Wedding Gown Trains


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
my fave is Duchess Catherine´s train. I don´t like too long trains, they look like toilet paper
 
I agree the long trains look like toilet paper, but I still don't understand the point of super long trains. People keep mentioning Diana's train was so long because it was St. Paul's but why does getting married in a huge church mean you need a long train?
 
Well I suppose the longer the train the more sumptuous the dress and the more important you are. Or maybe the longer the train the richer you are as you can afford the expensive material - this goes back hundreds of year just like in the olden days where window glass was taxed so poorer people had smaller and fewer windows while richer people had bigger windows and lots of them!
 
Ok anyone who has watched a few royal weddings? Have you noticed that with brides who have a train sometime a random woman will step out of the guest seating to make sure it's straight? Sometime it is the dress designer but other times it literally just appears to be a random guest. Has anyone else ever wondered about this?
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
I agree the long trains look like toilet paper, but I still don't understand the point of super long trains. People keep mentioning Diana's train was so long because it was St. Paul's but why does getting married in a huge church mean you need a long train?
Click to expand...

I must agree. People have this idea that one can make a "statement" with a long train especially in a large church. However, I do hate a long train. Not at all fashionable any more and it just gets in the way. Very often it can spoil the look of the gown too.
 
Last edited:
princess di's train and princess cate's train both fit the times-my fav's as well
 
I think a long train is incredibly regal. It is part of what distinguishes the gown as belonging to a noble bride. Plus the aisle is certainly long enough to accommodate it! That said, a train can be too long and/or poorly incorporated into the dress, making it look as though a length of fabric was tacked on either for the sake of it or because the wedding was a royal one.
 
Daisiesforever said:
I must agree. People have this idea that one can make a "statement" with a long train especially in a large church. However, I do hate a long train. Not at all fashionable any more and it just gets in the way. Very often it can spoil the look of the gown too.[/QUOTE]

PrincessApple said:
I think a long train is incredibly regal. It is part of what distinguishes the gown as belonging to a noble bride. Plus the aisle is certainly long enough to accommodate it! That said, a train can be too long and/or poorly incorporated into the dress, making it look as though a length of fabric was tacked on either for the sake of it or because the wedding was a royal one.[/QUOTE]

ITA. Many times it looks like it belongs on completely different style of gown. Mathilde of Belgium's train was WAY too long and looked like it was in complete contrast to the rather sleek coat-style of the gown. And Mary of Denmark's, in addition to being too long, was attached with that ironing board on the back...not attractive. And the most ridiculous was Diana's. It was just too much. Mette-Marit's gown had an appropriate length, unfortunately the super-extra-long veil made it look like they ran out of fabric for the dress. Of the gowns with really long trains, Maxima's probably looked the best IMO. But I prefer the more modest gowns...when one is impressive and beautiful as a person she doesn't need the overly long train to look important. Sophie of Wessex and Victoria of Sweden both had elegant and regal appearances without being over the top. In fact, Sophie's probably had the best match of train and veil of all of them. And in trains that were a little longer, Marie-Chantal's was the right balance with an other wise frightful, overly done gown. In fact, the train length is probably the only thing that the designer got right on this one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
martina said:
my fave is Duchess Catherine´s train. I don´t like too long trains, they look like toilet paper
Click to expand...

I loved Catherine's train too. Long trains look fussy and cumbersome. Short ones are just more manageable.
 
I thought it was smart that Victoria and Mary had removable trains.
 
With Crown Princess Victoria, her train was obviously designed to the proportions of her veil, and so had a certain amount of practicality to it - it protected the delicate veil fabric.
 
IloveCP said:
I thought it was smart that Victoria and Mary had removable trains.
Click to expand...
It would have been difficult for them otherwise as the dinner and Ball took place soon after the Wedding Ceremony and there was no time to change the gowns.
 
Yes,I bet it was difficult for,Letizia,Maxima,Mathilde,and Mette Marit to dance and walk around since their trains were not removable.
 
Yes, particularly difficult for Letizia and Maxima. I've see a picture of Mathilde at the palace after the wedding, her train was folded over from the end, so it was only half as long and Mette Marit's lengthy veil was gathered together and placed over the gown's train. Catherine seems to have had a loop so she could hold her train. Luckily, Letizia had two very competent bridesmaids to deal with her train, although I would personally have been abit fed up followng her around all day!
 
At the Weddings of Mathilde, Máxima and Letizia no Ball and dance took place only a dinner. So they had not to dance with the long train which would probably be very difficult. And Mette-Marit's train was much shorter then the one of Mary and Victoria.
 
Jacknch said:
Princess Marina - 12ft
The Queen (then Princess Elizabeth) 15ft
The Duchess of Kent (then Katherine Worsley) 15ft
Princess Alexandra of Kent 21ft
Princess Anne 7.5ft (approx)
Countess of Wessex 10ft
Duchess of York 17.5ft
Queen Sofia 20 ft
CP Mette-Marit (2 metres plus a 20ft veil)
CP Mary of Denmark six metres/20ft
Princess Maxima 16.5ft
Queen Victoria - 18ft
Duchess of Cambridge 9ft
Princess Martha-Louise 9ft
Queen Margrethe 15ft approx
Queen Sonia roughly 12ft
Queen Silvia roughly 12ft
Click to expand...

Mette-Marit's was 20ft? That was one of the best trains I have ever seen. Though I do think Victoria's train looked like toilet paper, I think it would have looked better if it had more noticeable designs on it or wasn't cut in square at the end. I think the best trains are between 16-21ft; anything above 21ft is just too long and obnoxious, and something under 10ft just tends not to fit well with the event.
My new favorites:
Princess Mary
Mette-Marit
Duchess of York
Princess Alexandra
BTW does anyone know how long Grace Kelly's train was. That would be an exception to my "short trains don't fit the event" rule.
 
I loved Sarah's train because in fitted proportionally with the dress as well as for it's stunning embrioderey all paying tribute to her husband's naval career.

ROYAL WEDDING 1986 - Andew & Sarah (2 of 9) - YouTube

Mette-Marit's train was so unique and romantic that the ruffled edges really did, as a previous poster said, look like swan feathers floating back behind her. Utterly breathtaking! The wonderful movement of the dress and train are illustrated several times in the attached video.

Crown Princess Mette-Marit - YouTube

In both of the above cases, Sarah and Mette-Marit let their train's speak for themselves with transparent veils so as not to hide their beautly whereas many use the train as a canvas that the veil writes on, eg. Maxima and Victoria.
 
MARG said:
In both of the above cases, Sarah and Mette-Marit let their train's speak for themselves with transparent veils so as not to hide their beautly whereas many use the train as a canvas that the veil writes on, eg. Maxima and Victoria.
Click to expand...
I don't know about Maxima's veil, but the veil that Victoria wore is an old heirloom, worn by her mother and grandmother, and several other Swedish princesses. If you have such a special veil you can wear, it's a much better choice than a new transparant veil just to show off a train. As for using the train as a "canvas" for the veil, I think the train is more a protection for a unique veil, in Victoria's case a veil made 150 years ago and irreplacable.
 
I could very well be wrong, but...

To my eyes, Maxima's veil does not have the appearance of an heirloom veil. I've always assumed it was also designed by Valentino.
 
Yes,it was designed by Valentino.
 
:previous: Thanks for clearing the air! I always thought the veil had a modern look. I just read on the website for the Dutch royal family that the veil was made of silk tulle and decorated with hand-embroidered flower and tendril motifs.
 
Meraude said:
I don't know about Maxima's veil, but the veil that Victoria wore is an old heirloom, worn by her mother and grandmother, and several other Swedish princesses. If you have such a special veil you can wear, it's a much better choice than a new transparant veil just to show off a train. As for using the train as a "canvas" for the veil, I think the train is more a protection for a unique veil, in Victoria's case a veil made 150 years ago and irreplacable.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, Meraude. In addition, the design of CP Victoria's wedding gown allowed for the details of the veil to clearly be seen at the top of it because the back dipped down and her tanned skin highlighted the lace. Also, we all need to remember that nothing we see in video clips or pictures gives us even 1/2 of what we could actually see in person. I'm sure all of the veils were lovely. But in this thread we are addressing the trains...and as many have posted those super-long trains can seem a bit pretentious...like non-verbally telling people "LOOK AT ME! I'M THE BRIDE!" or "I'M THE PRINCESS!" which is completely unnecessary...everyone already knew both of those things. It isn't even necessarily a "royal" thing. There have been trains on non-royal wedding gowns for years, and some royal gowns have had a very small train or no train at all and have been just as regal and impressive as any others. Again it comes back to the bride - elegance and good taste are regal. One doesn't have to attach a huge train to a dress to achieve that effect if they are innately part of the person.
 
Sorry i was wrong about Maxima's veil. I thought I read that she was part of a veil tradition. Anyway, isn't this thread about the lengths of trains/veils? As for Victoria's train, I think the length was fine, but there was something very plain about it that gave it the toilet paper feel like Diana's train. I guess I personally just prefer trains that have some kind of shape to them, like Mette-Marit's and Marie Chantal and Kate; especially if the bride is going to go very long.
 
I think that any bride, being royal or not, who have a heirloom veil has to take the length of the veil in consideration when deciding on the length of the train, as the train acts as a protection of the veil. I read somewhere that it was discovered late that the train of queen Silivia's wedding gown was too short, I don't know if it meant that it was shorter than the lace veil, and that it was the reason why Siliva wore the veil bundled up as she did, as that didn't look very good. If that's why, it was better option that a veil that was longer than the train.
 
Didn't some brides have a veil that was longer than the train and everything worked out fine? I believe Mette-Marit's veil was longer than her train. I have always heard that Silvia's veil was bunched, but I honestly don't see it. Whenever I think of a bunched veil I think of Maxima.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Didn't some brides have a veil that was longer than the train and everything worked out fine? I believe Mette-Marit's veil was longer than her train. I have always heard that Silvia's veil was bunched, but I honestly don't see it. Whenever I think of a bunched veil I think of Maxima.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between having a new veil, perhaps just meant to be used once, dragging over a stone floor and perhaps a coarse mat in church and cobblestones and/or asphalt, with having the same wear and tear on a 100-year+ old veil would probably destroy it forever.

As for Silvia's veil being bundled, compare how the veil was hanging doubled at the back of her tiara with how Victoria and princess Christina wore it, for example here: The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: August 2011
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Somebody
Earning a living as a non-full time royal
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Silverpot
Silverpot
Marengo
  • Sticky
Princess Theodora of Greece and Matthew Kumar - 28 Sept. 2024
6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
25K
Moonmaiden23
Moonmaiden23
Sun Lion
Better Quality Mary Documentary.
Replies
4
Views
810
Sun Lion
Sun Lion
Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators - Royal Weddings Forum
Replies
0
Views
475
Marengo
Marengo
Marengo
Princess Märtha Louise of Norway and Durek Verrett: 31 August 2024
9 10 11
Replies
303
Views
40K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom