Up until Friday, we'd all had it up to *HERE* with royal wedding fever, and now that it's over, we're still reeling from the madness and the pageantry.
Well, let me start by saying that I didn't get a chance to watch the actual ceremony. However, I've seen enough pictures and read enough articles to get the gist of it. And what kind of fashion blogger would I be without commenting myself? So here's my breakdown, starting with the dress.
First of all, I must boast a little: TOTALLY CALLED IT! Long sleeves? Traditional fit? Yup, I called it. The skirt was a little more flared than expected. It was padded at the hips to make the waist seem more cinched, evoking the design of Victorian corsets. The design was Kate's "something old," while her diamond earrings, gifts from her parents, were the "something new." The "something borrowed" was the Cartier tiara that Queen Elizabeth II lent to her and the "something blue" was a blue ribbon that the designer, Sarah Burton of Alexander McQueen, sewed inconspicuously into the dress.
The design of the dress itself is very... her. The long sleeves and slim fit evoke the kind of dresses and coats Kate has favored in the past, while being understated enough to be both sophisticated and modest. The traditional lace needlework from Ireland evokes an old-fashioned elegance while the simple, barely there veil makes its ethereal presence known without overwhelming the dress. The only thing I disapprove of is the 9-foot train. Yes, it is very princess appropriate. But somehow its flagrant pageantry doesn't fit with the rest of the ensemble. With its Victorian design and modern sensibilities, the dress manages to be both traditional and contemporary at the same time.
Also interesting was the fact that she chose to wear her hair down in soft curls, like she normally does, instead of having twisted into a convoluted chignon. I personally think this was a good choice. Her normal hair works for her and softens her features, so why change it? Besides, without it, she would look dramatically less like the Kate we've seen all over the magazines.
There is one complaint I have though: Kate is too skinny. Keep in mind that her hips had to be padded to create that shape. And her arms and back are covered, so you can't see their boniness. Her face, however lovely with its makeup and bridal glow, was looking extremely peaky. And considerably older. Apparently she went on a crazy trendy French diet in order to slim down her already skinny body. All I can do is shake my head and hope that someday she realizes how much better she'd look 10-20lbs heavier.
On to the royal guests! WHAT was with the headgear?! The most ridiculous one belonged to Princess Beatrice of York... she looks like she picked up a foam cutout from Michael's and stuck it to her forehead! Normally, I'm pretty into hats myself. I've been known to gallivant about town in red velvet fedoras and cheeky flatcaps. But many of these "high fashion" hats and fascinators (fancy things you attach to your head that aren't hats) were too much, even for me. Even Victoria Beckham wasn't immune to hat fever, although the fact that it is the one piece of peacockry in her ensemble (and the fact that she's Victoria Beckham) makes it ok.
I think the general look of the guests was rather stuffy and boring. I have a feeling they were going for ladylike sophistication and modesty, but most came off as simply... old. Now, the members of the guest list who *were* old (or at least not young), such as Carole Middleton, mother of the bride, looked elegant and age appropriate. But many of the younger ladies looked like they had raided their mother's (or grandmother's) wardrobe. A large part of me was like, come ON people! Stop being a walking cliche!
Well, for all its Sunday morning over-niceness and pretense, the guest list was still fun to gawk at. All in all it was a lovely ceremony, one that will probably be called the "wedding of the century"... until Harry decides to tie the knot. Or Kate's children. Whichever comes first.