Wedding Gown Addendum

I wrote a blog entitled "On the subject of Royal wedding gowns" in response to the marriage of Harry and Meghan (pub. 22 May 2018) it seems only fitting that following the marriage of Beatrice and Count Eduardo Mappeli Mozzi I do a bit of an update.

First we need to go back to the wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Fergusson in 1986.
I make no apologies for my love of this couple. They were the royal pairing of my childhood and I still think they're adorable. I will be devastated if the allegations against Andrew are proven; I think the allegations are most likely founded in a desire for notoriety or to deflect public interest away from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's numerous other high profile contacts...
Anyway, the point is this was the royal wedding that had the greatest impact on me and it's only right to reference it in a blog about their daughters.
Sarah's wedding gown was waaay better than Diana's "heap of crumpled hankies" look while being very eighties. It was also embellished with lots of symbolism which is a thing I really like.

Maybe I just have a thing for younger sons because I won't book much criticism of Harry and Meghan either, HOWEVER, using Princess Eugenie's wedding as an opportunity to announce their pregnancy with Archie was a major faux pas.
Princess Eugenie, Andrew and Sarah's younger daughter, married Jack Brooksbank (a British wine merchant) on October 12th, 2018.

The particularly noteworthy detail about Princess Eugenie's gown was the open back / lack of veil combination. Princess Eugenie had spinal surgery for scoliosis as a child and wanted her scar visible to empower others.

I thought Princess Eugenie's choice of gown was superb - classic, elegant, and meaningful.

I must confess that I feel... 'dubious' of Princess Beatrice's new husband, Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi, but I wish her every happiness. I feel intensely for Princess Beatrice too as she had to postpone her wedding due to the chaos of Covid-19.

Princess Beatrice finally wed her 'Count' on 17th July 2020 and officially became the first royal-born step-mama of the modern era as Eduardo has a son Christopher "Woolfie" (b. 2016) with his former partner. The first photos released make me think how much she looks like her mum and I love the eighties vibe she's got going on with her gown. As much as anything I think it's nice to see sisters do it their own ways; no indication of trying to 'out do' each other... and sadly there was a lot of speculation of that kind as the younger sister married first. Ye gods I loathe the way the press treats the royal family!
As yet there is little to go upon as to why Princess Beatrice chose the gown she did but I love it... from the beading reminiscent of the 1920s, the poofy 80s sleeves, the deep contrast hem which screams 70s at me for no adequately explained reason... But most of all I love her smile. Her big day may not have been as big as she'd planned and dreamed of but I truly hope it was everything she wanted it to be.

EDIT
Well, I missed my guess three times over with the dress (mostly) dating to 1961! Honestly, three whole decades guessed and still wrong LOL.
Here it is, being worn - sans sleeves - by her grandmother, HM Queen Elizabeth II:

And another photo from Beatrice's wedding:

On the subject of Royal wedding gowns

I remember when the BBC ran a reputable news site *sigh*...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44202178

First of all "Katy Perry slams Meghan's wedding dress" is a grossly overstated headline for the 'critical' quote ""I would have done one more fitting." Indeed, since I started typing up this blog entry they've changed the headline to "Katy Perry says Meghan Markle's wedding dress 'needed another fitting'" 

Many brides lose weight in the run-up to the big day...particularly noticeable in the wedding gown of Sophie, Countess of Wessex in 1999. But whilst comment on the fit of Sophie's gown was acceptable nineteen years ago it is now considered akin to body shaming and I felt that Katy Perry's comment could be a little backhanded in that regard.

Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones, 1999

Perhaps Meghan's gown could have been a little closer fitted but it was simple, elegant, understated and classic. It fitted Meghan's style perfectly and suited her. Literally the only other criticism you could make of it was that it was 'too plain' but that was very much the point; Meghan's feature piece was her veil - embroidered with flowers to represent all 53 Commonwealth nations and also her native California 

(https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/20/sketches-reveal-hidden-details-meghan-markles-wedding-veil-7562878/).

Meghan Markle's veil as she arrived to wed Prince Harry

The new Duchess of Sussex emerges from St George's Chapel

I think, given that she was marrying a younger son, it was important for Meghan not to be seen to be trying to 'out-do' her sister-in-law's wedding dress. 

Catherine Middleton, now Duchess of Cambridge,

married Harry's elder brother Prince William in 2011]

Catherine's wedding dress was not as elaborate as many from the past reflecting current tastes but taking into consideration her expected future role as Queen Consort - a role Meghan does not have to worry about as following the births of William's children - Prince George (2013), Princess Charlotte (2015) and Prince Louis (2018) - Prince Harry is now in sixth place and it is exceedingly improbable he shall reign.

There is also a certain danger in going too far. Sarah Ferguson who married Prince Andrew Duke of York in 1986 received a fair amount of criticism for being over the top. Her train was 17 feet long and featured intertwined beaded initials as well as other symbols representing Andrew's navy career and her family crest embelished an ivory silk dress.

(Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/people/royal-wedding-dresses-years/sarah-ferguson-wedding-dress/)

But the symbolism didn't end with beaded detailing on the dress - 

Sarah arrived on her father's arm wearing a headdress of flowers (above) 

which was removed at the signing of the register to reveal a tiara (below)

to show her transition from commoner to Princess.

Her veil was 20 feet long.

Much of this could have been interpreted as trying (too hard?) to follow in Princess Diana's footsteps. Diana's dress was ivory silk taffeta and featured lace, hand embroidery, sequins, 10,000 pearls and a 25 foot long train! She also had her and Charles' initials as feature...hand painted onto the arches of her shoes. 

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales,_and_Lady_Diana_Spencer)

I feel the criticisms of Sarah's gown are unfair - the eighties was all about being over the top and it was her wedding to her prince and she could have what she wanted so far as I'm concerned. Also, Andrew and Sarah's wedding was THE royal event of my childhood so I may be a tad biased.

I also feel the pedestal of perfection Diana is placed upon is unwarranted. Particularly at the breakdown of her marriage it was emphasised that she'd been a bride of 20 to his 32, but she was no naive child; she wanted to be queen and she wanted her place in history - the length of her wedding train was from her express wish to have the longest in Royal Wedding history. 

Wedding Gowns of Queens

 Victoria was already Queen when she married 

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1840.

Alexandra of Denmark married Albert Edward, Prince of Wales in 1863.

He became Edward VII in 1901.

Mary of Teck, bride of Prince George, Duke of York (later George V)

who was then second in line for the throne after his father.

They married in 1893 and became king & queen in 1910

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married Prince Albert, Duke of York in 1923.

Although Bertie was then second in line to the throne Elizabeth did not expect to become queen as the first in line was still expected to marry and have issue.

When Edward VIII abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson in 1936 

Bertie became King George VI.

When Princess Elizabeth married Philip Mountbatten in 1947 she was heir apparent.

Her gown was paid for in WWII clothing ration coupons!

 Diana Spencer was considered a future queen when she married the heir apparent Charles, Prince of Wales in 1981. However, they divorced and she died young.

Despite the lasting popularity of Diana's wedding gown she emerged from the carriage looking like nothing but a bundle of crumpled hankies!

When Prince Charles married for a second time his bride,

Camilla Parker-Bowles (nee Shand),

was deemed so unpopular that it was announced that on Charles' accession 

she would be styled 'Princess Consort' instead of Queen. 

This statement has since been quietly removed.

As an older bride, divorced and with adult children 

Camilla opted for a very different type of wedding gown.

When Prince William married Kate Middleton (left) he was second in line to the throne after his father. Kate was certainly seen as a future queen.

By the time of Prince Harry's marriage to Meghan Markle (right)

Harry had moved down to sixth place so he and Meghan 

can expect a quieter, simpler life.

Meghan is not 'competing' for anything - she has her prince. She does not need to out-do Kate. She does not need a gown fit for a future queen. All she needed was to wear something she was comfortable with. And she looked absolutely stunning.

A Gown Comparison

Kate's dress

Designer: Sarah Burton

Fashion House: Alexander McQueen

Details: ivory satin, lace, 58 buttons, 8' 8" train

Cost: £250,000 (est)

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6284875/kate-middleton-royal-wedding-dress-cost-designer/

Meghan's dress

Designer: Clare Waight Keller

Fashion House: Givenchy

Details: pure white double-bonded silk, 16.5 foot silk tulle hand embroidered veil

Cost: no reasonable estimate available - but despite being simple and unembellished the label and fabric are expected to make it a very costly gown even if we do not include the veil 

Source: http://time.com/5245809/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-dress/

Harry and Meghan...but mostly Meghan ;)

I was scanning through this BBC article on the Royal Wedding (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44172172) and felt compelled to type a few words...

Directly linked to the article is my first point.

Several paragraphs begin with points:-

• It's not that she is a commoner
• Nor is it that she is divorced
• Nor is it that Meghan is American
• But it is the fact that she is, in her own words, "biracial"

And then it goes on to emphasis "And there's more. She has (or had) a job! She has (or had) a public profile!" ...well, I don't think her racial identity is key - although I see that for the black and biracial communities this is a significant event - and I feel the BBC article has rather missed the cumulative aspect of all these points. Just as Meghan is black AND white she is also a commoner AND Divorced AND American AND an actress!!!

Commoners marrying into the British Royal Family isn't unusual; the aristocracy pool is limited. Foreigners are less common nowadays but again, no big deal. The divorcee aspect is more interesting as, combined with the fact that Meghan is American, it invites a comparison with Wallis Simpson.

Born Bessie Wallis Warfield in 1896 she was twice divorced. Her first marriage, to Earl (name, not title) Winfield Spencer lasted from 1916 to 1927. Incidentally, Earl and his 2nd wife (of 4) divorced in 1936. He died in 1950.

Her second marriage was to Ernest Aldrich Simpson, a second marriage following divorce for both parties. Ernest and Wallis were married from 1928-1937 when Wallis divorced him to marry Edward VIII, or the Duke of Windsor as he became when he abdicated in order to wed her. Whilst Ernest may seem a victim in this scenario it is worth noting that he married his third wife, Mary, that same year. Ernest died, widowing a fourth wife, in 1958.

Unlike Wallis however, Meghan has only been married once before - to Trevor Engelson, from 2011-2013 - and, again unlike Wallis, did not have to obtain a divorce to marry Prince Harry; she was already three years divorced by the time their relationship was established.

Possibly the single most significant detail is that Harry and Meghan are marrying at St George's Chapel, Windsor. In 2005 Harry's father, Prince Charles, married his stepmother, the once-divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles (nee Shand) in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall followed by a blessing at St George's Chapel.

The denial of a church wedding to the heir to the throne marrying a divorcee (despite being divorced himself, although first wife Diana was already dead...this former-spouses-still-living seems significant; Camilla's ex husband is still living) was still a step up from Edward VIII being forced to abdicate. It is worth remembering though that Prince Harry's place on the accession list has been bumped down three times in recent years with the births of his nephews and niece; it may be that Harry marrying a divorcee, and in church, is less controversial not only because times are a'changin' but because he is so unlikely to ever take the throne - and with it the role as head of the church of England. All the same, times HAVE changed and we have moved on from the abdication crisis...and hopefully Camilla will be acknowledged as Queen Consort in due course ;)

Personally I don't think Meghan being biracial is of particular significance...is there any reason to expect a British Royal to only consider a white spouse?! Mixed marriages aren't especially noteworthy in British society...but I *AM* interested in the fact that she is from a 'broken home'.

Meghan was born in 1981 to Doria Loyce Ragland from her only marriage - to Thomas Markle, 1979 to their divorce in 1988. Thomas had been married before and has two children from that marriage - Thomas Markle, Jr. and Samantha Grant.

