Good God it’s busy today. Meghan Markle and Prince Harry had this on their schedule today, not knowing that this would be the day that the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to the latest little heir, Prince T’Challa Philip Thomas Arthur of Cambridge (I’m just guessing). Harry and Meghan stepped out today for a memorial service for Stephen Lawrence, a black British man who was murdered 25 years ago in a violent, racist hate crime. It took nearly 20 years for his murderers to be convicted in a court of law, and the case was a massive thing in the UK. They changed the laws in Britain because of this case. People Magazine did an interesting article about it here.
So this is a serious moment. It’s not a moment for frivolity whatsoever. Still, we’re going to talk about her fashion, because of course we are. That’s the point of all of this, and I mean that in a larger “this is why the royal family has embraced Meghan so quickly” sense too. It would have been fine for Prince Harry to attend this memorial service on his own, sans Meghan. But the New Woke Windsors have a shiny new toy: an African-American woman who is engaged to one of the most popular figures in the family. So of course Meghan was asked to attend, or maybe she even wanted to draw attention to this herself. Everyone wants to see these photos run in every publication, because that’s the way the Windsors get to perform their wokeness, especially in the same newscycle where the #1 heir to the throne committed a racial microaggression against a British-Indian woman.
With that in mind, let’s talk about fashion. Meghan wore this Hugo Boss dress which is fine. It’s not LOOK-AT-ME but it’s not a black sack either. It’s got a nice cut, but the fabric – a stiff-looking black cloth with white “marbling” – is not great. Her accessories aren’t great either – why put this dress with beige shoes and a beige clutch? Why not black accessories? But other than that, it’s fine, as I said. She looks good, she looks pretty and she looks respectful towards the event.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
That skirt length is not flattering on any woman. Right above the knee would have been perfect.
Sleeveless and above the knee would not be appropriate royal wear for a sombre day event.
I think the sleeveless dress was fine. Remember that this was a memorial service, not a funeral. She looked beautiful.
How warm is it in London? I think a formal event calls for a jacket of some sort. I think Meghan makes the mistake of dressing too casually for a lot of her events. She misses on at least one piece of clothing each time.
Actually I love that length. I’m very tall so cheap maxi dresses are either too short or I look like a sausage in them while shorter dresses draw (in a workspace environment unwanted) attention to my legs. This is perfect and makes my calves look nice. And Meghan with her super delicate ankles works it too.
Longer skirts are easier, especially if you’re going to be photographed seated. That’s why some royal women wear/carry shawls – to cover their knees and prevent an accidental up-skirt shot if they wear a pencil skirt.
Actually I love that length. The only downside is you can’t wear it with flat shoes like you can with skirts of any other length, but if you’re going to wear heels then I think it looks perfectly lovely. Plus, it’s usually less fussy than knee-length skirts, in my personal experience.
I think she can pull it off because her legs are so skinny.
Above the knee skirts are a little dated looking right now though, midi lengths are a bit more chic.
I love that length. It’s tricky, but she’s skinny and it looks great.
It’s good for tall or skinny women. Lovely dress. But I’d change the shoes again…
Not appropriate to wear.
Why not?! It’s black, not short, nor showing any cleavage. It’s perfectly fine for memorial service.
I thought it was a well known fact that Hugo Boss designed the Nazi suits. If Meghan didn’t know, she’s forgiven, but if she knew and still wore his brand to a hate crime ceremony of a victim, them shame on her.
Oh okay. Thanks Beth. I forgot all about that.
Beth, Hugo Boss didn’t design the uniforms, he produced (supplied) them to the Nazi Party. The designers were SS-Oberführer Prof. Karl Diebitsch and Walter Heck.
Hugo was basically stylist for the Nazis. But this is fashion label. Btw Alex McQueen hated thw royals… It’s meaningless now.
Milla, people choose the ‘history’ they seek to remember…
If I recall didn’t he embroidered an interesting comment inside one of Charles’ coats?? (LOL)
Because Hugo Boss dressed nazis? That was my initial flinch.
Other than that she looks great. The shoes and bag aren’t perfect, but I love that her imperfections in dress make the look accessible.
Letizia and Mary wear Boss frequently, so it isn’t like other royal ladies avoid this label.
According to who?? There is nothing wrong with what she is wearing. It’s isn’t a mini dress and super low cut. Can we do away with these outdated fashion “rules” please?
+1
Hugo Boss was the Nazi clothing designer, so I wouldn’t wear that for a cerimony of someone who died as the result of a hate crime.
She’s marrying someone who thought it was ok to dress up like a Nazi for a costume party. I’m sure the fact that Hugo Boss designed the SS uniforms doesn’t bother her.
@Char – really???!!! I didn’t know that. Unfortunate overlap, that.
@Char
Didn’t think of it like that.
Audi, Volkswagen, and the German branch of Kodak all used slave labor during WWII, as did Mitsubishi and Kawasaki. Bayer Drug was a division of the company that manufactured the gas used in death camps. Boeing built the planes that dropped bombs (atomic and otherwise) on innocent civilians. Chase Bank had no problem freezing the bank accounts of Jewish customers. The founder of IKEA was briefly a member of the Swedish version of Hitler Youth. I’m not sure what my point is, but I always see Hugo Boss singled out here on CB. They are hardly alone in how they profited from WWII, so I thought I’d add some context.
@jetlagged – I was just thinking the same thing. Plus – the company still exists. They designed the uniforms how many years ago (literally I’m not sure what year the Nazis began using those uniforms)? No one gets worked up over Volkswagen or any of the other companies that helped power the Nazi regime.
“No one gets worked up over Volkswagen or any of the other companies that helped power the Nazi regime.”
@Betsy,
Plenty of people get worked up over Volkswagen and other companies that had Nazi links. I was raised in a family that tried to be aware of that stuff, and my family was not unique. I even understand the argument of it was a long time ago and the company isn’t still supporting Nazis, but I’d rather give my money to a company that never supported Nazis, plenty exist.
Even on a work trip, where it was not my money, I made a rental car place find us a new car when they tried to give us a VW – and when I told my co-worker who came on a later flight, so did not pick up the car with me, I didn’t need to explain my reasons and she even said she’d have made me bring it back if I’d taken the VW.
Between this and the Irish colors worn to Northern Ireland, I wonder sometimes if someone is trying to undermine Meghan. Either that, or she needs to do more research before she buys clothes. This seems very tone deaf, again.
@Nick2b LOL.
I agree, Kitty – sleeveless just seems wrong for the occasion.
C’mon that seriously nitpicky. She looks sombre and appropriate. This was a memorial, not a funeral.
Just watched the service on the bbc news, and she was the only person there with bare arms.. so i guess i retract my statement. She really needs to get a stylist who knows how to dress a royal. Looking good just isn’t good enough.
MrsBump, I spy with my eyes at least three women in the choir in sleeveless dresses…here is a link for your perusal (they are on the left just opposite the couple when they sit)…
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/949898/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-25th-anniversary-murder-black-teenager-Stephen-Lawrence
But in the assembly? Sorry she’s there in an official capacity, she should dress up not down.
MrsBump, I was responding to your statement:
“Just watched the service on the bbc news, and she was the only person there with bare arms.. so i guess i retract my statement. She really needs to get a stylist who knows how to dress a royal. Looking good just isn’t good enough.”
You stated that “she was the only person there with bare arms”. You were incorrect. Just own up to your original error.
Own up to what error? You think that she should be taking her queues from the choir members?
I thought it would be implicit that i was referring to those attending the service, she is a future Duchess, the expectations are higher for her.
Your error that Meghan Markle was the only person exhibiting her arms. That is what you said…the ladies in the choir are people too. I don’t know their names but they are humans (people, persons) & important too.
@tonya – now you are certainly reaching for something to be offended about.
Did i say or even imply that they were non humans just because they were in a choir?
Let me say this again, once more, Meghan was there in an official capacity, as a future member of the Royal Family, who represent Great Britain. The people in the choir are not, they are there to provide the music. So it shouldn’t be hard to understand that the two would have different dress codes. Meghan’s dress code should have been similar to that of the other people in the assembly and more specifically to those present for official duties. I hope that was clear enough this time.
Right, wrong, or nuts, when I hear Hugo Boss, I immediately think Third Reich.
MrsBump, I’m not offended (I wasn’t sleeveless in the church photographs). I like facts & figures. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I really like for people to state actual facts, especially when they can be easily verified with empirical data…
Another one of my favorite dresses! I love it – it’s so pretty.
And calling Arthur Philip Henry as the baby’s name.
Is Richard a Royal name? ‘Cause I’m going with Richard.
It is, there were three kings names Richard and two of them have a pretty horrible reputation. Richard I Lionheart would be okay I guess, but Richard II was overthrown by Henry IV and starved to death in captivity and thanks to Shakespeare, Richard III will be forever known as the monstrous hunchback who killed his nephews.
The Queen’s cousin is Prince Richard, the Duke of Gloucester
Valois: Richard 3 is the victim of Tudor propaganda. With time, that propaganda is receeding, but it’s still sad to see it repeated.
To be clear, i’m not saying Richard was a saint, but the Tudors needed to establish their right to the throne. The Battle of Bosworth Field gave them the throne, but they had no legitimate claim to the throne.
I’m guessing Richard is avoided more since the last King Richard, Richard the III, “disappeared” his nephews and ascended the throne in their place. Prior to that it was quite the royal name, with Richard the Lion-Heart being the first King Richard.
LAK, I know the Tudor propaganda perpetuated the idea of Richard being a hunchback, but from his bones that were found it does seem like he was probably suffering from severe scoliosis, which would affect his outward appearance. I’m curious- do you think the princes in the tower were not murdered by Richard? I’ve read a lot about it, but it was many years ago. Last I read it seemed most likely they had been.
LAK, you’re right and I know all of that. I thought I made it clear by exaggerating and mentioning Shakespeare.
It’s been established how Henry VII (and later Shakespeare) managed to create such a popular and long-lasting myth (incl. then red/white rose as an icon and a nice but bs background story) but I highly doubt people’s perception and Richard’s reputation will significantly change anytime soon.
Richard the Lionheart was a blood thirsty thug to be honest.
Yeah him constantly raising taxes so he could play Great Warrior while abandoning his country doesn’t scream heroic to me, but most people would probably hear the name and think “good king from Robin Hood!”.
Somegirl: He had scoliosis, but not to the extent of ‘hunchback’ or physically frail. There are numerous accounts of his physical prowess on the battlefield, on horseback, hand to hand combat etc
There is a fascinating documentary about an experiment carried out by the university of Leicester where they found a modern man with similar curvature of the spine who was trained and exercised in the manner of Richard who came out the other side as strong as any man or better.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RpVt7pAcOGI
One of the reason his scoliosis became ‘hunchback’ is the medieval belief that physical imperfection meant someone was touched by the devil and therefore evil. It was a visual telegraphing of that prejudice to the audience without saying a word. The more crooked the better.
The play ignores so much about his life, good or bad, and instead creates a monster capable and accused of all sorts of skullduggery regardless of the real record.
The principal reason for this blackening of his name had everything to do with the fact that the Tudors had toppled a legitimate, anointed King. One with a very popular base in the north of England, whilst having no legitimate claim to the throne themselves. One of the reason the Tudors relied so heavily on propaganda and self-promotion.
As for the Princes in the Tower, another propaganda. There are several candidates for their killer, and at his death they were considered ‘disappeared, but not dead’. The idea that one or both was still alive was so strongly believed by the population that several years later, several pretenders eg Perkin Warbeck who pretended to be younger Prince in the Tower, were able to raise armies in rebellion against the Tudors with very strong public support.
Valois: Part of the reason he was able to create such a thorough and long-lasting myth was due to the fact that he executed anyone who showed support for the dead King. He laid down laws that called such supporters traitors as well as making it a capital offense if found in possession of anything that might support Richard including literature. He destroyed any such literature he could find. Much of what we’ve been able to find to revise the record is found in the national archives of foreign countries whose ambassadors were present at court and wrote to their foreign masters of events in England.
I think killing his nephews is the natural next step after declaring them illegitimate and seizing the throne. It may not have been the Tudor’s throne, but it wasn’t Richard’s either – until those pesky nephews were disappeared. Elizabeth York was the natural heir, and it was a brilliant move to marry her to Henry Tudor.
Regardless of Richard’s usurpation of the throne, he was a legitimate claimant to the throne and a strong claim in every way that mattered. He was the next male heir after his nephews. And after him, a smorgasbord of people with a much stronger claim than the Tudors who were twice illegitimate and barred from the throne forever.
All the York sisters would have been, and were, married off strategically to improve the King’s standing and build allies. Henry Tudor marrying Elizabeth of York is an extension of this type of strategy because it guaranteed the support of Edward 4’s allies.
Appropriate, fits well, serious. A+
agwee – she looks amazing
I hope that when she sees the photos from today, she will rethink that sloppy bun. Her hair looks like she just crawled out of bed. She is lovely but that flyaway mess of hair strings is not.
“Prince T’Challa Philip Thomas Arthur of Cambridge” LOL. Thanks for that laugh. She looks lovely and appropriate. The header picture is beautiful!
I had to laugh and SMH at that name, too! Someone on another thread named the little man “Wakanda Windsor”. Maybe we should have a vote! And, yes, Meghan looks lovely; I really like this dress on her. She’s seems to be glowing, along with Happy Uncle Harry. 🙂
The other day she wore an ugly dress with buttons, now she’s got a clutch and wearing nude heels… has she been borrowing things from Kate? Not a terrible outfit, but would’ve looked a lot better with black shoes
No, check out old pictures of Meghan carrying clutches, don’t blame Kate for everything,
On this occasion, no need for a shopping bag.
Are royals required to wear nude heels? They rarely add benefit to a look.
A lot of royal women wear nude heels and carry a clutch. This is not limited to Kate.
I like buttons and clutches. Yet, i never ever looked like Kate . Kate isn’t Tesla. She’s just wearing clothes someone picked for her. Meghan’s style was casual and sexy, she’s adjusting it and her stylist is going for safe choices.
I would choose red shoes. Cos nude and black are boring and she wore black several times. Or yellow. Something cheerful either way, cos it’s a happy occasion and she’s not officially royal yet.
Some fashionista once declared that nude heels elongate the legs and they have become a staple as a result. Since royal women aren’t exactly fashion forward, they repeatedly wear this trend years after it is no longer fashionable.
The shoes are wrong. I am loving her hair though…a touch messy but she can pull it off. Wish I could :/
Just as Kate’s sausage curls are destined to annoy me, so too will Meghan’s messy buns.
Ah -it’ called “messy bun.” I called it “sloppy bun” up thread, could not remember the name of it. In either case, it does her no favors.
Very nice. I hope V necks are coming back, I’m sick of crew necks.
Really like this dress. Looks nice on her. And I love the nude heels. Not always a fan of her style, but this time she hit it right.
The paradox of the DM is that it was the leading media campaigner to secure this conviction. They were relentless about the campaign to get the murderers tried and convicted and often do follow ups with the family and the situation.
The then-Editor of The Daily Mail knew Stephen Lawerence’s father – that’s why. I don’t think they would have done it otherwise.
DM is often a paradox. They might have the occasional insightful story, but they let racists run rampant in their comments sections.
Looked closely at her face…there are dark shadows. Bet she’s exhausted.
She’s getting really thin, too.
She doesn’t look much thinner to me. Meghan is a very petite woman, so if she loses 5lb, it’s going show easily.
She looks the same to me. She has always been tiny.
She doesn’t have dark circles under her eyes! I don’t see any difference from last year but she might be losing weight from the excitement ahead of the wedding and the novelty of it all. A lot of bride lose weight because of that. I did and I never tried to. Just wasn’t as hungry I guess and most of the time too excited to eat.
I don’t particularly like this on her but I love Hugo boss in general and don’t understand why kate doesn’t wear more of it.
Cause he designed the Nazis uniforms??
This was another misstep by Meghan. The sleeveless, too. It is a formal occasion, and Meghan likes to dress like she is going out with friends to dinner.
Dress, jacket, shoes, bag. Easy.
Kate wears dolce and gabbana and they are currently problematic. So is it really better to support a fashion house with bigoted designers as opposed to a German fashion designer where the founder who was a Nazi is dead. And frankly most German companies have a link to Nazis at some point. What about driving a Ford vehicle since Henry Ford supported Hitler early on? Or what about American companies that existed during the time of slavery? Oh and Coco Chanel was also linked to Germans pre WWII and we know Kate wore Chanel while in France.
Beautiful dress! Not sure the sleeveless look is appropriate for the event, though.
I came here to say the same. She looks pretty but sleeves would be more appropriate for the occasion. And a side note why do men have to wear two layers over their arms to be formal but women can show arms and chest and be formal? Men can wear blue suits everywhere and women have to pick different lengths, cuts, colors for each occasion.
I think it’s the combination of sleeveless and the v-neck that makes the dress a tad bit too inappropriate for me. If it was more covered on top or had the v-neck and a slight cap sleeve I would think it’s a bit better.
Yup. Professional wardrobe needed. This dress is dinner casual with friends.
Dress.
Jacket.
Shoes.
Bag.
Not brain surgery, folks.
She’s been sleeveless at the last few events… why??
Because she wants to be? Letizia of Spain wears sleeveless outfits a lot too.
Why not??
…because she’s not in a country that forces women to stay covered? What on earth is the problem with going sleeveless?
My only issue is what if harry showed up sleeveless? It would be unheard of. Some countries force women to cover up. Others expect women to show some skin to be fashionable while men don’t have to be sexy at work events, which is what they are doing, working. It’s her choice but consider the reasons why the clothes are designed the way they are for men and women attending the same event. It’s not as liberating as it seems.
So unless she shows up in sackcloth, she’s wrong?
Excellent comment. Exactly my thoughts.
Because the UK has been having a crazy heatwave the past few days. Practically everyone is going sleeveless (or shirtless, in the case of every other man I saw in the park over the weekend).
It’s a nice dress but probably a bit too fancy for a memorial service.
From photos of the rest of the attendees, her outfit fits in.
Dear lord Nota, don’t you get tired? You look more and more like Fa or Maya…
Stating my opinion. The rest of the crowd are dressed in similar fashion.
I didn’t see any other attendees with bare arms.
There are actually others with bare arms as pointed out in a link above.
She looks great. Rolling my eyes from the haters on Twitter laughing that “no one cares about this event” since kate gave birth. Yes it’s not Kate’s fault she gave birth, but this event should be getting more attention then it is. Its a very serious event that deserves respect.
The length of the dress does her no favours considering her calves and ankles are so tiny and she does have large feet. Or so it appears. I think she looks fine!
You think she looks fine but you make sure to criticize the size of her feet and her naturally small frame (similar to Letizia of Spain’s).
Stating the obvious isn’t the same as criticizing. Its a fact.
Stating your opinion that someone with a small frame size looks bad in this outfit if your opinion, not fact.
I don’t think her feet apoear to be large. She just has very tiny calves and ankles, and she wears pointed toe shoes.
you say “tiny ankles and calves” like it’s a BAD thing
Dont like anything about this outfit. Top picture the hair is hanging in her face. Not a good look either.
Not sure I would have chosen to wear a sleeveless dress to that type of occasion. The length is kind of strange. I am not trying to pick on her. Just an observation.
I like it, even with the beige shoes and clutch. It fits her well and looks appropriate.
I like it. The dress fits her well. And I think she was trying to keep the look from being to heavy with a black bag and black heels. Which it would have been.
I feel like Harry has worn the same suit for his last 2 weeks of appearances.
Ooh, let’s do Harry! Same as Meghan. Go!
I prefer a slightly longer break, when it comes to trousers. These blue suits are getting tired. Those wingtips are an interesting choice (doesn’t he have people he can consult about these things). His beard looks better with about a quarter of an inch more length. Don’t get me started on the tie. Hopefully, he’ll someday learn to accessorize.
Hahaha!!! IKR? Harry’s hair is ALWAYS in the same short & red style AND he’s wearing two shoes again, both in dark colors, one on each foot. Unoriginal.
Can’t Harry finally get it together! Has he picked the right kind of trousers to make sure his feet don’t look too large?
Ha! On Twitter, , someone pointed out that in the Daily Fail pic, Harry has a hole in the sole of his right shoe. I had to go to look. Who looks at things *that* closely? Lol. (And yes, I looked at the Daily Fail (hangs head in shame*)
It’s not that pretty, but that kind of fabric doesn’t blow up in the wind, so good job!
I’m not crazy about the floppy belt – fold it over or put it in the the belt loop.
I absolutely love, love her hair, beautiful, dark, rich and thick.
I also love her messy hairstyle, her up-do’s are truly great, not stiff and severe, a few pieces of hair framing her lovely face.
I like the dress and the clutch, I would have worn black shoes, I’m no fun of nude heels.
She is very photogenic, her skin tone is amazing, it’s her best accessory.
I actually really like this dress, and the shoes, but again it’s a bit, um, garden party for a memorial service, and I am really getting tired of the loose strands of hair at the side. But in and of itself I like the dress, this time the belt works for her, I think she looks really pretty in the outfit, she just doesn’t look, well, sombre.
I think she looks lovely. Someone was saying (here or on twitter, I cant remember) that it’s fairly warm in London now so I think the dress works overall. I don’t love the beige shoes with it but they don’t “hurt” the look, they just don’t add to it, which is fine for this kind of event.
Why is she the only sleeveless person?? Seems a bit odd.
Did you look at the other people in the audience at the event……?
Oh look, another belt….
@Nick2b – Yes, my first reaction, too, but this time it doesn’t make her look thick, probably because of the flared skirt and fitted top.
I like this look, better than the green Self Portrait dress with the blazer and the navy Stella McCartney cape dress. I know people here are allergic to beige/nude heels because Kate wears them all the time but I think they work with this outfit.
Beautiful dress.
Nude accessories are such a bore… I wish royal ladies and actresses would quit them…
I am curious, what ever happened to royal ladies covering their shoulders for church? At least with a shawl? I personally don’t like to enter a somber event with bare arms unless it’s July or August. I agree with the earlier posts that the length compensates; couldn’t do above the knee AND sleeveless.
For comparison’s sake, at least she didn’t look like one of the Bush family members at Mrs. Bush’s recent service. It was black so I think she thought that made everything else okay. It was near halter sleeveless, WAY above the knee and no offense age-wise, but let’s just say she has a couple to a few decades on Meghan.
This is totally appropriate and Meghan looks nice.
C of E have slackened on that requirement in latter years. At the end of the day, you do want people coming to church and not staying away. So if they have to show a bit of shoulder, so be it, you need a congregation to preach to, not empty pews. Rend your heart and not your garments, no?
But yeah, I know on the continent, it is required that you keep your shoulders covered.
I don’t mind the dress, but I’d freeze without sleeves. It would look better with a different shoe, I’m sick of nude pumps. I got rid of mine a few years back.
I think she looks lovely. There’s not a thing wrong or inappropriate with what she’s wearing. This call for modesty is absurd. Wtf? I feel like women are her biggest critics on that issue.
It isn’t picking her apart to comment that her dress without a jacket isn’t professional. She is attending a memorial service in an official capacity, representing the royal family. Cover your arms, Meghan, like any professional would do.
She isn’t going to dinner with her pals or to a garden party. Dress like it. She is an almost 37 year old woman and should know better. If you are all going to ding Kate for being inappropriate often, at least be honest and call Meghan out on her lack of knowledge of professional wear as well.
And I doubt Letizia would show up at a memorial service in April in bare arms.
I’m not going to pick her apart. She looks great.
She looks totally appropriate for the event. There did not seem to be a prescribed “dress code”; some women wore trousers.
I don’t mind the design but I do mind the label. I don’t support Hugo Boss and will never do. Their apologies for past horrors never felt enough. I don’t even believe they compensated or truly apologized to the families of those who they did wrong.
Sleeveless to a memorial service? I think not. She looks like she’s going to a garden party.
Her hair is a mess. Please change stylists.
Kate would be skewered if she showed up to a memorial service in this outfit.
I just saw other photos of Meghan at DM and you’re right, her hair looks a total mess at this appearance. Usually her hair looks good, it requires a lot of maintenance but yes today, it looks like she fell headfirst into a bog, I’m surprised.
Kate went to the 9/11 memorial museum with Pink. The dress is fine. Plenty of people there wore sleeveless- take a look at the church.
What’s going on with the weather? I just viewed the CTV news London correspondent covering the news of the birth of baby Cambridge 3 and she was all bundled up with a coat and scarf and here’s Meghan sleeveless. Maybe it’s quite damp? Some people can’t tolerate damp weather especially if very windy too.
Maybe Meghan has not yet got the hang of British weather, boiling one day and then icy cold the next.
I think she looks great here.
It’s a lovely dress and she looks good. However I agree with those who said a sleeveless dress is not appropriate for a royal at a church service.
I don’t see the problem with her dress. Some of ya’ll are acting like Diana didn’t wear a sleeveless to Versace’s funeral.
I personally like the dress. Meghan has lost a lot of weight so I hope she picks it up once the wedding is over. Other than that, I like that she sticks to her one “imperfect” in her outfits. She’s glowing and I’m sure her and Harry can’t wait for this to be over. They are less than a month away!
Harry looks good but GOD, I wish someone would buy him another suit. I swear he wore this on Saturday to the Queens birthday. It’s like he and William only 3 sets of suits. They clearly don’t take after Charles with their more formal wear.
Diana was not a royal in 1997. I don’t think one can compare Diana’s post-royal wear to what a royal would wear. Hell, Diana herself became much more daring with her fashion once she divorced Charles.
Hate the shoes ( I don’t get beige shoes, ever) – love the dress. It is perfect. I seriously love this on her. On me it would look very funny, what with my not that thin arms and such, but on her it’s brilliant.
People wear jeans and shorts and flip flops to church these days, I think a bare upper arm should be the least of anyone’s concern.
I also think people need to update their fashion “appropriateness”. Remember when jeans weren’t appropriate at school? Or how about when women couldn’t even wear pants to school or work? Things change. A woman baring her shoulders isn’t scandalous anymore, even in a church.
My question is why? Why is it that all other religions it is considered respectful to follow their codes of dress when visiting. Why is it OK then in Christian cathedrals for people to wear things that are not considered acceptable and it’s ok and get with the times but in a Muslim mosque it would be considered rude and inappropriate
My point was for the comments here, not for what religions insist on women wearing so they don’t distract the men from their important worshipping.
People pointed out that other women were wearing sleeveless dresses/tops also, but yet it was inappropriate for Meghan to do so. It appears it was OK to dress that way in that church.
And if I ever step foot in a house of organized religion again, I will obviously dress according to their rules. I may be atheist but I’m not disrespectful.
Sleeveless dresses are perfectly acceptable in Christian churches and I say this as a former church organist in a Catholic Church. This is just pearl clutching because it is Meghan, ignoring that there were other women with sleeveless dresses also in attendance in the service.
I absolutely love that dress.
Stop calling her a “toy” in order to criticize the BRF, for the love of God. It takes away her agency as an individual instead of pointing out the BRF’s entrenched racism. I get what the goal is, but please find another way to get your thought across.
Hrm. It’s fine – and probably one of the least ugly outfits Meghan has worn since getting engaged* – but if Kate had worn this outfit everyone would be dragging her for wearing sleeveless and a v-neck to church. A nice cardigan over the dress would have been lovely. Also black accessories, the beige just doesn’t go.
* I’m unfortunately not a huge fan of her style. I thought the McQueen suit was fab, but everything else has been a let down.
God her life is so boring now. My sister and i were talking about them today and we both agreed that their marriage is going to blow up big time. Too fast, too rushed and she will get tired of it once the glow of the wedding goes out.
I agree with you.
Shelly. and then his family will say to him, we tried to tell you but you weren’t having it. You just had to get married and have kids right this minute, couldn’t wait a year, now you made your bed now lay in it!!
Shelly, and then of course we will be hearing about her fleeing to the golden state because she misses her mama and so on and so on. Personally, I give it 18 months after the wedding ,before the fit hits the shan and there is a child in the middle and they both realize they made a huge mistake. Then they will spend the next 18 months convincing the public how in love they are, but the the public will see the cracks and rumors of his philandering, and KAPUT in 4 or 5 years!!
In the late ’80s I attended a Catholic service in Huntington Beach. Except for the occasional funeral and wedding, I rarely observe. I was shocked to see teens in shorts and flip flops. Good for them if they’re there for a service.
The dress is fine. No alarms are going off for me, but how warm is it in England right now? Prob too summery and needed a 3/4-length sweater or something.
I think she looks beautiful. The dress is tasteful and modest and understated and completely appropriate for the occasion. I’ve noticed that , these days, Meghan dresses mostly in neutrals, as if she’s going out of her way to avoid her ensemble screaming “Look At Me!” I think that is very smart on her part. I don’t foresee Meghan pulling any exhibitionist skirt-blowing-up crap like Kate has done. She’s smarter than that.
FOOLS RUSH IN!