Meghan markles wedding dress

↑ 33055

Tue, May 22 2018, 8:23 pm

amother wrote:

Which publication published the 23 pounds loss eating ice cubes? And the marriage prior to Trevor?

Well thanks for sharing your unsolicited, angry negative opinions (most of which seem to be based on speculation) on a person that most of us are really only interested in "what she wore" and "how she looked".

I have opinions on matters that don't directly effect me was well.. but they don't make me angry.

Comparing to Princess Di now? I don't even know where to begin. I guess good for us that she'll never be Princess Megan.

Shes a person. A person who is famous. She has flaws like all people. Good reason we as Jews don't worship people.

You are a crazy lady if you think I am angry because I don't think Megan has class.

And BTW who solicited your angry negative opinion of me? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

And who gave you editorial rights to limit this thread to what she wore and how she looked? Look at the opening post.

amother

↑ Aqua ↓

Tue, May 22 2018, 8:28 pm

Squishy wrote:

Removed.

amother

↑ Purple ↓

Tue, May 22 2018, 8:32 pm

Squishy wrote:

I feel anger and contempt from your posts. If they aren't - you fooled me.

What do you think my angry negative opinion is of you? What opinion of you did I state?

I read the first post - Poster wanted to gossip about a dress.

I don't have editorial rights - your opinions of the person, not the dress, kind of came out of left field - and, I've figured it out - they are bothering me because they are a level of gossip, talking about people that isn't typically tolerated here... so I'm not used to encountering it.

Aylat

Tue, May 22 2018, 8:55 pm

Criticisms of Meghan Markle herself (as opposed to opinions about a dress she wore) are lashon hara and a negative midda.

Being born a public figure or marrying one doesn't entitle Joe Shmoe to analyse, criticise, and pontificate about their personal relationships, decisions, flaws or whatever. Leave her alone.

↑ allthingsblue ↓

Tue, May 22 2018, 9:12 pm

amother wrote:

Natural, sweet yes! Gorgeous? That's taking it to far.

Wow, so I guess you'd think most of the women on imamother are just natural or sweet, or perhaps even plain or ugly, but certainly not gorgeous.

I personally think Megan is gorgeous. And I'd probably think most of the women on imamother are gorgeous too, each in their own way.

↑ WhatFor

Tue, May 22 2018, 9:18 pm

allthingsblue wrote:

Totally agree with you, allthingsblue, but as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I guess our eyes are just gorgeous. Wink

↑ allthingsblue ↓

Tue, May 22 2018, 9:38 pm

WhatFor wrote:

Totally agree with you, allthingsblue, but as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I guess our eyes are just gorgeous. Wink

I love that line LOL

😎

↑ trixx

Tue, May 22 2018, 9:53 pm

Settle down ladies, we are talking about a dress.

Interestingly one of the articles someone linked said:
There are no seams in the bodice. Incredibly clean and plain dresses such as this are VERY time consuming and complicated to make, because unlike a lace dress, there is no room for any errors and you can’t hide any wrinkles as the fabric has to sit perfectly.

Now I am all for the minimalist look. My fashion sense is not frum fashion. Hair, makeup and tiara aside... That dress did not fit her right.

Do we perhaps have a better eye because we know hundreds of girls who have gotten married in modest dresses? Does the secular world not? Im really surprised that only Katy perry spoke out and she's been lambasted for it. Now it's not nice to criticize the bride, but it's fair game to discuss a bridal look.

Open the Instagram accounts of frum makeup artist or gown rentals... Girls with literally $500 and 5 weeks to plan pulled it off better.

↑ Iymnok ↓

Wed, May 23 2018, 2:11 am

Again, her dress is not seamless, rather princess seams. Those go the full length of the dress giving the most flattering and smooth silhouette.
I have made them for my girls. It is not so difficult to size well.
It says more about the creator than the wearer. Though if she had a fitting the day before there would have been time to correct it.

What a waste of a good name.

↑ etky

Wed, May 23 2018, 4:53 am

thunderstorm wrote:

I think we can all take a lesson from the new dutchess. Beauty , confidence and happiness comes from inside. She may have not looked the way we all imagined a princess to look like. But she was definitely happy and confident in the way she looked. It's plastered all over her face.

This is what made the wedding (well, the few minutes of high points that I watched post-Shabbat/Yom tov, after checking first that the world was still there and that nothing horrible had happened) a joy to watch. Two good looking young people so obviously in love, and all the pomp and circumtance and eye candy that went along with it- it was a heartwarming and aesthetically gratifying moment.
As to the comparisons with Diana that some posters mentioned- the two women couldn't be more different IMO. Meghan may- commendably - be taking her cue from Diana as to her fashion sense and as to where she wants to focus her interests and energies now that she is a royal but other than that I found the contrast between the two women and their weddings very stark and rather poignant if the truth be told.

amother

↑ Purple

Wed, May 23 2018, 5:06 am

etky wrote:

Not sure why I feel compelled to add this.. but Diana was the same age when she died as Meghan was when she married Prince Harry.

↑ Raisin

Wed, May 23 2018, 6:15 am

Really, some of the posts here. I admit, I have not been reading the tabloid press about Meghan and her siblings and so on. Its sad that her father was not there.

I was just incredibly moved to see the picture of the Queen, Prince Philip, and all the wedding party, including Meghans mother. Who would ever have thought this to be possible, even 20 years ago?

100 years ago Royals were basically only allowed to marry other royals. Then in Charles times, they had to be at least titled. How times have changed!

And I think Meghan is very very different to Diana.

Who knows if any marriage will last? But I think these two have an excellent chance.

amother

↑ Aqua

Wed, May 23 2018, 8:04 am

Raisin wrote:

I agree with this. I was also very impressed with her Mom! We had never really seen her in action before and had just a few paparazzi shots of her throughout the past year and a half. She seems like a truly lovely, classy lady.

saraby

Wed, May 23 2018, 8:28 pm

I just want to say that I actually thought the fit was purposely left loose so she could mover her arms. From what I can see in other dresses with that type of neckline the underarm area tends to be tight. Maybe it was left a bit loose so it wouldn't look like it's pulling.

That being said I personally would not have chosen this particular dress, but I thought the whole look really suited her.

Even Kate at her wedding wore really minimal makeup.

↑ allthingsblue

Wed, May 23 2018, 8:33 pm

The look did suit her. It was very classic as well as modest. Befitting royalty, that's for sure.
The minimal makeup really let her natural beauty shine. I saw doctored photos that showed what she'd have looked like in more makeup; she just wouldn't have looked like herself. In fact, if you look at her makeup throughout the years, you'll see that she had always stuck with more natural makeup, certainly for her skin. When she chose colored eye/lip products, it just looked very fake/too youthful. She's so beautiful, that less is more.
I loved that in the sunshine, her face looked perfectly imperfect- she looked like a beautiful human, not fake.
Luckily for Prince Harry, she also looked kissable, not unapproachable because of layers of gooky makeup Wink

↑ zaq

Wed, May 23 2018, 9:07 pm

Whew! The viciousness of some of the posts here makes me wonder when Yael started allowing feral Rottweilers to join imamother. What’s Ms. Markle done to you that you feel the need to tear her to shreds, and on such absurdly petty points to boot? That says nothing about her but plenty about you, none of it good.