This alone is not new or especially significant. Diana Spencer, Harry's mother, was also from a broken home - her parents divorced when she was 8. Diana had a famously difficult relationship with her stepmother Raine (d. 2016). Similarly Sarah Ferguson, who married Prince Andrew, had parents who divorced when she was 15.

However, it is the behaviour of Meghan's family that sets her story apart.

Doria, her mother (who is black) has behaved impeccably. She has seemingly accepted advice from the palace and has supported her daughter's impending nuptials with grace and poise.

Thomas, her father (who is white) has been, in my humble opinion, a complete and utter twatfuck. He has seemingly accepted no advice from any quarter and is intent on making life difficult for his youngest child, aided and abetted by his two elder offspring. Between the three of them they have had plenty to say, especially to TMZ, little of it supportive. I am supremely unimpressed with Thomas Markle, Sr's public image. I do not hold the palace or the media accountable; he is a grown man who ought to realise what harm he is doing his daughter. If I humiliated one of my daughters like that I doubt either of them would ever speak to me again! It is utterly callous and selfish.

Despite family break ups the parents and siblings of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson had the good sense (and good manners) to avoid making spectacles of themselves and embarrassing the brides-to-be in the international press. I feel deeply for Meghan in this situation but I also think this high profile mess will be of some benefit to other young people with divorced parents. While the promoted image is of divorcees who will still co-parent their child(ren) properly and considerately the reality is often very different with dead-beat or absentee parents who their children are likely better off without. And yes, I *AM* thinking of my ex and his non-existent role in raising our daughters. This hits home as I imagine one of my daughters asking their father to play a part in their wedding...only to be disappointed in the final stages of preparations.

The fact Meghan has had a career, particularly a high-profile one, before her marriage into the royal family is especially noteworthy.

She has (according to her Wikipedia page) worked as an actress (best known for her role as Rachel Zane in Suits), as a freelance calligrapher, and also ran her own lifestyle website called The Tig from 2014 to 2017.

Other celebrity royal brides include:

• Grace, Princess of Monaco was formerly Grace Kelly, Hollywood actress, before her 1956 to Rainier III.
• Queen Letizia of Spain was a divorced TV presenter before marrying then Crown Prince Felipe in 2004.
• Charlene, Princess of Monaco was born in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and competed at the 2000 Olympic Games as a swimmer for South Africa. She married Albert II, Prince of Monaco (son of Grace Kelly) in 2011.

The idea that royal brides sacrifice their independence, their careers, their personal freedoms, their opinions and pretty much everything upon marriage has been popular with feminists and republicans alike. The idea that a successful, independent, self-proclaimed feminist such as Meghan Markle would be willing to make such a sacrifice (to me) suggests that the feminists and republicans are missing something. Maybe love is worth all the sacrifice; but maybe the platform royalty have is an opportunity to do real good in the world too. NOT that I'm suggesting she's marrying Harry for a position of power, merely that despite the restrictions of royal life it does have an advantage of profile - you only have to look at the charitable works of other royals to see what can be achieved; Harry's mother Diana did much for the campaign against landmines and did incalculable good for people living with HIV/AIDS, Harry has done much charitable work, particularly in founding the Invictus Games for disabled armed forces personnel and veterans. You can only imagine what a determined, educated woman like Meghan Markle might be able to achieve. Marriage is what you make of it. Think of it as restrictive and you will feel trapped and miserable; think of it as a set of new opportunities and (hopefully) it will be a whole different experience...says the terminally single potato person lol.

I wish Harry and Meghan all the best - both for their wedding tomorrow and in all that follows. I particularly hope that Thomas Sr's absence will not blight Meghan's big day. I find it especially touching that of all the people she could have asked to stand in his stead she chose to ask Prince Charles, her father-in-law-to-be, to accompany her down the aisle...as if she has already been fully accepted into the fold. I hope Doria plays a significant role tomorrow too, and maybe in the future as well - as a single mum I would rather like to see Doria become an honorary part of the establishment!