Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Princess Diana's wedding dress was HIDEOUS!!

The “wow” moment of Royal Style in the Making was always going to be Diana’s wedding gown. Its 25-foot train occupies most of The Orangery in Kensington Palace, where this new exhibition is housed. Love or hate the design, that vast taffeta orb, with its bows and flounces, is in every sense one of the biggest dresses of the past century.

It not only influenced wedding dresses for the next 10 years, but its naïve representation of a fairy-tale princess’s wedding became a distillation of the many ironies of the Wales’ marriage.

It also made Elizabeth and David Emanuel – the couple responsible for it – and ultimately it broke them. Like many British designers of that era, their business acumen was no match for their talent; they barely ever seem to have operated at a profit.

One senses that David Sassoon, who contributes to one of several specially-commissioned films in the exhibition, would have handled matters more suavely.

By the early 1980s, Belville Sassoon, of which Sassoon was one half, was a well-established fashion label of several decades’ standing, favoured by high society – and exactly the kind of house from which the 19-year-old Lady Diana Spencer would have been expected to commission her wedding dress.

On one chilly winter afternoon in early 1981, Diana did visit the Belville Sassoon store on Beauchamp Place in Knightsbridge. But it was near closing time, and the intimidating Russian vendeuse in charge, sensing that the tall teenager didn’t know what she was looking for (and keen to avoid working late), redirected her to their concession in Harrods.

There, Diana chose an off-the-rail, slightly frumpy cornflower-blue suit that received a resounding thumbs-down from the critics when she wore it for the announcement of her engagement to the Prince of Wales.

That, maintains Sassoon to this day, is why she rang the Emanuels, a relatively unknown, unconventional couple and – classic Diana – asked them if they would do her the honour of designing her wedding dress.

Perhaps by way of compensation, she asked Belville Sassoon to design the sweet, organdie-collared, peach-coloured going-away outfit. It turns out they designed two – one with long sleeves; the other, which she ended up wearing and is in this exhibition, with short.

Elizabeth the Queen Mother all, at one time, had tiny waists; that the Queen Mother favoured camp early on, backed up by Norman Hartnell, the designer responsible for reinventing the Royals after the chic Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII exited the stage. Hartnell also commented that, in his hands, Diana would never have emerged from that carriage with such a crumpled gown.

Seeing that gown up close is eerie. What will surprise many who have only seen it on film is how sparkly it is – tiny crystals hand-sewn into the lace sleeves and on the cornucopia pattern on the bodice – and how dark an ivory it is. The dress, which officially belongs to the Duke of Sussex – his elder brother inherited the engagement ring – hasn’t been on display at Kensington Palace since 1995.

Beautifully constructed, in some ways it’s both less imposing than anticipated, and overwhelming. It leaves room for only a handful of other dresses in the exhibition. Sketches comprise the rest. We get a glimpse into the making of royal style, but – just as it did on the day – that dress casts a long shadow.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3109 hours ago

Just look at this monstrosity!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 106/02/2021

The dress looks like something from the 1500's.


by Anonymousreply 206/02/2021

The dress reflected the New Romantic fashion trends of the early 80s. It was over the top but it worked with the grandiosity and majesty of the event. Of course, no contemporary bride would ever pick that kind of dress. You can criticize it all you want but all I can say is you had to be there.

by Anonymousreply 306/02/2021

It represented everything horrible that the 80s would bring. Big displays of excess, zero sexuality, armor rather than clothing.

by Anonymousreply 406/02/2021

It does look tacky up close but at the time I thought it was breathtaking.

by Anonymousreply 506/02/2021

The dress looks cheap.

Almost home made.

by Anonymousreply 606/02/2021

I wonder if it crossed MM’s to wear the dress for her wedding. It belongs to Harry after all.

by Anonymousreply 706/02/2021

I thought it was too frou-frou at the time, and the wrinkles when she got out of the carriage weren't good, but she wore it as well as anyone could.

And, man, it was one damn meringue after another for a while. Vera Wang's popularity was a reaction to the 80s floof.

The next big celebrity wedding dress was Caroline what's-her-name Kennedy, that very simple slip dress by Narcisco Rodriguez (and the 1 wedding photo-- all very minimalist chic).

Don't think there's been a game changer wedding dress since--neither Kate not Meghan hit the mark that way.

by Anonymousreply 806/02/2021

Lovely wedding gown from the Victoria & Albert museum, the original owner wore it in 1865.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 906/02/2021

Personally I appreciate it for its chintzy, offbeat, Rococo quality. How defiantly ludicrous and satirically big it is, unapologetic and refusing to acquiesce to the demands of reasonable reality.

It’s like something out of MY BIG FAT GYPSY WEDDING. Or something a Gothic-Lolita teen from Japan would wear.

by Anonymousreply 1006/02/2021

It was a 19-year-old’s idea of a fairytale wedding dress in the early ‘80s.

by Anonymousreply 1106/02/2021

the proportions are all off. it's not "80s" either

by Anonymousreply 1206/02/2021

The gown at R9 looks much more modern than Diana's wedding gown.

by Anonymousreply 1306/02/2021

As another poster noted, the early 80s were all about romance and fantasy. The popularity of Jessica McClintock's Gunne Sax line is a testament to this, at this time. Puffy, frilly, lace sleeves or sheer diaphanous things.

Jennifer Connelly's dress in Labyrinth is another example.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1406/02/2021

[quote]You can criticize it all you want but all I can say is you had to be there.

I thought it was hideous at the time.

It hasn't gotten any better.

by Anonymousreply 1506/02/2021

Hideous looking dress for less sales rack type of dress.

by Anonymousreply 1606/02/2021

Why did she wear ivory? That always confused me.

by Anonymousreply 1706/02/2021

She was very young, very immature, and had no real developed sense of taste. She wanted to immediately become a style icon and trendsetter, but she lacked the experience, so she relied on too many people giving her conflicting advice which ended up in several fashion disasters.

Although Fergie was older and more world weary when she married into the BRF, she also sought advice and approval from dowdy sources. Then she got it into her head to copy Diana's evolving style which based on different physical attributes alone turned Fergie into a caricature.

by Anonymousreply 1806/02/2021

[quote] Why did she wear ivory? That always confused me

Because back then, white was still only for virgins.

by Anonymousreply 1906/02/2021

The bride didn't wear the dress, the dress wore the bride. It really was overdone and had way too much material.

The dress was wrinkled because it was stuffed into the interior of the little carriage and the veil and heat made Diana's hair wilt.

by Anonymousreply 2006/02/2021

[quote] Why did she wear ivory? That always confused me

Because she's a whore, darlin'.

by Anonymousreply 2106/02/2021

Misconception, white dresses have nothing to do with the bride’s virginity or purity. It is the result of another trend started by the BRF when Queen Victoria wore a white lace dress at her wedding. Before then many wedding dresses were actually red or purple. She chose white because lighter shades were difficult to keep clean and bright, it was just a way to flaunt her status.

by Anonymousreply 2206/02/2021

so was her hair style in 1981

by Anonymousreply 2306/02/2021

I recall being underwhelmed by that overwhelming gown at the time of the royal wedding. I was about Diana's age, followed her fashion statements closely, and generally liked her style. I was surprised that she would have chosen quite such an overblown, leg-of-mutton-sleeved mess. However, I did see the infamous gown in person in the early 90s and was surprised by how lovely it was (nothing like that hideous photo). While it wasn't the ideal dress, even in its day, it was still beautiful in its own way.

by Anonymousreply 2406/02/2021

R22 is correct. This notion that the color of a woman's wedding dress is a statement about her sexual activity, or lack of, is so vulgar.

Nowadays if you must speculate about the proper use of white, you may conclude that it symbolizes a first wedding.

by Anonymousreply 2506/02/2021

Diana's wedding dress has grown on me. Not crazy about it then, I now think it was lovely.

by Anonymousreply 2606/02/2021

'Tea stained' i.e dirty looking

by Anonymousreply 2706/02/2021

It was so vast, it made her look even more child-like than she was.

by Anonymousreply 2806/02/2021

80s women's fashion definitely had a Mother Hubbard strain. By the end of the decade women were covered from wrist to throat, with little bows and ties all over the place, and even long dresses were not unheard of—not to mention the typical oversized shoulders. We were probably just a short hop from ostrich plume hats and five-button gloves in daytime when, thank God, the 90s came and swept all that away.

by Anonymousreply 2906/02/2021

Diana’s dress looks discolored. Di’s dye turned.

by Anonymousreply 3006/02/2021

R29, in the UK that was the influence of Laura Ashley on "proper girls."

by Anonymousreply 3106/02/2021

Miss Havisham at your service. I didn't dislike it. I think they wanted her to look as virginal as possible. She was a lovely woman with a lovely spirit. Years later she probably wished she could set the damn thing on fire.

by Anonymousreply 3206/02/2021

I loved Diana in this dress, she looked every bit the princess on her wedding day and I was instantly smitten with her.

by Anonymousreply 3306/02/2021

It brought the drama that other, more tasteful royal wedding gowns did not. The Emmanuels first designed the black strapless ball gown that she wore to the opera in her first official public appearance with Prince Charles. It created a sensation (Princess Grace was also there, does anyone remember?) and highlighted her voluptuous figure. The wedding gown—like it or not—set a trend. Fergie’s gown a few years later was more restrained and was in style but it did not set the style.

by Anonymousreply 3406/02/2021

Forgot to add, since virginity or even previous marriages don’t matter anymore, choose white or ivory based on your complexion. Most women don’t look good in stark white, unless they are Snow White. Warm white > ivory shades suit more women. Any style of gown will come in both.

by Anonymousreply 3506/02/2021

Looking at her in that dress in today’s lens, and knowing her future, just makes me sad. The dress designers exaggerated the proportions in the wrong place. It’s cartoon-y.

by Anonymousreply 3606/02/2021

If only she had “Say Yes To The Dress” back then.

by Anonymousreply 3706/02/2021

I much prefer Diana's "revenge dress."

Not only does it suit her personality more, but it looked absolutely STUNNING on her.

My, how she evolved in 15 years.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3806/02/2021

The dress was over the top but perfect for TV.

by Anonymousreply 3906/02/2021

R37 - as it happens, David Emanuel now hosts Say Yes to the Dress UK.

by Anonymousreply 4006/02/2021

R38- yeah that dress, wow!

by Anonymousreply 4106/02/2021

Lovely dress, r9.

by Anonymousreply 4206/02/2021

Wow, DL. We're STILL talking about this dress decades later? As if it's news, or daring opinions can now be voiced? Sad, sad, sad.

by Anonymousreply 4306/02/2021

That marriage ended in divorce and my wedding gift to them, a beautiful Steuben glass bowl, should have been returned to me. Of course, I didn't personally pay for the gift because I never paid for anything in my life. Regardless, the marriage ended and that bowl belonged to me.

by Anonymousreply 4406/02/2021

We had another thread about its hideousness a couple of years ago. A posted article had the Emmanuels recalling the whole process of its creation from sketches to final fitting. The sheer number of hours that went into it was staggering. Diana's fittings alone took dozens of hours without a single complaint from her. It would have had me tearing my hair out.

