Edward, Prince of Wales and Princess Alexandra of Denmark - 1863

[windsorbrides1]

Another link - this time to King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra

http://s36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...nch=imgAnch112

[Sister Morphine]

Alexandra was a stunningly beautiful woman, and it no more shows than in this picture. She was a beautiful bride, and I love the sausage curls. Her dress is so full and dramatic, and I love the necklace.
Truly a beauty.

[Marengo]

On 10 March 1863 Edward, prince of Wales (the future king Edward VII) married princess Alexandra of Denmark in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.



==
copyrights expired

[Marengo]

William Powell made a famous painting of the wedding.

Click here.

[ysbel]

I really hope St. George's Chapel is the site of the next British Royal wedding. The painting looks scrumptious, Marengo. So royal and dignified.

[Marengo]

And at the next royal wedding they at least won't have a misbehaving future emperor Wilhelm II present. Apparently he misbehaved during the ceremony, esp. teasing his younger aunt and uncles.

[ysbel]

I think there was a bitten leg somewhere in the wedding festivities. Either William bit Beatrice's leg or he was teasing her and she bit his leg.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think there was a bitten leg somewhere in the wedding festivities. Either William bit Beatrice's leg or he was teasing her and she bit his leg.

Would it be the Essex's children misbehaving? They have to keep up the tradition! Wills was misbehaving once upon a time. . .

Alexandra was very beautiful. What crown is that on her head and is it still with the Windsor's jewelry collection?

[ysbel]

I don't know, Russo. I didn't like her dress though. Leopold of the Belgians had given her a beautiful dress of Brussels lace but Victoria made her return it and wear an English design.

I'm all for patriotism but not at the expense of a young girl looking good on her wedding.

[Elspeth]

I think the dress was pretty standard for the times, although all that greenery must have been a bit heavy. I remember seeing it during the exhibition of the royal wedding dresses at Kensington Palace a few years ago, and it was easily the most elaborate of the dresses there (all the dresses of the queens from Victoria to Elizabeth were exhibited, although I think Alexandra's dress had a different bodice or something).

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

Queen Alexandra was quite well-known for her great fashion sense and was also willing to try new things .... the gown that was featured during the exhibition was NOT her actual bridal gown. Her wedding dress could be referred to as "une robe à la transformation" - she had it changed/transformed so that it would be easier for her to waltz in, etc.

So, unfortunately, all that remains now are the "left-overs" ....

[STEVEN]

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/h...ndraEdward.jpg

[magnik]

I've just remamber about this article
Prince and Princess of Wales

Porter's Dummy Ship at Vicksburg

articel about the wedding
Queen Victoria and Princess Beatrice

The Royal Wedding

St. George's Chapel


Btw. could someone post they guest list?

[KittyAtlanta]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I don't know, Russo. I didn't like her dress though. Leopold of the Belgians had given her a beautiful dress of Brussels lace but Victoria made her return it and wear an English design.

I'm all for patriotism but not at the expense of a young girl looking good on her wedding.

I feel just the opposite. When I saw her wedding dress, I said, aloud, "now THAT's a wedding gown!!!"

[IloveCP]

Edward does not look happy marrying her.I would look happy if a were marrying a bride that beautiful!

I love her dress,and her veil.And I love that she did'nt wear a tiara and went for a head of flowers like Victoria.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Oh for the love of Backstreet.
Rich people, or people in general, did not smile in photos back them. It was custom to always look pissed or disinterested. Notice Alexandra has the same look on her face.
BTW is this change Alexandra made to her dress the reason why it looks different between the photograph and the exhibit? Because it looks beautiful when she wore it, but the smaller skirt at the exhibit isn't that nice.

[PrincessKaimi]

What Xenia said. Count Lev Tolstoi made a huge point of looking sserious or irritated in every photo, whereas a sketch artist once captured a different look on his face - it's the only portrait where he looks rakish and handsome.

[LauraS3514]

Photography was still in the early stages in 1863, the time of Albert Edward and Alexandra's wedding: you had to be VERY still for several seconds for the picture to come out properly. It took that long for the exposure, not the instant pictures we have now. Just look at how many pictures from that era that have animals or people in them are blurry. One of the other casualties of long exposure photography is that people couldn't "smile for the camera" - it's next to impossible to hold a smile for the length of time required; your face is either blurry or you get a really awful grimace.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

One royal who always did the "I look irritated and angry" pose was Queen Mary. I recall hearing that one reason she always looked like that was because you don't smile in pictures, but also because she didn't think it was regal to smile at all; but I don't recall if that was true or not. Seems the British royals only started smiling when Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon joined the family.

[PrincessKaimi]

Yes, I think it started with the technical requirements of photo portraiture - and those are often issues when one sits for a painter, as well. It then became habit until, as Xenia says, in the case of the British royals, Elizabeth came along.

When I think of the technological changes in her lifetime, I'm amazed at how well she coped with various media.