Meghans engagement gown....guess how much.

Engagement photos of Harry and Meghan have been released.
They look very happy and she looks beautiful in a designer dress, it's really nice, very high end, but hold on....HOW MUCH??



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5202215/Meghan-Markle-Ralph-Russo-engagement-photos.html

"Meghan Markle knew all eyes were going to be on her when she and Prince Harry released their engagement photos today.
And the bride-to-be certainly didn't shy a way from making a statement when it came to her dress. 
The 36-year-old looked red carpet ready in a glittering couture gown by British label Ralph & Russo. The handmade creation would have taken thousands of hours to make and is estimated to cost £56,000. Kensington Palace confirmed the gown was 'privately purchased'. 
From the autumn/winter '16 collection, the floor-length black tulle gown features a silk organza skirt, hand appliquéd with silk tulle ruffles, and an entirely sheer bodice decorated with intricate gold feather thread-work. 
Meghan's decision to wear a gown by the London-based designer for such a high profile occasion shows her commitment to supporting British fashion in her new role as a member of the Royal Family. "

The Royal family have certainly come a long way since Harrys dad actually asked the Queens permission if he may Kiss his bride  Diana as they appeared on the balcony after their wedding.





More engagement pics on link.

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/dec/21/younger-hipper-cooler-harry-and-meghans-engagement-photos-herald-a-new-era-of-royal-portraiture

This is the £56,000 dress as won by a model.

Well if she keeps buying at those kind of prices she'll definately support British Fashion - all by herself.

Vintage wrote:Well if she keeps buying at those kind of prices she'll definately support British Fashion - all by herself.

Hopefully when the British tax payer is funding her lifestyle she wont spend quite as much on frocks.

I hope she wore something under that top, otherwise its more starlet than royal duchess.

You cant really tell in the pics posted but I'm sure she did.

How awful. Why do "royal" people always feel they have to spend a fortune on frocks and other trivial things?

Raggamuffin wrote:How awful. Why do "royal" people always feel they have to spend a fortune on frocks and other trivial things?

Not sure why, she certainly doesn't come from a pampered lifestyle, she seems to be embracing it now though.

I think when people are starving in the world and so many are going without in this country spending £56,000 on a dress is pretty obscene.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How awful. Why do "royal" people always feel they have to spend a fortune on frocks and other trivial things?

Not sure why, she certainly doesn't come from a pampered lifestyle, she seems to be embracing it now though.

I think when people are starving in the world and so many are going without in this country spending £56,000 on a dress is pretty obscene.

Of course it's obscene. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a "royal" who doesn't spend stupid amounts of money on a frock? I guess she's just another clothes horse.

I agree Rags, so much money, bet she's loving the perks by marrying a prince

Vintage wrote:I hope she wore something under that top, otherwise its more starlet than royal duchess.

Yeah it's freeeezing weather!
I'm sure she sprouted a pair of coat hanger hooks under that dress. (work it out!!! )

Come on Meghan, I really like you, don't make me dislike you.   
£50+K for a frock?   Meaningless profligacy, honey, sorry.

Syl wrote:

Vintage wrote:Well if she keeps buying at those kind of prices she'll definately support British Fashion - all by herself.

Hopefully when the British tax payer is funding her lifestyle she wont spend quite as much on frocks.

I don't think she will ever cost the taxpayer anything. 
I may be wrong, but I thought Prince Charles and his entire clan (wife, kids and their partners) are funded by income  from the Duchy of Cornwall, not from the civil list or whatever it's called nowadays

Independent-news/prince-harry-royal-family-taxpayer-money-civil-list-leave-republican-monarchy-army-officer-leave-a7809201.html



"Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said: “There is a lot of pressure on the younger royals to go along with it all and maintain the status quo but perhaps they are gaining some self-awareness about how they look to the public.

“You would hope they are a bit embarrassed by the fawning and the sycophancy and are wondering if that is what they want for their children.”

He added: “If Prince Harry wants to leave he should leave. I have some sympathy but it’s limited given a huge amount of taxpayer’s money is thrown at him with no great expectation.”

“I think there has been the perennial problem that the royal family have no clear role and no purpose. Not having a normal job must leave you a bit frustrated, having said that most of their time is spent leading a life of leisure"

...........

