Emilia Wickstead: Meghan Markle’s wedding gown was ‘identical’ to my design

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

Emilia Wickstead was actually on my shortlist of guesses for who would design Meghan Markle’s wedding gown. I ended up finalizing my two big guesses as “Erdem or Burberry.” I was wrong – British designer Clare Waight Keller for Givenchy designed Meghan’s wedding gown. Some people took issue with the design, because the wedding industrial complex has brainwashed people into thinking every wedding gown has to have a corset and be cut close to the body. There was an elegant simplicity to Meghan’s gown, especially given that she had a conservative framework within which she had to work: the gown needed sleeves, it needed to look traditional/conservative, she could not show too much skin whatsoever, and more. I thought she nailed it. Emilia Wickstead disagreed… sort of. Mostly Emilia Wickstead thinks that Meghan and Givenchy “copied” her design:

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Designer Emilia Wickstead — a favourite of the Duchess of Cambridge — claims the Duchess of Sussex’s wedding dress is identical to her own £7,000 gown. Created by Givenchy’s Clare Waight Keller, Meghan Markle’s £200,000 dress was kept under wraps for months until the big day.

‘Her dress is identical to one of our dresses,’ says Wickstead. ‘Apparently a lot of commentators were saying, “It’s an Emilia Wickstead dress.”’

The designer went on to have a bit of a dig at Meghan’s look. She says: ‘If you choose a simple design the fit should be perfect. Her wedding dress was quite loose.’

And she didn’t approve of the bride’s relaxed hair style: ‘I was like, “Hold the wisps [of her hair] back — it’s a Royal Wedding for God’s sake.”’

[From The Daily Mail]

Someone is pretty salty, eh? You can see the side-by-side at the Daily Mail or in the tweet below. Personally, I think the two gowns are very different. The Wickstead gown is off-the-shoulder, with a nipped waist and a fuller skirt. Meg’s Givenchy was more of a sheath bodice which only displayed her collarbone and not her shoulders. Royal-watchers are already digging up old interviews with Wickstead where she cites old Givenchy designs – like the Givenchy designs for Audrey Hepburn – as some of her inspirations. Those were some of Meghan’s inspirations too, but I guess Wickstead was inspired by Givenchy FIRST and how dare this biracial American wear something that kinda sorta looks like her (cheaper) design if you squint your eyes? So, yeah. Emilia Wickstead is kind of an a–hole, huh?

Update: here’s Wickstead’s statement (after this story was out there for days). I don’t get what she’s saying here? Whatever, salty bitch is salty.

Here’s Meg wearing Wickstead a month ago – I doubt she’ll wear Wickstead ever again, huh?

Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and Prince William at Anzac Day Memorial Service

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Pacific Coast News and WENN.

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

205 Responses to “Emilia Wickstead: Meghan Markle’s wedding gown was ‘identical’ to my design”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MostlyMegan says:

    Wickstead’s insincere non-apology made her look even worse. So unprofessional. What was she thinking? I also loved Meghan’s dress and didn’t think it needed to be super-fitted in order to be beautiful.

    • Jessica says:

      I know! Where are all these armchair seamstresses coming from? I’m sure the Givenchy Creative Director perfected the dress.

      When I saw Audrey Hepburn in Givenchy I totally got it.

      • Masamf says:

        @Jessica, IKR? Meghan’s dress is identical to AH’s Givenchy dress, I have no idea what this Wickstead woman is smoking to be honest. And I really liked how it fit Meghan, I had no idea with how it fit so again, I didn’t and still don’t get the complaints

      • Jan90067 (aka Imqrious2) says:

        Seriously, does she expect to keep her professional relationships with Meg, Kate, and Sophie after this??
        Talk about sour grapes! Emilia just put herself out of commission royally, pardon the pun.

        Meg’s dress is simple elegance, A-lined, a true bateau neck. Emilia’s is an off the shoulder, structurally waisted ball gown…totally different. Does she really think “she” invented this “look”?? Take a few seats, Emilia. Put up your feet, and put the steam iron down to let your head cool off. You’re DONE.

      • Spargel says:

        “Armchair seamstresses.” Brilliantly on point! It’s exhausting.

      • Jessica says:

        It’s on People but the designer said Meghan had 8 fittings. That’s more than enough to correct something if they thought it was a problem.

    • Enn says:

      It’s a direct contradiction of the earlier quote. So tacky.

      I hope they all quit wearing EW now.

      • MostlyMegan says:

        She never actually denies she made the statements, only that it ‘saddened’ her. How can she be saddened by her own statements? Not once does she apologise. Lots of words said, nothing said. She should run for office. (PS Any designer worth their weight in salt knows the difference between a bateau neckline and a shoulderless neckline, a fit/flare skirt and an A-line skirt. Was she drunk?)

    • BlueSky says:

      Wow, she’s a salty biscuit isn’t she?? I thought her dress was lovely. To me it could have been anyone’s design because I’ve seen a million versions of this dress. I would not have looked at it and said “Oh , that’s a so and so’s design.” This woman has no chill. I’m so tired of hearing how loose it was. I agree, so many have been conditioned into thinking it should be figure hugging or sexy.

      • Sherry says:

        It was a beautiful dress and looked exactly like what I expected. Anyone who looked at Meghan’s style pre-wedding knows you can sum it up with three words; clean, simple, elegant. When I would Google those words with wedding dress and “with sleeves” prior to the wedding I saw many dresses very similar to the one she wore.

        It’s a classic design and Emilia Wickstead hardly invented it.

    • Penny says:

      If you go to the EW bridal page on instagram, she has a photo of Harry and Meghan and has it tagged as her own brand!!! That, to me, was another very unprofessional move and I now can’t stand this woman on a personal level. I took that as implying it was her own work (therefore a big fat lie) and stealing credit from Givenchy, I just can’t understand how a “professional” would do such a thing…

    • Stephanie says:

      Way to…not get any more orders from the Duchess, Wickstead. lol

    • Morning Coffee says:

      That apology sounds to me like she got a letter from the Givenchy attorneys and is now trying to back down.

  2. Naptime says:

    Thanks for burning that old lady outfut bridge — that black suit was the worst Meghan has looked!

  3. Melania says:

    This woman sounds so bitter. Really awful. Meghan’s dress was pure Givenchy style.

