I did not know that. Now I understand the merit of the picture of the Dutch royals which I thought was a terribly wooden picture, like puppets in bad lighting, did not understand how it could qualify at all. But we all like different things, there are more pictures that I think are
(the mother and child in millitary uniform) but others liked them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
That, largely, is what we've been trying to do, and partly why we started the unofficial polls which give scope for candid photos and other baby and toddler pics. The first year of the poll, where we didn't have these restrictions, it was just cute baby after cute baby after cute toddler after loving looks after silly mugging for the camera, to the point where you wouldn't have had a clue that this was supposed to be a forum about royalty. And when the photo of the year - the ROYAL photo of the year, mind you - ended up being a picture of a toddler smeared with birthday cake, we decided it was time to do something about it.
This is why cute kids are only in the official photos when they're part of an official event and the photo shows the actual event and not just the cute kids. Same for photos of loving couples - as long as they're part of an official event and it isn't just an "awwww, innit cuuuute" moment. So as far as I'm concerned, I'd be perfectly happy to do away with pictures of cute kids from the official photos. It's really depressing when a photo, for example, of the Queen in full Garter rig gets two votes because there's another photo of Princess Whosit chewing on her stuffed bunny on her second birthday and it gets 50 votes because "awwww, innit cuuuute." TRF isn't about "awwwww, innit cuuuute," it's about royalty.
|