Meghan Markle has emphatically denied that she kept a designer dress without permission after she wore it in a high-profile photoshoot.
An anonymous allegation that the Duchess of Sussex failed to return an emerald green Galvan Ushaia dress, worth £1,293 ($1,695), after wearing the gown for a 2022 photoshoot, re-emerged over the weekend after she rewore the dress in a promotional video for her upcoming Netflix holiday special.
Last night, Meghan’s official spokesperson said: “The insinuation that any items were taken without the full knowledge and agreement of the on-set stylists or their respective teams is not only categorically false, but also highly defamatory. Any items kept, were done so in total transparency and in accordance with contractual arrangements.”
It is understood that it is normal practice for high-profile figures and members of the Royal Family to retain items from photoshoots, to avoid potential resale or unauthorised auction in the future.
A source said it was both “commonplace and prudent” for certain items to be kept, to avoid people auctioning items linked to stars, especially members of the Firm, for large sums in the future.
Though Meghan and her husband, Prince Harry, stepped down as senior working royals in 2020 they remain members of the Royal Family.
Harry remains fifth in the line of succession and the couple retained their titles, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, though they are not permitted to use them for commercial gain.
Team Sussex’s firm denial of the so-called dress gate comes after the celebrity.land, an American tabloid, published an article repeating claims that Meghan had “pilfered” the emerald green dress from the Variety photoshoot.
The piece quoted a podcast episode titled ‘Exclusive: Meghan Markle New Stealing Allegations’ from March last year that alleged the duchess did not return “a lot of stuff” from the shoot.
Speaking on Andrew Gold’s Heretics podcast last March, journalist Vanessa Grigoriadis started by repeating allegations made by royal biographer Tom Bower in his 2022 book Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors, about a shoot with a Canadian clothing store in 2016 – just months before she met Prince Harry.
She says: “Tom Bower reported that at a Reitman’s shoot, Meghan was doing the shoot and everything was fine. Photoshoots, the celebrities or the important person is never supposed to take the clothes that they are actually wearing in the shoot, home.”
But she says Mr Bower reported that the crew were left “surprised” that a pair of high heels were not returned.
Ms Grigoriadis continues: “I have since heard in a more recent photoshoot of Meghan’s there was also a lot of stuff that was not returned after Meghan wore it in a very high-profile photoshoot.”
It is understood that she is referring to the Variety shoot, where she wore the Galvan Ushaia dress.
Responding, Mr Gold said “wow”, though the journalist said it wasn’t unheard of for things to go missing at the end of a shoot.
She went on: “But what is shocking about hearing these kinds of alleged stories is that somebody who is living in a $15 million plus mansion in Montecito, who’s just had $100 million deals, would care enough to take home some jewellery and clothes from a photoshoot that she can clearly afford.”
The podcast resurfaced after fans spotted that Meghan had chosen to wear one of the dresses from the photoshoot referenced in the podcast for the teaser for the third series of her Netflix show, With Love Meghan.
Celebrity and entertainment magazine Page Six also noted that Meghan was wearing the same dress in both the shoot and the promotional trailer and quoted an unnamed fashion source claiming that Meghan “took the dress from the shoot without asking”.
When celebrities participate in photoshoots, it is typically up to the brand whether the star is allowed to keep the clothing and other items used.
Meghan’s spokesperson has confirmed that the items, including the Galvan Ushaia dress, were retained with full agreement from the appropriate teams.
Variety magazine declined to comment. Galvan Ushaia have been approached for comment.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.express.co.uk ’
