Royal wedding: Charles and Camilla
- Thread starter Acid
- Start date
people:canuckcutie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
I noticed will's is going bald. Nothing to do with his dad though. If I remember rightly, male baldness is inherited through the mother's side of the family. So he'd be taking after Diana's brother and father in the hair dept.
I actually quite liked the dress and overcoat that Camilla wore to the blessing. Not too keen on the feathered hat but it seemed as though lots of women had similar head gear.
I have to say, I agree with that sign. charles can marry his mistress, the women who broke up his marriage and yet 2 people who are in love are forbidden to marry simply because they are of the same gender. Charles as future head of the church and country is supposed to be held to a higher moral standard. Seems rather hypocritcal for him to be able to marry his long time mistress and yet 2 men in a long term and committed relationship cannot marry.
I actually quite liked the dress and overcoat that Camilla wore to the blessing. Not too keen on the feathered hat but it seemed as though lots of women had similar head gear.
I have to say, I agree with that sign. charles can marry his mistress, the women who broke up his marriage and yet 2 people who are in love are forbidden to marry simply because they are of the same gender. Charles as future head of the church and country is supposed to be held to a higher moral standard. Seems rather hypocritcal for him to be able to marry his long time mistress and yet 2 men in a long term and committed relationship cannot marry.
I couldn't access TFS yesterday, and I wanted to add my comments (was watching live on webtv and all) so I wrote it in my lj as backup
...
Gah, am watching live coverage of all the guests arriving at the windsor castle church thing (missed the actual wedding ceremony thing)
And I have to point out that the fashionsense of both the past two, no three Norwegian Royal weddings were MUCH higher, what a bunch of old frumpy dresses...and stop ripping off Mette-Marits hat, the ones that look like an poorly constructed birdsnest ontop of their heads, with leaves and feathers and whatnot.
And so many matronesque dresses, meh. You lot can afford couture, get something that actually is haute couture and not just something frumpy and blech.
oooh there's Stephen Fry and Rowan Atkinson and a few others...
Camilla changed dresses between the marriage ceremony and the church blessing, the church one was nice, she also changed from a UFO of a hat to a feather that was wrapped on top of her head. Her dress was appropriately not white.
LMAO @ the scriptures and liturgy used. It's all about apologies for past sins and badly concealed sexual references.
When Charles and Camilla confirmed their commitments, Camilla had a slight slip of tongue:
"That is my resolve by the hell..help of God." LMFAO!
Rarely have I ever heard someone utter the words "Oh Joy!" less enthusiastically. Yay for "hither" and "thither". (text reading)
Everything was really rushed. and suddenly it was over...oh well.
...
Gah, am watching live coverage of all the guests arriving at the windsor castle church thing (missed the actual wedding ceremony thing)
And I have to point out that the fashionsense of both the past two, no three Norwegian Royal weddings were MUCH higher, what a bunch of old frumpy dresses...and stop ripping off Mette-Marits hat, the ones that look like an poorly constructed birdsnest ontop of their heads, with leaves and feathers and whatnot.
And so many matronesque dresses, meh. You lot can afford couture, get something that actually is haute couture and not just something frumpy and blech.
oooh there's Stephen Fry and Rowan Atkinson and a few others...
Camilla changed dresses between the marriage ceremony and the church blessing, the church one was nice, she also changed from a UFO of a hat to a feather that was wrapped on top of her head. Her dress was appropriately not white.
LMAO @ the scriptures and liturgy used. It's all about apologies for past sins and badly concealed sexual references.
When Charles and Camilla confirmed their commitments, Camilla had a slight slip of tongue:
"That is my resolve by the hell..help of God." LMFAO!
Rarely have I ever heard someone utter the words "Oh Joy!" less enthusiastically. Yay for "hither" and "thither". (text reading)
Everything was really rushed. and suddenly it was over...oh well.
Well Pucci is designed by LaCroix who did all of Camilla's wears, so it would only be logical if LaCroix threw some Pucci at them. I like the hats surprisingly, though at every royal wedding it is a hat overdose, no one can quite do them right, although Chanel HC always makes a strong case for hats.boho_babe said:
I hate Camilla, it's something Ive always felt, she's nothing compared to Diana and if I were Prince Charles' sons I wouldn't even show up to see my Dad marry that common dog. I heard them pledging faithfullness, something neither of them could do...
CelineChic
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
- Reaction score
- 1
Even if we manage to ignore the ugly ill-fitting dress that Zara is wearing, we must notice the knee high sued boots that she is wearing.
Not only are the sued boots not appropriate for the season but they're also very inappropriate for a wedding.
Not only are the sued boots not appropriate for the season but they're also very inappropriate for a wedding.
I think Laura Parker Bowles was wearing a Stella McCarteney coat.Sorry I can never spell her surname correctly...
I though Camilla was very smart and the whole thing was very low-key because come off it-they've both had HUGE weddings previously and look how they turned out.
I'm not a big fan of the royals but I hope all works out well for them both,it's nice to see people celebrating things.
I though Camilla was very smart and the whole thing was very low-key because come off it-they've both had HUGE weddings previously and look how they turned out.
I'm not a big fan of the royals but I hope all works out well for them both,it's nice to see people celebrating things.
helena
Swim Upstream
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,429
- Reaction score
- 10
from the Observer today
Wherever you looked, it was a very well-dressed affair
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Polly Vernon
Sunday April 10, 2005
The Observer
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The frocks worked, didn't they? Camilla managed to play it safe while simultaneously scrubbing up really rather well and with something approaching assurance and aplomb. The two Robinson Valentine creations were never going to rival an Alexander McQueen shock frock for headline-grabbing, statement-creating impact, but were pretty in their own elegant and upper-arm-obscuring way.
Frock number one was oyster silk and fluid and bias cut to just below the knee, and worn with a matching coat for a look that wasn't exactly challenging or glamorous, but was understated and appropriate and breezy and will undoubtedly set the standard for middle-aged women marrying for the second time.
Frock number two was more exceptional, and more coat than frock. Long, porcelain blue with some subtle embroidered gold thread frippery around the mid-section, it was designed to flash a bit of the co-ordinated floor length gown lurking beneath it.
The two Philip Treacy headdresses provided dashes of structure, drama and exoticism. There's nothing like an off-white, wide-brimmed hat (see outfit one) to enhance a bride's translucent and glowing complexion. And though the gold-tipped confection (outfit two) clearly caused a bit of bother in the high winds outside St George's Chapel, it gave the trad and austere Robinson Valentine number the modern edge it lacked.
So yes, yes, the dresses worked. Camilla may not be any kind of card-carrying fashion plate, but she's in good shape for a woman of her age, and has those strong, defined horsewoman's shoulders from which a dress hangs magnificently. She looked like a woman who was enjoying her haute fashion moment.
Meanwhile, Eugenie and Beatrice and Zara Philips embraced the fact that their youth means they're exempt from the diktat that dresses the older factions of the female royals in the creations of obscure By Appointment designers. And hoorah for that.
They opted for Euro-chic over classic Brit with a couple of cinch-waisted, knee-length Prada coats in navy and taupe. Zara did a gloriously lurid Pucci wrap dress with knee-high boots. It was a louche, unstructured, casual ensemble, and therefore a bit of a risk, but Zara was clearly revelling in the whole effect, which is all you really need to get away with that kind of thing. Well, that and the glowing sheen of confidence and super-privileged youth.
The Queen, of course, looked like the Queen, in an off-white brocade coat (which it has to be said, washed her out rather, and where were her eyebrows, please?), which she accessorised competently with black gloves, black shoes and a black handbag. I would have finished it all off with a black hat for added impact, but the Queen and I appear not to share an aesthetic.
Collectively, the 800-odd invited guests looked very much as the guests at any wedding anywhere tend to look: a symphony of pastels, two-pieces and pashminas with the odd daring dash of head-to-toe fuchsia.
Special mentions should go to Joanna Lumley and her gold brocade, Jilly Cooper and her lilac, Tara P-T and her sleek, sleeveless creation, and also to Cherie Blair, who made up for last week's mantilla fiasco with an unremarkable but thoroughly nice light grey effort. But the Who's That Girl? award for being mysterious and gorgeous and generally a very promising newcomer on the royal fashion scene goes to Sara Buys, writer and fiancée of Tom Parker Bowles, whose beauty, blondeness, short skirt, and black and white check crop-sleeved jacket made her quite the most sexy, glamorous and speculated-over element in the proceedings. Watch her. She's good.
[/font]
Wherever you looked, it was a very well-dressed affair
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Polly Vernon
Sunday April 10, 2005
The Observer
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The frocks worked, didn't they? Camilla managed to play it safe while simultaneously scrubbing up really rather well and with something approaching assurance and aplomb. The two Robinson Valentine creations were never going to rival an Alexander McQueen shock frock for headline-grabbing, statement-creating impact, but were pretty in their own elegant and upper-arm-obscuring way.
