10 Wedding Dresses That Won't Blow Your Budget

14/08/2014 16:46 | Updated 20 May 2015

Finding the perfect wedding dress is probably the most exciting - and stressful - part of wedding planning.

Not only do you want to look like the most amazing version of yourself possible, you also want to feel comfortable so that you can laugh (and cry!) your heart out, let loose on the dance floor and eat a slice of cake (or three) without pain or discomfort. And one other thing: you want to make sure the wedding dress you fall in love with doesn't cost more than the rest of the wedding put together.

"You don't have to compromise on style or look just because you don't have a big budget," says Lucy Richards, director of UK merchandising at David's Bridal, the go-to bridal shop with an extensive range of wedding dresses and bridal accessories including lines from Zac Posen and Vera Wang.

When it comes to wedding dress shopping on a budget, Richards recommends deciding whether you want to go long or short (short dresses are an increasingly popular wedding-dress trend in the US which is starting to pick up some momentum in the UK) and to have an open mind and try on a range of different styles, especially softer ones, to see how they look on the body.

Even if you're shopping at the lower price range, you can find dresses which reflect your favourite trends. This season, in addition to the popularity of short dresses, other key silhouettes are the high-low (which is shorter at the front with a long hem at the back), heavy embellishments and dramatic back detailing.

The one thing all brides, no matter their budget, need to consider? Well-fitting wedding lingerie, which can determine what kind of a dress you should wear (i.e. slimmer-fit dresses often require shapewear underneath).

"Don't compromise on styling just because you don't have a big budget, there are so many beautiful, on-trend things available," says Richards.

Check out our top picks of 10 wedding dresses that won't blow your budget (and are all under £300!) below...


Suggest a correction