So much work for what will go down as the ugliest dress in BRF wedding history.

by Anonymousreply 4506/02/2021

[quote] The sheer number of hours that went into it was staggering

That's hilarious, because it looks cheap and not well made.

The embroidery looks especially cheap.

by Anonymousreply 4606/02/2021

It definitely photographs badly.

by Anonymousreply 4706/02/2021

I know most people hate it but I like the dress and thought Diana looked beautiful in it.

The fabric unfortunately appears to have darkened considerably over time, a problem afflicting light-colored silks. The dress looks almost beige now, which it definitely was not on the day of the wedding. Years ago I went to a museum in the UK where the costumes were displayed in very dimly lit conditions to preserve the antique fabrics.

by Anonymousreply 4806/02/2021

The egregious style of the 80s - between Halston sleek and Donna Karan chic

by Anonymousreply 4906/02/2021

R43 loves the chance to shame people for posting things - often funny or contextually interesting things - about a subject in which she is not interested.

And yet she's here.

So it's a disorder. We can pity her and hope she gets a little better.

Or she can die.

by Anonymousreply 5006/02/2021

Unfortunately, the wedding dress reminded me of “granny dresses” in the 1970s.

by Anonymousreply 5106/02/2021

[quote] my wedding gift to them, a beautiful Steuben glass bowl,

What the fuck were Charles and Diana going to do with a Steuben glass bowl? Why didn’t you give them something useful? Like a Hickory Farms Gift Basket.

by Anonymousreply 5206/02/2021


No, we don't know her.....

by Anonymousreply 5306/02/2021


Big pantomime fairy wedding dresses died out quickly after craze caused by Diana's dress wore off. Indeed they had had been on their way out by 1970's or so with many brides preferring something a bit less frou-frou.

Diana wanted a fairy tale wedding dress, and that's what she got. She didn't mind about the wrinkles or whatever because as she quipped at time "I'm only going to wear it once...".

However recall late as the 1980's you could still find hooped underskirts and really bouffant petticoats at bridal supply/accessories stores, fabric and costume places in NYC, so there must have been some demand.

Probably remaining large and reliable market for huge skirt ballgowns or whatever is quinceanera dresses.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5406/02/2021

Looks like something you'd see at an Amish wedding.

by Anonymousreply 5506/02/2021

Since Prince William got Diana's engagement ring, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex got that wedding gown. You know MM is just itching to get into that gown and play dress up.

by Anonymousreply 5606/02/2021

I always thought it was hideous too OP. Good thing she was so pretty. Now imagine that on one of Andrews cabbage patch daughters.

by Anonymousreply 5706/02/2021

Why did Harry get the dress? What’s he going to do with it?

by Anonymousreply 5806/02/2021

It was not hideous. It was of its time, and big and iconic, befitting the historic occasion as well as the height and dominant personality of its wearer.

by Anonymousreply 5906/02/2021

The most hideous thing at Diana's wedding was Camilla!

by Anonymousreply 6006/02/2021


Lady Diana's wedding gown was originally held by her brother, Earl Spencer. Per terms of her will Diana, Princess of Wales wanted her personal belongings given to her sons upon their 30th birthdays.

This isn't uncommon, plenty of men find or found themselves in possession of their mothers personal things (clothing and so forth) as per terms of will or simply according to law if they are surviving next of kin.

IIRC Diana made a new will after her divorce from P of W, a sensible and often common occurrence. She couldn't have known how short her life would be afterwards. Had she lived things likely may have been different.

Far as that gown is concerned think it will always remain part of some museum collection or at least stored away for such purposes like other royal wedding gowns and apparel. Can't see Prince Harry fetching it to California, and more to point as you say, what's he going to do with it anyway....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6106/02/2021

The silk taffeta was absolutely gorgeous OP.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6206/02/2021

Even as a little gayling I thought this dress was ugs.

by Anonymousreply 6306/02/2021

Silk taffeta is indeed a wonderful fabric. Luminous yet with a starched quality that causes it to make a distinctive sound when rubbed against. That rustling sound was one reason why women loved it for gowns, underlings and petticoats.

There long has been a fetish among certain men for that rustle sound made by ladies silk (taffeta or other weaves) fabric skirts, under skirts or just nylons brushing against lined skirts.

Drawbacks are as Lady Diana found out the stuff creases badly...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6406/02/2021

Before Diana’s gown, the style was empire waist and A-line skirt with with long narrow sleeves or bishop’s sleeves. Or they were granny-style with a high neck and ruffled yoke bodice and a flounce at the hem. Hers was radically different. Big sleeves, full skirt. Another style, high or scoop neck, leg o’ mutton sleeves and drop waist, vaguely 1890s looking.

by Anonymousreply 6506/02/2021

Actually, Harry got Diana's engagement ring and William got Diana's Rolex watch. However, Harry gave the ring to William to give to Kate...way back when they were all friendly, and Markle was not on the scene. In exchange, William gave Harry Diana's Rolex watch, which Markle now wears.

Can you imagine if Harry had kept the ring? Markle would be even more insufferable than she is already.

by Anonymousreply 6606/02/2021

R52 et al

That Steuben glass bowl was meant to be a gift from "America" and "Americans" as Steuben Glass Works was founded in Corning, New York.

Know this because even as a kid thought that glass bowl was an odd gift, but recall reading in newspapers as to why Nancy Reagan did so.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6706/02/2021


By all accounts Lady Diana Spencer went to her marriage bed intact as God made her.

While not a proven virgin as in medical examination, discrete inquires were made and answers came back with near surety (to extent possible) that Diana was unknown to man.

One of the reasons HM was so keen on Charles to marry Lady Diana was her youth and innocence. No trail of former lovers lying around spare to make mischief with tittle-tattle stories to the press.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6806/02/2021

If you examine Lady Diana's wedding gown closely you'll see the shade of ivory appears nearly white in some lighting, but more to point suited her coloring more than bright bleached white.

Many brides for ages after the trend for "white" wedding gowns came into fashion wore shades of ivory. That and or underlining of dress was of a shade or color that gave a bit of warmth to overall effect.

The iconic wedding gown worn by Julie Andrews as Maria in Sound of Music was ivory as well. And this was a former postulant to a religious order, you don't get more virginal than that.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6906/02/2021

Oh well, since on that road anyway....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7006/02/2021

I wonder how soon she realized she'd made a terrible mistake- marrying the closeted, bitter, cold and critical Charles?

by Anonymousreply 7106/02/2021

Hit musta been the same designer o' ma dress!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7206/02/2021

Diana was very young and very ambitious. She was adamant that for an engagement ring she wanted "the biggest one" and that she wanted her dress to be "fairy princess" stuff and that her train be the longest ever by a Royal bride. These were all a very young person's assertions of power. A bit like Scarlett O'Hara's ideal house, which Rhett was embarrassed by.

One thing I did like about the dress was that from the mid-60s and throughout the 70s it was the pervasive fashion for wedding dresses to be either Empire line or unwaisted (shaped by the seams, with no delineation between bodice and skirt). It had got very boring. Diana changed that trend in one go, leading to a much bigger variety of shapes, which persists today.

by Anonymousreply 7306/02/2021

[quote] Actually, Harry got Diana's engagement ring and William got Diana's Rolex watch

That settles it.

Harry was her favorite.

Ring versus watch? Ring wins.

Sorry, William!

by Anonymousreply 7406/02/2021

She was probably moved by the way that he went "Ooh, sparkly thing!" whenever she waved it in front of him during a tantrum.

by Anonymousreply 7506/02/2021

My dress had toilet paper rolls. You can't beat that.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7606/02/2021


Diana got full confirmation about Charles and Camilla not long before the wedding. She wanted to bolt but her family (including sisters and brother), HM and others were pretty much adamant. Diana's name was on the tea towels now and it was thus too late for that sort of thing.

Being the daughter of a bolter tongues wagged in drawing rooms all over London if Diana was a suitable choice. Those who had warned Diana off early on now were resigned the marriage as announced must take place. For Diana to have pulled out would have been not only humiliating for Prince Charles, but entire BRF and HM as well. Furthermore if word ever got out just why she dropped Prince of Wales it would have been a national scandal.

As it turned out Diana marrying Prince Charles became more of a scandal than anyone could have imagined, but no one could have predicted how things would have turned out. Why I don't know, but everyone expected Diana to go along as other royal or noble wives have done for centuries.

by Anonymousreply 7706/02/2021

The dress was a disaster because the designers had no experience in creating a gown for a psycho bitch.

by Anonymousreply 7806/02/2021

Diana, the Stars shine bright!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7906/03/2021

Say what you will about Fergie, her dress flattered her more than Diana’s did. Diana’s hair was also a wreck, you can tell it had collapsed by the time she got to St. Paul’s, either from humidity or too much products, or from Diana’s stress (yes, stress can affect how your hair looks)

Diana’s best looks were yet to come, with the military jackets and the chic hats, and the longer blonder hair.

by Anonymousreply 8006/03/2021

Fergie's gown certainly is underrated, it's very good. And yes, Diana's flat hair was unfortunate. She obviously later got body perms to achieve height and volume.

by Anonymousreply 8106/03/2021

Fergie's gown wasn't that much better.

But it was definitely better than Diana's gown.

Diana got married in 1981. Fergie in 1986. By then, styles were becoming more modern, and hair was getting pouffier.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8206/03/2021

What made Diana’s look so interesting was that her outfits and style evolution made clear the marked conflicts between her looks & manner, her tastes, and her ambitions & desires.

She wanted to project the aesthetic of a gentle, delicate, maternal, and ultra-feminine soul with traditional confectionary style. This would have suited the Firm down to the ground. However, Di’s natural rebellious emotional nature, as well as her taste for adventure and testing a boundary, pushed against this.

There is also the matter of her face & figure, sharp and aquiline and boyish, but also petite and luminous and lovely. She had a kind of otherworldly Pan-like androgyny at times, that the Fragonard froth simply didn’t suit.

by Anonymousreply 8306/03/2021

I suspect one reason younger people especially don’t care for Diana’s and Fergie’s elaborate gowns is that they are used to several decades of the more minimalist sheath trend made popular by Carolyn Bessette.

by Anonymousreply 8406/03/2021

Diana’s hair was the biggest miscalculation. I’m not sure what her hairdresser was trying to achieve. Should it have been off her forehead?

by Anonymousreply 8506/03/2021

I agree, R84.

But I think that wedding dress styles are much more chic nowdays.

For example, I love Eugenie's style. It was simple, elegant, form-fitting, and classic.

The sort of dress that never goes out of style.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8606/03/2021

I really didn't care for Kate Middleton's dress.

I don't know what it is about it, but it looks weird.

Maybe it's because she's just too skinny.

She looks anorexic, which makes the dress look weird on her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8706/03/2021

Meghan's dress was another one that is simple and classic.

You can't go wrong with that style, in any era.

Maybe it's because I'm just not a fan of lace, but I like Meghan's dress more than Kate's.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8806/03/2021

Princess Bea's was a bit TOO simple.

It almost looks like a house dress.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8906/03/2021

Queen Elizabeth's dress was nice, but she does seem to be drowning in it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9006/03/2021

I for one am bored with “simple.” Bring on the ruffles and lace!

by Anonymousreply 9106/03/2021

R86 personally I find that dress hyper-structured and somehow severe, as if it’s a piece of origami rather than a garment. It has no drape, and feels inorganic for that.

by Anonymousreply 9206/03/2021

Eugenie and Meghan seem to have the same taste, from the gown to the tiara.

I find that interesting.

Is Eugenie the one who is close to Harry, or is that Princess Bea?

by Anonymousreply 9306/03/2021

Are we sure it wasn't a picture of Laura Ingalls Wilder's dress instead?

by Anonymousreply 9406/03/2021

R93 well, you could say they’re both “modern,“ both sort of working in the arts, so maybe they share an aesthetic.

by Anonymousreply 9506/03/2021

R87 it was her titties! The pointy bra was too prominent. The dress itself was lovely, understated and appropriate, a tad boring but that’s okay. Kate’s brand, really.

by Anonymousreply 9606/03/2021

Yes OP. With all of her style and being a fashion icon...that wedding dress was the worst.

by Anonymousreply 9706/03/2021

R89 Nooo I loved Bea’s dress, it had history and personality.

by Anonymousreply 9806/03/2021

Maybe that's it R96.

You can almost see her itty bitty titties through that dress.

And she has a boy's body.

The designer should have given the dress more volume up top, to hide that fact.

All the other royal brides look busty and/or curvy.

Kate body looks like a boy in a dress.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9906/03/2021

Personally, I thought Princess Anne's Elizabethan style dress was the best (after Grace Kelly's of course).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10006/03/2021

I think r11 best describes it. Diana was young, so young yet stunningly beautiful and she had that incredible stature so even a potato sack would have looked great on her. That dress on anybody else would have been awful. For some bizarre reason, Diana pulled it off.

by Anonymousreply 10106/03/2021

R83 Diana had classical, aristocratic features that worked well with "Fragonard froth" (love it).

by Anonymousreply 10206/03/2021

[quote]Diana's wedding dress has grown on me.

I believe there is a cream for that.

by Anonymousreply 10306/03/2021

R11 nailed it. Little girl's fantasy princess dress. Like a Disney princess.

by Anonymousreply 10406/03/2021

The waist may have been revolutionary at the time but it was cheaply done and looked unfinished.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10506/03/2021

Speaking of Diana's wedding dress, it's now on display at Kensington Palace.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10606/03/2021

Well, like it or not, she dressed for the ROOM and she killed it!

by Anonymousreply 10706/03/2021

Exactamundo, Tallulah.

by Anonymousreply 10806/03/2021

[quote] You can criticize it all you want but all I can say is you had to be there.

Indeed. All these cunts cunting on the dress probably weren’t even born yet.

It looked beautiful on her and if you can’t “go big” when you’re marrying the future king, you may as well go home.

by Anonymousreply 10906/03/2021

[quote] Speaking of Diana's wedding dress, it's now on display at Kensington Palace.

Is that like displaying a Lion's Head on the wall, after you've hunted and killed it?

by Anonymousreply 11006/03/2021

Amen R15..

by Anonymousreply 11106/03/2021

More time has elapsed since her wedding and now than since the queen's coronation and the wedding, and the same queen is still queen.

by Anonymousreply 11206/03/2021

The color of the dress must have darkened with age (or it wasn't stored properly). There's no way it was originally that beige color.

by Anonymousreply 11306/03/2021
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11406/03/2021

She was a dumb little girl who believed in fairy tales and prince charming. Naivete seems to be a trait that is coveted in women because it evokes pity and sympathy.

by Anonymousreply 11506/03/2021

Anne’s Lady Guinevere sleeves were gorgeous

by Anonymousreply 11606/03/2021

Jackie Kennedy's wedding dress was even worse than Diana's.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11706/03/2021

R117 With that I agree. It looks like a chenille bedspread. Surprised at Jackie.

by Anonymousreply 11806/03/2021

R92 That’s the best description I have read. I hate the top folds by the shoulders because it reminds me of a folded table napkin.

Kates dress is ok, but it’s kinda boring. I think having her hair down was a mistake with such a high neckline covered in lace. It was to busy.

Megan did look lovely and I think her dress was classic and tasteful. Her hair was the issue.

The queens dress was beautiful and in that picture you can tell she a very big rack.

by Anonymousreply 11906/03/2021

That was the fashion at the time: big, over-the-top, spectacular. Just a year or two earlier she would have worn a much more slimmed down dress, but the success of Reagan and Thatcher at the ballot boxes meant that people wanted what they represented: excess, wealth, and ostentation.

Also, remember that Charles waited what was considered a very long time in those days to marry (although it would seem fully normal now to wait until your mid 30s), and so people had really wanted him to get married; and Diana was considered so perfect a choice at the time because in those days she was seen as a blushing aristocratic English rose.

That wedding was the biggest of big deals--there will never be one as enormous in my lifetime.

by Anonymousreply 12006/03/2021

R117 - I don't know if it's true or not but I read that Joe Kennedy picked out Jackie's dress for her. She didn't want to wear it because she didn't like it. Anyone else hear this about the dress?

by Anonymousreply 12106/03/2021

R99 Spoken like a true, obese frau. Whenever they see a thin woman, they start screeching “boy’s body!!!” It never fails. No, sweetheart, she has a slender, lithe body, perfectly feminine. Your unbridled fat is not feminine, it’s frau.

by Anonymousreply 12206/03/2021

R113 All pure silk oxidizes to a darker color, no matter how you store it, unfortunately.

by Anonymousreply 12306/03/2021

Loved Princess Anne's. The sleeves were wonderful. Agree that Kate should have worn her hair up. I know she wanted to come across as down-to-earth, but it's a royal wedding. She's, ironically, more glamorous at Prince Philip's funeral.

Jackie's dress was awful, but that's a beautiful veil.

Diana was 5'10". She really grew into her style when she embraced her long lines. Kate has more traditionally pretty features, but Diana dazzled.

Meghan's dress leaves me cold. Too minimalist and stiff. Her figure's not good enough to carry it off.

Beatrice's was sweet. She got the best flowers.

by Anonymousreply 12406/03/2021

Some critic described MM's dress looking like poured concrete. Best description I've ever heard.

by Anonymousreply 12506/03/2021

[quote] Wow, DL. We're STILL talking about this dress decades later? As if it's news, or daring opinions can now be voiced? Sad, sad, sad.

Wow, Mary. Get over yourself!

by Anonymousreply 12606/03/2021

R86. Eugenie's dress suited her. A bland, uninteresting look - quite a change from how Eugenie has dressed in the past. At least she reached out to a designer who could work with Eugenie's figure and tone down her desire to look a clown.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12706/03/2021

What a difference 10 years makes....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12806/03/2021

I thought Carolyn’s dress was boring af, and too sexay for a religious ceremony.

by Anonymousreply 12906/03/2021

How did my second sentence at R129 wind up as a signoff? I try not to be gimmicky that way.

by Anonymousreply 13006/03/2021

Carolyn looked great - a modern woman of the 90's, not a nervous teen, unafraid to be a sexual being. God knows she was marrying sex-on-a-stick and an unsexy dress would make zero sense.

by Anonymousreply 13106/03/2021

R131 I guess you’re right about the dress. Was that really how she was, though? She still seems like a mystery to me.

by Anonymousreply 13206/03/2021

Diana must have seen Carolyn’s dress and felt frosted. By then her own style had changed dramatically. Wasn’t she known to be a little catty about Carolyn’s looks? When you think about it, from Diana’s standpoint, that was real competition.

by Anonymousreply 13306/03/2021

[quote] I thought Carolyn’s dress was boring af, and too sexay for a religious ceremony.

You realize that makes no sense whatsoever.

Sexy is the exact opposite of boring. And no, you cannot say both are true of that dress simultaneously. Either it is boring; or it is sexy.

by Anonymousreply 13406/03/2021

Boring visually, too sexy conceptually. It’s not hard.

by Anonymousreply 13506/03/2021

Carolyn married in '96...Diana died the following year... Carolyn died two years after that.

by Anonymousreply 13606/03/2021

Yep I wish those two were alive, for themselves as well as the decades of delicious gossip that was missed. JFK was pretty much done with Carolyn's antics.

by Anonymousreply 13706/03/2021


If Diana's hair received more body via chemical treatments, that likely would have been coloring/lightening which gave her blondish shades.

There's a well publicized article where Diana talks about pushing her hairdresser to make her hair lighter because Prince Charles likes blondes....

Double processing is never a good idea, so don't think Diana had both perms and coloring/bleaching done to her hair.

If Diana's hair was "flat" on her wedding day (and don't agree that it was", may have had something to do with having to fit that tiara she wore.

Under old rules unmarried daughters of peers didn't wear tiaras until after they married, or were being marched down aisle. You would think planning was done before hand with perhaps even some practice runs, but who knows......

IMHO flat or whatever hair the effect fit, Diana was a fresh innocent young girl, and her hair being left largely as it was normally (except styled) suited.

Later on as Princess of Wales when wearing a tiara was called for Diana's hair would be better styled including teasing, up-do, etc which is how many older experienced peeresses or royal princesses manage things.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13806/03/2021

Other side to R68 once Diana got up on national television and admitted to God and the world she was an adulteress, that was *it*, there had to be a divorce.

Prince Charles wasn't Henry VIII and Diana surely wasn't Catherine of Aragon, so matter of her being a virgin before marriage wasn't a huge issue that couldn't be overcome if necessary.

OTOH another man having a go with the Princess of Wales which by extension involves the succession (Prince Harry has never lived down talk James Hewitt is his father), simply couldn't be tolerated. Yes, it's a double standard that Prince Charles basically got a pass as in "boys will be boys..", but that's simply how things go.

No one thought they were going to bring back beheading just for Diana and James Hewitt, but clearly neither thought things out carefully before going to media with their affair.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13906/03/2021

R138 I still say she had some perm action going on.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14006/03/2021

Oh for God's sake about Harry inheriting the dress. All the stories about who got what in terms of choosing among her artifacts came from Paul Burrell who had nothing to do with her sons, particularly after she died. He lingered on a few months at KP while the boys were no longer at KP they were at Clarence House, Highgrove, Eton, Scotland, Norfolk, etc.

Her mother and sister were her executors, the estate had to be assessed for death taxes which included her property and he was gone by then. I don't think anybody took two teen boys into a vault, Burrell or someone else, and said - start choosing!

Sounds like Sassoon is poisoning the well. Diana's blue engagement announcement dress was NOT criticized. Everything about her was deemed perfect in every way, the dress, the "well brushed" hair (I remember that comment in one article).

Diana was tall and rangy. The wedding dress was for an ingenue or a Dresden doll w/a tiny hourglass shape, like a Bo Peep.

The flouncy style didn't suit her, and it was a bad example of flouncy style. It looked like all the workmanship went into the ruffled sleeves and neckline and when it came to the body of the dress - and Diana's own body - the designers were "Meh". Just ignore her boobs. Ignore her waistline. Don't fit or dart or shape anything. The proportions were wrong. Top heavy but top heavy with ruffles - Diana's own figure was ignored. Then the hem of the skirt didn't carry through the ruffled theme - it was just a circle hem an inch above the ground. Then a massive, wrinkled train.

She was young, beautiful skin and hair, very tall, so anyone emerging from a freaking GOLD HORSE DRAWN COACH in miles of expensive, sparkly white fabric is going to make an impression but it wasn't the greatest. Fergie's dress actually suited her better than Diana's suited Diana.

by Anonymousreply 14106/03/2021

I'm a huge fan of Diana and I've grown to like her wedding dress; however, the puffy sleeves and neckline is still too much. If the sleeves and neckline had a bit more classic sophistication and a little less fairytale, it would have been one for all time.

by Anonymousreply 14206/03/2021

I never realized that her hair was critiqued for being flat. I thought her hair was supposedly to look like that. It really projected virginal innocence when paired with the gown.

by Anonymousreply 14306/03/2021

R143 It didn't look bad, but I imagine there was a little curling iron effort that ended up going limp. Understandable, with everything going on that day.

by Anonymousreply 14406/03/2021

I saw Diana's wedding dress on display in London back in the late 80s. I think it was in an exhibit in the basement of Kensington Palace. I've never cared for the dress, but what was so striking at the exhibit was Diana's height.

Her dress towered over the nearby tiny English knights' coats of armor. There was one giant Knight's armor sitting upon a model of his giant horse clad in armor.

by Anonymousreply 14506/03/2021

She had her hair in rollers earlier in the morning, to what effect we'll never know. I imagine London in June is damp. Between that, products and a heavy tiara, it was bound to fall.

by Anonymousreply 14606/03/2021

[quote] OTOH another man having a go with the Princess of Wales which by extension involves the succession (Prince Harry has never lived down talk James Hewitt is his father), simply couldn't be tolerated. Yes, it's a double standard that Prince Charles basically got a pass as in "boys will be boys..", but that's simply how things go.

Having sexual relations with the wife of the Prince of Wales was literally a capital crime when Hewitt had them with her--it might still be. It's an ancient law that no one would have ever actually enforced for the last century, but even so.

by Anonymousreply 14706/03/2021

Her hair was nice and thick, but straight.

by Anonymousreply 14806/03/2021

To lay with queen consort or princess of Wales is high treason, has been for centuries and laws are still on books.

"Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession"

Again no one thought they were going to bring back the Tower and hanging just for Diana and Hewitt. More to the point prosecuting one or both in a perverse way would have likely done in the BRF and perhaps even the monarchy. Such was the power then of Diana-maniacs .

The people in large part loved Diana, Anne Boleyn OTOH was mostly detested, so few were sad to see her go.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 14906/03/2021

I thought Kate's dress was pretty and suited her. I didn't like the bust darts and the whole bust area looked lumpy. William wanted her to wear her hair down and have makeup that looked like wore she wore every day. Kate wore a bustle.

I didn't Like Meghan's dress. It reminds me of a 1940s nurse's uniform and didn't fit properly. Plus, the lace strapless bra looked lumpy.

There was a royal wedding in Spain. The material used for the bride's gown was too thin. You can see the breast cups through the material. The flowered veil was a refreshing change.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15006/03/2021

With many of these modern wedding gowns (including Diana's if am seeing things correctly) is the lost art of building foundations into gown.

If you look at insides of gowns of all sorts going back to 1940's, 1950's and really until somewhat recently they are built upon a foundation. This helps create a smooth line regardless if wearer decides to use a corset, merry widow, etc...

French and some other haute couture still do this, but elsewhere it's bit of hit or miss.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15106/03/2021

There is no reason for bra cups to show under a gown besides sloppy workmanship. They have been around for ages and any girl knows once she begins wearing bras white under white will show.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15206/03/2021

It was the 80s. Fashion was hideous.

by Anonymousreply 15306/03/2021

R83- love the descriptive “Fragonard froth.” Throw in a swing and kick off a heel and it’s basically the whole Rococo movement in a gown.

by Anonymousreply 15406/03/2021


It was those damn shoulder pads!

by Anonymousreply 15506/03/2021

Diana's dress does not photograph well. In the OP's pic, it looks hideous. But these in these pics it looks... OK.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15606/03/2021

Who cares what Kates gown looked like. We all know William has a nice cock.

by Anonymousreply 15706/03/2021

I thought the flower bouquet was ugly. It should have been pink and also not long, flowing.

by Anonymousreply 15806/03/2021


Things just might seem that way because HM is sitting with the yards of fabric that made her veil and that of train (latter was shorter) is piled in front and around her to avoid sitting on them. That is how things are supposed to be done, you don't sit on veils nor yards of fabric that make up a train.

When standing the gown was perfectly lovely and not overwhelming at all.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15906/03/2021


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16006/03/2021

No-one’s mentioned the perfume stain, yet. You bitches are slipping!

In many of the wedding-day pictures, Diana can be seen carefully and strategically holding her left hand or her bouquet over the stain on her left thigh.

Who dabs an expensive thick oil-based frag on their wrists and all but wipes it off on their expensive important outfit that millions will be looking at? Subconsciously, could we suppose she was trying to sabotage and make a point?

QUELQUES FLEURS seems like a really frumpy scent to me, even with that dress and for such an occasion. Not to mention, too French! Then, I’ve never smelled it, so perhaps it does suit Diana.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16106/04/2021

^^^ [quote] Seconds before she was due to embark, Diana went to give herself one last spritz of Houbigant Paris ‘Quelques Fleurs’, but the lid of the bottle came loose and splattered her custom David & Elizabeth Emanuel gown. According to the Princess’s makeup artist Barbara Daly, Diana said, “I’ve just put my perfume on, and I’ve spilled some on the front of my dress. They’ll kill me!" Daly, on-hand, frantically tried to clean the dress, but the fragrance left a large stain. So, the makeup artist told Diana there was only one thing that she could do: hold her dress up by the stained area so that it looked like she was simply lifting it up to avoid stepping on it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16206/04/2021

[quote]To lay with queen consort

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 16306/04/2021

Yes, R121, I've read a number of books on the Kennedys and I've read the story that Joe picked the wedding dress and Jackie didn't like it more than once. She was the one who was really put-upon by the family she married into.

Diana's hair was affected by humidity the day of the wedding. I remember the commentators saying so on the day. It was a hot day and I'm pretty sure it was raining early on.

by Anonymousreply 16406/04/2021

The bodice of QEII’s wedding gown was not fitted and made her look frumpy. She has a large bust and never wears the proper foundations (a trait Eugenie inherited). Hike those girls up!

by Anonymousreply 16506/04/2021

We've been down this road before....

Jackie Bouvier having just returned from Paris, France wanted something slim and elegant for her wedding gown. Joe Kennedy who was largely paying for the event (IIRC) and was using it as one big PR event for his son, wanted something grand and huge. He had invited tons of press and nothing less but a grand wedding gown would do.

Like many young women of her class at the time Jackie Bouvier turned to a dressmaker for her wedding dress, the bridal party, mother of the bride, etc... Joe Kennedy involved himself with the design process to ensure Jackie's dress was up to his standards.

Oh and by the way, Jackie Bouvier's dress was ivory silk as well....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16606/04/2021


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16706/04/2021


Am going to cut then Princess Elizabeth some slack about her wedding gown. WWII had just ended scarcely two years before, and Britain was still rebuilding and indeed rationing was still in effect.

Princess Margaret's wedding gown was fantastic. But PM was bit more of a clothes horse than her sister, and likely knew far better what she wanted. Princess Margaret loved Dior and she wore it well, but there was no question of a foreigner doing PM's wedding gown. Hartnell did the honors and by many accounts it was his finest work. So simple, pure and elegant.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16806/04/2021

[quote] She has a large bust and never wears the proper foundations (a trait Eugenie inherited). Hike those girls up!

Sorry—are we seriously suggesting that HM The Queen ought to have worn a Wonderbra on her wedding day? Or any other day?

by Anonymousreply 16906/04/2021

No, an underwire.

by Anonymousreply 17006/04/2021

It was perfect for her, at her age.

It was big, it set a trend for the time.

Yes, today it is dated and out of context over the top, but so the hoop skirt, the bustle, the circle skirt, anything with a crinoline verging on burlesque hasn't really endured either.

As someone observed upthread, you really had to be there, but if you were it absolutely met the moment.

by Anonymousreply 17106/04/2021

Whenever I picture Diana in a more tasteful, elegant, streamlined gown, I feel a sense of disappointment. Team Confection!

by Anonymousreply 17206/04/2021

She carried off elegant, streamlined magnificently in the last years of her life, but it suited both her maturity and the times.

by Anonymousreply 17306/04/2021

Agree, r171. I remember the moment Diana stepped out of the carriage. She just looked radiant, her face was filled with excitement, trepidation (big ceremony) and she was the point of interest for millions if not billions around the world. I think as said before, on any other person, it would have been awful. But you add Prince Charles, The Queen, a cathedral, a golden carriage, a tall, blonde with an athletic build, beautiful luminescent blues eyes, translucent skin, and elegant hairstyle and it could not help but be an overwhelming success.

That dress was made for a tall woman. And Princess Diana did it justice.

by Anonymousreply 17406/04/2021

Is THAT what passed for taste in 1981?

by Anonymousreply 17506/04/2021

Why was Granny Di dressed like a loo-roll cover?

by Anonymousreply 17606/04/2021

Lottie trying on wedding dress prototypes already. Little minx.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17706/04/2021

I didn’t watch the wedding live, but I remember thinking the dress was way too much, bordering on atrocious. It was just too wide up top, when slender with a full skirt would have looked so much prettier.

by Anonymousreply 17806/04/2021

[quote]Beatrice's was sweet. She got the best flowers.

She looked good in it, it was one of the Queen's old gowns, but the Queen actually looked better in it originally. I do think Beatrice looked lovely though.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17906/04/2021

[quote]I thought Carolyn’s dress was boring af, and too sexay for a religious ceremony.

Her dress was similar to the 1930s slinky bias cut dresses, which was a cut you often saw in wedding gowns in the movies.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18006/04/2021

Adding those puffy sleeves to that old Hartnell gown made Beatrice look like Patience, the village milkmaid. Then again it was a small wedding in the country.

by Anonymousreply 18106/04/2021


by Anonymousreply 18206/04/2021

R181 yes, I thought so as well.

R179’s side-by-side comparison is such an interesting image—how two women closely related can make the same dress look so different. HM The Queen looks like she’s presenting her own version of THE LORETTA YOUNG SHOW; Bea by comparison looks like she’s starring in a production of CAMELOT (which as a lesbian Pagan I secretly prefer—I’d love to handfast a pretty girl dressed like that).

by Anonymousreply 18306/04/2021

R170, underwire bras weren't widespread until "the 1950s", so maybe later than the Queen's wedding. I think they originated in the US so they might have been more available earlier there.

by Anonymousreply 18406/05/2021

Pure white wouldn't have suited the young Diana, the shade of ivory used had a warmth to it, and was just light enough to harmonize with her lovely fair skin. The OP's photo makes the gown look beige but it's not, or wasn't in the 1980s, maybe it's darkened with age.

Still, I never liked the gown much, it really was more than she could carry off at that age. She really would have looked better in long, lean lines.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18506/05/2021

Diana would have looked much better in something long and lean, perhaps some variation on a sheath. She had the figure for it!

But if she had... can you imagine how awful brides would have looked for the next 10 years? Diana was a tall stick of a woman, sheaths always suited her, but white sheaths look godawful on women who aren't as tall, or who have curves.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18606/05/2021

It was ok. Way over the top, tbf, but hey, those were the fucking 80s.

The BRF wedding dress I hate the most is Meghan's. It looked as if seamed together the night prior to the wedding.

And don't get me started on that tacky veil.

by Anonymousreply 18706/06/2021

Di used to have strawberry blonde hair, she started to hit the dye bottle upon hearing that Charles likes blondes. Sort of sad because a tinge of red would've looked just gorgeous on Diana.

As a matter of fact, her first grandchild, Prince George, has got strawberry blonde hair, too. Which is perhaps yet another reason for Meghan Markle to depict her son as a redhead.

by Anonymousreply 18806/06/2021

The fabric was a beautiful ivory on her wedding day. Some pictures of the dress now shows it aged and stained very badly.

The wikipedia page on silk taffeta shows a beautiful gown that's a lot older than Diana's dress and the color looks not aged or stained at all.

What gives?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18906/06/2021


Gingers run in the Spencer family... Diana's brother, nephews, nieces, etc... all start out some shade of ginger . This goes back many generations in Spencer family IIRC.

Lord Louis Spencer is ginger just like Prince William was (until went bald as a billiard ball), and Prince Harry still is, but rapidly going way of his brother.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19006/06/2021

Louis Spencer is dishwater blonde. He doesn't look ginger at all to me.

by Anonymousreply 19106/06/2021

Looks ginger to me, but haven't seen any recent pictures...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19206/06/2021

He does look more ginger in those pics at your link, R192. My hair is a similar color and can look reddish brown, strawberry blonde, or mousy blonde depending upon the lighting.

by Anonymousreply 19306/06/2021

And yet here we are 40 years later still talking about. Mission accomplished.

by Anonymousreply 19406/06/2021

Di’s brother got some good looking crotch droppings. Pity that Di had to mix those genes with Chuck’s hideous gene pool.

by Anonymousreply 19506/06/2021

R194 Exactly.

The dress is iconic and so is the lady who wore the dress.

I don’t think anyone else could have pulled it off. I can’t imagine Kate, Megan, Beatrice or Eugenie wearing this gown without looking down right frumpy and clownish.

by Anonymousreply 19606/06/2021

Wonder if Louis Spencer tapped Nicki Minaj's ass. Maybe like his cousin Prince Harry he wanted to get down with the swirl...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19706/06/2021

[quote]I don't think anyone else could have pulled it off. I can't imagine Kate, Megan, Beatrice or Eugenie wearing this gown without looking down right frumpy and clownish.

Diana was beautiful and would have looked good in a flour sack.

Beatrice and Eugenie need much better stylists because they don't have faces or figures that allow them to get away with wearing whatever they want. Kate is tall and thin with a pretty face but doesn't seem to have any style or innate dress sense so she is frequently led astray into outfits that wear her rather than the other way round.

by Anonymousreply 19806/06/2021

Prince William never was a real redhead like his brother - he did have a hue of red in his hair though. The redhead genes run in the Windsor family, too, although to a much lesser extent. You need both parents to have the redhead genes in order to get a redhead kid, because the redhead genes are recessive. Without the Windsors having the redhead genes, too, Harry would've never ended up with that full mop of ginger hair.

Anyway, back to the wedding dresses. I truly hate Meghan's dress, but another letdown was Zara's gown, at least the bare arms. Meh.

by Anonymousreply 19906/06/2021

[quote] Meghan is tiny and boxy and doesn't seem to have any style or innate dress sense so she is frequently led astray into outfits that wear her rather than the other way round.

Fixed it for you, R198.

by Anonymousreply 20006/06/2021

"Diana was beautiful and would have looked good in a flour sack."

But even Diana couldn't carry off a lot of the fashion excesses of the 1980s! And she was a stunner, and charismatic, and really did have a fashion model's tall, thin, curveless figure... and not even she could carry off some of the huge, ruffled, drop-waisted, monstrosities sold as high fashion during the 1980s!

That's why her post-divorce look wowed everyone so much, and not just because she was physically healthier. She finally started wearing simple things that suited her body, which didn't overwhelm her, and which had classic appeal.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20106/06/2021

Speaking of an English rose and frocks...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20206/06/2021

Those awful 80s drop-waisted dresses didn't look good on anyone.

by Anonymousreply 20306/06/2021

R200, it can be true of both Kate and Megan that their outfits wear them.

by Anonymousreply 20406/06/2021

Diana's dress was of its time. The 1980s was all about the crazy, out there layers.

IMO, she was really good at wearing her clothes rather than letting them wear her. Other famous women, including her daughters-in-law, look overly processed/styled. The clothes, hair, make-up are working too hard. She was part of a tiny minority when it came to style who make all the styling look effortless, like Marilyn Monroe and Queen Elizabeth II.

by Anonymousreply 20506/06/2021

Beatrice’s gown was a stroke of genius. Take into consideration her previous lack of taste. The COVID shutdown fortuitously prevented a massive fashion disaster on nationwide tv. Remaking one of the Queen’s old gowns gets points for recycling as well as being a nod from the Queen. And despite being 30 or maybe a little older, she looks young, thick hair, full cheeks, big lips so the puff sleeves suited her, with her hair half up half down, she looked like a plump lass.

The finishing touch was the fringe tiara which repeated the vertical sequin lines on the dress. Wasn’t that the same tiara that the Queen wears? Another token of her regard.

But here’s a heretical thought, Bea could’ve carried off Diana’s dress. Yes, I believe she could have. Eugenie I’m not sure, I don’t think she has the confidence. But both have the English rose complexion, the buxom figure and the almost naïveté/good natured personality. Kate, Meghan are too modern by comparison.

by Anonymousreply 20606/06/2021

Something about Beatrice's gown doesn't work me. I'm still amazed the Queen was so tiny in her youth. The fabric could have been a closer match on the added length. Or maybe it needed some sort of diamanté treatment around the added length... It just looks tacked on. They should have moved the straps closer to sleeve and replicated some of the jewel work on the bodice to better integrate the added length.

by Anonymousreply 20706/06/2021

[quote]But here’s a heretical thought, Bea could’ve carried off Diana’s dress.

You know, I kind of agree. She would have looked... tastefully ridiculous... but something about Bea would suit that monster home of a dress, you're right.

by Anonymousreply 20806/06/2021

R186 Most women don't want to engage bulimia/anorexia, as did Diana, to maintain their figures. She was naturally on the chubby side and was only able to lose weight and keep it off via sticking her fingers down her throat. (Her breath must have been atrocious).

Diana was no big thinker and had zero fashion sense when she was a late teen/early 20s.

She most definitely did not have the figure and fashion forward thinking to carry off a modern, iconic look.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20906/06/2021

That bow in the front should be a crime for females over 9 years old.

by Anonymousreply 21006/06/2021

Yes, HM was married in that tiara and I think this was the first time she loaned it since becoming Queen. It's one of her favorites.

There were other changes made than just adding the puffed sleeves. HM wore the dress a foot off the floor and with crinolines or some other support garments that pushed it out in a bell shape. Bea let it hang straight down and an extra foot of fabric was added at the hem to make it floor length. That's why it looked so different from when HM wore it.

by Anonymousreply 21106/06/2021

Besette's dress was designed fully fifteen years after Diana married, for a woman who was a 30-year old New Yorker with a career in fashion and a life in the fast lane.

That wasn't 20-year old Diana Spencer in 1981.

by Anonymousreply 21206/06/2021

If only she had been wearing that gown that night in Paris. It might have cushioned her from the severity of the crash and she'd be alive today.

by Anonymousreply 21306/06/2021

Di was such a try hard. I keep things simple, classy, and easy to dry clean- especially given all the cum stains that most of my clothes end up having from hillbilly trash.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21406/06/2021

What about this iconic wedding dress?

by Anonymousreply 215Last Monday at 6:48 AM

Oops ^^^

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 216Last Monday at 6:49 AM

I liked Fergie's wedding dress, it was beautiful, flattering, and didn't try too hard. But then, Diana was someone who could go over the top on occasion, and Fergie has never had the kind of looks or personality that would allow her to carry off extreme looks.

Still, Diana may have had the looks to carry off great big extreme things, she didn't have the diva personality. She really did look her best in simple things with clean lines, and the wedding dress was just too much for her.

by Anonymousreply 217Last Monday at 7:23 AM

Diana would have looked good in Fergie's dress. It was ivory, decorated, and the sleeves were puffy but not too.

by Anonymousreply 218Last Monday at 7:31 AM

Fergie's dress would have been disappointing and underwhelming on Diana, it was the sort of dress a girl without a perfect figure wears, because it'll make her look like she has a figure. Which was what Fergie needed, and still does, but for Diana...

I'd have offered her something more like this, something long and lean and flattering to her beanpole figure, but of course with better details and a more interesting collar. It would have worked better for her, than the Barbie's Dream Wedding they ended up with.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 219Last Monday at 7:38 AM

R219 Respectfully, no.

by Anonymousreply 220Last Monday at 8:30 AM

[quote]Diana would have looked much better in something long and lean, perhaps some variation on a sheath.

That was never going to happen, in any year. A sheath is sexy, and Diana was selling virginity and naivety - both of which she probably had, but Camilla didn't and the public wanted them, so it was a pretty simple calculation.

by Anonymousreply 221Last Tuesday at 12:52 AM

100% hideous!

by Anonymousreply 222Last Tuesday at 1:44 AM

This looks like a cheap school play costume.

by Anonymousreply 223Last Tuesday at 2:03 AM

Again, if you weren’t there you have to understand it perfectly heralded the dawn of the 80s, when everything got BIG - hair, shoulders, decor. It was over the top and excessive and exuberant (and also pretty fun).

by Anonymousreply 224Last Tuesday at 2:33 AM

I don't hate it at all... yet it seems uniquely her's. I can't imagine anyone else having worn it or ever wearing it. It capped the fantasy - well the start of the fantasy - that was Diana. In fact if you look at her clothes from the early years of her marriage she generally looked like she was trying to wear clothes that fitted a juvenile fairy princess. She got a lot better once Catherine Walker came into her life and of course her style at the end of her life absolutely smashed it.

by Anonymousreply 225Last Tuesday at 2:50 AM

For a very long time, country club brides in the US wore variations of Tricia Nixon's wedding dress.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 226Last Tuesday at 4:25 AM

That's one of the waist-not-on-the waist styles I was talking about before. That line was THE line of the 70s and also much of the 60s as far as long wedding dresses went.

by Anonymousreply 227Last Tuesday at 5:18 AM

I just can’t picture of Diana in any other gown. I mean I can, but it’s underwhelming.

by Anonymousreply 228Last Tuesday at 6:54 AM

Fergie’s gown followed the trend. She didn’t set it. Plenty of brides had already worn similar gowns.

by Anonymousreply 229Last Tuesday at 6:58 AM

In 2010, I took the aunts to see “Diana: A Celebration”, which had all of her iconic dresses.

There in the middle of the gallery — in a huge, 35-foot long temperature controlled glass box — was The Gown.

My first thought was whoever owns this thing today probably has a love-hate relationship with it. The logistics associated with its transport must be an absolute nightmare. The challenge of providing a stable HVAC environment independent of local weather conditions must have caused many bouts of angina.

On display, The Gown looked virtually unrecognizable. Nary a wrinkle or crease in sight. The detail work was fantastic, though.

My aunts suspected that the people who packed the train into the carriage must have either been totally stressed out or hated Diana. If the fabric had been rolled or packaged differently in the carriage it would have arrived at the church in much better condition. We also wondered why she was not brought into a side room off the nave and the train steamed by an army of seamstresses. One giant mangle might have taken care of a carriage ride of ills. LOL

by Anonymousreply 230Last Tuesday at 10:26 AM

I think the designers, who were young and new, didn't understand taffeta.

"In the cathedral were 3,500 guests. A further 750 million people were watching on television around the globe. Each will have had their own opinion on the dress of the century. In his book, Diana Style, the fashion commentator Colin McDowell described the gown as ‘pure romance. We were all invited into a child’s picture of what a Princess should look like in the modern world.’

Yet many were unimpressed by how creased the fabric had become after being crammed into the tiny state carriage. ‘She should have come to us, we know about such things,’ an insider at the Queen’s couturier, Norman Hartnell, noted haughtily."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 231Last Tuesday at 11:26 AM

Only elder gays were preoccupied with the wrinkles in the dress. The rest of us were caught up in the drama and spectacle.

by Anonymousreply 232Last Tuesday at 3:06 PM

Am I the only one who thinks the creased fabric goes with the design of the gown? It's extravagant fairy-tale style makes it look almost rustic, like something Cinderella would've worn on her wedding day. I wouldn't even have picked up the creases unless they had been pointed out.

by Anonymousreply 233Last Tuesday at 3:18 PM

I think the big skirt, veil and color were all fine. It Really was the excess in top--big sleeves AND big ruffles AND that bloody bow. I think a square neckline with ornamentation, but no ruffle or bow would have worked better, even with the mega sleeves.

Princess Grace really kind of nailed the fairy-tale princess look, IMO, though there was a sweetness about Diana's extravaganza. I remember, at the time, that it was refreshing to have a royal who actually seemed to have an interest in fashion. I like Kate and she's clearly better suited for the job, but she avoids fashion-wow moments. Meghan would if she could, but just doesn't have much if a sense of style.

And we're just not going to talk about Fergie post wedding dress.

by Anonymousreply 234Last Tuesday at 3:27 PM

Both during Victorian and Edwardian era royal and noble ladies routinely got themselves into same state coach or similar wearing gowns equally (or more) grand as Diana's wedding gown. What Diana wore the once, they wore daily or at least frequently enough (balls, state occasions, opera, etc....).

Thus it should have come as no surprise all that taffeta would be quashed when Diana rode to and from church.

Taffeta creases, that has been known for ages, and ladies made allowances for it as in not being too bothered when it occurred. Much like wearing linen, you know it is going to crease at some point, so just get on with things..

Largely only ones moaning then and now about "crumpled Kleenex" are the punters. Diana wasn't bothered, neither was anyone else on that day or afterwards involved in wedding.

by Anonymousreply 235Last Tuesday at 3:31 PM

Anna Wintour was asked in an interview what she thought of Kate's fashion and style.

"She is always impeccable."

by Anonymousreply 236Last Tuesday at 3:31 PM

Yes, Kate's style is always impeccable, she always wear something wonderfully suitable, flattering, stylish, and lovely. If she never wears anything outrageous or avante-garde, or even super fashion-forward, well, it's not her job! Her job is to be perfect in a conservative way, and she does that, and I also don't think it's her personality. I bet that if she didn't have the job of HRH Future Queen, she'd dress down rather than outrageously.

I like Camilla's taste, BTW, I say she knows what works for her. Most of her outfits are very pretty and suit her, and if she likes over-the-top jewels, then what the hell, she looks like she's having fun wearing them. That helps a person get away with a lot.

by Anonymousreply 237Last Tuesday at 3:41 PM

Kate Middleton had a few fashion missteps early one, but gradually has evolved quite well. The Duchess of Cambridge is going to be a smashing princess of Wales, and eventually queen consort.

by Anonymousreply 238Last Tuesday at 3:44 PM

I remember reading an interview with Karl Lagerfeld that was really catty and bitchy. The interviewer was leading him on and Lagerfeld was dissing everyone left and right. Finally, near the end, the interviewer moved in for the kill and asked what Lagerfeld felt about how Her Majesty dresses.

"I believe she dresses entirely appropriately for a woman of her age and position."

by Anonymousreply 239Last Tuesday at 3:47 PM

more Largerfeld

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 240Last Tuesday at 3:55 PM

^ harsh to poor Di, I wonder when he met her and formed that opinion, it could've been when she was still quite young

by Anonymousreply 241Last Tuesday at 4:05 PM

Alas, so was the union with Charles

by Anonymousreply 242Last Tuesday at 4:13 PM

Fergie looked fabulous on her wedding day!

by Anonymousreply 243Last Tuesday at 6:29 PM

Discussing Princess Diana's wedding dress is -


by Anonymousreply 244Last Tuesday at 6:44 PM

[quote]Am I the only one who thinks the creased fabric goes with the design of the gown?

I remember that on the day the Emmanuels were shocked at everyone's reaction to the creasing. The reason they gave was that the fabric was called "paper taffeta", and creasing was one of its properties. To this end, they were inside the cathedral to meet her and pull it back into shape, which it responded to so well that, on TV at least, the dress looked perfect as she walked down the aisle. Given the size of dress she wanted, they may have deliberately used a lighter fabric which could be pulled straight, rather than a thicker one that would not have recovered from the squeeze in the carriage.

The point that they were inexperienced and didn't send someone to pack the dress into the carriage properly may hold, or it may have been that they recognised Diana wasn't going to stand for that. I'm not sure that in 1981 it would have been viable to have portable steaming equipment that could deal with something so large, and if it was, whether the Dean(?) of St Paul's would have allowed it in. Most people took church a lot more seriously then.

by Anonymousreply 245Last Tuesday at 6:58 PM

[quote]Yet many were unimpressed by how creased the fabric had become after being crammed into the tiny state carriage. ‘She should have come to us, we know about such things,’ an insider at the Queen’s couturier, Norman Hartnell, noted haughtily."

I remember hearing at the time that Diana wanted the Emanuels because they were newlyweds themselves, it was part of the whole romance thing.

by Anonymousreply 246Last Tuesday at 7:06 PM

R240 RIP Lagerfeld. He kept it real to the end.

by Anonymousreply 247Last Tuesday at 7:17 PM

R77 Too bad the poor girl wasn't able to exercise her own will.

by Anonymousreply 248Last Tuesday at 7:51 PM

[quote] Understandable, with everything going on that day.

Yes, with the Rottweiler in the congregation, and all.

by Anonymousreply 249Last Tuesday at 8:22 PM

[quote] Lottie trying on wedding dress prototypes already. Little minx.

I 'm really looking forward to her growing. I suspect she'll be very entertaining, one way or another.

by Anonymousreply 250Last Tuesday at 8:37 PM

Emanuels were not unknown to Diana, they designed and made that black strapless silk tafetta gown Lady Diana wore to her first public event after engagement to P of W was announced.

Sadly foreshadowing events yet to come neither the Emanuels nor Diana considered fact rather a lot of cleavage would be exposed whenever wearer bent over even slightly. And this Lady Diana would have to do in order to exit the car upon arriving at Goldsmith's Hall that evening. The press had a field day and Prince Charles was less than amused. Many felt Diana's dress showed far too much decolletage for a young woman, especially one soon to marry the Prince Of Wales. Oh then there was Prince Charles grimace and remark upon seeing Diana in that dress, "black is for funerals...".

Never the less Lady Diana found herself back with the Emanuels for her wedding gown. Upon arrival for first meeting Lady Diana spied a gown made for another woman. It was all ruffles and bows and Diana wanted something like it as her wedding gown. That gown was the basis on how Diana and the Emanuels worked out the design for the famous (or infamous) wedding gown.

Paper taffeta is not a new fabric. It's been around for some 200 years or more, with plenty of royal and noble ladies having gowns made from the material. A surprising number still exist in collections in UK and all over Europe. All designers as part of their training learn and understand fabrics, thus it shouldn't have come to anyone's surprise that paper taffeta will crease, just like linen.

Diana was largely on her own when it came to her wedding dress. Her mother only accompanied to first fitting, for all subsequent fittings Lady Di arrived alone. While not normal it would have been nice if some senior noble or royal lady with experience in gowns and carriages might have suggested what no one else seemed to think about.

The state carriage assigned to carry Earl Spencer (by no means a slim many) and his daughter to cathedral was not large enough to handle the stout peer, his daughter, and that gown with two huge puffed sleeves and 44 yards of silk fabric. When Diana emerged from carriage the designers hearts sunk, Diana's skirts looked like crumpled Kleenex... The Emanuels and Diana's ladies did the best they could to make things look right, but the show must go on, and that was that.

When you see Diana's wedding dress on exhibition it isn't surprising it may fail to excite. The thing is a corpse, Diana and the magic of that moment and day made that dress come alive

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 251Last Tuesday at 11:49 PM

You really had to be there or maybe watching on telly. It was just one of those once in a lifetime magical events in history.

Say what you want about Lady Diana's wedding gown, but when she stepped out of that carriage everyone went mad. When Diana turned around to face the cheering crowd people just totally lost their minds.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 252Last Tuesday at 11:53 PM

R251 "The stout peer" made me smile. Very Thackeray.

