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

[LaciGirl007]

Laci - he may be a respected designer but he sure missed the mark on Bea's hat.  It may have suited someone else, but it did nothing for her. 

Aesthetics are always a matter of opinion.  I think she looked like a lovely, self-confident young woman with a sense of humor who enjoyed rocking a rather Carrie Bradshaw sense of style on that day.  The fact that Princess Bea and her hat have also (so far) raised about approximately US$16,532.16 for charity makes her appear even more attractive, IHMO.  (We need a smiley with a HAT!)

[Nurvingiel]

I thought the fascinator was ugly, but Princess Beatrice managed to look lovely despite it. She's quite pretty and her outfit was very nice. But the fascinator just looked really silly to me.

Something awesome: she's auctioning the fascinator for charity.

I really respect that not only did she (at least publicly) ignore the fascinator's mocking, she's now using its infamy to raise money for charity. That is just awesome. Princess Beatrice seriously rocks.

[sparksals]

Carrie Bradshaw would have rocked it!  I think it's great she has turned it to a positive. Doesn't change my opinion that is was not suited to her.   

[LovesWater]

It seems a lot of fuss over nothing to me.

The good old Daily Fail and the other newspapers were criticising her last year as well because she didn't wear a hat to the opening of parliament.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1281315/Samantha-Cameron-bucks-tradition-casual-look-Queens-speech.html

There were articles before the wedding speculating whether she would choose to wear a hat and clearly she did not. It was undoubtedly a conscious choice, especially after the comments last time.
 

OK, I totally do not get this. (I am an American.) In the linked article, Ms. Cameron is shown standing next to two other women, neither of whom was wearing a hat!  Why was she lambasted in the press but not they?

[Larrabee]

It seems a lot of fuss over nothing to me.

The good old Daily Fail and the other newspapers were criticising her last year as well because she didn't wear a hat to the opening of parliament.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1281315/Samantha-Cameron-bucks-tradition-casual-look-Queens-speech.html

There were articles before the wedding speculating whether she would choose to wear a hat and clearly she did not. It was undoubtedly a conscious choice, especially after the comments last time.
 

OK, I totally do not get this. (I am an American.) In the linked article, Ms. Cameron is shown standing next to two other women, neither of whom was wearing a hat!  Why was she lambasted in the press but not they?

Probably just because she's the Prime Minister's wife and they aren't! 

[Ferrets]

The good old Daily Fail and the other newspapers were criticising her last year as well because she didn't wear a hat to the opening of parliament.

OK, I totally do not get this. (I am an American.) In the linked article, Ms. Cameron is shown standing next to two other women, neither of whom was wearing a hat!  Why was she lambasted in the press but not they?

She's the wife of the PM, rather than an MP/MP's spouse: higher standard of formality expected.

[Ah, outposted! ]

[kglory]

It seems a lot of fuss over nothing to me.

The good old Daily Fail and the other newspapers were criticising her last year as well because she didn't wear a hat to the opening of parliament.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1281315/Samantha-Cameron-bucks-tradition-casual-look-Queens-speech.html

There were articles before the wedding speculating whether she would choose to wear a hat and clearly she did not. It was undoubtedly a conscious choice, especially after the comments last time.
 

OK, I totally do not get this. (I am an American.) In the linked article, Ms. Cameron is shown standing next to two other women, neither of whom was wearing a hat!  Why was she lambasted in the press but not they?

Also, the photo of her next to the 2 women was not taken at the royal wedding.  It was the opening of Parliament.

I'm American too, and watched the royal wedding, and literally every woman I saw was wearing a hat, fascinator, or headpiece.  It looks like Parliament is a much less formal affair than the royal wedding (understandably so!), so it's a much bigger "offense" that she was the only person to go hatless to the royal wedding.

[Bright]

It seems a lot of fuss over nothing to me.

The good old Daily Fail and the other newspapers were criticising her last year as well because she didn't wear a hat to the opening of parliament.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1281315/Samantha-Cameron-bucks-tradition-casual-look-Queens-speech.html

There were articles before the wedding speculating whether she would choose to wear a hat and clearly she did not. It was undoubtedly a conscious choice, especially after the comments last time.
 

OK, I totally do not get this. (I am an American.) In the linked article, Ms. Cameron is shown standing next to two other women, neither of whom was wearing a hat!  Why was she lambasted in the press but not they?

Also, the photo of her next to the 2 women was not taken at the royal wedding.  It was the opening of Parliament.

I'm American too, and watched the royal wedding, and literally every woman I saw was wearing a hat, fascinator, or headpiece.  It looks like Parliament is a much less formal affair than the royal wedding (understandably so!), so it's a much bigger "offense" that she was the only person to go hatless to the royal wedding.

I linked to the article just to show it wasn't the first time she chose not to wear a hat in a situation where wearing a hat was expected of her. It's something of a tradition for the Prime Minister's wife to wear a hat to the opening of parliament. (The other women, not being wives to Prime Ministers aren't held to the same dress-code.) When she chose not to the papers splashed the story all over their front pages. 

Since she's already been through the whole hat situation before you'd have expected her to be aware of it for the Royal Wedding.

[kglory]

It seems a lot of fuss over nothing to me.

The good old Daily Fail and the other newspapers were criticising her last year as well because she didn't wear a hat to the opening of parliament.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1281315/Samantha-Cameron-bucks-tradition-casual-look-Queens-speech.html

There were articles before the wedding speculating whether she would choose to wear a hat and clearly she did not. It was undoubtedly a conscious choice, especially after the comments last time.
 

OK, I totally do not get this. (I am an American.) In the linked article, Ms. Cameron is shown standing next to two other women, neither of whom was wearing a hat!  Why was she lambasted in the press but not they?

Also, the photo of her next to the 2 women was not taken at the royal wedding.  It was the opening of Parliament.

I'm American too, and watched the royal wedding, and literally every woman I saw was wearing a hat, fascinator, or headpiece.  It looks like Parliament is a much less formal affair than the royal wedding (understandably so!), so it's a much bigger "offense" that she was the only person to go hatless to the royal wedding.

I linked to the article just to show it wasn't the first time she chose not to wear a hat in a situation where wearing a hat was expected of her. It's something of a tradition for the Prime Minister's wife to wear a hat to the opening of parliament. (The other women, not being wives to Prime Ministers aren't held to the same dress-code.) When she chose not to the papers splashed the story all over their front pages. 

Since she's already been through the whole hat situation before you'd have expected her to be aware of it for the Royal Wedding.

Interesting.  Given that all this happened a year ago, that makes me think even more that she was making a deliberate statement at the royal wedding, rather than an accident.

[Nurvingiel]

Someone's wedding is just not a good place for a fashion statement.

[Sharnita]

Someone's wedding is just not a good place for a fashion statement.

Do you mean political statement?  Because a whole lot of those hats and fascinators were fashion statements.  (I'm not sure a wedding is the place for either, personally, just trying to clarify what you meant)

[Ferrets]

Someone's wedding is just not a good place for a fashion statement.

Do you mean political statement?  Because a whole lot of those hats and fascinators were fashion statements.  (I'm not sure a wedding is the place for either, personally, just trying to clarify what you meant)

I think I'd disagree that weddings aren't the place for fashion statements. British weddings of a certain style tend to be all about the Big Hats.

[Sharnita]

Someone's wedding is just not a good place for a fashion statement.

Do you mean political statement?  Because a whole lot of those hats and fascinators were fashion statements.  (I'm not sure a wedding is the place for either, personally, just trying to clarify what you meant)

I think I'd disagree that weddings aren't the place for fashion statements. British weddings of a certain style tend to be all about the Big Hats.

see, I guess making any kind of "statement" deliberately seems to be kind of attention seeking which I always thought was inappropriate for wedding guests.

[immadz]

You know, I have never seen her wear a hat. Almost ever. Makes me wonder if it is more a comfort thing than a statement of any sort. I know that when I wear a hat, I sometimes develop a rash on my forehead or scalp. Maybe she is just more sensitive.

[Giggity]

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

For me, it would be. I mean, I don't know about your situation, but I can say it's not often I have the chance to wear a hat that looks like Cthulhu's gift wrap. I gotta take the opportunity where it arises.