Latest Posts

The 10 most iconic wedding dresses ever

Published by The Dreamstress

#10 is one of three iconic 50’s wedding dresses to feature on the list.  Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy wasn’t yet an international style icon when she married on September 12, 1953, but her stunning frock by dressmaker Anne Lowe is still a statement of class, taste, and timeless embellishment that references design details seen on wedding gowns of the 1860s-1880s, while still being iconically 1950s.

Jackie Kennedy's wedding dress

#9 is a wedding dress with a difference. Mia Farrow’s suit for her  July 19, 1966 marriage to Frank Sinatra  was clean, modern and fun, the epitome of 60s mod and the total antithesis of the 1950s ballgown wedding dresses.

Mia Farrow and Frank Sinatra cut the cake

At #8 is the daughter-in-law to #10’s style icon.  All eyes were on Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy when she married on September 21 1996, and her strikingly simple and sexy bias cut  Narcisco Rodriguez gown was a breath of fresh air after the poofy romance of 1980s wedding dresses.

Carolyn and John Jr

#7 is the only dress on the list that wasn’t actually worn for a wedding, but it is the dress that started the trend for tea length wedding dresses.  Audrey Hepburn’s wedding dress in 1957’s Funny Face marks the apex of her collaboration with Givenchy, and is the style for which she is most known.

Audrey Hepburn in Givenchy in Funny Face, 1957

Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face

#6 is a slight cheat.  It’s one of the earliest short wedding dresses, an innovation that scholars of Chanel and Poiret both claim wad developed by their favoured designer around 1925.

Wedding dress, Poiret, 1925, Metropolitan Museum of Art

#5 is a wedding dress almost as influential as Queen Victoria’s wedding dress, that worn by her daughter, Victoria, Princess Royal.  In 1857 she married Prince Frederick William of Prussia in the Chapel Royal in London.  Her mother’s dress gave us a tradition for white dresses, and myrtle.  Princess Victoria’s dress and wedding gave us the traditions of trained gowns and of matching bridesmaids, as well as Mendelssohn’s wedding march.

Victoria, Princess Royal (1840 - 1901), eldest daughter of Queen Victoria, marries Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia (1831 - 1888) in the Chapel of St. James Palace, London, 25th January 1858. The bride's parents, Queen Victoria (1819 - 1901) and Prince Albert (1819 - 1861) can be seen, centre, right. Engraving after a painting by Phillips (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Crown Princess Victoria in her wedding dress

Crown Princess Victoria on her wedding day

#4 on the list is another princess’s wedding dress: Grace Kelly’s sublimely modest and sublimely sumptuous 1956 dress worn for her marriage on April 19 and designed by a Hollywood costume designer, Helen Rose.

Grace Kelly's 1956 Helen Rose designed wedding dress

Princess Grace and Prince Rainier on their wedding day

At #3, the one that started it all (white, lace, veils, bridesmaids, etc), and which I will blog about tomorrow,  Queen Victoria’s Feb 10 1840 wedding dress:

Queen Victoria's wedding dress

Almost there, the #2 most iconic wedding dress ever, Wallis Simpson’s famous “Wallis blue” Mainboucher dress (the blue has faded because of dye instability) was sublimely chic, and sublimely proper:

Wedding dress worn by Wallis Simpson, Mainboucher, 1937, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Wallis Simpson and Edward VI on their wedding day

And finally, #1, the most iconic wedding dress ever, Diana’s 1981 romantic extravaganza by David and Elizabeth Emanuel worn on her July 29th wedding.  Like it or not, there is no denying how influential and memorable it was.

Diana's wedding dress, along with a flower girl dress

 

Are you excited about the royal wedding?

Published by The Dreamstress

I’m not.  I thought I would be, but actually, I’ve realised I don’t care at all.

I think it’s actually all the hype.  And the fact that they took sooooooo long to get around to it.  Seriously, I think they have been together longer than Mr Dreamy and I, and we’ve been married five and a half years!

I barely even have any interest in Kate’s dress.  Let’s face it, the girl is a boring dresser.  Everything she wears is boring.  Classy, tasteful, age appropriate, and boring.  Her outfits aren’t exquisitely tasteful, they are boring and tasteful.  They aren’t witty and clever and classy, they are boring and classy.  And they aren’t striking and age appropriate or timeless and age appropriate, they are boring and age appropriate.  Boring, boring, boring.

Gosh, I am a grim little miser this week aren’t I!

I guess the good thing about all her ensembles being so boring is that if her dress isn’t it will be all that much more exciting.

Anyway, while I am not at all excited about the royal weddings, I am very excited about weddings in general.  After all they usually involve pretty, or at least distinctive dresses.  And any excuse for pretty dresses is a good excuse.

So this week (and then some if I feel like it) is going to be all about weddings and wedding dresses.  Royal wedding dresses, iconic wedding dresses, historical wedding dresses, and just plain drool-worthy wedding dresses.  But I won’t be blogging about Kate’s dress unless she surprises us all and wears something that is actually interesting for once!

John Sloan, The Little Bride, 1906

And I won’t be getting excited about the royal wedding.  Unless the whole wedding party throws shoes at Wills and Kate as they leave the cathedral.  Then I’ll get excited about the whole thing.  Especially if one of the shoes is a darling pump circa 1906.

What’s with the Megs?

Published by The Dreamstress

Two weeks ago my poll asked which Little Woman you were.  I was quite surprised with the responses.  The poll responses looked like this:

  • Meg: 12 of 29
  • Jo: 11 of 29
  • Beth: 2 of 29
  • Amy: 4 of 29

Meg as a paper doll, 1980s, Helen Page

I can’t believe it!  The largest amount of you identified with Meg!

I thought no-one identified with Meg!  She was always the most boring of the March girls to me.  Sure, she was the prettiest, but other than that, as far as I could see she didn’t have a lot going for her.  She wasn’t bright or witty or talented like her sisters.  As I read the book, she idolised conventional society, and had to be basically bashed over the head with lessons to make her realise that it wasn’t all it was stacked up to be.  She didn’t even realise that she loved Mr Brooks until Aunt March warned her off him.  And then she married him and settled down and was a boring, conventional Victorian mother.  Blah

Amy as a paper doll, 1980s, Helen Page

Me, I have all of Jo’s worst faults, one of her best characteristics, and her sewing talent, combined with some of Amy’s more appealing character qualities.  I’m mostly graceful and charming in society (Amy), with the occasional tendency to speak my own mind as I see it, not always politely (Jo).  I stand my beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are with other people, and constantly have to work not to judge people who say one thing and act another (Jo).  And I make pretty clothes (Jo), and I get told I have style (Amy).  And I’m probably vainer than I ought to be (Amy).  And I definitely have a temper (Jo).  Sigh.

Jo as a paper doll, 1980s, Helen Page

But Meg?  I can’t see any Meg in me.  I can’t even see much Meg in Meg!

But according to my poll lots of people who I adore (hehe…I can see your ISB!)  think they are Meg-ish.  So clearly I missed something in my reading.  So what do you see in Meg?  Why are you a Meg?  Or why aren’t you a Meg?

Beth as a paper doll, 1980s, Helen Page

Also, why was no-one a Laurie?  None of you were overly generous, occasionally impulsive, a bit petulant when thwarted, very idealistic, and had a major first love?  No one?  What’s with that!?!