Wedding of William and Catherine: suggestions and musings

[MARG]

I thought Lepley's were at least bridal. The rest looked like a selection of bondage apparell and lingerie!

Yuk~

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by MARG

I thought Lepley's were at least bridal. The rest looked like a selection of bondage apparell and lingerie!

Yuk~

Bondage apparel and lingerie? Totally agree.

[Mirabel]

Lepley was an early favorite, but then the odds shifted to Bruce Oldfield.
If it's true that the dress was already underway back in December, though, perhaps it really is Lepley?

On the other hand, Wakeley is supposed to be a personaL friend of Kate's.

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

Lepley was an early favorite, but then the odds shifted to Bruce Oldfield.
If it's true that the dress was already underway back in December, though, perhaps it really is Lepley?

On the other hand, Wakeley is supposed to be a personaL friend of Kate's.

Yes, but as much as I would like to see her in a Lepley design, she is hardly an unknown designer. As for Wakeley....regardless of any personal friendship (if there is one) the clothing and wedding dresses on her site are horrendous. I can't see Kate's personal style fitting in with Wakeley's tastes in designing.

[bethaliz6894]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

Yes, but as much as I would like to see her in a Lepley design, she is hardly an unknown designer. As for Wakeley....regardless of any personal friendship (if there is one) the clothing and wedding dresses on her site are horrendous. I can't see Kate's personal style fitting in with Wakeley's tastes in designing.

i totally agree with the dresses being just awful, i really hope and pray she doesnt choose her to design the gown.

[jdcharlie]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

These aren't "fairly unknown" designers.

It depends on who the audience is. Marchesa is the only really worldwide famous designer on that list. Lepley, for example, I'd never heard of until the engagement. And I'd never heard of Libelula or Sophie Cranston until Kate wore the black coat. I researched tons of female British designers and these are the only ones remotely appropriate. Unless the designer has never done anything before (which would make me nervous!).

[snowflower]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

We haven't seen a royal bride with bare arms that I can recall. The shortest sleeves I can recall were Lady Helen Taylor's, and she's a great-granddaughter of George V and a cousin-once-removed of the Queen. Lady Diana showed up in elbow-length sleeves, and that's the shortest I can remember in fairly recent years at that senior level.

You know this has always puzzled me a little - what is considered " appropriate" in the recent years at royal weddings seems much more conservative than in the past . In the 20's for example the late QEQM wore a bridal dress with quite short sleeves (shorter than Diana's I belive) and if we look at the wedding photos of Princess Beatrice ,Mary of Teck, Helena of Waldeck Pymont or Luise of Prussia (which all were taken during the last quarter of the 19th century I think) we will notice even shorter sleeves (and relatively low necklines IMO- not tha you could see anything with all these laces and wreaths covering them). It seems that they were not many concerns about the appropriatness of all these dresses , the brides just followed the fashion of their times. On the other land some modern royal brides seem to cover so much more in order to be properly dressed for a royal wedding . I just don't understand it

[EmpressRouge]

Originally Posted by snowflower

You know this has always puzzled me a little - what is considered " appropriate" in the recent years at royal weddings seems much more conservative than in the past . In the 20's for example the late QEQM wore a bridal dress with quite short sleeves (shorter than Diana's I belive) and if we look at the wedding photos of Princess Beatrice ,Mary of Teck, Helena of Waldeck Pymont or Luise of Prussia (which all were taken during the last quarter of the 19th century I think) we will notice even shorter sleeves (and relatively low necklines IMO- not tha you could see anything with all these laces and wreaths covering them). It seems that they were not many concerns about the appropriatness of all these dresses , the brides just followed the fashion of their times. On the other land some modern royal brides seem to cover so much more in order to be properly dressed for a royal wedding . I just don't understand it

This is true. And the one thing they had in common were some type of sleeve, i.e. some part of their arm covered (even with the off-the-shoulder dresses of the Victoria era). So all these designers or so called "experts" who imagine Catherine wearing strapless, you're WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

I roll my eyes every time I watch shows like "Say Yes to the Dress" when a bride-to-be walks in and declares she wants to look like a "Princess" and proceeds to choose a strapless dress (sometimes with a see-through bodice) with the most gaudy beading. I always feel like yelling into the TV, "You don't look like a princess; you look like a showgirl with a bigger skirts!"

