The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Archives (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f234/)
-   -   Meghan Markle's Fashion and Style Part 1: November 2017 - May 2018 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f234/meghan-markles-fashion-and-style-part-1-november-2017-may-2018-a-43871.html)

wyevale 12-24-2017 09:28 AM

Quote:

she is not off the mark.
I'm sorry but she IS, because
she is not [yet] Royal, and
because unfavourable comparisons ARE being made at the contrast with the Duchess of Cambridge's engagement photo-shoot choices, and their VASTLY less eye-watering cost.

Pranter 12-24-2017 09:58 AM

So what if comparisons are being made? The media is going to go back and forth forever either loving or hating members of the BRF. They build them up awhile and then they try to drag them down.

People need to stop letting the media form their opinions. If someone just thinks it's crazy to spend that (and we don't know the cost) on a dress that's fine too. That doesn't mean there needs to be this 'tearing down' that goes on. The 'outrage' as if wealthy people (Royals) don't spend a lot of money on clothing/jewelry etc. Who are they trying to kid?

LaRae

Terri Terri 12-24-2017 10:10 AM

Wait a minute!!!! She is not yet royal so she can`t spend her own hard earned money???
Give me a break!!!!

And as for comparisons with Kate...the media is going to do that regardless!! The difference is that Meghan is a mature woman with an establish career and her own money when she got engaged. Kate did not have an established career and relied on her parents for financial support.

jacqui24 12-24-2017 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2056077)
I'm sorry but she IS, because
she is not [yet] Royal, and
because unfavourable comparisons ARE being made at the contrast with the Duchess of Cambridge's engagement photo-shoot choices, and their VASTLY less eye-watering cost.

So millionaires other than royals arenít allowed to buy expensive clothes? Thatís an....interesting view.

And really, itís only the people that doesnít like her that cares about the unfavorable comparison even if there are facts conveniently left off to make the arguement. Confirmation bias at its finest.

Dman 12-24-2017 10:44 AM

Not to be totally argumentative here...

Everyone must realize that Meghan is a woman that has worked hard for what have. She’s not coming into the royal family relying on them for some financial support right now. She’s a successful woman with her own sense of style and resources. She can personally afford what we see on her. The expensive earrings and all.

Why would anyone want Meghan to dull herself down just to please others?

From the sound of it, the British media and royal watchers, would lose their minds if they had, Meghan’s soon-to-be European royal counterparts, as their principal royals. Those ladies wear very expensive wardrobes on a regular bases and they’re still seen as “down to earth women.”

Abbigail 12-24-2017 11:20 AM

Totally agree Dman. I hope Meghan continues to embrace her own style and doesn't feel any pressure to to look like any other royal spouse. I don't want to see her in pill hats and dress coats in every color.

Really looking forward to what she wears tomorrow, the choice of hat especially.

IloveCP 12-24-2017 11:21 AM

I find the dress she wore in the official photos awful and too much. But the black outift she wore on December 1 was beautiful and elegant.

Abbigail 12-24-2017 11:30 AM

Have to say I wasn't initially in love with the dress but the more I looked at the pics, the more I liked it. More than anything else, I love that she took a risk and went with something that will be memorable. I don't think that can be denied, whether or not one liked the dress.

O-H Anglophile 12-24-2017 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IloveCP (Post 2056109)
I find the dress she wore in the official photos awful and too much. But the black outift she wore on December 1 was beautiful and elegant.

I don't think the engagement photo dress was awful. I liked the top of it a lot, the skirt not so much-but that's personal taste. It was a special occasion dress that she wore for a special occasion. Personal choice.

Meghan wore a black turtleneck on Dec 1, not a black outfit. Her coat was navy, her skirt was tan. She looked like she was at work, so it was appropriate for the event. She looked nice, but it was not at all special.

IloveCP 12-24-2017 12:23 PM

:previous: I was also referring her black coat.

O-H Anglophile 12-24-2017 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IloveCP (Post 2056126)
:previous: I was also referring her black coat.

Not to nitpick but to be accurate, it was navy:smile:

M. Payton 12-24-2017 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 2056066)
I haven't joined in the debate about the brooch. However, I am getting very tired of the furore over Meghan's so-called expensive engagement outfit.

And I'll have a nice coffee, M. Payton, with some frothy milk. I'm looking forward to seeing the Church walk tomorrow.

That frothy coffee is coming right up Curryong and a pastry on the side, on the house of course...it is almost Christmas and we bring good cheer!

I also am looking forward to seeing the church walk tomorrow, wonder if there is snow there or not now......would be nice as I can see snowballs flying through the air....:flowers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2056077)
I'm sorry but she IS, because
she is not [yet] Royal, and
because unfavourable comparisons ARE being made at the contrast with the Duchess of Cambridge's engagement photo-shoot choices, and their VASTLY less eye-watering cost.

