Wedding of Princess Beatrice and Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi: July 17, 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Fijiro said:
It is still a divorce. As a Catholic, the Catholic Church have a practice of allowing prominent members of the society to annul marriages instead of divorce. A case in point, Joe Kennedy Jr. (Robert Kennedy's son) married 12 years & two children, had his marriage annulled; Rudy Juliani's first 14 year marriage annulled; John Kerry's first 18 year marriage & two children annulled.
Click to expand...

Yes she was divorce and married in a civil cermoney. But as a Catholic she had had the first marriage annulled...
 
This thread is supposed to be about Princess Beatrice's wedding, not a comparison between other royal weddings. Please move back to the topic of the thread. Thank you.
 
Princess Beatrice's wedding dress will go on display. All alterations are reversible. So what will happen to the dress in the future. Will it be reversed back to what it was, or will it stay as it now is. Is HM still the official owner of the dress or is it Princess Beatrice?

I must admit, a dress that is almost 60 years old and still looking so good is certainly something special.
 
We don't really know yet.

The Queen is not going to wear it again but it might go back in her archives and potentially displayed again in a collection of interesting/notable dresses at some point. She may have plans to give them away in her will or keep them together for posterity.

She might also have gifted it to her granddaughter as a wedding present, nothing has been made public.

It will be interesting to see what she wears if they ever have a big reception.
 
My guess is that the gown has already been gifted to Beatrice.

I can't wait to see it again.
 
Since the dress has been altered for Beatrice, it probably was a gift.
I'm wondering if she will ever wear it again, minus the additions?
 
I recall the announcement mentioned that the wedding dress was a loan from The Queen. If that is correct then it is still The Queen's property but I doubt the dress will be altered again and if part of a display then the description will of course include that The Queen loaned it to her granddaughter for her wedding.
 
Last edited:
Mirabel said:
Since the dress has been altered for Beatrice, it probably was a gift.
I'm wondering if she will ever wear it again, minus the additions?
Click to expand...

It was a loan, Im sure like the tiara. The alterations will be removed... and Bea wont be wearing it again
 
I'm hoping the dress stays altered the way it was for Beatrice's wedding. Perhaps put on display alongside pictures of the Queen wearing the dress or the other way around and displayed in its original design with pictures of the alterations made for Beatrice's wedding day.

This dress, in its own way, is unique as it endured for decades and was worn by grandmother and granddaughter. Its also kind of a "can do" salute to having a royal wedding during a pandemic.
 
The queen has so many dresses; I see little reason why this one needs to be returned back to its original form now Beatrice had it as her wedding dress! That's more special than any of the (high-profile) occasions that the queen wore this dress previously.
 
The statement pointed out that all the alterations are reversible which makes me think the intention is to return the dress to it's original form and put it back in the Queen's dress collection once the exhibition at Windsor Castle ends.
 
Last edited:
sophie25 said:
The statement pointed out that all the alterations are reversible which makes me think the intention is to return the dress to it's original form and put it back in the Queen's dress collection once the exhibition at Windsor Castle ends.
Click to expand...
I imagine since it is the Queen's personal property and she wants it returned back to its original state, that is what should be done. Must be a reason, if only that is what the Queen wants to happen. JMO
 
sophie25 said:
The statement pointed out that all the alterations are reversible which makes me think the intention is to return the dress to it's original form and put it back in the Queen's dress collection once the exhibition at Windsor Castle ends.
Click to expand...

That's my instinct as well. It's a classic Norman Hartnell dress, typical of the period and there are photos of HMQ wearing it so it has historical significance from fashion and royal perspectives.
 
But it currently has more significance as Beatrice's dress. Wouldn't reversing the changes be like erasing her wedding? HM has thousands of photographed dresses, but I think it's known she cares far more for her grandchildren than her wardrobe.
 
I would think they'll leave it as it is. It's not like the Queen's going to wear it again, and doing too many alterations to a dress that's over 50 years old might not be a good idea. And it's got far more significance as Beatrice's wedding dress, especially given the unique circumstances, than it has as just AN other dress which the Queen wore at AN other function.
 
I guess its save to say neither Beatrice nor HM are going to be wearing it again anytime soon as neither are limited to the number of dresses available for mere "state" or "gala" occasions.

I think they pointed out the changes are reversible as a) its an interesting fact and b) it means the dress may appear in both a wedding dress themed exhibition as worn by Beatrice and any future exhibitions of HM's dresses without the modifications.
 
I think they'll remove the modifications. I don't think they were very attractive.. while I understand why the queen let her have that dress..I still don't think ti was all that pretty... and IMO it has more interest as one fo the queen's dresses than as Bea's
 
I really hope Beatrice's wedding dress is going to be shown :D

The dress looks brilliant on her and I think it strikes a balance between too much sparkles/blings and too plain. Beatrice (or whoever makes the decision) certainly make a great choice to choose the Queen's vintage gown. Angela Kelly did a fantastic job in alteration. :flowers:

Edit: It has been confirmed that Princess Beatrice's wedding dress is going on public display. I saw this article
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...rdo-mapelli-mozzi-windsor-castle-b404876.html
 
Denville said:
I think they'll remove the modifications. I don't think they were very attractive.. while I understand why the queen let her have that dress..I still don't think ti was all that pretty... and IMO it has more interest as one fo the queen's dresses than as Bea's
Click to expand...

You think it has more interest as one of what a few hundred gala dresses the queen has worn during her reign? The reality is if Beatrice hadn't worn it for her wedding, there would be few people who would even recall it.

Being the wedding dress of one of the queen's granddaughters is far more memorable. Especially since Beatrice got married when she did (both during covid and during her father's scandal). Making her low key wedding memorable.

Like the additions or not that is her wedding dress. It can easily be displayed as it is, as both the queen and Beatrice's dress. They can have a comment explaining the origins. Even have a photo of the original. It belongs to both of them now.
 
I don't think the modifications will ever be removed and I don't think the gown will go back into the queen's wardrobe after it is displayed at Windsor, only to be forgotten. What would be the point of HMQ wanting to reclaim what will now go down in Royal Wedding history as Princess Beatrice's bridal gown?

The Valentino pumps Beatrice wore with the dress matched it perfectly. They are going on display as well.;)
 
Fijiro said:
It is still a divorce. As a Catholic, the Catholic Church seems to allow their prominent members of the society to annul marriages, instead of calling it what it is. A case in point, Joe Kennedy Jr. (Robert Kennedy's son) married 12 years & two children, had his marriage annulled; Rudy Juliani's first 14 year marriage annulled; John Kerry's first 18 year marriage & two children, annulled.

The process of annulment is not easy for the lower class Catholics so when they are divorced, they are not allowed to receive communion or even re-marry in Church.
Click to expand...

It is untrue that divorced Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion. As long as they have not contracted a remarriage outside the Church ANY divorced Catholic no matter what his rank in society can continue to receive the Sacraments.

And if you received an annulment you can marry again in Church.

Princess Michael of Kent had a low key civil wedding to Prince Michael, but there was a big party/reception.

If memory serves, after her annulment she was refused a Catholic wedding or Nuptial blessing, because Pope Paul VI was displeased that the Kent children were to be brought up Anglican.
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
It is untrue that divorced Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion. As long as they have not contracted a remarriage outside the Church ANY divorced Catholic no matter what his rank in society can continue to receive the Sacraments.

And if you received an annulment you can marry again in Church.

Princess Michael of Kent had a low key civil wedding to Prince Michael, but there was a big party/reception.

If memory serves, after her annulment she was refused a Catholic wedding or Nuptial blessing, because Pope Paul VI was displeased that the Kent children were to be brought up Anglican.
Click to expand...

They did receive a blessing later. They received a blessing in 1983 at the Archbishop house in London. While Paul VI may have denied them a blessing when they married, John Paul II didn't have the same problem. John Paul II who became Pope in 1978 gave permission for their wedding to be blessed.

Annulments are not easily gained even for the upper crust.
 
Last edited:
I like the tea cup mug designs with the bees and I'm glad they got some "official merchanise" from their very different but seemingly beautiful wedding.



You can see the white York Roses peeping out at the top, along with thistles for Scotland and Roses for England.
 
eya said:
HRH Princess Beatrice of York’s wedding dress, shoes and replica bouquet will go on display at #WindsorCastle from tomorrow (24 September) until 22 November 2020


https://www.rct.uk/about/news-and-f...orks-wedding-dress-goes-on-display-at-windsor
Click to expand...

I love the how Princess Beatrice's wedding dress is placed in the centre of a beautiful and dare I say "majestic" setting of the State Dining Room. ?. I also love that there are bees in the mug designs

I do think the details looks better in close-up. I just wish the Queen Mary Fringe Tiara and Edoardo's wedding morning dress (or formal day dress) are there in display.
 
Last edited:
The more I see Beatrice's dress, the more I like it. It's very feminine and elegant...so very pretty!?
 
Princess Beatrice at Windsor Castle for the public display of her Wedding Dress (including a replica bouquet and Valentino shoe). I like the combination of her dark blue floral dress (the one she is wearing in the picture), red & blue mask and black coloured shoes.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308754204094279683
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2 3
Replies
70
Views
4K
Snowangel
Snowangel
Marengo
Princess Beatrice, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Family, Current Events 2: Sep 2022 -
5 6 7
Replies
202
Views
21K
iceflower
iceflower
iceflower
A daughter for Princess Beatrice and Edoardo - Sienna Elizabeth: September 18, 2021
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
11K
Hallo girl
H
Marengo
Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie 2: Discussion Sep 2022 -
Replies
19
Views
2K
Somebody
Somebody
JessRulz
  • Locked
Princess Beatrice, Edoardo Mapelli M. and Family, Current Events 1: 2020 - Sep 2022
14 15 16
Replies
464
Views
100K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom