Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - 1923


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Mandy

Mandy

Majesty
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
6,920
Country
United States
Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon would of course become known as King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

Engagement Pictures circa 1923
3. Engagement portrait of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.
4. 5. Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon at home January 18, 1923.

www.australianpicturelibrary.au & www.fotomarktplatz.de





http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/5751/qmumengagement018nh.jpg
http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/6560/qmumengagement024oi.jpg
http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/7474/218882b3jv.jpg
http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/1438/0021014lf.jpg
http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/8582/0012011tf.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The wedding of the Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon took place April 26, 1923 at Westminster Abbey in London England.

Picture 3. The Couple with the Couple's parents: Count and Countess Strathmore on the left, King George V and Queen Mary on the right.

www.australianpicturelibrary.au





http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/4269/19230426qmum013lz.jpg
http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/9899/19230426qmum036yc.jpg
http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/3425/19230426qmum040jq.jpg
http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/3479/19230426qmum055yv.jpg
http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/8980/19230426qmum061bt.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prince Albert, Duke of York.

Prince George became Duke of Kent.
 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread has been completely converted to an ImageShack account now so that no images have been directly attached to the forum in an effort to conserve bandwidth.

It would be greatly appreciated if any newly-discovered images from this point forward would be hosted via a private image hosting account such as Photobucket or Imageshack.

Please also review the images already posted and not re-post the exact same images over and over.

Please note that images which are attached directly to the forum are subject to removal by an Administrator or SuperModerator without notice to the member.

Thank you for your co-operation on this matter so that we can all continue to enjoy images of our favourite royals.

The TRF Team
 
After looking at the wedding threads and royal brides newsletter, as I love the veil that Princess Elizabeth duchess of york wore to her wedding, I was wondering why neither of her daughters wore it? i heard it was given to her to wear by Queen Mary who wore it, here are some pictures

From gettyimages.com
Queen Elizabeth
http://s2.supload.com/free/3270341.jpg/view/
http://s2.supload.com/free/3301238.jpg/view/


and I was wondering if this picture of the wedding of Princess Beatrice Mary Victoria , daughter of Queen Victoria marrying Prince Henry of Battenberg was the same veil
http://s2.supload.com/free/3070143.jpg/view/

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x63/belerma/3070143.jpg

and if so, what ever happened to it? does the family still have it? why has no other British royal bride worn it since Queen Elizabeth(it seems?)
 
The first picture of Queen Elizabeth is not from her wedding. It was taken when she was a bridesmaid to her future sister-in-law, Princess Mary, later Countess of Harewood in 1922.

As to why, Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Margaret and their daughters didn't wear the same veil as Queen Elizabeth could be attributed to personal choice. They might have wanted to have their veil matching the dress and made by the same designer. It could also be that Queen Mary took back the veil worn by her daughter-in-law, Elizabeth, Duchess of York, since it was really just lent to her, it wasn't given to her for forever.

Princess Beatrice for her wedding wore the same veil as her mother, Queen Victoria, the only one of Victoria's daughter's to do so. And, since the one worn by Elizabeth was lent to her by Queen Mary, who wore the veil worn by her mother, Princess Mary Adelaide. The veils really can't be the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Photo from The Times, via Olympia:

http://s2.supload.com/free/The_times.jpg/view/



And a colour photo, hosted at fashion-era. The dress was designed by Madame Handley Seymour, a former London court dressmaker to the dowager Queen Mary and it followed the essential fashions of the day, although it has never been considered memorable for its beauty.

 
http://www.viewimages.com1923 Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

3311364.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A video hosted on Youtube:

YouTube - The Queen Mother's wedding, 1923

Embedding is disabled, so you must go directly to the YouTube page and paste the following code, after"www.youtube.com":
/watch?v=tvglWKl6b1A
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's just the way they were trained to be photographed, but I don't get a feeling of happiness from the couple, at least not from her. Maybe I'm seeing that "she's just not that into him" from a historical perspective. It sounds like he went way beyond what should have been expected of a royal prince to win this bride. Kind of makes me wonder if she wouldn't have preferred to marry someone else like Jamie Stuart, or even the PoW himself.
 
She looks happy enough to me, especially on the Palace balcony. It was the style then to look grim in official photos (shutter time, maybe), and couples weren't expected to show a huge amount of affection.:flowers:



iowabelle said:
I don't know if it's just the way they were trained to be photographed, but I don't get a feeling of happiness from the couple, at least not from her. Maybe I'm seeing that "she's just not that into him" from a historical perspective. It sounds like he went way beyond what should have been expected of a royal prince to win this bride. Kind of makes me wonder if she wouldn't have preferred to marry someone else like Jamie Stuart, or even the PoW himself.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe she's just wondering why they shoved her into an ugly dress!

It's really too bad she didn't have a more beautiful gown, some of the dresses of this period were so elegant. But I did like her cape, it looks like it was trimmed with ermine. And I think she was really a very pretty young woman, although she probably didn't meet the stereotypical idea of what a beauty was in the 1920s. (I think Wallis was probably more what was in vogue, the flatter, more angular shape.)
 
Elsa M. said:
Photo from The Times, via Olympia:





And a colour photo, hosted at fashion-era. The dress was designed by Madame Handley Seymour, a former London court dressmaker to the dowager Queen Mary and it followed the essential fashions of the day, although it has never been considered memorable for its beauty.

Click to expand...

It sure does look comfortable, though, compared to most!
 
I wonder why she did'nt wear a tiara.Not really a fan of the dress.
 
I have always been disappointed by her dress it could have been so much nicer even the bridesmaids dresses were "simple" even for their time. Too simple. I think they look happy but not so much in the pictures but then no one looks happy in those from that time period for some reason. The tiara may not have gone with the style of veil.
 
George VI was freakin good looking. He had some pretty eyes.
 
I think his speech impediment really impacted his life and made everyone either think less of him or just ignored him altogether. Let's face it, who could compete with his glamorous, debonair older brother, the Prince of Wales. Hell they even wrote a song about a man that danced with a girl that danced with the POW!

Elizabeth was one smart cookie. By preference I don't think the BRF as a family appealed to her at all especially compared to her own. I think that his family was his biggest drawback as a suitor. She and her family had little to no impute into the wedding and that ghastly dress, whilst being in the fashion of the time, was so unflattering . . . was it a coincidence that she was the first commoner to marry into the BRF since the 15th century and she ended up wearing the dress from hell?

Lady Elizabeth's gown was designed by Madame Handley-Seymour, the Court dressmaker. Perhaps it was just another way of letting Bertie's little wife know her place (or lack thereof) in the scheme of things.
 
.. I really think, that they thought the dress lovely, back then (even, when I think it was unflattering and yiiiks)
 
MARG said:
Elizabeth was one smart cookie. By preference I don't think the BRF as a family appealed to her at all especially compared to her own. I think that his family was his biggest drawback as a suitor. She and her family had little to no impute into the wedding and that ghastly dress, whilst being in the fashion of the time, was so unflattering . . . was it a coincidence that she was the first commoner to marry into the BRF since the 15th century and she ended up wearing the dress from hell?

Lady Elizabeth's gown was designed by Madame Handley-Seymour, the Court dressmaker. Perhaps it was just another way of letting Bertie's little wife know her place (or lack thereof) in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...


The dress was highly fashionable at the time.

She wasn't the first commoner to marry into the BRF since the 15th C (1400s). James II married Anne Hyde in 1660 and their two daughters both became Queen Regnant - Mary II and Anne.

People do like to forget Anne Hyde and James II or think that the mother of Mary II and Anne was the same wife as the mother of the Old Pretender but James married twice.

Later than that in 1766, before the passing of the RMA Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh married Maria Walpole - another commoner. In 1767 Prince Henry, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn also allegedly married Olive Wilmont - again a commoner. It was his later marriage to the commoner Anne Horton (Houghton) which precipitated the RMA. So he may have actually have married two commoners and even have committed bigamy.

Elizabeth was the first non-royal commoner to marry into the family AND later become Queen Consort but there were other commoner ladies who married into the family after Elizabeth Woodville - they just didn't go onto to become Queen - although had Anne Hyde lived longer she would have done so as she was married to James II when he was Duke of York.
 
Elizabeth's dress was unflattering it looks like a sack and had no shape to it. I believe this look was popular in the 20s but was usually matched with short sleeves and a shorter skirt.
Maybe Elizabeth is just too short for that style of gown; the one pretty thing is the veil. And her mother in law had an ugly wedding dress as well.
 
Saw this dress on display at KP a few years ago and was surprised by how much nicer it looks in real life and you can see the amount of work on the beading etc. The 1920s era might not be a favourite of mine in regards to the fashion but i now appreciate this wedding dress more after seeing it in the real
 
JW was it the actual dress or a replica? I'm just wondering if all the gowns on display are the real things or copies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (1893-1976) and Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark and Family
Replies
2
Views
1K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Marengo
  • Sticky
Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)
2 3
Replies
75
Views
10K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
W
  • Locked
Prince Louis and the Dukedom of York
Replies
14
Views
2K
JessRulz
JessRulz
Y
"A Royal Life" by HRH The Duke of Kent and Hugo Vickers (2022)
Replies
2
Views
3K
Lady Daly
Lady Daly
Blog Real
Anne, Queen of Great Britain (1665 –1714) and Prince George of Denmark (1653 – 1708)
Replies
10
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom