Charlene Wittstock's Wedding Dress: Civil and Church Wedding


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The train from her back collar was removed at some point because you can see in a comparison with this picture before the ceremony Photo from Reuters Pictures and this picture after the ceremony Photo from Reuters Pictures.

I bet she was glad to have that big train removed. That looked heavy!

Oh now I see it. It must have been done when they entered the Chapelle Palatine because it is alredy gone when they step up the altar to sign the register
 
Charlene was such a beautiful and ethereal looking bride. I love this photo: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LS22T1-jX...leneWeddingGownFrontView--Reuters-Daylife.jpg
I thought it was sweet that she wept a bit at her wedding. Most brides do!

BTW I just realized that was the first time we ever saw her father. Unlike the Middletons who constantly keep themselves in the press I respect Charlene's family for staying out of the limelight and not even giving an engagement interview.

I do agree with you about Charlene's family staying out of the limelight compared to the Middletons, but I have to wonder if the media spotlight was as glaring in South Africa as it was in the U.K. :unsure:
 
I would imagine they might have found the whole occasion somewhat bewildering at first.
And it struck me as a performance, rather than a Christian wedding ceremony.
 
I finally got a chance to youtube the civil and religious ceremonies.

1. The civil suit: in stills, it seems rather bland and uninspired, but on video--especially in movement, it totally works. I didn't like it at first, but it's growing on me. Plus, I applaud Charlene for being modern and wearing pants to get married. (How many women have the courage to that?)

2. The dress: I've loved it since I first saw it, love it even more now that I've seen videos of it. I had no idea it was that intricate and I love how the shoulder train is built on the dress. It must have been a heavy dress to wear, but Charlene looked at ease in it. (And I still adore the double train effect.) While it is similar to Victoria's, it's distinctive enough to not be considered a rip-off: Victoria's has a "comfortable," put on my favor cozy sweater sportswear element to it in how the bodie and skirt are designed (very minimalist, looks like it could be separates, etc). Classy and understated. Charlene's has more of a formal, couture element. The way the shoulder sleeves "wrap" around the body and form the train, the embroidery, and the structure is more glitzy. ('m not dissing Victoria's dress. I adore it: just explainin how I think Charlene's differs from hers even though both have the same shape.)

3. Reception outfit. I'm trying, but it's still a miss for me. It just doesn't seem to suit her figure. The Armani drawings are wonderful--but the drawings didn't translate in real life. Her Civil Ceremony suit worked because it balanced a hard jacket with a soft skirt, whereas this is entirely ethereal and Charlene doesn't have the body for ethereal, fragile dresses. (She's too toned and in shape for them.)

Can't forget her veil and hair brooch. I really like how she did that. It's blingy but subtle.
 
I think she made "a rod for her own back" with the dual train and the complex hair arrangement. She looked as if she was labouring under a great weight - physically, and perhaps emotionally also.
 
It was lovely, classic and simple gown. However one train with the long veil would have been quite adequate. The second extra long train seemed to get in the way and spoilt the back shoulder line. She could have done away with this altogether, plus the bridesmaid did not know how to cope with both trains. Overall a lovely gown, appropriate and classic hairstyle and beautiful hair piece. A stunning combination for a very beautiful royal bride. I also loved the shade for the civil ceremony. Very different and suitably elegant for the occasion. I just feel that her mother chose a very dull shade for the church ceremony. Not a very flattering outfit either which seemed to lack a certain panache. Yet her brothers and father looked very handsome indeed.
 
Last edited:
I've always admired the gowns Armani made for CW, but somehow he lost his way with the wedding dress and trains.... Perhaps he's getting older...
 
I think she made "a rod for her own back" with the dual train and the complex hair arrangement. She looked as if she was labouring under a great weight - physically, and perhaps emotionally also.
I would say yes to both. I noticed how she was walking to the altar with her father. She was pulling a lot of weight from the description.
The dress took 2,500 hours to create, including 700 hours for the embroidery alone, and featured 40,000 Swarovski crystals, 20,000 mother of pearl teardrops and 30,000 stones in gold shades. The dress was made up of 50 metres of duchesse silk, and 80 metres of silk organza - and even the veil was a work of art, encompassing 20 metres of silk tulle taking 100 hours to embroider.
Vogue
 
Charlene (and possibly PA) have never understood the adage "Less is more", hence the sheer opulence of the whole "set piece" of a wedding.
 
I think "sheer opulance" is a Monagasque by word, and they do it very well. Charlene's personal style seems fairly minimalist, and Albert is quite casual, but for a state wedding in Monaco opulance is the way to go.
 
...especially if/when it is meant to take place only once !

Let's hope the pair will have stickability !
 
Love this video in the Palace of the Princess trying on her jewellery.
I might be out of line with this because I'm chiming in on this discussion so late but..... I wish she could have worn the tiara in this video at her wedding. It is so unique, sleek, minimalist and elegant at the same time, and it looks so good on her!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am up and down on my feelings on this wedding dress.

I thought it is a nice dress but not original.I am not a fan of jewels on a wedding dress since I prefer classic and timeless wedding dresses.Also,I am not a fan of the trains.

Neverless,I am not a fan.
 
I agree that the dress is unoriginal and a standard Armani dress, but I for one did like the crystal designs down the front of her gown and it was nice to see a watteau train which is not a usual choice for bride whether royal or not. Perhaps the train that extended from her feet shouldn't have been the exact length of her train from her shoulders. The dress was unorignial, but the two trains idea did provide a unique feel to the overall outfit. While she was walking down the aisle the two trains seemed "too much" but when she was at the alter, I believe they spread the trains out in opposite directions and it ended up looking very beautiful.
 
Last edited:
I saw the the gown of princess Charlene at the exhibition at the oceanic museum. I never saw a so beautiful dress with so many crystals. Her two trains were very royal. Armani made a wonderfull work. For me it was the most beautiful bride of the year. Nobody else
 
Well, at least the two gowns can get some money and publicity for Monaco, all over the world.
 
I saw the the gown of princess Charlene at the exhibition at the oceanic museum. I never saw a so beautiful dress with so many crystals. Her two trains were very royal. Armani made a wonderfull work. For me it was the most beautiful bride of the year. Nobody else

Totally agree. While I haven't seen the dress up close, for me, it was exquisite and perfect for Charlene.

Kate Middleton's was lovely, CP Victoria's was gorgeous but Charlene's was WOW !! (in my opinion). :flowers:
 
The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Readers' Top 10 Wedding Gowns: #8. Princess Charlene of Monaco

Like I said before, not a fan of this dress as I think it is not original and it's a very typical Armani wedding dress. Though, it's not horrible either. I like the neckline of the dress. The details of the gown are interesting but, not a fan of jewels on wedding dresses. Really dislike the two trains also. Not sure if I like the veil. I do however think her hairstyle is fantastic. I prefer that she wore a tiara but, her hairpiece is stunning. Overall, not a bad wedding dress nor a great wedding dress in my opinion. I would not put this in my top ten nor anywhere near it.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised (judging by most comments about it) that Charlene's dress would make it to a top ten list!

Like the author of the blog I also wonder what happened to her relationship with Armani...?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom