No, not the wow moment that every network hack keeps telling me I really did experience. I happen to be watching ABC News with Tina Brown, Tim Gunn (now a professional fashion sycophant/ gay Stepin Fetchit lap dog for hire), Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters. So invested is ABC in the coverage of the wedding, so many on-air hours and television specials devoted to the hype, that one could hardly expect anyone present to tell the truth about the bride: she looks OK, and nothing more.
Truth be told, sister and maid of honor Pippa provided the only wow fashion moment. And I mean WOW, as in she completely upstaged the bride!
Princess Katherine’s dress is demure, tasteful, and reminds one of Grace Kelly’s. That, my dears, is polite chit chat for BORING. Chelsea Clinton–think about that–made for a much more beautiful bride. Did someone as vulgarly American as Ivanka Trump not look about the same in a modest dress for her conservative Jewish wedding? Katherine is a beautiful woman and would have looked good in a paper bag. This was a designer paper bag.
Perhaps you may not be able to fault the craftsmanship of the Alexander McQueen gown, but you can certainly fault the timidity of its vision. Speculation was that Sarah Burton, who now heads McQueen, was chosen because of the brand’s ability to balance well researched historical references with an exquisite theatrical aesthetic. For all the talk about what a great tribute this dress is to Mr. McQueen, he was a man known neither for his timidity in life nor especially in his designs.
See Ms. Burton’s most recent designs for the label and then look at this dress again and then you will understand my utter disappointment. Given the ability of the house to produce an intricate patterned bodice, the bodice of the dress is a pure waste of the McQueen aesthetic.
I cannot speak for him–unlike the ABC anchors and the demi monde of journalists/sycophants–but I will say that for me, all of this was much ado about nothing.
But nothing may just be the point. A tasteful, understated and arguably age inappropriate dress may indeed serve both an economic and political purpose. England is going through tough economic times and a too-lavish gown might give the impression that the monarchy is out of touch with the hardships facing everyone but it. (Prince Charles doesn’t put the toothpaste on his own toothbrush. That’s someone else’s taxpayer funded job.)
On a personal level for Catherine, a commoner–though from a “pull yourself up from your boot straps pushy/savvy/socially ambitious family”–a reverential, tasteful (and borderline matronly) dress can signal that she intends to straddle the fine line of ascending to the ranks of royalty without betraying her commoner lineage. We have already heard how she intends to live with Prince William without the help of any staff and even do her own cooking and laundry.
It wouldn’t take much imagination to hear the palace announce that she plans on reworking this wedding dress into a housecoat.
The Duchess of Cambridge, as she will be known–according to British protocol, she will not be able to formally call herself Princess Catherine because she was not born a princess–may share more than a milliner with Lady Gaga. She may be humming to herself “don’t be a drag, just be a Queen,” just loud enough to drown out the noise of the spin cycle.
Tom Kolovos is Editor In Chief of aControlledSubstance.