Kate's Royal Wedding Look: The Dress, The Veil, The Tiara and More

Along with the identity of the wedding dress designer, the actual design of Kate Middleton's dress is the most closely guarded secret of the wedding. Based on my knowledge of previous royal weddings, and from what I've heard from sources so far, here's what I predict Catherine (as she prefers to be called) will be wearing on the big day.

The Dress

First off, Catherine's gown will not look anything like Diana's, and I anticipate that it will be white rather than a cream or ivory hue. While the strapless look is popular with many celebrity brides, this is a royal bride, and that transcends mere celebrity. This means no strapless styles, no spaghetti straps, and no to anything that exposes the shoulders or too low-cut. If you look at previous royal bridal dresses, every one of them features sleeves. The last major royal wedding was that of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden in June 2010 -- a wedding I covered from Stockholm, and she was the first royal bride to have a gown with an off-the-shoulder wrap neckline with short sleeves.

Catherine has a fabulous figure and looks sensational in the stream-lined silhouettes she favors, however we definitely won't be seeing a slinky sheath dress like the one Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy wore to her wedding. On the other hand, I don't think Catherine's dress will feature a big, ball-gown skirt either, although it will have some fullness to it to complement the grand scale of Westminster Abbey. So something with an A-line or a Princess-style skirt (how appropriate) with a fitted waist will be most likely.

There will be a train but nowhere near the length of Diana's 25 ft. train as I'm told that Catherine is not into very long trains - it's simply not her taste. The bridal bouquet will contain a sprig of myrtle to symbolize lasting love and fertility - a royal wedding tradition started by Queen Victoria.

Victoria also set the trend for white wedding dresses when she wore one to her wedding in 1840. Previously, black and red were popular bridal gown colors, and royal brides traditionally wed in silver. I wouldn't be surprised if Catherine's gown incorporates striking details such as silver embroidery. Rania al Yassan (now Queen Rania of Jordan) wore a gold embroidered dress to her 1993 wedding.

***For more royal wedding news, visit our Royal Wedding Big News page.***

The Tiara

Royal insiders told me that shortly after the engagement announcement on November 16, Catherine was invited to Buckingham Palace where the Queen had instructed that every tiara, along with other dazzling jewels from the royal vaults, be laid out for inspection in a ballroom. This was when Catherine chose the tiara she will wear on her wedding day. The British royals have a substantial collection of priceless heirloom jewels and tiaras, and the general public has only seen a mere fraction of what is in those vaults. There are many pieces of historic provenance that haven't been seen or worn by members of the royal family in decades.

I suspect that Catherine will wear a tiara of relatively modest size, and one that has not been seen for quite some time. I don't think she will be wearing too much other jewelry at the wedding as she tends to favor a less is more aesthetic - perhaps just a pair of earrings or a necklace.

It should be noted that the tiara Catherine wears to the ceremony is not necessarily the same tiara she will receive as a wedding present. There has been some speculation that Catherine might be given the beautiful diamond and pearl drop tiara that Diana had worn to stunning effect. This tiara, known as the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara, was made for Queen Mary (the Queen's grandmother) in 1913 by the royal jewelers Garrard. The Queen gave it to Diana as a wedding gift and after the princess's death, it returned to the royal family. If the Queen bestows William a dukedom, it's most likely to be the Duke of Cambridge title. So it will be a wonderful tie-in for Catherine to be given the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara as she will then be the Duchess of Cambridge. Nice scenario - but it won't happen. First of all, the tiara is too closely associated with Diana, and the young couple have already said that Catherine will be forging her own path and identity. Secondly, Diana often complained that the Lover's Knot was heavy and wearing it gave her a headache. So that rules it out.

The Veil

To veil or not to veil? Royal brides customarily wear a veil on their wedding day but the question is whether Catherine will wear one over her face as she proceeds up the aisle. If Catherine was a princess of royal blood, I can tell you emphatically that she will not have a veil covering her face. None of the royal-born princesses such as Princess Anne, Princess Margaret or the Queen (then Princess Elizabeth) when she married, had worn a veil over their faces. However, since Catherine is not royal-born, she will have a choice, and I think she'll choose to have a veil over her face like Diana and Sarah Ferguson before her. It lends an air of mystery, and goes so well with the romantic image she loves.

The Hair

As for how Catherine will be wearing her hair, all brides at royal weddings have their hair pulled off their faces, so there won't be a repeat of Catherine's hair falling over her eyes like we saw during the engagement announcement and interview. However, I don't think we will be seeing her long hair pulled back in a tight knot. Catherine knows what suits her, and it isn't anything too severe looking. So on the wedding day, her hair will be pulled back from her face, but done loosely with a soft effect.

The Shoes

The latest news from my royal contacts is that Catherine has commissioned four pairs of shoes for the wedding day - each pair with a different heel height. Considering that she will be spending much of the day on her feet - at the ceremony, during the reception, the balcony appearance, the official photo shoot, not to mention dancing at the evening party afterwards, this sounds like a very smart move.

 

Comments

[ellencbraun]

04:00 PM on 03/29/2011

Thank you for this update. It lends even more mystery as to what the royal bride's attire will be on her wedding day! By the way, she has stated that she does not prefer Catherine over Kate, and really does not care for one name over the other- but the Royal Family prefers Catherine, as they are far too regal to use a nickname.

Here is an artist's rendition of what Kate may look like as a bride- just breathtaking! http://herroyalhighnessprincesskate.com/princess-kate-wedding-doll

[absence360]

07:32 PM on 03/09/2011

The schedule - the pace - the demands - run away with the press in tow....

[Aestheticus Rex]

04:59 PM on 02/24/2011

We shall wait and see... But I do hope she is not given the Cambridge Lover's Knot it is too heavy literally and figuratively.

AR
________________________________________________________________________
http://aestheticusrex.blogspot.com/2010/11/tale-of-tiaras-what-will-queen-bestow.html

[Cathy M Rubin]

03:11 PM on 02/23/2011

I don't see Catherine following the traditions of previous royal princesses (and especially not Diana - One ring is enough already). Catherine is not descended from royal blood - she is a commoner. She is also a contemporary well educated young woman who has already illustrated an independent sense of style - more so than Fergie and more than Diana in the early years of her marriage. She likes color and fitted lines (given her tall slim build she wears it well), and then adds fun accessories to make herself stand out. I predict that inspired by this the designers are planning to update the royal wedding dress this time round - something that nods to both her commoner background (a princess from the people) and royal traditions. While the gown will mainly be white or ivory I am expecting to see a splash of color in the design treatment and possibly even an off the shoulder tease. Similarly with her hair I predict she will wear it up. The veil and the jewels can always soften the lack of locks look. c.m. rubin

[Eleonora]

01:43 PM on 02/24/2011

Actually, like many people in the UK, Middleton is descended from royalty. Edward III in her case -- he had a lot of children and grandchildren. And Diana was also a commoner. Her father was a peer, but she was not. She bore only a courtesy title, and a courtesy title doesn't mean you're not a commoner. Techically speaking, only the monarch and the peers are not commoners, but since many people find that confusing, we usually say that only the royals and the peers are not commoners. Diana wasn't royal before her marriage.

[ellencbraun]

07:29 PM on 04/11/2011

This is very interesting, yet seriously confusing for US citizens. We are just not used to titles, and we have no idea how it all works. The only people in our country with titles would be the President and First Lady, unless I'm leaving someone out?

I for one am excited just to see the pomp and grandeur of the wedding! I intend to get some royal wedding souvenirs just to inject some magic into my life! http://herroyalhighnessprincesskate.com/royal-wedding-souvenirs

[riverhouse]

09:39 PM on 02/22/2011

The virginal white wedding dress and veil worked for Diana, but for this one it will only be good for a giggle. What could she be thinking? It's beige suit time.

[Eleonora]

12:19 PM on 02/23/2011

A white wedding dress is not a comment on the sexual history of the bride, nor was it ever intended to be. People who think otherwise are misinformed.

Moreover, polite people do not coment on the bride's or the groom's sexual history. It's none of their business.

[mlaiuppa]

02:11 AM on 02/22/2011

Four different shoe heights also guarantees that if there is any problem with the hem length, she'll have a pair of shoes to fix it.

[sybilleruth]

01:07 AM on 02/22/2011

The Royal Wedding is on my birth date. Do I care? Kind of. No invitation for me and I am sharing my day.

[Shekay]

07:50 PM on 02/21/2011

I'm looking forward to seeing the Obama's at this wedding of the century!

[IndependentGadfly]

10:29 AM on 02/22/2011

They weren't invited. Serves him right for returning that bust of Churchill.

[lexingtonKY]

12:26 PM on 02/22/2011

It's ridiculous to imply that returning a bust of Churchill would cause the President of the U.S. to be blacklisted.

[hollieseven]

02:42 PM on 02/22/2011

also, no one KNOWS the actual guest list.

[Greeniz810]

06:39 PM on 02/21/2011

Who cares!! Why are people so caught up in this crap?

[CognitoErgoSum]

11:40 AM on 02/21/2011

I say that since the Obamas weren't invited, America should boycott interest in the wedding.

[Eleonora]

05:04 PM on 02/21/2011

Since it is not a state occasion, there was no reason for any heads of government from any but Commonwealth countries to receive invitations. Sarkozy of France reportedly has not been invited either. And the Obamas have been invited to make a state visit to the UK shortly after the wedding. That will be a far more glittering event than merely attending the wedding and then returning to a hotel or the Embassy.

[Shekay]

08:03 PM on 02/21/2011

I disagree. This is a snub on the Obama's! This is the wedding of the century and to not invite the President of the United States is unbelievable! To invite the Obama's to a state visit AFTER the wedding is disrespectful. It is not a far more glittering event than this wedding. The wedding will be televised worldwide and talked about for years to come! I'm disappointed and wonder what went wrong...

[smolensk-lies]

09:52 AM on 02/21/2011

my opinion is that 'royalty' in a society is exactly analogous to canc er in a body

both consume vast amounts of resources, produce nothing of value, and are difficult to remove once established

pretty young lady though

[dmac]

01:19 AM on 02/22/2011

You may certainly have your opinion about Royals, but your stated assumption is wrong.

All the revenue from the Crown lands (£200 million a year) is given to the people of the UK. The Civil List (which pays the Royals involved for their duties) is about £60 million. In addition, the Royals have, since '92, paid income and capital gains taxes just like any other resident. Seems like a pretty good deal for the people of GB to me.

And if you don't think the Royals contribute to tourism, you haven't been to the UK.

[smolensk-lies]

05:29 AM on 02/22/2011

your statisitics do not refute my can cer statement.
i was unaware that the 'royals' actually met with tourists, i thought some went to see the (should be people owned) royal palaces. double fail.

[IndependentGadfly]

10:34 AM on 02/22/2011

Still doens't make it right. Like smolensk-lies states, the idea of royalty is cancerous.

[NA24]

06:40 AM on 02/21/2011

I find it amusing that the Huffington Post are publishing so much about the wedding. Most people here in the UK couldn't care less.

[Eleonora]

01:35 PM on 02/21/2011

Well, the UK newspapers and other publications are certainly going to town on it. They're publishing far more than the US media are. I look at UK media every day for a variety of reasons, so I can say that with confidence.

[NA24]

08:12 AM on 02/22/2011

Soem UK newspapers, mainly tabloids like the Mail, Express etc are posting regular stories but they do so regardless of whether there is a wedding or not.

The average person on the street really isn't that bothered.

[McHale Ann Haiman]

05:11 AM on 02/21/2011

I'm not British and I never pretended to be a princess, though I did pretend to be British because my friends and I pretended to be Spice Girls. But I never had a princess complex, I didn't have dress up clothes like tiaras, but I had office clothes and I had phones that I would pretend were plugged in and I would talk to China and all kinds of places and my cousin and I would be detectives. Anyway, my point is, I never twirled or had wands or waited for Prince Charming, but I am excited. But I think just because they seem so in love and so happy. I think that is what really should be the focus right now. William's taking of the thrown isn't eminent, so I think the happiness and love of the wedding should be the focus of this joyous occasion.

[Whistlejackett]

02:11 AM on 02/21/2011

What's all the poo poo about? The UK is interesting because of its 1000 year history, and the fact that the US would not exist without the UK. History does not have options people.

[Daily Naruto]

03:17 AM on 02/21/2011

What are you talking about? The length of its history doesn't matter, and the UK wouldn't exist without the Horn of Africa, yet you never see the British clamoring to visit Ethiopia.

[Eleonora]

06:20 PM on 02/21/2011

The length of its history is a matter of interest, Daily Naruto, and the monarchy is part and parcel of that history. Moreover, your comment about the Horn of Africa is disingenuous. Presumably, no country would exist if Homo Sapiens hadn't arisen there, but that occurred so long ago that there really cannot be a logical or intelligent analogy made between an interest in visiting Ethiopia and an interest in visiting the UK, where, after all, many Americans have comparatively recent ancestral -- and, of course, linguistic -- roots.

[happycat]

10:42 PM on 02/20/2011

As long as the dress doesn't resemble the Victorian nightie that Princess Diana wore at her wedding, then I am sure that Kate will look just great.