You are reading

A Royal Wedding! All the Details on Princess Stephanie’s Nuptials, From the Gown to the Hats

  • Over the weekend, Countess Stephanie of Belgium and Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg married in a lavish two-day ceremony. Read on to see her gorgeous gown and the spectacular hats worn by some of the guests!

    Photo: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
  • The 28-year-old bride arrives at the Cathedral of our Lady of Luxembourg wearing a spectacular Elie Saab gown.

    Photo: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
  • The bride wore a simple tiara with a cathedral-length lace veil.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Here, a closer look at the lovely lace details on her veil.

    Photo: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
  • Like any good princess-to-be, the bride's dress featured a jaw-dropping train. 

    Photo: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
  • The bridesmaids wore soft peach-colored gowns with bow details at the back.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • The flower girls and ring bearers were decked out in bold blue and orange.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • After the ceremony, the dashing bride and groom greeted their adoring public from a balcony.

    Photo: Andreas Rentz/Getty Images
  • Later in the evening, the bride changed into a chic white dress and matching wrap to watch the fireworks display held in honor of the royal couple.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Of course, this being a royal wedding, the hats on display among the wedding guests were worthy of a double-take. Here, Princess Maxima of the Netherlands dons a feathered confection. 

    Photo: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
  • Princess Marie Chantal of Greece wears an architectural gray fascinator. 

    Photo: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
  • Countess Diane of Nassau wears a bold scarlet fascinator.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Princess Victoria of Sweden's hat featured loads of tulle and delicate flowers. 

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Countess Luisa de Lannoy wore one of the event's more avant garde headpieces -- a sculptural ribbon with little feathers. 

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Nathalie Hamilton also opted for a tulle headpiece in a moody shade of purple.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Princess Sophie of Wessex wore a sweeping black topper, embellished with feathers.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Princess Caroline of Hanover sported a tulle-topped confection that matched her taupe dress. 

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Princess Maertha Louise of Norway also opted for neutral tones, wearing a chic dark gray hat with a silvery dress. 

    Photo: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
  • Princess Tessy of Luxembourg was also a vision in gray in this dramatic headpiece.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
  • Countess Alice de Lannoy wore a bright red hat whose silhouette resembled a simple sun hat—albeit with a dash of whimsy, courtesy of a few well-placed feathers.

    Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

A Royal Wedding! All the Details on Princess Stephanie’s Nuptials, From the Gown to the Hats

A Royal Wedding! All the Details on Princess Stephanie’s Nuptials, From the Gown to the Hats

1762 Shares
A Royal Wedding! All the Details on Princess Stephanie’s Nuptials, From the Gown to the Hats
20 Start slideshow

While Kate Middleton and Prince William may have had one of the most publicized royal weddings in history, a ceremony took place this weekend in Luxembourg that was just as spectacular.

Countess Stephanie of Belgium (now Princess Stephanie) married Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg in a dazzling two-day ceremony, wearing a jaw-dropping Elie Saab gown which featured a cathedral-length veil and a train for days. True to form, the guests—many of them royalty themselves—put on their best finery (and their most elaborate hats!) to celebrate the royal couple.

Here, get a peek at all of the elaborate fanfare surrounding the big day—from the bride’s gown to the flower girls.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ng.courrege Nancy Gee

    At least she is called Countess Stephanie and not by her maiden name as the tabloids continue to with Catherine (i,e, Kate Middleton, who ever that is). It’s a losing battle.

    Just thought I’d share:

    “Kate Middleton and her husband Prince William are not visiting Ireland. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are, to use their correct titles. Please show some respect.”

    Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton-to-visit-Ireland-in-2014-193249941.html#ixzz2MPmHVFo2

    • Roger Sanz

      She is called Countess Stephanie because she was born a countess, she is of nobel birth; Unlike our beloved Catherine, a commoner. The media calls Catherine by her maiden name because that’s how we began to call her before she was married and it’s simply just ‘stuck’ and makes it seem as if she is still the catherine that we knew before she married and because the duchess.

      • isa

        better than will-kate wedding……

      • fourscoreandseven

        Roger (and Nancy): While I agree with you 100%, and prefer that everyone get every title and name and spelling correct at all times, I have reflected on this (referring to the Duchess as “Kate Middleton”) business for a long time, and, I fear, that “long time” is the answer!!!

