what Anne or Zara or Sophie are wearing. I have no criticisms about them or Camilla. Strange.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @ Nancy,
        I don’t think Kate will be happy in that role. The criticism will be insane, and she would be compared to HM even as consort. Diana casts a long show, but HM’s would be like a solar eclipse. I don’t wish that on her because I don’t think it suits her personality and the public will be so far in her business looking for faults. It will be much worse than this and much more acceptable. There will be no buffers.

      • spidey says:

        Kate will be styled Queen Catherine, just as the QM was Queen Elizabeth (without a number) until George VI died when she became QM.

      • LAK says:

        QM refused to be known as the *dowager Queen after her husband died.

        *dowager means widowed.

        However, she couldn’t continue to be HM Queen Elizabeth given her own daughter was also HM Queen Elizabeth regardless of the consort vs Regnant distinction, so they made up Queen mother to differentiate between the two.

        Her official title became HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother shortened to just Queen mother.

      • ANOTHER DAY says:

        Actually I’m here to watch those who defend the price of MMs clothes work themselves into a tizzy next time Melania Trump wears something exorbitant and I guarantee all of hers were indeed privately purchased …😇

      • Lady D says:

        @Nancy, ” As the future Queen, she needs to remain elegant”. You’re talking about the woman who has flashed her bare arse in every country she has visited while representing Queen and country.

      • Lady D says:

        @Nancy, ” As the future Queen, she needs to remain elegant”. You’re talking about the woman who has flashed her bare ass in every country she has visited while representing Queen and country.

      • liriel says:

        @Another day, Yeah, I kept saying this!

      • magnoliarose says:

        @Another Day,

        You won’t find me among the masses upset about the cost of fashion for people in the public eye if it is lovely and looks luxurious. Kate should look elegant and in my view a tiny touch extravagant, but the money spent right now is not well spent.
        I think a sleek somewhat sporty casual look would be great for her. I think she should have beautiful clothes. She is willing to repeat, and she would look stunning in the right wardrobe.
        It seems like her mother chooses the clothes and Carole look is an attractive woman and is usually well decked but doesn’t have an eye for Kate. I believe she is critical of her longer torso, so it has become a hard focus but not dressed correctly.

        I don’t care how much Melania spends; her style is busted and tacky. I think she may pull out a few things that are nice and a few times she looked good, but it isn’t anything special.

  15. Fa says:

    Someone else purchasing your clothes is a not free person it is like depending from another person but those women can not change their lives and who they love for that matter.

  16. Squidgy says:

    This just demonstrate how naive she is and how unprepared, despite her semi-fame past, for her new role. An insanely expensive dress would be understandable decision for a girl who finally made it good and can be excused to enjoy her moment. Meghan really thinks this is what being a Princess is about.

    • Yup, Me says:

      Oooh! A psychic in our midst! Do you do readings? Is there an impeachment in our future? Please give me something to look forward to for 2018!

      • Carrie1 says:

        JFC, it’s Christmas. Can we have one time per year without this rudeness?

        If you don’t understand how offensive your comment, I’ll suggest you read up on Japanese culture. There’s also a fascinating book entitled Ghosts of the Tsunami, which is a true story, and it does a good job speaking to beliefs in Japanese culture.

        With the hell year 2017 has been, I sincerely hope 2018 has more tolerance for individuals. It’s unbearable reading things like this.

  17. HeyThere! says:

    A few things: I’m surprised this was approved because “this might get major backlash”? I do not like the dress AT ALL. Not my style. Really hate the bottom. I wouldn’t pay 250 American dollars for it. Ha! That being said, she looks lovely. I just can’t wrap my head around 75k for an ugly gown?! I mean, they know people will ID everything she wears and it will sell out instantly, so they knew it would get out ASAP. I guess 75k isn’t much to them, but super out of touch. Yikes.

  18. Originaltessa says:

    That’s sooo much money for a dress. Not from the UK, so not personally affected, but still…. whew.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      Errr…..nor will British tax payers, since it was privately purchased…..but yeah…..its a crazy amount of money.

      • Penguin says:

        Um where do you think their money comes from – if not the public purse

      • Bella Dupont says:


        If Charles did pay foir the dress, then it is worth remembering:

        Duchy of Lancaster = Private Estate/Fund

        If Britain went republican tomorrow, it would probably take years of court battles to decide how much of it, if any, belongs to the state. For now, Charles has sole discretion of the spending of that fund and it is classified as “privately owned”.

        Second of all, its just occurred to me that there is a chance this dress (and many other wardrobe choices we will see from her) are being sponsored by NBC……(they own USA Network, which produces Suits) as this is a fantastic publicity run for them. Perhaps it was agreed in some sort of exit agreement with the network……they fund her wardrobe choices and she allows them use her name in association with the show?

        Who knows…..but the one thing I am certain of is that she did not pay for it from her own pocket, nor was it paid for by the tax payers. Lets just put that sh@t to bed.

      • Veronica says:

        Bella DuPont, I think the Duchy is owned by the taxpayers. Or at least that is what Not a Sugar says when she talks about it.

      • LAK says:

        Bella Dupont: The duchy of Lancaster is a state owned property.

      • LAK says:

        Bella Dupont: like all recent misinformation revamps of the official royal websites, this one leaves out alot of inconvenient truths.

        What the official website reveals:
        When the duke of Lancaster usurped the throne in 1399 to become Henry 4, he created a charter to keep his private estate separate from the other crown properties.

        What the official website leaves out:
        When the Yorkists regained the throne in 1413, the estate was attaindered for treason as punishment for the usurpation.

        The new King, Edward 4 merged it with the crown, BUT kept it as a private estate specifically to provide income to the Sovereign.

        Those are the terms under which it continues to operate.

        As a crown property, it reverts back to the crown should we abolish the monarchy.

        It is managed in the same way the duchy of Cornwall is managed except the income goes to HM as the Sovereign.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Wow……..that’s extremely interesting….

        Also, seeing as the Duke of Lancaster at least theoretically owns property in right of those titles, it was explained to me (a while ago) that retention of those properties after abolishment is a very grey area and would really be a point for debate as the events that led to the current arrangement (as you’ve listed above), were murky enough that one could argue either side and that that is what is most likely to happen. (that is unless they are just physically run out of town/ beheaded).

        You wrote:
        “The new King, Edward 4 merged it with the crown, BUT kept it as a private estate specifically to provide income to the Sovereign.”

        That part is the source of all the (or more accurately, MY) confusion… can it belong to the crown and still be a privately held estate?

        (You must be so sick of constantly getting grilled on this site for your microscopic knowledge of these issues… should probably start charging for it…..(after today!!) :-) )

      • LAK says:

        Bella Dupont: In essence it is like the duchy of cornwall which is a private property belonging to the state NOT the heir to the throne or the royal family.

        Lancaster’s purpose is to provide income to the Sovereign. They enjoy the profits in the same way that Charles enjoys the profits of Cornwall.

        Any properties owned or purchased by duchy money remains the property of the duchy at all times.

        If they used their private income, with no duchy money involved, to purchase any properties or make investments, that remains their private property at all times.

        It’s that clear cut. No confusion whatsoever.

        However, I agree with you that a clever lawyer could make a case for that murky original charter, BUT the fact that the estate was attaindered for treason effectively cancels the charter’s ownership rights because all traitors’ properties were forfeited to the crown.

        And unbinding that arrangement might open doors for other people to claim property forfeited in the same way by their ancestors which is a can of worms the govt would be foolish to open.

        The fact remains that whilst the new king chose to continue with the charter as a way to provide a private income, he also merged the estate with the crown so it couldn’t be a privately held property, but a state property and that puts it out of reach of the royal family to claim as personal property.