"It costs around £300 million a year to run the British monarchy.
• Some of that money comes from the queen's private investments.
• But a substantial chunk — about £39 million last year — comes from the British government. "

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

Hopefully when the British tax payer is funding her lifestyle she wont spend quite as much on frocks.

I don't think she will ever cost the taxpayer anything. 
I may be wrong, but I thought Prince Charles and his entire clan (wife, kids and their partners) are funded by income  from the Duchy of Cornwall, not from the civil list or whatever it's called nowadays

True, that...

Not only does Harry get his income from his father's Duchy of Cornwall, he also inherited £millions£ from his mum's estate, plus when he's old enough he will be entitled to a military pension as well (though in his case, you would think he would redirect that to charity..).

On top of that, Meghan herself is probably a millionaire in her own right, by now..

Syl wrote:Independent-news/prince-harry-royal-family-taxpayer-money-civil-list-leave-republican-monarchy-army-officer-leave-a7809201.html



"Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said: “There is a lot of pressure on the younger royals to go along with it all and maintain the status quo but perhaps they are gaining some self-awareness about how they look to the public.

“You would hope they are a bit embarrassed by the fawning and the sycophancy and are wondering if that is what they want for their children.”

He added: “If Prince Harry wants to leave he should leave. I have some sympathy but it’s limited given a huge amount of taxpayer’s money is thrown at him with no great expectation.”

“I think there has been the perennial problem that the royal family have no clear role and no purpose. Not having a normal job must leave you a bit frustrated, having said that most of their time is spent leading a life of leisure"

There's adverts on tele saying £3 for a blanket for kiddies who are refugees. How many blankets could they buy for that one dress.

It's obscene when people live in the streets and she wears that expensive dress to pose in.

I agree with Graham Smith, so much money the Royals have, so much privilege. Doors just open for them.

Peeps, it could well be that the dress cost her absolutely nowt.

An astute designer knows that a gift of £50K to anyone in royal circles, soon pays for itself several times over. Works out far cheaper than advertising or laying on super-expensive catwalk fashion shows.

The publicity the designers get is literally priceless - the bags, frocks, coats, shoes she's used recently have all sold out, on the spot .... even tho some of the designers were unknown beforehand.

Straightforward economics!

It was privately purchased. She has earned her own money by being a successful actress. She’s entitled to spend it on what she wants.

She looks stunning and they both look so happy. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

So she’s marrying a prince. Guess he’s not entitled to love someone right? I mean he’s not human is he. How dare he!!!

Cass wrote:It was privately purchased. She has earned her own money by being a successful actress. She’s entitled to spend it on what she wants.

She looks stunning and they both look so happy. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

So she’s marrying a prince. Guess he’s not entitled to love someone right? I mean he’s not human is he. How dare he!!!

+1

Indeed, over 50k per episode and 80k per year sponsorships. Plus the money she has made from films with a total annual salary of near half a million, over the years.

She has a net worth of 4 million and Harry has 40 million. Of which most of his is money has come from funds left to him by his mother and the Queen mother.

Cass wrote:It was privately purchased. She has earned her own money by being a successful actress. She’s entitled to spend it on what she wants.

She looks stunning and they both look so happy. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

So she’s marrying a prince. Guess he’s not entitled to love someone right? I mean he’s not human is he. How dare he!!!

I don't think anyone has suggested they shouldn't be happy Cass, that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

I doubt anyone who is old enough to remember Diana's death could begrudge her sons one moment of happiness and love they find in life, they are in love and it shows, and she looks gorgeous in a beautiful dress....that's not the point.

By her marrying into the royal family she has to change her lifestyle, she isn't an actress anymore, she is someone who will represent the country, the more successful she is at that the more people will accept the new wave of royals.

Spending such an obscene amount on one dress isn't really the way to go about it, especially if she will be taking over as the mouthpiece for certain charities who have to beg for donations to keep going.

I understand that the materials might cost a bit and that such dresses are usually hand finished, seamstresses don't make that much so I'm not sure even given the process that
such an amount of money for one dress is justified.
In any case she's the kind of woman who could look good in anything.

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:Independent-news/prince-harry-royal-family-taxpayer-money-civil-list-leave-republican-monarchy-army-officer-leave-a7809201.html



"Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said: “There is a lot of pressure on the younger royals to go along with it all and maintain the status quo but perhaps they are gaining some self-awareness about how they look to the public.

“You would hope they are a bit embarrassed by the fawning and the sycophancy and are wondering if that is what they want for their children.”

He added: “If Prince Harry wants to leave he should leave. I have some sympathy but it’s limited given a huge amount of taxpayer’s money is thrown at him with no great expectation.”

“I think there has been the perennial problem that the royal family have no clear role and no purpose. Not having a normal job must leave you a bit frustrated, having said that most of their time is spent leading a life of leisure"

There's adverts on tele saying £3 for a blanket for kiddies who are refugees.  How many blankets could they buy for that one dress.

It's obscene when people live in the streets and she wears that expensive dress to pose in.

I agree with Graham Smith, so much money the Royals have, so much privilege.   Doors just open for them.

I'm not a royalist either Mags, but I do think the younger ones, who have managed to drag the royal family into the 21st century will do a good job of it, basically because William and Harry are more down to earth and popular.
They do cost the taxpayer money, its naive to think they don't, security alone is astronomical, and the civil list (though its had a name change) has been cut to not include second cousins of aunts and uncles thank God.

Vintage wrote:I understand that the materials might cost a bit and that such dresses are usually hand finished, seamstresses don't make that much so I'm not sure even given the process that
such an amount of money for one dress is justified.
In any case she's the kind of woman who could look good in anything.

She is Vintage...she is beautiful.

Syl wrote:

Cass wrote:It was privately purchased. She has earned her own money by being a successful actress. She’s entitled to spend it on what she wants.

She looks stunning and they both look so happy. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

So she’s marrying a prince. Guess he’s not entitled to love someone right? I mean he’s not human is he. How dare he!!!

I don't think anyone has suggested they shouldn't be happy Cass, that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

I doubt anyone who is old enough to remember Diana's death could begrudge her sons one moment of happiness and love they find in life, they are in love and it shows, and she looks gorgeous in a beautiful dress....that's not the point.

By her marrying into the royal family she has to change her lifestyle, she isn't an actress anymore, she is someone who will represent the country, the more successful she is at that the more people will accept the new wave of royals.

Spending such an obscene amount on one dress isn't really the way to go about it, especially if she will be taking over as the mouthpiece for certain charities who have to beg for donations to keep going.

Oh it has Syl but not by you. Every person deserves to have a big blow out on an outfit, especially if it’s an engagement photo. It’s her day. Why does she have to justify it even if she becomes a spokesperson for a charity? One expensive dress isn’t the end of the world. Again it’s her money and her special time. I don’t see her telling others how to live or how much to spend. I’m sure in her day to day dress she will be sensible and be like Catherine and buy off the peg and recycle the outfits (upon which people will moan their heads off). She chose a British designer. It or versions like it will sell like hot cakes just like anything Catherine or Charlotte or George wears. All good for the British economy. The huge amount of tat and souvenirs sold all bring my net into the treasury.

They Had the photographs taken in Britain. It’s not even been a month so she should be given a chance. She’s never been OTT but rather private and restrained in her celebrity. I’m sure mistakes along the way will be made, but she’s human not a robot. The British press doing what it does best. Build someone up and then cackle with glee tearing them
down the next day.

As to Harry leaving? Why the hell should he? He was born here. He didn’t magically arrange to be born royal. No great expectation? Yeah serving your country in a battle zone twice just doesn’t meet expectations. Being a search and rescue pilot isn’t having a job is it, it’s mostly leisure. And let’s not forget about Invictus and how he’s helping wounded armed forces personnel along with all the other great charity work the family does.


By the way, it still cost the British taxpayer each about 65p a year that goes to the Monarchy. If you had a president or other type of leader you would still be paying for it and more than likely a lot more. So I think the Queen and all of them are jolly good value.

Anyway I’m off to get ready for work. Lucky that it’s my last day till next Thursday and it’s a short one but it’s kids holiday party so I’ll be worn out. Bright side is we are decorating cookies! Have a good rest of your day x

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:
Independent-news/prince-harry-royal-family-taxpayer-money-civil-list-leave-republican-monarchy-army-officer-leave-a7809201.html

"Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said: “There is a lot of pressure on the younger royals to go along with it all and maintain the status quo but perhaps they are gaining some self-awareness about how they look to the public.

