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

[Iluvbertie]

:

https://pagesix.com/2020/07/19/princ...ivate-wedding/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/12...e-queen-tiara/


About the dress, I think I'm in the minority here. In my opinion, I feel that Beatrice deserved better than this. As a new bride, she should've gotten a new white dress, not a patched-up altered with pieces added at the bottom to make it long, and it was not even floor length enough.
.

For all we know this may very well have been Beatrice's original choice.

There were reports that she was having trouble getting a designer to make a dress for her and that she may end up having to make it herself.

She may even have said, as a girl growing up, that she liked that dress and the Queen was happy to lend it to her.

This was a Norman Hartnell dress after all ... no brides have been able to have such a gown for years and he did design the two iconic gowns of the 20th century - the Queen's wedding dress and her coronation gown, not to mention so many other dresses worn by both the Queen Mum and the Queen.

I loved the dress and thought it really looked good on Bea. It picked up the tiara and took that through the dress design as well.

It is clear that what Bea wanted was to be married and the ceremony itself was a means to an end and not the major focus. I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that this was the intended dress all along and that they only ever intended on having a small wedding ... not even filling the Chapel Royal at St James. Then ended up marrying in a larger church than originally planned of course.

 

[Somebody]

My comment stems from the below...

I see. With that I agree. He is first and foremost British but might hold dual citizenship.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] but might hold dual citizenship.

Given the nature of the article, I would guess that the New York Times' information was communicated to them by Edo himself (although it's true that he might be mistaken).

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Who was the minister who married Princess Beatrice and Edoardo?

 

[Somebody]

Who was the minister who married Princess Beatrice and Edoardo?

The local vicar of the church (so, the queen's - as it is her parish church). The bishop of London who was supposed to marry them (or at least be involved in their London wedding) was also present.

 

[Lady Daly]

Thank you Queen Claude for the pictures in history of the Queen's gown. Considering the circumstances surrounding their wedding postponement and the realization covid and covid restrictions weren't going away anytime soon Edo and Beatrice made their decision and pulled it off beautifully!

 

[VictoriaB]

There were reports that she was having trouble getting a designer to make a dress for her and that she may end up having to make it herself.

I don't disagree that Bea may have had this in mind all along but I have difficulty with the idea that she was having trouble finding a designer to make a dress for her. Stuart Parvin (who made Zara's dress) was clearly not bothered about being associated with her as it was publicly stated he, along with Angela Kelly, altered the Hartnell gown for her.

While Bea's dress is not my favourite of modern British royal brides (mainly because of the puffy sleeves which make it rather childish IMHO), I think the idea was lovely and I'm glad Bea took this step whatever the reason for it.

 

[Countessmeout]

Who was the minister who married Princess Beatrice and Edoardo?

They had two ministers as is common with royal weddings. One of course is always the vicar of the church they marry in. And the other is chosen by the couple or the family.

Martin Poll is the private chaplain to the queen. He is cannon chaplain of St George's as well as the Great Park which includes All Saints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Poll_(priest)

When they were to be married in London, they would have been married by the bishop of London and by the sub-deacon for the Chapel Royal. Though the venue changed, they asked the sub-deacon to be part of the ceremony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wright_(Sub-Dean_of_the_Chapel_Royal)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't disagree that Bea may have had this in mind all along but I have difficulty with the idea that she was having trouble finding a designer to make a dress for her. Stuart Parvin (who made Zara's dress) was clearly not bothered about being associated with her as it was publicly stated he, along with Angela Kelly, altered the Hartnell gown for her.

While Bea's dress is not my favourite of modern British royal brides (mainly because of the puffy sleeves which make it rather childish IMHO), I think the idea was lovely and I'm glad Bea took this step whatever the reason for it.

I wonder whether Stuart Parvin was interested in modifying one of the Queen's dresses - working on an original Hartnell - rather than making a dress for Bea.

We did discuss the issue on here when the story broke.

 

[Countessmeout]

I am sure he would have loved to have her in one of his original gowns. No wedding gown designer is going to turn down the chance (the rumors no designer would work with her were laughable rumors) to do a royal wedding dress. Its PR you cant buy. She would have had her choice of designers despite her father.

But working with Angela Kelly, and still having his name attached to her wedding, still gives him a boost.

If she had a second dress for the garden party which is likely, he may have been asked to design that.

If this dress was always her original plan, having Parvin work on the re-design with Kelly for the ceremony, and then design an original for the reception would make sense.

 

[MsJulie]

No matter what, Beatrice was radiant and happy. She looked lovely with a soft glow. No heavy eyebrows, heavy make up or high up doos. Beatrice was not trying to out do anyone or make a point as I felt she and her sister have in past events. The soft make up, soft hair, a very happy look may have been the request of her husband too. Beatrice has had a softer look about her since they became engaged. IMO Beatrice hit the jackpot. It is so evident in the pictures Edo loves her and Beatrice loves him....the eyes and the big smiles. I wish them a very happy life.

And for those that are not too happy with the choice of dresses....just maybe the dress Beatrice picked out will show up in at a future wedding reception with all the friends and family invited. How lovely to have the opportunity to have more then one wedding dress!

 

[Jacknch]

I have a feeling that, based on Beatrice's interest in history, she had intended all along either to have a vintage dress (such as the one she wore) or one designed and made based on previous design. Since Eugenie managed very successfully to find a designer for her dress, it is inconceivable that Beatrice wouldn't have been able to do the same.

Anyway, her gown was beautiful and when you look back at some of the magnificent gowns by Norman Hartnell worn by the Queen in the 1950s and 1960s, there must have been quite a collection for Beatrice to choose from. A very unique form of off-the-rack that only a queen's granddaughter could enjoy!

 

[Leopoldine]

I would think they will be more on a par with Peter's or Zara's. By the time they marry they will probably be the niece and nephew of the monarch rather than the grandchildren.

I wouldn't expect TV coverage other than of arrivals and departures ... but given the way this wedding has been received I can see Charles even preferring this for future weddings for minor royals so no announcement in advance and just a couple of photos released afterwards.

If Charles is definitely going to have a smaller royal family I can't see him approving a Eugenie scale wedding for Louise or James.

It might depend on the political climate. By the time Charles ascends, he and his government might appreciate the feel-good distraction of Lady Louise marrying at St. George's. Or a ceremony at St. Margaret's in Westminster. Who the heck knows what will be going on -- it might be a year like this one!

 

[Heavs]

St Margaret's Westminster is the "MP's church" to WA's Royal Peculiar and whilst amazingly gorgeous is unlikely for a royal wedding when there are other small and "small" churches available.

The idea that no one wanted to work with Bea on a dress so she would have ended up making it herself is absolutely hilarious. I'm just imagining her sitting there sobbing and sewing. Yeah. Stuart Parvin was obviously always available and I doubt she would have had too much trouble if she did want a designer to make her something brand new. If worst came to worst she could have always bought off the rack.

It did seem originally that the announcement was that she would be wearing her original dress but then other articles stated Parvin and Kelly sprang in to action and managed to make the alterations in three weeks even though that's still a heck of a lot of work. We might find out in the future.

 

[Denville]

It might depend on the political climate. By the time Charles ascends, he and his government might appreciate the feel-good distraction of Lady Louise marrying at St. George's. Or a ceremony at St. Margaret's in Westminster. Who the heck knows what will be going on -- it might be a year like this one!

I dont think that there is a feelgood factor from Royal weddings nowadays. People dont seem to rate them as an entertainment in the same way as they did for a time, and are more inclined to get annoyed about security issues, problems with travel etc caused by them, and the cost. I think only a very popular royal or the heir will now have a big wedding.. and other royals will have relatively private ones.

 

[Leopoldine]

St Margaret's Westminster is the "MP's church" to WA's Royal Peculiar and whilst amazingly gorgeous is unlikely for a royal wedding when there are other small and "small" churches available.

The idea that no one wanted to work with Bea on a dress so she would have ended up making it herself is absolutely hilarious. I'm just imagining her sitting there sobbing and sewing. Yeah. Stuart Parvin was obviously always available and I doubt she would have had too much trouble if she did want a designer to make her something brand new. If worst came to worst she could have always bought off the rack.

It did seem originally that the announcement was that she would be wearing her original dress but then other articles stated Parvin and Kelly sprang in to action and managed to make the alterations in three weeks even though that's still a heck of a lot of work. We might find out in the future.

Didn't one of Princess Margaret's children get married there? David Linley? Grandson of a King?

 

[sophie25]

I don't disagree that Bea may have had this in mind all along but I have difficulty with the idea that she was having trouble finding a designer to make a dress for her. Stuart Parvin (who made Zara's dress) was clearly not bothered about being associated with her as it was publicly stated he, along with Angela Kelly, altered the Hartnell gown for her.

While Bea's dress is not my favourite of modern British royal brides (mainly because of the puffy sleeves which make it rather childish IMHO), I think the idea was lovely and I'm glad Bea took this step whatever the reason for it.

