Return to the Antique Roses Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

Posted by odyssey3 7 VA (My Page) on
Fri, Apr 29, 11 at 8:07

No roses! How could it be? I can't stand it--they could have called up David Austin for something divine!


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

  • Posted by oath5 z6b/7a MD (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 29, 11 at 9:53

Was it lily of the valley?


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

  • Posted by seil z6 MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 29, 11 at 11:34

I think she wanted to keep it small and there may have been some significance to the flowers she chose. I couldn't really see what they were and if they said I didn't hear it but I'm sure it will be published somewhere. I think she looked beautiful!


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

Hey different strokes for different folks:) Hard to believe I know, that not everyone would have a bouquet just dripping with roses (and surely they could have gotten some beauties this time of year in England) if they could.

I thought was pretty though and very much Kate's style. I don't know what the little white flowers were, will have to look it up and see, but I did hear an interesting factoid. It included a sprig of myrtle taken from a tree (bush?) that was rooted from a piece from Queen Victoria's wedding bouquet.


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

First bloom for roses is probably a month away for outdoor roses in England.
Here's a link to a description of the bouquet as well as a lot more about the dress, etc. And a detailed palace-issued version of the story behind the myrtle used in the bouquet.

Here is a link that might be useful: Lots of photos and details of the bouquet


 o
RE: re: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

I guess I had envisioned great cascading swathes of old ramblers and wild roses. Yes, Virginia, there really are other flowers.

Here's another site with a good pic of the little girls hair wreathes. You really couldn't see many details on tv. Nice to see close up the way it all ties in together. It really was beautiful.

Here is a link that might be useful: flowerona kate's bouquet


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

Kate has a simple style. It was nice that she had a bouquet that reflected her. A lot of people complained about the lack of flowers in the church too, but I kinda liked the trees they brought in. Why on earth only one bridesmaid though? Her sister had her hands full babysitting all those kids.


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

I like the bouquet. I had white roses at my wedding though.


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

To me they looked like a cross between weeds and something you might put in a salad. It looks even messier close up.

Roses can be simple too, and the only flower with significance in Kate's bouquet was the sprig of myrtle--easy to include in any bouquet.

Austin has a cut flower service year round in the UK I think.

Just such a shame thinking what could have been, that's all.


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

She had roses, along with thistle, shamrocks and (apologies to the Welsh) another flower embroidered on the lacy areas of her dress


 o
Royal wedding lace

Daffodils!


 o
Daffodils

Daffodils are the symbol of Wales. Wish all those flowers were real as well as in lace.

Here is a link that might be useful: weedy salad close-up


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

When I saw the whole family on the balcony, I couldn't help remembering the images of my childhood: Those two young girls and their parents during World War II. Although we were somewhat younger, my sister and I felt a kinship with those two girls, Elizabeth and Margaret Rose. Of course, at that time the pictures were in newsreels and the old Life Magazine. I've seen a lot of events on that balcony since then!

Laura


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

I thought the bouquet perfect for the season, lilies-of-the-valley epitomise early summer to me and the white flowers took nothing away from the fabulous dress. I came back last night from a week in England but stayed in Norwich so I watched a summary of the wedding on TV.


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

The bouquet for me was simply too skimpy and out of scale with the wedding dress. Also, since the dress was rather elegant (although personally I wished for a little more oomph), the bouquet would not have suffered from having a few more elegant flowers, and not just the unpretentious lilies of the valley. This was a royal bride, not a milkmaid.

Ingrid


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

  • Posted by seil z6 MI (My Page) on
    Thu, May 5, 11 at 20:49

Thanks for all the links! Good reading! I think the bouquet makes a great deal of sense now. And it was lovely even if it didn't have roses in it.


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

garden2garden, the comparison of Kate to Grace Kelly is interesting and touching. I always was fond of Grace Kelly, and the bouquet is almost the same.

Even though some may not consider it lavish, I think it is nice that the bride had given some thought to the image she wanted to convey, and chose simplicity.

My mother loved her Lilies of the Valley and Lilacs, and my father loved his Tiger Lilies and roses. Even though I have a passion for roses, it is interesting to see what someone else's passion may be. Since she is not a gardener, she may consider Lilies of the Valley to more more rare (blooming once a year) than a rose that blooms all year long.

It will be interesting to watch and see what this new generation will do. I know nothing about them, but am so pleased that she is old enough to have a mind of her own.

Sammy


 o
A beautiful royal wedding bouquet!

I've always thought lilies of the valley were extremely traditional bridal bouquets over the years long ago and once wondered why you so seldom actually saw them used. I think I might have figured that one out, though... they're not easy to grow successfully and they're seldom in bloom. And those you do get when you try to grow them are so very precious, precious, and so few. Once picked, they don't keep for as long as many roses can keep, but their fragrance is out of this world. Then too, it's probably impractical to try to import them from another continent the way you can do with roses; they're just more fragile than most roses. But you can hardly find a more romantic flower than tiny, precious lilies of the valley.

I thought her lilies of the valley were beautifully done. I think it's also a plus that she didn't apparently check around to see what everyone else expected her to wear or carry. Her veil seemed a bit uncommon to me too, and as I analyzed the looks of it, I realized that a good bit of careful thought had gone into its design choice. It emphasized her beautiful dark hair. A person with, say, short curly locks might not be flattered by a veil like that, but for someone with long dark beautiful hair, the veil made a beautiful white frame that accented the bride's beauty while not competing with it. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that she was a picture perfect bride in every detail.

How many people can have roses? She would have also been beautiful had she carried roses, but size and familiarity don't necessarily mean something better. The point of a wedding dress and everything surrounding the bride is that she be beautiful, and beautifully herself, not someone different than who she is or what she feels. She is and was a beautiful person, and one with elegant taste. The couple's special day seemed perfect to me, and all the more so when the groom told her how beautiful she was.

What a nice beginning to what we all expect to be a long and happy marriage! May the bumps ahead be wee little ones.

Mary


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

Someone today posted on one of the links given above that in his opinion it was bad design to have the lily-of-the-valley pointing to the floor, because that is not how they grow. Although I could not articulate it at the time, I realize that this was what bothered me, too a little bit when I first saw it. I mean, the fact that they were mostly upside-down. I don't know how they might have fixed it though, maybe with a bit more foliage?

In any case, it must have smelled heavenly -- and probably looked much more beautiful in person. The quintessence of May. I wonder if the flowers came from the royal gardens. The tasteful simplicity of the whole ceremony was very welcome and suggests that Kate is both sensible, imaginative, and resourceful.

Camilla had a bouquet from the same designer, by the way, with fabulous auricula primroses from her and Prince Charles' gardens and also lily of the valley, pointing both up and down!

Here is a link that might be useful: fit for a dutchess, Camilla's bouquet


 o
RE: So disappointed in royal wedding bouquet!

I like to go with the old adage: "You should wear the dress, the dress shouldn't wear you." The same applies to the bouquet. Bouquets seem to be getting smaller. My feeling is that a beautiful bride does not need much embellishment. I thought Kate's dress and bouquet let HER shine.
The huge dripping, cascading bouquets seem to be out of style now. Bouquets are going back to what they were in Victorian times: a handful of casual flowers gathered for the day.

I think the wedding and decoration were perfect for the times.
This was a modern wedding! Also, this trend toward simplicity is very appropriate in the economic climate today.
I think everyone remembers Diana and her dress. I think the same kind of dress and bouquet for Kate would have overwhelmed her.
I really, really loved the trees in the church. It helped to give a huge overwhelming space a more human scale. Again the simplicity was charming.
Another thing to remember: Kate was a commoner when she entered the church. This influences her dress and accessories.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Antique Roses Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here