Okay, so I follow the FIDM blog, and I saw their posts about
wedding dresses from the Larson Collection today. I usually don't question their facts, but what the hell is going on with the 2 Victorian dresses? Please educate me if I'm wrong, but those are not wedding dresses. The 60's one looks like a ball gown, and the 80's one looks like a
(
Read more... )
Comments 24
I can't speak for Eastern Europe so I really don't have any opinion there. Perhaps it was an evening wedding and acceptable, perhaps not. Perhaps being a royal wedding changes the rules a bit. Perhaps it's not the gown worn for the church ceremony but some evening event associated with it. Pure speculation on my part. It's a gorgeous dress though.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Royals were a whole different kettle of fish with coronations inside church so weddings too.
I got most of my pics offline, but all of Victoria's daughters. Victorias dress too,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_dress_of_Princess_Mary_of_Teck
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wedding_of_George_V_of_the_United_Kingdom_and_Princesse_Mary_of_Teck
pretty irrefutable!
I think Alex's wedding was recorded in a similar fashion.
Reply
And there is one more I know of c1880
Reply
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wedding_of_Victoria_and_Albert
I can't find the book online. Yet.
Reply
Reply
I don't agree when they say white got "irrevocably associated with bridal wear" by the mid-19th century. White was worn for evening wear, too, way after 1850 !
Reply
It's as bad as saying something is a mourning dress because it's black.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment