Royal Style Meets Effortless Chic: Analysis of Meghan Markle's Wedding Gown

On Saturday, 19^th of May, 2018, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry married at Windsor Castle. I was definitely one of the many, many people watching the wedding from around the world. 

Live coverage started in Arizona at 1am Saturday morning, but I wasn’t going to let the early hour stop me from watching. Having just finished my PhD, which focused on stateswomen fashion and identity construction, I knew this would be not only history in the making, but also the start of the next phase of my research. 

As I argued in my dissertation, clothing and dress, are important elements of identity construction and are a rhetorical tool stateswomen can use in the otherwise mostly silent roles they are expected to play. Both Princess Diana’s and Catherine’s wedding gowns (as well as The Queen’s) were filled with layers of history and symbolism. But the public doesn’t always understand that, as evidenced by the uproar in the Wikipedia edit pages after Catherine and William’s wedding. Is a dress cultural significant? Absolutely.

Later that day, I started receiving texts and Facebook messages asking me what I thought of the dress, so I thought it would be fun to give my thoughts and analysis of the wedding dress, the gown for the evening reception, and I’ll mention Catherine briefly at the end (I can’t help myself lol). So here we go, my thoughts on the royal wedding…and that dress!

Staying up all night was something I hadn’t done since my masters degree, but I knew it would be worth it, and boy was it ever. Right from the beginning as the guests arrived I knew it would be amazing. The fashion of the guests did not disappoint. Amal Clooney was definitely a standout in the yellow dress by Stella McCartney (who also provided Oprah with a dress and designed the evening gown for Meghan for the reception, busy team at McCartney!). About two hours into the coverage the bride was on the move, driving to the Castle. In the car, our first glimpse of the dress was of a bateau neckline and long sleeves, as well as a soft veil and tiara. By the time she stepped out of the car I was practically bouncing in my seat with excitement. 

We saw the dress in it’s full glory before the announcement came a few moments later that the designer was Clare Waight Keller for Givenchy (more on that in a moment) so I had a moment to take in the dress on it’s own before processing the significance of the the designer. And the dress was just perfect. It was everything I expected—and wanted—it to be, simple, classic, elegant, timeless. Also, it was completely different from both Princess Diana and Catherine. As far as royal weddings were concerned, that dress was completely her own, with no obvious comparisons to any other royal bride. (Note: I haven’t done a comprehensive analysis of every royal bride around the world, but of the famous and well known royal wedding dresses, Meghan stands on her own.) 

As Meghan walked up the steps to the chapel, the full length and beauty of the veil took my breath away. And as she walked down the aisle—first by herself, then joining the Prince of Wales—the silhouette of the dress and modest train of the dress, combined with the length of the veil, seemed to fit with the proportions of the chapel perfectly. Designers of Diana’s dress, David and Elizabeth Emanuel, have spoken about wanting to design a dress that fit with the proportions and grandeur of St. Paul’s Cathedral, purposely researching the length of the trains of royal wedding dresses in order to break the record of the longest train. With Catherine’s gown, the train was shorter than Diana’s (a deliberate choice in my opinion) and the veil was short as well, coming just half way down the back of Catherine’s dress. But the structure of the tailoring and corsetry, and the train of the gown, fit perfectly with Westminster Abbey. So it made perfect sense that for St. George’s Chapel, the gown would be simple, with clean lines and tailoring, and that the main decoration would be the tiara and veil. By the time Meghan made it to the alter and took hands with Harry, I was just overjoyed with that dress! 

So, why is it so significant? Why is it so perfect? I’m sure more than a few readers at this point are saying, “it’s so plain!”, “I was expecting something so different!”. Ok, ok, let me clarify right here, is it my favorite wedding dress ever? No (Catherine still reigns supreme in my mind lol). Is it the dress I would choose for my own wedding? No (I like lace and sparkle). But was it absolutely perfect for the new Duchess of Sussex, blending the life as a California girl and actor she’s coming from with the life of tradition, heritage, honor and duty she’s entering into? Was it the dress I was expecting based on my research and analysis of Diana and Catherine’s gowns for my dissertation? Yes and yes. With this wedding, and her new title, Meghan walked into that chapel as Meghan Markle, actor, activist, blogger, and walked out as HRH Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, stateswoman, member of the British Royal family, and representative of the British public and the Commonwealth. This dress reflected all of that. So for those who haven’t read my dissertation, let me break down the different elements of the dress and their significance.