  4. teehee says:

    How different can wedding gowns look? Lately I am realizing that the concept of white is really limiting, they all look the same to me now….

    Edit: The dress is NOT identical. The waist is different, the sleeves arent even the same length (3/4 versus full)– what the heck, this lady is salty indeed.

  5. Digital Unicorn says:

    When i read this my first thought was ‘sour grapes’ – me thinks she was either asked (and lost out) or was hoping to be asked to design the dress and was pissed when she lost out. When you compare they are similar but not identical and TBH most styles of wedding dresses look alike, the difference being the details.

    I still think this is sour grapes on her part.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      @Digital 🦄 Unicorn:

      This doesn’t add up to me……there’s no way you’d have built a successful global brand like hers by being so flippant and careless with your PR.

      I suspect very strongly that this comment wasn’t meant to be aired in public…..I imagine this was said flippantly to a potential customer (or even an undercover journalist, posing as a customer, looking for exactly this sort of off-the-cuff tactlessness) by way of trying to sell her designs + put down the competition at the same time….

      ”…..well, I know Givenchy and Clare are supposed to be hot right now for having made the royal wedding dress and what-not, but actually, a lot of people think they ripped their design off us AND she didn’t even look that great!”

      Perhaps the conversation was recorded, which would explain why Emilia couldn’t categorically deny she made the comments, hence the “sadness” instead.

      Now, she’s definitely lost the majority of her royal connections because there’s no way Kate or Sophie can wear her designs (even if they wanted to) without looking as though they endorse her insulting remarks towards Meghan. She’s experienced enough to know this and all the other repercussions likely to ensue from this, which is why again, I seriously doubt that she made that comment on the record for public consumption.

      Regardless, (and not to be too mean, but) I would thoroughly enjoy watching her business suffer greatly on the back of this.

      • Anners says:

        Ooh! That’s a really good theory Bella DuPont – it also makes way more sense. Surely she couldn’t be so unaware of the PR disaster her overtly selfish critique would incite.

      • Sophia's side eye says:

        Bella, I was just on EW’s bridal Instagram page. There are several posts with pictures of Harry and Meghan, and also several posts of this dress that’s supposed to be so similar. From what some commenters on there are saying, when the H&M posts were first up they were hash tagged with emiliawicksteadbridal, and the posts with the EW dress were hashtagged royal wedding, and meghanmarkle.

        It’s on Instagram so it’s public. It really does seem that she was already publicly going after Meghan for supposedly copying her design from right after the wedding, which even if it were true, would be the designers fault and not Meghan’s. It’s like brand suicide, I don’t get it.

      • Natalie S. says:

        Maybe she really wants Princess Michael of Kent as a client.

        The Instagram posts are so petty. Why did Wickstead feel so comfortable going after Meghan so publicly?

      • Ms says:

        You are kind to give her the benefit of the doubt, but why in the world is she tagging her stuff publicly, if that’s the case? She doubled down on this and then issued a bald faced lie if an apology.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Sophie’s Side Eye:

        Wow…….thanks for pointing me to her Instagram page…….I didn’t even realise EW had gone that far.

        The whole thing is so incredibly passive aggressive……towards a woman who wears your (shitty) designs as well…..

        Let’s see if Kate endorsed her comments by wearing her designs in the near future. 👀 👀

      • Bella DuPont says:

        For all the talk, chatter and back and forth, the most important person besides Meghan loved the dress.

        Apparently, Prince Harry went up to the designer at the reception and said, ‘Oh my God. Thank you. She is absolutely magnificent.’ Case closed.

        Although, I get the sense that she could have worn a ratty old rice sack and Harry would have thought she looked magnificent!

  6. Lorelei says:

    Emilia sounds terrible. Not only is she wrong about the dress, but she NEVER should have brought Meghan’s hair into it; that was just petty and rude.

    Besides, I watched pretty much every bit of coverage that there was, lol, and did not hear one single commentator say, “That looks like an Emilia Wickstead dress!” 🙄

    Her statement of apology for the comments was dreadful, too. She’s pretty clearly not at all sorry and felt pressured to put out a statement about how sad she is. Hopefully Meghan will never wear her again. Her designs aren’t that great IMO anyway, so not a big loss.

    • Char says:

      Not only was she salty and rude af, she burned herself up for nothing except her bitterness, cause it was obvious that Meghan’s dress was not a copy. And she probably lost two clients, cause Meghan won’t be wearing her again and Kate probably won’t either.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I watched the coverage and followed online and i don’t recall anyone saying it looked like an EW dress. The fact that it was Givenchy threw everyone as no one expect it – everyone was expecting a British fashion house (esp as Kate choose McQueen). It was a British designer but for a French fashion house and not just any French fashion house.

      Givenchy don’t need to ‘copy’ some snotty upstarts ‘designs’, they have quite an archive to work with and that looks like what happened – they raided the Givenchy archive.

      EW needs to shut it and sit down – her designs are really not all that. The brand will suffer for her bitchy comments – esp as if anyone is ripping off others groundbreaking designs its her.

    • jwoolman says:

      I liked the way her hair escaped a bit.
      Made her look normal. I think that’s how she likes it, also.

  7. Clare says:

    Salty AF, but I very much doubt it has anything to do with meghan being a ‘biracial american’ and everything to do with Wickstead being bitter for not being picked to design the dress.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Clare I don’t get the people trying to justify her comments (this is *not* aimed at you at all, but you happened to mention it) by claiming she was disappointed that she wasn’t asked to design the dress. Because so was every other designer in the world, and they all managed to keep their mouths shut or be complimentary about it! EW should have said nothing or been gracious. SMH

      • Clare says:

        Totally agree Lorelai that she should not have said anything if she didn’t have anything nice to say. I personally think she is bitter and tactless, but IMO this is more sour grapes and bitchiness (also pathetic and total lack of manners) than anything to do with race or Meghan’s nationality. Shrug.

    • ennuisha says:

      Yes it does. This is a case of casual racism / implicit bias 101.

      • Emily says:

        There’s something the fact that meghan is American and biracial and not from a fancy family therefore unconciously or conciously she’s considered of lower status that makes these women feel it’s ok to be catty. Classism at best, racism at worst.

      • Luisa says:

        please can you elaborate why this is a case of casual racism?
        I don’t think Wickstead should have made any comments – she has a right to her opinion, but it’s not a good look, esp. since the two dresses aren’t really that similar. But what does racism have to do with it?

