Not Wearing a Hat To the Royal Wedding = Slap In the Face?

[jimithing]

Samantha Cameron, the British Prime Minister's wife, did not wear a hat to the royal wedding, instead, opting for a jewelled clasp/barrette in her hair.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1381963/Royal-wedding-ceremony-Samantha-Cameron-VIP-wear-hat.html

I've read several articles, and seen a few things on TV, where many British fashion critics have called her rude, lazy, and that it's a "slap in the face" to the HC to not wear a headpiece.

From the article I posted: "Etiquette guide Debretts reads: 'Hats are traditional, but by no means compulsory, at British weddings, and a matter of personal choice for christenings or funerals."

From Brides magazine: "The accepted rule is that you don't take them off until the Mother of the Bride removes hers. As with most etiquette rules this is based on old tradition; hats were typically removed as the men took off their jackets and retired for cigarettes."

I really don't know much about this tradition or "requirement." Is this a big deal?

[veryfluffy]

For a society wedding, not wearing a hat (or fascinator)is sort of...under-dressed. I wouldn't say it's exactly rude, but it is "doing one's own thing", sort of like a man not wearing a tie to a formal event, even if he is wearing a dinner jacket.

[Bob Ducca]

My understanding is that the invitations specified that hats were required for the venue (Westminster Abbey).  If that is the case, then definitely rude.

[white.a]

the invitations said "Uniform, Morning Coat Or Lounge Suit" so imho she did alright - wearing the female equivalent of "lounge suit" (even though her husband wore a morning coat). The question is - shouldn't a husband and wife make sure they match in formality when going somewhere?

[Bob Ducca]

the invitations said "Uniform, Morning Coat Or Lounge Suit" so imho she did alright - wearing the female equivalent of "lounge suit" (even though her husband wore a morning coat). The question is - shouldn't a husband and wife make sure they match in formality when going somewhere?

You're right, thanks for clearing that up.  (E! news said that hats were required by the invitation, but I wouldn't rely on them for etiquette advice!)

I don't think it was technically rude, but as she seems to be literally the only woman there who didn't wear a hat of some kind (at least the only one of note), it seems she missed the mark somehow.  Her husband was quite formal.

[jimithing]

I don't think it was technically rude, but as she seems to be literally the only woman there who didn't wear a hat of some kind (at least the only one of note), it seems she missed the mark somehow.  Her husband was quite formal.

I agree. And especially since she's in a very high profile position. Many eyes would be on her. It seems like a big misstep.

[MummySweet]

I actually think that this was a calculated decision.  The government is currently making huge, and controversial, cuts in spending.  I think she may have made her choice to be more strongly identified with the average citizen.  (Although hats are still worn to many weddings, fascinators and the hatless look are now very acceptable at the average wedding.)   Her shoes also came from a high street shop, rather than a name designer.   

[Bob Ducca]

I'm sure it was "calculated," in the sense that she knew she was expected to wear a hat and didn't.  I don't know anything about the specific politics, but it seems even ruder to think that she accepted an invitation to a royal wedding and then flouted expectations in order to advance a personal political agenda than if she just decided, "I don't look well in hats, so I won't wear one."  If she wanted to identify herself with the average citizen, she should have declined the invitation and watched the wedding on television like the other average citizens.

[kareng57]

She did wear some sort of small hair clip I believe - maybe to her it looked like enough of a decoration, originally?  Just trying to give the benefit of the doubt........

[Sharnita]

honestly I can't fathom the logic that says it is more respectful and/or formal to wear a monstrosity like Princess Beatrice's headgear then the pretty barrette that Samantha wore.  Quite frankly it seems as if some of those hats are some sort of enormous joke being played on the people wearing them and the fashion commentators taking them serious.

[Erich L-ster]

i don't know where the link is now but i think it was @ the telegraph, they had pics of the best dressed and worst dressed. i think not wearing a hat is less disrespectful than having your breasts hanging out and your dress up to your thighs as one woman did. there were a few breasts out tight tight dresses that were a lot more inappropriate to the occasion than the lack of a hat. prince harry's girlfriend was inappropriately dressed.

[KenveeB]

I think that there are definitely worse faux pas, but it definitely was one.  She's the prime minister's wife, this was the wedding of the future head of state.  Not the time for her to be making any "statements".  If she wanted to do that, she should've stayed home.  She should've just worn a simple hat and been done with it.

[Rohanna]

I think if she'd just been a WAG/3rd cousin kind of guest it might have made a brief blip on the fashion radar, but from the Prime minister's wife it does make one wonder why she did things the difficult way and made herself stand out a little. To North American's the hats may be silly, but they are pretty standard for British weddings, and she does look a little underdressed for the crowd. It doesn't make the other bad outfits any better because hers was lacking, or hers any better because their's were "worse"- they can both be lacking it style.

[sparksals]

It made her look under dressed for the occasion and I wondered what message she was trying to send.  I thought of all people not to wear a hat, the PM's wife?  Completely inappropriate.

[Nurvingiel]

I think if she'd just been a WAG/3rd cousin kind of guest it might have made a brief blip on the fashion radar, but from the Prime minister's wife it does make one wonder why she did things the difficult way and made herself stand out a little. To North American's the hats may be silly, but they are pretty standard for British weddings, and she does look a little underdressed for the crowd. It doesn't make the other bad outfits any better because hers was lacking, or hers any better because their's were "worse"- they can both be lacking it style.

I totally respect the hat tradition (I've always liked the Queen's hats, and the Queen Mum had quite a flair for fashion) but I guess I don't see why it's a big deal not to participate, especially when Debretts said hats aren't required.

Maybe it's traditional to wear a hat to a formal event like this, and bucking the tradition maybe sent the wrong message?

But surely, surely not wearing a hat is better than the thing that was percariously balanced on Princess Beatrice's head. That thing was brutal (too bad, because the rest of her outfit was elegant and she is quite pretty).