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.
This morning’s HuffPo wedding page features an article by Charlotte Peters giving advice on choosing a wedding gown. Her main thrust: don’t pick anything fashionable, because it will one day look dated and you will wince every time you look at your wedding photos.
After all, minis are on trend right now, but – according to Peters – you will regret wearing one on your wedding day for the rest of your life the instant minis aren’t fashionable any more.
Me, well, I wouldn’t choose a wedding look purely because it’s fashionable, but to assume you’ll hate your own taste in five years because Vogue is now showing something very different is frankly insulting. I’m gearing up to celebrate my ninteenth anniversary with Mr. Twistie, and my wedding album makes me smile. Why? Because it’s an accurate and beautiful representation of an important day in our lives. Because it’s filled with pictures of people we love, some of whom are sadly gone from this world. Because no matter whether the clothes are dated or not, we all looked good.
You guys know I love DIY. I think it makes for a unique, highly personal celebration. On the other hand, it’s not for everyone. Some of us don’t have the time, or the inclination to do the work for ourselves. And let’s face it, there are some amongst us who simply do not have the crafting chops to get the job done right. For example:
(Image via CraftFail)
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to put up that poor mess of string at my wedding reception!
So what do you do if you love DIY but don’t have the time or the space or the talent? Why you go to people who have those things and pay them to do it for you. And that’s where Etsy comes into play.
Let’s face it: not every woman looks her best in white… or cream… or ecru. And some women just don’t want to wear any shade of white while getting married.
But if you aren’t getting married in white, that opens up every possible color in the rainbow to you. What to pick then? Well, right now a lot of brides are looking to shades of silver, steel, platinum, and just plain grey.
Grey? For a wedding gown??? Yep. I say don’t knock it until you take a look at it.
Take, for instance, this strapless Aria gown in platinum floral print on a cream colored background shown here with a narrow spring green sash (sold separately, which means you can do without, choose another color, go wider, or choose something with beading instead, if you prefer).
It’s simple, festive, and definitely not the standard wedding gown.
But shades of grey can go dramatic, too.
I’m usually a big fan of Monique Lhuillier. In general, I like the flow of her lines, her tasteful use of tulle and lace, and her respect for the shape of a woman’s body. Her designs tend to be feminine and romantic without looking fussy or puerile.
This one from her spring 2013 collection, though, well… I have to say I’m HATING this one. I’m not sure if she’s standing in the middle of an attack of interstellar Charmin or if the entire world just dumped their used tissues on her, but either way she’s being swallowed whole with no escape.
Now excuse me while I go throw this poor waif a lifeline.
Okay, setting aside for one moment the fact that this gown is about the bisect this poor model’s bazooms, can we talk about the extreme hobble effect of the super-tight skirt? Because I think this woman is going to need to hop down the aisle with that little room at the knees.
And then there’s that… sleevelet? That odd little blip hanging halfway down her left arm. Is that meant to be a sleeve? Is it meant to be there at all? Because it looks a little like someone told Ramona Kaveza that sleeves are in and she tucked a Kleenex around the model’s arm to see how it would look and forgot it there.
In short, I’m HATING this one, and I don’t think if it fit it would help very much.
What say you all?