Will you watch Prince William and Kate's wedding?

[tradergirl]

Well you did read the bit about how they were called the "Wisteria Sisters"? Fragrant, decorative and ferocious climbers? Hahah, I believe every word of it. I read somewhere the parents let William stay in their daughter's room when he visited. That was kind of creepy to me. The mother gives the impression of a real social climber.

 

[rosetta]

Oops. I meant to quote TG!

 

[Ara Ann]

Ara: Tara is likely short for Tamara and yes she was in that royal blue outfit. She is a UK version of Paris Hilton, but the original really. "It" girls were in the UK long before Paris ever showed up. Anyway, so she's not really anyone, but related to Prince Charles, and just partied and showed up in Hello Magazine alot, kind of annoying yet loved to exploit herself for some self-promotion.

Anyway, I guess her nose caved in due to cocaine use so she's been trying to repair it. I saw her during the wedding footage (and everyone was saying this was post nose job) and thought, UGH why'd she do that. Did some googling and found out why..

Sorry for the tangent!

PS I agree Pippa looks like the mom and a bit harsher, but she's also quite unique and striking looking.

I heard (and my source is Joan Rivers via E! Fashion Police) that she wore the blue vagina on her head to distract from the train wreck that is her nose.

Snicker... I heard her 'hat' described as a blue canoe! But yeah, why wear a hat, with a point, that ends ON your nose, if your nose is so messed up?

 

[Ara Ann]

Well you did read the bit about how they were called the "Wisteria Sisters"? Fragrant, decorative and ferocious climbers? Hahah, I believe every word of it. I read somewhere the parents let William stay in their daughter's room when he visited. That was kind of creepy to me. The mother gives the impression of a real social climber.

It just hit me! This is why the mother reminds me of Angelica Huston! She played the stepmother in the movie "Everafter" (based on the Cinderella story) with Drew Barrymore and Dougray Scott! She was the social climbing mother who tried to push her two daughters on the Prince character! Going to have to watch that movie again!

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I heard Beatrice and Eugenie referred to as the evil stepsisters too many times to count...

 

[sillyberry]

The thing I love most about weddings is feeling a sense of intimacy between the couple. And I got none of that in this wedding. I hated that they never touched!

I don't understand. Were they supposed to cling & coo over each other? Didn't you see how they looked at one another? Said much more than being physically gooey.

It's royal tradition not to kiss at the altar. I didn't miss it & don't see any necessity for it. Their eyes & faces made everything plain -- intimacy was definitely there.

--- Laurie

Definitely. I think the way that they were looking at each other said more than anything else could have. Also the way he was stroking her hand when they were in the carriage on the way back to the Palace. They just looked so in love.

I just didn't see it. They barely looked at each other! I didn't want clinging and cooing, but to be sitting in chairs holding programs, not able to hold hands or anything? I also like ceremonies that reference the couple as a couple, and their story, and this wedding just couldn't do that.

When Kate said "I'm so happy" to Will after as they got in the carriage, it was just funny to me because nothing in that ceremony would have made me happy.

We shall have to agree to disagree!

 

[JewelFreak]

Yeah, guess so, Sillyberry. To tell the truth, I've never been to a wedding where b & g held hands during the ceremony. Afraid it might give me the squirmies, as in, Save it for the hotel room.

This wedding used the ancient beautiful Anglican ceremony & words. You mentioned you hadn't been to a formal wedding -- absent the decor & fancy duds & celebs, this was about normal. They don't go into the couple's lives, figuring the guests are their friends & family and already know it. Either way is okay -- whatever makes the couple & friends happy. Either way, they're married at the end, which is the point! I've been to informal lovely warm weddings, but still love the historic graceful old liturgy in W & C's. Their union was obvious without demonstration of it.

--- Laurie

 

[JewelFreak]

I heard Beatrice and Eugenie referred to as the evil stepsisters too many times to count...

I have no idea if they're evil or not, know nothing about them. But what IS evil is this outfit!!!! Beatrice leaving the after-rave (don't blame her for the shoes -- she changed because her feet hurt; on 20-ft heels, understandable).

 

[mayerling]

The thing I love most about weddings is feeling a sense of intimacy between the couple. And I got none of that in this wedding. I hated that they never touched!

I don't understand. Were they supposed to cling & coo over each other? Didn't you see how they looked at one another? Said much more than being physically gooey.

It's royal tradition not to kiss at the altar. I didn't miss it & don't see any necessity for it. Their eyes & faces made everything plain -- intimacy was definitely there.

--- Laurie

Definitely. I think the way that they were looking at each other said more than anything else could have. Also the way he was stroking her hand when they were in the carriage on the way back to the Palace. They just looked so in love.

I just didn't see it. They barely looked at each other! I didn't want clinging and cooing, but to be sitting in chairs holding programs, not able to hold hands or anything? I also like ceremonies that reference the couple as a couple, and their story, and this wedding just couldn't do that.

When Kate said "I'm so happy" to Will after as they got in the carriage, it was just funny to me because nothing in that ceremony would have made me happy.

We shall have to agree to disagree!

Isn't it civil marriages that can afford to reference the story of the couple, etc. Usually, religious ceremonies involve specific things in terms of service/mass, and there's not much you can do to make them 'original'.

 

[janinegirly]

@jewel: me thinks Beatrice will be single a lonnnnnnng time, eek!!

As for lack of emotion/physicality during the ceremony, I thought it was just right - no one wants to see too much at a religious ceremony, especialy at a royal wedding and especially the British! I actually saw alot of stolen glances and gazing which is so romantic to me. Hey, at least they faced each other during the vows which is more than Charlies and Di did!

 

[janinegirly]

Well you did read the bit about how they were called the "Wisteria Sisters"? Fragrant, decorative and ferocious climbers? Hahah, I believe every word of it. I read somewhere the parents let William stay in their daughter's room when he visited. That was kind of creepy to me. The mother gives the impression of a real social climber.

Wisteria Sisters...lol! Hadn't heard that one..

 

[sillyberry]

Yeah, guess so, Sillyberry. To tell the truth, I've never been to a wedding where b & g held hands during the ceremony. Afraid it might give me the squirmies, as in, Save it for the hotel room.

This wedding used the ancient beautiful Anglican ceremony & words. You mentioned you hadn't been to a formal wedding -- absent the decor & fancy duds & celebs, this was about normal. They don't go into the couple's lives, figuring the guests are their friends & family and already know it. Either way is okay -- whatever makes the couple & friends happy. Either way, they're married at the end, which is the point! I've been to informal lovely warm weddings, but still love the historic graceful old liturgy in W & C's. Their union was obvious without demonstration of it.

--- Laurie

Oh, I've been to formal weddings, just not royal ones. And they've all held hands at some point! It was also unfamiliar to me to do the vows at the beginning, and then all that nothingness where they were married but still seemed so far apart.

Perhaps it is true that my favorite weddings are ones that, while formal and elegant, are more customized to the couple as opposed to traditional Anglican (or other religious denomination). It was just so blah to me!

I'm okay with being the weird one. I do hope they have much happiness and manage to live life remotely the way they please.

 

[HollyS]

@jewel: me thinks Beatrice will be single a lonnnnnnng time, eek!!

As for lack of emotion/physicality during the ceremony, I thought it was just right - no one wants to see too much at a religious ceremony, especialy at a royal wedding and especially the British! I actually saw alot of stolen glances and gazing which is so romantic to me. Hey, at least they faced each other during the vows which is more than Charlies and Di did!

I'm convinced we are much too used to too much PDA.

I personally find it off-putting to watch a couple sob during their vows. C'mon. Really? You didn't realize you were doing this today? It was a surprise? Getting a little tear in your eye is one thing, but . . .

There are a lot of ways to put a personal stamp on a wedding. 'Getting creative' with the ceremony can be crap shoot. Lots of people will roll their eyes at what some couples think will be unique and cute and *them*. Frankly, I'm all for traditional ceremonies.

But, I gotta say, if I hear one more minister talk about the symbolism of the rings, I might just scream. I do appreciate some originality, for heaven's sake.

 

[JewelFreak]

@jewel: me thinks Beatrice will be single a lonnnnnnng time, eek!!

You may have a point there, JG!

--- Laurie

 

[ksinger]

@jewel: me thinks Beatrice will be single a lonnnnnnng time, eek!!

As for lack of emotion/physicality during the ceremony, I thought it was just right - no one wants to see too much at a religious ceremony, especialy at a royal wedding and especially the British! I actually saw alot of stolen glances and gazing which is so romantic to me. Hey, at least they faced each other during the vows which is more than Charlies and Di did!

I'm convinced we are much too used to too much PDA.

I personally find it off-putting to watch a couple sob during their vows. C'mon. Really? You didn't realize you were doing this today? It was a surprise? Getting a little tear in your eye is one thing, but . . .

There are a lot of ways to put a personal stamp on a wedding. 'Getting creative' with the ceremony can be crap shoot. Lots of people will roll their eyes at what some couples think will be unique and cute and *them*. Frankly, I'm all for traditional ceremonies.

But, I gotta say, if I hear one more minister talk about the symbolism of the rings, I might just scream. I do appreciate some originality, for heaven's sake.

I had to grin to read this. It's odd that I agree, being on the complete other side of the religious fence. But then my mom always used to say that I was a closet Catholic in some respects: love the tradition and especially the high church music. I find church services with speakers larger than MACK trucks and a screen to project the incredibly difficult repetitive 15 word, 3 chord "songs" up for people to sing, gauche. (I thought some of the music was pretty cool - they had just enough weird chords and dissonances in some pieces to catch my ear and make me listen.)

But yeah, creative. Um...no. If this was their own private little ceremony? Sure, get married while suspended from the ceiling by wires, wear scuba suits, whatever. But this was a state wedding in a traditionally conservative church and bound by tradition. In spite of what some may think, they really aren't there to put on some dog-and-pony show, but ultimately to get married.

While the writing style is a bit OTT, I thought this piece was a hoot and boiled down to why I'm glad Kate opted for traditional in her gown, and did NOT try to push the fashion envelope...

http://www.slate.com/id/2292419/

Here's an excerpt:

Regarding [the queen], and her legendary anti-fashion: Years ago I interviewed Sir Hardy Amies, the hilarious and tart-tongued old poof who created Queen Elizabeth's iconic "look." I refer to those brightly hued outfits with the matching dress, coat and hat—like the yellow number she had on today. When I asked Sir Hardy if he had ever tried to squeeze [the queen] into anything more stylish, he admonished me sternly. "Young man! Her Majesty must never appear to be chic. That would be disastrous, for there is an unkindness to chic [paging Wallace Simpson!] and her Majesty must never appear to be unkind. She must always appear friendly and approachable."

As I watched Kate Middleton in her Sarah Burton-for-the house-of-Alexander McQueen frock, I scrutinized her for any traces of unkind chic. Alexander McQueen, the subject of a poignant retrospective opening at the Met Costume Institute on Monday night, was known for wild experimentation. But Kate was pitch perfect. Nothing too insanely fashiony or arch. No stylish self-indulgence. Nothing radical or innovative. Tudor-esque in silhouette, the frock had a tight bodice and sleeves, contracting with a flaring structured skirt. Mary Queen of Scots meets Grace Kelly. She was in every respect an archetypically pretty princess, an Audrey Hepburn for the 21st century!

 

[JewelFreak]

Loved that article, Karen, thanks for the link. Good chuckles.

And this: "Might the lovely Kate, with her modest allure, her natural bosom and her quiet mystery, have the power to stem the flood of boob-jiggling hooker style which has engulfed not just fashion, but our entire culture?"

Oh my goodness, hadn't thought of that! I HOPE SO.

--- Laurie

 

[Ara Ann]

@jewel: me thinks Beatrice will be single a lonnnnnnng time, eek!!

As for lack of emotion/physicality during the ceremony, I thought it was just right - no one wants to see too much at a religious ceremony, especialy at a royal wedding and especially the British! I actually saw alot of stolen glances and gazing which is so romantic to me. Hey, at least they faced each other during the vows which is more than Charlies and Di did!

I'm convinced we are much too used to too much PDA.

I personally find it off-putting to watch a couple sob during their vows. C'mon. Really? You didn't realize you were doing this today? It was a surprise? Getting a little tear in your eye is one thing, but . . .

There are a lot of ways to put a personal stamp on a wedding. 'Getting creative' with the ceremony can be crap shoot. Lots of people will roll their eyes at what some couples think will be unique and cute and *them*. Frankly, I'm all for traditional ceremonies.

But, I gotta say, if I hear one more minister talk about the symbolism of the rings, I might just scream. I do appreciate some originality, for heaven's sake.

I had to grin to read this. It's odd that I agree, being on the complete other side of the religious fence. But then my mom always used to say that I was a closet Catholic in some respects: love the tradition and especially the high church music. I find church services with speakers larger than MACK trucks and a screen to project the incredibly difficult repetitive 15 word, 3 chord "songs" up for people to sing, gauche. (I thought some of the music was pretty cool - they had just enough weird chords and dissonances in some pieces to catch my ear and make me listen.)

But yeah, creative. Um...no. If this was their own private little ceremony? Sure, get married while suspended from the ceiling by wires, wear scuba suits, whatever. But this was a state wedding in a traditionally conservative church and bound by tradition. In spite of what some may think, they really aren't there to put on some dog-and-pony show, but ultimately to get married.

While the writing style is a bit OTT, I thought this piece was a hoot and boiled down to why I'm glad Kate opted for traditional in her gown, and did NOT try to push the fashion envelope...

http://www.slate.com/id/2292419/

Here's an excerpt:

Regarding [the queen], and her legendary anti-fashion: Years ago I interviewed Sir Hardy Amies, the hilarious and tart-tongued old poof who created Queen Elizabeth's iconic "look." I refer to those brightly hued outfits with the matching dress, coat and hat—like the yellow number she had on today. When I asked Sir Hardy if he had ever tried to squeeze [the queen] into anything more stylish, he admonished me sternly. "Young man! Her Majesty must never appear to be chic. That would be disastrous, for there is an unkindness to chic [paging Wallace Simpson!] and her Majesty must never appear to be unkind. She must always appear friendly and approachable."

As I watched Kate Middleton in her Sarah Burton-for-the house-of-Alexander McQueen frock, I scrutinized her for any traces of unkind chic. Alexander McQueen, the subject of a poignant retrospective opening at the Met Costume Institute on Monday night, was known for wild experimentation. But Kate was pitch perfect. Nothing too insanely fashiony or arch. No stylish self-indulgence. Nothing radical or innovative. Tudor-esque in silhouette, the frock had a tight bodice and sleeves, contracting with a flaring structured skirt. Mary Queen of Scots meets Grace Kelly. She was in every respect an archetypically pretty princess, an Audrey Hepburn for the 21st century!

I agree about Catherine's dress, I thought it was very elegant. I heard one of the commentators say it looked like it was painted onto her (in a GOOD way, not a sleazy too tight way) and that he felt like he was watching a Disney Princess come to life. It hit me that way too...and I kind of cringe when I see the dress knockoffs on TV...that dress was perfect on her, of course custom made to fit her, but I almost dread seeing all the cheap versions that are heading down the aisle, for years to come (much like other Royal gowns from the past). And while the silhouette is beautiful, not sure if it will be flattering on any body type...we'll see I suppose.


And also, about the design house, I think it was also fitting that it was done by "McQueen" - made for the future Queen!

 

[mayerling]

And also, about the design house, I think it was also fitting that it was done by "McQueen" - made for the future Queen!

Yeah; they're now calling her the McQueen of Fashion.

 

[sillyberry]

::snip:: But yeah, creative. Um...no. If this was their own private little ceremony? Sure, get married while suspended from the ceiling by wires, wear scuba suits, whatever. But this was a state wedding in a traditionally conservative church and bound by tradition. In spite of what some may think, they really aren't there to put on some dog-and-pony show, but ultimately to get married. ::snip::

Oh dear, I hope you don't think that's what I was implying...

 

[slg47]

Loved that article, Karen, thanks for the link. Good chuckles.

And this: "Might the lovely Kate, with her modest allure, her natural bosom and her quiet mystery, have the power to stem the flood of boob-jiggling hooker style which has engulfed not just fashion, but our entire culture?"

Oh my goodness, hadn't thought of that! I HOPE SO.

--- Laurie

this would be great.

 

[HollyS]

I liked this article by Tina Brown/Newsweek:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-01/tina-brown-notes-from-a-royal-wedding/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC3#

She echoed many of my own thoughts.

 

[HollyS]

My personal fave in the Slate commentary is the following paragraph:


"With Mrs. Wills poised to eradicate ho culture from your lifestyle and your closet, it's not too early to start thinking of ways to recycle all your thongs, pasties, porno-pumps, and halter tops. Since fashion is a pendulum, it might be best to store them all in acid-free tissue paper so that you can eventually make them available to your grandchildren: "These were mine once, back when I was young and vagazzled and spray-tanned," you will say, tearfully unveling your raunchy relics to your wide-eyed heirs, adding, "I am not quite sure why, but I suddenly stopped wearing them on the day Kate and Wills got hitched!" "

 

[Pandora II]

Loved the wedding and think they make a great couple! They looked so in love and happy.

I also think that people have been very unkind about her parents - they chose to spend their money on a great education for their children. Through that, their daughter mixed in the right circles to meet someone like William. I think it's great that this kind of social mobility can exist today.

Couple of points from the last few pages:

1) The Ceremony: the Church of England is very strict on how the ceremony is done and there is pretty much zero opportunity to add anything other than (approved) music and hymns.

2) The Queen nearly always wears pale blue to weddings. Protocol dictates that the MOB gets first pick, then the Queen and then the MOG. Catherine's mother went for the pale blue so the Queen had to go with something different. She had 3 outfits available and chose the yellow on the day. I thought it looked amazing one her.

Upstaging isn't an issue I've ever come across in the UK. It is TOTALLY acceptable to wear white or ivory or cream to a wedding over here - although if you were to turn up in something that looked like a wedding dress people would think you a bit odd. Big hats and bright colours are to be celebrated. I always wear a new hat for a wedding - preferably as extravagent or large as I can get away with - and feel that the effort I put into what I wear is a compliment to the couple.

3) Tara P-T. Tara isn't short for Tamara, it's a name in it's own right. She is Prince Charles' god-daughter and daughter of one of his closest friends. Thought her outfit was little better than poor Beatrice & Eugenie's. Beatrice has a really nice boyfriend so what he couldn't have said 'sweetie, that hat does nothing for you' I don't know. More to the point, what the heck were the designers doing - hardly a great advertisment for them!

 

[princesss]

Loved that article, Karen, thanks for the link. Good chuckles.

And this: "Might the lovely Kate, with her modest allure, her natural bosom and her quiet mystery, have the power to stem the flood of boob-jiggling hooker style which has engulfed not just fashion, but our entire culture?"

Oh my goodness, hadn't thought of that! I HOPE SO.

--- Laurie

Reminds me of the e-mail my mom sent me after the wedding -

"I predict weddings will look more like weddings in the future, and less like white-themed brothel ads."

(Honestly, I can't stop coveting Kate's dress. Maybe with short sleeves instead of long ones, but oh! how I long for it...)

 

[ksinger]

My personal fave in the Slate commentary is the following paragraph:


"With Mrs. Wills poised to eradicate ho culture from your lifestyle and your closet, it's not too early to start thinking of ways to recycle all your thongs, pasties, porno-pumps, and halter tops. Since fashion is a pendulum, it might be best to store them all in acid-free tissue paper so that you can eventually make them available to your grandchildren: "These were mine once, back when I was young and vagazzled and spray-tanned," you will say, tearfully unveling your raunchy relics to your wide-eyed heirs, adding, "I am not quite sure why, but I suddenly stopped wearing them on the day Kate and Wills got hitched!" "

LMAO! Yeah, great stuff!

 

[Laila619]

::snip:: But yeah, creative. Um...no. If this was their own private little ceremony? Sure, get married while suspended from the ceiling by wires, wear scuba suits, whatever. But this was a state wedding in a traditionally conservative church and bound by tradition. In spite of what some may think, they really aren't there to put on some dog-and-pony show, but ultimately to get married. ::snip::

Oh dear, I hope you don't think that's what I was implying...

sillyberry, I totally get your point. The ceremony did seem a little cold and impersonal.

I wished they could have read their own special vows that they wrote to each other, but I suppose this is just not allowed?

Still, I had a religious ceremony, and the pastor allowed my DH and me to read the vows we personally wrote to one another. Our guests kept telling us how sweet and romantic they were!

 

[Jennifer W]

never mind

 

[JewelFreak]

Reminds me of the e-mail my mom sent me after the wedding -
"I predict weddings will look more like weddings in the future, and less like white-themed brothel ads."

Good mama you have, Princesss! I'm with her.

--- Laurie

 

[HollyS]

"I wished they could have read their own special vows that they wrote to each other."


I, mercifully, have not been to a wedding where that happened. But, I have seen some very cringe-worthy vow exchanges on TV. Seriously, am I the only person who groans aloud at some of these??? Or, am I just the only one willing to tell the truth?

No offense meant to anyone here, but I put "our own special made-up vows" right up there with unity candles and sand ceremonies in importance and meaningfulness. As I said before, lots of rolling eyes amongst the wedding guests. A lot of sighs and people thinking, "Oh, geez. Really?"

 

[Pandora II]

::snip:: But yeah, creative. Um...no. If this was their own private little ceremony? Sure, get married while suspended from the ceiling by wires, wear scuba suits, whatever. But this was a state wedding in a traditionally conservative church and bound by tradition. In spite of what some may think, they really aren't there to put on some dog-and-pony show, but ultimately to get married. ::snip::

Oh dear, I hope you don't think that's what I was implying...

sillyberry, I totally get your point. The ceremony did seem a little cold and impersonal.

I wished they could have read their own special vows that they wrote to each other, but I suppose this is just not allowed?

Still, I had a religious ceremony, and the pastor allowed my DH and me to read the vows we personally wrote to one another. Our guests kept telling us how sweet and romantic they were!

No way. The Church officials would have a fit - as would half the country. Since William will eventually be the Head of the Church of England he can't exactly go mucking about with the ceremony. As it was they chose for her not to 'obey'.

Plus, it's not very British to have 'personal vows' or anything of that nature...