QuoteResplendent in beautifully embroidered dove-grey silk and a striking Phillip Treacey fascinator, the Duchess of Cornwall was every inch the royal bride when she married Prince Charles in 2005.
Now the Duchess' stunning Anna Valentine gown is to be the centrepiece of an exhibition opening next month at the V&A. And the Duchess of Cornwall isn't the only aristocratic bride to dust off her nuptial frock for the show.
Also included is the flesh-flashing Pam Hogg frock worn by Lady Mary Charteris to her 2012 marriage to Big Pink frontman, Robbie Furze, and a truly spectacular white silk-satin gown with an 18ft train sported by Margaret, Duchess of Argyll, on her big day in 1933.
Duchess of Cornwall's Anna Valentine gown go on display at V&A | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2604446/Duchess-Cornwalls-elegant-wedding-gown-joins-18th-century-dresses-risqu-frocks-worn-Gwen-Stefani-Dita-von-Teese-new-exhibition.html)
:goodpost: thank you for sharing. I loved the photos from the exhibit.
You're welcome TLLK. It would be an interesting exhibition to go to. :)
I love all the dresses :vday2: ... The Duchess looked incredible on her wedding day :vday2: ...
Camilla's dress/coat combination with the high collar is the best one I've ever seen. Usually the bride ends up looking swamped by the extra fabric ie: Letizia, Mathilde, Martha Louise, Sophie, but Camilla's was very well tailored. I really liked the color combination for her second wedding dress. Her civil wedding ensemble was also very lovely.
I don't see it as the Best. Sophie's was more elegant as were the others.
^ Sophie also had the black pearls, which totally took away from her dress, in my opinion.
Camilla's wedding dress was beautiful, but-- above all-- appropriate. A tricky balance.
Here's a bit more:
The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Readers? Top 10 Wedding Gowns: #7. The Duchess of Cornwall (http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2012/10/readers-top-10-wedding-gowns-7-duchess.html)
I liked Sophie's much better. Camilla's was passable.
^^^I agree Lady Adams that the peal necklace did distract from the look. Unfortunately Sophie's gown just didn't fit well IMHO.
I can see why Sartorial Splendor readers voted for Camilla's gown in the top ten wedding looks. OSS is one of my favorite sites for royal fashion. :vday4:
Maybe palace staff helped Sartorial Splendor perhaps flatterers bucking for honors from Charles and Camilla. To me it's like the Emperor's new clothes, Camilla still looks frumpy as far as I'm concerned. She cleaned up well for the wedding but I would not rave about the gown she wore. Sophie's gown did fit well and she looked fantastic. A lot of Camilla's clothes OTOH are too tight and don't fit well. Sorry to see Sophie thrown under a bus to try to bolster Camilla.
How is Sophie being thrown under a bus? :blink:
Saying that Camilla's was "better" and Sophie's did not fit well. Dresses not fitting well are almost par for the course with Camilla. Not to mention the foundation garments.
Quote from: TLLK on April 16, 2014, 03:51:21 AM
^^^I agree Lady Adams that the peal necklace did distract from the look. Unfortunately Sophie's gown just didn't fit well IMHO.
You can tell by the bodice around the neckline, especially, that it was a tad bit too big for her. From what I understood back then, it was said she'd lost weight during the weeks before the wedding, and there wasn't time to alter it to fit better.
Cindy
I liked Sophie's dress very much a whole lot better than Camilla's. Camilla's dress with the coat was on the bulky side. Sophie's was elegant.
The Queen wore an ensemble very similar to Camilla's, at Peter Phillips' wedding. Even the fabric was similar. I wish I could find better photos, but I think these show it well enough:
Camilla's ... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/wendylady1/Fashion%20Police/Royalty/Royal%20Wedding%20Dresses/CharlesCamilla2005.jpg
The Queen's:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/22/article-1021316-0149878A00000578-333_224x423.jpg
and:
http://anyotherwoman.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/-PEPZ3_m6ruw/TbpbdNYhipI/AAAAAAAAAGU/Vb5DjoWN7ec/s400/peter_phillips_wedding_4.jpg
Cindy
Quote from: sandy on April 16, 2014, 02:27:37 PM
Saying that Camilla's was "better" and Sophie's did not fit well. Dresses not fitting well are almost par for the course with Camilla. Not to mention the foundation garments.
I was just offering an opinion on a wedding dress that I didn't believe fit the bride very well. I don't understand how that would be considered "throwing Sophie under the bus." I understand that you did not care for Camilla's dress but I'd hardly consider your thoughts to be "throwing Camilla under the bus." :)
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 03:11:45 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 16, 2014, 02:48:37 PM
Quote from: TLLK on April 16, 2014, 03:51:21 AM
^^^I agree Lady Adams that the peal necklace did distract from the look. Unfortunately Sophie's gown just didn't fit well IMHO.
You can tell by the bodice around the neckline, especially, that it was a tad bit too big for her. From what I understood back then, it was said she'd lost weight during the weeks before the wedding, and there wasn't time to alter it to fit better.
Cindy
A bride's fluctuating weight can cause havoc for the person responsible for its fit. I believe more than one royal dressmaker has had this problem.
I liked Sophie's dress and the press did not carp on how it didn't fit her well. I didn't notice this and I think it was fabulous.
Camilla had certain limitations to what she wore. She'd have to have something looser fitting since she does generally have ill fitting foundation garments. It was also wide around the hips and the coat did the trick. I did not like the headpiece with the wreath arrangement. But as I said she cleaned up good for the wedding but I am not going to say she looked great or the dress was better than other royals gowns. It was appropriate and passable but IMO hardly anything to gush over. Her hair was more flatteringly coiffed but she went back to the frumpy hairdo after the wedding.
Double post auto-merged: April 16, 2014, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: cinrit on April 16, 2014, 03:06:21 PM
The Queen wore an ensemble very similar to Camilla's, at Peter Phillips' wedding. Even the fabric was similar. I wish I could find better photos, but I think these show it well enough:
Camilla's ... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/wendylady1/Fashion%20Police/Royalty/Royal%20Wedding%20Dresses/CharlesCamilla2005.jpg
The Queen's:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/22/article-1021316-0149878A00000578-333_224x423.jpg
and:
http://anyotherwoman.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/-PEPZ3_m6ruw/TbpbdNYhipI/AAAAAAAAAGU/Vb5DjoWN7ec/s400/peter_phillips_wedding_4.jpg
Cindy
The Queen is about 20 years older than Camilla and the Queen does not have the foundation garment issues Camilla has.
Sandy-Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Camilla's dress. But if I have a differing opinion am I truly "throwing Sophie under the bus?"
This board is the first time I have seen Sophie's gown criticized this way. Just saying.
Even in retrospective royal bride articles I never saw this. I don't agree that it looked loose.It was a different style than usual and Sophie carried it off very well.
I do notice in the Camilla photo her look of the cat that got the cream rather than the dress itself.
Okay. I've seen it discussed at about 3 sites in threads about royal wedding dresses. Letizia's, Mathilde's and Martha Louise's gowns were similar in style and seemed to have some of the same fit issues. These gowns were made with a lighter weight fabric than Camilla's. Camilla's coat was made with a heavier fabric and IMHO was easier to alter.
The difference is. Most of the others were not the "second time around" arrangements. Camilla would not have the traditional white gown like she wore at her wedding to APB.
I see it as Camilla's general style--though it is better since she does not have a tight dress which shows poor foundation garments, it is not wrinkled, and it does not emphasize her hips. The wedding was also lower key for obvious reasons.
I don't understand why Sophie's is criticized since it was a lovely gown and some even said it was better than Fergie's and Diana's. I noticed no looseness. It was a different sort of gown but it looked great on her as did the tiara and veil.
I have to say she looked great I liked the hair the most ... to be clear I don't thing anyone "gushed" about Camilla's dress but no one can deny she looked great and that the dress was just right for a woman who was marrying for the second time ...
:goodpost: Eri-I completely agree.
Sophie's whole bridal look centered around a midevil Renaissance that perfectly fit the venue of Windsor castle and the Order of the Garter. Her black and white pearl cross was a wedding gift from her husband and I thought it brought her whole look together she was IMO breathtaking. Camilla's dresses were appropriate to a very mature second time bride though I liked the civil dress I felt the color was inappropriate as it was white I think a pale blush or pink would have been more of an appropriate color choice.
I think Camila and Sophies and allthem had great looking wedding dresses for their age, time, and situation.
Thisis a greatidea to dispaly the gowns.'It would nice to display Camilla's and Diana's gowns, side by side.!! Why not!!!
Isn't it all lovely. the dresses that is.
[mod] This thread is about Camilla's wedding dress being put on display. It is not about Sophie's dress. If you want to talk about royal fashion in general, we have a thread for that [/mod]
Does Earl Spencer have the wedding dress in his possession?
I mostly liked the hair why can't she have it always like that? :lol:
As a Diana-phile I do not like Camillia. However, I think the outfit she chose for her wedding was in wonderful taste. It was elegant and pretty, the color was muted but not white, no bridal lacey adornments. It was age appropriate. Second marriage appropriate. She looked good.
I think she was very afraid that people would show up and throw things at her, hold posters with ugly words, etc., but everyone behaved.
I agree-it was a beautiful dress and very appropraite.I look forward to seeing it at the exhibition
Quote from: corydora on April 23, 2014, 02:15:51 AM
As a Diana-phile I do not like Camillia. However, I think the outfit she chose for her wedding was in wonderful taste. It was elegant and pretty, the color was muted but not white, no bridal lacey adornments. It was age appropriate. Second marriage appropriate. She looked good.
I think she was very afraid that people would show up and throw things at her, hold posters with ugly words, etc., but everyone behaved.
There was crowd control going on. People can dislike Camilla without showing up with torches and pitchforks. LOL.
If I remember correctly, Camilla wasn't feeling well the day of her wedding. She had been in bed with a virus or a cold for a few days, and wasn't completely recovered. So she may have just been not feeling well and trying to smile through it all. I thought she did a pretty good job of it. :)
Cindy
I think getting her dreams realized would offset any illness. She had been aiming for this for years and years and I'm not buying into the spin that she did not or does not "want anything." OF course she does.
Quote from: cinrit on April 23, 2014, 02:44:18 PM
If I remember correctly, Camilla wasn't feeling well the day of her wedding. She had been in bed with a virus or a cold for a few days, and wasn't completely recovered. So she may have just been not feeling well and trying to smile through it all. I thought she did a pretty good job of it. :)
Cindy
Hadn't realized that she'd been unwell. Looking at the photos I would have never known. I do recall that their wedding date was postponed due to the death of Pope John Paul II though and Charles as well as other guests would be attending his funeral.
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
I think getting her dreams realized would offset any illness. She had been aiming for this for years and years and I'm not buying into the spin that she did not or does not "want anything." OF course she does.
Actually it was Di who ousted her ... she was more than happy with whatever set up they had going on I doubt she likes being a Royal and having all eyes on her and having to "perform" , dress up and so on ... she is a Country woman who has always loved her privacy ... she couldn't possibly know Di would die making it possible for her to marry Chuck so how did she "dream" of that wedding all those Years? Maybe by 2002 she knew that was possible but not prior to that ...
Diana ousted Camilla? How so? Diana had her HRH removed. Camilla got the HRH. Does not sound like ousting to me.
Even Diana confronting Camilla did not "oust her." Camilla was not going to budge. She even took hostessing duties on at Highgrove while Diana was still married to Charles.
Camilla must be a great actress if she "dislikes" being a royal. She grins for the cameras and looks like the cat that got the cream.
If she didn't like it she would not have been POW's mistress nor said yes to his marriage proposal.
And let's not kid ourselves. Charles had set up this huge PR campaign in Diana's lifetime. No way would Diana being alive have stopped them from getting married. The only obstacle was the Queen Mum and it was just a matter of Charles waiting a few years since the QM didn't want the marriage taking place in her lifetime. Charles did not have that huge campaign for Camilla in 1997 before Diana's death for nothing, the PR campaign was going into full swing. And to me the die was cast in 1994 when Charles named her.
Quote from: Eri on April 23, 2014, 03:46:10 PM
Quote from: sandy on April 23, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
I think getting her dreams realized would offset any illness. She had been aiming for this for years and years and I'm not buying into the spin that she did not or does not "want anything." OF course she does.
Actually it was Di who ousted her ... she was more than happy with whatever set up they had going on I doubt she likes being a Royal and having all eyes on her and having to "perform" , dress up and so on ... she is a Country woman who has always loved her privacy ... she couldn't possibly know Di would die making it possible for her to marry Chuck so how did she "dream" of that wedding all those Years? Maybe by 2002 she knew that was possible but not prior to that ...
Well if you believe it was Diana who ousted Camilla then you finally admit that it was Charles and Camilla who cheated First. :wellduh: As for Camilla not liking being a royal and loving her privacy again are you serious? If Camilla didn't want all that she could have not married Charles and continued living together without the perks and title however it was She who said yes grinning like a Cheshire cat in her red dress waving her ring about. Oh and actually the way had been paved years before with Prince Michael who married a divorce who gained her husbands title but since she was a RC he lost his right to succession to the throne and Sarah Duchess who was not the blushing virginal bride on her wedding day having lived with a boyfriend prior to marrying Andrew who was then very close to the throne. Fact is her biggest obstacle was the Queen Mother which is why 2002 was when she dared to dream it wouldn't have mattered if Diana was alive or not.
Another Camilla thread hijacked by the Diana fanatics.
I notice that it's only when Diana is defended that you say the thread is hijacked. Where were you QC when the posts arrived where Diana was being slammed?
The thread was hijacked QC it just happened to be a committed Camilla fan who brought Diana into the thread with IMO a rather ill informed post so what's the problem? I stated my opinion on Camilla's gown which was lovely and appropriate what more is there to be discussed in this thread it is all about the gown.