“You would hope they are a bit embarrassed by the fawning and the sycophancy and are wondering if that is what they want for their children.”

He added: “If Prince Harry wants to leave he should leave. I have some sympathy but it’s limited given a huge amount of taxpayer’s money is thrown at him with no great expectation.”

“I think there has been the perennial problem that the royal family have no clear role and no purpose. Not having a normal job must leave you a bit frustrated, having said that most of their time is spent leading a life of leisure"

There's adverts on tele saying £3 for a blanket for kiddies who are refugees.  How many blankets could they buy for that one dress.

It's obscene when people live in the streets and she wears that expensive dress to pose in.

I agree with Graham Smith, so much money the Royals have, so much privilege.   Doors just open for them.

Graham Smith is a dick...

And an unthinking, lying dick as well (it's easy to get caught out in your lies, as he has here, if you don't bother to think them through first..).

And anyone who supports his lies will most likely end up looking like a bit of a dick, as well.

Well said Cass, i'm sick of people "sniping" at our Royals. They cost us pennies a year to keep, and bring in millions of pounds from Tourists.

Sorry to be a misery I'm not keen on such showines, it looks a bit managed to me, ok they are in love and can be a bit less formal bearing in mind Harry's position in the scheme of things; looks a bit over played to me, a bit theatrical. The photo of them on the steps though is lovely = just right, it captures the subjects and subject with grace and beauty.

Cass wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think anyone has suggested they shouldn't be happy Cass, that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

I doubt anyone who is old enough to remember Diana's death could begrudge her sons one moment of happiness and love they find in life, they are in love and it shows, and she looks gorgeous in a beautiful dress....that's not the point.

By her marrying into the royal family she has to change her lifestyle, she isn't an actress anymore, she is someone who will represent the country, the more successful she is at that the more people will accept the new wave of royals.

Spending such an obscene amount on one dress isn't really the way to go about it, especially if she will be taking over as the mouthpiece for certain charities who have to beg for donations to keep going.

Oh it has Syl but not by you. Every person deserves to have a big blow out on an outfit, especially if it’s an engagement photo. It’s her day. Why does she have to justify it even if she becomes a spokesperson for a charity? One expensive dress isn’t the end of the world. Again it’s her money and her special time. I don’t see her telling others how to live or how much to spend. I’m sure in her day to day dress she will be sensible and be like Catherine and buy off the peg and recycle the outfits (upon which people will moan their heads off). She chose a British designer. It or versions like it will sell like hot cakes just like anything Catherine or Charlotte or George wears. All good for the British economy. The huge amount of tat and souvenirs sold all bring my net into the treasury.

They Had the photographs taken in Britain. It’s not even been a month so she should be given a chance. She’s never been OTT but rather private and restrained in her celebrity. I’m sure mistakes along the way will be made, but she’s human not a robot. The British press doing what it does best. Build someone up and then cackle with glee tearing them
down the next day.

As to Harry leaving? Why the hell should he? He was born here. He didn’t magically arrange to be born royal. No great expectation? Yeah serving your country in a battle zone twice just doesn’t meet expectations. Being a search and rescue pilot isn’t having a job is it, it’s mostly leisure. And let’s not forget about Invictus and how he’s helping wounded armed forces personnel along with all the other great charity work the family does.


By the way, it still cost the British taxpayer each about 65p a year that goes to the Monarchy. If you had a president or other type of leader you would still be paying for it and more than likely a lot more. So I think the Queen and all of them are jolly good value.

Anyway I’m off to get ready for work. Lucky that it’s my last day till next Thursday and it’s a short one but it’s kids holiday party so I’ll be worn out. Bright side is we are decorating cookies! Have a good rest of your day x

I meant no one has said bad things about her on this thread about the dress.
I know she has had some nasty things said about her elsewhere, the press do like to knock people down its true, happily she has had more positive publicity than negative so far.
Most of the derogatory stuff I have read online has been sheer nastiness and halve truths....I suspect jealousy is at the bottom of a lot of the bad press she has received.

I don't think most people expect her to nip into M&S for her dresses....but sorry, £56 THOUSAND POUNDS for a dress is just obscene no matter who you are or for what occasion its bought for..... So I think we are going to have agree to disagree on that point.

Harry wont leave, it was an interview he gave that the link was referring too...he said none of the royal family would hold the positions they hold if they had a choice....something like that.
He is open like his mum, no doubt he felt like that at the time, but as he is for many people the most popular member of the royal family I doubt he will ever leave.....hopefully not anyway.

Hope you had a good day at work, I did last minute food shop...and now what isn't bought we will go without. x

nicko wrote:Well said Cass,     i'm sick of people "sniping" at our Royals. They cost us pennies a year to keep,   and bring in millions of pounds from Tourists.

Those pennies add up.

"According to the official website of the British Monarchy: “The Royal Household is committed to ensuring that public money is spent as wisely and efficiently as possible”.
Yet, every year in June when a full report on the Royal finances is published, republicans beg to differ.

Newspapers have been quick to point out that Prince Andrew squandered £14,692 on a round trip to see the golf at Muirfield. Prince Edward, meanwhile, took a £46,198 charter flight to Sofia, Bucharest and Ljubljana.
And big brother Prince Charles blew an impressive £246,160 on a private jet to Nelson Mandela's funeral.

Obviously, the Windsors’ family budget is considerably bigger than the average household. This year the report showed the Sovereign Grant was £43 million.
The Sovereign Grant is money that comes from the Treasury – taxpayers – and is given to the Queen for her and her family to carry out official duties. At current rates, it would reach £45.6 million in 2017/18, which would be a 57% increase since 2012.

The Sovereign Grant was introduced in 2012 and replaced the Civil List and three separate grants for royal travel, communications and maintenance of the royal palaces.

Funding for the Sovereign Grant also comes from a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue (initially set at 15%) and will be reviewed every five years. Last year these profits totalled £304 million
.
According to Republic, a group which campaigns for a democratic alternative to the Monarchy, the true cost of the Monarchy to the British taxpayer is actually £334 million a year – nearly 10 times more than the figure published by the Royal Family.
It points to the fact that the royal family's security bill, for instance, is picked up by the Metropolitan Police, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.



http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/mortgages-bills/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-11363982445194

Where do they get £246.000 for a flight to SA?

nicko wrote:Where do they get £246.000 for a flight to SA?

No idea Nicko, I travel by BA, Thompsons or Jet2.

She's beautiful looking woman and also quite smart too - and she seems to have heaps more charisma than plain-boiled-rice-Kate.

The dress though, is fucking horrible.

eddie wrote:She's beautiful looking woman and also quite smart too - and she seems to have heaps more charisma than plain-boiled-rice-Kate.

The dress though, is fucking horrible.

I actually love the dress...I have a top similar, sheer with crystals on it....I think it cost about £50 years ago, I thought it was quite expensive at the time.

I hate to say Kate is a bit boring....she just seems so nice and well trained though, perfect for a royal bride, but a bit boring to watch.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:She's beautiful looking woman and also quite smart too - and she seems to have heaps more charisma than plain-boiled-rice-Kate.

The dress though, is fucking horrible.

I actually love the dress...I have a top similar, sheer with crystals on it....I think it cost about £50 years ago, I thought it was quite expensive at the time.

I hate to say Kate is a bit boring....she just seems so nice and well trained though, perfect for a royal bride, but a bit boring to watch.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it was Kate who married for the position, Meghan seems to be in love, see the way she looks at him. you can't fake that look.
I've never seen Kate look at her husband like that.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

I actually love the dress...I have a top similar, sheer with crystals on it....I think it cost about £50 years ago, I thought it was quite expensive at the time.

I hate to say Kate is a bit boring....she just seems so nice and well trained though, perfect for a royal bride, but a bit boring to watch.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it was Kate who married for the position, Meghan seems to be in love, see the way she looks at him. you can't fake that look.
I've never seen Kate look at her husband like that.

That's probably a two way street. Kate was also chosen because she would be perfect for the position. The American chick is going to be number 48 on the line of succession.

Didn't Harry say that no one in the "royal" family wants to be King or Queen? They don't mind the perks though do they?

As for the dress, of course she can spend her own money how she likes, but FFS, all that money on a frock? If she has loads of money, perhaps she could do something useful with it now she's not going to be an actress any more.

No one has confirmed that the frock costs anything approaching the amount quoted, it's pure speculation based on how long journalists think it took to make it.
My old nan could run up a frock like that from scratch, before breakfast - albeit with less expensive materials 

Around 20% of the price quoted is extra added VAT anyway.

I'm sceptical of these clickbait headlines in newspapers.

Cass wrote:It was privately purchased. She has earned her own money by being a successful actress. She’s entitled to spend it on what she wants.

She looks stunning and they both look so happy. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

So she’s marrying a prince. Guess he’s not entitled to love someone right? I mean he’s not human is he. How dare he!!!

All that means is that it wasn't bought with taxpayer's money!
It could well be that no money changed hands privately either  -and they are not obliged to divulge that bit.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if it was a free gift or heavily discounted.

Some core royals and top politicians get an annual dress allowance from the taxpayer, for formal occasions and people often speculate if a given outfit is bought with this allowance - it's a sensitive subject lol.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it was Kate who married for the position, Meghan seems to be in love, see the way she looks at him. you can't fake that look.
I've never seen Kate look at her husband like that.

That's probably a two way street. Kate was also chosen because she would be perfect for the position. The American chick is going to be number 48 on the line of succession.

Actually she’s not in succession, her husband to be will be 5th in line, 6th after the new baby.

I think Catherine’s lovely. She’s pretty, grounded, loves her family and is great at representing her country. I would much rather her than some trashy soft porn model. But that’s just me.

Respectfully, that dress is as ugly as a lump of shit, and anybody who'd spend more than zero dollars on it is a fucking idiot.

Cass wrote:I think Catherine’s lovely. She’s pretty, grounded, loves her family and is great at representing her country. I would much rather her than some trashy soft porn model. But that’s just me.

Have you seen th video of her talking about the great accomplishment she achieved at 11 years old? You seem to have pre-judged her a little harshly.
(I've never seen her films by the way)


I'd rather spicy rice than boiled rice if I had to eat only one of them for the rest of my life.

Ben Reilly wrote:Respectfully, that dress is as ugly as a lump of shit, and anybody who'd spend more than zero dollars on it is a fucking idiot.

Yeah it really is awful. She needs some brick-dung under that get-up.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's probably a two way street. Kate was also chosen because she would be perfect for the position. The American chick is going to be number 48 on the line of succession.

Actually she’s not in succession, her husband to be will be 5th in line, 6th after the new baby.

Exactly, so there's not much chance of him ever being King. Why do "royals" feel the need to spend so much money, even if it's their own?

I honestly think its hypocritical to spend that amount on one dress when soon she will be fronting charities and meeting homeless people.
.
Like someone pointed out somewhere it takes many people 2 years to work hard for that amount of money in so called rich countries, in poor countries it would save countless lives.

I don't care who's money it is...surely if anyone has a social conscience they wouldn't be so wasteful.

Syl wrote:I honestly think its hypocritical to spend that amount on one dress when soon she will be fronting charities and meeting homeless people.
.
Like someone pointed out somewhere it takes many people 2 years to work hard for that amount of money in so called rich countries, in poor countries it would save countless lives.

I don't care who's money it is...surely if anyone has a social conscience they wouldn't  be so wasteful.

It is too expensive Syl. As I said they act like they're all caring to people, charities, then spend this obscene amount on a dress.

I don't care where the money comes from, far too expensive.

What would you spend on a special frock...disregarding a wedding dress what's the most amount of money you would spend without feeling a bit tacky?

I didn't have a posh white wedding frock (my choice) and I think the most I have ever spent on an evening or special occasion dress is under £200.

I think a couple hundred for a posh dress, if I was rich, but i wouldn't spend a fortune, but then I don't have millions in the bank lol.

I wouldn't spend more if I had millions Mags and that's the truth.
Back in the day when I was really skint I would save up for a special dress, now I don't have to but I still go for the same price range I always did....why look for designer labels and pay an extra 99% for the label?

Ben Reilly wrote:Respectfully, that dress is as ugly as a lump of shit, and anybody who'd spend more than zero dollars on it is a fucking idiot.

I used to design clothes for friends many years ago, they would make them up because they could sew and I am useless...but I would plan the design and pick out the materials for them.
This dress looks a bit like 2 different dresses sewn together, the top half is sophisticated and very classy imo, the bottom half is too flouncy and doesn't fit with the top half.