Official Portraits of the Duke and/or Duchess of Cambridge and Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Paint by Numbers

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: The so-call "warm" portrait looks like a paint-by-numbers kit.
 
I also prefer the first portrait to the second.

Given the very poor reception the first portrait received, it's surprising that the Telegraph reports that postcards of the portrait are the fastest-selling item in the history of the National Portrait Gallery's permanent collection. Some people must like it if they're willing to pay for a postcard of it!
 
The second portrait looks, to me, like a drawing for a comic book. Or a paint-by-number project. I kinda feel sorry for the artist. She wanted to show the world that she could do better than the original, and she's getting criticism instead.
 
I just don not understand why it is so difficult to paint Catherine without making her look 10 years older and full of wrinkles. Even this " warm " look makes her look much older. I can not say that I love one of them but I must admit that this second attempt is at least a slight bit better than the painting. For the love of god, can someone just paint her the way she actually looks? I hope in the future they get it right.
 
Perhaps what is wrong with them is their reality. If I saw either of the portraits in a gallery, I'd know who it was. Also, I would not consider either of them ugly. They simply look like Kate...not fantasy.
 
I wonder when we will get a formally dressed official portrait.
Or isn't that done anymore in the BRF?

I hope to see Catherine with the Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara while being the Duchess of Cambridge.
 
:previous:
Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara? Is it one and the same? I thought there was the Cambridge tiara belonging to the Queen (used the last time last week for the irish state visit) and used with pearls or emeralds, and the Lovers Knot tiara, once blonging to Qu. Mary and inherited by the current Queen, then passed over to Princess Diana. Or am I mixing things up here?

When it comes to official portraits, it seems to be unusual these days to "dress up" in almost every royal family (may be with the exception of Denmark). I cannot recall any "formally dressed up" painting of Prss Letizia, Mette-Marit or Haakon or even the now King and Queen of the Netherlds. and Belgium. CPss Victoria and her husband have been photographed "formally dressed", but painted? Don´t remember...
One of the reasons might be that in the old days, Royals or the court had very strict imaginations about how a portrait should look like; it was meant to demonstrate status, royal dignity and power. Today painters are often allowed of experimenting much more how THEY would like the Royal to be portrayed. "Formally dressed" portraits (long dress, orders, tiara, uniform, stuff like that) seem to have an aura of "stiff stuffiness" these days. And what modern painter likes to have a reputation as painting "stuffy" paintings...!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Queen's tiara last week was the Grand Duchess Vladamir tiara which can be used with emeralds or pearls.
(usually pearls are used)

The official name for Queen Mary's lovers knot tiara is the Cambridge Lovers Knot and yes, it was used by Diana when she was Princess of Wales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm guessing that Catherine will use the Cambridge Lover's Knot Tiara at some point. It hasn't been seen since Diana last wore it in the 90's.
 
And it does match the title so nicely!
 
Kate's already got an official portrait, which is fitting for the wife of the son of the Prince of Wales. We probably won't see a portrait of her wearing a tiara until she's officially Princess of Wales. Remember, when Charles becomes King, William won't automatically become Prince of Wales.
 
Remember, when Charles becomes King, William won't automatically become Prince of Wales.[/QUOTE]


Not?!:ermm:
 
:previous: Yes, not. He will have to be "created" Prince of Wales by his father, the King. Prince Charles was not created Prince of Wales until July 1958 when he was nearly 10 years old, and his investiture was in July 1969 when he was 21.

Charles, Prince of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well, of course... But we can assume the current Pr o Wales to do so, can´t we?
If Charles will ever succeed to the throne, William is at least 40.
The then king won´t hardly wait for some further years to create his 40-something year old son PoW!
When Edward VII came to the throne in 1901, he created his son George, DoYork, PoW. The same when George V succeeded in 1910 (Edwd., PoWales was, as you will know, invested a month after his parents coronation at Caernarfon). Before that, every oldest son of the monarch was always the Prince of Wales, even in childhood.
I don´t know if Edward VII or George V, for instance, waited days or weeks after the death of the old monarch (perhaps being announced after the court mourning?) to create the successor Prince of Wales; but no new King/ Queen seemed to have thought IF they made the oldest male child PoW - it happened, all these centuries, in any case!
Even George I, who knowingly detested his eldest son, created him PoW after his succession to the british throne.

I certainly knew about Charles becoming PoW when he was 10 and his investiture in 1969!
But, other than Charles´case, we´re not talking about a boy here, William is a grown-up family father...
Prince Charles, a traditionalist, will assumingly not be the first monarch since the 14th century to suddenly interrupt the practice I described above.
So, in that respect it is, more or less, "automatically".
 
Last edited:
When Edward VII came to the throne in 1901, he created his son George, DoYork, PoW. The same when George V succeeded in 1910 (Edwd., PoWales was, as you will know, invested a month after his parents coronation at Caernarfon). Before that, every oldest son of the monarch was always the Prince of Wales, even in childhood.
I don´t know if Edward VII or George V, for instance, waited days or weeks after the death of the old monarch (perhaps made public after the court mourning?) to create the successor Prince of Wales; but no new King/ Queen seemed to have thought IF they made the oldest male child PoW - it happened, all these centuries, in any case!
Even George I, who knowingly detested his eldest son, created him PoW after his succession to the british throne.
Edward VII waited over ten months to create the future George V Prince of Wales - from January 22, 1901 until his birthday on November 9. Some believed it was to give the public the chance to think of him as King and to avoid confusion - after all, he had been Prince of Wales for 59 years - and a few members of the family wondered if he would do so at all. George was known as "Duke of Cornwall and York" (and "Duke of Rothsay" in Scotland) until then. George V didn't wait as long, only nine weeks, before creating the future Edward VIII Prince of Wales in 1910.

As was pointed out above, Prince Charles was known as "The Duke of Cornwall" from his mother's accession in 1952 until he was created Prince of Wales in 1958. As he will probably have been Prince for nearly as long (or longer!) than Edward VII, he may also wait for a little while to create William Prince of Wales who will thus be "Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge" ("Rothsay" in Scotland) immediately on his father's accession.
 
originally Posted by LauraS3514
As was pointed out above, Prince Charles was known as "The Duke of Cornwall" from his mother's accession in 1952 until he was created Prince of Wales in 1958. As he will probably have been Prince for nearly as long (or longer!) than Edward VII, he may also wait for a little while to create William Prince of Wales who will thus be "Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge" ("Rothsay" in Scotland) immediately on his father's accession [/QUOTE]



As I was pointing out above Prince Charles, other than his eldest son, was a small boy at his mother´s accession. So I think this is a big difference concerning the politics of creating a successor PoW these days while in the old days even young kids were created with this title, simply because they were the eldest son of the monarch.
How long Charles will wait creating his own son PoW is pure speculation; The obvious 10 months E VII took to create the D o York PoW, is also a considerably short period of time as it took place even before the coronation of the King (that´s what I call "created PoW after the new King´s accession") at the beginning of the new reign.
But we can assume it will happen at some point between the Queen´s death and the new King´s coronation.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with this thread....
 
This has nothing to do with this thread....


True. But one subject lead to the next. And I felt obliged to put some things, who were not quite correct from my point of view, straight.
By the way, we often see off-topic "royal-dresses-discussions" at threads dealing with matters completely different while special threads for royal gowns and wardrobes also do exist.:whistling:
 
Last edited:
Funny! :lol::lol:

Is it sad that I recognized almost every single outfit and what event she attend when wearing said outfit?

That's such an excellent question. I remember all the outfits. And in some cases I can remember the setting for the occasion (rain, train, with the Queen, etc. Sadly, I cannot remember most of the charities! So you are way more worthy of life than I am. Clearly, I am wasting the air I breathe. LOL :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom