If history teaches us anything, one important lesson to remember is that all nightmares end. Michelle Obama is apparently an excellent history student. Certainly she's learned from the example of other great figures from years past how to look wonderful without undue extravagance.
Alas, how unfamiliar with the rich panoply that is the American saga, most people are. One tiny indicator of such widespread ignorance is the very much mistaken assertion of a fan of our First Lady.
"I'm guessing Michelle Obama would rather emulate someone like Eleanor Roosevelt who actually made a real difference in the world. She is remembered as the greatest First Lady and I doubt she cared who designed her clothes."
This supporter's mistake lies in those final eight words in her last sentence. How completely counter such thinking is to how most people feel, even to our common humanity. Everyone wants to look nice, would like to be admired. In the final analysis, that's most, if by no means all, of the reason women, those who are able, patronize expensive designers. In this respect, Eleanor Roosevelt was no different from you or me. As a member of the upper echelons of New York society, though, from the time of her birth, until she breathed her last, hand-crafted, high fashion formed a central part of her wardrobe.
How cruel, that preoccupied with their dysfunctional idleness, Eleanor Roosevelt's parents never took their shy daughter to an orthodontist.
A philandering husband, compounding a sense of insecurity about how she looked, made this truly dynamic First Lady always careful to take great pains, both in terms of her clothes and in maintaining perfect grooming. Dressed in Parisian originals and English tailor-mades as a debutante and young bride, later she patronized specialty shops, like Milgrim's and Bergdorf-Goodman.
Some felt her striking hats a touch flamboyant, but wherever she went, even in the depths of the first Great Depression, Mrs. Roosevelt was always well turned out.
A demi-parure of gold mounted tiger's teeth was among her favorite ornaments, since the tigers had been shot by her beloved, (but mostly absent), father. She also often wore superb diamonds, a Riviere necklace and two large rings. She had in addition pearls and other precious gems. And, yet none of this, or anything else she wore, ever competed with her mission to do what good she could, nor diminished her worthy efforts in any way.
The difference between Queens and First Ladies? In the past, the size of their pearls!
Eleanor Roosevelt with Queen Elizabeth, (the current Queen's mother), in1939
"Striking Vogue-like poses in high-end couture wear in palaces across Europe with Royals is not the picture Americans need to see.""As far as Mr. de la Renta saying, "'you don't...go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater.'" Why? Perhaps we should all be celebrating a new fashion statement, 'SWEATERS AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE'... dahling; it IS the thing to do."
"I think one reason people embrace her is the fact that she does not have a 'Let them eat cake attitude'. There are a lot of people all over this planet who are not able to afford designer labels, perhaps they might think a little higher of those of us who live in the US because the first lady is dressing like a normal human being."
"Michelle's promoting young American designers, I just want to add that she is also showing restraint in a time of economic crisis by wearing off the rack clothes -- a sensitive and smart thing to do... As much as I love de la Renta's designs, as well as those by other established designers...he misses this critical consideration of the current economic context. If Michelle were to wear exclusively designer clothes, we can count on criticisms about her being tone deaf and insensitive to the plight of many Americans...Perhaps even being "uppity"... I'd rather Michelle remain herself and real. She's doing terrifically and serving as a great role model not only for women everywhere, but the wives of other heads of state."
These were the responses of a few Obama defenders to criticism leveled at the current First Lady's wardrobe choices for the just-completed European summit. Leveled by some of the nation's most stellar couturiers, their indictment was that, as none of their designs had been selected, the USA's best fashions were not being showcased!
Really? Consistently attractive, how smart the President's wife always manages to look. This hardly occurs by chance and most assuredly happenstance had no part in her high-profile first, but not last, visit to the court of Saint James'.
The occasion was a study in contrast, starting with the Obamas' relative youth, humble origins and crucial role on the world stage as a focus of hope. For this private audience the British Monarch was arrayed in bright pink, sporting a handsome diamond flower-brooch, worth at least a million pounds. Towering over her Majesty and HRH Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh, her consort, our American President and his wife wore dark apparel of matching modesty.
An exceedingly rare 23.6-carat pink diamondforms the center of this Cartier brooch. It was
presented to the Queen by a Canadian subject,
Dr. John T. Williamson, owner of the world's
richest diamond mine, as a wedding gift, in 1947
In our troubled times, there they stood amidst opulent surroundings. For many people this sumptuousness seems more anachronistic now, than ever before. Appropriately then, the Obamas' clothes symbolized, that even in the realm of the old order, un-seduced, they can be counted on as effective agents for much needed change.
Deceptively simple, their sober dress reminds one of homespun suits Benjamin Franklin wore while ambassador to Louis XVI's glamorous court, at Versailles. Crowned with wreaths of laurel, the sage of the New World was greeted by aristocrats in their elaborate garb as the very embodiment of Rousseau's natural man. Jefferson's habitual, well worn, fur-lined coat and carpet slippers, adopted during his second term at the White House, also comes to mind.
Juxtaposed with royal splendor, in contrast to irrelevant, merely decorative sovereigns, it was the Obamas' deliberate reticence, offered as a polite gesture of deference, without any presumption to out-do or even to equal the Queen's attire, that actually shone forth causing them to stand out!
