Meghan Markle Pink Short Suit at Lakers Game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the outfit minus the shoes. Nothing wrong with wearing this to a basketball game especially in LA. I would've paired this with some cool kicks though.

Yeah I agree on the shoes. I think the nude high-heeled pumps make her legs look longer and thinner, which is normally a good thing, but for her kind of emphasizes her apple shape. And paired with the suit it's kind of business-y. I think I would have done loafers, or maybe a ballet flat.

She is not apple shaped! I mean, maybe if she gained 30 lbs she would be, but she's not what most people would consider apple shaped as she doesn't have a large bust and she does have a defined waist.

I think most of these comments on her body are stemming from (1) strong and somewhat irrational hatred of her her, combined with (2) the fact that she gravitates toward really relaxed shapes in her clothes. When she was on Suits, she was wearing fitted sheaths and body con dresses, or tight wiggle skirts with blouses tucked in, pretty much ever episode. She has an absolutely slamming body. I'm sure two kids has shifted things around a little, but she still looks fantastic. It's just that she obviously does not like wearing super fitted clothes when she dresses herself. She likes looser silhouettes, which also happened to be very popular right now fashion-wise, and I think people assume she must be using them to hide body flaws. But she's not. She just likes her clothes to be a little drapey and baggy. Her prerogative.

Also adding that she gets compared to Kate all the time and the thing about Kate is that she likes her clothes tailored to within an inch of their life. She'll take a dress or suit and have it fitted so close to the body that I sometimes wonder if they are having to sew her in. She likes to emphasize her body shape. Meghan doesn't. I don't think there is anything wrong with either approach. They are both in great shape and very beautiful.

[Anonymous]

It just looks way too big and baggy.

[Anonymous]

Overall she looks fine, anyone with her kind of resources (ability to buy designer things, tailored advice and luxury services) looks fine. It's as difficult not to as it is for a similar looking person without access to all of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This look reads outdated and poorly executed to me.

Actually right on trend -- the color, the fit of the jacket, the matched set, it's all exactly on trend.

I think this version from Reiss (hers is from Staud) might have avoided the wrinkled linen issue that people are struggling with (I personally don't care, linen wrinkles, I don't get the issue), and it has a more tailored jacket. But I'm guessing people would find these shorts scandalously short on a real person, whereas the longer, slouchier set from Staud offers more coverage, especially at a sporting event where you are seated much of the time.

The tailoring makes all the difference here. If you’re going to wear it, make sure its the right size and fit. Otherwise it’s a miss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the outfit minus the shoes. Nothing wrong with wearing this to a basketball game especially in LA. I would've paired this with some cool kicks though.

Yeah I agree on the shoes. I think the nude high-heeled pumps make her legs look longer and thinner, which is normally a good thing, but for her kind of emphasizes her apple shape. And paired with the suit it's kind of business-y. I think I would have done loafers, or maybe a ballet flat.

She is not apple shaped! I mean, maybe if she gained 30 lbs she would be, but she's not what most people would consider apple shaped as she doesn't have a large bust and she does have a defined waist.

I think most of these comments on her body are stemming from (1) strong and somewhat irrational hatred of her her, combined with (2) the fact that she gravitates toward really relaxed shapes in her clothes. When she was on Suits, she was wearing fitted sheaths and body con dresses, or tight wiggle skirts with blouses tucked in, pretty much ever episode. She has an absolutely slamming body. I'm sure two kids has shifted things around a little, but she still looks fantastic. It's just that she obviously does not like wearing super fitted clothes when she dresses herself. She likes looser silhouettes, which also happened to be very popular right now fashion-wise, and I think people assume she must be using them to hide body flaws. But she's not. She just likes her clothes to be a little drapey and baggy. Her prerogative.

I didn't mean it as an insult, just a descriptor of her body type. I am not one of those people who dislikes her, I am pretty neutral on her. I just meant she has slim legs and hips and her weight seems to go to her midsection. You can be slim and look great and be an apple, just like you can be slim and look great and be a pear or an hourglass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks too big on her.

It's a relaxed fit. She's not a flight attendant.

When you have stick thin legs, you don’t wear baggy, boxy shorts. It’s not flattering.

She could have paired the tee and baggy blazer with jeans or pants and looked a million times better.

This comment is just… what?

She has thin, toned legs. They look amazing in shirts and a pair of high heels. The outfit would look cute with jeans but the whole point of the shorts is to show off her legs, which are fantastic.

This is like saying that if you have a narrow waist and a flat stomach, you should hide it under baggy sweatshirts because, ugh, who wants to see you perfect waist-to-hip ration and toned abs. Cover it up! What on earth.

She does not have toned legs. At the jubilee where she wore a white coat dress, her no-waist under the thick coat ale fabric made her look like a fridge resting on needles.

Most fashion models have thin legs.

It's the calves, she just has bad calves. They are't shapely, toned, or athletic. There's nothing there.

Her body is weird. It's like a fridge resting on toothpicks.

Her body is the body she was born with. It’s weird to criticize something she has no control over. She’s kept herself in shape and is well-groomed.

I would agree with this. She is in great shape- for the body she has. You cannot change your overall proportions much. But with that said, there are ways to dress to flatter and balance the proportions you are born with. Wearing a short baggy outfit further accentuates the disproportionate thinness of her legs and ankles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks too big on her.

It's a relaxed fit. She's not a flight attendant.