Wyevale, you just said it...........she is not royal yet, it did not come out of your tax dollar period. She worked herself and most likely paid for it herself, so what is your problem here. Get over it please, I do not like the gown, the gown I say, not Meghan. It is not your problem on the cost, it is after all ****Christmas**** time for good cheer at least one day of the year.

Empress Merel 12-24-2017 01:17 PM

She can spend her own money however she likes, but regardless if that dress was purchased privately or not, that dress is grossly overpriced. I have been a long time follower of fashion and not even your most stunningly designed dress from Lanvin by Alber Elbaz (runway) cost that much and that Ralph & Russo dress is not inventive or extraordinarily different to justify the amount it's charged for. Maybe I'm used to the prices at Net-a-Porter and it's clouding my judgement but that dress comes from the runway and is not designed from scratch especially for her.

But it's also not my problem and we should indeed move on.

Abbigail 12-24-2017 02:08 PM

I understand the argument that wearing a $56k dress (although again, it's highly unlikely that Meghan paid the full price) may not be the best optics for a soon to be royal spouse. But whether or not a dress is too expensive or overpriced really is subjective. There are dresses that cost much more (wedding dresses included) that really don't look like anything special to me. But while I think a certain dress may not be the worth the price, there are other women who will disagree. And you better believe that there were at least a few women out there (for whom price is not an issue) who saw that R&R dress and thought they would like to have something similar or something else from R&R.

wyevale 12-24-2017 02:42 PM

Who paid for it IS immaterial, as is whether or not the gown it to my, or to your taste..

As you say Abbigail it is the optics that grate. For a Woman who has made so few PR missteps in her progression to Royal Bride, this one amazes me, since it was SO avoidable [there being hundreds of lovely gowns in the 5-10k bracket.

Fashionistas, and those who pay attention to the high cost of Royal 'Gala' gowns may not find 56k excessive or even surprising, but for 'man in the street' it reeks of profligacy and WILL be remembered as Ms Markles FIRST noteworthy fashion decision,the daywear for the engagement day,interview and Nottingham events being wholly unremarkable and 'forgettable' [except on fora like this].

56k was 'ringing' round my office the other day, and NOT in a good way...

jacqui24 12-24-2017 02:59 PM

If she wanted a 56k dress for her engagement photo, why should she have to go with a 5k-10k dress? At the end of the day, this is a private event. It’s shared with the public out of curtesy. It’s not as if this is a state dinner and her dress is being paid for by Duchy of Cornwall.

And quite frankly, if people want to discuss price and be critical about it, then who paid for it DOES matter.

duchessrachel 12-24-2017 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbigail (Post 2056108)
Totally agree Dman. I hope Meghan continues to embrace her own style and doesn't feel any pressure to to look like any other royal spouse. I don't want to see her in pill hats and dress coats in every color.

Really looking forward to what she wears tomorrow, the choice of hat especially.

I am so looking forward to seeing what she wears tomorrow. As I am equally excited to see what Kate wears, I am about to jump out of my skin. :dizzy:

Abbigail 12-24-2017 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 2056206)
Who paid for it IS immaterial, as is whether or not the gown it to my, or to your taste..

As you say Abbigail it is the optics that grate. For a Woman who has made so few PR missteps in her progression to Royal Bride, this one amazes me, since it was SO avoidable [there being hundreds of lovely gowns in the 5-10k bracket.

Fashionistas, and those who pay attention to the high cost of Royal 'Gala' gowns may not find 56k excessive or even surprising, but for 'man in the street' it reeks of profligacy and WILL be remembered as Ms Markles FIRST noteworthy fashion decision,the daywear for the engagement day,interview and Nottingham events being wholly unremarkable and 'forgettable' [except on fora like this].

56k was 'ringing' round my office the other day, and NOT in a good way...

Well to be clear, I don't buy into the bad optics argument myself. I'm just saying that I understand why some may feel that way. But overall, I don't think the majority care one way or another. From what I saw on social media, most seemed taken with the photos and didn't care about the price of the dress.

O-H Anglophile 12-24-2017 04:54 PM

I'm not convinced Meghan didn't either already have this in her closet and/or when she went looking for something, someone put her in touch with someone who had access to this dress and since it is a season old she got a good deal on it. I think the reason she didn't give the cost a thought is because, in fact, she didn't pay that much for it.
This seems like such a tempest in a teapot for one dress that was used for a special occasion.

Empress Merel 12-24-2017 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2056208)
If she wanted a 56k dress for her engagement photo, why should she have to go with a 5k-10k dress? At the end of the day, this is a private event. Itís shared with the public out of curtesy. Itís not as if this is a state dinner and her dress is being paid for by Duchy of Cornwall.

And quite frankly, if people want to discuss price and be critical about it, then who paid for it DOES matter.

Debatable. Monarchies need the good graces of the public to be able to exist. Very The Crown of me


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises