When you announce you’re getting married, everyone has expectations. You have expectations, your parents have expectations, sisters, cousins, aunts, co-workers, and random strangers on the street have expectations. Vendors certainly have expectations, as do officiants.

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.
(more…)

Goodness knows I’ve long wanted an end to the tyrannic reign of strapless wedding gowns. Not that I want all strapless gowns to simply disappear. It’s just that I’ve wanted choices for those who would like another option or three.

And things have changed. Spaghetti straps and halter necklines are now becoming pretty common. But what about this?

One side is strapless… and the other has a long sleeve.

I find myself kind of wishing this dress would make up its mind. It’s not horrible, but it comes across to me as somewhat wishy-washy. I know this sort of look comes along every once in a blue moon in the world of fashion… but I mostly consider it indecisive. I can’t work up the passion to actually hate it, but I certainly don’t love.

How about you? Is this a yea or a nay in your book?

Hi, all! Just thought I’d pop by because I was so inspired by the Inmaculada García 2012 bridal collection that I just had to share. What really struck me about it is how different all of the wedding dresses in the collection are – sure, there’s the usual ration of strapless wedding dresses to wedding dresses with sleeves (and detailing that resembles sleeves), but there are also all kinds of neat things like amazing brooches, botanical embellishments, wide almost stringy netting, and more. Yet I wouldn’t call this collection quirky so much as I would call it pretty. Inmaculada García’s 2012 bridal collection isn’t for everyone, I think, but if you’re a bride who’s looking for something a little different but still beautiful and feminine, it might just be for you!

Francoise features a really stunning and definitely different brooch just under the bust

Rousse has an absolutely fascinating double hem and botanical overlay on the bodice

(more…)

There’s no denying belts are big at the moment, and probably will be for another few years or so. Why? Waists are back. Belts are a big part of that. If you don’t exactly have a waist, a belt can be your saving grace. Belted wedding dresses, like these from Stephanie Allin, offer up a chance for those not necessarily built with natural curves to fake it till they make it, while also helping those with plenty of curves control which ones are emphasized. Personally, I love it. Makes me wish I’d gone belted.

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!

WHAT IS HAPPENING???

First impressions, from my end: NOOOOOOO. Do not want. Maybe I’ll write a letter to Dessy letting them know that a huge bias ruffle trim at the neck – paired with what looks like a giant elastic belt, no less – isn’t going to flatter any bridesmaid ever. Look, maybe I’m just against this because I was a little kid in the 80s and the fashion of the day scared me. But I don’t think so. Hating the nouveau 80s bridesmaid dresses with a passion over here.

Would YOU wear it willingly? Or subject your bridesmaids to it?

Stewart Parvin, Spring 2012

This week’s LOVE/HATE featured wedding dress comes from Stewart Parvin’s 2012 collection, shown at the White Gallery London. It is, of course, one of the many short wedding dresses out there – perhaps a reception dress – but unlike most, this is absolutely basic, with no embellishments. Not a single bell or whistle. It’s certainly not going to appeal to every bride or even most brides, possibly for its plainness and possibly for its silhouette. Is it for you? Can you even see it as a wedding dress, versus a little something springy for a semi-formal function? I am going to say love, but it would have to be accessorized just right – in my mind, a silk shawl and something else that I can put my finger on. Thoughts?