I didn't mind the sleeves but I thought the beading was far too much for a wedding dress. It was, however, the big thick hem at the bottom that really ruined the overall look for me as it was a different colour to the dress and just looked patched on. Stuart Parvin did Zara's dress and that also had a big different coloured hem on it which I hated at the time so it must be something he thinks looks nice for some reason.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Didn't one of Princess Margaret's children get married there? David Linley? Grandson of a King?

David Linley was indeed married at St. Margaret's Westminister. It was my #1 choice of wedding venue for Beatrice.

My main complaint about Zara's Parvin wedding gown was the fit of it. She seemed to be literally bursting out of the seams...it was too tight.

Beatrice on the other hand wore HMQ's dress almost as if it had been made for her originally.

The alterations were perfect.

 

[Denville]

David Linley was indeed married at St. Margaret's Westminister. It was my #1 choice of wedding venue for Beatrice.

My main complaint about Zara's Parvin wedding gown was the fit of it. She seemed to be literally bursting out of the seams...it was too tight.

Beatrice on the other hand wore HMQ's dress almost as if it had been made for her originally.

The alterations were perfect.

I think it looked like a piece had been sewn on to the bottom..not all that attractive. I think that the queen wanted her to have one of her dresses but the queen is not tall and Bea is taller...so it wasn't a great fit.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Didn't one of Princess Margaret's children get married there? David Linley? Grandson of a King?

I'm almost certain it was Lady Sarah who got married at St Margaret's Westminster.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I loved Bea's gown. And JMO but I think it was intended to look like the original dress - very vintage. If you look at the olde photos, the bottom piece was there originally.

And I thought it fit wonderfully. I think she may not have been fully shoulders back in every photo - but that dress fit.

AND I get it that some people don't enjoy vintage. That's fair.

 

[Stefan]

I'm almost certain it was Lady Sarah who got married at St Margaret's Westminster.

No it was David Linley. Sarah married at some London Church but don't remeber the name

 

[JR76]

Lady Sarah married at St Stephen's in London

No it was David Linley. Sarah married at some London Church but don't remeber the name

 

[Iluvbertie]

The 2nd Earl Snowdon married at St Margaret's while his sister, Sarah married as St Stephen's Walbrook.

 

[Denville]

I'm almost certain it was Lady Sarah who got married at St Margaret's Westminster.

No, it was David. Sarah was married at St Stephen Wallbrook, by the Rev Chad Varrah... who founded teh Samaritans.

 

[Denville]

I loved Bea's gown. And JMO but I think it was intended to look like the original dress - very vintage. If you look at the olde photos, the bottom piece was there originally.

And I thought it fit wonderfully. I think she may not have been fully shoulders back in every photo - but that dress fit.

AND I get it that some people don't enjoy vintage. That's fair.

DId it have that big "added on hem"? I dont think that was attractive at ALL. It looked like a shorter dress had had a bit of material added on - and that doesn't look good. If the queen's dress was too short for a full length wedding dress, surely they could have just added on a new skirt which made it longer...

 

[Osipi]

Another thought that's hit me is that with Bea's choice in wearing a vintage dress along with Queen Mary's fringe tiara, she's done something that no royal bride has done lately. Inveigled history into her wedding.

Going back to Queen Victoria (whose gifted Queen Mary with the necklace that became the fringe tiara), it was Victoria that also set a new "trend". The white wedding gown. ?

 

[Denville]

I thought that Serena Stanhope wore a dress very similar ot the one worn by Princess Margaret...Diana and Sarah wore "Victorian princess" type dresses. And tiaras are usually from the Royal collection and have some history attached to them.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Diana's gown was based on the ones worn by her mid 18th century Spencer-Churchill ancestors in the Gainsborough portraits at Althorp House.
Those were the dresses worn during the period of Charles II -Queen Anne.

Therefore it was way before the Victorians and looked nothing like clothing from that era.

 

[Osipi]

Diana's gown was based on the ones worn by her mid 18th century Spencer-Churchill ancestors in the Gainsborough portraits at Althrop House.

Therefore it was way before the Victorians and looked nothing like clothing from that era.

There's also the difference between "looking like" and being the "real deal". Sure all tiaras have had some royal provenance (excluding Sarah's which was store bought) but Beatrice's had a more intense connection as the Queen Mary fringe tiara was significant in that a) it was only worn by Queens and Anne before Beatrice and b) its lineage goes directly back to Victoria.

So.. yeps... it was very much a huge historical connection being made there. ?