The wedding dress that left a blushing bride exposed at the altar

New Posts

And just like the dress, her marriage is now falling apart - the couple, whose wedding was in 2006, is now separated.
 
People are making comments like "Bummer" :crazy:

The bride filed two law suits. First she is suing the gown designer for 20,000 pounds. Sorry, that suit should be thrown out and the bride should pay for the expenses. (I'll explain in a moment)

The second suit is to the shop where she bought the gown for 23,000 euros. The dress tore along the back waste alteration, where the shop had altered the dress. The problem is that the altering came unstiched, not that the gown was porely made to start with.

I have to admit, it would be humiliating to be saying your vows and to have your dress split so it exposes your bum. It will be a funny story in 10 years.

The happy couple has seperated. I guess he found out pretty quickly what the angry side of her is like.
 
I think the whole congregation saw another side to her. :behind: It sort of redefines the term 'blushing bride' doesn't it? :blushing: Man, I bet her cheeks were red. All four of them. But seriously guys, we shouldn't make her the butt of our jokes. :butthead:
 
That would have been the mother of all wardrobe malfunctions. Hope she gets to the bottom of it. :behind:
 
that pic is just skanky....what a skanky dress:bang:
 
Just a word on a part of the story:

The Carry On-style incident happened at Chiavari on the Italian Riviera, close to where Wayne Rooney tied the knot last month with Coleen McLoughlin - who wore a £200,000 Marchesa gown.

More fool Coleen McLoughlin for paying £200,000 ($397,839.73 ) for a frickin' dress, for gawd's sake! :no::no::no:
 
Ciara said:
that pic is just skanky....what a skanky dress:bang:
Click to expand...

What the devil are YOU doing up at this time of night? :eek:

it's 1:39 a.m. there, for goodness sake.

hang on — that must mean it's 2:39 a.m. here where i am! :eek:

:D
 
Here's another view:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468//126645.jpg

Or how about this one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468//7218.jpg

And then there's this, which I'm at a loss to explain:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468//126641.jpg
Click to expand...

At least everyone sees what the bridegroom's gettin'. :clap::clap::clap:
 
Floh said:
What the devil are YOU doing up at this time of night? :eek:

it's 1:39 a.m. there, for goodness sake.

hang on — that must mean it's 2:39 a.m. here where i am! :eek:

:D
Click to expand...

The Devil's in the Details Floh:crazy::crazy::crazy:
 
No way would I EVER be seen dressed like that and no way should they be allowed in a Church dressed like that(assuming they were getting married in a Church). I would lock my daughter up if she attempted to wear such trash on her wedding day. I cant believe anyone even MADE them never mind that anyone would wear them:bang:
 
Here's another view:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468//126645.jpg

Or how about this one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468//7218.jpg

And then there's this, which I'm at a loss to explain:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468//126641.jpg
Click to expand...

The first pic boggles my mind. I did laugh at all of the guys in the background ogling.
The last pic looks as if the chick is wearing a hoop skirt and was trying to get up onto the ledge of a fountain for pictures and someone took advantage of her dishabille. :)
 
I think the bride should not only sue the person responsible for the alterations (regardless if they are still together)...but I think she should be given a hefty settlement. The bride was exposed unintentionally and for the price she paid for the dress there should not have been any problems. The humiliation she must have experienced due to someone's faulty work should be addressed. It was shoddy and unprofessional.

As far as those photos that posted....Hahahahahaha~ I guess that is what you get when you marry hookers or strippers. Would that be considered part of an "indecent proposal"?!
 
SeriouslySearching said:
I think the bride should not only sue the person responsible for the alterations (regardless if they are still together)...but I think she should be given a hefty settlement. The bride was exposed unintentionally and for the price she paid for the dress there should not have been any problems. The humiliation she must have experienced due to someone's faulty work should be addressed. It was shoddy and unprofessional.

As far as those photos that posted....Hahahahahaha~ I guess that is what you get when you marry hookers or strippers. Would that be considered part of an "indecent proposal"?!
Click to expand...
Oh man i agreeee
 
Floh said:
Just a word on a part of the story:

The Carry On-style incident happened at Chiavari on the Italian Riviera, close to where Wayne Rooney tied the knot last month with Coleen McLoughlin - who wore a £200,000 Marchesa gown.

More fool Coleen McLoughlin for paying £200,000 ($397,839.73 ) for a frickin' dress, for gawd's sake! :no::no::no:
Click to expand...

Floh, if the 'dress' is anything like the pictures we have seen than it's not a dress. It's more like a lace belt held up with some lacy shoelaces. And that's the bottom :behind: line. (I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.)
 
If your wedding dress looks like ANY of those in the pictures... it should NOT be in white. ;-) (And I agree, definitely, not in a church!)

Now... if the wedding dress looks like that... the man ought to be in a silk speedo. I mean, we're all about equality nowdays, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 206 more.
Total: 4,481 (members: 207, guests: 4,274)

Online statistics

Members online
207
Guests online
4,274
Total visitors
4,481
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,752
Messages
17,958,426
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top