Wedding Gown Trains


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
With few opulent coronations (where regal robes with trains would feature among the regalia) taking place in modern times, I look to the weddings for pomp and circumstance. My preference for a long train is not about a tacky and needless statement of "Look at me; I'm a princess!" It has little to do with a stream of fabric tacked on 'just because.' For me, a longer train is about regal magic and ceremonial grandeur. It has to do with preserving some of the distinction of royalty, and with merging an historic institution with the current times.

I appreciate that a train can be too long. But, on the flip side, much of the dissatisfaction with Catherine's gown that I've read includes complaint that her shorter train lacked presence, that it was lost in the scale of the venue, and should have been longer. For those who prefer shorter trains, what do you think of the length of Catherine's train? I personally liked the train for the dress...yet I do not think a little more length would have subtracted anything, only added to its presence
 
Meraude said:
I think that any bride, being royal or not, who have a heirloom veil has to take the length of the veil in consideration when deciding on the length of the train, as the train acts as a protection of the veil. I read somewhere that it was discovered late that the train of queen Silivia's wedding gown was too short, I don't know if it meant that it was shorter than the lace veil, and that it was the reason why Siliva wore the veil bundled up as she did, as that didn't look very good. If that's why, it was better option that a veil that was longer than the train.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Many of the heirloom veils would be somewhat fragile. But, whether an heirloom or not, the train is one of the options available for displaying a veil, as was the case with Maxima's stunning veil and long train. (This is part of the reason why it's a little hard to discuss train length without mentioning veils at all.)

The way in which Silvia wore the veil did little for me, but if it was because the train was too short to protect it, them I'm glad she put vanity second on the list of priorities! ;)

I think the length of Victoria's train was spot on. For me, its simplicity complemented the dress well (and would still do so without a lace veil). Its length looked both regal and elegant. And, perhaps most importantly, it supported and displayed the veil beautifully.

Although I like a train with presence, I think the length must be appropriate -- in balance with and in complementation to the dress.

The Danish heirloom veil does not require a long train causing me to wonder why Mary opted for a train so needlessly long that, to me, looked way out of proportion with the dress, that looked tacked on rather than incorporated into the design, and, in part, looked more like a stream of fabric flowing off her waist than part of the bridal attire. But without it, the small train formed by the actual dress would have been inadequate. If it was lengthened, I do not feel it would have looked as lovely (the pleating at the back would have be too flat).

Alexandra, who also wore the Danish lace, also had a train much longer than the veil, and I liked it. But, unlike Mary's, Alexandra's train elegantly trailed behind her, was adorned in form with the dress, not only complimenting but looking like an extension of it. The length of her train also complemented the double effect of the bell sleeves and hemline -- there is a little more.

Queen Margrethe's train was also significantly longer than the lace veil. Despite its hard edges, I think this train went beautifully with the gown. Perhaps it is the regal fall from the shoulders with so majestic a dress that made it work.
 
Princess Mary had one of the good long trains and it fit perfectly with her dress. Mette-Marit's train was the perfect fit with her dress in that it looked like it was literally a continuation of the bottom of the dress. Not something stapled to her waist like Diana and Princess Victoria. Some of the best royal wedding gowns, Princess Grace and Princess Margaret, have had short trains and the dresses were still breathtaking. If I had to make the train of Catherine's dress longer I would do it in the style of Mette-Marit. More than anything I think Kate's veil was the thing that needed to look longer; I was so happy she chose a veil that fell close to her face like old style veils from the Elizabethan and Victorian age, but I hated how it didn't go the length of the train.
 
A train that is too long can often spoil the look of the gown. There is also nothing worse than seeing a bride "labour" down the isle with a clumsy, heavy train that does not "fan" out properly and just gets in the way. It never looks tidy nor elegant for that matter. I do prefer a shorter train with a longer veil that has substance and detail in the form of beading and embroidery. It also gives a lovely shimmer and regal air to the entire bridal look.
 
Last edited:
Ok to bring in Charlene of Monaco, I liked her top train, and the way the two trains spread out when she was sitting down; but that was the only time I felt the bottom train worked well. Other than that it just looked cumbersome, ridiculous, and unnecessary. I can't recall how long her trains were, but I did think they were a flattering length.
 
I must confess that I did not like the two trains at all. Trying to make too much of a statement which just spoilt the gown. In fact, the gown actually looked better at the end when the top train had been completely removed. We then got to see the back of her dress. Charlene also seemed to cope better.
 
Last edited:
I also thought the two trains were too much. It subtracted from the overall elegance and movement looked awkward.

But as there were two... I'm not sure if it was intended or not, but the way both trains fanned out in different directions during the ceremony looked silly to me -- I wish her attendants had positioned one under the other.
 
The fanning out was the best effect for me; I don't recall the top train (wateau?) being removed; anyone have pictures of that?
 
The longer top train was removed when they went to the palace chapel to sign the registers. It was not shown on TV but you can see when she was signing that it was no longer there and also when she leaves. When they entered the chapel there were 1 or 2 women just inside the entrance, I assume they were the ones who removed it since everyone else in the chapel appeared to be clergy.
 
PrincessApple said:
With few opulent coronations (where regal robes with trains would feature among the regalia) taking place in modern times, I look to the weddings for pomp and circumstance. My preference for a long train is not about a tacky and needless statement of "Look at me; I'm a princess!" It has little to do with a stream of fabric tacked on 'just because.' For me, a longer train is about regal magic and ceremonial grandeur. It has to do with preserving some of the distinction of royalty, and with merging an historic institution with the current times.

I appreciate that a train can be too long. But, on the flip side, much of the dissatisfaction with Catherine's gown that I've read includes complaint that her shorter train lacked presence, that it was lost in the scale of the venue, and should have been longer. For those who prefer shorter trains, what do you think of the length of Catherine's train? I personally liked the train for the dress...yet I do not think a little more length would have subtracted anything, only added to its presence
Click to expand...

I'm actually agreeing here with you and am not an advocate for the shorter train. I'd have liked to see a longer train on Kate's wedding dress; certainly not opulent in length since that's not her style but at least a foot or two longer to add to the grandeur of the venue and occasion. That's my preference, as well as a train-length veil with a fingertip portion to cover her face.
 
:previous: I agree about the length of the veil matching the train. Maxima's veil and train are especially lovely for this reason. It does look a little odd to have the train so much longer and the veil much shorter. Of course, some families use antique lace so they cannot really control the length of the veil. If a veil is to cover the face, I also think that fingertip length is the most elegant.
 
IloveCP said:
Mary's wedding dress with the long train:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wnYNZCFHI...ownPrincessMaryWeddingDressTrain--AFP-smh.jpg

Without it:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IrKerLbV2...QEP4/s1600/CrownPrincessMaryWeddingDress2.jpg
Click to expand...
I prefer the back of Mary's skirt to the front! It reveals more of the lace, therefore displaying it better (a little closer to the sketches). The design and construction is also lovelier - more simple, less awkward, not so panelish, less like a table runner. Thank you for sharing this photo.:flowers:
 
As a young girl, I remember getting up at 3:00 in the morning to watch Princess Diana get married, and when I saw that train, I think my love affair with all things royal began. Is her train one of the longest royal trains on record?
 
At 25 feet long, I don't know if any other wedding train ever came near to that. It would be interesting to know.
 
I think Diana had the longest royal wedding train.Another royal bride who had a very long train was Princess Alexandra of Kent who had a 21 foot long train.

Pic
 
The one thing I liked the most about Kate's train is that it actually had shape and didn't look like toilet paper stuck to her skirt. I would only have made it a little bit longer so that it reached the end of the steps when she was at the alter.
 
Thanks for that info, IloveCP. I love the length of Alexandra's veil and would have liked to have seen Kate's covering her train as well. And I agree with you, XeniaCasaraghi, about wanting to see the length of Kate's train a bit longer. With the scale of Westminster Abbey, it should have been a bit grander, IMO. But it did have a beautiful shape to it.
 
Last edited:
Wow, the room can barely contain that train! Beautiful, thanks so much for posting.:flowers:
 
Fabiola's bridal costume was part wedding gown, part Coronation robe. With her marriage to King Baudouin she went from being a noblewoman to a Queen-Consort with no stops in between.

It's way too dramatic to be worn in an "ordinary" wedding...not even an ordinary Royal wedding.

Anyway, I have seen photos of it currently on display at the Balenciaga Museum in Madrid. It's yellow now, but still breathtaking!
 
Lost pomp & circumstance...

PrincessApple said:
With few opulent coronations (where regal robes with trains would feature among the regalia) taking place in modern times, I look to the weddings for pomp and circumstance. My preference for a long train is not about a tacky and needless statement of "Look at me; I'm a princess!" It has little to do with a stream of fabric tacked on 'just because.' For me, a longer train is about regal magic and ceremonial grandeur. It has to do with preserving some of the distinction of royalty, and with merging an historic institution with the current times.

I appreciate that a train can be too long. But, on the flip side, much of the dissatisfaction with Catherine's gown that I've read includes complaint that her shorter train lacked presence, that it was lost in the scale of the venue, and should have been longer. For those who prefer shorter trains, what do you think of the length of Catherine's train? I personally liked the train for the dress...yet I do not think a little more length would have subtracted anything, only added to its presence
Click to expand...

This post sums up My feelings so well. Princess Apple, I totally concur with You. I feel it is really sad that the Gorgeous Coronations of Old are all but history. They were such an absolutely beautiful and Divine occasion of true Royal Majesty and Royal Pomp, Grace and Magnificence, with the wonderful Coronation Gowns and Robes, with all the maids and lackeys, and so on. And like Princess Apple, I too now look to the Royal Weddings to fill that place in the void. Hence, I naturally favor the Classic Royal Wedding Gown, a truly magnificent Gown with a true Royal Train and accompanying veil, like Queen Fabiola, Princess Maxima, The Duchess of York, etc. Catherine looked gorgeous and carried Herself very beautifully too, but if I would have been Her, the Train on the Gown would have been at least 2 meters longer and somewhat fuller as well; and naturally with a veil to match, like Maxima's stunning veil. I also would have preferred to see at least 6 to 8 maids in attendance. BTW, what a lovely thread this is!

 PS: Have a guess who this is:
 
Last edited:
Patra said:
As a young girl, I remember getting up at 3:00 in the morning to watch Princess Diana get married, and when I saw that train, I think my love affair with all things royal began. Is her train one of the longest royal trains on record?
Click to expand...

It's THE longest royal wedding dress train ever.
 
Well certainly the longest recorded royal wedding gown train in the UK.
 
i think Diana's was the longest does any 1 know the shortest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators - Royal Weddings Forum
Replies
0
Views
175
Marengo
Marengo
Somebody
The Princess of Orange's preparation for her role as queen
Replies
20
Views
3K
kalnel
K
D
Hello from Mexico!
Replies
5
Views
433
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Janet H
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2 3
Replies
78
Views
8K
Janet H
Janet H
CrownPrincessJava
Crown Princess Victoria's Eveningwear Part 10: December 2023 -
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
muriel
muriel

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom