Like many other people from all over the world, I was watching the royal wedding last night. I was of course excited to see Kate's dress and was pleasantly surprised at how elegant it was and at how old-fashioned some of the design elements were. This however, did not phase me like it did some critics.
The veil was beautiful. I thought it was a lot like the statue in Pride and prejudice. The slinky fabric elegantly veils the face and flows downward revealing part of the faces structure, yet disguising it all the same. I was surprised that nobody thought to comment about the beauty of the flowing veil and it's lacy scalloped edges.
The thing that bothered me about the dress was simply the god awful commentary delivered by what are supposed to be top journalists. By the end of the night I had heard so much blab and listened to the same adjectives repeated over and over. I am shocked that my vocabulary wasn't hindered. What was even worse was that the designers that I have seen interevewed (the lady who designed Diana's dress and some random designer who was on the abc news) should know better.
There were people (both designers and journalists) saying that they were surprised that the dress wasn't riskier or edgier like other clothing from the Mcqueen line. Let me just explain, right here, right now that a commissioned item of clothing, whether it be for a ball, wedding or even the oscars is designed to the customer's specifications. The clothing item may have limited creative imput from the designer. This means that runway and commisioned items are completely seperate. Also the wedding was a Royal one and it was held in a church. The Queen would have made very clear that there would have been rules reguarding the dress. eg, not strappless, no revealing necklines.
Then we have the woman who designed Di's dress stating that Kates dress was such a fabulous design that anyone of any shape and size could wear it and look beautiful. This was a joke. Did you see how tiny her waist was? It was a boned corset! Anyone with a defined waist could wear it and look beautiful, except if you were too volumptous and the fabric rippled or if you were too thin and you couldn't fill out the bust. So the dress would look nice on who it was made to be fitted for and that was Kate Middleton.
This morning on ABC news we have a designer raging on about how the dress was a copy of Grace kelly's dress "a badly done copy at that" Grace's dress was higher in the waist, much fuller in the skirt, didn't have boning, and had a swan style veil. So apart from the lace and the length of the dress there was nothing really left to compare. And, even though the dress was a very traditional one, It had very lovely editions which made it all the more modern. There was that lovely veil which created a somewhat Mediterranean, Sophia Loren style look when pulled back and the ruffles at the back of the dress added more structure.
So yes, she wore a beautiful dress made to suit her style, personality and royal speculations.
Other stupid things that were said:
-It was only a two second kiss (Di and Charles didn't even kiss on the lips)
-She's only young (she's 10years older than what Di was when she married)
-Such a full skirt (the skirt is relatively tame compared to Di's dress)
-the lace on the fabric, all the detail gets lost with white layerd on white (it was a wedding, a royal wedding, only white would have been allowed)
-some woman named Carol Lette (i thinnk that was her name) and all of her ridiculous puns and cliches.
This was what it was like in Australia. I don't know if the journalists are better in any other country.
Your favourite Cynical Blogger