      • Natalie S says:

        I mean David Cameron spoke out in defense of Kate -that’s how protected she was. Here, a designer who has BRF clients is openly denigrating one of her clients. There’s more to it than classicism. It’s so bizarre that Wickstead would do this that she seems bothered by Meghan somehow.

      • Luisa says:

        okay, @Emily and Natalie S, you are making very valid points. I think it is classism with a racial undertone. Trust me, I do get it. I am WOC who lives in the UK, so I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if this is some kind of catty elitist put down based on Meghan’s background. However, I think there is no point getting het up over anyone and everyone criticising this dress. I was not a fan of the dress, and I don’t think every criticism of the dress has to do with wanting skin tight or fairy tale cheesy dresses, or hating Meghan, or being racist! It’s a bit silly to imply that.
        However I will say that having thought about it more and read your comments, I am also thinking – this lady is someone with ties to the royals, why would she feel ok to make catty comments about the dress (and about Meghan’s hair ffs)? That’s def something to think about.

      • Nic919 says:

        It’s totally bizarre for her to criticize Meghan about her dress when Meghan wore one of her outfits and was likely a future customer. She didn’t criticize Kate for going with Sarah Burton… why Meghan?

        Anyway I hope all BRF women cut her off.

      • ennuisha says:

        It’s fine to criticize the dress. Absolutely. But as an (a-hem) older lady, I’ve learned to recognize undercover racial shade. :-)

        So, take this instance. What was the take-away about the dress? That Meghan “stole” it, essentially. (Ever so subtly reinforcing the implicit bias notion that black folks are shifty and shady.) Then, with the hair comment? Emilia was ever so subtly implying that Meghan is operating out of her lane (i.e., you don’t even know how to dress for the occasion! you don’t belong!)

        No, it’s not threat-level red Trump-type racism. But it definitely rises from that insidious implicit bias swamp. And all of the small implicit bias crap is the super glue that keeps the iniquitous status quo firmly in place. It brings us presidents like Trump.

      • Melania says:

        @ennuisha
        I totally agree. There were racism and classism in EW comments. Awful

      • Luisa says:

        @ennuisha, you make some really good points. the reason I brought it up is I think because a lot of the time any criticism of Meghan (and I am a big critic of the whole royal family) is labelled racism. which is particularly galling to me as a WOC myself. Even on this site where commenters are mostly thoughtful, there’s a lot of – she is only being criticised because she is American and biracial! Well actually a lot of the criticism is because of the totally nonsensical system of inherited privilege that she is now part of…Arguments tend to be a bit simplistic sometimes.
        But anyway, just wanted to say that I agree with your comment wholeheartedly.

      • ennuisha says:

        @Luisa. I hear ya. And thanks for the debate and conversation!

        When younger, I, too, would become annoyed when people attributed seemingly innocuous incidents to racism. But the older I got…the more I lived…it became painfully clear that the “little stuff” keeps the problematic structure firmly in place. Like I said above (how gross, I’m quoting myself…I’ll show myself out), shadiness like Emilia’s is the invisible super glue. So if we want to topple the structure, we must chip away at that “glue.”

        (What makes it such a Herculean task is that most people really have no idea that they harbor these implicit biases, and refuse to engage in conversations on the topic or entertain the idea that they may be a lot more prejudiced then they realize. They only see racism as a narrow set of acts (i.e., using bad language; joining a hate group, etc.) instead of a multi-layered cultural and societal force.)

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Emily:

        You said

        “There’s something the fact that meghan is American and biracial and not from a fancy family therefore unconciously or conciously she’s considered of lower status that makes these women feel it’s ok to be catty.”

        You are sooooo 1,000% right. It’s baffling, the extent of the vitriol this woman is able to incite, just for meeting a prince and daring to marry him.

        AFAIC, it’s jealousy, pure and simple. Here’s the dictionary definition of the word:

        “Jealousy: feeling or showing an envious resentment of someone or their achievements, possessions, or perceived advantages”

        Have you seen any of Wendy’s coverage of this relationship/wedding? Lol…..she could barely bring herself to say a SINGLE positive thing about the entire event. Her bile towards Meghan is so palpable, the network had to bring on some random woman to talk the audience through the wedding with Wendy looking the whole time as if she was being forced to down a raw sewage latte.

      • FLORC says:

        I’m far removed from racial issues so it doesn’t come up in my thoughts. Seeing M I dont ver the hair issues or tone issues. Clothing issues. Details people make issues of.
        I’m not saying there aren’t issues. Just very unaware of it.
        Imo shes just doing everything right. I’m such a fan

      • Natalie S. says:

        @Bella DuPont. Wendy is nuts. She said Meghan had “punked” Harry by being older than him and by being black. Just totally nuts.

      • Grumpy says:

        EW isnt British herself so why would she care that Meghan is American, they are both in a foreign land. People can dislike Meghan/her dress/ whatever and it not be racist or classist or xenophobic. I don’t think a fashion designer from New Zealand gives a monkeys about the DNA make up of a British duchess, I think she is just saying what she thinks and in an unprofessional way. One of the great things about the Aussies and Kiwis I know is that they don’t pussyfoot around, they say what they think. This lady has just gone too far.

      • Natalie S. says:

        @Grumpy. Why did she pick Meghan Markle to be the one she went too far about?

        Her instagram page is some next level stuff. This isn’t a one and done comment. At this point she’s sending out a clarification note while still leaving the pictures of the Wickstead dress and Meghan’s dress side by side on her page.

        People can dislike something about Meghan and not be racist. And they can dislike something about Meghan because they are racist. A WOC is in a traditionally all-white space. We can anticipate more people going too far.

      • ennuisha says:

        Sure, Grumpy. You’re right: People can dislike the dress without being racist or classist or xenophobic. Of course.

        But if that were the case in this instance, EW would have just commented on the dress, and not have added the “she copied / stole” shade; not to mention the “it’s a royal wedding for God’s sake” nonsense. And isn’t it interesting that EW has never previously criticized the sartorial choices of the royals so directly?

        So long as people continue to close their eyes to subtle instance of implicit bias, racism will continue. Denial is a form of bias.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Natalie S:

        I cancelled Wendy a while ago actually and shouldn’t have given her YouTube page the extra boost of my click, but I guess I just wanted to see if she would change her tune now that the wedding had happened in such spectacular style.

