The REAL First Lady of Fashion? Jackie Kennedy set the standard and Michelle weaponized the look… but Melania is playing her own game entirely

In less than a month, Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States and Melania Trump will accordingly emerge from the warmth of their Florida oasis to face DC’s chilly northeasterly January winds and cold offer. view of the American fashion press.

All eyes will be on what Melania will wear, how much she spent, and what messages (if any) her outfit might send.

It’s an intensity of scrutiny that even Jackie Kennedy, perhaps the most fashionable First Lady of the 20th century, could not have endured.

But despite Melania’s undisputed style, it is one of her predecessors who should be thanked or blamed for the burden that rests on the shoulders of today’s presidential associates.

The forerunner in question is Michelle Obama. And it is her pioneering use of a high-low wardrobe – combining high street and couture – that set a new standard for political messaging during her eight years in the White House.

Michelle was already well into her fashion groove when her husband was inaugurated for the first time in January 2009.

Certainly, the custom-made Isabel Toledo sheath dress in ‘lemongrass’ yellow and the matching coat she wore that day must have cost thousands.

But by pairing the custom look with ready-made J.Crew leather gloves (which likely cost less than $100), the 44-year-old proved Michelle’s credentials as a woman who combined the aspirational with the affordable.

It helped reinforce the perception that regardless of her new presidential platform, Michelle remained an average middle-aged woman who enjoyed shopping online.

It all could have been very different if Michelle hadn’t appeared on the Jay Leno show last October in a head-to-toe J.Crew ensemble.

This was just a few weeks before the presidential election, and the outfit was intended as a not-so-subtle response to the news that then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin – billed as just an average Alaskan “hockey mom” – had embarked on a campaign-funded spending spree that netted more than $150,000 in designer duds for herself and her family.

Razor sharp as ever when it came to the dark arts of public relations, Michelle (no doubt aided by her husband’s political operatives) saw her opening.

‘I want to ask you about your wardrobe. I’m guessing around 60,000? 60, 70 grand for that outfit?’ Jay Leno – with a touch of stage control – asked Michelle.

“J.Crew,” she replied proudly, before turning to her studio audience and saying with conviction, “Ladies, we know J.Crew. You can get nice things online!’

Her $414 pencil skirt, tank top and cardigan combo set the Internet on fire — and crashed J.Crew’s website.

Michelle may have been Harvard educated and had an annual income of almost a million dollars thanks to the couple’s combined income, but suddenly she looked and sounded surprisingly “normal.”

“If you don’t have time, click,” the future First Lady exclaimed to thunderous applause.

There might have been better, decidedly chicer looks she could have chosen. But at that moment, when her husband was on the brink of power, clothing was not just about how Michelle was dressed, but also about what she was meant to represent.

This certainly wasn’t the first time she’d opted for high street designs, but Jay Leno’s appearance was the moment Michelle truly crystallized – and mobilized – the power of strategic budget clothing.

In the months and years that followed, J.Crew, Talbots, H&M, Gap, Target and a host of other mid- and lower-end American fashion brands became trademarks (even though her wardrobe became increasingly dominated by couture as time went on). .

The cultural reach of this campaign has only been expanded by the growing world of social media.

When she showed up at 10 Downing Street, home of the British Prime Minister, in a mint green silk J.Crew pencil skirt and embellished cream cardigan in April 2009, it caused real excitement – almost as much as Michelle’s unprecedented royal outreach earlier that morning .

When she met the Queen at Windsor Castle, Michelle had unceremoniously, but rather sweetly, gently placed her arm around Elizabeth II’s back, a clear breach of official protocol.

They were just “two tired ladies, oppressed by our shoes,” Michelle later explained.

Downing Street and Windsor were completely different events and Michelle chose completely different outfits (she wore a different couture confection from Toledo to greet Her Majesty), but her message suited both perfectly.

This carefully constructed approach, combining high- and low-end designs, seemed to suggest something about the Obamas as people: a sense of authenticity and normalcy that became a defining element of their political and cultural brand. It was recognizable.

Barack Obama may have failed in his goal to turn the American economy around, but even in political exile he, and more importantly she, has maintained an undeniable shine.

Amid the turmoil of this summer’s fraught campaign, Reuters found there was only one Democrat who could handily beat Trump in a hypothetical showdown: former First Lady Michelle Obama.

The high-low template was so effective that it proved irresistible when it came to creating an image for the newly minted Duchess of Cambridge at Kensington Palace.

Instead of ditching her Whistle tops and Jigsaw trousers – the quintessence of her life in posh West London – the woman once known as the simple Kate Middleton used them to convince the public that she was essentially an average British girl stayed with the LK Bennett. chop to prove it.

Kate may have already embraced the excess of bespoke couture in her Alexander McQueen wedding dress, but for the morning after – as she walked confidently across the lawn of Buckingham Palace clutching her new husband’s hand – Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Cambridge, wearing a $60 blue belted sleeveless dress from Zara.

When Catherine spoke in public for the first time after almost a year of royal life at the formal opening of the Treehouse Hospice in Ipswich, eastern England, she opted for a four-year-old dark blue Reiss day dress, borrowed from her mother, Carole Middleton. .

The ill-fitting and slightly faded family loan was noticeably baggy and served as a subtle but effective reminder that she remained an untested newcomer whose pompous performance should not be judged too harshly.

Despite the fact that – as is the case with Michelle – the high street has now largely disappeared from Kate’s style radar (save for the occasional accessory – think her $25 velvet Jigsaw bow that was added to her thousands-pound Alexander McQueen coat snapped during last week’s Christmas carol service), her early experiments with accessible clothing remain key to how people understand her.

And by extension, the kind of monarchy she and her husband will eventually embody.

As for Melania, it’s perhaps not surprising that she hasn’t managed to jump on this particular style bandwagon.

After all, the next First Lady is proud of her razor-sharp chic. She will not pursue political or cultural capital at the expense of looking good.

When the inauguration finally takes place on January 20, I’m confident we can expect nothing less than “exquisite.”

Melania has decided not to play the fashion game prescribed for political and royal spouses for more than a decade. Instead, she has dressed however she wants, regardless of brand, edition or affiliation.

Some may interpret this as a reflection of a superficial, mannequin-like existence, I think very differently.

By refusing to conform to the expectations or the conventions that others have created for her, Melania seems to me – at least in this respect – one of the most independent contemporary consorts.