Ajay the tailor speaks about the flower girl dresses

[Orangefir]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11620179/Tailor-centre-Meghan-Kates-bridesmaid-dress-row-speaks-out.html

No surprises here. Days before the wedding the dresses didn’t fit. Couture gowns, made by Givenchy from measurements sent in. This tailor worked day and night but they had all six dresses to fix. It’s obvious they couldn’t get it all done. They really needed remade.

I think we can see why Kate was upset and why Charlottes dress and some of the other younger flower girls dresses looked awful.

You clearly weren't there when my almost 3 year old GD was fitted for hers. I can't imagine what anyone hearing her would have thought.

I also agree that no 3 year old cares about the exact fit of a dress.

It may not have come from Charlotte but it was a valid criticism because she is in the nuclear royal family and those photos of her will be circulated for years.

Quite clearly a 3 year could be upset at a dress that doesn’t fit. A dress that doesn’t fit, doesn’t feel comfortable either. Some 3 year old wouldn’t care and run around regardless, others will be very concerned about the size, the feeling on the skin etc. All children are different. And a whole host of emotions in between.

The posters on here saying a young child wouldn’t be upset by such a matter, have either had very limited interactions with children or a child that isn’t fussed about such things.

Please gain some perspective, you are on a parenting platform. Clue is in the name. Mumsnet.

A 3yo might not care about what it looks like. But they will care about how it feels.

I have two boys, one cannot stand anything too tight or fitted inc jeans, loves shorts. The other never wanted shorts and likes his clothes neat. Would complain about stuff being too baggy, too much fabric.

Rather than coming across as a novel idea, the lack of tights also revealed that she did not know the form. I wore dresses with tights outside everyday from babyhood up until very, very recently.

I'd have thought it was so new shoes didn't rub, hobbling down the aisle with sore feet wouldn't look good and 3 year olds aren't known for their stiff upper lip if things don't feel good.

I think Kate offering socks as a compromise would indicate it was more about sore feet rather than pants on show.

I can’t believe you and others are making such a categoric statement.

Firstly, it’s rather ableist. Lots of children (and adults) have sensory issues that usually won’t be diagnosed as early as 3. Badly fitting clothes are a sensory problem. I’m not talking about Charlotte but all the other 3 year olds you say won’t care. Both my children would have noticed and been unhappy for this reason; they have sensory issues because they have ADHD or autism respectively, neither of which were diagnosed until they were 12.

Secondly, a dress that was so badly fitting and too big it requires HOURS AND HOURS of adjustments sounds like it was so obviously badly fitting it would be obvious to a 3 year old. Think about it properly: a 3 year old wouldn’t be able to walk in a dress that was far too long. They’d trip up (and then probably cry).

Thirdly, in this specific instance, we’re talking about a 3 year old who may be used to fittings for formal events and is definitely used to wearing properly fitted ‘pretty’ dresses more than any of our child term. So she’s much more likely to be aware of what fits than the average 3 year old.

And fourthly, even if they don’t have diagnosable sensory issues, some people including children are particular about how things fit and feel. Humans are different. Stop being so obtuse and narrow minded just to make a point against Kate regarding a three year old.

What form? I think I have one pair of tights somewhere, that I’ll grudgingly wear in winter. Otherwise I’m bare-legged as soon as I can stand it till late in the year; much more comfortable. Childhood pics show a pack of us bare-legged and running around. The Queen’s insistence on weird flesh-toned (toned to whose flesh, indeed…) tights along with the rigour mortis-pallor nail varnish was one of her oddities. To borrow from Florence Pugh’s free the nipple: free the legs! Bare legs are fine!

The idea that giving kids the shoes with their initials on them is some sort of gift made me laugh. I mean what else would she have done with them?

I thought exactly the same Ancientgran .But that was the writer of the article saying that in the weird gushing style it has .

As for tights or no tights: I like the bare legged look for the bridesmaids for a summer wedding but definitely with cotton frilly socks with those sorts of rigid leather new shoes. Or put the girls in soft ballet slippers.

@pelargoniums what no socks?

Did your shoes not end up stinking with sweaty feet ?

Who really would have known if the bloody dresses were off the peg with say a bespoke embellishment such as a silk cummerbund/belt thing? No one, unless they are in the trade and/or are very pass remarkable and critical.

The overall picture I got was a clutch of lovely girls in white dresses with flowery things on their heads and they looked delightful.

It really is becoming nit picking territory now.

Form wouldn't be the issue for me. I'm one of those people who find new shoes can rub. My mother always had me fitted for Clark's shoes and I would always have a couple of weeks with blisters and blood was often shed and that was with socks or tights, I wouldn't have been able to wear new shoes without socks/tights without being in pain in a very short time. One of my kids is the same.

@Flowersinthebasement I agree. The dresses and the bride and bridesmaid looked lovely.
But if Meghan and her bridesmaids had word the exact dresses Kate and her bridesmaids wore before they did, there would still have been lots of criticisms.

Oh yes it was the writer who was being ridiculous but it just made me laugh.

Not wearing bare legs in Church wasn't an 'oddity' of the Queen. There have always been lots of rules around what is acceptable attire in Churches and at public engagements.
I must admit the detail of the tights palaver passed me by. I assumed it was an argument about tights or socks. Bare legs and bare feet are unusual for a high church service (and obviously a higher risk of blisters, chafing, etc).

So if we talk about it, it’s nit picking? But if Harry pops it in his book as part of a multi million book deal….it’s setting the record straight?

Most of this discussion has been regarding dressmaking, couture fittings etc. If you are into fashion, then the anomaly of ill fitting gowns from a couture fashion house, is an interesting discussion to be had. If you don’t care about these things, that’s fine. But don’t judge those who are.

I find this part interesting

When asked what he charged, he replied: 'I won't divulge that - or who paid the bill. I can't say it was four figures or five figures. But whoever's mistake it was paid the bill.'

So he acknowledges that there has been a monumental cock up. Also, the person or company who made the mistake has acknowledged they made a cock up and paid to fix the mistake. That could be anyone from Meghan, her PA/wedding planner, Givenchy or the tailor who took the measurements.

I think tan denier tights on 3 year olds look ridiculous. Socks would not have looked right with formal dresses.

At Kate's wedding the bridesmaids wore white tights to go with more formal and very full bridesmaids dresses. It is a very different look.

@Sugarfree23 Sometimes socks – probably yes with shoes like the wedding ones, though in my case they’d have been Clarks’s finest T-bars – sometimes no, not with sandals or jelly shoes, sometimes barefoot. Besides, what three year old’s feet sweat? Rubbing would definitely be an issue and in Meghan’s shoes (no pun intended) I’d have put the bridesmaids in socks but not tights – tights on a lovely sunshiney May day would have been awful.

But really this is anecdata, just combatting the idea that there’s a “form” for wearing tights daily, that Meghan wouldn’t have known. (A) there really isn’t, everyone’s experience varies, and (B) though the Queen had her preferences for tights, what’s that got to do with it? People are forgetting it wasn’t just a royal wedding – it was also a Meghan wedding. Two sides were getting married; only one side thinks the “form” is to wear tights. Ultimately they were Meghan’s bridesmaids and the Queen’s preference for tights was what, a GMIL opinion? Kate weighing in as SIL is even less relevant. Meghan didn’t have to slavishly devote herself to royal protocol for the whole bash, royalty isn’t a trump card. I’m still a bit disappointed she went for the boring Essie ballet slippers nail varnish and not something more exciting.

Honestly the Queen's fashion choices were incredibly old fashioned. She was not happy how Kate was dressing so sent her one of her staff to advise her. And as a result a young Kate ended up dressing like an 80 year old woman - it was ridiculous.

It clearly wouldn’t be tan tights on a child for crying out loud. Little girls wear white or ivory denier tights.

Who are these posters with zero fashion knowledge but continue to post every half hour. Jesus