        Nope. Instead, her bitterness has somehow grown.

  8. SM says:

    This lady needs to cut back on the cool aid she is drinkink and get herself new contacts, because those dresses look complitely different. They are both white wedding gowns I give her that.

  9. Alexandria says:

    Wow lady do you want to blacklist yourself lol

    The only designer names I heard were Givenchy and Stella McCartney.

  10. TeamAwesome says:

    Those dresses have very little in common. This is a designer that many Royal ladies have worn, including Meghan. Why would you want to jeopardize a working relationship that has only brought you good publicity???

  11. Peg says:

    Maybe Emily sent in some sketches, and Meghan did not reply.
    Very unprofessional of her.

  12. Marysia says:

    I got married last august and the top of my dress looked the same as Meghan’s dress (neckline +sleeves).
    So now what? Does it mean that Waight Keller and Wickstead both copied my dress?

  13. Missy says:

    I’ve noticed that this wedding has brought out the cattiness in a lot of women. I thought Meghan looked poised and classic. The dress gave me Jackie O./Audrey Hepburn vibes, and I loved it. The extreme nitpicking is unnecessary.

  14. Leyton says:

    For one, it wasn’t.
    Two, how dare she not only insult Meghan but also Givenchy. I’m sure they have thread that is older than all of us.

    Her apology was pathetic and she didn’t deny her comments either. I hope Meghan never wears her designs again. Honestly, she let her own bitterness get in the way of some decent profits. Nearly everything Meghan wears sells out or creates a backorder. Who wouldn’t want that kind of free promotion? She’s foolish.

  15. B says:

    She seems like an a**hole. I hope Meghan never wears her designs again.

  16. Honey says:

    Meghan’s dress was so simple (minimal) in design, what person (man, woman or child) who has flirted with being a fashion designer hasn’t drawn a version of that dress?

    BTW, I thought that black outfit was hideous.

  17. Nicola says:

    The Instagram account Diet Prada showed the dress likely drew inspiration from the Givenchy archives in two posts:
    https://instagram.com/p/BjQ5Wb6AIup/

    And:
    https://instagram.com/p/BjCuu54ACGh/

    • Wilma says:

      It really reminded me of a medieval maiden‘s dress, so I can totally see the resemblance to the Hepburn one.

      The Wickstead dress is way too early sixties in influence.

    • Heather says:

      Yes! I thought both of the Diet Prada posts were great examples of ACTUAL probable inspiration for Meghan’s dress.

      Emilia must have skipped class on the days that fashion history was being taught, implying that the inspiration was her own tacky gown from decades later!

    • Carey says:

      When you see the vintage dresses it becomes blazingly obvious that Meghan’s dress isn’t ill-fitted, it’s fitted exactly as intended. It skims the body instead of hugging the body.

      I don’t know much about current bridal designs so I did some googling and wow, everything is so tight at the moment. No wonder people thought the dress didn’t fit properly.

  18. KeWest says:

    Here’s Meg wearing Wickstead a month ago – I doubt she’ll wear Wickstead ever again, huh?

    I hope so. The outfit was underwhelming.

    • Lorelei says:

      Agreed. That one EW piece that Meghan wore was my least favorite of anything she’s ever worn.

      I know that Kate is a big EW fan, but do any of the other ladies in the BRF wear her as well?
      It would be fabulous, and a real show of solidarity to the newest member of their family, if they all stopped after this.

      Also, while Kate’s style isn’t my personal favorite, no one can deny that she was a huge client to score and Kate’s repeated patronage essentially made EW’s name. So for EW to piss off this particular family out of EVERY family on earth was suicide for her brand. What was she thinking??

  19. kate says:

    It does not look like Wickstead’s gown, it’s a copy of JLO’ wedding look in The Wedding palnner. Justice for JLo!

  20. smee says:

    Sorry, but Emilia was right about the fit of her wedding gown – it was too loose.

    As for the copying – Neither were first to produce a simple, elegant wedding dress like this. If you google around you will find something similar being made in the 1960s.

    • Betsy says:

      It was too loose, but the construction was exquisite.

      And Emilia Wickstead is a boob.

      • Jan90067(aka imqrious2) says:

        WHY do people keep saying it’s too loose? It is NOT a body-con dress! It is an
        A-LINE dress. It’s NOT SUPPOSED to be skin tight! NOT EVERYONE (waving wildly over here) *wants* to wear a body-hugging dress at their wedding (or any other day for that matter). You can’t move your arms if the sleeves are too tight, as well.

        And don’t forget, Meg had to be in that dress, sitting and standing for MANY hours (incl. that carriage ride – and getting in and out of it). Perhaps, *just perhaps* SHE wanted this looser A-Line rather than the skin-tight clothes they put her in in Suits?

      • CharlieCanada says:

        Jan, Google an image of the original drawing of Meghan’s dress. It is in fact supposed to be body hugging. I’m not being catty when I say it was too loose and lumpy in the bodice. It simply was. The fit didn’t look anything like the drawing that was published. And if she choose to have it altered to be worn loose, the designer should not have published that drawing, but a drawing of the alterations. Also, her dress did not look A-line at all. There was a big crease at her waist from sitting that looked like a seam. In fact, I thought it was a seam until I saw the drawing!

        And yes, EW was a fool. Just dug her own grave. I never really understood why she couldn’t get her hemlines straight on Kate. The dresses are far from “identical.”

      • Jan90067(aka imqrious2) says:

        CharlieCanada, I understand (and see) the fit in the drawing. But that is a *drawing* that the actual dress is *based* on. Once a pattern is cut, and a fitting is done, sizing/shape is/can be altered to better accommodate what actually becomes the dress you want.

        Please know, I speak from experience. My grandfather was a tailor and he handmade most of my clothes for me until I was in my late teens. I would draw him a picture, or bring him an outfit that I liked, and he’d make a pattern and we’d adjust that for what was good for me/my body etc. So while the first design sketch for Meg’s dress was more tailored looking, perhaps she realized that what she actually wanted/needed was a looser fit and it was accommodated for that.

        JMO… of course, none of us will ever *really* know 😊. But I do think she looked exquisite: hair, gown, and makeup. If I had to make *one* change in her dress, it might’ve been to go with an ivory or cream color fabric instead of stark white, but that’s just a personal preference 😊

      • Betsy says:

        There’s space between body con and this dress, which frankly looked too loose in the waist. She looked amazing, but the dress fit looked a little sloppy.

        The fabric was exquisite.

      • cd3 says:

        I have to agree the fit on Meg’s dress was … not ideal. There’s a difference between too loose / sloppy looking and “not body con.” If you look at Hepburn’s clothes (many have been bringing up Hepburn in this thread), many were not body con BUT they were immaculately tailored to fit her. On Meg’s dress, the fabric on the torso was lumpy, and the sleeves were bunchy and odd.

        Having said that, EW sounds pretty petty and tacky. Professionally, this was a really stupid thing to do. Maybe Emilia and Georgina Chapman can form a new brand… LOL

      • Cberry says:

        @Betsy, yes the fabric was exquisite and imo was meant to be the main feature of the dress. Meghan’s style is clean, simple and elegant, which means the beauty of the dress will be in the quality and structure of the fabric. The cut of the dress is very simple, minimalist, and it’s meant to showcase the luxurious fabric Keller used. The rich, thickness of the fabric gives the dress it’s structure!

        Because of this, the dress is difficult to fit especially with movement. A dress that’s made to be closely fitted is going to stay up and to form. Whereas a dress designed to have a minimalist structural form, ( not body fitted), is going seem loose because the fabric cannot look stretched, tight, tucked or pulled. The fabric is meant to be generously accommodated (as opposed to fit). The sheik and richness comes through the fabric. The elegance through the simple cut, form.

        This is a valid style. Even if it is prone to minor fitting and shape issues, it’s totally worth it and was a perfect choice imo regardless of any minuscule imperfections.

  21. Rapunzel says:

    That apology reeks of gaslighting. What an awful woman.

  22. Lorelei says:

    Unrelated to anything, but I adore the way Harry is openly admiring her in that top photo :)

  23. Nibbi says:

    K no. the dresses are NOT “identical” – the bodice/ waist/ cut are different, and the skirt has sort of a vague mermaid shape where the wickstead is more of that basic “princess,” fuller cut, straight down. and the sleeves are different – wickstead’s sits lower on the shoulders, and i read somewhere specifically that for the church, one had to be very careful not to have too much shoulder showing.

    woman is sooo dumb snarking like this- it brings attention but not the right kind.

    i’m over the constant ranting about the fit. i thought she looked glorious as it was, and then everyone on the planet know how excruciatingly stressful the last few days before the wedding were, with her widely-publicized father-drama and all. seems people would be human and cut an inch of slack for, you know, having an inch of slack, barely, if you absolutely insist on a skin-tight wedding dress and think that looks appropriate.

    and the jibe about the hair is a cheap pot-shot. “it’s a royal wedding” – way to insinuate meghan wasn’t “royal” enough. nice.

    i hope she loses a lot of commisions over this, but i suspect the duchess of sussex will be graceful about it in the future and still wear something from her at times.

  24. HK9 says:

    Since Wickstead’s designs have been routinely ill fitting, she’s the last person who should comment on fit. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face lady.

  25. Loris says:

    In addition to the comments on the dress she made some very rude comments even on Meghan’s hair. This shows how unprofessional she is. I hope that Meghan will never wear her clothes again. This woman is a joke

  26. LAK says:

    She publicly accused Givenchy of copyright theft. No wonder she’s walking it back and blaming the media for the resulting kerfuffle. I’m willing to bet this second statement came on the heels of a legal letter from Givenchy.

    • Rapunzel says:

      LAK- Givenchy may have sent a letter, but I think it’s more likely that she realized she screwed up PR wise. She had two royals wearing her designs, very popular royals. In fact, she may have had three as I think Sophie also wore her clothes. These royals gave her clothes a huge boost and caused many of her designs to sell out.

      She’s trying to repair the foot she shot herself in.

    • Harla says:

      I agree LAK, especially the specific wording about Givenchy not coping her designs.

    • Really? says:

      Generally, fashion cannot be copyrighted because clothes are considered “useful”. What may be trademarked are their logos if it can be shown that the consumer will associate the logo with the brand but not the actual cut of the dress. The recent Star Athletica case also allowed for graphics on clothing to be copyrighted but not the clothing designs themselves.

    • Really? says:

      Generally, fashion cannot be copyrighted because clothes are considered “useful”. What may be trademarked are their logos if it can be shown that the consumer will associate the logo with the brand but not the actual cut of the dress. The recent Star Athletica case also allowed for graphics on clothing to be copyrighted but not the clothing designs themselves.

      • teacakes says:

        That’s not necessarily true – Chloé (Clare Waight Keller’s old label) sued Topshop over a decade ago for ripping off a yellow dungaree dress, and forced them to destroy all remaining inventory of that design. And it was a dress that didn’t feature any logos or graphics of any sort.

        Copyright can extend to the design of a piece of clothing too, at least as far as the purely visual/decorative elements go (ruffles? Button placement? Shape/cut? All of it) go. It’s just that those things aren’t always easy to separate.

      • Really? says:

        A court didn’t decide on the Topshop case. Topshop decided to settle the case for £12,000 rather than continue onto trial and did not admit to fault. I do agree with you though that France offers the highest level of protection against counterfeiting via Article L. 112-2.73 in the Code de la Propriete Intellectuelle and the Berne Convention. In the UK, however, fashion has to be proven to be a work of “artistic craftsmanship”. Thus far, English courts do not favor granting copyrights to the actual design via Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Yes, they’ve clearly threatened her with a lawsuit. Wickstead has always been so far up her own ass, she takes designs and makes them boring and bland but then again the Sloany set love her stuff. Her designs are not original and she needs to eat more humble pie.

      Plus as others on here have pointed out, Megs dress looks like it came from the Givenchy archive.

      Am wondering when MGM will take a swip at Sarah Burton for ripping off the dress their wardrobe dept created for Grace Kelly that she ripped off for Katie Keen.

    • bluhare says:

      Great minds, LAK! I just said pretty much the same thing.

  27. Linda says:

    I just dont want to be reminded that the gown cost 200,000. What a waste of money for a gown and especially one that didnt fit right

    • Melania says:

      The fit was right because she was free to move IMO.

      • Enn says:

        Agreed! The woman needed to be able to, you know, bend her elbows and sit down. Not everything needs to be skin tight.

      • cr says:

        The dress fit the way Meghan wanted it to fit, so it did fit right for her.

      • Harla says:

        I agree completely! As we’ve seen in almost all of Meghan’s outfits so far nothing she wears is skin tight, everything is a bit loose and frankly looks more comfortable.

      • Jan90067(aka imqrious2) says:

        The bulk of cost, I believe, was in the handwork and fabric, esp. on the veil. But regardless, Meghan bought the dress herself. It was released that the RF paid for everything BUT the gown, she was to buy that herself. And we should not dictate on how she spends her own money and on what. If she wanted to splurge on what would be the most photographed gowns that day, who are we to complain?

      • windyriver says:

        Not only bend her elbows and sit down – she had to be able to have her hand in the air waving during a 2 or 3 mile carriage ride, among other things. Could be that’s why there appears to be some give in the sleeve and upper bodice in some pictures, depending on the angle of the shot.

        I think the fit is fine, and agree it’s a comfortable dress, and NOT designed to be body hugging/look spray painted on.

        A poster on an earlier thread who worked in bridal fittings said based on her experience the dress was properly fitted; again, because the bride has to be able to move in it.

    • Masamf says:

      The fit was right and perfect according to Meghan’s tastes and as long as her husband liked it, that all that’s more than good enough. Nobody was wearing that dress except Meghan and she was comfortable with that particular fit. Im sick of hearing how lose the fitting was, she liked it that way, and its all that should matter really.

  28. gm says:

    I’m curious if Kate wears EW again in the next year or so. If she wears EW IMO it will be interpreted as she dislikes Meghan, not because of the copying accusation, because no one thinks Meghan designed the dress, just chose it, but because she criticized Meghan’s hair and implied Meghan didn’t know what royalty was about. Apparently EW is not aware of WOC hair issues, such as Chris Rock’s Good Hair.

  29. LizB says:

    Well. Emilia Wickstead got everyone talking about Emilia Wickstead. Mission accomplished.

  30. Cee says:

    She goes on about the fit of the dress when the Wickstead black dress was a monstrosity in terms of how it fit Meghan.

  31. Loris says:

    I hope Givenchy will sue this lady

    • Harla says:

      I think her “apology” was worded the way that it was because the Givenchy legal department contacted her, note the line “I do not think that her wedding dress was a copy of any of our designs…” imho, she was advised, legally, to say that.

  32. Naptime says:

    The Twitter shut down and the walk back apology…I think they’re trying to say the account was hacked without actually saying the account was hacked

  33. Sage says:

    EW stated what most were saying about the dress and hair. Still, what a dumb comment for her to make out loud. She should have kept the comment to herself or spoke anonymously.
    I don’t expect Sophie or Kate to ban Wickstead, that would look immature.
    This will blow over.

  34. Luisa says:

    “Some people took issue with the design, because the wedding industrial complex has brainwashed people into thinking every wedding gown has to have a corset and be cut close to the body. ”

    Nah, it’s because people have different opinions about design and such, and are free to express those opinions. (talking strictly about people commenting on the dress, and not about those making shitty comments about Meghan specifically). But keep throwing up straw man arguments.

    • v says:

      I have to say I’m really surprised by how much this site is defending this dress, to the point of trying to discredit any criticism with as you said these weird straw man arguments. It may be true that this was the dress fit Meghan wanted all along(I didn’t think so at first but now I do believe that it was intended to fit this way) but when I say the fit of the dress was “off” I’m speaking from personal opinion lol no I’m not a designer nor do I have any sort of design background but I thought the idea of the dress was amazing but the execution made for a slightly sloppy ill fitting look. And given the amount of nitpicking I see regularly here I think I should be free to state my opinion without being called “brainwashed” lol

      • Masamf says:

        @V, aren’t we all entitled to our opinions? Your opinion (that the dress did not fit) is no better than mine (that Meghan’s dress fit her perfectly fine). Why are you surprised at “people defending this dress on here” and voicing their own opinions while you are doing exactly the same? Isn’t that hypocritical?

      • Cberry says:

        @V, Even on this site, it was quickly assumed the dress didn’t fit right. When I watched the wedding, I thought the dress was perfect and didn’t see any thing significantly wrong with the dress or the fit. I thought the fit was supposed to be gentle, delicate fit – subtle elegance, nothing obvious and worked.

        That is what I thought the intention of the design was, and I loved it and thought MM hit the perfect note, and hit it out of the park. It wasn’t until I read comments here and on web that I was confounded by all the fitting criticisms. Imo any issues with the fit were very minor and wouldn’t change my choice of this dress as MM wore it. It’s luxurious beauty outweighed it’s little flaws with fit and structure.

  35. Magdalin says:

    Quite simply, this is one of the dumbest professional moves in fashion history. It just doesn’t make any sense. Three royals wore EW’s designs and Sophie and Kate – VERY often. Of course she had to have received a letter from Givenchy.

    Was she drunk? Half-asleep? Was it a sting where she thought she was off the record and cannot walk it back because there’s a recording? Did she call up the Daily Mail like Papa Markle does TMZ? It’s bizarre and if I were her, I’d pull a Trump and deny, deny, deny it ever happened. But part of me thinks her ego has been inflated and she actually meant everything she said.

    She’s sorry…not for what she said, but that she got caught.

    • Jan90067(aka imqrious2) says:

      Kate even has multiples of EW dresses in multiple colors. EW most *definitely* sh!t where she eats on this one. And I do agree, about adding that comment about Meg’s hair: that was a really catty, b!tchy thing to say, and totally unwarranted. Think it, say it in private to friends if you want, but NOT in publication, NOT if you want your business to continue. Methinks her sales will not be quite so brisk going forward.

  36. Purplehazeforever says:

    Meghan looked absolutely beautiful on her wedding day. Enough with the comments about the loose fit or her hair. The gown fit her just fine from what I saw on TV. The comments I’ve seen about Meghan’s hair on this site irritate me. Her hair was fine.

    • Jan90067(aka imqrious2) says:

      Her hair looked like HER hair… she always has escaping tendrils. If she wanted to look like “herself”, who are we to say she needed to wear a sprayed helmut?? Even Kate said, for her wedding, she was asked to wear her hair up, but she declined, saying she wanted William to be able to “recognize her”, and not look like “someone she wasn’t” for the wedding.

