The $2,266 Dress Michelle Wore to See the Queen

Rate this post

The Obamas visited with the British royal family today in Buckingham Palace. This is the outfit Michelle chose for the occasion:

Daily Mail's snarky caption for this photo: "It's never a good idea to dress like an 85-year-old but Michelle Obama and the Queen both wore pale blue floral print dresses."

Seriously, would you wear this hideous outfit and, to add injury upon insult, spend more than $2,266 on it?
According to the Daily Mail, Michelle’s dress is by British designer Barbara Tfank. Los Angeles-based Tfank’s dresses retail at around £1,400 ($2266) And “as Michelle’s pale blue floral Fifties gown was customised especially for her – a bow was removed from the Resort 2011 collection gown’s waist – it would be worth considerably more.”
Despite splurging more than $2,266 on the hideous outfit, Michelle was upstaged by Prince William’s bride, the new Duchess of Cambridge (née Kate Middleton).
Catherine wore an off-the-rack “Shola” nude-colored bandage dress from Reiss, which cost a mere £175 ($283) —  1/8th the cost of Michelle’s outfit.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “The $2,266 Dress Michelle Wore to See the Queen

  1. I hate looking at Michelle nearly as much as I hate looking at her husband.
    Remember, this is the woman who wore 500.00 sneakers to work in a soup kitchen for an afternoon……
    Like Sarah Palin said,” you can put lipstick on a pig…..”

  2. I guess this is proof that you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, no matter how much you spend.

  3. Not so! During the 2008 election season, media sycophants made much of Michelle wearing off-the-rack Old Navy and Ann Taylor clothes.

  4. whats his name looks high! Rush said this morning he signed their guestbook and dated it———-wait for it-2008

  5. Hoo boy, did she get robbed. It could have been a lovely dress, but this image seals its fate. Badly. Thank goodness taxpayers didn’t pay for it. Why does our First Lady usually look like she doesn’t care about her appearance? Did she whisk that dress out of a store without even trying it on? Generally there are two reasons for such speed in removing a garment from a shop. One involves larceny.
    But, let’s talk value. I could make the outfit for less than $40 out of pocket, using what’s in my fabric cabinet. I could have purchased the fabric for $200 if I were gullible enough to get robbed at a fabric shop. I am, fortunately, not that gullible. That’s enough for a Vogue pattern size 16-20, the equivalent of a 12-14 at Needless Markups. [I am, as always, charitable when it comes to discussing the size of a woman’s clothing.]
    Why is her hemline uneven? Why does the bolero jacket have that ugly “pooka” at the back? The shoulder seams are off place, preventing the sleeve from ‘falling’ along the grainline, and should not have been tight in one area and loose in another. Fit makes a garment attractive and graceful as opposed to the rather hitched up appearance the dress/jacket combo has on the First Lady. At the front of the jacket, there is a pleat. A PLEAT???!!! The jacket should not have a pleat there, as it destroys the modern, sleek line of the garment. It is the cardinal sign of bad fit.
    Of course the designer pulled it from the line. If I were the designer, I’d never want people to remember that what could have been a lovely ensemble, destroyed by plopping it onto a body that doesn’t fit it, along with the inhabitant of that same body having no concept of how to properly stand as a real lady ought to do.
    As for the Duchess of Cambridge, well what can one say. Her dress, like all clothing she wears in public, is well fitted to her. Her posture provides the proper support for her beautifully designed, well fitted dress. Her bearing is regal without appearing the least bit haughty or stiff. She stands with the respect due those around her — as my grandma said, the mark of a real lady.

    • Wow! What a thorough and expert analysis of exactly why Michelle’s $2,266 outfit looks so hideous. The bolero jacket is the icky “icing on the cake.” It is just all wrong for the proportions of her body.

    • Anon-I think that is the most I’ve ever heard you say at once,and oh so true.

  6. Wayne Brady in drag. Who is dressing this person?

  7. Wait until you see what just raced across the TeeVee screen on EuroNews (PBS). You see, there is this little walk down the hall on the way to one of the State dining rooms, and there is this dress being worn for dinner with the Queen that is, well, beyond words.
    That is to say, there are no adequately descriptive words that can be said on a site that might be subject to the language rules of the FCC.
    Or the rules that govern the behavior of people of general good taste and matching manners.

  8. Notice in both photos Michelle is placing her hands in front of her “womanly” part (course so does Kate w/her purse)….I was taught that during presentations, speaking in front of people, etc. that you don’t place you hands over your crotch. Keep them to the side or like the Queen has her hands in the proper place for a photo op. Daintly and ladylike. Just my two cents…

  9. This pic is from the Daily Mail. If it doesn’t load, I apologize.
    If you are offended by the content, I salute you.
    If your sensibilities are jogged off course, I join you.
    If you wish there was understanding of the words and phrases, “stockings are appropriate attire”, “covering the shoulders is expected in certain circles”, “proper hat” and “slip,” all in their proper sartorial application, well, we are all bearing that cross.
    The picture is about half way down the page, which can be found here, showing the effects of winds. Other matters are self evident in the remaining pics.

    • Michelle’s stylist shoulda known better….you can sew “weights” into hems to help prevent dresses from flying up in windy situations.

      • lowtechgrannie

        I was thinking, Michelle needs a stylist. If she already has one, maybe her stylist is a secret Tea Partier, slyly working to send Queen Michelle out in these gawdawful getups.


  11. MOO’s shoes look like some that I have seen on the sale rack dregs at DSW. Not that I am criticizing a bargain–I have actually found great bargains there in a Size 7N, not Moo’s size 13-14!!

  12. Manchelle keeps trying to channel Jacqueline Kennedy without much success.
    She will always look like King Kong’s sister in bling.
    How much straightener and spandex was wasted to package her for this overseas farce?

  13. I have three words of advice. The one word bit of advice when dining with the Queen is stunningly simple.
    The two word bit of advice is, having complete the toast to the Queen, with the final word, “Majesty” one then remains silent throughout the playing of God Save the Queen. Commentary, whether from Shakespeare or one’s own head, ever remains a breach of protocol.
    I can hear it now. “What’s protocol?”
    Others may hear me weeping.

  14. This is the most regrettable, mean and nasty group of comments I’ve recently read. Come on folks, you sound like pigs.
    But of course you all remain cowardly and anonymous. Shame on you.

    • I bow before your saintliness, Casey Taylor, oh great fabulous one. I’m so glad you’ve never ever said anything catty or critical about the clothing/appearance of Sarah Palin or Laura Bush or Condi Rice or Magaret Thatcher or some other conservative woman in the news!
      And to think you even use your real name in posting your comment ! – not.

  15. the more i look at this dress the more it looks as if they were curtains or drapes before they were a dress.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.