Fuddy? Fab­u­lous, more like! Any­thing that equates to an­other out­fit is OK by us – and the go­ing-away get-up is cer­tainly no ex­cep­tion…

Look (UK) - - FIRST - words: Max­ine eggen­berger @Max­fashed­i­tor

It never fails to sur­prise us just how tra­di­tional we in­sist on be­ing where the sanc­tity of mar­riage is con­cerned. Most brides carry pretty bouquets of baby’s breath and roses. Sim­i­larly, very sel­dom will a bride-to-be opt for a dress in any­thing other than white (and yes, ivory still falls into that cat­e­gory). That, of course, is OK by us – what­ever makes you happy makes us happy.

But what we don’t get is how can we be so in­sis­tent on some as­pects of a wed­ding day and yet we’ve let the mo­ment with the most fash po­ten­tial slip through our (lace­gloved) fin­ger­tips? We’re talk­ing about go­ing-away out­fits – the tra­di­tion lost in time that we’re hell­bent on bring­ing back. In the glory days, a go­ing-away out­fit was what the bride would slip into just be­fore she left the wed­ding party with her hus­band to head off on their hon­ey­moon, of­fi­cially start­ing their life to­gether as man and wife.

For those of you too young to re­mem­ber: yes, a cou­ple would leave their ac­tual wed­ding to go straight on hol­i­day. The usual at­tire for said de­par­ture was ei­ther a skirt suit or a form-fit­ting dress (and, in Princess Diana’s case, a natty lit­tle hat). Usu­ally bright in colour or fea­tur­ing a fancy print, it pro­vided the bride the per­fect op­por­tu­nity to show off her sar­to­rial flare.

So why, then, have we de­nied our­selves the ex­cuse to in­vest in an­other ex­cel­lent out­fit? We say let’s bring back the go­ing-away out­fit – with so many amaz­ing frugal wed­ding frocks on of­fer (see p22), it’d be rude not to…

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.