Georgina Chapman can save Marchesa if she just focuses on retail & bridal

Macy's Presents Fashion's Front Row - Red Carpet Arrivals

I will never believe that Georgina Chapman is a sympathetic party in this unfolding Harvey Weinstein story. I’m sure that makes me sound judgmental and heartless to some people, but I just can’t muster up any sympathy for her, really. I acknowledge that her life sucks now and I acknowledge that her family has been destroyed because she was married to a sexual predator. I don’t even believe that Georgina knew the extent of Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, and I believe she’s absolutely and genuinely horrified to hear these stories. But still: I save my sympathies for Weinstein’s victims, the women he assaulted, harassed and raped. Part of the reason why Georgina is not coming across as particularly sympathetic (to me, at least) is because whenever we hear about her now, it’s about her business and whether Marchesa will fold. Like…that’s a side-story, do people get that? But in case anyone was wondering, Marchesa will probably be fine. Sort of. From a lengthy article in The Hollywood Reporter:

No one will wear Marchesa at the Golden Globes. “Next up is the Golden Globes, and no one is going to wear it because they don’t want to answer the question, ‘Why?’” says stylist Tod Hallman… Since the Weinstein story broke Oct. 5, not a single star has been seen wearing Marchesa, according to Spotted, which tracks brands that celebrities wear by analyzing paparazzi and social media photos. Demi Moore was the last to wear it, donning a navy velvet and lace Marchesa dress Sept. 23 at a Fox party for Empire.

No more Marchesa diamond line: On Oct. 11, Helzberg Diamonds told The Hollywood Reporter it was dropping plans for a licensed brand of Marchesa fine jewelry. Several top stylists say they are steering clear of the brand.

But Marchesa is still selling in retail stores. Fashion retailers say it’s much ado about nothing. “My Marchesa business is fantastic,” says Neiman Marcus senior vp and fashion director Ken Downing, who hosted Chapman’s design partner Keren Craig on Oct. 25 in conversation at the Chicago store, after a luncheon during which Marchesa was honored by the Chicago History Museum Costume Council.

Marchesa Bridal is still selling too: Owners of the Kinsley James Couture Bridal boutique in L.A. echo that sentiment. “In our minds and in the mind of our brides, Marchesa as a brand is not associated with [Weinstein],” says Amber Silva, who co-owns the store with Dawn Silva Rigney. Similarly, Lovella Bridal in Glendale hasn’t registered a single case of buyer’s remorse. “If anything, we’ve been selling more Marchesa recently,” says store buyer and operations director Nayri Kalayjian.

Marchesa had been rarely worn by celebrities even before the scandal broke: The brand’s star wattage had dimmed even before the scandal. In the 90 days before Oct. 5, Spotted reports the two stars who had been wearing Marchesa most consistently were Olivia Culpo and Nina Dobrev, known actresses but not A-listers. Says one prominent stylist, “The people who have been wearing it are wearing it because they can’t get anything else.”

[From THR]

Ouch. Can a brand like Marchesa still thrive and sell in retail even if there are no celebrities wearing the label on any red carpets? I think it can, but Chapman will have to knowingly lean into this idea that Marchesa is not couture and not for the red carpet. Get the label away from the red carpet and focus more on creating wearable mass-market ready-to-wear lines. Focus on the bridal lines too, because I guess brides don’t care. Now I’m starting to believe that Marchesa can survive if Chapman is smart about her next steps, personally and professionally. Filing for divorce would be the next big move, and it would help people disconnect the label from Weinstein too.

68th Annual Cannes Film Festival - 'The Little Prince' - Premiere

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

77 Responses to “Georgina Chapman can save Marchesa if she just focuses on retail & bridal”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Julianna says:

    Most regular people don’t know or care who Georgina Chapman is or that Marchesa is a brand connected to Weinstein, so if she focuses on bridal she’ll definitely be fine. It’s done as a red carpet brand, but it never should have been one anyway so she already got more mileage out of it than it deserved.

    • Maggie says:

      Blake Lively wedding dress was marchesa!

    • Annabelle Bronstein says:

      I think she’d be smart to drop everything else and just do bridal. She has a similar aesthetic to Berta bridal. It’s the one time women want to wear all those details (ruffles and lace and rhinestones, oh my!)

      Some celebs would probably still wear her bridal line on the red carpet, just not major celebs to major awards shows, like she was getting before.

      • magnoliarose says:

        No, they wouldn’t. She has to find a new customer base. He was so awful that no one would want the association even it is loose. There is better stuff out there anyway.

    • Wren says:

      I have no idea what brand my wedding dress was, I chose it for what it was and I bet many women do the same. Or they chose a brand because the brand embodies the style and details they’re looking for, like lots of lace or ruffles or rhinestones or whatever. Marchesa is well suited to the retail bridal market. It often looks exactly like a lot of the ungodly fug crap people moon and squeal over on “Say Yes to the Dress”.

    • happy girl says:

      Exactly, this.

    • Sunglasses Aready says:

      Unfortunately, this will be a slow death, her fashion house will not survive

    • holly hobby says:

      She would be the Gunne Sax Jessica McClintock of her time (yeah I’m dating myself here). Seriously prom wear, bridal and ice skating costumes will extend the brand.

  2. QueenB says:

    Is it such a big loss? And I am not only talking about her mediocore dresses. Her fashion line is a sacrifice I am willing to make. She was complicit.

    • Athyrmose says:

      Exactly this. I hope it folds, and that I never see one of those horrendous dresses ever again. I have no sympathy for this person, and don’t intend to prioritize this ugly line over the more important narrative casting a shadow here.

      • WTW says:

        You hope it folds, even though Chapman has a business partner. So not only should Chapman be held accountable for her husband’s actions but so should Keren Craig, who is not married to Weinstein and has nothing to do with this scandal?

      • Meggles says:

        Lots of businesses fold. It’s a shame but it happens.

        But personally, no. I won’t weep for someone whose business partner’s husband was a notorious sexual predator who made all his conquests/victims do things to benefit their business.

        Craig 100% benefited from Weinstein’s criminal and despicable actions, indeed she would likely not have the career she has without him. Plus he was married to her business partner, and frequently used his own career and pull to boost Marchesa. It’s reasonable to assume Craig knew Weinstein well and had a close social and professional relationship with him, and it’s absolutely impossible she did not know at least that there were rumours. I don’t buy anyone saying they didn’t know rumours.

        Even if she didn’t know, most people would be horrified to learn their business had been built on exploitation and abuse. She’s a rich society lady and from a wealthy family, I’m sure she’ll be just fine.

      • Bridget says:

        @WTW: that’s the consequence of working with a predator. Hopefully it will serve as a lesson for those that are given the same choice in the future. Look at all of the people who are out of a job right now because Kevin Spacey was exposed. It’s tough, but that’s the consequence when the powers that be ignore the legion of accusations.

    • velourazure says:

      Why does it need to be saved? Nice time for a middling vanity project to go away.

    • Milla says:

      Nope. Marchesa is tacky and the brand wouldn’t survive without her husband’s name and blackmails..

    • Monica says:

      Exactly! Those ugly garments were forced on actresses who were probably intimidated, assaulted, or raped. f-ck this brand.

    • Moonie says:

      Exactly! She needs to go away forever because she is COMPLICIT! Even if she didn’t know about the many assaults and victims, she still abused her power as weinstein’s wife to FORCE women celebrities to wear her line. This is another way of establishing weinstein’s power position and she used it to her benefit. So yes she needs to go bankrupt and needs to be shamed and needs to leave the public eye. Complicit.

  3. SM says:

    I will never believe that Georgina Chapman is a sympathetic party in this unfolding Harvey Weinstein story. I’m sure that makes me sound judgmental and heartless to some people, but I just can’t muster up any sympathy for her, really. - my feelings exactly. Evenmore, she is not sympathetic and I don’t give a slighties fuck how difficult her life is now. She built her life by making a pact with with the devil. I really am conviced she heard a lot about her husband’s behavior and was fine with it as long as he also could force those actresses to wear her designs. I am sure very few people did know about the extent of it and probably she didn’t too, but the fact that even all thkse eye roll enducing statements poured out of Hollywood everyone desperatelly trying to distance themselves from HW, she continues to be silent. No outrage, no declaration of solidarity with women. Nothing. Is that because she knew or becaise she doesn’t care about anything but herself?

    • momoffour says:

      Agree. Deal with the devil. She’s not completely without knowledge- come on. I just don’t give her that kind of pass. And the fact she’s whining about her business and the affect on her reeks of narcissism to me. It’s not about you dear.

    • Artemis says:

      Didn’t Lupita sit with his children in his house? Some actress went to his house either way and the kids are old enough to tell their mother. I highly doubt she didn’t knew as kids blurt out these things so easily. Weinstein legit asked Lupita to go to another room, children aren’t stupid. One recurrent theme throughout all of this was everybody knew. Like with most abusers in Hollywood, they were almost showing off their predatory ways. Even if he wasn’t a rapist, he was still a brute who loved humiliating and controlling ‘lesser people’ around him most notably women. And GC went ‘hmm I want to marry that lovely man and have children with him because LURVE’? Sure Jan.

      Georgina Chapman is still a trophy wife at the end of the day, she got hers (business and children) and I doubt she cares all that much about other people. She’s fine for the rest of her life
      with or without him and Marchesa. Lord knows she paid her price to be with a monster like that. It’s like when people sympathise with Melania. If we condemn the women going into the voting booth for Trump or vouching for Weinstein’s good character, why are we so lenient on the women marrying these monsters? Some famous women were cussed out for not even knowing the meaning of ‘feminism’ but trophy wives are poor little victims despite profiting off these men and never once doing anything morally upstanding? K then.

      People who enter these high-profile relationships in Hollywood do so because they too are focused, nay obsessed with the money and the power. Women who are looking for authenticity and a true connection don’t date known sociopaths and wouldn’t look for love in the cesspool that is Hollywood. Most of the victims of Weinstein felt his gaze alone was dangerous, him asking to be alone with them just solidified their feelings of fear.

      The fact also that GC doesn’t have ANY famous girlfriend and looks like a block of ice standing next to one just solidifies that she wasn’t even trying to pretend to build a clientele or a relationship because she knew there couldn’t be any. She just relied on her husband bringing her his victims and I doubt she was asking questions. No pity from me either.

      One last thing: Marchesa is ugly and I hope it continues to flop into oblivion.

      • Ankhel says:

        Why would a young child realize “I’m gonna show this nice lady our house” means “I’m gonna take this woman into an empty room and sexually assault her”? There’s no proof Georgina knew, or even ought to have known, that Harvey was a rapist. Gold digger does not equal evil or criminal, rapist does.

      • Artemis says:

        Sorry, I didn’t explain myself well because my comment was already long. This is part of Lupita’s account:

        We got to his home after lunch and I met his domestic staff and his young children. He took me on a brief tour of the house before he rounded us all up in the screening room to watch the film. He had just produced a similar film of his own, but everyone was raving about this rival version.

        I settled in for the film, but about 15 minutes in, Harvey came for me, saying he wanted to show me something. I protested that I wanted to finish the film first, but he insisted I go with him, laying down the law as though I too was one of his children. I did not want another back-and-forth in front of his kids, so I complied and left the room with him. I explained that I really wanted to see the film. He said we’d go back shortly.

        She already had the tour and many people were going to watch the film. She was introduced as a guest. There was a short conversation that was irate in tone seeing as Lupita wanted to keep on watching the film. Besides the adults in the room, the children were also there and children pick up these vibes very easily. So adults and children saw her come and leave all of a sudden to not come back. There could have been whispers or the kids saying a lady was with them but left. I think it’s interesting people assume nothing ever was said when this clearly happened at his home in the presence of not only his staff but also his children. Children blurt out stuff all the time; especially things that happen in tense atmospheres.

        GC knew about some parts of her husband’s behaviour, that’s a fact. It doesn’t make her evil no, but she seems morally ‘grey’ to me to keep her own interests afloat so I would also say selfish and willfully ignorant. Much like Hollywood in general. And btw, there’s also no proof that other people knew (except when they said it outright) but the rumours + the ones who did come out and say they knew said it was common knowledge not just by actors or directors but journalists, agents etc etc. So everybody knew except some high profile A-listers who worked with him and his own wife who apparently apologised for many of his outburst in the past. Ok.

      • Ankhel says:

        Oh well. Georgina knew he was a sexual abuser, his children knew he was a sexual abuser. It all makes sense now! Let’s all talk about them, and not about Harvey. Let’s then talk smack about Ed Westwick’s girlfriend, why not? What else is there to focus on?

      • cd3 says:

        @Ankhel – totally agree! On another thread there was talk of “innocent until proven guilty” and giving the benefit of the doubt… I’d like to at least try to give Georgina the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps she did know, but we have no proof of that… we are just speculating. She’s not to blame for Harvey’s actions – that was him alone – and we don’t know if she was enabling or procuring or covering up for him. She may have had private suspicions, who knows, but in the absence of proof to show she knew of the alleged rapes / assaults, I’m not going to pin that on her.

        Plus, she did have children with him. If she did know about HW’s predatory behavior and/or had made some kind of deal with him (you push my brand, I’ll be your trophy wife), then having kids with that monster is taking it to the next level. I’m not ready to make that leap yet either.

  4. kimbers says:

    there will always be brides that want to dress and feel like “a princess” on their precious day. lol other than that, idgaf about this odius designer.