        I don’t mind answering these questions, and i reserve my anger for the way the official record is increasingly obsfucated whilst establishment PR gaslights the public into believing the lie that these properties belong to the family , and they are magnanimously taking only alittle for their expenses.

        Given Charles’s recent attempts to have the ownership of these estates transferred to the family, i think the misinformation helps his cause in the longterm because they can either negotiate a bigger goodbye settlement or achieve full transfer to the family if or when we decide to get rid of the monarchy.

      • magnoliarose says:


        Do you think Charles thinks the monarchy is likely at the end of the road, so he is reverting those properties for future generations? He seems to be the one most likely to in touch with public perception more than the others. It looks like his maneuvers are in that direction.
        From across the sea, it appears as if he is restructuring as the landscape of Europe shifts rather dramatically.
        It is hard to imagine it in 30 years but who knows.

      • LAK says:

        Magnoliarose: What you said. Exactly. Charles is doing this for future generations.

        In a strange way, hurricane Diana was the best thing that happened to Charles because suddenly he had to fight for his place in the world and it brought him down to earth to consider the future. It’s unfortunate that he never raised his sons to do the same and simply spoilt them.

  19. liriel says:

    Yep, let’s be honest, this dress is way too expensive (also a bit tacky but whatever) and the PR department screwed up. You can get something high fashion for % of that! 75k.. She really shouldn’t send such a message to people if she warm them to warm up to her! Come on, it’s a move Melania Trump would do, but haven’t yet! Russian-oligarch, saudi-arabian, showing off!

  20. Bea says:

    I still love the dress even after knowing the price tag. I don’t care that Meghan wearing the dress was tone deaf or inappropriate for the occasion or this was a bad start for Meghan. Honestly none of that matters. They took engagement photos that they wanted and the end results are lovely.

  21. Redgrl says:

    Perhaps she can shorten the skirt and donate it to the British ice dancing team. It is an Olympic year after all…

    • SoulSPA says:

      The games start Feb 9 next year! I hope the UK will do at least 1/4 as good as in Rio. The Rio team was beyond words. I was amazed and happy and I am not even British. Some of the highest standards of sportsmanship and excellency.

    • Elaine says:

      @Redgrl, Maybe that was the plan all along. She *is* a philanthropist, after all. She even goes to Africa to prove it ;-)

      I am a pearl clutcher over this, and yes I would say the same about Kate. And did, when she wore that gold ring necklace which cost 50,000 pounds.

      I pray that Megs work ethic will outmatch her spending.

      Interesting write up from Jessica Adams, the only astrologer to correctly predict Brexit. She makes an allusion between Meg and Princess Margaret. J Adams even says:

      “Meghan will either cost him a fortune, or help him make one, so let’s hope Meghan’s long-time connection with World Vision (as global ambassador) or the United Nations will see the benefits. It is all or nothing, financially, for Meghan and Harry. She could either help him clean up his financial act, or take him to the cleaner’s.”

      Jessica Adams posted this on December 16, 2017. Go astrology!

  22. Luca76 says:

    Yeah if I were English I’d be pissed.They are basically high end welfare royalty living off what should be taxpayers money why rub it in (and I’ve said that for years) there has to be a compromise between Kate’s dud wardrobe and that kind of excess. I doubt she paid full price but I’m sure there was something she could have worn with under 10 grand that would have been fine or a loaner. Anyway the gown is likely a bit risqué on top of it being a bit garish so a completely unnecessary misstep.

  23. Jenna says:

    I hate that her hair covers her face in the one photo. It would otherwise be a lovely photo. She has Jennifer Anniston syndrome – can only wear her hair blown out and down… yawn

    • Yup, Me says:

      She actually said in an interview that her character’s hair styling was a deliberate choice and that when they tried other styles (like pulled up or back) she was told to go back to long luscious and, most importantly- down. I wonder if that has influenced her personal hair choices- it’s a style that she’s found that makes her feel confident so she keeps coming back to it. Hopefully, she’ll be doing more experimenting with elegant updos. I’m going to be just as annoyed to see her constantly fiddling with her hair in windy conditions as I was with Kate.

    • Heidi says:

      Meghan and Kate have the same type of hair, naturally curly, I wish they would at least let some of the natural waves show

  24. Aang says:

    Holy out of touch 1%. I really thought she’d play it smarter than this. I am under no delusion that these two will not be as entitled and clueless as the rest of them but at least they could pretend to be normal for a little while.

  25. Isa says:

    That cost almost double what we paid for our house.
    And I know it was probably discussed yesterday, but I think the faux sheerness of it wasn’t right for an engagement photo.

  26. Sassback says:

    Some of these comments! Yesterday, everyone thought these were the best pics ever and then she wears a 75k dress and now she’s “fake”, “posey”, “clinging to him too much.” Maybe Meghan bought the dress. She might have some nice syndication money and she was like “I’m marrying a prince, I’m wearing a princess dress for my pics, m-Frs!” Maybe they don’t want to reveal who purchased the dress because maybe that will be the same label her wedding dress will be and it was a gift? Maybe HARRY bought it. I mean, who cares, this is going to be the wedding of the century and they’re going all out. If it’s privately purchased, it’s not tax payer money.

    • Olenna says:

      I agree; pretty much said the same thing yesterday. People are acting like they just know that, somehow, the common folk paid for this dress and the starving masses have been cheated again. Off with her head! And, never mind that the whole BRF is tone-deaf and immune to the needs of the poor and disadvantaged by even choosing to continue on as a reigning monarchy. Meghan should know better, right? But, if you can bear it, stick around for the the wedding commentary and when the *estimated cost* for her gown and the wedding itself is published–it’s gonna get even uglier, if that’s possible.

    • magnoliarose says:

      No way. You mean a woman who worked for her money might spend it on herself? How novel. It is very odd that British people wouldn’t like to see their honored British couture house creation beamed around the world. It is great for the designers and gives them a higher profile.

    • liriel says:

      I’m sorry but we kind of hoped she would be more relatable. 75k is LOTS of money, even Melania Trump didn’t beat Megan when it comes to the price of the wardrobe and Melania definitely doesn’t try to hide she’s a gold digger and loves money. We’d shred other women to pieces if she wore 75k. It’s simply in a poor taste to choose THAT expensive dress, insensitive. It’s almost like rubbing your new-found wealth in our faces.

      • Sassback says:

        Why do princesses have to be relateable? Princess Di was glam and fashionable and had a huge wardrobe and palled around with celebs but it was her personality that made everyone love her. Meghan can be a haute couture royal AND a humanitarian. If she dressed in buttons she would get grief.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Melania Trump most certainly spends a few million a year on her wardrobe. She has never pretended to be down to earth, and the only comfort she has is to spend money. I don’t have a problem with how MT chooses to spend her money. If she looked dowdy, she would be criticized so buying what she likes makes more sense.

    • Lilly says:

      Right?!? Thanks you and magnoliarose and Liberty and a very few others are saving me on this thread. This is one of the very few sites where I’ll read and participate in commentary. This one is a notch down from the DM today – which I never read – I never want to be that disheartened in humanity on the daily. I’m trying not to conspiracy theory this comment section.

      • Mel says:

        “We’d shred other women to pieces if she wore 75k. ”

        Eh, not really. Not too long ago there was a piece here about Celine Dion wearing a (horrid, IMO) white daytime outfit that allegedly cost around 100 000 dollars. I thought it was obscene. Not very many, if any, others did.

  27. Neelyo says:

    She got ripped off. It’s a tacky dress.

  28. Jussie says:

    This was a really, really stupid move.

    Honestly, hope they keep it up. Every tone deaf choice they and WK made is another win for republicanism.

    Seriously though, between Harry’s whiny interviews, severe lack of worth ethic and near constant vacations, and now the vulgar displays exorbitant spending, it’s almost like he’s trying to make himself look bad.

    • Veronica says:

      The “breath of fresh air” Meghan might bring to the royals if she doesn’t get a clue quickly may be the end of it as a taxpayer funded institution.
      And I know the Queen is extravagant, but is she as clueless as they are as to how this looks to ordinary people??

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I think QEII is absolutely clueless to anything regarding ordinary people. She has lived in a bubble of rarified air her entire life.

        Honestly, she the worst of the lot. She has misappropriated funds earmarked for the maintenance of her primary residence and where has that money gone over the decades?

        Buckingham Palace, her official residence, is in such poor shape that the government have to allott an astronomical amount of money because it will be very very expensive to put things to rights. The bill will be much higher than the estimate because there’ll be a lot of damage that is unseen until they start the work.

        The fact that it was the Head of State that has misappropriated public funds earmarked for a special use and funneled the money god knows where is even worse. It smacks of a profound disrespect of the people that fund her and that she represents.

      • Veronica says:

        ArtHistorian, I knew that there was something funky about funds for repairs to the palace, but didn’t realize that QEII was the one who misappropriated the funds.
        Seems like the rich and powerful can literally get away with anything.

      • magnoliarose says:

        That is what didn’t make sense to me either. I couldn’t image the public would just let their landmarks rot when they have pride in their grand houses. Those are a tourist draw, and they have public events on those properties.
        Not cool QEII. :(

  29. Sam says:

    Is Charles even allowed to pay for her stuff considering she’s not yet royal? I doubt she paid $75k for it,probably got discounted a lot and it’s last year’s so probably reduced from the full price already.Its not my money or taxpayers so Im not going to be dictating what she can and cannot do with her own money

  30. Eliza says:

    Bad PR move. It’s a welcome image to the royal family in a dress that costs more than the average salary.

    Even if privately purchased, black gowns aren’t worn often in royal families, as seen as colors of morning. And if they are they tend to be somber. So this dress isn’t even versatile.

    As for Charles, correct me if I’m wrong,but he gets tens of millions from his duchy annually which he doesn’t pay taxes on. So decades of hundreds of millions in earnings that get skimmed from the public (infrastructure, police, etc). He pays a personal tax but not on duchy.

    • liriel says:

      Exactly this, the only people who are ok with it are the most loyal Megan supporters. You can lke her and see it’s a bad move. She wanted to be relatable, the headlines – divorce, bi-racial etc and yet she chooses to not be people’s princes right away. First thing she does – a dress 75k, way of the most expensive dresses I could think of.

    • CMiddy says:

      Yep – my husband is a teacher – he never pays any attention to royals usually but when he saw the price tag on the front page of The Times here, he was like “great, literally twice my gross salary) …

  31. Liberty says:

    I like the dress, and I like the choice. Here’s why: it brings exposure to the British fashion industry in a way that is clearly interruptive, judging by the broad commemtary whipping around the internet. (UK business.) I am not a Kate fan, but I think she would have looked quite good in this gown as well, with her own spin on it. It would free her from the blur of button coats that have even buried what the actual current designs of the McQueen house look like. The gown offers new optics of modern British fashion, raising interest even if you prefer a different look. Marketing-wise, a plain frock in a guise of austerity sympathy or another wool coat will not jumpstart big industry interest, even if fans frenzy buy the one style. And you have to jumpstart big interest to highlight the trade and increase industry revenue. So, from that aspect, an okay move. She already wore that last years wool Canadian coat. And white shir with jeans. And yoga gear. This is the other end; this is the UK style allegiance flag.

    Price-wise, I would need to see an invoice to know the real, non-media value, though many hours of handwork were involved for the lacework and ruffle application. If privately purchased, we won’t know the actual amount paid, and we don’t know if it is chosen knowing it will eventually head into a royal exhibition (leading to more UK business). Half my work is in fashion, and the price paid might be quite low, understanding the huge amount of PR value for the design house, hence the private purchase element. It is my belief that No one paid all the royal coins for this gown for this use.

    The gown sells the fantasy of a royal wedding for public consumption as we get on the road to May, it sells the UK fashion industry (people working), and she was happy in it for their photos.

    • Eveil says:

      Thanks for that informative post. It’s nice to get some actual info from someone in the fashion scene instead of a bunch of catty, gossipy misses. Everyone deserves at least three strikes before writing them off. So calm down folks!

    • magnoliarose says:

      Couture houses don’t make a lot of money for the dresses, but they do on accessories, and this brand has a ready to wear line and accessories. This is unique for British fashion which has always been behind American, French, Italian and Japanese as far as creativity and prestige. London is the least important Fashion Week of the 4.
      The designer is a woman who is making her mark, but this will be her moment. I can’t describe how absurdly happy she is probably is and how green with envy others are.

      • windyriver says:

        Not mentioned is this dress is last season (2016/17). I assume that increases the likelihood it was a) discounted and/or b) a sample?

        In any event, I wonder if this is a signal this house will NOT be doing the wedding dress, and this is a gesture by Meghan to give them some exposure.

    • Elizabeth R says:

      Really appreciate your reply Liberty – it gives so much useful context for understanding the this choice. It’s a big-picture move and if Meghan is thinking this way then my opinion of her (already pretty positive) just took a couple leaps forward.

    • Lilly says:

      Thank you. I was going to write a similar thing, but in a less articulate, organized manner. I’m glad she owns the gown and has the memories. Yesterday, I figured it was borrowed.

    • SilverUnicorn says:


      “Half my work is in fashion, and the price paid might be quite low, understanding the huge amount of PR value for the design house, hence the private purchase element. ”

      That’s what I thought too.

    • Yup, Me says:

      Thank you for this clear explanation, Liberty.

      Something else this makes me think of- by wearing a dress this luxurious and expensive, it brings awareness of the designer rather than just one particular item by a designer. Wasn’t there an article recently where the founder of Issa was saying that Kate’s dress (and the accompanying attention) actually ended up harming her business? ….

      Found it-

      Wearing such a luxurious item gives that look and feel of unattainable glamour AND still allows people to go to their site and purchase what they have available without crashing their site or tanking their business going for ONE item.

    • Veronica says:

      It’s the optics. And the British might not be in the mood for a multi-million dollar royal wedding, paid for by the Duchy, which they own, while they are losing healthcare and homelessness is skyrocketing. Especially for a woman who isn’t British.
      I still think it was a clueless, completely out-of-touch move.

      • Liberty says:

        For every person who manages to make money off a royal wedding, and people will, these optics serve to raise the attention and interest and fun. Happiness makes people spend, events churn, even if people just have a beer on ithe day to kvetch about unseemly lavishness. Joy and events do turn the money crank and people will benefit, from hotel staff to street vendors, restaurant and shop workers. Even in times like ours.

        I am not advocating eating cake while people lose benefits and are homeless, but I am a fan of anything — anything — that creates an opportunity for people to step up and improve their bottom line when all else seems grim. Every little. Then with that new money in hand, those people who figured out a way to benefit are more empowered to help others. My office took advantage of an opportunity, and generated enough to help four families in need this season in a profound way.

    • Carrie1 says:

      This. Thanks so much Liberty.

      My own bit to add is this is Meghan signalling she has a personality and won’t temper it for upper crust anything. Showing she dearly loves Harry, the bit hanging on him, fosters continued goodwill and support for them and the BRF. I believe Meghan is extremely savvy and can’t wait to see her over the rest of their lives together. She has good work ethic, as does he, and these two are fun as well. Win win for them and BRF and all of us!

      Oh and Kate can relax and put her focus on her babies as she wants to and let Meghan and Harry handle PR!

      • Veronica says:

        Harry has a good work ethic??? He did 140 events this year, figure 3 hours from start to finish, and flew into Invictus when all the work was done. We know he and Meghan took two trips to Africa, a trip to Jamaica and they are taking another vacation after the New Year. Oh, and his private plane hunting trip a few weeks ago.
        If you are hoping he and Meghan light the world on fire with their work, like Sophie, Anne, Camilla and Charles do, I have to ask: what evidence do you see that this will happen?
        Cause I think you will be very disappointed.

  32. tracking says:

    The fact that it is a ballgown rather than a nice knee-length dress was a mis-step–definitely an overdone ‘actressy’ “hey I’m gonna be a princess” choice. Yes, tone deaf and out of touch.

  33. Cee says:

    Too much money. I like the dress but I believe this was a misstep. I hope she wears it publicly just to make a point of “yes, it was expensive, now look at me wear it at least 30 times and enjoy myself”.

  34. ArtHistorian says:

    I love Ralph & Russo. Their couture is exquisite. However, this dress is not among their best work and while I love their work, it is more suited to the red carpet. I’m not saying that royalty can’t wear flamboyant fashion – queen Maxima and Queen Margrethe II are examples. However, when it comes to gala gowns, I really think that the best approach is to have a non-brand tailor-made option. That way there won’t be a price to source and it will most likely not be as expensive as a bespoke piece from a high profile brand.

    I haven’t formed an opinion on Miss Markle. I think she is beautiful and vivacious – and it seems as though she is already involved in charity work. The real test will be whether she hits the ground running and what kind of organizations she’ll be patronising.

    I do think that wearing such an exorbitantly expensive dress is a major misstep. Modern royalty is very much about PR – they are expensive and the BRF is much more expensive than many other RFs. They need good PR more than the public needs them. They may not have paid sticker price for the dress but that is really irrelevant because the public won’t know whether they did or not. What matters is the optics – and in this case the optics are bad because that price is just exorbitant.

    It is an especially tone deaf move considering that Britain has suffered uncer harsh austerity measures for a while now. Kate is already very very expensive in terms of clothes, the BRF doesn’t really need another very expensive royal in terms of PR. It is bad enough that the Cambridges are so expensive and that the Queen has let Buckingham Palace deteriorate to the point that A LOT of money is needed to restore it.

    • Alexandria says:

      @Arthistorian glad to see you’re still around. You summed it up well, it’s about the optics and the PR. The Buckingham Palace restoration makes it worse. Doesn’t the Queen have an annual maintenance fund? Where did the funds go? All these questions. However there is still hope. Sophie also suffered a mis-step but she recovered well.

      • LAK says:

        It’s annoys me so much that no one pointed out that the Queen has received an annual maintenance grant every single year that she’s been Queen and yet let BP deteriorate to the tune of £360M.

        Where did that money go?

        Well, we know £6M of it went on refurbishment of WK’s KP apartment and Anmer Hall. The public accounts didn’t hide that fact.

        It’s annoying that whenever it’s revealed that the Queen has misused funds, she’s excused on the grounds of being poorly advised. It’s such hogwash.

      • Elaine says:

        Just as there are classes on Government, there ought to be classes on the Monarchy. And its financial arrangements and continuing connection to power.

        -They do not own the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. They are held in trust for the people, by the Prince of Wales. He can use the funds, and does, but it is not his. Like the White House not belonging to the President.

        -They do not own the Crown estates.

        -They are allowed to veto legislation which directly affects their interests.

        -The CEO of the Duchies (I forget which one) is a permanent member of the cabinet.

        -They are exempt from FOIA. So you wanna know stuff, but can’t know stuff, because laws Stalin himself would approve of.

        And that’s just to start.

        Good luck learning that anywhere other than internet message boards and from having super smart Historian friends ;-)

      • ArtHistorian says:

        If I were British, I’d be polishing my pitchfork when it comes to the fact that Queen Elizabeth have been so negligent with the historic building (even if I don’t think much of its architectural value) that it is in such a bad shape.

        The fact that people don’t knwo what happened to the annual maintenance grant she gets for Buckingham Palace is even worse! It shows a completely lack of care that this money is from her people.

        Honestly, I find QEII even worse that the Cambridges. She has abused the system even more that they have – she has also have had a lot more time to do it. The very fact that she’s the Head of State makes it so much more worse and disrespectful. That is not service, it is explotation and she ought to be roasted publicly for it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m here to wave the sign for “Make public how much taxpayer money is spent securing private residences like Balmoral, Sandringham, Gatcombe Park, and Middleton Manor”. Ditto for who really pays the staff at those private homes (ie. likely the taxpayers).

      • LAK says:

        Elaine: hear! hear!

        And it’s the CEO of Lancaster who has a permanent Cabinet seat. So much for not influencing politics.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It is egregious when it is spelled out so clearly. Many many scandals are swept under the rug, Andrew alone could topple the whole thing, but this is on another level.
        What happened to the story about her hidden money in the Caribbean?
        I forgot about that.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I think the whole situation around the state of Buckingham Palace and what happened to the money earmarked for it is shady to the 9th degree – and factoring in the story about the hidden money in the Caribbean. Is no one being held accountable? The whole thing sounds borderline criminal to me and I just cannot understand why the government gives her more money without any kind of oversight.

        Honestly, I don’t understand why the royal residences that are not private property aren’t maintained by an institution independant of the BRF. That’s the case in the DK where the DRF only is responsible for maintaining their private properties, i.e. QMII isn’t given money specifically to maintain the palaces of Amalienborg and Frederiksborg, there’s a government body in place for that since they belong to the State (along with a lot of other historically significant buildings).

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yay, ArtHistorian! This dress reminds me a lot of the Fadi el Khoury one Princess Madeleine wore to the Nobels last year. And by extension, the Fadi el Khoury one Victoria wore to Madeleine’s wedding.

      I’m looking forward to the fashion extravaganza that is the New Year celebrations in Denmark. Everyone will be back from their travels (France, Australia) by then, right? I’m assuming they wouldn’t skip those events.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I’m sure they’ll all get back to the New Year’s Gala. I like that the Danish royal women generally have tailormade non-brand gowns for formal occasions, though it has changed a bit lately with both Mary and Marie wearing bespoke pieces from specific designers. However, none of those designers are in the price-range that would come close to even a 10th of the price for this Ralph & Russo gown.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m glad they’ll be back. That is the big tiara event we can count on from them each year. Since we might not get tiara’s at this year’s royal wedding, I want to see them in Denmark!

        I’d like to see Margrethe in one of her own designs, maybe a deep ruby red. That would look great with the Naasut gold floral tiara from Greenland. But no gold poppies. I am firmly against those gold poppies.

        I usually like when they rework or combine gowns. Mary’s long blue velvet coat/cape is stunning when she wears it with the plain white chiffon gown, but I didn’t like it at all with the sparkly blue skirt from the Bambi Award outfit. Maybe we’ll see her shorter blue velvet cape again, the one with Edwardian style.

        Marie has gotten better, but I still don’t understand why anyone likes that gray peplum evening gown she wore a few years ago. The woman is 5’2″. You don’t put a drop waist gown or peplum on someone that petite.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I love both the Naasut and the Poppies!

        Honestly, I just love Arje Griegst’s work (he made the Poppies). It is baroque, over the top and sometimes slightly grotesque but I love it. Those poppies are just so very Daisy. Sadly, these gold tiaras clash horribly with her silver hair.

        I’d like to see what Mary or Marie’s hair stylists could do with the poppies – they’d look great on dark hair. I’d also love to see either woman in the Naasut Tiara. However, that one was a recent gift for QMII from Greenland on her 40th Jubilee, so I don’t think we’ll see anyone but Daisy wearing it in the foreseeable future.

        I love Marie’s Floral Tiara, it is very pretty but it would be nice to see her in something else. Mary always wear the Ruby-Diamond Tiara at this event. I love it, it is exquisite but I would also love to see her in something else. It is, however, the only big gun tiara that’s available to her since Daisy don’t share her big guns.

        I wish the situation was a bit more like in the SRF where the ladies switch around tiaras. I was genuinely surprised to see Victoria in the Aquamarine Kokoschnik at the Nobels this year because I thought it belonged to Madeleine. However, the SRF has a lot more tiaras than the DRF where at least 5 has left the family in recent history: 2 with Benedikte, 2 with Anne-Marie and 1 with Alexandra.

      • notasugarhere says:

        While I cannot appreciate the poppies, I’ll bow to your superior Lalique-loving heart about how it has artistic value :)

        Marie rarely wears the lily tiara that was made in her honor, but it pales in comparison to the diamond flora. I would like to see the Naasut or the 3-piece diamond aigrette on a brunette. The diamonds get lost on Daisy’s silver hair, and that piece is gorgeous.

        The Swedish aquamarine one belongs to one of the aunts in the family, not to Madeleine. Unless the king bought it from his sister, it is being borrowed. I do think the new version of Sofia’s wedding tiara is a vast improvement. Now the frame fits the shape of her head instead of sitting on top of it.

    • Veronica says:

      And Art Historian, maxima and Margrethe are QUEENS, as you said. Not an American marrying the guy who will be 6th in line to the throne soon.
      It just isn’t sensible.
      The only people who seem to like this decision of Meghan’s are Meghan, Harry and Carole Middleton. Carole is chuckling.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I just think was a mistake to wear a dress, though I like it, this expensive. They probably didn’t pay full price but that’s not the point in this context. The released their engagement photos, the message ought to be: look at this gorgeous couple, they are young and in love, etc. That was the narrative – until the news of the cost of the dress broke. Then, the narrative became about the dress, the cost and about whether Meghan and her soon to be royal in-laws are obscenely spendthrift in a time where ordinary people struggle.

        I did a google search with the words “Meghan Markle” and “dress” – and the first 6-7 entries had the cost of the dress in the headline! That’s what the narrative is now, click-baity headlines about an exorbitantly expensive dress.

        I don’t know enough about Miss Markle to have formed a definite opinion on her yet. From what I do know, I think she has potential and it is such a shame that she started out with what looks like to become a self-goal PR wise. I hope she’ll course correct, she seems to be a smart girl and she has some PR experience from her career, so I hope this will just be a single misstep on her part. My impression of her has been positive so far, even with this misstep, but I’m not hypocrite enough to excuse something that I’d criticize Kate for just because I like Meghan better.

        All of the royals are horribly spendthrift but the older generation aren’t as conspicuous about it as the young royals. I think it can be very seductive to enter such an environment and forget how a £50.000 dress will look to the public that they are supposed to serve and represent.

  35. Taxi says:

    I like the dress but it’s way too dressy (and non-coordinating in color) for Harry’s blue suit. He looks like daytime-at-the-office & she’s clearly in evening wear. They wouldn’t be attending the same event dressed that way.
    He should be in black tie.

  36. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I’m more entertained with the comments…there’s some real commitment going on!

  37. Lukie says:

    What it cost and what was paid are most likely not even remotely the same price.

    Also, she has her own money and her own connections. “Privately purchased” can be anyone and at any price.

    People are just looking for reasons to dislike her or be judgy in general. Ridiculous.

  38. whatever says:

    That dress doesn’t look like it was worth $75,000. Surely she could have found a nicer dress for 10% even 5% of that amount?. Regardless of who paid for it, they majorly ripped off. The saying “more money than sense” comes to mind.

  39. Plantpal says:

    Will we still hate the cost of the dress when it raises double that amount to be donated to charity?

    • Alexandria says:

      That’s a good, positive outcome. Why would people hate that? It’s beyond great if Meghan purchased it herself and raised funds out of it. That would be awesome and very savvy of her. Why do some people see this price tag criticism as hating?

  40. Mary Carol says:

    Diana wore almost exclusively couture. Kate wears crap. I hope Meghan continues to wear couture most of the time. She has taste. Kate has none, and it too thick to use a stylist.

    • Veronica says:

      If Meghan wears couture, as an outsider marrying a man who,will soon be 6th in line to the throne, she will be crucified. Rightfully so. The taxpayers ars not doing so well in England right now -and the new woman has them paying couture prices?
      Diana was married to the second in line to the throne and she even got grief for the price of her clothes.
      If Meghan follows your wishes, her tenure in England will be brutal.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Indications are she bought it herself, last year, with her own money, before the relationship became public. That likely means it was purchased at a deep, deep discount because the designer wanted the PR trade of a tv actress wearing this to an awards show. If she wears couture after this, then it is a problem. For now, her buying something with her own money, at a deep discount, when she was a private citizen? Not a problem IMO.

      • Bella Dupont says:


        It would be GREAT if they clarified that….ie that she bought this privately on her own last year…..the thing that’s toxic here is the ambiguity……did the taxpayers pay for it or not…..that narrative is what so many of us find very destructive for her.

        Alternatively, if say NBC/USA Network who produce Suits procured it as some sort of going away gift…..or she negotiated some sort of wardrobe deal with them …..whatever…..just as long as it’s clear that the taxpayers didn’t contribute a penny towards this *seemingly* frivolous yet exorbitant expense.

  41. Lisa Giametti says:

    The dress is ridiculously ugly and the engagement photos look like ads for Kay Jewelers. Yes, I do have an opinion, contrary to the masses, so pardon me.

  42. Ollie says:

    Oh my. That dress looks ok but damn…that price. How dumb! It proves she’s just an actress and doesn’t think beyond her photo op.

    Every so called humanitarian who wastes that much money on one dress is a hypocrite.

  43. HoustonGrl says:

    Tone deaf. I was going to say that yesterday, but I knew I would get chewed out on these comment boards. I’m a social worker, and I meet children every day without basic health care and other essentials. The idea that someone would spend that much on a dress for an official government purpose is…well, tone deaf. And for all those shouting “it’s not taxpayer funded,” I don’t care. Certainly, that money could be used to offset the tax funded renovations of their palaces. Between this and W&K’s helicopter rides, this generation appears out of touch. Even her MAJ takes the train.

  44. Snap Happy says:

    Gorgeous dress. Aspirational. Isn’t that part of the monarchy too? I doubt she, or Harry, etc. paid that much. She would have been given a discount.

  45. Veronica says:

    The dress may come with a $75,000 price tag. Whether or not that’s what the family wound up paying for it is an entirely different issue. Having your haute couture on a beautiful woman marrying into a royal family that will show up in magazines around the globe certainly provides a major incentive for a price haggle.

  46. tearose11 says:

    Oh geez. The other day everyone was all “ohh and ahhing” over the this woman and the dress, and today it’s all cancelled?

    Over a Haute Couture dress?

    How much do people think they generally cost? They are usually worth some people’s
    mortgages. They are not for mere mortals like us, they are for the 1%. Plus they are works of art really considering how many hours and people work on just one creation. It’s all relative.

    Not that the couturiers aren’t making a profit. Still it’s also like paying for the name as well. Your Toyota vs Maserati, you get the picture?

    Now having said that, R&R must have known who the buyer was and I daresay, the dress may have been bought at a significantly lower price than the suggested retail price. It may be valued at $75,000, I doubt very much Prince Harry or Prince Charles paid that much for it. Just the publicity of it, is worth a lot to R&R, not that R&R need the publicity. So it’s win-win for all parties involved.

    The engagement photo that people are saying look like Harry and Meghan were walking drunk was a candid shot that the couple or their PR decided to release as a gift, it wasn’t meant to the “official” photos. So yeah, it looks a bit funny, but far less staged than the other two “official” ones.

    As for “official” photos: the one with her eyes closed looks like a generic jewellry ad to me and nowhere as crazy as some photos regular people post on social media of engagements or weddings. All three photos are very, very tame and tasteful by comparison.

    Comparing Meghan and Katherine = two different kettle of fishes in terms of backgrounds and personalities. Meghan is everyone’s darling now, just as Katherine was when they got married. Give them another year or two and ppl will be ho-hum over Harry & Meghan as well.

    I do think Meghan does have a far better sense of what works for her clothes-wise at least. She probably has worked with pros and picked up tips, might have someone picking and curating things for her right now. Unlike Katherine, who, because of her own personality, Will’s influence and the fact that she will be Queen one day (well, if they stay married and the Monarchy survives past QWII’s death), does tend to pick more safer choices (expect for when she is flashing everyone).

    TL,DR: MEHgan can do what she wants with access to the Royalty funds now so dress price a non-issue.

    • minx says:

      Of course she can buy and do what she wants, but she’ll get a sh*tstorm of grief if she’s perceived as a let-them-eat-cake spendthrift. These are tough time for many people.

    • Nike says:

      Haute Couture means: hand-made. And there goes a lot of work into such a gown. Both the fashion jewelry as well as all those ruffles on the bottom part were hand-applied. Even if R&R wanted to decrease the price they simply can’t unless they are willing to make a loss.

      The Royal Family are a political institution as the Queen is head of state.
      That means that all those rules about polticians receiving gifts must be applied to all members of the RF as well. Else you don’t even know who bribed your politicians or royals.
      So if Meghan got a discount for that dress then she should have to admit it. The phrase “purchased privately” makes me suspect that somebody from outside the RF bought that dress for Meghan and she will have to repay later.

  47. Tamaris says:

    It’s funny to see how Americans talk about how the royals esp. will and kate don’t work a lot. Nobody in the royal family works a lot. That’s why many brits complain about them an think they are useless other then tourist attraction. And meg will also not work that much. That is their life. Royals never worked! Never! They just occupied other countries and let others work for them. Meg had to gave up her job and her new job will be making kids an attending some events and looking good. Thats it.
    The young royals are needed pr because we know what happens with royals when the people don’t want them anymore. See russia, france, greece etc.

    • Mika says:

      Sophie Ryhs Jones married to Prince Edward worked, before marriage, made her own money and what most don’t know is Sophie was worth about One Million of her own.
      Autumn Kellyy worked before marrying the Aqueens Grandson.
      Actress Sophie Winkleman married to Lord Fredrick Windsor worked and still works.

      Diana worked before marriage.
      Kate is the only modern day Princess who didn’t have a real job or career of some kind. She was supported by her parents. I do not see how Kate should ever have been called a role model. She was basically a party girl for a decade living off her parents and vacationing until William married her.

      Megan made several million dollars and bought this dress last year, it’s beautiful and she can darn well wear it if she wants to. She is stunning. The ballgown in engagement photos reminds me of Diana days. I love it.

      • Tamaris says:

        Well they all stopped working after they married didn’t they? Very few of them still work but thats just the smaller royals right? So diana worked? She was a babysitter right? She married charles when she was 19 so how many years did diana worked?
        And of course Meghan can do whatever she wants when she is a common woman but from now on shes NOT! People will judge her.
        Who said that kate is a role model?
        And wow she was a party girl who did not work before marrying will? Where do have this kind of information from? Enlighten me please. And don’t get me wrong i don’t want to defend any of these useless royals i think its just hypocrisy to trash just a specific person and praise others who will just live the same Life.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sophie ran her own PR and marketing business until she was caught in a tabloid sting operation. After that, she and Edward quit their outside jobs and just did royal work from then on.

        For the two years Sophie was still running that business AND doing royal work on the side? She did more royal work each year then Kate Middleton has ever done in a year. That was when Sophie was pregnant and nearly died while giving birth.

      • Redgrl says:

        What did Autumn Kelly do? I seem to recall she met Peter Philips at some car racing event in Montreal where she was in some liquor company’s PR booth.

    • notasugarhere says:

      We can debate whether or not what they count as “work” is anything like real work. Fact remains, for what the royals do, everyone else does more than the youngest three on the payroll. Anne and Charles regularly do 500+ engagements a year each. Edward and Sophie do about 600 combined. Andrew is over 400 iirc.

      The annual numbers will be released soon, either end of December or beginning of January. They are put together by a volunteer named Tim O’Donovan. He separates out the type of work and whether it was done in the UK or elsewhere. That’s the fun part, when we see what a huge percentage of W&K’s “work” was taking holidays on the taxpayers money aka royal tours. They all do these, but for everyone else they are a much smaller percentage of their overall work.

  48. Tamaris says:

    The question for me is: why did meg choose such an expensive dress? Isn’t she involved with charity? Could have spend this money for the poor. But all of them do this, spend crazy money for useless things and than act like they care for the poor. Of course.
    And just because you criticise this, doesn’t mean you are a kate lover. Thats a bit immature. I don’t care that much about kate or diana or meg but to me they are useless and spending too much money.
    Even if its private purchased, where did they got this money from? Do they have a company like apple? Or is it From the jewels they stole from other countries?

    • Maria says:

      Why indeed? She made a point in her engagement interview that one of the first conversations she and Harry had was about how they were committed to their charities.
      The only thing she could do to redeem herself at this point would be to auction it off and donate the proceeds to charity. IMHO.

  49. Bee says:

    She could have worn an $80 knit and a $2000 dress and the end result would have been the same. These people are tone deaf, but when it all comes to a crashing end within the next decade or two, they’ll still wonder why.

  50. Anna says:

    I think, if Kate would’ve done this at her engagement photos…well this article would’ve been completely different :D It’s sooo funny, how you guys are so biased with this girl…I mean older than any of them (will, kate and harry) girl :D
    I think its soo obv what happened here.
    She wanted to be a princess so badly, apart from playing a role and making harry fall in love w her (cause I bet she is not giving always herself) – she HAD to make it obvious so she wore a princess gown w big tulle skirt and everything. To be honest, it wouldn’t even be a problem that she is not so formal with a normal dress or a skirt suit, but the see thru mesh top? Kinda cheap looking, not so tasteful and not appropriate? I mean for God’s sake…its a royal engagement photo call. Not a glamorous cover shoot for Vogue or something like that….
    Also, I don’t like the fact that ‘they’ chose that photo where Harry’s face is squished and looks a bit funny? (where they r sitting on the stairs).
    Plus…from a style point of view…Harry’s blue suit doesn’t match that princess gown…I mean he’s not in a tuxedo…or a black suit…so it looks a bit uncoordinated? Like he is wearing a casual work suit and she goes full on tulle princess gown :D Plus the colors arent matching either…..

  51. Jillybean says:

    Hello! She’s been a professional actress for years- she’s made money- who knows if that’s where she spends her money! Besides. Later she could likely donate this for fundraising or something.

  52. hmmm says:

    It doesn’t matter that the dress was ‘privately purchased’. It’s the fact that no one needs a dress that costs the earth nor needs to wear it. It’s not even like it’s a genius design.

    “Boots on the ground”, huh?

  53. A brit says:

    She publicised the dress. A 56,000 pound dress. She is publicising for a certain socioeconomic status. She is contributing to the excessive and ludicrously wealthy elite culture while we struggle to get basic healthcare and while families are living below the poverty line in massive numbers. All that bu.. cr.ap of her being a humanitarian and a voice for us ‘common people’ is utter hypocrisy.

    • Bee says:

      Yes, she’s hopped aboard the gravy train, and won’t get off until someone pries her fingers loose and throws her. It’s really time the British public shut this elitism down.

    • Veronica says:

      This is what bothers me the most. The image-she created : hard-working humanitarian. Who, at the first chance she gets, wears a 75k gown, and doesnt seem to even understand how that would look. What planet is she living on?
      I never really bought the humanitarian angle. I think she did a few events, and really played them up. Since meeting Harry, i think she has done one, or maybe none. Instead of any events in Sentable this year, she and Harry vacationed in Africa – twice. They are vacationing again after the New Year.
      I get that people like a fairytale. I do understand that. But with the world in the shape it is in, with poverty growing in England, and US poor kids with no health insurance, maybe our fairy tales should be about people of privilege really sacrificing, getting their hands dirty, being very frugal. Not swanning around in a 56,000 pound dress. Cause I have to be honest: I’m relatively secure in my life, but these pictures, and her immediately being a huge spender, got me pretty angry for all the have-nots. It’s not like any of them earned this privilege. Even Meghan is marrying WAY up financially.

      • Charlie Canada says:

        I agree, Veronica. I never bought the humanitarian thing either. She’s done a couple of things, a UN speech, a trip to Africa which was basically a photo op. She’s not a humanitarian at all — it’s just PR, and playing up to Harry’s interests. It infuriates me that she calls herself a humanitarian then wears a $75k dress (and calls herself a feminist then poses in super sexy shots for magazines). My cousin operates a large children’s charity in Haiti, and SHE is a true humanitarian. She’s won the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Award for her humanitarian work, among many other awards, and she would never dream of wasting money on expensive clothes when she could fund children’s families and education with that money. $75k would substantively help at least 150 families in Haiti.

      • Nike says:

        To help the poor charity won’t do. It just won’t raise enough money.
        Political reforms are necessary and as long as the rich get richer because the poor get poorer it won’t happen.

  54. Wisdomheaven says:

    Meghan just messed up here. I love the dress and love R&R because their fashion is just pure art. But they also have RTW pieces she could have easily used instead. Is it possible Meghan was gifted this without seeing the price? Either way, absolutely a dumb move that could have been avoided with just some pause. Meghan has been very wise with her few royal fashion choices, so this was a surprising misstep. I hope they learn from this. Someone on another board said that her Self Portrait dress from the Lunch this week would have pretty given the same effect and I agree with that. She should have gone with that.

    But frankly, all the value signaling in these threads is eye roll inducing. Americans (and British people) are currently spending obscene amounts of money on Christmas presents and the like. Any one gift you buy for your kid or whoever could go to someone needy. Before people come for my neck, I am sure plenty of folks here donate their time and money to charity or don’t buy presents or whatever, but many people have moments of splurge.

    Also, people who say they cannot imagine paying so much for something…well if you do not have that kind of money than yeah, its not something you consider. But I know that for myself, the more I have grown in my career and thus pay, the more my idea of what is “reasonable” has changed. I like to think I would never pay 75k for a dress if I was a celeb, but at the same time these are people who could give 98% of their wealth away and STILL be in the top 1%.

    But honestly, in the grand scheme of things, how is 2k more reasonable for a dress that is almost always mass produced and cheaply made? Or a $300 purse? Kate wore a McQueen this week that cost several thousands of $$$$$ and it was just a simple silk dress! I am not going to focus too much on rich people wearing expensive clothes.

    Now if Meghan ends up a lazy and workshy royal like Catherine, she will have all my critique.

    • Mika says:

      Bull . She has her own millions and bought the dress last year.

    • Tamaris says:

      All the royals are workshy! Don’t expect too much of a woman who gave up her job for a husband ;-)
      No honestly, this is what a royal life is like, they do nothing. They let the media write friendly stories how they are involved in some charities and dress up for some events and wink to us with a smile to the ordinary people who fund their wealthy fancy life with our money.

      • Mel says:

        I agree. Nobody will ever convince me that cutting ribbons and making the odd speech is hard work. It may FEEL like hard work to pampered people having to be there regardless of how they feel (I am sure I would prefer relaxing in their private art galleries or reading a book in a fabulous garden, too), but it is still outrageously overpaid “work”.

    • liriel says:

      The price tag is for the Trumps and Russian oligarchs, Saudi Arabia’s roalty who’re vulgar and into showing off. That’s why people love when a rich celebrity wears something reasonably priced. Meghan was supposed to be a breath of fresh air, you all commented on her being a divorcee, biracial, actress, humanitarian and then she gets a ring and poses in a sheer 75k dress. Let’s agree it’s a misstep PR wise. You can afford a dress for 10 millions? Then buy it and flaunt it. So Trump/y like.

    • Nike says:

      Well, Meghan’s $75.000 engagement pic dress does out-do Kate by the thousands. Kate’s engagement pic dress was in the four digits.
      Criticism may start.

      I think it might be the case that Meghan will turn out worse than Kate: more spending and less work. Meghan might have even sillier ideas about what it means to be a memeber of the Royal Family than Kate who believed that marrying the Prince equals life in a no-work paradise with clothes and shoes and jewelry galore.

  55. Tamaris says:

    I have no problem with that she is a wealthy young lady in her own right. What I have a problem with is tax payers money being used to fund a growing & increasingly irrelevant family.

    She’s in the public eye now and she’s come in amidst severe austerity in Britain. If people are outraged, maybe they have a point. Poverty is high and the people’s opinion of politicians is at an all time low. Welcome to the royal family Meghan from here on in your life is under scrutiny.

  56. Dana says:

    The Queen and the Royal Family like thrifty. And the dress is ugly as so I’m sure it raised a few eyebrows in the family the cost and the sexy nature of the top would not have gone down well. Everyone talks about Princess Annes work because she is good at it her clothes get some mention but it’s usually because she has reworked an old dress or fits in one from the eighties. Anne does not care about fashion. Megan needs to calm down at the moment she is looking more like Fergie who was a kid in a candy store and spent money like water. Meghan needs to learn money and expensive things don’t impress the Royals it is the work you do and so far she has had one engagement if you go take a look back Diana did a whole engagement tour thankfully I think the Royals learnt some valuable lessons with their treatment of Diana and both Meghan and Kate are both reaping the reward. Until Meghan does anything her clothes will be the main focus.

    • Wisdomheaven says:

      The Queen’s clothing cost is never reported, but almost everything she wears is bespoke.Some her white beaded gowns? I can guarentee those run in the 10s of thousands to make.

      The Queen had to get the government to fund a MASSIVE refurbishment of BP for reasons yet to be explained, the money earmarked for BP repairs over the years didn’t go to that. This is all in a time of austerity. Why no outrage over that? The Queen pretends to be thrifty, and maybe she is compared to her rather grand mother. But all the royals, including Good ole Liz, spend inordinate amounts of money.

      Meghan has talked candidly about struggling to make ends meet in her 20s and seeing her mother at times struggle even with the help of her father. I hope that sense sticks with her when she gets around the huge spendthrifts that are the royal family. This dress outing gave me pause, but I am hoping it was just a rookie/caught in the moment mistake.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Multiple reports about HM owning 200 of the same handbag at $2000 a bag. All of her shoes are custom made, minimum £1,000 a pair. She wears Hermes scarves. While she might have the beading on those gowns redone for different dinners, that still requires paying Angela Kelly and a team of staff to undo and re-embroider it. For decades she (and her mother before her) has used a custom face cream made for them by a chemist in Scotland (Murray’s Emollient Skin Cream, not available to the public).

        From some reports, Markle bought the dress herself last year. Who knows what kind of discount she got, as it could easily have been purchased at a deep discount in exchange for a television actress planning on wearing it to some award show. Especially if it was purchased before October of last year, it would have been based on her alone and not her royal connection (which wasn’t known until Oct/Nov of last year).

      • hmmm says:

        ” All of her shoes are custom made, minimum £1,000 a pair”

        How many does she have? Meanwhile….I guess she didn’t shop around for a competitive price.

        If indeed, Markle bought the dress herself while anonymous, even if there was a discount, she got robbed. It certainly is not breathtakingly memorable nor aesthetically stunning. Besides, who wants to pay that much for a bit of fabric? This tells a lot about her.

        The queen’s spending is appalling too.

    • Nike says:

      Queen and Royal Family PRETEND to be thrifty.
      And them pretending to be thrifty includes not paying the minimum wage to their employees (the cleaners).

  57. Tamaris says:

    Some people write that Meghan worked hard for her money. Did she worked in a hospital 16 hours a day? I mean come on, she was lucky and good looking and acting is nothing i would consider „hard working“ . American actors are well known for being totally overpaid. She did work sure, but its not „hard“ or „difficult“ being in front of a camera with makeup artists and hairstylists who pretty you up for free. Its not like when we, the common people work. Theres a reason why being an actor or actress is a dreamjob to many people ;-) the money the fame….. its not because of „hard work“ or a lot of work.
    Its just work, fancy easy work. No college degree needed.

    • Wisdomheaven says:

      Actually, actors do often work 14-18 hour days. Acting can be extremely hard, long days. For many movies like say SW, the training that goes into those roles are intense. You might as well say the people who work in offices have it easy. After all, they are not working in coal mines or construction so how hard can it be?
      Why this disdain for actors?

      Further, since Meghan was of age to work, she has always held jobs, many time multiple jobs starting in her mid-teens. Nothing distinctive about that in that every normal person does that, but she did have to hustle and work hard while trying to make it hollywood.

      Trying to break into hollywood is extremely difficult no matter how good looking you are.

  58. Wo says:

    That dress is ugly af. Also calling republicans “anti monarchist types” is really dismissive. How anyone could be a monarchist in 2017 is what you should consider baffling .

  59. Maum says:

    It doesn’t matter who paid for the dress.

    Brits have this idealised vision of the duty first Royal Family and parading around a country garden in a ridiculously expensive dress is Vogue photo shoot, not Royal family.

    The whole thing is very Marie Antoinette, and they’re not even married yet.

    ETA having checked the average UK salary, it turns out that for women it is just over 25K a year (men 30).
    So basically for one photo shoot and 2 public pictures she bought a dress that is more than twice the average UK salary.
    People will remember that.

  60. liriel says:

    First the bubly, Bachelor-like interview then this dress and the Bachelor-like photoshoot. Maybe she’s in a Bachelor bubble. I wonder if she can care about the poverty yet be tone deaf to what a public wants and should see. I thought she had more street smarts than this. Enjoy most of the perks privately, Meghan.

    • Veronica says:

      The more I think about this, the more I wonder about Meghan. We already know Harry is entitled and clueless. I hoped she might bring him down to earth a bit. But the very first chance she gets to show her sensibility, she goes all Hollywood, both in the pictures, which are really quite physical, and in her clothes, which seem to show that “I got it now, and I’m going to milk it for all it’s worth!” Even if she paid, it’s very “Suck it, peasants!” And it seems to be in contrast with what she says about charity work.
      Americans on twitter don’t see the big deal cause they don’t understand the monarchy. They think the British public will be thrilled to have a pretty, sexy woman marrying Harry. Most Americans have no idea that the taxpayers support the BRF. So they are angry at the British media for making a big deal about this. Most comments I’ve seen from those who undersand the role of royalty and the financial aspect are worried that meghan made a huge misstep here and it will be how people see her from here on.
      I think she should donate this gown to a British charity ASAP, and buy a wedding dress for under 10K. Be frugal, Meghan!!! Be smart!!!!

      • liriel says:

        Thanks you for such a reasonable post and reminding us that while Harry is loved here on CB he is indeed entitles, clueless and caused quite a few scandals and he’s not a changed man. Meghan seems narcissistic to me, if she and her people were smart she’d try to be more relatable because that was her asset. She wasn’t lady Kitty, she worked and knew the value of money *ekhm* and now she looks SMUG, it really looks like she acts she won an Oscar.
        As for the wedding dress, I do agree, people may say ‘wear whatever you want, it’s your day’ but if she wanted to do that she should have chosen a billionaire not a member of the BRF. I hoped she’d bring more casual, maybe even boho style to the BRF and not OTT glamour. Times have changed, she needs to understand the mentality of the British and navigate those circles.

    • Squidgy says:

      Compared to the royals, Meghan is coming from a very modest background and might be a bit … you know, she has stars in her eyes due to all that has been (and will be) showered on her. This is one of many reasons why people (especially royals), like to marry within their own circles. It just makes things easier.

  61. perplexed says:

    The price wouldn’t be so bad if it were a prettier dress, imo.

  62. Aerohead21 says:

    Yeah, unless she paid with her own money, or Harry got it for her, it’s a ridiculous amount to spend on a dress when you will spend your life serving those “beneath” you….there are so many faces she will see who are in need and to go so big on a dress….she could have gotten a perfectly suitable dress for several hundred, which to me is still extravagant.

  63. Maria says:

    Agree with you Veronica. Doesn’t matter who paid for it. $75k for a dress is ridiculous. A big f/u to the plebs who are after all the Queen’s subjects, and to whom the Queen promised to devote her entire life to their service.

  64. Princessk says:

    One thing that is almost sure she is very unlikely to ever wear this dress again.

  65. Penelope says:

    I like them both but a 75K dress is just ridiculous, period.

  66. Christine says:

    The vogue interview for weeks ago showed exactly what Meghan will be like. Haut couture big statements. If you all think she move across the pond for nothing else than the extreme wealth, you will be in for a big disappointment. It’s all about Meghan. Period.

  67. thaliasghost says:

    I’m sorry, but there is NOTHING justifying this. Even if the dress is entirely produced using organic material and everybody involved in producing it has received more than a fair wage and benefits. This kind of money could have provided hundreds of Malaria shots, green star operations, gone towards a homeless shelter, school fees for children in Africa, paid for medical treatment of animals, provided clean drinking water and gone towards the construction of wells … you get the gist. This is the kind of reckless spending that earns somebody the title ‘Marie Antoinette’. Whatever I was thinking of Meghan Markle previously, it has been overturned.

  68. FLORC says:

    Agree on all points.
    Couture gowns are just gorgeous works of moving, wearable art. Not only are most uncomfortable, but you can’t function in lots. My mind goes back to McQueen(?) Where the collection looked like elaborate characters on deck card faces. You could walk in those… sort of… that’s it. Fitting through doorways? Holding a drink? Lol…

    I stand by my initial thoughts. These gowns are statement gowns. This was a statement photoshoot. And I’d be extremely surprised if a year after the wedding her wedding gown and this gown were not in some way on display or helping financially benefit a charitable cause.

  69. Nilo says:

    When I read about the cost of this dress I was quite sick of her already. That and her over the top posing.