.jpeg)
An ongoing controversy has engulfed Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, over a £1,300 designer dress, prompting sharp headlines and firmly worded denials from her team. At the centre of the row is a striking one‑shoulder green gown by Galvan, reportedly worth about £1,300, which Meghan first wore for a high‑profile magazine photoshoot and later appeared to wear again in promotional material for a new streaming special. Commentators critical of the Duchess have suggested this is evidence of “scrounging” or walking away from shoots with expensive items that should have been returned, but her representatives have called such allegations “highly defamatory” and insist all wardrobe arrangements were handled properly and transparently.
The story gathered momentum after a journalist claimed on a podcast that outfits from a past shoot had not all been returned, with online speculation quickly linking that claim to Meghan’s green dress. From there, a familiar pattern emerged: tabloid reports, anonymous “fashion insiders” and social‑media threads recycling and amplifying the idea that the Duchess kept a costly gown without permission. Supporters of Meghan, however, point out that high‑end photoshoots routinely involve complex agreements in which stars are allowed to retain certain pieces, especially if they plan to re‑wear them in future projects, and stress that no designer or styling house has publicly accused her of theft or breach of contract.
Meghan’s spokesperson has pushed back robustly, stating that any items retained from professional shoots were kept with the full knowledge and agreement of stylists and brands, and that everything was done in line with standard industry practice. They argue that to suggest otherwise is not only inaccurate but damaging, because it feeds a persistent narrative portraying her as greedy or entitled. For the Duchess, who has often spoken about wanting to use her wardrobe to highlight ethical labels and women‑led brands, the implication that she casually “nicks” clothes sits awkwardly alongside the carefully curated image she and Prince Harry have tried to build since stepping back from royal duties.
The dress dispute also taps into wider, long‑running tensions around Meghan’s spending and status. Critics have repeatedly contrasted her designer‑heavy wardrobe with the more restrained image traditionally expected of working royals, citing estimates that her clothing costs in her first year as a duchess were several times higher than those of the Princess of Wales. Supporters counter that Meghan brought a Hollywood‑style fashion profile into the monarchy, that she was under enormous pressure to look immaculate, and that male royals’ spending rarely faces equivalent scrutiny. In that context, the £1,300 dress has become less a garment and more a symbol onto which broader grievances and suspicions are projected.
Richard Eden’s framing of the issue as a “mystery” that will not go away reflects how such stories linger regardless of formal denials. Once an accusation is in circulation – particularly one that fits a pre‑existing stereotype – it can be difficult to dispel, even if no concrete evidence is produced. That dynamic is especially potent in Meghan’s case, where every appearance, contract and outfit tends to be read through the lens of culture‑war narratives about the royal family, race, and celebrity privilege. Even when her team issues categorical rebuttals, commentators may pivot to the idea that “questions still remain,” keeping the controversy alive.
Ultimately, the saga of the £1,300 dress illustrates how fashion, status and reputation intersect in the modern media environment. A single gown from a photoshoot has spawned allegations of freeloading, debates about what public figures owe designers, and renewed scrutiny of a woman whose every move already attracts intense attention. Whether one views the claims as legitimate concerns or unfair character attacks, the episode shows how small details in a celebrity’s life can be magnified into global talking points – and how hard it can be to reclaim the narrative once that happens.
Comments
Post a Comment