People I have made 1,000+ wedding outfits in my time. I got married in purple velvet. I am not judging on anyone's taste; as far as I am concerned, what you wear to your wedding is your call, you do you. As a designer and maker, it was my job to go through the impacts of designs with a bride and sometimes suggest an alternative approach. I've troubleshot dresses that don't work front to back, for example. That you can't move in, or breathe in, or that won't stay up! But also it was part of my job to get them to consider the impacts of the venue/s, photos, all kinds of factors. And together we would incorporate all of this into a dress that really expressed the bride's personality, and that PERFORMED. There's never any need to trade these off against each other.
Royal wedding dresses have a lot more performance considerations than commoner ones. Those huge venues, long shots, eternal scrutiny on display in a museum etc etc. There is absolutely no reason why these constraints should stop a royal bride from having a dress that delights her.
Well as far as I am concerned, I think Princess Eugenie nailed it. Her dress is simple, but majestic and beautfiully executed. Unlike her Aunt Diana and her Cousin Meg, both of whose dresses were made poorly. And like her Mother's dress and Cousin Kate's it fits perfectly, and the back is a nod to the back of Sarah's dress but executed in an up to date way.
I also loved her choice not to wear a veil, although I have nothing against veils at all. It was her choice and good on her for doing what she wanted. What I LOVE is that her dress looks good close up and far away, its scale suits the venue and occasion, I cannot say enough how well made it is - OMG that collar is a nightmare to get perfect and it really is. The underpinnings are perfect!
|
See how that skirt springs directly from her waist and then gracefully falls. That's magic! |
|
Enough train to look good from all those wacky camera angles in the Chapel. Gorgeous from front AND back. |
|
Look at the shape of that skirt! Honestly it is SO GOOD. And that collar is staying put - not easy with a V front and back and a heavy collar to work with. Technically this dress is the hardest one yet. |
|
I'd never knock the wearer for the quality of the product - and who knows why certain calls were allowed to get a pass, like Meg's short stubby train that just looked stupid under the hugely long veil from the overhead shots, when another 1.5m would have nailed it. And as for Di's, well I am sure they were all coked up or high on hair spray after all it was the 80's and who knows why the sleeves had to be so huge they enveloped a good half of the bodice? But to see a dress that truly realises the vision of the wearer (she was obviously very happy!) and the occasion, well that makes my designer heart very happy indeed!
I did not know about the wedding until the day before. That dress cost £150,000...
ReplyDeleteWell at least it looked amazing. and the fabric was made by English silk works and stuff, so in the tradition of Royal wedding dresses being made from the ground up in the UK, it has delivered. :)
DeleteEugenie wore the dress well. I thought it beautiful. An aside: I thought Meghan's dress was a bit too loose around the chest area. Did you find that to be the case as well?
ReplyDeleteErk, I thought the concept of Meagan's dress was absolutely fine but it was poorly executed. Bad fit, lack of style in its cut (two vertical bust darts made it look like a home ec project), not sitting right around the shoulders, and I really feel the train needed to be another 1.5m long to look proportional in the many long shots in the Chapel which is a reality for such an imprtant dress. Not bagging on Meaghan's taste at all, but on the people who advised her and made it.
Delete