Friday, April 29, 2011

04/29/11 - Royalty Demands Modesty

Yesterday on the radio they were talking about the wedding dress of Kate Middleton. They were speculating about who made the dress and what it was going to look like. They said they knew one thing, "Her arms will be covered because Royalty demands modesty."

Yes, royalty demands modesty.

As Christian women we are daughters of The King, we are Royalty. We should be setting the standard of modesty, not stoop to the world standards. We should be distinctly different!

I hope others take notice of her beautiful dress and the simply way she honored her position as the new Duchess and maybe one day the Queen.

I also hope wedding dress designers take notice that not all brides want to wear strapless, which is pretty much all you find if you go wedding dress shopping. They need to give brides a choice. (Although you can have a wedding dress alter to make it "chapel ready" which would add straps or sleeves to a dress.)

Let's hope that Kate's dress sets a new standard in Wedding Dresses!


Julie said...

A proper bodice and full length sleeves on a wedding dress - at last! I do wonder how many women can actually pull off the strapless look - you have to have high confidence as well as a certain type of figure. Personally, in a strapless dress, I'd feel chilly with so much skin exposed - my arms would come up in gooseflesh, and then I'd have a sneezing fit and start sniffling. Not a great look on such a big day!

Jo said...

Hi, new here:)

I think Catherine's wedding dress was elegant, feminine and modern - but modest, which goes to show the being modest doesn't mean frumpy or ugly. Even modern designers can produce beautiful pieces of modest clothing.

It will nice to see wedding dresses that aren't strapless, I have seen so many of them these days, they are very unattractive on most women.

It was also lovely to see so many women in dresses looking so smart, not a sight we see very often these days with most women wearing trousers all the time.

Lauren said...

Yes, I loved the display of modesty, with her covered arms and shoulders. I was, however, sad that while the dress was *nearly* modest, the neckline was still plunging. This was unfortunate.

Still, compared to the world, the modesty of her royal attire reflected such elegant decorum and femininity, as did most of the aristocracy that graced their marriage's presence. It was wonderfully refreshing!

Anonymous said...

What about the "comparison" between 2 weddings - Princess Kate's and Rebecca St James - even on her public website.
How ironic: one is princess by marriage, but nor virgin, yet displays a modest, royal, attire to show dignity, honor and royal elegance. The other, "the princess of purity", technically physically pure displays immodest attire in her strapless bridal dress and also in her behavior taken by the photographers.
How sad that in this cases, the outward didn't show accurately the inward, and even was contrary to it.

Heather Patenaude said...

Anonymous: I didn't know Rebecca St. James wore strapless still your comment. How sad...she should have shown all the young women who follow her the beauty of modesty. On the Modesty Survey done by the Rebelution 66% of men/young men find strapless immodest. That should be staggering and so be on the front of our thoughts when dressing. A simple lace jacket would have made that dress stunning! (Just google "lace wedding jackets" and there are so many beautiful ones!)
Sigh....oh well I know that those of us women who think strapless is immodest is a small percentage.

Anonymous said...

You can search on google the articles about Rebecca's wedding and pictures.
I find "immodesty" not to be a "subjective" thing to be put in statistics (although statistics show the "average perception" on some issues) but just to compare it with "objective principles": as long as you have the back uncovered until almost the waist, and also a large open can for sure say this is showing to much of your body and thus is immodest, both in appearance and in motives to dress like that.