Jump to content


Photo

Winston Churchill's Wedding


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 April 2009 - 11:43 PM

Interestingly, he was panned by the Tailor and Cutter:

Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

September 20, 1908, Sunday

Section: PART THREE Special Cable News Section, Page C1, 228 words

LONDON, Sept. 19. -- Winston Churchill achieved the distinction of wearing at his marriage a coat which in the opinion of the editor of The Tailor and Cutter was "one of the greatest failures as a wedding garment we have ever seen. The coat was too long and too heavy as a morning coat and too short and skimpy as a frock. It gave the wearer a sort of glorified coachman appearance."

http://query.nytimes...96F9C946997D6CF

Here are some photographs of the event:

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn3661077



What Churchill wore that day was a single breasted frock coat. They were popular around the time, and often made up single button to close with links.



Somehow, one cannot help but agree with the Tailor and Cutter in saying it isn't exactly the finest example of this style of garment. This one from Prince George is much finer:





#2 NJS

NJS

    Journeyman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South America

Posted 24 April 2009 - 12:31 AM

He often did better than this - in fact, it is surprisingly skimped.
<b></b>NJS<b></b>

#3 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 24 April 2009 - 12:34 AM

Yes, I agree this is out of character.

#4 NJS

NJS

    Journeyman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South America

Posted 24 April 2009 - 12:58 AM

Moreover, the hat looks a little too high.
<b></b>NJS<b></b>

#5 I.Brackley

I.Brackley

    Apprentice

  • Senior Apprentice
  • PipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:History, art theory, subculture anthropology

Posted 24 April 2009 - 06:03 PM

Hmmmmm....hmm..... hmm.png Not sure how I feel about this one and I'm a great fan of body coats, frocks in particular. I like the notion of the SB day frock. It carries both the patrician length of the Prince Albert with the youthful casualness of, say a slimly cut lounge. Depending on one's viewpoint it contains either the best or worst of both worlds.
I think the great objection here is with the coat being worn in this context - FAR to casual for a wedding in 1908. The apparent lack of silk reverse compounds this.
On the upside he certainly is subdued enough so as not to detract from the radient apearance of Mrs. Churchill without being outright shabby.
"The possibilities that exist in the portrayal of personality constitute the strongest, and in fact the only unanswerable argument for the supremacy of Custom Tailoring"

-F.T. Croonborg, c. 1917

#6 Frog in Suit

Frog in Suit

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris

Posted 26 April 2009 - 08:10 PM

For my own edification, what would have been considered correct at that time? Morning suit with striped trousers? Frock coat (black or striped trousers?)? Would a wedding always take place at a certain time of day?

Frog in Suit
Frog in Suit

#7 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:54 PM

By the Edwardian era it had become considered preferable, according to T.H. Holding, to wear the frock coat open. If you look carefully, these examples of "single breasted" frocks are actually finished with a button configuration like double breasted coats. In other words, like dress coats, they began to be cut to be worn open.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users