Two Wedding-Related Articles That Make Twistie Go Ugh!


See Priscilla Chan, now married to Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook? See that ring on her finger? Yeah, apparently it’s too small and not diamond enough for The Daily Mail. Oh, and Zuckerberg clearly didn’t spend enough on the ring. You see, from one blurry photograph a jeweler estimated it might have run roughly $25,000, and that simply isn’t enough, you know.

In fact, the Mail seems highly offended by nearly every aspect of the couple’s low-key wedding, from the bride’s off the rack dress, to the sentimental choice of the brand of chocolates they shared on their first date as a wedding dessert.

Me? I firmly consider such decisions on the part of people who didn’t consult me in the matter very much Not My Business. If pressed, though, I think it’s nice that they valued sentiment over pomp and circumstance. I think it says a lot about them as a couple that Zuckerberg designed Chan’s ring, and chose something culturally significant in her background as a Chinese American to symbolize their love. I think it’s their money and they are entitled to spend it (or not spend it) in the way they choose… and I would still say that if they had thrown a massive bash to put Kim Kardashian’s lavish wedding to shame. I think how disappointed I would have been had I been forced to accept a ring at the outer limit of Mr. Twistie’s available budget rather than the ring that means so much to me simply to make people who aren’t us not snark.

To attempt to guess the price tag of the bride’s ring is crass beyond expression. To then attempt to shame the couple for holding the celebration they prefer is hideously offensive. Nobody was harmed in the creation of this wedding. In fact, the few details that have come out have frankly impressed me. Not because of the price tags or lack thereof, I hasten to add, but because it’s clear that they made their decisions based on a combination of sentiment and their personal preferences. They wrote their own vows, he designed her ring, they served food from two of their favorite restaurants, and their beloved dog walked the bride to the altar.

Just because a couple has money doesn’t obligate them to spend it on a wedding that will then make the Daily Mail chastise them for not sending the money to feed starving children or blast them for being so hypocritical as to want a party for a significant life change. Because you know what? Whatever they did, some media outlet or other was going to poke fun at them or shake an angry fist at them. When you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t… do what feels right and most authentic to you.

But while the Mail was pointing fingers and laughing at a couple for not wasting money on a celebration they didn’t want, the Telegraph ran a story on a terrifying and hideous new wedding accessory that would have The Manolo crying AAAIIIYYYYY! and begging for a cold compress for his feverish brow as he retires to his tastefully decorated chamber: bridal UGGs.

Yes, UGG has released a line of bridal footwear which is simply their usual comfort over style footwear only embellished with sequins and honking rhinestones. Oh, and a rather frightening pair of furry flip flops that I was concerned might eat my feet through the computer monitor. Don’t believe me? Check this out:

UGG. The most appropriately-named shoe company in the world.

One Response to “Two Wedding-Related Articles That Make Twistie Go Ugh!”

  1. Katie May 28, 2012 at 1:49 am #

    Hear hear!