The title of this post is a quote from Jean Paul Gaultier, I think he is right, but I have to remind myself of that sometimes. My children have been know to call me harsh, and I have to admit to some rather uncharitable remarks (in the privacy of my own car) when confronted by some of the sights that we encounter. Clearly some people do not possess a mirror and do not check their rear view, because if they could see what I could see they would never leave the house! I am not the least bit interested in clothes or fashion, I like comfort and given the choice I would spend every waking moment in jeans. However I can manage to look smart and dress appropriately when the occasion demands it. I have not been blessed with a good figure or height, I am short and stumpy so I am at a disadvantage when it comes to clothes, but I can still manage to dress in a way that doesn't scare passers by. More to the point, I am surrounded by family members who would tell me loud and clear if I looked too unsightly in what I had chosen to wear. Robbie doesn't do tact, he speaks his thoughts!
So, to get to the point. Most of the coverage I have read about the royal wedding has been about what people wore and much has been made of those who were deemed to be fashion flops. When people see an unflattering outfit people are bound to have their thoughts about it, but surely those thoughts are best kept private. It is true that there were a few eccentric outfits at the royal wedding and one or two really unfortunate ones. I guess it goes to show that money can not buy style, and whatever the designer label you should trust the evidence of your own eyes. I think it is cruel to write about individual fashion mishaps especially when the person concerned is very young, it says more about the bad taste of the author than the fashion victim. I wonder how they would feel if someone humiliated a member of their family in that way.
I was especially incensed about the way that fashion writers picked on one or two of the younger royals. Quentin Crisp once said "fashion is what you adopt when you don't know who you are". Some people don't want to conform to the latest fashion trends and try as they might some people will never have style. Surely what matters is whether or not they are pleasant, honest, well mannered, kind and good company. I would much rather be judged on the type of person I am than what I look like or what I wear. All the fuss that people have made about Samantha Cameron not wearing a hat and wearing 'high street heels' has made me really angry. I thought she looked lovely, very stylish without trying to upstage anyone. Her shoes looked just fine to me, so what if they were not 'designer'. If she chose not to spend an obscene amount of money on shoes just to impress others, that probably shows that she has good sense and good character! As for the foolish suggestions that going to Westminster Abbey hatless was disrespectful, I can only assume these people had not engaged their brains. Who was she allegedly disrespecting? It wasn't disrespectful to the queen, she meets hatless people all the time. It wasn't disrespectful to God, women go to church hatless all the time, I have never worn a hat to church in my life! Going to church is about belief and worship not fashion. Church is not about the building, it is about the people gathering together to worship, so what is appropriate for a tiny church gathering in a hut somewhere should also be appropriate for the grandest cathedral.
So, before being too quick to criticise people for what they wear or how they look, people would do well to remember the words of Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel "Adornment is never anything except a reflection of the heart".
 |
| Photo by Magnus D |
I can't let the Royal wedding pass without mentioning it on the blog. I was surprised that the children were more excited about it than me. Daughter number two had to work in the morning so she cleared the Sky box and had the recorder set to record every second of the wedding coverage. The son who must not be named took advantage of the day off school to spend some time with his girlfriend, he should really have been revising for his exams, but it wasn't that sort of day. I listened on the radio, I didn't think I was that interested, but curiosity got the better of me because I wanted to see the bridesmaids, so I kept the radio coverage and watched online with the sound muted. The bridesmaids and the page boys looked lovely and behaved perfectly.
It was after the wedding that I started to get more interested. Winston Churchill once said "There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man". Watching all the horses involved in the ceremonial procession back to Buckingham Palace was the best bit for me. Suddenly my full attention was on the screen when I spotted what I thought was a person struggling with a horse at the side of the parade. It was such a brief glimpse that I couldn't really be sure what I had seen. Then a loose horse was mentioned in the commentary and we saw the horse break away from the other horses and thunder past the coach carrying Prince William and his new wife. It wasn't possible to see the horse after that, but the commentary suggested that the horse had rejoined the parade.
I was worried about the horse (and the rider) and I really wanted to know what had happened to them. I checked online throughout the day and eventually it was reported that the rider was unhurt and the horse had made it's own way back to the stables at Horse Guards' Barracks. So now I just have one unanswered question, how did the horse lose it's stirrup irons and stirrup leathers, did they come off when the rider fell?
There are some good pictures of the riderless horse here.
I couldn't think of anything worse than having to go to a street party, but the girls went to one and apparently they had a really good time. The star of the day for me (apart from the horse) Samantha Cameron. She looked lovely, very smart but not dressed to upstage anyone and she was brave enough not to wear a hat. I have a deep dislike of hats and there were some truly hideous examples at the wedding yesterday. During the service I noticed a woman in a huge black tilted creation that totally obscured the view of the people sitting behind her - totally selfish! Apparently some people are saying that Samantha Cameron was disrespectful for not wearing a hat. I don't think so. As far as I am concerned the outfit worn by another politician's spouse was far more disrespectful with a plunging neckline, and another wore a white dress with black dots that proved see through and showed her underwear. Why did that make the story of the Emperors New clothes come to mind? Maybe because her husbands policies are no more substantial than that dress!
