Disney Bridal Gowns – No Kirstie Kelly?

In 2007, Disney teamed up with wedding gown designer Kirstie Kelly to debut Disney Bridal by Kirstie Kelly.

The initial collection was released to, judging by internet comments, mixed reviews. Some were highly disgusted or disappointed because they either hated Disney in the first place (citing that the company feeds the female sex unrealistic expectations regarding love and life – to which I say, what piece of media doesn't?) or because none of the dresses seemed to look like any of the actual dresses of the princesses from their respective films. Others, however, were thrilled at the prospect of finally being able to purchase a "Disney" wedding gown. And while plus-size ladies were initially left out in the cold, eventually Kirstie Kelly added a line for them, too.

Fast-forward to 2010. At the beginning of the year, David Tutera teamed up with Kirstie Kelly and Disney to create a Disney Weddings book (comments are found earlier in this blog).

Imagine my surprise when I tried to check up on the collections at disneybridal.com – to find Kirstie Kelly's line eliminated and promoting a new line by Alfred Angelo.

Don't get me wrong – I'm happy to see that Disney is trying to include budget-conscious brides here. These gowns are significantly more affordable than Kirstie's. However, the former line was not in the most expensive category for bridal gowns. High-end designer bridal gowns can end up being $20,000 or more, and Ms. Kelly's line was around $1,000-$3,000.

I'm not terribly impressed by these dresses. They are pretty, but most of them look like dresses that the designer had already created and put on the market before Disney approached them. What especially disappoints me is that Rapunzel is not included in the collection. I know that the collection was released before Tangled came to theaters, but the time gap is not that big (then again, that film went through so many changes that perhaps when the designer was creating mock-ups for his new dresses the animators did not have anything to give him for reference). In any case, these gowns still suffer from the same issue with the first line – none of them look much like the outfits we actually saw our favorite Disney Princesses in (though I will say that Alfred Angelo came closer that Kirstie Kelly did).

For the record, here are some points of reference:

 Characters and their likenesses copyrighted by Disney.

But here's the real question: are we going to start seeing Alfred Angelo Disney Bridal Rings, too? Because at least that gives one room for interpretation without significant basis…

Tangled – An Unbraided Rapunzel?

Yesterday was a very, very exciting day for me.

For the first time in my lifetime, a Disney Princess film premiered with a blonde for a heroine.

And Alan Menken was doing the music.

And this was a film that had gone through so much reworking…I mean, 3 different titles! 2 totally different casts! (I'm a little bummed that Kristin Chenoweth did not end up in Tangled, but considering that she, as Rapunzel, was supposed to be trapped in squirrel form while some random teenager ends up in hers…I think we're lucky this project got an overhaul).

I'm not going to lie…after having some knowledge as to what this film has gone through, and to then see some really downright awful commercials…I was afraid that this film was going to be Disney attempting to do Shrek, which is definitely not something the company should ever do. Enchanted was okay because the majority of the film was live-action…but in general, it's not brilliant to make fun of yourself in front of everyone. It only makes you look even more like a fool. Of course, that's just my opinion.

In all honesty, the only advertising I really liked for this film was the teaser trailer.

It annoyed me that a lot of the advertising didn't involve the film's main villainess, Mother Gothel. Before I saw the film, it was because I was very familiar with the original version of Rapunzel – after seeing the film, it's because of that and the fact that the character is just really well done by Donna Murphy and the animators for this film.

The original tale of Rapunzel is really more of a heavy family drama than a light-hearted Disney musical (of course, Disney has tweaked every fairy tale that they've touched, as they have every right to, and that's fine by me). I mean, I don't think it would have gone over well for the audience to see Flynn's eyes bleeding and stumbling around blind while screaming in agony.

I am a little sad, however, that so much of the familial basis was altered. In the original fairy tale, Rapunzel is not born a princess, but is the daughter of a Baker and his Wife, who tragically must give up their child to a Witch because the Baker raided her garden after the pregnant Wife got hungry for some greens.

However, I can let this go because Flynn is allowed to have a "Cinderella" moment, if you will. Because he came from nothing, and as an underdog was able to rise up and accidentally fell in love with a princess.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Mother Gothel isn't even a witch…maybe Disney was trying to just change things up a little, I guess.

While I was thrilled to finally see a central mother-daughter relationship in a Disney film (because, let's face it…there just really hasn't been in any previous Disney films), I do wish the relationship between Rapunzel and Mother Gothel had felt a bit more significant. It was too easy for Rapunzel to turn her back on her mother towards the end, and it was too easy for Mother Gothel to be so easily detached. After all that time together, the two of them should still deeply love one another, even if it Gothel kidnapped her for selfish reasons…she still raised her as her own. She clearly loves her daughter enough that she's willing to travel very far to get her daughter some special shells for her paint…

I am not completely discounting what we did see between them by any means. Mothers are great at putting superficial ideas into their daughters heads, manipulating them and belittling them…and the classic teenager to parent dilemma of, "I need to do things on my own and experience the world" versus "I have protected you all of your life and I can't let you go because I love you" was done in a fairly moderate way to not overdramatize the film…but I will say, coming from a girl who's been there, it hurts a lot more than Disney showed. At least we've broken ground. I'm hoping the in the future Disney will "dig a little deeper" on this issue.

And speaking of music…while I don't feel the music for this film is on the same level as Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin, it was definitely enjoyable, and it was a treat to see Menken's work on an animated Disney film again...Glenn Slater provided some clever lyrics in there, too.

The only really awkward moment was during the song "I See the Light"…while the music is rather beautiful (and the imagery just as gorgeous to match), I was rather taken aback when, after hearing Rapunzel and Flynn singing in their heads, saw them suddenly singing to each other in harmony ¾'s of the way through the song. That was potentially the weirdest thing in the film…you get past it, but it was a poor choice in my honest opinion.

If anyone out there remains skeptical about this film because of the vocal talent, let me put their mind at ease. Mandy Moore, Zachary Levi, Donna Murphy (a Broadway veteran) and the rest of the cast do a fantastic job! I wish I had been able to see Zachary sing more (he originally had more, a solo and a reprise that was first a love song from Mother Gothel to Rapunzel and after with him a love song to Rapunzel)…hopefully Disney will include whatever files they have saved from these cut songs and include them on the Blu-Ray/DVD release!

Chock it up to a simple story, a good script, great animation and vocal talent…but the characters in this film are rather well-developed. A fellow colleague of mine remarked that he felt Rapunzel was the first really likeable Disney Princess…I don't know if I can fully agree with him on that, as every Disney Princess is simply a product of her time, but Rapunzel is definitely the sweet girl next door, with a little bit of fun and spunk. She's not afraid of being goofy, of being herself, and that's definitely an attractive quality to see in anyone. In the line of Disney Princesses, therefore, her characterization seems like a breath of fresh air. As for Flynn, I was not sure coming in to see the film that I would like him…I originally saw him mostly as a Disney marketing ploy that was going in the wrong direction. But through the course of the film, he stops being completely self-absorbed and detached from the cares and worries of life and has a quite nice and full character transformation.

Here is a quick little comment I need to make – while the King and Queen in this film do not speak, their animation is so perfect, so realistic and so powerful that in the span of a few seconds you will be holding back tears. Whoever animated them needs some serious recognition at Disney…that footage is absolutely powerful.

Speaking of the animation…just in general, it is quite beautiful. The background story of this film reminds me a lot of what happened to Sleeping Beauty, but perhaps ending on a more positive note. What bothered me, however, was that at times the consistency of Rapunzel and Flynn's faces seemed a little spotty. I won't pretend that Disney has always been perfect in this category, but it seemed only aggravated with this style of animation. Rapunzel looked like three different women to me! And there was one shot where Flynn's hairline was way too forward on his forehead (which made him suddenly a lot less attractive by my taste).

Still, overall the animation was rather gorgeous. Trying to mimic the look of oil paintings was a brilliant idea.
I will actually have to go back to the theaters to see this film again…besides the fact that I really enjoyed the film, my 3D glasses darkened the picture significantly, so I'm going to have to see it in 2D to be able to really appreciate the hard work the animators and designers did on this film. Please note that I'm not discouraging anyone from seeing this in 3D! There are no tacky, gimmicky stunts pulled because you're wearing special glasses. The vast landscaping, buildings and just overall texture really benefit from the 3D (and speaking of texture…the way Rapunzel's hair is animated is just fantastic!). But if you want to see the true coloring of the film, you're going to have to nitpick.

Overall, I give this film two thumbs-up. And it looks like everyone else is, too…it was recently announced that Tangled has had the biggest Thanksgiving Weekend Opening ever with $11.5 million garnered on its first day of release! That's more than Toy Story 2 did, who had the title before Tangled.

I leave you with a quote by Glen Keane regarding the whole Rapunzel project (after the concept for Rapunzel: Unbraided got the boot), who has worked for several long, hard years on this film:
"I think that's what Disney needs to do right now. No one else can do it. We should not be embarrassed or make excuses for doing a fairytale."


I am thankful for people at Disney being proud of their legacy and continuing on with it with attitudes like this. Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Have a Glittery Halloween!

Seeing as Halloween is today, I felt I should mention MAC's Venomous Villains Collection for Disney.

From the Disney films Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmations and The Princess and the Frog, the collections are inspired by the Evil Queen, Maleficent, Cruella de Vil and Dr. Facilier!

I am just itching to get my hands on some of these items. I especially love what I've seen of the nail polish and eyeshadow…

I might be able to get a review up for some of these products later (hopefully). For now…

Happy Halloween!

The “Deal” With Beauty and the Beast Right Now

Okay. So by now, you have probably heard that "for the first time ever, in high definition," Disney is taking Beauty and the Beast back out of the Disney Vault and releasing the film on Blu-Ray and DVD.

Perhaps even a few of you know that you can currently visit the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood to see this classic return to the big screen (now through October 7^th).


But that's not in 3D, which we've all been waiting for many years now. Disney showed a clip of "Belle" in 3D 2 Comic Cons ago. The 3D version was supposed to debut February 2010 as per advertised on their website.


But February came and went, and Disney never openly addressed the situation.

So instead, we have speculation.


This is a typical Disney case of double-dipping. Beauty and the Beast is quite probably their strongest animated film property, and they want to milk it for all it's worth. So, they will re-release it as many times as they can get away with.

 Copyright Disney

I don't take any issue with having the option to see a much-beloved film on the big screen again. Nor do I take issue with seeing that film turned 3D. But it looks like Disney may want to re-release this property up to 4 times within a very short period of time, and that just doesn't seem right to me.


But here's the real kicker – the 3D version has apparently already been released in New Zealand and Australia. From what I've been reading, the typical 3D haters aren't happy because the film wasn't originally designed in 3D or thought of in 3D, so it didn't need to be done…and everyone else is just happy to see this new look of the film, which is all cleaned and pumped up in color, sound and definition.

There is one controversial change to the opening prologue. As we originally know it: "If he could learn to love another, and earn their love in return by the time the last petal fell…" The change: "If he could learn to love a woman, and earn her love in return by the time the last petal fell…" Really, Disney? If we're talking about unnecessary choices here, let's take a look at this one! Obviously Beast ends up with Belle (a woman)…do we really need to walk on eggshells here to further "comfort" conservatives? I don't think so. The public was perfectly happy with the original prologue. You might as well be spitting on Howard Ashman's grave. Nice, really nice. Personally, I think the original wording sounds nicer, anyway…


This proves that Disney is really trying to get every penny out of America, folks.

And we still don't know when Disney plans on releasing the 3D version in America! There are merely rumors that the 3D version will come out in 2012 or later, so that when Disney releases the 3.0 version of the "home video," more people will have purchased 3D TV's for their homes by then.


Which now brings me to another troubling question – if Disney altered the prologue for the 3D release, then have they altered the prologue for this upcoming Blu-Ray/DVD release as well? It comes out October 5^th, so we don't have to wait too long to find out.


Not all of the merchandise being released with this current set of offerings is bad, by the way. There are a few neat collector's items I found at Disney's official online store, along with an amazing new book called Tale As Old As Time: The Art and Making of Beauty and the Beast. And reportedly, this new Blu-Ray/DVD set will contain bonus materials that will go more in-depth and dirty with the behind-the-scenes drama (as this project was originally very different and in others' hands).


But here is my advice to my readers out there: prioritize how you will spend your money. Check things out. Decide what is realistically best for your budget and your home. If you hate 3D or you don't plan on having a 3D screen in your home anytime remotely soon, then perhaps you should get this upcoming release. If not, then perhaps you should wait.


Or you might be like me…totally on the fence.

Branding the Disney Princess Stereotype

I hate to be a plug here, but I regularly use MiceAge/MiceChat for my Disney information and partake in many Disney-centered discussions.

In one such discussion, the future of Gadget's Go Coaster in Toontown at Disneyland came up.
For those of you that don't know, the attraction's theme was inspired by the 90's Disney television show Rescue Rangers.

Well, the 90's are obviously long-gone. A lot of people are not familiar with the show anymore…
Which garnered this response from a user:

'None of the kids today know who Gadget Hackwrench is, one of the very few female Disney characters who isn't some stuck-up helpless Princess waiting for her Prince to rescue her.

I guess she doesn't "fit the brand" anymore.'

Now wait just a minute! That's quite the over-generalized stereotype ya got, there. (And this was coming from a fairly well-seasoned user, too.)

 
Lumping all of the Disney Princesses into one category like that is unfair and just plain incorrect.
I know there are plenty of people out there that think this way, though. They equate these characters as a group of snooty sorority girls or something.

Save for Snow White, none of the Disney Princesses are waiting for a Prince to come and save them. And most certainly none of them are stuck-up.

But, this person did hit upon something interesting, something that is both helping and hurting Disney tremendously.

Disney has marketed their Princesses as a group, what we know as the official Disney Princess brand…in fact, the group aspect is so emphasized that one can be hard-pressed to find merchandise that reflects each individual woman in her own story.

Of course, it was significantly worse just a few years ago. It used to be that you could only find Snow White in a cluster with Cinderella and maybe Sleeping Beauty (and I, for one, have to say that I am thrilled with the tops that have come out of The Art of the Disney Princess). Truthfully, Disney has been diversifying the Princesses a little but more than its recent past. But if your little girl wants a t-shirt with Belle on it, you will probably have 1 option, and 4 other princesses will have the exact same t-shirt, just in a different color (and your daughter gets yellow, even though she's really not a fan of yellow and likes Belle's gold dress…). Do we really have to be mono-chromatic and cookie-cutter here? The costumes give one more room to be an individual…but that's if the parent can stomach the bill for one of those things.

Why can't we see Belle in the color scheme that makes us nostalgic for the classic film Beauty and the Beast? The film really played up gold and purple. Personally, I think that film had one of the most amazingly vibrant color palettes.

But instead, Belle's merchandise tends to end up with a caution-tape yellow. A color that, I think, gentlemen prefer to wear, regardless of how that shade looks on them.

And let's not forget poor Ariel. Sometimes it's hard to even find her in merchandise (which is strange, considering how popular she is)…and she's mostly merchandised in clothing that she never even wore in the film. Luckily, she at least ends up with a pretty shade of aqua. One day, you will hear my rant about the Disney Princess costume and merchandising ripple effect…

And let's not forget poor Pocahontas and Mulan. The former is a Princess by her tribe's standards, while the latter is at most a General's wife. But we'll try to ignore that, as Mulan is apparently a part of the Disney Princess line (…in fact, why don't we just throw Esmerelda in there! She's a gypsy but she's kind of a princess-like gypsy. And maybe Kida too – you know, that Princess from Atlantis, the original Black Disney Princess?). Past children's costumes for Pocahontas and Mulan, you probably won't find these women on any merchandise. That naturally makes some minorities angry (but the films already did that from the beginning). I've been told it's about what sells…and admittedly, when I walk around Disneyland, I see lots of little girls picking the outfits of Cinderella and the like. And they should get to wear what they want, regardless of how much they look like that character! As a Caucasian child, I proudly walked around in my Jasmine costume and am totally in love with Tiana's swamp wedding dress. When Beauty and the Beast came out, I threw everyone for a loop and chose to be Lumiere…one of the best decisions I ever made, and perhaps the only time you could say I "cross-dressed" for Halloween.

But I digress.

As a result of Disney's group branding of the Princesses, they are now perceived (by those that have not actually sat down and watched the films they came from, or maybe they did but it was a long time ago and they have forgotten) as these unrelatable, cookie-cutter snooty characters that all sound and act the same.
And if you go to a Disney Park, you will actually see this stereotype presented in person! The girls chosen to play these Princesses are generally not actresses, or they simply do not do their homework or try all that hard, because they all generally sound the same (save for Snow White). Most of these girls do not even try to sound like the Princess they are portraying, and believe me, there are significant differences in their vocal qualities! Speaking as an actress, it's really not that hard to recognize and imitate these different voices. If anyone should sound similar, it should be Ariel and Belle…in fact, when looking to cast Belle, it was decided that she should sound similar to Ariel, but with a slightly more European tone, as Ariel sounds a little more like an American tomboy.

Oh, yeah. And the OC tan and French manicures only reinforce the stereotype.

Look, I think it's great that Disney found a decent source of income through Disney Princesses. It's part of what has kept the company going. One thing Michael Eisner did right was that he found ways to get the Disney company money. But in terms of quality…well, you all know the story. I don't need to go there.

What does all of this mean for Rapunzel? I'm sorry, Tangled…ugh.

Disneyland is in the process of building a new meet and greet for Rapunzel outside of the Pinocchio attraction. Her face will be plastered on brand new merchandise.

Will the male market that Disney is desperately trying to lure come to see this film? All of these commercials heavily featuring the character Flynn (wait a minute…isn't Tron coming out soon? Hmm…) might not solve the problem of trying to get male audiences out to see this film. And I'm still not convinced that changing the title of the movie was the best idea, either.

There's plenty of drama going on with the film. Apparently the directors felt that Alan Menken (you know, that multi-award-winning composer that gave us the music to The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin to name a few?) was not good enough to do the music for a very special sequence in the film (which is apparently a sore spot for the composer).

I don't know, Disney…I wouldn't snub Alan Menken if I were you. It could have devastating consequences.
I guess we'll see come November, won't we?

Pirate, Mermaid and Wonderland Princesses

So, I'm guessing you've all seen the teaser for the next Pirates of the Caribbean film, right? The one from Comic Con? Where Captain Jack Sparrow preps you for what is to come (in one take, at that)?

I didn't attend Comic Con, but you can bet that I watched the clip on Youtube.

And I'm really excited, actually.

I'll admit that I got fed up with Pirates, and just pirates, for a while. Disney accidentally struck gold with Curse of the Black Pearl (nobody involved with that production thought it would become such a huge hit), and when Disney sees a money-making opportunity, as we have seen in recent years, they tend to kinda overdo it. I became so sick of seeing all the merchandise around that it actually hurt my love for the trilogy. Call me strange, but I tend to like more unique things…suddenly Pirates was more of a brand than a cool, unique experience. Something that heightened my nostalgia and appreciation for the original attraction at Disneyland.

And yes, I enjoyed parts 2 and 3. It had a different feel than the original, and the original is superior, but I did not feel that the other two were bad…just different. They went in a different direction and feel from the original.

I will admit that I did come out of the theater hating Jack after seeing Dead Man's Chest…I felt that Jack's characterization had changed from the first film (in that he no longer seemed to care about anyone other than himself). In the first film, it would seem as though Jack had double-crossed Will and Elizabeth…and then a little while later, you discovered that he has actually had their back the whole time, thinking 3-5 steps ahead of everyone else. We finally saw a return of the old Jack in At World's End towards the end of the film, but I wish he had been there a lot earlier.

I could analyze these films forever, but that's for another time.

In any case, watching that Youtube clip of Jack Sparrow addressing the audience has gotten me very excited for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Johnny's back, along with Geoffrey and Kevin. There are also some new characters we've yet to meet…you can bet that this blog will be interested in Cruz's new character, Angelica.

Speaking of pirates…

My Fair Wedding with David Tutera recently aired an episode that was all about fancy pirate style. David Tutera took on a sweet bride who, along with her fiancé, had planned a pirate theme for the wedding. Naturally, some of the things that Brooke (the bride) had picked out were a little too theme-y. Leave it to David to pull it out of any sort of tacky territory. I have to admit that my favorite part of this wedding was the pirate princess bride's jewels by Erica Courtney Inc. Now there was some ultimate pirate bling!

The only thing I would have done different, if it had been my way, was to have the wedding and reception on an actual ship. But since it was established that both David and the bride did not have sea legs, I can understand the route that was taken, which was still fabulous (and, truthfully, gave him more control over décor).

Speaking of princess brides and water…

Princesses are, I am happy to say, nicely featured in World of Color over at Disney California Adventure. The Little Mermaid actually opens (after the World of Color theme song, of course) and closes the show. There's a whole segment of classic Disney romantic kisses. We get to watch Aladdin and Jasmine take a magic carpet ride. Even Pocahontas gets a whole segment dedicated to her (yes, by her tribe's standards she is a princess).

Of course, not everything in World of Color is perfect. There were a lot of changes made at the last minute, like what tied all of the segments together (a little paintbrush character that echoed the nostalgia factor that the park so desperately needs). Alice seriously got the boot when it came to crunch time before the show opened, as the big boys felt that World of Color was appealing too heavily to baby boomers – and perhaps they did not like the flow that Alice created. Some fantastic paper stop-motion animation was cut that heavily involved Alice, and was featured heavily in the Blue Sky Cellar. Even the merchandise reflects her original strong presence. In fact, a lot of the World of Color merchandise seems to give a bit of false advertising…a fantastic image that is on display is only shown for a brief second. A lot of things seemed to change at the last minute. I can't help but be curious as to how the show was originally supposed to play out. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy it (I've seen it 3 times since it opened this summer), but I can't help being the geek that I am…I like hearing what happened behind the scenes, what was planned but fell through. Maybe we'll get to see some deleted segments if rumors become fruition…word on the street is that Disney is looking to make holiday-specific World of Color shows.

In general, Alice seems to be going through a rough time at the Disneyland Resort. Besides the World of Color debacle, the classic attraction at Disneyland has recently been shut down by OSHA, the people that have the final say whether a ride is safe to be open or not (though Disney would like us to think that they chose to blatantly close a popular attraction in the middle of the summer season). For those that don't know, there is a section of track that is outside in the open air, traveling down from a second to a first story. Besides it being a kind of cool feature, it is artistically-appropriate with its leaf design. The trouble is that there is no type of railing along this section whatsoever. This is not so much an issue for guests riding the attraction as it is for the cast members that work it. They have to walk the track to inspect and clean things…and could possibly slip and fall. OSHA has reportedly been working on this issue with Disney for some time, and the Imagineers have looked at the issue in the past to try and come up with a solution – but could never agree on a change as they felt it would harm the integrity of the attraction's unique design. But OSHA finally had it, and shut the attraction down, which now forces Disney to come up with a solution. My suggestion? Tear out the current leaf track and create a new one that curves up to form an artsy railing, like the leaf itself is cupping you. I think then it could still easily be artistically-appropriate. I guess the only issue is getting the suits to shell out the money for it, as I imagine it would be cheaper to just stick some potentially ugly railing on what's already there. If that's the option they go for, it will be a real shame.

On top of all this, there's a heck of a lot of Alice in Wonderland merchandise at Disneyland, but for the recent animated film as opposed to the classic animated one. Oh sure, classic Alice has merchandise too, but alongside her is an over-merchandised franchise that reminds me of what Disney has done with The Nightmare Before Christmas, and, getting back to the first issue of this blog, Pirates of the Caribbean. In fact, this over-indulgence of merchandise is what made me decide to not see the film. I wanted to originally, but I got so fed up with seeing all of the shirts and miscellaneous garbage that it killed the movie for me before I even saw it.

Here is an open statement to all corporations (not just Disney): don't kill a good product by over-merchandising it! Thank you.

The Swedish Crowned Princess Marries Her True Love

While we're on the subject of weddings, I felt that a recent wedding would be of some interest to all the princesses-in-their-hearts out there.

The public is often curious as to what a royal wedding looks like. The wedding of Princess Diana was a pretty big deal back in 1981 (something that people still talk about to this day).

The recent wedding between Sweden's crowned Princess Victoria and Mr. Daniel Westling is a modern day retelling of Aladdin...well, okay, not exactly like Aladdin. But it is the story about a Princess expected to marry a Prince, but falls in love with a commoner.


Victoria was not always intended to inherit the throne. In 1979, there as a change made to The Act of Succession of 1810, stating that the eldest child would inherit the throne without regard to sex. Victoria will, therefore, be the first female head of monarchy in Sweden.

Not everyone was happy with the change. And naturally, there were some that were unhappy with Victoria's choice in a partner. Not because of his politics, but because he was of common blood.

Luckily, love prevailed, and Victoria and Daniel were given marital blessing. After all, they had been together for a very long time, and they wanted to marry each other because they were in love.

But what are you really here for? You're probably wondering what a real-life contemporary Princess would wear.

Lovely, classic, and simple. Not really what I would have initially pictured, but the dress truly reflects the bride's style. And besides - who would want to detract from that amazing crown?

The crown is definitely "something old"...Queen Silvia wore it at her wedding, and reportedly the crown goes back to originally being a gift from Napoleon to his Josephine. I just love the cameo detailing on this. The lace veil truly completes the whole look.

So, ladies - if you want to feel like a Princess on your big day, take a cue from Crowned Princess Victoria. Not all of us can pull off (or feel comfortable) in a big, poofy Princess Diana or Cinderella getup, and that look does not always define "Princess"...what is important is that your dress reflects you, and that you feel beautiful on your big day.