Thursday, September 24, 2009

Lord and Lady Frederick's wedding: Hello's coverage

I picked up this morning at Borders the latest issue of Hello! magazine. The magazine touts "Royal Wedding Special" and features the newly married Lord and Lady Frederick Windsor on the cover. Following the wedding, three official photographs of the newly weds were released to the media. I expected that several more photos -- the official photographer was Sir Geoffrey Shakerley -- would be released, including one or two group photos. This has not happened. Judy Wade's coverage of the wedding is abysmal, but, to be honest, she really didn't have a lot to work with. Most of the photographs are the candid shots of the arrivals and departures at Ormeley Lodge, the home of Lady Annabel Goldsmith. Wade's article is short on details on who was actually at the wedding, but even without an official list being released to the media, a good journalist could have ferreted out more details. She mentions that Eloise Taylor, the daughter of Lady Helen Taylor, Frederick's first cousin, was a bridesmaid, but makes no comment about India Balfour, another bridesmaid, who happens to be the granddaughter of Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia.
The British media largely focused on the British royals who did not attend, but chose not find out if any of Prince Michael's maternal family were guests at the wedding. These relatives would include descendants of his mother's two older sisters, Olga and Elisabeth. One assumes that India's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Balfour were present at the wedding, so her perhaps her grandmother also attended. Several Toerring-Jettenbachs, the Crown Prince and Crown Princess of the Hellenes and Mr. George and Lady Rose Gilman also were at the wedding.
The magazine also has far too many photos of Princess Michael of Kent, and her ample, but unfortunate decolletage, but not a single photograph of Sophie's mother.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I also picked up Hello!, thumbed through it & decided not to bother buying it. We'll have to wait for the November issue of Majesty magazine which apparently has the exclusive coverage of the wedding. Hello! usually has good coverage but this time I think the Peter Phillips fiasco made the royals hold coverage back.

Marlene Eilers Koenig said...

Actually, if you read my post the day after the wedding, you will have learned that Majesty will not have exclusive photos. The Sunday Times got it wrong.

Dennis said...

OMG! "her ample, but unfortunate decolletage!"

Boy, did you ever nail that one! What could she have been thinking? Has she no friends? No mirror?

On the other hand, the cut of the bride's dress was also, though not equally, unfortunate. A tailor on standby for the wedding party would have been a good investment.