Posted on 09/03/2012 5:55:54 AM PDT by C19fan
A stunning Edwardian wedding dress is about to be auctioned after being kept in pristine condition by the bride's family for more than a century.
But while it may have survived being bombed twice by the Luftwaffe and 104 years in storage unscathed, it appears the changing shape of modern women could mean the magnificent wedding dress is never again worn down the aisle.
The delicate Brussels lace was worn by petite Ethel Dalziel when she married Ronald Cooper in Glasgow, and is smaller than today's UK size 4.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The lace is magnificent, but in terms of fashion, I think there’s a happy medium between “Look at my breasts!!!!” and being smothered in froth and frills.
18” waist! Size one slippers! Man, that woman was tiny.
Not made in China or in far off places I’d wager. Societies even in the early 1900s were more self sufficient and less enamored with and immersed in the need for bs Hollywood type entertainment. They did stuff instead of wasting their time.
My wife will be interested in this.
My six-year-old son has bigger feet than that.
I am always amazed that people spend literally thousands of dollars for a white dress that is supposed to represent purity (as in being a virgin) all the while the bastard babies get a matching dress as well...
Yes — take away the high neck and all the extra froo-froo in the front, and I absolutely love it. The veil alone is stunning.
My baby daughter (youngest of four) was married in March. Her dress was this size. Different style, of course.
Interesting factoid -- in the current fashion of strapless gowns, my daughter had to search all over the country to find a dress in her tiny size that did NOT have bare shoulders. Eventually she found one and we bought it over the phone.
Later, she discovered that Prince William's Kate had wrenched the wedding dress fashion industry back toward sleeved, shoulder-covered styles. And why did she go that route?
Westminster Abbey will not permit brides to wear sleeveless, strapless gowns during wedding ceremonies. Old fashioned notions of modesty and all that, dontcha know.
Slutty bridal wear is a reflection of slutty fashion in general.
THAT is photoshopped....right?
I’ve noted that too—(as well as having to endure watching that show under duress).
I don’t know. I just recalled seeing the picture before and thinking “Wow, that’s one slutty bride”
A google image search for “slutty bride gowns” brought that picture up first :-)
It may be the case that in older European churches and cathedrals strapless/sleeveless just aren’t allowed. A friend was married in France a week or so ago and I noticed the bride wore what appears to be a shawl in the church that wasn’t there thru most of the reception.
...it appears the changing shape of modern women could mean the magnificent wedding dress is never again worn down the aisle... smaller than today's UK size 4.
Amen! Gorgeous!!
My first thought was,how the Ghetto Moose would try to cram her big butt into that dress and wear it to a White House cocktail party-the ostentatious bitch.
Why do you post this drivel?
No, it’s not Photoshopped. It’s part of “chav culture,” the tastes of very lower-class people, some of them gypsies, in the UK. They aren’t poor, but the level of tackiness is on a par with the absolute worst in the US. And they go completely over-the-top in spending money on weddings and proms.
In total agreement. There is way too much going on with that dress....and I speak as one who detests the minimalist strapless numbers so popular now.
In total agreement. There is way too much going on with that dress....and I speak as one who detests the minimalist strapless numbers so popular now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.