Well then, as to that qualifying as the social wedding event of the year of the would be members of ‘society’, I can only observe, God help society!
It appeared to be a motley collection of those with more money than sense or taste and those minor royalty who would attend the opening of an envelope. Don’t some of them even own a mirror? I’ve seen better looking hats on Wurzel Gummidge in fields! The aristocracy were notably absent.
Apart from the obvious futility of trying to compete with Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace and RAF flybyes, vulgarity appeared to be de rigeur.
The real question has to be since when did it become acceptable to invite guests to the evening do only, or the church only? Specify they bring two outfits and no mobile phones etc etc. It really does strike me as quite extraordinary that hosts should be quite so insultingly prescriptive. One wonders how many shudderingly declined the invite with alacrity.
Somebody needs to remind the bridezillas that weddings are public events and all are entitled to witness the event. Not that long ago it was traditional to be married in the church entrance so that all could witness the event. Which is why so many small churches have a fairly large covered entrance. If it was good enough for John of Gaunt it is certainly good enough for those who’s loot has been acquired selling dubious tat to the stupid.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Foolish little sister believing she’s in the swim and proving she doesn’t get it at all.
One can only echo a comment I saw elsewhere on this subject, Tina:
“The mother must be proud to have married them both off to men of significant fortune. Mrs Bennett can now rest.”
Love the Austinesque crack. Spot on.
A sow in Prada is still a sow, pity the dress.
Strangely enough the dress was one of the few bright spots. Form fitting guipure lace with a high neck and a small back cut out was in the best possible taste and suited her figure. It was modest and suitable for an English country wedding. It was the excesses of the reception and guest list exhortations that offended.
I do not think she is a sow which has quite a different connotation, she was misguided, badly advised and allowed a competitive event to her sister’s wedding. Just plain silly and stupid, not that there is a lot of IQ lying around that family anyway, she is, unfortunately talentless, like her brother. What kind of moron tries to make a living from mail order cup cakes and stupid self evident books, I ask you!?
Tina.
I agree about the dress – it was perfect!
CO: In our vapid day and age, she appears to do reasonably well at it!
Haw, CO. Wind your neck in!
He’s a bit of a Jock and they have. I presume, agreed to go with our wedding traditions instead of yours.
Your time in Aberdeen was wasted if you never got off your face at a Scots wedding. It’s totally formulaic. Church wedding for close family and friends, Meal and speeches for as many as you can afford. Drunken dancing, for as long as possible, for everybody else that you really want to be there.
I agree that it was a cracking dress.
What about the fabled Scottish parsimony?
In many instances the “fabled Scottish parsimony” is just that – a fable. It certainly did not manifest itself at my wedding where my parents did us proud. It does of course manifest itself in me offering our daughter bus tickets to Gretna Green. But then “chacun a son goût”.
I do agree with Christina that some of the guests, such as Roger Federer, were simply trophy guests. They didn’t invite the Scottish tennis player, or maybe they did and he sensibly declined. I have to say I’d never heard of many of the “slebs”. Donna Air? Who she? But then I am very ignorant of most of the Z-listers.
The whole thing was an exercise in extravagant vulgarity. The real gentry (and there aren’t many ) don’t rate ostentation.
Sheona: Some years ago the formerly great Telegraph published an article about the most generous — and the stingiest — places in the United Kingdom. Scotland was ranked as the most generous by far. London was the most parsimonious.