I agree with the poster upthread who observed that crushing/wrinkling is a property of taffeta, and not necessarily an unpleasant one. I was watching the wedding, and nobody then made a big fuss about it at any rate.

by Anonymousreply 253Last Wednesday at 4:25 AM

[quote]I 'm really looking forward to her growing. I suspect she'll be very entertaining, one way or another.

I hope she's another Princess Anne... hard working, sensible and embodying the spirit of Prince Philip wherever she goes: Naff off, wanker!

by Anonymousreply 254Last Wednesday at 4:37 AM

In clip posted R252 at 1:51 where Lady Diana and Earl Spencer turn to face crowds and wave, the great joyous noise that erupts. Hard to believe it's coming up on forty years since that day.

by Anonymousreply 255Last Wednesday at 4:51 AM

“Young” Charles always managed to look gormless. He actually improved with age.

by Anonymousreply 256Last Wednesday at 5:07 AM

Anyone who looks at that dress and cites Halston is an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 257Last Wednesday at 5:09 AM

If I recall correctly, R255, when they were pronounced man and wife the roar from outside was so loud Diana reacted to it. And she was hundreds of metres from the public, there at the altar. There never was a girl more popular than she.

I don't know what the Emmanuels did and did not foresee about the black taffeta dress, but I'm very sure Diana knew how much cleavage it would show and wore it for that purpose. Her mission from Day 1 was to get attention, and if that meant upstaging Prince Charles, well so what. She had no empathy for his situation. The reason Kate doesn't have Fashion Wow moments is that she is careful NOT to upstage her husband, who has to be the important one because that's the essence of the game the public and Royalty are playing. Diana repeatedly put Charles in the shade and then cried when he got angry about it. OK, she was wildly popular on arrival and bound to attract a lot of attention whether she wanted to or not because she was new and sparkly. But instead of backing off, over the years she did everything in her power to remain the star in the relationship. And cried when criticised for it. And cried when she got attention she didn't want. Remind you of anyone?

by Anonymousreply 258Last Wednesday at 5:27 AM

[quote]I'm very sure Diana knew how much cleavage it would show and wore it for that purpose.

Based on what specifically?

by Anonymousreply 259Last Wednesday at 5:30 AM

Based on all her subsequent behaviour, R259.

by Anonymousreply 260Last Wednesday at 6:08 AM

EDIT R250: I 'm really looking forward to her growing UP. I suspect she'll be very entertaining, one way or another. (Princess Charlotte)

—I love the cheeky expression on her face

by Anonymousreply 261Last Wednesday at 4:09 PM

Really do not think 19 year old Lady Diana had an agenda back then, she simply liked he dress and there wasn't anyone to tell her certain things.

Think many are forgetting just how dysfunctional Diana's family was at the time. Her mother was put away, and Earl Spencer's children detested their step-mother (nicknamed Acid Raine.).

Despite being daughter of a peer Lady Diana didn't move in high society or court circles. She had no idea what sort of function that event at Goldsmith's hall was about. When asked if it was formal best she could manage was "I think so...".

Cannot recall exactly when late Queen Mother took Diana under her wing, and also HM dispatched a few of her more senior ladies to do same. But clearly much was left too long. But by same token those sort of things early on in run up to the wedding are where the mother of any daughter is supposed to step in. Any middle class mother knows this, but Diana was largely left to fend for herself and sort things out.

Lady Diana also was rather more full figured at time of her engagement (Prince Charles called her "chubby"), thus there was a whole lot more of her to spill out of that strapless dress.

by Anonymousreply 262Last Wednesday at 4:24 PM

Diana looks very baby-faced in those pics of her in the black strapless dress. She later referred to herself during this period of her life as a 'fat Sloane'.

by Anonymousreply 263Last Wednesday at 4:29 PM

There are those who believe Diana was an innocent lamb to the slaughter, and those who believe she was always Meghan Markle, and there's no point trying to persuade either side to budge.

All I'll say is, you don't have to move in court circles to know what the Royals wear to every type of occasion. In the UK it's there in front of you every day, on TV and in newspapers and magazines. I would know that dress wasn't suitable at age 19, and I wasn't marrying the heir to the throne.

by Anonymousreply 264Last Wednesday at 5:36 PM

Beneath all that tulle and surrounded by great heaps of silk Diana looked indeed like some young innocent being lead to slaughter.

Did like fact Charles didn't salute his bride before the cameras (that would have been common), and Diana's didn't emerge from behind her veils until after the couple had signed the registries off camera.

Don't know if American houses of worship do registry signing. In UK and some other EU countries church registeries are legal documents, have been for ages. In times before birth certificates and or even afterwards if a document couldn't be found church registry entry for date of christening can suffice.

As records of marriages, christenings and deaths church registries in UK are an invaluable source for genealogists/family historians.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 265Last Wednesday at 5:53 PM

I think because she’s sort of frozen in time as a young woman, people forget that Diana was only 20 when she got married. That is waaay too young to get married.

by Anonymousreply 266Last Wednesday at 6:10 PM

Gawd, the people who told Charles that he had to marry a virgin have SO much to answer for!

by Anonymousreply 267Last Wednesday at 6:25 PM


Not if you're after a brooding mare....

Prince Charles wasn't getting married just because you know. HM, Duke of Edinburgh, other members of BRF, HM's ministers and her subjects/citizens of UK all wanted an heir. Prince Charles had sown enough wild oats and was constantly being reminded he should marry and start breeding children.

If a man is marrying with goal of breeding in mind he has two choices in females; a seasoned campaigner (young widow who has already produced), or a young innocent who in theory should be able to provide an heir with perhaps a spare or two.

Queen Victoria's father went with the former, Prince Charles the latter.

by Anonymousreply 268Last Wednesday at 6:43 PM

[quote]Yet many were unimpressed by how creased the fabric had become

What do you expect it was silk. Natural fiber does that, you rather wanted a polyester wedding dress???

by Anonymousreply 269Last Wednesday at 6:44 PM

While it varies by weave silk fabrics generally crease (or wrinkle if you will) less than other natural fibers.

Silk shantung is hugely popular for wedding and ball gowns because while lightweight and crisp like taffeta, it tends to crease less.

Fräulein Maria's iconic wedding gown in film Sound of Music was of silk shantung..

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 270Last Wednesday at 6:57 PM

"If a man is marrying with goal of breeding in mind he has two choices in females"

Oh for fuck's sake! A man who's being told to marry because his mother wants grandchildren has the option of marrying the woman he loves, of telling his mother he refuses to subject some poor girl to the life of a brood mare, of marrying someone who has sexual experience roughly equivalent to himself, etc. Even if he's the prince of fucking Wales.

What century are you visiting from, the 12th?

by Anonymousreply 271Last Wednesday at 7:00 PM

We are not discussing the "real world" here are we? Please keep up!

Prince Charles was told emphatically certain women would not do ( Camilla Rosemary Shand was on that list), and that the Prince of Wales should look elsewhere.

Furthermore while it may have seemed ancient history to others, the scandal of George VI (later Duke of Windsor) was still very much on HM's and other royal minds. HM was constantly reminded while a young monarch that her uncle almost cost the Windsors the "family firm". People who mattered were keen on seeing PC marry and produce continuity for the throne. That is is what heirs are supposed to do.

Another prince of Wales or worse king taking up with an older or whatever woman who had little chances of producing an heir could not and would not be allowed to happen again.

by Anonymousreply 272Last Wednesday at 7:09 PM

If Prince Charles had been sterile, would the elder Yorkie have inherited the throne?

by Anonymousreply 273Last Wednesday at 7:12 PM

R270, I don't know how you can compare a movie where a dress is in tip top shape before the cameras are rolling to a dress that's been worn for 2+ hours.

by Anonymousreply 274Last Wednesday at 7:14 PM

Yes, if PC had not produced heirs crown would go to Duke of York (if living), then to his daughters in birth order (if their father were dead).

by Anonymousreply 275Last Wednesday at 7:47 PM

[quote] Really do not think 19 year old Lady Diana had an agenda back then

Archbishop Runcie said (apparently indiscreetly) that she was a "schemer", back then.

by Anonymousreply 276Last Wednesday at 8:13 PM


It wasn't the late archbishop who made that remark, rather Diana's grandmother Lady Ruth Fermoy. Lord Runcie in an unguarded interview merely agreed, however Lady Ruth Fermoy made those remarks after things it the fan between Prince and Princess of Wales, not before their marriage.

"Speaking about Princess Diana's grandmother, Lady Ruth Fermoy, he said "Ruth was very distressed with Diana's behaviour ... She [Ruth] was totally and wholly a Charles person ... and regarded Diana as an actress, a schemer all of which is true, of course."

In meetings before their marriage Lord Runcie came away with the marriage between Charles, Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer had been arranged, and the P of W seemed rather depressed about things.

Lord Runcie also saw cracks in the Waleses marriage long before things became public. He knew of CPB and her relationship with P of W and it caused worry. Again Diana's grandmother Lady Ruth Femoy along with Lord Runcie felt Prince Charles was a man who needed the love of a woman, and it wasn't happening with Diana. More to the point Diana wouldn't be under control until she found a man who loved her.

Again this is all after the marriage of Charles and Diana, not before.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 277Last Thursday at 12:37 AM


"In his 1996 biography of the archbishop, Humphrey Carpenter quoted Runcie as saying that the royal marriage had been “arranged” and describing Diana as dim.

“When you began on abstract ideas, you could see her eyes clouding over, her eyelids became heavy,” he was quoted as saying. He later added a note to the book saying, “I have done my best to die before this book was published.”

Diana, who died in a 1997 car crash, said she would “never forgive his treachery.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 278Last Thursday at 12:39 AM

“When you began on abstract ideas, you could see her eyes clouding over, her eyelids became heavy,” - ha, that's a great visual, so revealing. I'll give Diana the benefit of the doubt, though, she was very young and he was an old talker, probably droning on.

by Anonymousreply 279Last Thursday at 5:02 AM

To some degree I'm sympathetic with Diana, on that point. Depends on how the abstract is being discussed and what the topic is.

But to be fair my eyes would cloud over sitting next to an Oxford don banging on about the depth of the impact of thevcoronavirus pandemic on investment decisions and behavioral finance of investors operating in capital markets or social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research.

by Anonymousreply 280Last Thursday at 5:20 AM

"In meetings before their marriage Lord Runcie came away with the marriage between Charles, Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer had been arranged, and the P of W seemed rather depressed about things."

It is to Charles eternal discredit that he agreed to what was basically an arranged marriage, or to let himself be pressured into a "suitable" marriage.

He didn't have the gonads to stand up for himself, or the woman he loved, or even to refuse to let some 19 year old girl be used as a brook mare. That shows a want of courage, and the last shows a lack of common decency.

by Anonymousreply 281Last Thursday at 6:37 AM

Truly, r281. Charles was whining and upset about himself—how he had been pressured to marry someone he didn’t love. What about Diana? Did the thought ever occur to him how much he was hurting her? A very young woman who was very in love with him.

by Anonymousreply 282Last Thursday at 9:15 AM

Didn't she lose weight during the fitting, so much that the gown had to be altered several times before the wedding. She probably knew what she was getting into but couldn't say no to what she thought was a pretty cool gig. Both played along with the charade.

by Anonymousreply 283Last Thursday at 12:33 PM

Why do gay men care at all about wedding dresses?