At the heart of such choices there lies the subtext of political realities, the appeal of aesthetic considerations versus the danger of unintended negative appearances. Of course Oscar de la Renta makes exquisite clothes, so too do both Donna Karen and Vera Wang. The sort of clothes they would choose for Michelle Obama, the kind they provided, to good effect, to past First Ladies, cost thousands and thousands. Easily able to afford their lovely frocks and handsome suits, neither Mrs. Obama nor the President can afford the public outcry any exclusive adaptation of their luxurious ensembles would be certain to bring about.
As we all wait with high hopes for better times to come, there's another thing they might reflect on. When the most successful and famous designers in the land lament Mrs. Obama going, "in one direction only," one wishes that they'd also be empathetic enough to consider several veteran, but far less well known or successful African American designers. To date, after having spent two years in the spotlight on the campaign trail, Michelle Obama by wearing a dress designed by Tracy Reese, has only once favored, only one designer, from this group.
Follow Michael Henry Adams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/harlemhellion
Under our zanulabour government, the people of UK have been embedded against our will in the undemocratic Constitution of the EU and our democracy and Constitution thereby eroded.
Our next government will follow the example of the American peoples' excellent written Constitution and ensure that our Constitution is codified to ensure that this nightmare never happens to us again.
Who knows, we might even begin our written Constistution with:
"We the people..."
Unsurprisingly, one aspect of our Constitution that remains non-negotiable for the majority here is our Monarchy. Polls have shown that 80% of the British people want to keep that intact.
A very interesting and thought provoking post, Michael Henry Adams, thank you for that - and hello to you from England!
However, with great respect, Michael, I have to correct your assertion that the British monarchy is either decorative or irrelevant. The British monarchy lies at the heart of UK's democracy and is of the essence of the constitutional checks and balances which prevent dictators from taking political control of UK.
It has stood us in good stead in that respect for many centuries and has remained a force for democratic stability and continuity in our national life throughout the hundreds of brief terms of office of the various political gadflies who have held the office of Prime Minister here. It will form the heart of our political, economic and democratic revival after the next election too.
William is going to be a great and much loved King. He will transform our monarchy while preserving its vital constitutional role. Of course, the monarchy will be transformed long before Will becomes monarch. Female children of the monarch will be empowered with the right of succession and our monarch will be empowered to marry persons, male or female, who are members of any religion or no religion well before Will is King.
The Union of Britain and Ireland will almost certainly have broken up by the time Will ascends the throne. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland having long seceded from the Union and England at long and dear last having overcome the discrimination which prevents us having our own parliament, will be independent and free. So William may become King of England alone.
When I think of stuff like that, it reminds me that Michelle *does* wear expensive clothes. I think she should wear as expensive of clothes as she wants, she is paying for them, she worked hard all of her life, and as First Lady she wants to represent the US as best as she can and if she feels higher priced clothes (and them being made is better fabric) do the trick, then that's fine.
But I find it interesting that people speak of the inexpensive nature of her clothes, when it in reality they are actually expensive, just not as expensive as they *could* be (given the resources the Obamas have in terms of income) and there is a difference there.
Also, no one mentions that J. Crew is actually rather expensive for the average American, but it is viewed as lower priced for Michelle. That's fine, I completely understand that allure of the average American being able to purchase the same thing the First Lady wore last week, and for that alone, that puts her in a category unheard of for First Ladies, but I would like to see some publications pick up on the fact that even though she dresses in clothes at a pricepoint way lower than what she could, it's not as low as some like to point out.
and Michelle planted a garden.
My second and related point is while with that rare exception that proves the rule, no First Lady is going to buy exclusively off the rack. As you rightly note, even what ready-made apparel they buy will hardly be likely to be cheap by most of our standards. Yet it will be cheaper than selections from designers like Mr. de la Renta or Ms Wang. This is the almost wholly symbolic, middle road that Michelle Obama has chosen. And yes, now and then, more than once, it would be nice if a black designer could figure in this highly political mix. They could hardly make anything as unfortunate as some selections.
Now, I know the woman is far from perfect, but it would behoove young girls and women to aspire to these qualities rather than what they see in Hollywood and on reality t.v. shows.
No wonder why some in the fashion kingdom are little perturbed by some of her choices. As we know, free thinkers don’t make good models (at least that the stereotype of the fashion industry). Michelle hasn't of yet become the clothes or consumed by what others think-- however the clothes are an outward reflection of who she is.
Keep it up Mrs. Obama.
Sorry, but I find it fatuous to compliment her Chinese made J Crew outfits (which are not cheap, very far above the average woman's range), and ignore that the Thakoons, etc are in the price range of the NY designers mentioned (although the prices are not obvious to the public.) Michelle's greatest touch is to wear more inexpensive things with the kids, then bridge upward as appropriate.
MY TAKE on why she has stuck to "her style" --- she is busy, busy, uses what she and her advisors know, and spends her time on other pursuits. She also has a tall, African-American body -- more Venus Williams than Vanessa, and would look awful in tiny, fussy Cindy McCain's clothes.
One day, after her kids finish the school term, the garden is grown, etc, and she needs to be in NYC for another purpose, I expect she will stop in and see the designers. But, as I read it, you would have her pass De La Renta, etc, on her way to promote African American designers: that really does not sound fair.
PS-- I think she looks AWFUL in the lace dress on the People cover, and doubt she would ever wear it
So what are you saying? African Americans have one type of body? Interesting.