Diana's was goofy Cinderella and utterly overwhelmed her down to the silly bow in front. (yes I know she dropped a lot of weight before the wedding).

No, I thought it was elegant, sophisticated and looked fabulous on her because she was thin and could carry it off. I truly hate these gaudy corseted things one sees on "Say Yes to the dress!). And most of the women buying them have sausage arms and should never wear a strapless gown in the first place. What ever happened to modesty? What ever happened to church weddings being sacred religious sacraments? Brides seems to want to go down the aisle looking like white trash hookers. speaking of which, has anyone watched the gypsy wedding shows? Some of those gowns weigh 50 pounds. How do you wear a strapless 50 pound dress . . .

Yep - Kate's dress sucked. It's the sort of dress women like precisely because it has zero sex appeal whatsoever. Pippa's was much better.

Tracy Jordan did a great job designing it, I thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Di's dress looked like it was made from piles of bed sheets. And it was terribly wrinkled. I have always hated it. Kate look beautiful and simple. She does not want to be a celebrity, she just wants to be a wife to William, so that is why she wore something conservative.

Raw silk is naturally wrinkled that way. Obviously you know very little about fabric. But I'm sorry you have had to carry around your hatred of a person's wedding dress for over 30 years...

Diana's dress wasn't made of raw silk, but of silk taffeta. Raw silk is a mostly matte fabric: http://www.paklinks.com/gsmedia/files/94167/Raw-Silk-Fabric.jpg
Taffeta is crisp and has a bit of shine.

whatever, taffeta has a folded, bunchy look to it, and you're a loony to drag this thread out a year later to make a distinction without a difference about fabric that is naturally wrinkly. Stick to polyester if you don't like wrinkles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Di's dress looked like it was made from piles of bed sheets. And it was terribly wrinkled. I have always hated it. Kate look beautiful and simple. She does not want to be a celebrity, she just wants to be a wife to William, so that is why she wore something conservative.

Raw silk is naturally wrinkled that way. Obviously you know very little about fabric. But I'm sorry you have had to carry around your hatred of a person's wedding dress for over 30 years...

Diana's dress wasn't made of raw silk, but of silk taffeta. Raw silk is a mostly matte fabric: http://www.paklinks.com/gsmedia/files/94167/Raw-Silk-Fabric.jpg
Taffeta is crisp and has a bit of shine.

Yes, I thought it was dull and common. It looked heavy and stiff from the waist down. Thus because she is stick thin and ethereal in appearance, it looked like she was pulling a tractor. The double layer viel, which looked liked a Spanish "mantilla" added to the bottom heavy look. Not to mention that it covered all of the apparently long hair while showing a triangle of dark hair across the forehead; making her styling appear even more common. The tight lightweightness of the lace top further added to the "bottom heavy" look. It may have been well constructed, beautiful fabric but to me, it made for dull tv. With 2011 fabric choices and the money available to this woman --this was a dull dress. She could have still been conservative while giving us a more beautiful show.

Anonymous wrote:No, I thought it was perfect. Just right.

It was somewhat reminiscent of Grace Kelly's dress in my opinion.

I also loved the veil and tiara.

Diana's dress was a horror.

Diana's dress was spectacular. Yes, it was very 1980's and had crazy sleeves...etc...
But it was exciting! It gave the people who had anticipated what it would be like a real show! I mean, come on, that 25 foot train was spectacular! And it had so much personality and was not like any royal dress to come before.

Kate's on the other hand was plain, simple, and there was no character in it. It was just a mash-up of royal dresses from the past. But then again, thats what Kate is like. Plain, simple, and with no character.

Anonymous wrote:No, I thought it was perfect. Just right.

It was somewhat reminiscent of Grace Kelly's dress in my opinion.

I also loved the veil and tiara.

Diana's dress was a horror.

Diana's dress was spectacular. Yes, it was very 1980's and had crazy sleeves...etc...
But it was exciting! It gave the people who had anticipated what it would be like a real show! I mean, come on, that 25 foot train was spectacular! And it had so much personality and was not like any royal dress to come before.

Kate's on the other hand was plain, simple, and there was no character in it. It was just a mash-up of royal dresses from the past. But then again, thats what Kate is like. Plain, simple, and with no character.

I think Princess Diana was much more beautiful. Yes, she had that awful 1980's haircut, but that was just the style of the times. Her features, charm, and grace made her much more glamorous than Kate. Kate is just....dull. Which is good because it will help her do well in the royal family. Diana was vibrant. She had some serious inner demons, but an extraordinary heart. That's one thing that made her remarkable.

I'm happy for Kate and Will.....but there will never be another Princess Diana.

Anonymous wrote:Duller than dull. It was perfect for Maria the nun in the movie the Sound of Music. Now, the new Princess's of Monaco's dress (Charlene)....WOW. Perfect for a princess. AMAZING, impeccable design incorporating WOW factor, high fashion, and elegance. That was a Royal wedding I would have wanted to attend.

Except, there are rumors she tried to run away 3 times before the wedding.

Duller than dull. It was perfect for Maria the nun in the movie the Sound of Music. Now, the new Princess's of Monaco's dress (Charlene)....WOW. Perfect for a princess. AMAZING, impeccable design incorporating WOW factor, high fashion, and elegance. That was a Royal wedding I would have wanted to attend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's William's aunt and she was close friends with his mother. She certainly seems to be upset about the snub. She talked about it on Oprah.

Fergie has ruined her reputation and her relationship with the royal family. She was caught on camera taking bribes. What should she expect?

She was still one of the few people who most probably had a close relationship with Dianas children. She is the one who had known them since they were small
Or should we say that that does not count?
Queen Elizabeth comes out as cold and uncaring. William had no say over the questlist. Even the flower girls were ones chosen by his family. None with any close links to Kates family

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would they be angry their mom wasn't there? Who invites the ex-wife of their uncle to their wedding?

Point well taken. Their anger may not seem reasonable to you but Fergie was snubbed by the royal family all during the marriage. It would be possible that the kids feel ambivalent at the very least.

She's William's aunt and she was close friends with his mother. She certainly seems to be upset about the snub. She talked about it on Oprah.

Fergie has ruined her reputation and her relationship with the royal family. She was caught on camera taking bribes. What should she expect?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who had more than a million dollars gave away half or more of it? The world would truly be a better place for many. The few haves have too much and the many have nots have little to nothing. Maybe they worked hard to earn it but maybe it is morally wrong to hoard God's resources meant for all.

Yes, THEY worked hard to earn it, but it's meant for MEEEEEEE!

by your logic every family is entitled to inherit a slave
face it. there is a crime behind those family fortunes.
Paris Hilton will never be a philanthropist. She is happy being an ex-porn star and the laughing stock of the land