I still fail to understand why this photo is a 'such a display of wealth'. Perhaps I might quietly mention that I've actually seen other CPs dressed formally, as well, on occasions.
If I were asked to offer some categorisation and justification for the photograph I'd suggest that it's post-modern; that is, it looks back on Modernism, takes it apart and critically examines Modernist assumptions. It then incorporates these reflections as a kind of ornamentation and elaboration on the idea being expressed. The idea being expressed here, I would suggest, is the permanence or otherwise of monarchical stability.
Look at the photo again. What we see, centre-first, is the Crown Prince and Princess, both smiling, with the Princess' gathered skirt held on her stomach, directly referring to a very famous, celebrated marriage portrait, which is 600 years old. They are assured of their prominence and acceptance in the world's present which consolidates the past.
Then consider the placement of the children, which, I could suggest, is very much the sub-texted purpose of the photograph and presages the future, particularly in concert with ever- changing and renewal postions of royalty, symbolised by the removalist boxes. Christian is, by contemporary necessity, behind his parents, but he's also above them, and is also standing proudly on the accoutrements of gathered possessions, i.e. he is above them, too; they will have no domination over him.
Isabella poses away from them all, and what a pose it is! She's cheerful-looking and presents as a separate, distinctly confident little girl, hands-on-hips if you don't mind (!) stating, quite explicity, that she may not be the centre of the hereditary monarchy, but she's very much her own little person and has no problem with that! She is the Princess Isabella!
Both children, together with Mary's pregnancy address the future of the Royal Family.
My opinion is that this portrait is so determinedly C21 and comments on the very idea of monarchy so adroitly and wittily, that it is bound to become a classic. Indeed, one professor of Fine Arts has already said that the photograph is, artistically speaking, a very important one. I thought so, too, from the very first I saw it.
If you don't get the photos (and I particularly admire the one of Mary in red) then you just don't get them. However, they're hardly representative of anything to do with the shocking global financial failures caused by corrupt business practices, just as CP Victoria's lavish wedding celebrations weren't, either. Or, for that matter, the current extensive (and expensive?) holidays of the Norways and the Oranges.
As for 'celebrity' versus 'royalty', the distinction is necessarily blurring these days, and it's inevitable, I say. These criticisms are reminiscent of the brouhaha surrounding Prince Philip's granting an in-depth interview to a journalist on one of the Sunday newspapers (shock/horror!) and Zara's appearing in paid advertisements (good grief! how infra dig!) All reflect the realities of today's world. The world changes and everyone, even royalty, must adapt or lose out and fade away.
To use this elegant and beautiful spread of photos as a weapon to criticise CP Mary, alone, is as unjustified as it is transparent. She's a seemingly pleasant-natured, attractive woman, whose background is solid, educated middle-class, and whose near relatives have not been accused of crimes against humanity, nor seedy, adulturous sexual exploits; she was not previously married before her wedding to Frederik, nor has she been accused of an unsavoury past, herself.
I am still a-waiting presentation of the specific charges against her which might warrant the continuing harassment of this particular Crown Princess.
