Whose royal wedding is it anyways?

With each royal wedding update, Prince William and Kate (Catherine) Middleton are making it clear that they will organize their wedding their way. Case in point, it was recently announced that Catherine would not be travelling to Westminster Abbey in the traditional Glass Coach, but in a car. While arriving by car is not unheard of, even in royal weddings - Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys Jones' 1999 wedding is a good example - it goes against fairytale expectations.

Prince William and Catherine's wedding is in a different league from Prince Edward and Sophie's. For one, Edward and William are in different positions - William is second-in-line and Edward is seventh. Given Edward's position, few would have expected a lavish royal wedding. Instead of a procession through London to roaring crowds, Edward and Sophie were married in St George's Chapel Windsor. Unlike Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, who arrived at their respective weddings by coach, Prince Edward walked to his ceremony from Windsor Castle with his brothers as his supporters.

No one expects William to walk to Westminster Abbey. Like his grandfather Prince Philip he will be arriving at the Abbey by Royal car. Few if any are unlikely to care how William arrives, as long as he does. It is the bride who is the center point of a wedding. To some, William and Catherine represents a fairytale couple they can live through vicariously. For Catherine to arrive in anything less than a coach somehow diminishes the magic.

But William and Catherine are not a fairytale couple and they might define magic differently. Catherine reportedly chose to arrive at the ceremony by car and depart the Abbey by carriage with the 'splendor of a princess' to illustrate the change in her status. As if we could forget. Much like Sarah Ferguson at her 1986 wedding, when she arrived at the Abbey she wore a headdress of flowers instead of tiara. It was only after the register had been signed that she exchanged the flowers for a diamond tiara. It was a symbolic move. In her own words: "I had stepped up as the country girl; I would walk back as a princess."

The couple are also making an effort to avoid lavishness, though it comes with the territory. No one organizes royal weddings (and funerals) better than the royal family and pageantry is expensive. It is understandable that they would want to avoid the 1981 display Charles and Diana had. But any attempt for William and Catherine to avoid pageantry unrealistic. This is a Royal Wedding and you can only scale back so far. If they truly want to do so they should marry in a registry office like Charles and Camilla. Now wouldn't that be disappointing?

Whether they like it or not William and Catherine straddle the line between wanting the day to be personal versus giving people the pageantry they expect. As new wedding details come to light, disappointment is inevitable, understandable, and ultimately futile.

After all, it's their day, not ours.

© Marilyn Braun 2010

Royal Focus: Princess Diana's Wedding Dress

When people attempt to describe the wedding dress of Diana, Princess of Wales, the words voluminous, iconic, meringue, fairy-tale tend to be used. But it's difficult to put into words the impact of it both on fashion and on the memory of those who watched Diana alight from the carriage, as if a 'butterfly emerging from a chrysalis'. Unlike any royal wedding dress before or since Diana's will always be in a league of its own.

The dress, designed by David and Elizabeth Emanuel, took four months to make and was made of ivory pure silk taffeta. The bodice was fitted and boned with a wide frill around the curved neckline. It has embroidered lace panels on the front and back. The sleeves are full and gathered into a taffeta frill at the elbow with lace flounce underneath. The skirt of the dress as full, worn over a crinoline petticoat consisting of many layers of ivory tulle and trimmed around the waist and hem with embroidered lace.

The train, trimmed with lace, was 25-feet long - the longest to date.

The veil, measuring 11 1/2 foot by 40 foot, was hand-embroidered with 10,000 3mm mother-of-pearl sequins. Diana wore the Spencer family tiara for something borrowed. The something old was a piece of lace from Queen Mary, and for something blue, the Emanuel's hand-sewed a little blue bow into the back of the dress. The couple also added a tiny,golden horse-shoe made of 18-carat Welsh gold, studded with diamonds, sewn into the back of the label of the dress.

Diana carried a large, cascading bouquet. On her feet Diana wore slippers by Clive Shilton. Trimmed with lace from the dress, and made of silk duchess satin, dyed to match the color of the dress, the shoes had 542 mother-of-pearl sequins on each pair, each knotted by hand. The fluted heel was made of bits of leather and wood and the soles were hand-painted with the letters "C" and "D" entwined with a heart.

© Marilyn Braun 2010

Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.

When Sunday Best Isn't Available

When Michelle Obama arrives in London with her husband, President Obama, she will bring with her that unquestionable sheen of the extremely accomplished that can only make any woman standing next to her look inferior. In the presence of the most interesting First Lady in almost 50 years, the Queen herself may feel a momentary lapse in self-confidence. Having your image and face on stamps and currency cannot compete with the First Toned Arms.

While in the United Kingdom she will also meet with Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. The woman who famously succeeded Britain's version of Michelle Obama, Diana, Princess of Wales. Diana, the one with the Royal Toned Limbs, the charisma, height and honorary degrees in dentistry that would have been more than a match for Mrs Obama. Alas we can only imagine Diana and Michelle sizing each other up so we're left with Camilla.

How embarassing to have to serve left-overs instead of Cordon Bleu.

© Marilyn Braun 2009

Prince William and Prince Harry get it right

Diana's Memorial service was held today. All of the controversy surrounding who should/shouldn't/wouldn't attend has evaporated. In its place, an atmosphere of forgiveness, conciliation, and love came through in the brightness of the Guards Chapel. It is only appropriate that for this day all petty frustrations be put aside.

For once, someone has gotten it right. And who better for it to be than her beloved boys?

In the run up to the service, many focused on who wasn't invited. The Prince's decision to invite Camila as wrong, as a mere nod to etiquette. And as a evidence of their naivete in a situation they were too young to understand. But their understanding should only be of their mother and commemorating her memory in the best way they possibly could.

Prince Harry's eulogy stands in sharp contrast to his uncle Earl Spencer's electrifying speech 10 years ago. It will not stand as a historical speech, but it doesn't have to. Untinged with bitterness, not trying to settle any scores, or defend her honor, it was filled with love. What the memorial should have stood for all along.

While we try to define her legacy, understand the outpouring of grief at her death, Prince William and Prince Harry remember her with love and affection. The service was not a time to be sad, but to be a celebration. The flowers laid at Kensington Palace focus on her death. Today is a day to remember her life. We were privileged to be allowed to watch a service which should have been a private occasion. But the Prince's, recognizing that they were not the only ones who loved her, let us join them. And for that we should be thankful.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

Is defending Camilla a lost cause?

I recently visited a message board that made a comment about my article The Camilla Non-issue, that said:

"it must be difficult defending lost causes, Marilyn?"

First off, I would just like to say that I welcome an open discussion of my articles from readers who don't hide behind the safety of a British royal message board. Especially when I'm addressed personally in the post.

After reading that, and posting a response, I started to think - is defending Camilla a lost cause? Shouldn't I just give up and go with all of the media reports that would have me believe that Camilla is evil, a home wrecker, and doesn't deserve happiness? I guess if I were someone who trusts the media to tell the truth, then maybe I should just spend my time living in the glory days of Charles and Diana's 1981 wedding when Camilla was described as a "trusted female confidante of Prince Charles".

At one point, if you'd asked me, say 10 years ago, about Camilla, I would have said that, while I don't hate her, she was a contributing factor in the break-up of Charles and Diana. I say contributing because each of the three parties had their own role to play in how the marriage ended. In hindsight, I haven't changed that opinion, but my view of Camilla as a person has evolved. If you'd asked me whether she would gain acceptance, I would have said, no way! To a degree, feeling this way, I felt I was extracting karmic revenge on behalf of Diana. When it was announced that Charles and Camilla were getting married, I thought I was hearing things. Even if they were meant to be together, I didn't think it was possible. I found myself being happy for them, and feeling as though I was betraying the memory of Diana by doing so. Media reports about the legal, constitutional, and religious issues of the situation made it seem as though, even if they were married, it wouldn't be legal. And that if it were legal, Charles couldn't be king. Ultimately these issues passed, only to be replaced by the non-issues in my recent article.

While I never expected myself to write positively about Camilla, the ultimate fact is, I don't know her. Does anyone really? And in order to be fair, I have to write about her in a balanced way. No one wants to hear about good/bad Camilla all the time. Not the saccharine reporting of quality royal magazines, nor the claw baring reporting of other publications. This blog is not in the same league but I can still do my part, if only for my own entertainment.

I don't believe in living in the past. I wish Charles and Diana could have had a happy ending, but they didn't. Maybe it was inevitable that they wouldn't. Today I can honestly say that I'm happy for Charles and Camilla. I didn't really have any pre-conceived notions but the fact that she's adapted so well to royal life is wonderful. For an outsider, it's not an easy thing to do.

Is defending Camilla a lost cause? No. That's my opinion. I would be interested in hearing other opinions though. Please feel free to have your say.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Camilla Non-issue

It's almost predictable.At every major royal event, you could set your watch by it.

In the absence of any real news, the subject of Camilla is bound to come up. Camilla can't possibly have a 60th birthday without the issue of what her title will be once Charles becomes king. The upcoming Diana memorial needs an injection of Camilla in order to gain some type of momentum. Will she attend? Won't she attend? According to the media, Camilla is terrified and she should feel guilty about Diana. One thing is clear, if she attends or doesn't attend, the media won't let her win either way.

So far Prince Harry wisely defused the Camilla issue by stating that she's wonderful. Prince William has been seen kissing her and greeting her warmly. He also deftly announced that the older guard had been banned from attending the Concert for Diana - thus ending the issue of where to seat Charles, Camilla and the Queen, but inadvertently focusing us on Kate Middleton instead. The Queen has been seen smiling at Camilla and loaning her priceless jewels. Everyone of importance seems to like Camilla, why can't we let it drop?

While we can't change what the media will do, let's take a look at the cold, hard reality of these supposed Camilla issues:

Camilla's present title and her future title when Charles becomes king

This is the most popular non-issue for royal watchers. No doubt we will hear about this for some time and no amount of official clarification will change that. Camilla's present title is H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall. Yes, legally she is Princess of Wales but she has chosen to be known as Duchess of Cornwall instead. A wise move to appease people who choose to live in the past. But had she chosen to take the title, so what? The title of Princess of Wales did not die with Diana. If this were the case, the title should have died with one of the 8 women who held it before her.

When Charles becomes King, she's chosen to be known as H.R.H. The Princess Consort. Yes, once again, for traditionalists she will be Queen. But she doesn't want to be called that. It may be hard for us to accept, but that's our problem now isn't it?

The marriage of Charles, Diana and Camilla.

Yes, there were three people in the marriage of Charles and Diana. Regardless of when the affair started, whether it never ended, Camilla was the third person and we can't change that. Hasn't she been raked over the coals long enough?

Camilla and the family jewels

Yes, Camilla is starting to wear the family jewels. And why shouldn't she? She would look a tad under dressed at State Dinners otherwise. People look to this as a sign of acceptance, when it's a non-issue. Someone should wear them. Why should these jewels languish in the vaults to appease us?

Camilla's life as a royal.

Camilla is doing well in her new role and Charles looks happy, truly happy, for once in his life. We know very little about Camilla as a person, so how could we have predicted, one way or the other, how she would cope as a royal? She may not have the same glamour as Diana but there's no point comparing them. Let's give Camilla a chance to make her own mark as a royal.

The death of Diana

Diana is dead. Last time I checked, she is still dead. Charles and Camilla, and the rest of the royal family are not responsible for her death. There's no point in trying to make Charles and Camilla feel guilty or assign blame to anyone. Time to move on.

The discussion of these non-issues have become a sport akin to the non-issue of whether Charles should become king. Ultimately, can we really blame royal commentators for using these subjects to fill time during their coverage of royal events? Not really. There's more mileage in speculation than in the truth. We definitely haven't heard the last of these non-issues.

So when the next big royal event happens, set your watch.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Royal Profile: Tim Graham

Tim Graham has been photographing the royal family over 30 years. He may not be as well known a photographer as Patrick Lichfield or Snowdon . And you may not recognize him but, chances are, if you follow the royal family, you've seen his work.

He started his career working as an assistant in a Fleet Street picture agency and slowly started taking over photographic assignments, including the royal family. However, his career as a royal photographer got off to a shaky start when he covered the Queen Mother's arrival at an engagement. He had shown up early to get a prime position. and 'as she stepped from her car and I went to take the picture, I found to my dismay that my flash did not fire. My not-very-well-stifled grown alerted the Queen Mother and she stopped to ask if I would like to take another shot. I was eighteen years old, just started in the job, and it is an incident I have never forgotten.' He worked for several years on Fleet Street, and after three years as a staff photographer with the Daily Mail, he left to become a freelancer in 1978.

A love of travelling sparked his interest in photographing the royal family. In 1968 he covered the first of many royal tours, when the Queen and Princess Anne visited Austria. Since then he has traveled with the royal family to over a hundred countries. His photographs have appeared in every major magazine, newspaper, on stamps, TV documentaries, posters, and he has won on several occasions, the Martini award for best royal photograph of the year. Such is his reputation that he has been invited to take official photographs. In 1982 he took the official 18th birthday photographs of Prince Edward, and in 1983 the Prince and Princess of Wales chose him to photograph them with Prince William ahead of their Australian tour. In 1987 he took the official photograph's of Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip for their 40th wedding anniversary.

More recently he was invited by the Queen, in her Golden Jubilee year, to photograph her and the other six reigning monarchs of Europe at Windsor Castle. This photograph was historic as it is only the second time in a hundred years that such a gathering has taken place. He considers this photograph to be the most difficult he has ever taken: ‘Dreading the prospect of having to direct Your Majesty and His Majesty and Her Majesty, I was relieved to find that, having had such photographs taken on countless occasions during their reigns, the monarchs needed very little directing.'

He is the author of several books, including: On the Royal Road - A decade of photographing the Royal Family, Diana - H.R.H The Princess of Wales, In Private, In Public: The Prince and Princess of Wales, Jubilee - A Celebration of 50 years of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. His book Diana, Princess of Wales A Tribute and William to mark the Prince's 21st birthday have been on the best-seller lists.

He lives in London with his wife Eileen and his two children, Lucy and Tom.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Royal Review: Diana, An Amazing Life

In my quest to buy anything Diana related, this will be my year. In the 10th anniversary of her death, a deluge of books, magazines and events will commemorate her life and call my name. This book is one of them.

It beckoned me, but I have complaints. The slick silver cover shows finger prints easily. For someone who collects these types of books, having to wipe it clean after every perusal is frustrating. I've almost given up in trying. My second complaint is that the spine and the introduction erroneously say 'Princess Diana'. While I understand that referring to her as 'Princess Diana' is shorthand for her real title, it's still wrong. For the record, her title during her marriage was HRH The Princess of Wales. After her divorce it was Diana, Princess of Wales.

This 192 page volume spans the 16 years of Diana's royal life from 1981 to her death in 1997. Celebrating her life in 42 covers - the most appearances of anyone before or since. While this may sound impressive, you really need to remember that People is a weekly magazine, not a monthly one. She made the cover sometimes only once a year and averaging no more than twice a year. In 1985 she appears 4 times. In 1989 she doesn't appear at all. In 1992, the year of the separation, she appears a whopping 7 times. Overall the editors of People may want to look at the archives of the monthly Majesty magazine before they brag about this record.

Like most of these books, it shows her evolution from a shy, kindergarten teacher to royal superstar, in a varying degree of photogenic photos and as the fairy tale ended, suitably morose ones. Each issue is presented in a two page synopsis of the main points. The happily ever after pronouncements, birth of Prince William, apocalyptic royal feuds, glamorous fashions, the strain Diana causes on Princes Charles and the birth of Prince Harry. All in the first 53 pages. Having covered all of the real or imagined inter-family conflicts, People then moves to analysing the marriage itself. In sensational headlines, People reports on the coping, moping, Diana's mental stability, her lonliness, their separate lives, and the heartbreak as the fairy-tale ends. Should we have any doubt about the situation, the cover of the November 30th, 1992 issue proclaims 'It's Over', before the December 9th, 1992 official announcement. But it doesn't end there. People reports on Diana's daring new life as a strong, independant woman, her lovers, the battle for her boys and 'Di-vorce!' Her 1997 death earns another two covers.

According to the introduction, 'the goal of this book isn't to analyze her life, but to re-create...something of what those 16 years felt like'. In my opinion, it has suceeded. I couldn't help but be swept up in the happy events, mesmerized by her glamour, and given pause by her tragic ending. While this book is no different from any other commemorative magazine about Diana, I recommend it for any collector.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

Click here to order Diana: An Amazing Life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~