For me, it’s all about the voluminous drape in the front, reminding me of how noble women padded their dresses in the early renaissance to look pregnant and fertile (like in the Arnolfini portrait by Van Eyck, that lady is NOT pregnant.)

It’s so freaking regal looking on the bottom, with that sexy asymmetry up top. I think Sarah Burton sealed her success at McQueen with this coup.

#shuttingthefrontdoor

Ian, there’s a huge amount of information about that painting on wikipedia. I found out it’s quite a long debate between historians about whether or not she’s pregnant, and what the painting is about on the whole. It’s believed that look was fashionable then (1434) because many female figures that are virgins were painted that way at the time, which is an interesting and clever thing to base the theory on. The husband was also a cloth merchant, and as always, a lot of cloth in your gown was used to display wealth, so it could be any of those things, Her body language and posture certainly make her look pregnant however, and if I google “hennin” (those pointy princess hats with the veils) almost all of the women in images from that period appear pregnant, even walking in groups.
The information about the padding (or if it was just more cloth) however is scarce, as it’s mostly guesswork when dealing with pre-16th century clothes, especially if you can’t see it in any of the contemporary sources.

Fun Aside: Elizabeth I’s wardrobe was so badass because a certain previous Queen gave away the splendid Royal collection of clothing, so she had some shopping to do. Excepting what they’ve since reacquired, the current Royal Collection just kinda starts at Elizabeth’s stuff (whatever is left.)