And the Bride Wore...

PLEASE NOTE: A number of links are given in this article, because the appropriate photos are copyrighted. Because these links lead to other websites, I recommend that you RIGHT CLICK the link and select "Open In Another Window." This way you won't loose track of this article--and The Vintage Connection website!

Brides and what they wear have always been cause for gossip. But in the early 1900s, brides and their fashions weren’t just fodder for quilting bees—they were the subject of countless “news” articles and photographs. It perhaps all started with Consuelo Vanderbilt, who married the Duke of Marlborough in 1895. This wedding attracted widespread attention not simply because through it “American royalty” and old stock European royalty combined, but also because so much money was involved on the part of the bride. (At the end of the ceremony, Consuelo’s father, William Vanderbilt, signed a check over to the groom for 2.5 million dollars plus 50,000 shares to one of his railroad companies). But what most captured the public’s attention was that it was evident to all the Consuelo hadn’t chosen her own groom. She was kept under guard till the minute she walked down the isle, supposedly to keep her from running away with the man she really loved. This was the stuff of romance novels and popular plays! (Over 30 years later, the marriage was annulled by the Catholic Church, because it was found Consuelo had been coerced into signing a civil marriage contract.)

Brides and what they wear have always been cause for gossip. But in the early 1900s, brides and their fashions weren’t just fodder for quilting bees—they were the subject of countless “news” articles and photographs. It perhaps all started with Consuelo Vanderbilt, who married the Duke of Marlborough in 1895. This wedding attracted widespread attention not simply because through it “American royalty” and old stock European royalty combined, but also because so much money was involved on the part of the bride. (At the end of the ceremony, Consuelo’s father, William Vanderbilt, signed a check over to the groom for 2.5 million dollars plus 50,000 shares to one of his railroad companies). But what most captured the public’s attention was that it was evident to all the Consuelo hadn’t chosen her own groom. She was kept under guard till the minute she walked down the isle, supposedly to keep her from running away with the man she really loved. This was the stuff of romance novels and popular plays! (Over 30 years later, the marriage was annulled by the Catholic Church, because it was found Consuelo had been coerced into signing a civil marriage contract.)

Consuelo Vanderbilt and the Duke of Marlborough, as shown in the November 1895 issue of Harper's.

But despite all that, Consuelo was at least dressed to the hilt. Some period sources say her silk gown was made by Worth, a maker she frequented, but there are also stories of shock that her gown was not made by Worth, but rather a far less known American lady dressmaker. It seems likely the Vanderbilt’s wanted their daughter dressed by the most famous dressmaker of the era—and an Englishman, at that. Certainly they were very controlling over their daughter and were constantly trying to lift her up in society. Then again, perhaps Consuelo managed to get some control over this aspect of the marriage and used it as a subtle statement against her parents and her future husband. Whatever the case, the gown was lavish, with the humongous sleeves of 1895, a tightly corseted waist bound off with a wide sash, and a wide choker of pearls around her long, elegant neck.
 

A happier and more traditional marriage was that of the Duchess of Albany to Prince Leopold I (Queen Victoria’s youngest son) in 1905. The Duchess’ gown harkened back to an earlier age and was nothing if it wasn’t sumptuous and in good taste. She wore a crown of jewels and flowers supporting her long tulle bridal veil, her shoulders were bare and her short sleeves adorned with jeweled symbols of royalty. Her bosom was swathed in tulle and ruched laces and was set off by a small bouquet of flowers. Her waist was tucked in neatly with a corset and her bodice was sharply V–ed to accentuate her good figure. Her skirt was ruched and trimmed like—well, like royalty. She was the ideal young bride. Every young woman wanted to be like her. And according to period photographs, on their wedding day many brides were able to achieve a similar affect.

By the time Lord Edward Stanley (Earl of Derby) married Sibyl Cadogan in 1917, the fashionable bridal dress had transformed dramatically. Simple styles were favored, and Sibyl was the height of this new simplicity. She wore a long (but not floor length) dress, swathed at her narrow hips, with plain long sleeves, and a V–ed neckline. Her stockings—which actually showed!—were plain white. The only hint at bridal sumptuary was her veil, which did not fall over her face, but covered her head and fell backwards only—yet was long enough to require an attendant to keep it from dragging the ground.

Sibyl Cadogan in her 1917 bridal gown.

Elizabeth Bowes–Lyon (the recently deceased Queen Mother) married the Duke of York in 1923 with all the pomp and circumstance expected of royalty, despite the fact the she had twice refused his proposals. (A hint at the sumptuousness of the affair: the wedding cake weighed 800 pounds and was filled with real gold charms.) Her gown was typical of the 1920s, but the look was softened from what Sibyl wore: the skirt reached the ankles, had a train, and was trimmed with lace. The bodice was entirely of lace, featured long sleeves, and was practically hidden by a lace veil. The bride herself designed the gown, and the veil was later lent to the future wife of King George VI.

LEFT: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and the Duke of York. RIGHT: Marjorie du Cros on her wedding day.

In 1932, when Marjorie du Cros married R.A. Jenks (son of Lord Mayor) in 1932, she wore a similar, although not quite so strictly modern gown. It was of simple, ankle–length satin, gathered at the bust. The neckline was in a V, and her neck was adorned with jewels. She carried a large white bouquet, and her headdress harkened back to the Victorian era: it framed her face with white flowers, then trailed, long and flowing, down her back.

WWII may have made getting married even more popular, but it made brides far more down–to–earth. Even the wealthy usually forewent excessive wedding ceremonies; in an effort to be patriotic, they choose basic fabrics trimmed simply. Many bridal gowns were designed to be easily converted to evening dresses; when Wallis Simpson married King Edward in 1937, her oh–so–simple dress with its plain long skirt, wide fitted waistband, and simply gathered bodice, topped only with a hat, was widely copied in Europe and America and praised for it’s practicality. (Her trousseau, however, contained 66 dresses, with matching accessories, by Chanel, Schiaparelli, and Mainbocher—not exactly practical!)

 Princess Elizabeth had the next big royal wedding, to Philip Mountbatten in 1947. Her extraordinary dress showed no sign that England was recovering from war. It was fashioned entirely from ivory satin and was decorated with 10,000 seed pearls. It had a 15 foot train of lace and the veil had more than 100 miles of gossamer silk thread. This was the look that most brides probably wished to emulate, but could not.

LEFT: King Edward gave up his title and crown to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson, here shown in their wedding attire. RIGHT: Princess Elizabeth's lavish wedding gown.

When Grace Kelly married in 1956, her gown was undeniably perfect. While it was simple, it was not austerely modern and was nothing but feminine. With a wide, full lace skirt and a simple, fitted lace bodice that went to the base of the neck and covered the arms, it was topped with a crown of flowers and a simple white tulle veil. MGM designer Helen Rose designed the gown with 25 yards of silk taffeta, 98 yards of silk tulle, and 300 yards of Valenciennes lace. Although many people thought they watched the wedding ceremony on film, the movie of Grace Kelly’s wedding was only a recreation for MGM.
    

When Jane McNeil and the Earl of Dalkeith married in 1953, her gown was similar to Grace’s, although somehow not as polished and well–put–off. Another “American royalty” couple—John F. Kennedy and Jacki Bouvier, married in 1953—and greatly influenced bridal fashions, as well. Not as demure as Grace Kelly,  Jacquie wore a full skirted design that exposed both her chest and her arms.
    

Grace Kelly on her wedding day.

In 1960, Princess Margaret married Antony Armstrong–Jones in a simple yet elegant gown with a wide skirt of silk organza. The only trim was organza rouleau piping. The bride broke with tradition and bought her own diamond tiara to carry her tulle veil. The wedding was broadcast on television and got a Neilsen rating of 17, twice that of its competition: Rawhide. When Princess Anne wed Mark Phillips in 1973, her gown was equally plain. Made of white silk cut in a princess–style, its only excess was pearl trim and Elizabethan–inspired full sleeves. Her headpiece was the same diamond tiara that her mother (the Queen) wore at her wedding.
    

A much talked–about wedding was that of King Hussein (of Jordan) to Lisa Halaby in 1978. In keeping with Islamic ideals, the bride wore a dress that could have been worn to a nice dinner party—nothing excessive here. It was made of white crepe, had a neckline that came to the base of the neck, long bell sleeves, and a plain long skirt.
    

The next big royal wedding was that of Diana Spencer to Prince Charles in 1981. I remember vividly the television broadcast of the wedding, watched by over a billion people worldwide. Setting new trends in what every bride wanted to wear, Princess Di’s gown harkened back to the age of Consuelo Vanderbilt—a fitting parallel considering how unhappy both marriages were. Princess Di’s gown featured huge, puffy sleeves trimmed with lace, a scooping neckline edged in ruffled lace, and a wide, full skirt. And who can forget that 25 foot train! The entire garment was trimmed with 10,000 sequins and pearls, and the lace used had belonged to the Princes’ great–grandmother. Sarah Ferguson wed Prince Andrew with a little less spectacle in 1986. Her gown was perhaps more tasteful, while still echoing an earlier era. Fashioned from ivory silk, it had a 17 foot train and a bodice nicely embroidered in gold. She carried a small white bouquet and her veil was of tulle.
    

In 1995, Crown Prince Pavlos (of Greece) and Marie–Chantal Miller were married. The bride wore a heavy silk dress that took 25 dressmakers four months to sew. Designed by the bride, it featured a richly embroidered hem, a lace bodice with long sleeves, and a train.
    

When Sophie Rhys–Jones wed Prince Edward in 2001, her attire was far more simple. She wore a rather gaudy pearl necklace and a jeweled crown–like headdress, and her gown was trimmed with 325,000 cut-glass and pearl beads. But the ultimate in simplicity has perhaps the gown Mette–Marit Tjessem Hoiby wore. When she wed Norwegian Crown Prince Haakon in 2001, she not only made a fairy tale come true (she used to be a waitress) but she rekindled an interest in Medieval fashions. Her gown was of a simple cut, made of layers of silk crepe, her train was long, but not excessively so, and her veil a simple tulle concoction. Instead of a bouquet, she carried a long garland of flowers.
    

Even today, many soon-to-be-wed women try to emulate these famous brides of history. Cinderella and “princess style” wedding gowns and accessories are some of the hottest sellers. (I succumbed to a crystal tiara and clear “glass slippers” for my own wedding (in 2001)!) There’s no doubt royalty continues to ignite the imagination of women everywhere, and that whoever the next royal bride may be, she too will inspire thousands of women to sigh and swoon...and rush out to copy her bridal attire.

HOME

(c) 2000 by Kristina Harris.

 

04/22/2006