  5. Purplehazeforever says:

    She needs to focus on exactly that, retail & bridal. After what’s happened, I doubt she’s ever will be a designing gowns for stars again. I don’t think she knew the extent of what occurred but she probably didn’t want to know either. Her PR hasn’t been great and she doesn’t appear sympathetic.. after more details emerged during the assault of model in 2015 in NYC by Harvey, she acted as if it was an inconvenience. As a rape survivor, it bothered me. Most of these posts and comments on Weinstein have been triggers for me. So be kind, always be kind in your comments even if others aren’t. Sometimes it’s hard to know what backgrounds we have and when we comment, like myself, we don’t always assume the worst about anyone. I gave Georgina the benefit of the doubt at first based on my experiences. After learning more about her, I found her to be troubling in her responses to the assault she knew that took place but can also give her still a small room to wiggle out of…but it’s getting smaller the more her PR complains about her business. I only care about the women who were assaulted and/ or harassed.

  6. blogdis says:

    Who cares

  7. LaraK says:

    I don’t know.
    You can’t really know how much she knew.

    A good friend married a rich guy, pillar of the community. Everyone knew he was banging his assistant and kind of assumed she just shrugged it off, which was true. But they were married for ten years.
    Then one day it came out that he had molested four kids on the baseball team he coached. Friends of his son. She was devastated. Like, I don’t for a second believe she had an inkling. At all.

    So could be that she knew he was screwing around and didn’t care. That’s not uncommon. But I can also believe she had no idea he was an actual predator. That deserves sympathy in my book.

    • Artemis says:

      Well, I’m still waiting for when she actually speaks out in support of the victims instead of using it as an introduction to how she is feeling and how her business is doing like she did initially.

      It’s been confirmed through People she knew he verbally assaulted/bullied people but she didn’t draw a line with that behaviour, she acts like if she knew about the other assaults she would have never stayed married. Like his employees, most people who ‘didn’t know’ merely meant they assumed and hoped his abusive ways were that what they witnessed forgetting the fact that if he’s that horrible in public, he must be even worse behind closed doors. It’s willful ignorance and Hollywood is so good at playing up that angle so we sympathise with them instead.

      Chapman cares the most about saving her own skin which is why we get updates about her flop brand which is why I’m not pitying her. Her brand is built on assaulted and coerced women, how to rebuild that? Has she reached out to some women in private or otherwise? Making a promise to donate a percentage each year of Marchesa’s profit to charities who work with or for abused women? That would be a start to build bridges. Anything that shows she’s willing to make Marchesa a safe brand for women to CHOOSE to wear.

      • Meggles says:

        There was a big story in the press in 2015 about how upset Georgina was over an Italian model accusing him of sexual assault. That story was was all over the British and Italian press at least, as well as of course the American newspapers, and possibly more internationally than that. Even if the story itself is false (which seems highly unlikely), how can anyone claim ignorance when newspapers around the world are running headlines with THEIR name on them!!

        I mean, really. Claiming ignorance of industry rumours is one thing. Does anyone genuinely believe it’s possible to not be aware of that fact newspapers on two different continents are running headlines about you? Maybe if you’re a child, or a monk, or live in a mental hospital and have a team of people keeping any knowledge of the outside world away from you. It’s certainly not possible for a woman running a major international business of the type that depends on image and PR. There’s no way those newspaper headlines explicitly naming Georgina didn’t spark crisis talks at Marchesa.

      • cd3 says:

        I agree she needs to do better at expressing concern for victims.

        I think she may be in damage control mode re. her business because she will have 2 kids to support at the end of the day. Who knows how much of Harvey’s assets she can get, or if there was a pre-nup.

        I don’t know the structure of her company, but she does have a business partner she’s accountable to. There may also be third party shareholders and a board of directors that she’s accountable to.

    • FHMom says:

      Respectfully, I disagree with you on how much she knew. This wasn’t an “open secret” like originally reported. This wasn’t a secret at all. So many victims have come forward saying they told agents and other industry people, friends, etc. Actresses knew to not be alone with him. Lots and lots of people knew but refused or were too intimidated or powerless to do anything about it.

      I don’t doubt that your friend was completely blindsided, but Georgina was not.

    • lucy2 says:

      I do believe that people can have no idea and be blindsided – many predators are good at hiding it.
      But I don’t believe that is the case here. I think she was well aware he wasn’t a good guy (I don’t believe she knew he was a serial rapist) but she overlooked a lot to get the business and status she wanted.

      I agree with Artemis, she needs to express concern for the victims, not just for her company.

    • Wren says:

      Denial is a powerful drug, and I think that if (big if) she knew, she pushed it aside or allowed him to explain it away. It’s amazing how a manipulator can twist events and create conspiracy theories that are believable enough if you’re primed to receive them. I mean, regular people believe the weirdest stuff that strangers write about on the internet, so why is it so hard to believe that a woman believed her husband’s version of events? Maybe she, um, isn’t that bright. We don’t know. It’s like this whole mess is so awful she HAD to know because one person (Harvey) isn’t enough to blame. While this is very possible, I’m not going to assume that. I have plenty of sympathy to go around, it’s not a finite resource, and until it’s proven Georgina was in on it and knew full well (and this actually shouldn’t be too difficult to find out), I’ve got some sympathy for her too.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Harvey is the rapist and responsible for his actions. Others who were complicit are responsible for their actions. The assertion that she didn’t know is beyond absurd since they were in business together. He was heavily involved in Project Runway and the brand. She was an actress before, and he bullied a director to put her in a movie.
        Why would anyone shield only her all these years before she married him and was an actress but no one else? He has been raping and an active predator since the 70s. Even then people were warned about him.

      • Bridget says:

        I can feel sympathy in that it was probably not very easy to be married to Harvey Weinstein.

        That doesn’t mean that she deserves to have this tainted business continue on.

  8. Mia4s says:

    It’s more than she deserves but yes it can probably survive as a department store brand…but…she won’t be satisfied with that. You don’t enter into a business arrangement…sorry, marriage…with an odious pig (but a powerful one) unless you are deeply ambitious (but also deeply mediocre). She wanted to be Stella McCartney level at minimum, Chanel at best. She will not be OK with being the choice of suburban wives with questionable taste.

    I wonder if Blake Lively still wants to be associated with Marchesea bridal? Ick. I doubt it.

  9. Neelyo says:

    I wonder if she’ll come back to Project Runway, I hope not.

    • Justjj says:

      She won’t be back to PR. I think they’re trying to distance themselves pretty quickly from HW. It would be a smart move to mass market a wedding line and bridesmaid, mother of the bride dresses, etc. ala Vera Wang and sell through big box retailers. She could also create a ready to wear line of flouncy tops/lace monstrosities for the 40-60 crowd at Macy’s/Chico’s/Talbot’s or something. I do have some sympathy for her but not as much as I had in the beginning. I don’t really care about Marchesa, totally uninspired and bad taste but I do have a little sympathy for her as a fellow mom and most of all, for her children and family. Time will tell how much she knew but as she continues to say nothing, my sympathy for her is waning. I agree she hasn’t done anything for the victims besides a couple words of lip service. She needs to actually take a stand or do something.

  10. Capepopsie says:

    On a personal level I really think GC already has been punished beyond anything understandable for an avarage person. All speculations of how much She knew and with whom she had a contract, we don’t really know, do we?

    But Please, Please don’t make her responsible for What HW did! He manipulated his victims, of course he did that to her too! But for goodness sake, don’t blame her for What he did! I’m sure She feels Totally naked and humiliated finding herself in this situation, I know I would, and now She is not responding to peoples expectations either, and for that She is also heavily criticized which isn’t making things easier for her to deal with.

    All I’m saying is, place the blame where it rightfully belongs, in his lap!

    • Artemis says:

      Except nobody is holding her responsible for her husband’s actions. Some people, like me, just point out she wanted to have a piece of the pie too and didn’t mind sleeping with the devil for it.

      And how exactly is SHE being punished? Marchesa was never a legit brand, HW bullied women so we don’t know how successful Marchesa would be without his involvement and bullying. GC herself never seemed to have build strong relationships with clients or other brands either and we know why. She thought her powerful bully of a husband was the key to a successful life not realising that’s any blowback on him would be blowback on Marchesa and so her too.

      Either way GC still got paid though. She’s rich herself, she’s got a business and she’s got children so she’s set for life. She can negotiate a divorce deal better with all the allegations against him. She knew he was a bully so if her punishment is that she has to come to face with all the assaulted and bullied women that were forced to wear her clothes (and who were truly being punished for just being forced being around his orbit), I call that life being fair. It was high time.

      • Capepopsie says:

        I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you knew the couple personally, Since She ”knew this and She knew that” is something you know as s FACT. Other people have been punished, just being around this Creep, and I agree. That’s Why I feel She has been punished severely, She was married to him and he is the father of her children.

        I’m NOT talking about her business or her money! There are other ways of making people dependant of you than the mentioned. And THAT is My point, we don’t know What load
        She is carrying. People assume this and that, basing it on What they read, But who says that is the whole picture?

        I think we can agree that there is a lot more to this that we probably don’t know. And yes, people are holding her responsible. ”She should have done this and she should have done that, and She didn’t mind this or that”

        I’m sure a lot of commenters here would probably have handled the situation better and with more grace, but I also believe She did What She could. Maybe that was not enough which only shows that there are No winners in this sad situation.

      • Artemis says:

        HW was a known philanderer and had casting couch rumours about himself for decades that obviously only impacted his victims. He was known to be rude in public and GC had to apologise for him many of times (this has been reported). At what point does one become a victim when you don’t mind dating a man who treats everybody around him like garbage and who has known anger issues? At the point when it badly affects oneself I suppose going by GC’s actions.

        HW only got took down because he started to lose his power but what is apparent that nobody liked him anyway, everybody seemed to hate him or at the least the the people who came forward (and the anonymous sources). GC was then the only person who saw his charm long-term and not only married him, but procreated with him. The fact that anybody would be willing to marry this known abuser (not in relation to sexual assault) boggles the mind. In order to be a trophy wife/golddigger, one must know the circles in which to engage in and how to present themselves as a potential girlfriend. Even a basic search would reveal the rumours and facts that were attached to Weinstein’s character.

      • Capepopsie says:

        Well at least we agree its Good he finally was taken down! All of My sympathy goes to his victims, those who have come forward as Well as those still silent.

        My heart also goes out to his children who are in a very delicate position and I can’t even imagine all the sorrow and pain they are going to have to deal with.

    • Wren says:

      I tend to agree with you. I think part of it is people are overwhelmed with the scope of the nightmare and as such the fat shoulders of Harvey simply aren’t big enough to shoulder all the of the blame and hate. People simply can’t take it all in. It’s very difficult for good people to comprehend just how evil it’s possible for one person to be. I think that’s why Trump still has some support among otherwise rational people (I live deep in Republican-land, and sadly it’s not just crazy idiots who like him). People quite literally can’t understand how terrible and soulless he really is.

      I think Georgina knew a little bit, but was unaware of just how dark and deep it was. It’s one thing to know your husband hits on young, beautiful actresses and grosses them out; after all it’s a cliche that’s often played for laughs in entertainment. Fat, ugly, older rich man flirts with pretty young woman ha ha ha oh men are so predictable! It’s quite another to know your husband is a serial rapist who indiscriminately forces himself on anyone he pleases with no guilt or care as to the damage he causes.

      • Capepopsie says:

        Exactly, it is very hard to understand and take in! It wouldn’t surprise me the least, if She saw things, maybe even heard things, But brushed it off. She was probably deep in denial.

        Who wants to face the fact that your husband is all the things we have now learned about him?

    • Trump Hater says:

      Nope I will blame her because she knowingly married a bully and an abuser. Rumours of Weinstein has been around for many years, probably even at the time of their marriage. Then she procreates with him and turns a blind eye while she lets her husband bully other women into wearing her tacky and cheap clothes. Just because she’s a woman, doesn’t mean that we should automatically assume that she is completely innocent. She abetted her husband’s behaviour and fed into his supernova of an ego.

  11. Bridget says:

    She was fine with Harvey bullying women to wear her designs. She was fine with her business being propped up by Harvey and his shady deals. Even if she didn’t know he was a sexual predator, she was perfectly fine with relying on her sketchy husband to keep her afloat. Tough shit that it turns out there were consequences to that.

    • Ankhel says:

      You think he said “I’m gonna tell this actress to wear your gown, hon, or else”, and not “I’ll ask this actress to wear your gown”? Why?

      • Bridget says:

        Whether overt or subtle (and we know that both occurred), she knew that there was an expectation that the women who worked with Weinstein wear Marchesa. Her entire business was based on that connection. So either she knew, or she insulated herself so much from HOW HER OWN BUSINESS WORKED – and in that case, why on earth does she deserve continued success? Marchesa and Chapman had very little success on her own, without Weinstein. Who even without her knowing about the sexual assault, the stories of his bullying were LEGENDARY.

      • Erinn says:

        Yeah, I’m going to agree with you, Ankhel. I really doubt he was openly threatening people into wearing the gowns – at least I highly doubt he did it in front of GC. From all accounts, HW was a giant sneaky predator. I think there was a lot more ‘implying’, a lot more ‘suggesting’ and a lot more sending gowns to people working for him than there was “you have to wear x dress unless you want to be fired”. In all likelihood most actresses were probably presented with a few gowns to give the illusion of giving them choice.

      • Bridget says:

        @Erinn: Felicity Huffman has already stated that he forced her to wear Marchesa. As has Sienna Miller.

        And from all accounts, Harvey was NOT a sneaky predator. At all. He was famously a bully. He famously used his position of power to get women to sleep with him for jobs. He was awful. He actually enlisted his employees at trapping women. None of this was sneaky. At all.

    • LadyT says:

      As IF Georgina Chapman is the first and one and only designer to have wheeled and dealed to get her fashions onto the red carpet. No, the vast majority of actresses do not pick out dresses of their own accord. There’s an entire hidden world of stylists and benefits and payments.

      • Bridget says:

        The point isn’t that Marchesa used connections. It’s that it was their ONLY selling point. That brand was entirely made on the red carpet, and through Harvey. There is no Marchesa without Harvey Weinstein.

      • LadyT says:

        What? It got her exposure. It gets all designers exposure. That’s why they ALL make deals to get their looks on the carpet. If you want me to agree that Marchesa is now tainted by Weinstein’s name- absolutely- but that was not your original point.

      • Bridget says:

        You missed my original point. Are you familiar with the label Marchesa, and it’s business, and it’s founding? Georgina got financing because of Harvey. The label got its start because Harvey leaned on TWC actresses to wear Marchesa on the red carpet. In fact, the vast majority of the exposure Marchesa got on the RC was specifically through TWC. Her business was built solely on the exposure that Harvey got the label and the financing that Harvey got. So no, that is NOT how all labels work.

  12. Tiffany says:

    Chapman won’t do it. She wants the power of A listers wearing her stuff on RC and award season.

    Expect a in depth sit down interview at the start of the year and the dresses will return, slowly but surely.

  13. Sherry says:

    When this all first started, I had some sympathy for her, because I thought maybe Weinstein was abusive to her as well (and he still might have been). That said, the more I read from past interviews/articles and the more I looked into the founding of Marchesa, the more I believe she has been a part of Weinstein’s sick power game all along.

    She didn’t start Marchesa and then meet Weinstein. That all happened after she hooked up with Weinstein and he invested in Marchesa. He found the other investors for Marchesa. He had a keen interest in fashion for YEARS before Georgina was ever a blip on his radar. I think he saw a way to gain entrance into couture by finding someone who could become the face of the line. Let’s face it, how much do we ever see the other designer showcased and put out in the media. It’s always Georgina as the face of Marchesa.

    She and Weinstein used each other to get what they wanted and Weinstein is as involved in Marchesa as she is.

  14. Angel says:

    It would be a good idea with literally any other brand but all she does is big gowns. That cannot be translated into retail, maybe bridal will pan out, hard to say.

  15. jugil1 says:

    Why hasn’t she filed for divorce yet? I would’ve wanted to distance myself from this creep ASAP!

  16. Maushaus says:

    Marchesa’s dresses are terrible and cheaply made. You can often see the more expensive ones falling apart while still on the rack in evening gown sections— and not because customers mishandled them. The workmanship is shoddy , they consistently go for the most fragile and horrible fabrics and quality has been going steadily down hill for the past 7 years. If they want to survive this scandal they are going to have to focus on improving their product

  17. Reef says:

    Who with even a modicum of taste is WILLINGLY wearing Marchesa? Show them to me so I may shame them. Every celebrity woman I’ve seen wear it has been connected to a Weinstein project at the time.

  18. Mar says:

    If I never saw another figure skater gown again I would be ok

  19. Ninetta says:

    Marchesa is georgeous. I hope it goes on and is very succesful in retail, bridal and on red carpet.

  20. Mia says:

    People talk about how white men are babied by society a lot of the time but the mental gymnastics going on in this thread to absolve Chapman of any responsibility in complicity just further confirms what I often witness in everyday life. White women are coddled a lot by society too. So when white men get called out for a lot of things by white women I am sorry to say but I often think it is a case of the pot meeting the kettle.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Hence why I am so assertive in these threads. I am a white woman born into privilege and have been comfortable my whole life. Because I fit society’s Eurocentric beauty ideal, I am treated better. I recognize it because at one time I was not. I get breaks and deals that many women are never afforded. But you know what? That doesn’t give me license to be an obtuse a-hole, and it doesn’t mean any of it is deserved. I am not entitled to anything, and I am not better than anyone else. My genetics just grabbed whatever from whoever and here I am. I didn’t choose my parents either. Again, it doesn’t give me any right for special treatment or more benefits of the doubt than anyone else. I earned nothing of this on my own.
      Attractive, affluent white women with some wealth, no intellectual curiosity or sense of social responsibility think they are special because superficial, wealthy men treat them that way.
      As a feminist, I find it repulsive. Don’t work hard and earn a place as a top designer have a man buy it and use his ugly remorseless ways to give it to you. She can play sweet fully knowing her rottweiler has her back and if that isn’t privileged someone tell me what it is.
      Because I have been fortunate through no merit of my own, I should hold myself to a higher standard, and that means not trying to get more breaks and take opportunities from other people.
      So she can save her whining about her busted budget frocks and her victimhood and sell it to the same people who believe the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale.

  21. A says:

    I put Georgina Chapman in the same category that I put people like Matt Damon, or any of the other countless people who stood by and did nothing and questioned nothing and assumed, with blind faith, that any woman who spoke up against Harvey Weinstein was simply just lying or that they were just rumours, or that Harvey Weinstein was just an enfant terrible with a reputation for serial philandering.

    None of the people who were bystanders are “innocent.” They are not guilty, but they are not innocent. This was a crime that could not have been committed without the hundreds, if not thousands, of supposedly good people who stood by and did nothing and questioned nothing and carried on with their own lives and simply assumed that this shit wasn’t their problem. That’s the category that she’s in for me. I don’t hold her to any standard that I haven’t held anyone else to. She doesn’t get to escape from the scrutiny just because she was his wife and she had a life with him. She was closer to him than many MANY other people were. By the time she got married to him, word about his behaviour had permeated most of Hollywood society, even if people didn’t necessarily believe it. She wasn’t ignorant, just like no one else in the industry was ignorant. They all just chose to close their eyes and move forward and not question it. Just like she did. The level of culpability you hold such people to is entirely up to you.

    • Ankhel says:

      This I can agree to. What I don’t get are the people who claims they “know” Georgina knew everything about Harvey, and was fine with it. They seem to express greater dislike of her than him – hatred actually, brimming over in 10+ posts about her in particular. It’s grotesque. I pray my fiancee never gets caught touching kids or something, because there’s apparently many women out there who would angrily condemn me as some kind of complicit extension of him.

    • K says:

      I agree.

      I was more sympathetic to her when the story broke, because I figured she just turned a blind eye to the philandering, and that when he wanted to be, he could probably be charming. I thought she might have been won over and then stuck in a marriage with an abusive, manipulative gaslighter.

      Problem is, the more we know, the clearer it is that he was never sneaky or subtle, and that absolutely everyone knew. There is no way I can see that she didn’t. She met him in the industry and so she will have heard the stories, just as everyone else had. And she benefited hugely in material and career ways from being the trophy. Nobody forced her to have kids with him. But doing so secured her financial future, I would imagine, because he wouldn’t be a prenup-free sort of person.

      The more we know, the less sympathy I have. She chose to sup with the devil, and in especially close quarters. I would also place her alongside the rest of the enablers – Affleck, Damon, Tarantino etc. who all also closed their eyes for professional reasons.

  22. Mathilde says:

    Why would you wear Marchesa when there’s Elie Saab?!?

  23. cd3 says:

    I wonder if it’s actually Georgina pushing these stories. After all, she’s one of the faces of a brand, which is a company.

    She does have a business partner she’s accountable to. Depending on corporate structure, there’s shareholders, investors, creditors and a board of directors that she’s responsible to. All of these parties may be pushing this narrative or dictating the response. She may have taken some kind of leave from the company, for all we know (it would not necessarily have been announced). “The Brand” itself hasn’t made any official statement that I know of – the board and management may instead be working through these channels.

    She / the brand may also have concern for people behind the scenes at the company – all the head office and warehouse employees etc.

    She will also have two children to support, post-split.

    Perhaps this is a generous interpretation, but it’s also a valid perspective. I don’t think she’s a monster because she wants her business to survive.

    If she was complicit / enabling / procuring for HW, that’s a different story and that would make her a monster. BUT ABSENT ACTUAL PROOF, let’s not make that rather large leap.

  24. kibbles says:

    She seems like a snob who will secretly cry to herself seeing non-celebrity women donning her designs. My guess is that she even if she does bridal for Marchesa, she will want to branch out and create a new label after her divorce in the hopes that it can become couture and sell to A-list clientele again. She will fail not because of Weinstein but because she never really had the talent to begin with, and no one would have worn Marchesa without the help of Weinstein. If she truly wants to remain a designer, she should admit defeat in couture and red carpet fashion, and stick to bridal.

  25. Rubber Ducky says:

    No one needs to look like an eighties Russian figure skater.

  26. Me Three says:

    Her designs were and are horrible. The only reason she has a fashion label is because of who she was married to. Actresses only wore her stuff because of who her disgusting husband was. I describe her aesthetic as reminiscent of Little Bo Beep. Here’s hoping we never hear from GC again. She knew. Of course she did. I think Celebitchy actually had a piece a few years back about a deal she made in her prenup about having to sleep with Harvey a couple of times a month. Ick.