Royal wedding, royal dress
I didn’t know until yesterday that today was the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but of course once I learned it I had to comment on the fashion.
To wit, the dress:
I happen to like plain, classic, simple, modest wedding dresses, and this one is certainly that. But I think it’s a bit of a yawn and not all that flattering. I seem to be in a minority there.
But I wish them well. Marrying into British royalty is a step into a lifetime of intense press coverage and scrutiny of one’s every hiccup, fashion or otherwise, and I hope Meghan is up to it. Harry had no choice—he was born to it—but she did.
I’m not sure when the last time that an American married into the inner royal family of Britain. Does Wallis Warfield Simpson count? After all, her intended, Edward VIII, was already king when they contemplated marriage, so that’s marrying into the family big time. But he had abdicated prior to their official union, for the purpose of marrying her (and perhaps because being king didn’t quite suit him anyway). Simpson was—like Markle—not only an American, but a divorcee as well, in Simpson’s case a two-time divorcee. Scandal!
Well, the times they have a-changed. What once caused a constitutional crisis isn’t all that big a deal these days (even if Harry were king right now, which he is not and is unlikely to ever become).
One more thing—Markle is biracial, which apparently has engendered a certain amount of online racist commentary from the people who get off on online racist commentary. At this point in time, for most of us, Meghan’s race is another fact about her that isn’t of much import or impact, although it’s mildly interesting and another sign of the times.
I wish the couple much good luck in the future.
[NOTE: Fashions worn by some in the crowd of guests can be found here. It’s a challenge to look chic and yet not staid when the requirements are fancy but not formal, sleeves covering arms and shoulders, no decolletage, no black or white, and a hat.]
There are a lot of comparisons with Wallis Warfield Simpson already. A divorced older woman who was an actress.
“Second mate on a tramp out of Baltimore.”
Mike K:
According to their Wiki pages, anyway, she was born in either 1895 or 1896, and he in 1894, which would make him older. I checked it when I wrote this post because I had been under the impression that she was older than he, but apparently not.
This wedding dress resembles one worn by Prince Albert of Monacos wife Charlene. Seems she will have to be a long suffering spouse as that dude has 2 illigit kiddos with 2 other baby mamas, its good to be the Prince, apologies to Mel Brooks.
I’ve had it with royal wedding coverage until the end of my life or the end of the century, whichever comes first.
vanderleun:
Heartless curmudgeon.
You doth protest too much.
I have not yet begun to rant.
She’s divorced and as recently as 1970 in the United States that would have rendered any marriage to the Prince canonically invalid absent some involved inquiry by an ecclesiastical tribunal. I think the marriage canon of the Church of England was much the same at the time. See Princess Margaret’s problem in 1955. Capt. Townsend’s divorce was not a problem from the perspective of social ethics as he’d had solid grounds.
Ann Althouse has been commenting on the Prince’s demeanor., which she finds indicative of a man not at peace with the proceedings. Add to that Meghan Markle’s amatory history, her chosen trade, and her trashy family, and the whole business is a source of dismay. You can hope for the best, I s’pose.
(and perhaps because being king didn’t quite suit him anyway).
One of George V’s surviving sons was a decent man in an uncomplicated way, one was a decent man but a lush, one was a roue, and one was a roue with a portfolio of bad attitudes and bad judgments. Britain dodged a bullet when Mrs. Simpson nicked the worst so the country could have the best.
I think the most acid internet comment I have seen on the matter is: “Out of work American actress marries Afghan war veteran from a family dependent on government income.”
Other than that, I’m with Vanderleun; I’m kind of tired of the wedding coverage myself – especially of the brides’ awful family.
George VI was a good king who, with his adored wife, “Queen Mum”, endeared themselves with the British public during the blitz and throughout WWII.
Britain was fortunate that King Edward VIII abdicated. His fascination at best, collaboration at worst, with Hitler and the Third Reich could have brought a very different conclusion to the war and all of Europe.
Mike K–
The Duke of Windsor was Wallis’s third husband, not her second. The witticism that circulated shortly after their wedding was that the former king was “third mate on an American tramp.”
I think the most acid internet comment I have seen on the matter is: “Out of work American actress marries Afghan war veteran from a family dependent on government income.”
The only problems with that would be
1. She’s worked continuously since 2005
2. The royal family does not receive ‘government income’. The Treasury allocates funds out of the Crown Estate. That supplements the private income the Queen and Prince of Wales receive from the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster and the personal property Wm. and Harry have as Spencer heirs.
I didn’t care for the dress. Boring!
I hope that they will be happy. I have a small bet with my wife, an incurable romantic, about how long it will last.
The show was impressive. I do enjoy pomp. Unfortunately, the media gushing almost ruined it.
My youngest grand daughter was in Windsor, and stood at the kerb along with thousands of others to wave and cheer. She did not qualify for an invitation to stand within the castle grounds to express her devotion.
Confession. I was once introduced to Prince Charles and Diana during their visit to Brazil. It was awkward. The media fawning over her was beyond ridiculous.
It almost defies belief that the Brits still support the Royalty; and even more how the American media slobber over it.
The mother of the bride was wearing a beautiful outfit. Very elegant.
I like simple and elegant too. So it was surprising how unflattering and boring the dress was.
Five years tops. He’ll run back to Chelsea – just like dear old Dad.
Hope I’m wrong.
On her race, it’s interesting that the media mostly refers to the newly minted Duchess as black even though half of her existence wouldn’t have been possible for her white father.
I was also was channel surfing last night and stumbled upon the Smithsonian Channel where they had a segment about Harry and Meghan, saying that she’s in part different because of her wealth – about $30 million, though what wasn’t mentioned is, from my understanding, that this money is mostly inherited (wealthy Hollywood father). Her income is about $5 million from her own labor and business ventures.
The 23andMe database indicates that their black participants have considerable European ancestry, with a mean share of 24%. This might not reflect the black American population as a whole accurately. The Hispanic participants in Ancestry are a great deal more caucasoid than the Latin American mean. However, 24% is the figure you’ve got. Doria Ragland is more copportoned than is typical among blacks, so it’a reasonable wager that her personal ancestry is more caucasoid than that of most blacks. One might guess that Meghan Markle’s actual background is about 1/3 West African.
I liked the dress. And the uniform. And it is my ferfent hope that they be happy.
Fervent. Christ.
That boatneck neckline isn’t flattering on anyone. I think the dress would have been improved with any other modest neckline -maybe jewel cut.
Other than that, I didn’t watch the ceremony, don’t really care, but wish them well. Newly weds need all the well wishing they get.