        When a Royal meets someone who might “be the one,” Buckingham Palace controls the timing, and it is set so that the people are allowed to “get used to the notion of the intended” and then there is a ceremony. However, with the new media (and the Internet) and modern technology, we were “introduced” to “Kate Middleton” YEARS AND YEARS AGO. (I learned, at one point, that she was called “Waity-Katy” because of the length of time she had to wait for him.) They met in their first year of college, and had, in fact, “dated” for about 10 years and that is a LONG TIME in any relationship. Yes, there was a breakup of some months, but they seemed so well suited that most folks hoped for a reconciliation. I now suspect that the “business” that his mother put him through was very much more troublesome than I had thought. He really did need time to make certain he was not making a mistake. But, while they waited, they LIVED together and it was “troublesome” also that she allowed him to “play house” with her without the benefit of marriage. Yes, I know that it is “a modern way” but it is still not the best practice. Anyway, all is right now, but I still suspect that there is a bit of “casualness” as a RESULT of THEIR casualness. IOW, we knew her as Kate the college mate, and then Kate the girlfriend, then Kate the intended, then Kate his common-law wife, and now, finally, the future Queen consort (if they stay married). I truly believe that IF he had married her within a few months of their graduation from college, she would have been looked at with more formality. But, the fact that she, and her family, welcomed William through thick and thin, at all times, and TREATED him as a son-in-law BEFORE he was one, has left her a bit “marked” as not being as serious as we might have hoped for the future King of England. Yes, people love her, and this is not really a criticism of Kate the Duchess, but at the notion that she was Kate for 10 years (and we saw her all of those years) and now we are having to call her by a completely foreign name. As if she suddenly went through a catharsis or a chrysalis that WE did not see, now matter how lovely the gown and ceremony. They had come from a home where they had lived as common-law and that is more difficult to dislodge than I had anticipated at the time. Folks will learn to see her differently, but it will take time. It’s a matter of having things “both ways” and there is resistance to that notion.

    • Sheila

      @Nancy, the difference is Countess Stephanie was already royalty when she married Prince Guillaume, and Kate Middelton was not royalty before she married Prince William,,,,and to be honest, who the heck needs these Royals???? They are not worth the money that is spent to keep them…..

      • Tina

        jealous much :)

      • Carla Tee

        I am so sickened by all the attention that Princess Kate is getting. There is only ONE Princess of the people and that was Diana. She showed us not all princesses have a happily ever after and was used for her innocence and charm to the thrones advantage while Prince whats his name was fooling around with Camilla his whole life. They used her and threw her away, but she handled it with grace and dignity. She moved on and the world moved on with HER. The monarchy didn’t have the shine of her grace to make it appealing. I think the monarchy is trying to “remake” a new Diana with this young woman..She pales in comparison and will never live up to this image. Diana was the real deal. I think a lot of Britain’s try to believe in the resurrection of their BELOVED Diana, but I don’t see the outpouring of love for the people from Kate. Shes just about being seen in clothes and attending parties. Diana had dignity that you could not buy or market. She will always be THE Princess..No one really cares about Kate..shes a footnote..nothing more. As to Princess Stephanie..TOO beautiful for words. Regal and refined come to mind when I see her. I don’t know anything about her, but she fits the image of a real princess. Good luck to her and her Prince. I think I will be watching this union much more closely than Kate and William. I love love love her dress. Breathtaking…She reminds me of Diana…HER SHY SMILE is so reminiscent of her…On a side note. I don’t agree with the idea of nobility. Everyone is equal..no ones blood is better than anyoneelses. Its a shame that soooo much money that could aid the people of England in education, healthcare, etc is being wasted on the monarchy. How much money is spent on a garden party? How many school programs could be aided by that money? I just see so much being wasted by a few when it can help out so many. Does this make sense to any one or is it just me?

      • Jacqueline

        This is a royal wedding in the true sense of the term meaning two people from royalty joining in matrimony. Which mean Luxembourg & Belgian bring add their customs & ceremony to the event. I’m o.k with monarchies there’s no pretense that the society doesn’t have a hierarchy. Royalty is deeply tied to a nation’s history. These are the descendants of the tribes & persons who shaped, contributed, founded & guided a nation through governing. These families administered the governments for better or worse. Many so called democracies practice all kinds of injustices, class prejudice & discrimination. A society is only as good as those who govern it. I always aware of the truth that in (Heaven) the government of GOD is a monarchy— not a social or capitalist democracy.

      • fourscoreandseven

        Sheila: SORRY but I simply cannot let your comment stand, since it is incorrect. You said “the Royals aren’t worth the money they are paid.” Please, please, take a course in economics. Anytime you “spend” MILLIONS to obtain a return in the BILLIONS, you have made an EXCELLENT TRADE!!! The average Brit pays approximately 62 cents per year to maintain the Royal Family. Yet, the return they get, in their wages paid, reflects MANY TIMES that amount. Trust me, without the Royals, your island would just be a tiny piece of real estate with bad weather and bad food and bad clothing and bad teeth and mediocre autos and a few castles. Certainly NOTHING to visit for; France and Italy and Spain and Germany have much better “stuff.”

      • fourscoreandseven

        Carla Tee: IT IS JUST YOU!!!!

        There is so much nonsense in your post that it is impossible to credit. And, replying to your “misinformation” with the truth would only hurt William and Catherine (and Diana’s memory) and there is no point in doing that.

        Let’s just say that “pretending” things that were never so, is a sickness. It does not benefit any of the principals; and sycophants need to learn the things that are off bounds; including lies and glittering generalities. Prince Charles is Prince William’s father. They are very close. Insulting one’s father is simply not nice. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, is Prince William’s wife. They are very close. Insulting one’s wife is simply not nice.

        Many years from now, if everything continues as planned, there will a king named George VII. He will have been named for his great-great Grandfather, George VI, father of his Great-Grandmother, Elizabeth II. He will not want to hear that his mother, Queen Catherine, “wasn’t much” and “didn’t measure up.” WHY? For one reason, Diana was dead before he was born and little George will never remember her. In contrast, he WILL most probably, remember his Grandfather Charles and his Grandmother Camilla, and his Grandfather Michael and his Grandmother Carole. (What ever they are called.) I remember my grandparents as SAINTS and would never have hear a word against them. I’m sure George will be the same. And, he will LOVE Camilla, and there isn’t a thing that anyone can say, that will change his mind.

      • http://AOL.COM DARCH

        you are 100% RIGHT.

    • beyondliberal

      These people got married months ago. Now it’s in the news?
      Slow day.

  • Katherine

    I love how they refer to the Duchess of Cambridge as “Kate Middleton”, but Countess Sophie, wife of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, is referred to as “Princess Sophie of Wessex”. She’s “technically” not a Princess anymore than the Duchess of Cambridge is. Her correct title would be “Countess Sophie” or “Princess Edward” as the Duchess Catherine could be called Princess William. And she’s of even more “common birth” than Duchess Catherine!!!

    Such double standards and BS.

    • Vange

      Prince Edward’s wife can be called a Princess because he is married to a Prince son of the Queen. If Prince Charles becomes a King then Catherine can then be called a Princess…

      • Vange

        Prince Edward’s wife can be called a Princess because she is married to a Prince son of the Queen. If Prince Charles becomes a King then Catherine can then be called a Princess…

      • Chad Keeter

        That is incorrect. Wives of sons and grandsons of the reigning monarch are entitlled to be styled as a Royal Highness and princess by courtesy. When/if Charles ascends the throne, the only thing that will change is that she will be “The” Princess William as opposed to just Princess William now. I know it’s practical to call her Kate, but it is an insult nonetheless. We should address and refer to her in the way royal protocol dictates.

      • Rachel Garber

        I’m sorry, but you are wrong about Prince Edward’s wife. I checked Wikipedia, and her titles are The Princess Edward, and the Countess of Wessex. Interestingly, even though Prince Andrew’s daughters are princesses, Edward’s children are Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor. Princess Anne, the Princess Royal did not want her children to have titles and therefore they are considered commoners. They are not listed as part of the Royal House of England. As far as referring to Catherine, Duchess of Cornwall, an Irish newspaper, (that is part of the UK) refers to her as Kate Middleton, as well as we Americans (newspapers, that is) Commenting on Carla Tee’s comments, (there is no reply option, sorry) I think Prince William would be very offended by her remarks about his wife. He loved his mother dearly, but he is in love with his wife, and showed his love for and wish to connect her with his mother, by giving her his mother’s engagement ring. I think it is the media, paps, blogs, etc that have taken to comparing her to Diana, not the Royals, but frankly, I can’t imagine that Prince William would be offended that the woman he loves is compared to his beloved mother.

    • Sarah M

      Workingclass at birth Katherine Middleton is never a princess in marriage.Workingclass doen’t come with royal titles.So ,she just another Wallace Simpson.Consort Katherine Middleton to William is not even a princess to William .Is a nontitle for a workingclass with no royal bloodlines. Stephanie is royal birth Countess so it is allowed and makes sense .To Hrh Princess Stephanie than a consort to William Katherine Middleton terms are not real titles or her son George …

    • Joan

      You people are so jealous it’s pitiful.

      • fourscoreandseven

        Joan: The art of argument (which most of us learned in college level English 101 or high school debate class) allows us to say anything we like about the subject matter (royal weddings in this case; the author included British royals), but attacks against other posters are ad hominem attacks and are not allowed. People are ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION (free speech in the USA, Canada, and the UK) without being scolded by other posters. I have seen NO evidence of “jealousy” (which has a very specific definition, which no one has expressed) and for you to assume a high horse, from which to “lecture” those who do not express that which YOU approve of, is uncalled for. We are NOT required to please you! However, we are ALL required to allow others to express themselves without criticism of their opinion. (If you have facts that dispute their facts, certainly, let us know the facts they have wrong, since that is objective and there are no such things as subjective facts.) IOW, we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

    • http://yahoo.com wendy

      Oh good…. a place to reply to another’s comments…. I have NEVER heard Camilla being referred to as George’s “grandmother.” Even at the birth announcement and press stories, Prince Charles, the grandfather and Camilla! Let’s keep it that way. She is NOT that child’s grandmother.

  • Kyle

    she looks pregnant but they look happy.

    • https://www.facebook.com/sue.clarke.5688 Sue Clarke

      She’s 48 years old – I don’t think she is pregnant. I think this is her 3rd marriage.

      • crott..

        the picture said she is 28…

      • fourscoreandseven

        Sue: I believe you are confusing Countess Stephanie of Belgium with Princess Stephanie of Monaco (who really is an old mess, like the rest of her siblings).

        Two different people; this little gal was born in 1984, Grace and Albert’s brat was born in 1965.

  • Mari

    Wow that is one beautiful gown!! Gorgeous

  • http://People.com Bonnie

    Her gown is beautiful but is kind of ” matronly ” looking and she looks like she could have used one more fitting before the wedding because it looks a tad too big on her . But then, like most brides, nerves set in and the appetite goes away, so always get a last fitting at the latest, a week before the wedding. But ALL brides are Radiant and Beautiful on their wedding day. Congratulations and hope you both enjoy a long and very happy life together!

  • http://People.com Bonnie

    I take it back. If anything, the dress looks a little snug at the waist . Maybe there is a good reason? And it probably IS just me, but the color is not that flattering but gee, I couldn’t afford that dress in a million years so if someone let Me wear it, heck Yes I’d wear it . Probably Everywhere : ) !! But the dress isn’t the most important thing in a starting of a new life with someone you love. The Wedding Industry want you to Think it is so you or your parents will plunk down almost quarter of a years salary ( on average for commoners ) on making their first, second, third, etc. wedding perfect. Boy I sound cynical–Sorry !

    • http://fearlessstoryteller.wordpress.com fearlessstoryteller

      Agreed Bonnie…It’s dingiest shade of white I’ve ever seen for a wedding dress. It just looks dirty to me, even in the bright sunlight photos. Wonder what they were trying for.

      • fourscoreandseven

        fearless: I’ve looked at many sets of pictures and I think I’ve found the answer. The bride seems to have a proclivity for silver. For her “civil” wedding, she had on a simple (well cut) white suit with silver and turquoise trim and silver shoes. Her “banquet” gown was a floor length dress (with long sleeves and a scalloped top) in solid silver lace that really shines. Her wedding dress is also lace, but with a boat cut neck and three quarter sleeves, but shot thorough with silver threads, and those threads cause it to look “dingy” in bright light. Under artificial light, it looks better, simply because it is clearly a white dress with silver accents shot through the fabric. Too bad that a beautiful dress photographs so poorly in natural light. It probably looked “subtle” in a small swatch, or “appropriate” in a shop light, but was not so great as a large piece in natural night.

    • Esma O. Dupree

      The gown she is wearing shows that she has class. That is something that very few young or old females do not seem to have these days. She is also poised and regal looking in the gown.

      I too would be classier today if I didn’t say that I wish the Prince would shave the fuzz he’s hiding behind. He would have looked so much more handsome. The uniform is most becoming.

      • fourscoreandseven

        Esma: Agree! I will be so glad when modern brides decide they need to COVER UP! Lace dresses are timeless. The dress that Grace Kelly wore, when she married Prince Albert of Monaco, could be worn today. (Today’s modern brides show no shame over their “fat ruffles” and buy those “bathing suit tops”
        and allow the fat to hang over the tops of their dresses.)

    • Mary Patterson

      Not cynical, just realistic!!

  • http://Stylecaster Laura H. Salovitch

    The Countess Alice de Lannoy’s hat is described as being bright red. Unless my video monitor is on the fritz, it appears pastel pink to me.

    • http://www.jaynehubbell@wordpress.com jayne hubbell

      I agree. It did not look red at all. Why would they describe her hat as red when it looks pink. Could they be color blind perhaps.

  • http://Yahoo.com Kathy

    Now, this hat is beautiful

  • Jen

    In the U.S., we tend to “take to” certain celebrity figures, and in so doing we like to connect with them. An example of this includes calling them by a nickname, or, in the case of the Duchess of Cambridge, calling her by her maiden name of “Kate Middleton”. No disrespect is meant to the English system of royal proper names; we simply like her. That’s all.

  • Richard Phelps

    So now Belgium will be incorporated into a Greater Luxembourg, right? ;-)

  • Deanna

    She’s 28? Looks older…like 38…

  • lovedoxies

    GORGEOUS, PERFECT,ELEGANT, CLASSY !! This is by far the best Royal Bride of all, she did not miss one element. The gorgeous dress, stunning veil, classy hair and veil combination, incredible flowers, understated, yet perfect jewels and tiara. She nailed it !!!

    • harryo666

      yes ! so gorgus ! everting the jewels and all so unbelievable ! oh just to see all the fantastik dresses and jewlry and all that in person would be heavenly- just heavenly ! may they be blessed forever and may the good Lord and Jesus always look after them ! oh so thrilling !

  • lovedoxies

    What on earth has happened to Princess Caroline ? She looks terrible, she looks about 20 years older than she is.

  • Lee Hopkins

    The most important is left behind, whether Commoner of Royal, they are all human.

  • https://www.facebook.com/decolehall Donald Earl Cole

    Carla Tee said it all……

  • Penny

    I know Countess Sophie of Wessex was mis-labelled as “Princess” (there are titles, and then there are conventions, and the convention with her is “Countess Sophie”, just as Kate Middleton is now “Duchess Catherine”), but Queen Maxima is labelled as a “Princess”, too. Whoopsies.

    • fourscoreandseven

      Penny: There is “style” and there is “styled.”

      When royals marry, the monarch bestows a “royal style” and that is how they will live the rest of their days (unless the monarch or another monarch makes a change). When Prince Edward married Sophie, he was STYLED an EARL. HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex! That “style” of Earl for Edward, created Sophie to be a Countess. She is HRH the Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. If she doesn’t like that “style” she can take it up with her MIL. And, his style (as Earl) also determines his children’s ranks and styles. [The Queen was mindful that a kingdom can be “overrun” by too many princes and princesses, and this was a “housekeeping” decision by Her Majesty (keeping the yearly budget in mind).

      Currently, the line goes to Prince Charles, then Prince William, then Prince George (with a regent) then Prince Harry, then Prince Andrew, then Princess Beatrice, then Princess Eugenie, then Prince Edward, then Princess Anne, and the Queen must have thought that 9 direct descendants (6 Princes and 3 Princesses), followed by (approximately 75) other British and Norwegian cousins was quite enough to secure the monarchy.

  • Ellen

    I think it is interesting, that here in America when a woman marries many take their husbands last name. There are also those who keep their name and hyphenate to their husbands. Why not call her by the given when she married, actually if we want to be correct isn’t it William and Catherine Duke and Duchess of Windsor? It seems to me Duchess Kate, would be correct. I wonder if Britain see these journalist as lacking common sense, and discards them.

blog comments powered by Disqus
share
Top