It's as confounding to me as quantum entanglement.

by Anonymousreply 284Last Thursday at 12:56 PM

Because they look like the cake we can't eat.

by Anonymousreply 285Last Thursday at 1:07 PM

Correct R281. If Charles had been born years earlier, he would have been deposed and his son placed on the throne. I don't know if Charles would be beheaded but at least he would have sent into exile in France or Italy.

by Anonymousreply 286Last Thursday at 2:49 PM

Rather many years. The only reigning monarch beheaded was Charles I. In 1649. James II went into exile of his own accord. The only real monarch forced into something like exile was Edward VIII, who wasn't that when the ship sailed.

by Anonymousreply 287Last Thursday at 2:59 PM


Can you hear yourself?

You cannot depose someone who isn't on throne yet. And if you began removing emperors, kings and crown prices because they had affairs while married, and or married for host of reasons besides love it would be an extensive list.

As for rest of you lot, Lady Diana was not some naif plucked from a convent and forced into marriage. Her father was a peer of the realm, and the Spencer family (including both former and current then Countess Spencer), knew all about the Windsor family, Charles and Camilla.....

Daughters of peers long were forced, pushed, pointed, directed or whatever into marriages for reasons other than love. If Lady Diana had doubts then she simply could have turned PC down from the start.

Everyone slags upon Prince Charles, however if certain things were true the man had much to be depressed about when marrying Lady Diana. He was getting an emotionally needy young woman with perhaps a twinge of mental instability.

Prince of Wales knew the Spencer family well enough and that family had enough drama for a miniseries. The results are shown in not just Diana, but her brother (the current Earl Spencer), and elsewhere.

Diana needed a man who would be besotted with her to exclusion of anything else. Constantly telling her he "loved her", pouring on attention, etc.. That just isn't sort of thing many British men of a certain class do well if at all, and Prince of Wales was one of them. Doesn't mean they don't love their wives.

by Anonymousreply 288Last Thursday at 3:18 PM

R288, she didn’t need someone who was “besotted” with her. She would have been fine with a man who loved her equally. Instead she got a cold fish who was never in love with her. Yes, it was a mistake, but he was the much bigger ass. He was older and more mature and should have known better.

by Anonymousreply 289Last Thursday at 4:42 PM

"As for rest of you lot, Lady Diana was not some naif plucked from a convent and forced into marriage. "

She was 19, not terribly bright, and was naive enough to believe that marrying the Prince of Wales would make her happy. And that is pretty damn naive!

Charles was the one who should have known better, he was older and more worldly, and had experienced love, so he really ought to have taken a moment to wonder whether an aristocratic background, a schoolgirl crush, and an unused vagina was really all it took to make a good Princess of Wales. Even a minute's consideration would have told him that her fangirlesque crush would lead to massive disappointment with the realities of royal life very soon, and if he couldn't marry the woman he loved then he needed to find someone who was coldbloodledly dutiful and socially ambitious. You know, someone who genuinely wouldn't mind the mistress.

by Anonymousreply 290Last Thursday at 4:58 PM

[quote]Diana needed a man who would be besotted with her to exclusion of anything else. Constantly telling her he "loved her", pouring on attention, etc.. That just isn't sort of thing many British men of a certain class do well if at all, and Prince of Wales was one of them. Doesn't mean they don't love their wives.

You're talking about someone whose idea of pillow talk is expressing a desire to be a tampon. That's what he said to his then-mistress during a surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation.

When asked by a reporter during their engagement if they were in love with one another Diana responded "Of course!" Charles's answer: "Whatever 'in love' means." He's hopeless.

by Anonymousreply 291Last Thursday at 5:44 PM

[quote]She was 19, not terribly bright, and was naive enough to believe that marrying the Prince of Wales would make her happy. And that is pretty damn naive!

Her parents' divorce had a devastating effect upon Diana. It's hardly surprising that as a child from a broken home (even a stately one) she would grow up into an unhappy young woman who yearned for a romantic fantasy, an ideal of a happy and harmonious marriage.

Diana may not have been what anyone would describe as an intellectual but she had emotional intelligence and an ability to connect with people, something that the royal family are not especially good at (to put it mildly).

by Anonymousreply 292Last Thursday at 5:52 PM

No one is saying two wrongs make one right. But again Diana wasn't some orphan. Earl Spencer, Countess Spencer, Frances Shand Kydd, Baroness Fermoy, the lot of older Spencer clan handled affairs very badly. Not since Marie-Antoinette married into the Bourbon family was any young girl so unprepared for what lay ahead.

Then again when you look at Diana's family and relationships at the time who would she have listened to anyway.

Her mother's marriage was not a happy one with Earl Spencer once hauling his wife down to Harley Street to find out what was wrong with her (Countess Spencer hadn't produced an heir). Baroness Fermoy testified against her daughter (Diana's mother" during divorce proceedings in great part aiding Earl Spencer's position in gaining full custody of his children.

Piled onto all that drama was the arrival of Raine, Countess of Dartmouth as Diana's new step-mother (aka Acid Raine).

While one can make allowances for 8th Earl Spencer, Diana's mother, step-mother, grandmother and older females in that family surely should have had second thoughts about the match.

Everyone both Windsors and Spencers just wanted the marriage to happen. When it didn't take as it ought even then early on people largely behaved like ostriches, putting their heads in the earth ignoring fact that sometimes that light at end of tunnel often is a train.

by Anonymousreply 293Last Thursday at 9:10 PM

Diana did her princess job (the nursing home visits, the handshaking) fantastically well, considering. Total pro.

by Anonymousreply 294Last Thursday at 9:17 PM

Patricia Brabourne ( Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma), had her priorities straight.

When egged on by Lord Mountbatten his grandnephew, Charles, Prince of Wales cast his eye towards The Honourable Amanda Knatchbull , her mother Patricia Brabourne upon being applied to for advice squashed the idea. Her daughter was barely seventeen and thus it was felt far to young among other reasons.

By time Prince Charles did get around to proposing much had happened including the assassination of Lord Mountbatten. That event and things connected with it put Lady Amanda totally off becoming a member of BRF permanently. So the Prince of Wales was back to square one so to speak, again.....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 295Last Thursday at 9:18 PM

Lord Mountbatten must've been losing it.

by Anonymousreply 296Last Thursday at 9:39 PM

R285 types so fat I'm surprised his fingers weren't too fat to type one key at a time.

by Anonymousreply 297Last Thursday at 9:42 PM

By some accounts Prince Charles was frightened of his father Prince Phillip. They do say Prince of Wales felt pressured to marry Diana by the Duke of Edinburgh getting at him about the matter.

"'You've either got to marry her or let her go. You can't string a … young girl along. She's only 19. You can't string her along. And all the press is saying, 'Oh, this is going to be the next queen.' You've got to take a stand and say that this is not going to work, or you marry her.'""

It may sound odd to gays, but plenty of straight men have been in that situation down through the years.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 298Last Thursday at 10:03 PM

R298, Philip’s advice was correct. Marry or break up, don’t string her along.. Charles just took the wrong direction by marrying. R293, she wasn’t an “orphan” in the traditional sense, but she was certainly abandoned figuratively by her parents. All of the adults in her family were horrible parents and guides. It’s no wonder, as a 19 year old who wasn’t terribly bright, that she thought her prince had finally come.

by Anonymousreply 299Last Friday at 4:12 AM

Part of the extravagance of the dress might also have been that Diana had not found her own personal style yet. She was living in the world of Barbara Cartland novels and fairytale princess. Of course the OTT fashion of the 1980 played a major role too.

by Anonymousreply 300Last Friday at 4:17 AM


No one was going to depose a "king" Charles because he was beastly to his wife. Get over it, only Diana-maniacs believe such drivel.

If some had their way Edward VIII wouldn't have abdicated. They didn't give a rat's butt about who he rolled around with and eventually married (Wallis Simpson).

You cannot compare things from several hundred years ago to modern times. If that were the case Diana would have gone way of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, and Captain James Hewitt would have faced being hanged, drawn and quartered.

by Anonymousreply 301Last Friday at 1:30 PM

R301 The queen had Diana murdered, no?

by Anonymousreply 302Last Friday at 3:48 PM

Some people have been watching too much of "To Play The King" on television.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 303Last Friday at 5:14 PM

Too many of the dresses look like a toilet dress from Wish

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 304Last Friday at 5:55 PM

Charles was always a ditherer. He didn’t dare stand up and declare he wanted to marry Camilla originally so she married Parker-Bowles.

by Anonymousreply 305Last Friday at 6:09 PM

If anyone wanted to be "deposed" or removed it was then Princess of Wales. Giving media interviews basically saying the Prince of Wales wasn't fit to be king, and hoped her son, Prince William, would some how become king over his father. Persons were put into the Tower and had their heads smote by blade or ax.

Then there was more; Diana then announced to God and the word that a Princess of Wales had been intimate with another man. This on top of spilling whatever dirt there was left about Charles and CPB.

Personally after that interview became convinced Diana was mad. She should have been put away, confined to a distant palace somewhere.....

What was truly amazing is after all she'd done Diana was gobsmacked and gutted when HM told she and Prince Charles to divorce *NOW*. Somewhere in that warped and deluded mind of hers Diana truly believed she could have said and done all she did and remain Princess of Wales. Separated from PC, but still legally married. She should have studied the life and fate of Caroline of Brunswick.

by Anonymousreply 306Last Friday at 6:10 PM

[quote]A very young woman who was very in love with him.

No, she wasn't. She was a naif who was in love with the idea of being a fairy tale Royal Princess.

by Anonymousreply 307Last Friday at 6:45 PM

R307, actually it doesn’t matter what she was in love with. She was only 19, which is too young to tell the difference and too young to have good judgment (for most anyway). Btw, I do think she was in love with him. I take her for her word when she said she was (and he answered “whatever love means”). I also think it’s possible she was in love with the idea of being princess too and couldn’t separate the two in her mind.

by Anonymousreply 30810 hours ago

She was a fool to marry him, she had no clue what royal life would be like, or married life for that matter. Nobody does, at 19.

Charles was a fool to marry her, he never looked beneath the innocently pretty surface to see what kind of person was under there. What he needed was someone very dutiful, stable, and devoted to keeping up appearances, what he got was someone needy, unstable, and vengeful. Some straight men do that, when they think it's time to get married they'll marry the nearest attractive woman with no regard for her personality, and well, sometimes it doesn't end in tears and family court.

But Charles was the one who was old enough to know better.

by Anonymousreply 3099 hours ago

Diana wanted a father figure; Charles wanted to be mothered. Neither party was cut out to be the adult in that relationship. It was never going to work.

by Anonymousreply 3109 hours ago
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!