Frock number one was oyster silk and fluid and bias cut to just below the knee, and worn with a matching coat for a look that wasn't exactly challenging or glamorous, but was understated and appropriate and breezy and will undoubtedly set the standard for middle-aged women marrying for the second time.
Frock number two was more exceptional, and more coat than frock. Long, porcelain blue with some subtle embroidered gold thread frippery around the mid-section, it was designed to flash a bit of the co-ordinated floor length gown lurking beneath it.
The two Philip Treacy headdresses provided dashes of structure, drama and exoticism. There's nothing like an off-white, wide-brimmed hat (see outfit one) to enhance a bride's translucent and glowing complexion. And though the gold-tipped confection (outfit two) clearly caused a bit of bother in the high winds outside St George's Chapel, it gave the trad and austere Robinson Valentine number the modern edge it lacked.
So yes, yes, the dresses worked. Camilla may not be any kind of card-carrying fashion plate, but she's in good shape for a woman of her age, and has those strong, defined horsewoman's shoulders from which a dress hangs magnificently. She looked like a woman who was enjoying her haute fashion moment.
Meanwhile, Eugenie and Beatrice and Zara Philips embraced the fact that their youth means they're exempt from the diktat that dresses the older factions of the female royals in the creations of obscure By Appointment designers. And hoorah for that.
They opted for Euro-chic over classic Brit with a couple of cinch-waisted, knee-length Prada coats in navy and taupe. Zara did a gloriously lurid Pucci wrap dress with knee-high boots. It was a louche, unstructured, casual ensemble, and therefore a bit of a risk, but Zara was clearly revelling in the whole effect, which is all you really need to get away with that kind of thing. Well, that and the glowing sheen of confidence and super-privileged youth.
The Queen, of course, looked like the Queen, in an off-white brocade coat (which it has to be said, washed her out rather, and where were her eyebrows, please?), which she accessorised competently with black gloves, black shoes and a black handbag. I would have finished it all off with a black hat for added impact, but the Queen and I appear not to share an aesthetic.
Collectively, the 800-odd invited guests looked very much as the guests at any wedding anywhere tend to look: a symphony of pastels, two-pieces and pashminas with the odd daring dash of head-to-toe fuchsia.
Special mentions should go to Joanna Lumley and her gold brocade, Jilly Cooper and her lilac, Tara P-T and her sleek, sleeveless creation, and also to Cherie Blair, who made up for last week's mantilla fiasco with an unremarkable but thoroughly nice light grey effort. But the Who's That Girl? award for being mysterious and gorgeous and generally a very promising newcomer on the royal fashion scene goes to Sara Buys, writer and fiancée of Tom Parker Bowles, whose beauty, blondeness, short skirt, and black and white check crop-sleeved jacket made her quite the most sexy, glamorous and speculated-over element in the proceedings. Watch her. She's good.
[/font]
fashionist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 0
Betty Boop said:I adore hats but this all is a joke!
If you thought that was O.T.T, I hope you never stumble across any photos of Ascot.
Lol the wedding attendees looked like they were going to the ASCOT hahaha!!
was glad to see patsy stone (joanna lumley) & mr. bean (rowan a.) theyre hilarious!
tara palmer tomkinson looked great! and did anyone see that huge disc plate of a hat that some matron wore? hahaha
was glad to see patsy stone (joanna lumley) & mr. bean (rowan a.) theyre hilarious!
tara palmer tomkinson looked great! and did anyone see that huge disc plate of a hat that some matron wore? hahaha
^i know, yay for Joanna! although i didn't recognize her at first glance.
i agree with him as well, but to me it seemed a little humoristic from his side adding the whole "OUTRAGE!" part.. but maybe he was dead serious and i'm a douchebagbluejeans said:
Betty Boop
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 0
LoveKylie: I agree with you about those hats, these were the best ones and I saw a few others but didn't see them quite too well. But Tara's hat in my opinion is more of a fantasy hat, not something someone would wear to a wedding 
Camilla looked pretty good! Actually everyone scrubbed up well, except Zara.
Princess Beatrice and Eugenie looked really good, theyre the ones who had phtographs taken with Leo DiCaprio! Camilla's daughter's coat was amazing, and the most brave yet sylish outfit has to be Camilla's son's girlfriend.
Oh how cute is Prince Harry?! I like him more than William.
Princess Beatrice and Eugenie looked really good, theyre the ones who had phtographs taken with Leo DiCaprio! Camilla's daughter's coat was amazing, and the most brave yet sylish outfit has to be Camilla's son's girlfriend.
Oh how cute is Prince Harry?! I like him more than William.
