Hold on to your fascinators, it could be a snarky ride! It's Royal Wedding Day! Wheeee!

[Lorac]

Details about the dress, and its' construction, from the designer:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celeb...-givenchy-clare-waight-keller-design-details/

I prefer the sophistication of Meghan's dress, by far.
As the wife of the heir, Catherine's dress was expected to meet certain "conventions"/be more conservative, which were met.

Thanks for the article - it was a good read. One thing I did roll my eyes at was when Meghan - like Kate before her - showed the Queen the dress. 'Not for approval' says a Meghan friends - just to include her and have a special moment with the Queen.!! Bull I say - of course it was for approval as I'm sure if HM thought the dress inappropriate it would have been changed somehow. Still I'm sure Meghan had certain criteria given to her to follow in her dress design and as long as she met the criteria then she was good to go.

I liked the dress but didn't love it as I though it too plain and a little unfitted - though that seemed to be the plan from what I gather. The veil was exquisite though and I loved the story behind it as well.

Kate's on the other hand - an absolute masterpiece, regal and sophisticated and just timeless. I loved it and still do - a dress in a million.

And the less said about Diana's the better as I hated it then and still do. It was just ghastly in its hugeness and the material creased so badly and they never fell out - awful.

 

[clairecloutier]

That was an interesting article, @skatesindreams.

Here is a link describing the characteristics of "silk cady" fabric, which the dress was made from: https://www.threadsmagazine.com/2016/04/27/investigating-a-mystery-luxury-fabric

 

[cygnus]

It looks like Bishop Curry is getting involved in political action https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/22/politics/bishop-curry-white-house/index.html

Good for him!

 

[PDilemma]

Thanks for the article - it was a good read. One thing I did roll my eyes at was when Meghan - like Kate before her - showed the Queen the dress. 'Not for approval' says a Meghan friends - just to include her and have a special moment with the Queen.!! Bull I say - of course it was for approval as I'm sure if HM thought the dress inappropriate it would have been changed somehow. Still I'm sure Meghan had certain criteria given to her to follow in her dress design and as long as she met the criteria then she was good to go.

I liked the dress but didn't love it as I though it too plain and a little unfitted - though that seemed to be the plan from what I gather. The veil was exquisite though and I loved the story behind it as well.

Kate's on the other hand - an absolute masterpiece, regal and sophisticated and just timeless. I loved it and still do - a dress in a million.

And the less said about Diana's the better as I hated it then and still do. It was just ghastly in its hugeness and the material creased so badly and they never fell out - awful.

If you read reliable sources, you'll discover that other than black for mourning, there are no real dress codes made by the queen. I suspect the notion comes from a few different places--1. The existence of complex dress codes for presentation at court in previous times. 2. The mythology that surrounded Diana's experience marrying into the family. 3. The relatively consistent style of dress in some key points that has always been followed by royal women. 4. The press's need for a story that is a bit sensational. (On the last point the "rules Meghan must follow to be a royal" stories have been numerous in the last month or so).

Interviewed years ago, Princess Margaret indicated that there was no dress code but there were "unwritten rules". Here are the basics of those that she explained:

Skirts can't be too tight because of stairs and getting in and out of cars.
The back views is as important as the front.
Clothes must photograph well.
Dresses with matching coats are more practical because of changing climates, unpredictable weather and temperatures.
Hats are obligatory for certain occasions. (This is more a part of British culture than royal rules, I think. And, ftr, Margaret hated hats).

Source: Princess Margaret, a biography by Theo Aronson. Aronson was quoting a magazine article with a short interview she gave in the 1970s.

While it is likely that Meghan was given some ideas as to what was appropriate for the church ceremony, unless she had shown the Queen a strapless dress with a see through corset bodice or something, it wasn't going to be an issue.

 

[screech]

It's amazing what the royals have to do for fashion. I've read that they will get botox in their armpits to prevent unsightly sweat stains. And that also their skirts have light weights sewn into the hems, to prevent/limit wardrobe malfunctions.

And the wearing of tights. Meghan seems to still need to find the right shade of stockings to wear (unless on Tuesday's engagement she purposefully wore the wrong shade, just to make it clear she was wearing them...)

With regards to wedding dresses, I loved the front view of Kate's, but I didn't love all the fabric on the bum

 

[snoopy]

Kate looked like a princess in her dress and Meghan looked like a nun.

 

[clairecloutier]

And the wearing of tights. Meghan seems to still need to find the right shade of stockings to wear (unless on Tuesday's engagement she purposefully wore the wrong shade, just to make it clear she was wearing them...)

I think maybe her tights were intended to match the sheer fabric at the top of her dress. I thought she looked good. https://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/

 

[once_upon]

I loved Meghan's dress, thought it was her. Catherine's gown was her. Diana's was a monstrosity, even for the 80's.

 

[skatfan]

It looks like Bishop Curry is getting involved in political action https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/22/politics/bishop-curry-white-house/index.html

Good for him!

I have a bunch of clergy colleagues there - I’m missing out!

 

[Skittl1321]

It's amazing what the royals have to do for fashion. I've read that they will get botox in their armpits to prevent unsightly sweat stains. And that also their skirts have light weights sewn into the hems, to prevent/limit wardrobe malfunctions.

Hem weights are just a good idea. I put them in skirts I sew.

As for the Botox, that's not royals, that's rich people! Most of my Mom's friends have had that done to prevent sweating! Most also doctor shop until they find one to prescribe it for their "migraines" so the facial injections are free. But really, a sweatshield sewn into the garment works, it seems they rarely wear sleeveless.

I've read a lot of royals "can't wear wedges", but Catherine clearly favors them. Maybe just not around the Queen? Wonder what the rules will be like around Charles. I can't imagine he'd care what shoes people wear.

 

[Daena]

Meghan's Coat of Arms
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeC9ahpX0AAaV7z.jpg

The blue background represents the Pacific Ocean off the California coast, the golden rays are symbolic of the Cali sunshine. The three quills represent communication and the power of words. Beneath are golden poppies (CA's state flower) and wintersweet, which grows at Kensington Palace.

And Meghan's cypher (royal monogram)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeC9zSuWAAAwloA.jpg

 

[Skittl1321]

Wow- I love the symbolism of her coat of arms. Especially her quills.

 

[Jenny]

Interesting that it's all about California, not America. Says a lot IMO.

 

[skatesindreams]

It looks like Bishop Curry is getting involved in political action https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/22/politics/bishop-curry-white-house/index.html

Good for him!

I have a bunch of clergy colleagues there - I’m missing out!

More from Bishop Curry:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics/curry-white-house-vigil/index.html

 

[barbk]

Why is the crown around the songbird's neck? That seems odd. (And, given the history of slave collars, kind of icky.)

 

[Frida80]

Why is the crown around the songbird's neck? That seems odd. (And, given the history of slave collars, kind of icky.)

That's to indicate she's married to the grandson of the heir.

 

[MsZem]

Why is the crown around the songbird's neck? That seems odd. (And, given the history of slave collars, kind of icky.)

Given that the Duchess of Sussex was involved in the design process of her coat of arms, I doubt she considers any of it problematic. You can read more about it here.

 

[Skittl1321]

That's to indicate she's married to the grandson of the heir.

Does it change when everyone's positions change?

 

[Frida80]

Does it change when everyone's positions change?

No.

 

[Jenny]

She married the son of the heir, the grandson of the monarch, if we're going to be technical about it.

 

[MacMadame]

Interesting that it's all about California, not America. Says a lot IMO.

It says she's from California

 

[Skittl1321]

This article is interesting.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/25/prin...ng-joint-arms-meghan-markle-revealed-7578610/

According to this Meghan actually didn't get her own individual coat of arms (well- Meghan's family didn't)- she only has the one that has half of Harry's on it.
When Catherine got hers, one was first made for her father, which then gives her the ability to use it, and it was put jointly with William's.

I assume it is due to either Meghan's family not being British, or perhaps more of a judgement call that the Queen did not think they were befitting of one?

 

[Daena]

I assume it is due to either Meghan's family not being British, or perhaps more of a judgement call that the Queen did not think they were befitting of one?

Well, I don't know what it is, but I am glad her toxic family are not entitled to have a coat of arms. I assume her father could receive a coat of arm, it's just ceremonial, is it not? (though some people say he cannot get it as he is not from Commonwealth.
Anyway, I am sure Samantha Markle and Tom Jr will try to use it like their own - they are shameless like that.

 

[Daena]

i remember reading about heir presumtive of Earl of Essex. The next in line for title of Earl of Essex is American, from California. I read he and his wife use "Earl of Essex" as their car license sign (or what is this term?)
Upd. Oh, yeah. License plate, right? Kind of tacky, lol.

 

[Skittl1321]

She married the son of the heir, the grandson of the monarch, if we're going to be technical about it.

Well, I don't know what it is, but I am glad her toxic family are not entitled to have a coat of arms. I assume her father could receive a coat of arm, it's just ceremonial, is it not? (though some people say he cannot get it as he is not from Commonwealth.
Anyway, I am sure Samantha Markle and Tom Jr will try to use it like their own - they are shameless like that.

That really might be why Meghan was given it, rather than her father as would be more traditional. If it was given to her father, they would be entitled to it as well. They aren't entitled to this one.

There is just so much shitty behavior in the history of royalty (British and otherwise) that it seems a little odd to have that sort of judgement call; but I don't think it was a bad one for the queen to make.

 

[Daena]

That really might be why Meghan was given it, rather than her father as would be more traditional. If it was given to her father, they would be entitled to it as well. They aren't entitled to this one.

Too bad the Queen could not give the coat of arms to Doria (I've read only veeeeery ancient families, mostly Scottish, can pass their titles and etc through female line). That would be "in your face!" thing to Mad Markles.

 

[Frida80]

Too bad the Queen could not give the coat of arms to Doria (I've read only veeeeery ancient families, mostly Scottish, can pass their titles and etc through female line). That would be "in your face!" thing to Mad Markles.

The Queen made history by passing the Windsor house to her children and descendents instead of Prince Phillip's. He didn't take it well.

 

[Skittl1321]

The Queen made history by passing the Windsor house to her children and descendents instead of Prince Phillip's. He didn't take it well.

Wait, what? Aren't they one in the same?


And is this different than it would be typically? Isn't the husband of the Queen always consort and not King because of this?

(/actual questions, really interested)

 

[Frida80]

Wait, what? Aren't they one in the same?


And is this different than it would be typically? Isn't the husband of the Queen always consort and not King because of this?

(/actual questions, really interested)

No. He's house of Mountbatten. In the past heirs would take the father house. With Victoria, her son took on his father's house, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. With Mary queen of Scots, her son went to the house of Stuart like his father.

While the husband is a consort, traditionally the heirs always were a part of his house until Elizabeth II.

 

[Skittl1321]

No. He's house of Mountbatten. In the past heirs would take the father house. With Victoria, her son took on his father's house, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. With Mary queen of Scots, her son went to the house of Stuart like his father.

While the husband is a consort, traditionally the heirs always were a part of his house until Elizabeth II.

An- I see what you are saying the house. I was thinking you meant people.

Isn't it Windsor-Mountbatten now though? As opposed to just Windsor?