First I want to talk about the designer. The designer is a very important choice for the royal wedding. Diana’s choice of the Emanuels was life changing for them, a young duo, fairly fresh out of design school, overnight became household names internationally. Catherine’s choice of Sarah Burton for Alexander McQueen was also a bold choice. McQueen had tragically committed suicide the year before, and the design house had been taken over by his assistant, Burton. The design aesthetic of McQueen was bold, dramatic, often a bit dark, but also magical, and was grounded in classic British tailoring (McQueen had apprenticed with two different Savile Row tailors) and craftsmanship. Traditionally, British royal brides chose British designers. Would American Meghan do the same? Yes, but with a twist.

The choice of Waight Keller was the perfect choice for Meghan. She’s a British designer, who has worked for Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, and Gucci. She has served as the artistic director of Pringle of Scotland, Chloé, and most recently was appointed artistic director for French fashion house Givenchy, the first woman to serve in the role. So with Waight Keller, we have a combination of a British designer, a historic French couture house, and a bit of feminist history, the perfect match for an American actor from Hollywood, who’s also been a staunch activist for women’s issues and gender equality. 

Now for the dress itself. Yes, the dress is simple (a common criticism that I'll discuss further below), but it’s pure, classic Givenchy, particularly during his collaboration with Audrey Hepburn, the best of “Hollywood meets French fashion.” The simple column silhouette is also slightly reminiscent of medieval styles of women’s dress, perfect for St. George’s Chapel, built during the 14^th century. The dress, thanks to the thick fabric, a double bonded silk cady, has a lot of structure, despite the minimal seams of the dress, and that structure is a nice complement to the Gothic medieval architecture of the chapel. It’s at once medieval simplicity and Givenchy elegance. Timeless, elegant, graceful.

The simplicity of the dress is also an important reflection of the woman wearing it. Meghan is a grown woman (37, same as me!), she’s been married once before, and already has a fairly simple, casual, laid back personal style. While we’ll probably see her style evolve a bit as she transitions into her role as stateswoman and Duchess of Sussex (both Catherine and Diana’s styles evolved in the years following their weddings), I think the Givenchy gown is an indication of what her style will evolve to, clean, classic tailoring, with minimal embellishment. In her new role she won’t be able to speak openly about a lot of topics, her charity work and patronages will have to speak for her. So will her clothes. This gown says that Meghan is a woman who knows her own mind and isn’t afraid to make a bold statement. She won’t give in to the critics or the online trolls. She will stand up for herself and her vision of what she wants. She’s not afraid of controversy. There has been so much discussion and criticism of her online, she was never going to be able to please everybody, so she clearly decided to do what all brides should…please herself and choose the dress of her dreams. Further, the dress shows Meghan as a strong, intelligent woman who knows what she is marrying into. She’s not the doe-eyed, naive young bride, drowning in yards of satin and lace, covered in pearls and crystals (like Diana was). She’s clear eyed, confident, and ready to take on the challenges her new life will bring. The dress is an indication that she’s well aware that the future is more important than the dress. A wedding is just one day, a marriage is for a lifetime, and she’s ready.

But where the dress was simple and elegant, the veil was the real showstopper and full of symbolism. If Meghan and Waight Keller weren’t going to smash records with the length of the gown’s train, they were definitely going to make something special with the veil. Long (16 feet), and out of very fine silk tulle, the veil was embroidered with lace appliqués around the entire length of the veil in floral emblems of the 53 British Commonwealth countries, Kensington Palace, and the State of California. This was absolutely not unexpected in my view. Catherine had floral emblems embroidered in lace representing the countries of the United Kingdom on her gown. And Diana’s gown also had similar embroidery, as well as being made by silk fabric woven in England (literally the only aspect of Diana’s gown that was imported was the raw silk for the gown, but only because the English silk worms couldn’t produce enough for the dress in time, so only the veil was 100% UK produced). And don’t even get me started on the symbolism woven into The Queen’s wedding gown, that’s another blog post entirely. British heritage, craftsmanship, and symbolism is expected of royal wedding gowns, and Meghan’s gown and veil was the perfect combination of the Hollywood & high fashion background with old fashioned value and tradition, duty and honor, of the British institution she’s married into. By choosing to represent all of the Commonwealth on her veil, Meghan is indicating her and Harry’s intention to focus on the Commonwealth in their work going forward, something that has been speculated on greatly. All signs point to William and Catherine focusing on the UK, with Harry and Meghan focusing more on representing the royal family throughout the Commonwealth. The veil is a pretty big sign that speculation is correct.

The veil was held in place by an absolutely stunning tiara. Predictions had been split between a new tiara commissioned just for the wedding as a gift for Meghan, or one that we hadn’t seen in awhile. A lot of royal fans were hoping for the Spencer tiara that Diana had worn on her wedding day. While that would have been a lovely tribute, my (not entirely uneducated) guess was that they wouldn’t go for so obvious a tribute to Harry’s mother. For all the royal fans out there, given that the Spencer tiara is a Spencer family heirloom, not one in the possession of William or Harry, it’s likely we won’t see the tiara again until one of the Earl of Spencer’s daughters get married (hopefully we’ll at least see pictures when that happens!). I was betting on an old tiara on loan, rather than a new commission, and I wasn’t disappointed. For the occasion Meghan was wearing Queen Mary’s Diamond Bandeau Tiara, a piece that once belonged to Queen Mary, and one that hasn’t been seen worn in public since 1953. 

It was originally created in 1932, and the center of it (a detachable brooch) dates to 1893. The tiara, fully of rich history and tradition, is the perfect complement to the very modern and simple gown and the meaningful and symbolic veil. The three elements of the total ensemble all work perfectly together to make a very clear statement of Meghan’s vision of her new role in the royal family—someone who will honor tradition and perform the duties of her role as representative and stateswoman, but who will do all of those things in a way that feels natural to her own personality and agency as a mature and freethinking woman. 

While I’m loathe to compare Meghan to any of her predecessors (Catherine, Diana, or any of the other famous royal brides) the rhetoric of her ensemble on the day makes a much stronger statement for her own agency than any previous royal brides had. Going forward, Meghan and Catherine’s clothing will function different, as it must since they each will perform slightly different roles and have different expectations placed on them in their jobs as stateswomen. So comparing the two of them is unnecessary and doesn’t accomplish much. Also, it’s NOT a competition.

This post is getting long, so I won’t dwell on the Stella McCartney gown worn to the evening reception. It was beautiful, graceful, elegant, and as with the gown for the ceremony, simple. I think all the critics and naysayers need to just get over themselves and accept that Meghan will 90% of the time go for simplicity over fairytale grandeur. That’s her style and there’s nothing wrong with it. Lets not forget that when Catherine first came on the fashion scene many designers and fashion critics derided her as too safe and boring. Women like Meghan and Catherine will never please everybody, so it’s nice to see them crafting a personal style that fits their unique personalities and the roles they each perform. The white halter neck gown was stunning on Meghan and really allowed the large aquamarine ring she was wearing stand out as the focal point of the outfit. It was also a nice touch to see a piece from Diana’s jewelry collection be worn again out in public. Catherine has worn a few pieces that belonged to Diana, so it’s nice to see Meghan being included in that tradition. Personally, I think Diana would adore both women, their each such a perfect match for William and Harry.

Now, on to the elephant in the room…the criticism. After spending years studying Catherine and Diana (along with Jacqueline Kennedy and Michelle Obama) it’s hard to take the criticism seriously, at the end of the day, most of it is just an attempt—a pitiful one at that—to police these women’s behavior and choices. Rants and raves about how Meghan is “royal enough” (whatever the heck that means), or that her style is sloppy and doesn’t meet “royal protocol” (wrote a 60k word dissertation and consulted over a hundred sources, could never find an actual handbook that spells out this mythical protocol, at the end of the day, it’s just using good judgement when you get dressed), and my personal favorite, “her hair is too messy!” *gasp! Clutches my pearls to my chest* Not messy hair! Anything but a messy bun! Oh my lawwwwd! Ok, ok, enough sarcasm. But really. No one has a right to critique someone else’s appearance the way they pick over Meghan. It’s completely inappropriate, and the hair critiques definitely have some not so thinly veiled racist implications. We’re really going to compare “good hair” and “bad hair” with a biracial woman? Just don’t. Soooooo inappropriate and wrong on a million different levels. There literally is nothing in the royal rulebook (because such a thing doesn’t exist) that says a few face framing tendrils of hair will have you sent to the Tower of London as punishment. But I wish we could sent all the rude trolls and haters online to the Tower. 

But two common critiques from the day I wanted to address.

“It doesn’t fit”

Yes it does. Any tighter and she wouldn’t have been able to walk. Have we become so accustomed to spandex body con dresses that we expect everything to be skin tight? Apparently we have. The fabric, being  a double bonded silk cady, is very stiff and structured, which gives it a very architectural feel (as I mentioned above). But that means that if it had been tailored to fit any closer to the body, Meghan likely wouldn’t have been able to walk down the aisle or sit down. Also, if you look at the gown when she is standing, it fits perfectly, it hangs just the way it should. People often forget that when we see pictures of couture gowns it is from a runway show where the model puts it on, walks down the runway, and then changes out of it, never sitting in it for any length of time. Editorial shots for magazines are all carefully constructed and if the fabric folds when the model sits, it gets “fixed” digitally later. Fabric folds. It moves. It creases. Let’s not forget that shock/horror the Emanuel’s faced when Diana climbed out of the carriage and her taffeta skirt had gotten all crumpled.  That’s what fabric does. But that’s also what makes these gowns real clothing, rather than an extravagant couture creation that will never be worn in a real situation. Meghan’s dress was designed to be moved in. To be lived in. A few creases at the waist and elbows from sitting or moving her arms are to be expected. The only way to have avoided it would have been to design a different dress. But this is clearly the dress Meghan wanted and it fit her perfectly.

“It’s too plain”

No it’s not. As I discussed above, we have to separate our own personal style from Meghan’s style. This is certainly not the dress I would have chosen for myself, I like to accentuate my waist and hide my hips, and I do love a bit of lace and some crystals here and there. But it’s not my wedding and not my dress. So I have no room to judge how plain it is or not. That’s a totally subjective criticism. For Meghan, it was just right. She loves simple, clean designs, with minimal embellishment. This dress fit with everything else we’ve seen her wear. Another reason people probably get confused by Meghan’s true style is because of the Hollywood factor. So many of the red carpet and magazine photoshoots we see are not Meghan’s choice of outfit, they’re things a stylist chose to put her in. I could call this the “Audrey Hepburn Paradox” (I totally just made that up, but I might keep it). When people think of Audrey, they usually think of the black gown from Breakfast at Tiffany’s. But that’s not actually Audrey’s style! That was a dress designed by Givenchy for the film. It was a costume! People who’ve followed Meghan online, in Suits, in magazines, on the red carpet, might think they know her true style, but they don’t. I think we’re only just beginning to see it fully take shape. What her professional wardrobe looks like away from Hollywood. We know what her casual, off duty style looks like (thanks to paparazzi photos) but her professional style up to the announcement of the engagement has been led more by her work as an actor, and not a true representation of her style. So, sure, compared to some fashion magazine photo spread the wedding gown probably does seem plain. But that doesn’t mean it’s “too plain” or wrong for her. It’s not your style. We get it. Get over it. Every woman deserves to wear the dress of her dreams, not the dress everyone else wants her to wear.

Before I end this, I wanted to talk about Catherine’s outfit. I was delighted to see her choose a repeat outfit. I had a very strong feeling she would. With the exception of Pippa’s wedding, Catherine has a tendency to always wear a repeat outfit to weddings so as to not upstage the bride. I know a lot of people complained about the pale yellow color (it photographed a little “too white” for some people) but I thought the suit was lovely and appropriate. I also think it’s hung in a section of Catherine’s closet for events to got to “4 weeks after giving birth). I have a feeling it was an easy choice that fits her well at this stage post-pregnancy, that she feels comfortable in. The previous times we’ve seen it have been after previous pregnancies. It also likely made for lovely family photos of her, William, George, and Charlotte after the ceremony. Also, it would not surprise me one bit if Meghan knew ahead of time what Catherine (and all her other friends and parents of the little bridal party) would be wearing on the day.

Ok, that wraps up what has become a very long blog post (almost a journal article at this rate, but I thought I’d spare you all the academic research and citations lol). Meghan is definitely someone I’m watching very carefully. It’s too soon to tell if she’ll follow the stateswoman style model that Jacqueline established, or if she’ll subvert it completely like Diana did, or if—like Michelle and Catherine—she’ll find a comfortable middle ground and a space to negotiate her own identity within her official role. It’s going to be interesting for sure. I hope you enjoyed this post, if you did, I would love it if you would share it with others. What did you think of the dress? Or just of the wedding itself? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Disagreeing with me is totally fine, by the way, just be polite about it, ok? :) 

Until next time,

Andrea