As many of you have no doubt heard on the wedding grapevine, Priscilla of Boston has sold out to David’s Bridal and their boutiques are closing their doors all over the country.

In the Cameron Village store in Minnesota, however, it seems they’ve done more than simply close doors. There are rumors of workers spray painting leftover gowns and consigning them to dumpsters.

Other merchants in Cameron Village claim they haven’t seen any spray painting and dumping, but there are photos like the one above that give credence to the story, and at least one former employee claims to have seen this in action.

David’s Bridal has neither confirmed nor denied the story. They have, however, made a statement that Priscilla of Boston never did donate wedding gown samples in poor condition… which begs the question of what condition these gowns were in that spraying huge orange swirls on them and putting them in a dumpster is a better use for them than donating them to charity, offering them to consignment stores, or selling them off at bargain basement prices as is.

Ultimately, this is their merchandise. They can do as they please with it so long as the use is not illegal in itself. Painting and dumping the gowns is not a crime.

I do, however, consider it a real shame. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather work with a company that doesn’t waste apparently perfectly good wedding gowns simply because they’re out of season or have a tiny flaw somewhere in them. I’d rather work with a company that wouldn’t condone this sort of flagrant waste of goods.

Whatever the facts in this case, I hope that brides take the time to consider the companies they deal with and whether the policies those companies follow fit with their own morals and standards.

Sometimes it’s not enough that something isn’t illegal.

For my part, I find it rather confused. The bodice is satin with the currently trendy one-strap look and a geometrical crumb catcher. It hits nearly every major trend except for lace.

Then the skirt is simply a huge pouf of tulle.

I think how it really strikes me is unfinished. The lines, while not my personal faves, aren’t awful by any means. Each part has the potential to be kind of amazing… but there’s nothing holding this design together. Perhaps I would like it better if there were some form of embellishment that was used on both parts. Then again, I don’t think a major statement bodice like that can really use embellishing. I think what it needs is a different skirt. And an etherial skirt like that never looks quite right to my eyes with a highly structured bodice, so I think it needs a softer, more romantic top.

In short, I find this a little scattered, with each half having great potential if paired with something that suits it better. I have to go with hate on this.

What say all of you?

There. I said it. I much prefer the LOLcats version. I believe it makes more sense and is better written, to boot.

But we’re not here to talk about Twilight as a whole. No, we’re here to talk about Bella’s much ballyhooed wedding gown, designed by Carolina Herrera… or at least the bargain movie tie-in by Alfred Angelo, which retails for $799.00. It looks like this:

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m kind of loving this. It’s rather elegant, with a bit of a slinky thirties vibe. I think the sleeves are pretty, and the lace over illusion back gives a bit of a wow factor to an otherwise simple gown. And at that price, it’s within reach of many a woman yearning for something that isn’t a strapless a-line or mermaid gown!

So here’s my vote: LOVE the dress, HATE the series… but I kind of have to thank the series for existing, because otherwise the dress (and the exponential number of knockoffs in the wings) might not have happened, and bridal couture would never include sleeves again.

Believe it or not, I’m not a fuss and feathers kind of gal, for the most part. But I do have a Boho heart and a fondness for ballerinas that transcends the fact I don’t actually care at all for the ballet. In short, I’m a mass of contradictions.

And while I definitely get that this gown isn’t for everyone, I have to go with love. Yes, the crumb catcher ruffles make her look a little like a Christmas cracker, but in a good way, I think. I love the soft coloring and feminine lines. About the only thing I would change is to take off those twee little gloves. The whole thing gives off a confectionary vibe dear to my baking-obsessed soul.

So yeah, love here. What about you?

These… I have to say that I’m not loving most of them, as wedding gowns or even as just gowns. I have no doubt that since they’re Wangs, they’re impeccably made and littered with exquisite details it’s hard to see at this size. Overall, though, they read kind of blah to me. The black on black on black is kind of oppressive and the nude just seems drab and sad. Then again, I think most tulle confections are better served by lighter coloration, such as white or pastels. Black tulle is something I appreciate more as a contrast than a major statement.

So yeah, I’m going with hate here. How about you?

For today, you see, was Sir Paul’s third wedding day.

While it was a far cry from the wild stampede of heartbroken fans that greeted McCartney in 1969 when he married Linda Eastman, today (on what would have been John Lennon’s seventy-first birthday, incidentally; happy birthday, John, wherever you are!)he was married again in precisely the same spot: the registry office in the Old Marylebone Town Hall.

The bride, Nancy Shevell, another American heiress and second cousin of Barbara Walters, looked lovely in a simple dress designed by the groom’s famous fashion designer daughter, Stella, and a flower in her hair. The groom wore a dark blue suit and light blue tie. As they left the registry office, the crowd assembled outside showered them with rose petals and confetti. Then the bride and groom along with their guests left to have a vegetarian meal, also arranged by Stella.

The guests included the only other surviving Beatle, Ringo Starr, as well as Barbara Walters, who is rumored to have introduced the happy couple.

I do hope you’ll all join with me in wishing the happy couple joy.

But the fact of the matter is that 98.735% of all of those expectations are based on what is typically done, not on what’s required. The actual legal requirements of getting married here in the USA are pretty minimalist. They’ve even decreased in the years since Mr. Twistie and I tied the knot. When we got married, California still required blood tests. Now most states have dropped that requirement. Several have opened their legal arms to same-sex couples. More will no doubt follow.

And when it comes to religious requirements, well, the vast majority of those are concerned entirely with the marriage ceremony itself. Several faiths do require premarital counseling, and a couple have requirements that may affect your menu. Still, most faiths are more concerned with the wording of the ceremony than the activities at the reception.

When you get right down to it, everything from the bride dressing in white to the tossing of the bouquet and garter, to carrying flowers, to going on a honeymoon afterwards is a matter of tradition or fashion. It’s not written in stone.

That means if you want to wear an unexpected color, like this light green Vera Wang gown from her 2012 collection:

… you’re perfectly free to do so.

You can also go short, like this imaginative piece by Etsy artist lizarietz:

or if you want to wear pants:

That’s fine, too.

And that goes for venues, menus, flowers or substitutes for them, seating arrangements, linens, transportation, and the make up of your wedding party.

If you can imagine it, chances are someone is providing it somewhere. If they aren’t… maybe you should think about whether it’s a good idea to provide it to the world yourself.

When the possibilities are endless, you can let your imagination soar until you find precisely what will make you happy. Fly, my pretties! It’s well worth the trouble.

Belts don't have to be big to make a big impact. Hello, waist!

Best part: How the neckline and the belt play off each other.

Beautiful belt plus jacket for the chilly bride...

And, as usual, I'm squeeing over the pockets! (Also the belt.)

What do you think of the belted wedding dress look? The traditional belt or the funky belt, for example. Do belts just not belong on wedding dresses? Would you wear a belt on your wedding day?

P.S. – This post was inspired by Devon’s comment on this older post!

Late 70s disco chic clubwear wedding gown what? (Alan Hannah Spring 2012)

How things like sheer bridal mumus make it into shows (Oscar De La Renta Bridal Spring 2012)

Crazy fringe... crazy MISPLACED fringe (Inmaculada García 2011)

Skirts that look like they belong in a linens drawer (Alexander McQueen Fall 2011)

Headgear like so (Delphine Manivet)

Wedding dresses with great big shapeless tumors (Vera Wang Spring 2012)

...and whatever is happening here (Ines Di Santo Spring 2012)

Now it’s your turn! What particulars of wedding fashion make you scratch your head?