Yes, this is the look. Reminds me of this iconic outfit on Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman (I have every outfit in that movie imprinted on my long term memory like my multiplication tables):



I loved the color of that suit because I'm also a redhead and that shade of color is ultra-flattering on redheads. Obviously Meghan's version is a trendier color and the fit is more modern -- shorter shorts and boxier jacket, with a tank instead of a blouse. But same vibe and I love it.

My mom wore stuff just like this back in the mid to late 90s. Lol
It screams Chicos!

A big nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This look reads outdated and poorly executed to me.

Actually right on trend -- the color, the fit of the jacket, the matched set, it's all exactly on trend.

I think this version from Reiss (hers is from Staud) might have avoided the wrinkled linen issue that people are struggling with (I personally don't care, linen wrinkles, I don't get the issue), and it has a more tailored jacket. But I'm guessing people would find these shorts scandalously short on a real person, whereas the longer, slouchier set from Staud offers more coverage, especially at a sporting event where you are seated much of the time.

The tailoring makes all the difference here. If you’re going to wear it, make sure its the right size and fit. Otherwise it’s a miss.

The biggest difference isn't just the tailoring. it's the material!
That is a cotton blend while the pictures the OP posted are linen which is obvious due to the wrinkling. It's going to lay completely differently and hang on the body completely differently due to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was apparently a Staud suit: https://www.shopbop.com/product/vp/v=1/1545581778.htm?extid=SE_Google_campaign%3DNB_Category_t1_Clothing_PLA_WMN_Dom_US_EN_GGL_PLA_adgroup%3Dus-t1-Clothing-JacketsCoats-Blazers¤cyCode=USD&gclid=CjwKCAjwl6OiBhA2EiwAuUwWZavpVkN2L2hJrUGIu-1qHqwOxWjvfXn5zpOYFHzQ60Rc4eB50R0ZBBoCOCEQAvD_BwE

It does not even look good on the model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t have toned legs. That’s a wrinkle mess. Stilettos and shorts are out of place in that event.

I used to attend Orlando Magic games compliment of our firm. You would be shocked at the number of women who wore heels and even fur coats to the game. Fur coats in Orlando doesn't sound right, does it? But the women wore them. They dressed up for the games. LA is not DC.

There's a difference in dressing for a night out, even over the top Florida, LA or NY-style with body con clothing or edgy or sporty, and wearing a pastel linen set that looks more appropriate for an upscale brunch or a friend's afternoon wedding shower. This was a nighttime playoff basketball game.

Well, I see two other women wearing blazers in that one candid so...

There is a difference between a blazer and a pink linen suit that you would wear to your nephews high school graduatiom.

Lol. Y’all cannot make up your mind. First posters, perhaps you, were lamenting that she was overdressed for a basketball game. When it is pointed out that women wear fur coats and heels to Orlando basketball and women dress to impress to Lakers basketball games, now you and all have pivoted to a she is underdressed complaint. Now you are lamenting that the linen suit is too simplistic and something that should be worn to a high school graduation. LOL. What is it. I swear, when it comes to this woman, y’all always reveal yourselves, and yourselves are ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This look reads outdated and poorly executed to me.

No. You’re dated. You are remembering when the look came around when you were young, so you are dating yourself. We all know that clothing trends always return. The young women are wearing this look now.

[Anonymous]

It looks more fitted on the model in the ad. I think she’s gorgeous and has pretty good taste but I just don’t like this set on her—it looks like she bought the wrong size and the shorts particularly look weirdly fit. I have narrow shoulders and a long thin neck and I struggled with the big body blazers in style in the 80s and 90s—they just never looked right on me. Sometimes something can be on trend and still just not look right on your body. Given how great she usually looks, I think this is a miss for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This look reads outdated and poorly executed to me.

Actually right on trend -- the color, the fit of the jacket, the matched set, it's all exactly on trend.

I think this version from Reiss (hers is from Staud) might have avoided the wrinkled linen issue that people are struggling with (I personally don't care, linen wrinkles, I don't get the issue), and it has a more tailored jacket. But I'm guessing people would find these shorts scandalously short on a real person, whereas the longer, slouchier set from Staud offers more coverage, especially at a sporting event where you are seated much of the time.

The tailoring makes all the difference here. If you’re going to wear it, make sure its the right size and fit. Otherwise it’s a miss.

Shorts are too short for a forty-year old woman. That model is a size one, seventeen-year old at most. Meghan wore the right one and I prefer the relaxed fit. Everyone doesn’t desire body-fitting clothes, especially when trying to relax at a sporting event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This look reads outdated and poorly executed to me.

No. You’re dated. You are remembering when the look came around when you were young, so you are dating yourself. We all know that clothing trends always return. The young women are wearing this look now.

That might be part of the problem. If you’re 20, you can pull off a wrinkled baggy retro look. It’s much harder as a 40 year old mom. I’m not a big fan of “act your age” but the truth is that the older we get, the less stylish we look in the unstructured baggy stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was apparently a Staud suit: https://www.shopbop.com/product/vp/v=1/1545581778.htm?extid=SE_Google_campaign%3DNB_Category_t1_Clothing_PLA_WMN_Dom_US_EN_GGL_PLA_adgroup%3Dus-t1-Clothing-JacketsCoats-Blazers¤cyCode=USD&gclid=CjwKCAjwl6OiBhA2EiwAuUwWZavpVkN2L2hJrUGIu-1qHqwOxWjvfXn5zpOYFHzQ60Rc4eB50R0ZBBoCOCEQAvD_BwE

It does not even look good on the model.

Wow! It looks so cheap, even on the model.