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

This is true. And the one thing they had in common were some type of sleeve, i.e. some part of their arm covered (even with the off-the-shoulder dresses of the Victoria era). So all these designers or so called "experts" who imagine Catherine wearing strapless, you're WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

I roll my eyes every time I watch shows like "Say Yes to the Dress" when a bride-to-be walks in and declares she wants to look like a "Princess" and proceeds to choose a strapless dress (sometimes with a see-through bodice) with the most gaudy beading. I always feel like yelling into the TV, "You don't look like a princess; you look like a showgirl with a bigger skirts!"

I so agree with you on this (and I believe that you were the one who mentioned the "Say Yes to the Dress" thing before).

On another forum, there is/was a poster whose opinion actually perfectly resembles mine:
"I find a strapless wedding gown to be in poor taste. Tacky, in fact. A wedding is a solemn occasion, not a prom."

When I read that, I thought: "that is exactly how I feel about it." I don't find those strapless dresses attractive at all. When I read about a celebrity's wedding I think "okay" but when I see a picture it's usually "what else is new".
I suppose it's my main reason for steering into royal wedding territory because that's about the only place where I can still get to see a decent wedding gown.

[Duchess]

not sure if this has been posted yet but there was a piece on the news the other night that was saying william and catherine might spend (at least part of) their honeymoon in canada and that they would start off on the east coast! hope it's true...i'd definitely try to be there for their arrival!

[Lumutqueen]

Where ever they go on their honeymoon, I hope it is kept private and nobody except the bride and groom and specific people know. If they announce it publically or have pictures taken on their honeymoon I think that ruins the idea of it being their honeymoon, and time away before getting back to royal life.

[EmpressRouge]

Originally Posted by Skippy

I so agree with you on this (and I believe that you were the one who mentioned the "Say Yes to the Dress" thing before).

On another forum, there is/was a poster whose opinion actually perfectly resembles mine:
"I find a strapless wedding gown to be in poor taste. Tacky, in fact. A wedding is a solemn occasion, not a prom."

When I read that, I thought: "that is exactly how I feel about it." I don't find those strapless dresses attractive at all. When I read about a celebrity's wedding I think "okay" but when I see a picture it's usually "what else is new".
I suppose it's my main reason for steering into royal wedding territory because that's about the only place where I can still get to see a decent wedding gown.

I think I've mentioned the "Say Yes to the Dress" thing many times. Back like 10-15 years ago when strapless wedding dresses first appeared, I didn't have any problem with them. Some strapless dresses are nice and can look dignified for a wedding (I find backless dresses more inappropriate in that respect). But it has since been sooooooo overdone, to the point where all dresses look the same.

Thankfully, the real princesses out there still exhibit real style and I'm totally looking forward to what Catherine is going to wear.

[Shelo]

Originally Posted by jdcharlie

The HuffPost blogger keeps swearing that a young, fairly unknown female designer, who has designed for the Middletons before, is designing Kate's dress.

This makes sense. The Royal family has seen several examples of media sniffing in the dustbins of wedding dress designers (the Emmanuels, Lindka Cierach) and knew that this dress was going to cause no end of speculation. By choosing a young and unknown designer, Kate gets the dress that SHE wants and is able to keep it a secret. I really don't think any of the bigger named designers could keep this project completely under wraps.

The irony is that comings and goings for this dress are somehow, under everyone's nose right now! I think it is just wonderful that Kate has managed to keep it secret and hope this continues. Good for her!

[gfg02]

Kate Middleton's parents 'to cash in from Royal Wedding selling line of themed products'

Read more: Kate Middleton's parents 'to cash in from Royal Wedding selling line of themed products' | Mail Online

Royal wedding route: Kate Middleton's most unromantic step into married life

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ried-life.html

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

I think I've mentioned the "Say Yes to the Dress" thing many times. Back like 10-15 years ago when strapless wedding dresses first appeared, I didn't have any problem with them. Some strapless dresses are nice and can look dignified for a wedding (I find backless dresses more inappropriate in that respect). But it has since been sooooooo overdone, to the point where all dresses look the same.

Thankfully, the real princesses out there still exhibit real style and I'm totally looking forward to what Catherine is going to wear.

I can't say anything else than that I agree with you. Especially about backless dresses - that I find hideous. Like wearing a dress the other way round. But in overal the strapless dress trend is way past its peak - it's time for them to retire, I think.

But I am afraid that we are going to see them for a while yet...

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by gfg02

Kate Middleton's parents 'to cash in from Royal Wedding selling line of themed products'

Read more: Kate Middleton's parents 'to cash in from Royal Wedding selling line of themed products' | Mail Onlinel

As long as all they do is sell "traditional street party bits", I see nothing wrong with it at all, and if Buckingham Palace doesn't like it, too bad. It would be different if they were selling bunting with family photos of Kate on it, or flogging those notorious condoms, but if all they are selling is what every other similar sort of business is selling and it's not tasteless I think they'd be silly not to. They seem to be a close family and I suspect they have discussed it with Kate and William anyway. William seems to be the sort of fellow who would tell them to proceed with business as usual.

This is their daughter's wedding, after all. They are as much a part of the event as the RF, and should not be expected to act to their financial detriment merely because someone at Buckingham Palace, even if that that person is the Queen, doesn't like it. I don't see the Queen making any special effort to embrace the Middleton family as a whole. It is only Kate who is becoming a member of the RF on the 29th April. Life will go on for the rest of them pretty much as usual after then.

[Zonk]

As per usual, the Daily Mail is making a mountain out of a molehill or rather a story out of a non story.

According to the article, Party Pieces "will be doing some traditional street party bits. These will be available mid-late February.' in resonse to a question that states "selling traditional British themed products we can order in the coming months?'

According to the article, Carole and Mike Middleton already sell patriotic Union Jack bunting, plastic crockery and table decorations suited to the thousands of Coronation-style parties that are expected to be held across the country on April 29.

Based on the article title, I was expecting that Party Pieces was going to sell paper plates, cups and napkins with William and Catherine's picture on them. Or something that says April 29, 2011. Instead, they are going to sell British themed products? I would imagine that you could use the "British themed products" while watching England in the World Cup!

[rossop7]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

As long as all they do is sell "traditional street party bits", I see nothing wrong with it at all, and if Buckingham Palace doesn't like it, too bad. It would be different if they were selling bunting with family photos of Kate on it, or flogging those notorious condoms, but if all they are selling is what every other similar sort of business is selling and it's not tasteless I think they'd be silly not to. They seem to be a close family and I suspect they have discussed it with Kate and William anyway. William seems to be the sort of fellow who would tell them to proceed with business as usual.

This is their daughter's wedding, after all. They are as much a part of the event as the RF, and should not be expected to act to their financial detriment merely because someone at Buckingham Palace, even if that that person is the Queen, doesn't like it. I don't see the Queen making any special effort to embrace the Middleton family as a whole. It is only Kate who is becoming a member of the RF on the 29th April. Life will go on for the rest of them pretty much as usual after then.

I agree, if they were selling specific items that were related specifically with William and/or Kate & were using their relationship with William & Kate to help with items, or selling/promotion etc then yes that'd be something to actually argue against. But if it's just generic party items for any street party anywhere for any reason then who cares?! They run a party business, you expect them to stop selling any item just coz their daughter is getting married to someone in the public life? I mean really they're just selling things you could get at any party company anyway, not like it's some unique, specially sanctioned by the RF party items that can only be bought from their company.

Plus I think everyone has to remember it is still their livelihood, yes their daughter is marrying into the RF but unless everyone expects them to give up their job/company & go live with/live off the RF (which everyone would complain about too) I say leave them & their business alone unless they do actually do something that warrants discussion. I feel quite sorry for them all actually, all the media attention that comes with the RF but not actually themselves being a part of the RF & protected from it & all the while still trying to keep a business going without media etc trying to find things to atttack & trip them up on.

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

(I find backless dresses more inappropriate in that respect). .

I agree, especially when the bride has a great big "tramp stamp" (tattoo) at the base of her spine!

[Lady Felicity M]

Originally Posted by wymanda

I agree, especially when the bride has a great big "tramp stamp" (tattoo) at the base of her spine!

Totally agree, its not a good look at all, I went to a wedding just recently and 1 of the bridesmaids had this hidious, massive tattoo on her back, it made everything look bad.

Strapless dress are ok, if the people that are wearing them, wear them well, my sister had a strapless wedding dress but she wore it very well, I on the other hand didn't wearstrapless to my wedding. What's the big deal with strapless anyway?