whaaattt??

[jenthompson]

Okay, so I follow the FIDM blog, and I saw their posts about wedding dresses from the Larson Collection today. I usually don't question their facts, but what the hell is going on with the 2 Victorian dresses? Please educate me if I'm wrong, but those are not wedding dresses. The 60's one looks like a ball gown, and the 80's one looks like a court presentation dress. (don't even get me started on provenance - that sort of "evidence" is so full of human error that I rarely trust it) Everything that I've ever seen about Victorian wedding dresses tells me that they always had sleeves... just like royal wedding dresses still do today. Maybe these are alternate bodices that were switched out after the church ceremony, but they were still part of the wedding festivities. There are lots of photos of royals in sleeveless bodiced "wedding gowns", but most of those were taken after the wedding, so who knows if they were the same gowns worn at the church or for dinners and dancing after the ceremony. But I've never seen anything from a period source that led me to believe that a Victorian woman would wear a sleeveless bodice for her actual wedding dress. These tarted up bodices seems quite scandalous for a holy matrimony!

Am I wrong about this one? I'd love to learn something new if I am, so please feel free to correct me. I just feel like this FIDM post is misleading, and it annoys me if it is.