      Brides should be able to just look/be what they want on their day. END OF. 😊 (rant over).

  37. Guest says:

    Hope meghan never wears her outfits again. Kate can wear what she wants. Highly doubt she’ll make a statement, she doesn’t seem like the kind ie not wearing black to support the metoo movement. emilia has horrible clothes anyway. She is the one that dressed kate in that outfit with the crooked seam that was very noticeable.

  38. TheOriginalMia says:

    I have thoroughly enjoyed the dragging Wickstead got. To imply that the House of Givency would stoop to copy one of her designs was laughable. Have a seat. Then to top it off by stating that Meghan’s hair wasn’t royal enough, beeyotch, have a f*cking seat! I see your casual racism. You ain’t fooling nobody with that comment.

  39. Guest says:

    She just insulted one of biggest fashion houses in the world. Givenchy has been around for decades, she has not. It’s not just about meghan I’m sure the fashion industry is side eyeing her hard right now.

  40. cindyp says:

    Wow, very unprofessional of her although I have agree with her about the fit & hair. The gowns are not the same, but the EW gown would have fitted her thin petite figure much better. The closeup pic of Meghan’s gown in Cosmo show how ill fitting it was. That being said, EW should have kept this to herself & the black suit is beyond ugly.

  41. aquarius64 says:

    Wickstead’s business is taking a hit and I think that’s the reason for the walk back. Her clothes are sold in various retailers around the globe. Customers who patronize the stores that carry the line probably complained to corporate offices, who in turn contacted Wickstead’s people. Clean this up or we’ll tear up the contract with you. That seems more plausible than the online conspiracy theories that Buckingham and Kensington Palaces are leaning on Wickstead.

    I still think Wickstead wants royal patronage. Note she addressed Meghan by her for formal name in her damage control statement: Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex.

  42. Svea says:

    I understand why Wickstead felt burned, but it was foolish of her to speak. All she had to do was sell her dress and people would see it. Neither one of those designers are the first ones to make a frock or wedding frock with those lines. It would be easy to look at fashion history to find many similar variations on that simple theme. There are few new designs. And based on that black outfit, it is just as well if Meghan never wears Wickstead again.

  43. Sam says:

    This seems like a really bad career move for her, all she had to do instead of talking about identical dresses and bad hair, was to say something vaguely complimentary or nothing at all. Being very honest with how you feel about things can be very bad for business, maybe she should consider talking a course in diplomacy.

  44. ZombieLove says:

    2 boring, simple, basic dresses look kinda alike. Shocking…

  45. Ladykeller says:

    I don’t get it. There was hardly anything revolutionary or new about Meghan’s dress. I don’t know how you even “steal” such a basic design. There are dozens of wedding dresses out there like the 2 dresses in question. EW is acting like she reinvented the wheel.

    Bitchy side note – that black dress Meghan is wearing is hideous. I hope the royal family boycotts this miserable cow.

  46. ASHBY says:

    To me, Meghan’s dress was beautiful, the veil was exquisite and her hair and make up looked lovely.

    I don’t understand why everything these days has to be fitted within an inch of one’s life.

    The dress hugged her body very nicely without being skin tight.

    She also had to consider having to sit in the church and in the carriage for quite a while, so there had to be some “GIVE”.

    I really hate the squeezed in look, she was getting married in a conservative church, she had some restrictions on what she was able to wear.

    It’s a very classic, elegant design and no the dress is not something groundbreaking in fashion, but why should it be, she married into BRF and not into some fashion house.

    People must nit pick 24/7, I’m so happy there was no “LACE or BEADING” on her wedding dress.

    Thank you, Meghan for the classic, elegant and simple wedding dress for a change!

    EW should be ashamed of her very unprofessional behavior, she may by being hit in the pocket book.

    • inthekitchen says:

      + a million. To me, ill-fitting means uneven hems, crooked seams, arm holes in the wrong place or too tight, etc. It doesn’t mean slightly loose. I agree with you and others that clothes do not need to be skin tight to be well-fitted. It feels even more insulting, IMO, because Meghan had just worn the black EW outfit a month prior. Way to bite the hands that feeds you!

      Plus, EW really isn’t one to speak about clothes being ill-fitted based solely on that pink pleated monstrosity that Kate wore several times with the uneven waistline and uneven hems.

      I really hope Meghan crosses EW off her clothing list in the future. I hope Sophie and Kate will also pass on EW out of solidarity.

  47. Diana B says:

    Well, the dress WAS ill fitting. It didn’t need to be skin tight, It needed to look like it was made for her and not borrowed like it looked. Bad this Emilia person to be saying that publicly because of her industry, but that dress needed to be fitted better.

    • Bailie says:

      @Diana B :

      I don’t think that I could disagree with you more.
      I think the dress fit Meghan well, it hugged her curves very nicely and it was also made to account for sitting in a carriage and in the church. Meghan doesn’t seem to enjoy very fitted clothing, I can certainly relate to that. I like to wear clothes that gently hug my body.

      To each his own, but I really loved the elegant, classy design of the dress with the simple lines.
      I’ve been to 4 weddings in the last year and I’m tired of the nearly skin tight, lacy, beaded dresses.

  48. Lana234 says:

    Emilia Wickstead is an idiot and her apology was bullshit. The black outfit Meghan wore didn’t suit her physique. It made look dumpy and frumpy.

  49. Missy says:

    If I were EW, I would worry more about Harry’s reaction because he is fiercely protective of Meghan.

  50. Anilehcim says:

    Although I liked the dress, it had no super original features or qualities to it, so I don’t understand why this woman is complaining that her design was “stolen.” It’s a basic dress design that has been around for YEARS… she didn’t invent it and Givenchy didn’t steal it. She’s ego-tripping if she really thinks she came up with something incredibly unique that was ripped off.

  51. Liz version 700 says:

    The logic of that is so strange. The gowns were hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you are going to wear a gown that was “inspired by other designs” you wear a $1100 gown from David’s Bridal like I did (which I loved!). The dress was very simple, but it was clearly not a copy of anyone’s designs. Ms Wickstead sounds so bitter. Her comments were laced with spite. Also, I agree with the posts above, that black dress looks so dowdy I would mark this lady’s dresses off the list permanently.

  52. girl_ninja says:

    Well she managed to make herself apart of Meghan and Harry’s special day. Free publicity for Wickstead.

  53. Sirius says:

    The dresses were similar, but def not identical. Her hair did look pretty meh during the wedding though, there were what appeared to be unintentional wisps of hair falling in her face and casting shadows.

    • Peg says:

      Meghan like her hair looking messy, at the end of the day, we all want what we’re comfortable with.
      She had fittings of her gown, it she wanted it loose, it’s her choice, a designer’s job is to please her paying client.
      I think most people had that Ralph and Russo wedding gown stuck in their heads and when she turned up in a simple gown, it was all about the fit of the gown.
      Meghan said she like Carolyn Bessette simple wedding gown, so why expect her to turn up in, a lace, beaded gown.

    • Jan90067(aka imqrious2) says:

      Her strands on the left side came out after Harry lifted the veil. Again, it could’ve been sprayed down, helmet-like, to guard against it, but that has never been Meg’s “look”.

      I think she looked lovely, feminine, and completely happy/in love… and who wouldn’t want that?

  54. Starryfish says:

    It’s kind of hilarious watching someone set their brand on fire.

  55. Hollygo says:

    Such a Heigl.
    And if that’s her own design she’s wearing in her pic, well, they won’t be missing much.

  56. paddingtonjr says:

    Oh please, EW! Unless there are some extreme differences, such as the beading detail on Fergie’s dress, most wedding dresses look similar, especially a classic look such as Meghan’s dress. Even Kate’s dress was very similar to other brides, most notably Grace Kelly (although Kate’s bosom was a bit more, ahem, pronounced).

    Even if EW thought the dresses were the same, her speaking out like this is a very bad business move. Yes, as a private citizen, she can say whatever she wants. As a fashion designer to several of the younger female members of the BRF, she has really put her foot in it. Why would Meghan want to wear her designs when EW basically insulted her? Kate has shown little self-awareness, but her continuing to wear EW designs after this could create an awkward situation with the new sisters-in-law. Just really bad form and extremely unprofessional.

  57. me says:

    Yeah and I’m sure you can go to David’s Bridal and get a dress that looks similar to that too. It’s not a super unique style for God’s sake. This woman sounds sour as f*ck. It was Meghan’s wedding and she chose to wear what she wanted and have her hair how SHE wanted. Get over it lady.

    • paddingtonjr says:

      ITA! Everyone has a different style. I wouldn’t have chosen Meghan’s dress for myself, but all that matters is that Meghan and Harry liked it. I personally liked her wedding-day style: the simple, classic dress and looser strands of hair showed her style and gave the event the right balance of individuality and formality.

  58. Scram says:

    I am so puzzled by these comments. Did someone hurt her? You don’t need to be a designer to know the dresses aren’t identical, you only need eyes. And the ego to think that Givenchy would steal from her designs (and to believe that design is original like you we can’t Google and find something similar going back decades, possibly centuries) when it’s more likely that her brand has been inspired by their archives. I really can’t.

    I’m petty so if I were Meghan I’d donate that black dress and never touch her clothes again. I don’t expect Kate or Sophie to stop wearing the brand though. Maybe if it was one that they liked less…

    • gm says:

      I wonder if Kate will wear EW soon though, because if she does the media will jump on it to try to create drama, the Kate vs Meghan or Kate+Meghan angles. If I were advising Kate, I’d leave it to Meghan or someone else to wear EW a few times before Kate does it, because why invite it?

    • Aurelia says:

      Big headed Emilla is just like another puffed up New Zealand designer of moderate success – Karen Walker. I remember when she said she was better than Armani. One is Legend and the other just just some random.

  59. Justwastingtime says:

    For someone in the fashion biz, you would think she would pay more attention to Her own look. The severe hair with a middle part is, not great. Maybe she is going for a Diana Vreland vibe, if so she needs to go more eccentric cause she is reading dowdy.

  60. Racer1 says:

    Emilia please do not debase yourself by wanting to take first prize in a race for recognition over a design that is unoriginal and resulted in a shapless sack.

    • Olenna says:

      Too late for that advice. EW is like the pot calling the kettle black. She’s produced some tragic designs, with the main one being that sagging bodice on her so-called copied wedding gown. Best thing this unprofessional, bitter woman could do now is to learn how to kiss ass really, really well.

  61. mtam says:

    I think anyone with eyes can see these dresses are completely different. The only similarity being the neckline, but even that is different.

    What I do not understand is why she would risk burning those bridges, and damaging her reputation (’cause really what kind of designer is she if she can’t see all the differences) within the fashion industry. I’ve seen some sites already calling her out for copying other people’s designs, so the backlash is going to be strong on this one.

    Also i’m not convinced she knows how to design a flattering bust-line. Every garment i see on her IG either is designed in a way that the bust is covered, or the bust is completely wonky. She needs to check her own shit before shading the fit of anyone else’s designs.

    • FLORC says:

      I’m guessing Emily took some heat for not getting Meghan as a client and conducts herself as a sore loser. It’s looking bad. Bitter. Salty. Sour. All the rough tastes… maybe something in her private professional life has suffered and shes taking it out publicly and unprofessionally on Meghan. Wrong move.

  62. Chinoiserie says:

    What Meghan being byracial has got to do with what this designer thinks of her gown? She sounds rude and but entitled to think that this must be based on her work but what she said of the fit is what other people have said.

    • Missy Helga says:

      ^This.
      To read racism into EW’s words is ridiculous and it’s kind of sad CB has become so obsessed with this. The two dresses look a lot alike, which a million other dresses do as well so I doubt anyone copied anything. I agree Meghan’s hair could have been fixed better but she obviously wanted it this way and she was beautiful.

  63. AM says:

    Emilia is actually a New Zealander (but based in the UK obvs) so she’s not even British to begin with anyway *shrugs*

  64. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    She’s one salty bitch whose dress that was supposedly “stolen” actually looks like shit. It has droopy boobs and hangs funny while Meghan’s fits in all the right places and looks fantastic. I never was a fan of EW’s granny designs so I can’t say I’ll miss seeing her on any of the royal ladies.

  65. Bee says:

    It’s not a bad thing that this designer put her foot in it so early. What Meghan has worn of her designs to date is easily the most unflattering and poorly designed outfit we’ve ever seen her wear.