The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/)
-   -   The Duchess of Cambridge as Patron of the National Portrait Gallery (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/the-duchess-of-cambridge-as-patron-of-the-national-portrait-gallery-41720.html)

hernameispekka 02-26-2015 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1753593)
From CC 25th February:

The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron, National Portrait Gallery, this morning received Mr Sandy Nairne upon relinquishing his appointment as Director.

She is really going this year with the private engagements. Nice :)

Dman 10-21-2015 08:56 PM

Cepe Smith ‏@CepeSmith 2h2 hours ago
From CC 21/10 The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron, NPG,this afternoon rec'd Dr Nicholas Cullinan upon assuming his appointment as Director.1/2

Rudolph 04-30-2016 04:21 PM

VOGUE.CO.UK @BritishVogue
BREAKING NEWS: The Duchess of Cambridge is Vogue’s centenary issue cover star #Vogue100

https://twitter.com/BritishVogue/sta...01402864943106

Duchess of Cambridge Vogue Cover - Catherine Centenary Issue (Vogue.co.uk)

Princess of Durham 04-30-2016 04:27 PM

Very cute picture, however I think the makeup person went a bit too heavy on her eyebrows. They are heavy enough, they don't need adding too. What's with the current fashion of Neanderthal brows on all the "young things"? They are over doing it, IMO.

PetticoatLane 04-30-2016 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham (Post 1885179)
Very cute picture, however I think the makeup person went a bit too heavy on her eyebrows. They are heavy enough, they don't need adding too. What's with the current fashion of Neanderthal brows on all the "young things"? They are over doing it, IMO.

It's not really my preference but I can say, as a 31-year old British female, all my friends have a similar obsession with this kind of dark eyebrow. They all seem to spend hours talking about, comparing and experimenting with their eyebrows.

If nothing else, the cover is totally in line with the current British trend.

Rudolph 04-30-2016 04:36 PM

Kensington Palace ‏@KensingtonRoyal
HRH, Patron of @NPGLondon will visit the exhibition on 4 May to see the images on display in the gallery for the first time #Vogue100

Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal
Two portraits from the shoot were installed this evening @NPGLondon in Vogue 100: A Century of Style #Vogue100

https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/...02287116480512

Molly2101 04-30-2016 04:42 PM

I actually quite like the photos. Kate looks natural in them (minus of course all the photoshop.)

Lumutqueen 04-30-2016 05:06 PM

That cover is horrific, Catherine has been made to look like a waxwork.

tommy100 04-30-2016 05:07 PM

Sorry but I always feel uncomfortable when royals let themselves 'officially' appear on magazine covers. To me thats for celebrities not royalty.

Rudolph 04-30-2016 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommy100 (Post 1885191)
Sorry but I always feel uncomfortable when royals let themselves 'officially' appear on magazine covers. To me thats for celebrities not royalty.

This is the 100th anniversary cover and it's a collaboration between Vogue and the National Portrait Gallery of which Catherine is royal patron

AdmirerUS 04-30-2016 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1885190)
That cover is horrific, Catherine has been made to look like a waxwork.

I think we all know where that week she sported a darker, thinker brow came from. ;)

royal rob 04-30-2016 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham (Post 1885179)
Very cute picture, however I think the makeup person went a bit too heavy on her eyebrows. They are heavy enough, they don't need adding too. What's with the current fashion of Neanderthal brows on all the "young things"? They are over doing it, IMO.


Yes much too heavy with the eyebrows but I do know it is in at moment. I like the one without the hat. The one with the hat isn't very flattering to her. I would have liked to see her in more formal wear


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Dman 04-30-2016 05:42 PM

Love that she did this. I too would've liked to see Catherine in formal wear. I guess that wasn't the theme for this shoot though. I hope she do more shoots like this in the future.

Sun Lion 04-30-2016 05:54 PM

Glad Catherine did this - magazines need these exclusives if they're to survive in the digital age and Vogue has always been about more than just fashion.

Totally agree regarding the eyebrows - young women will look back in a few decades and be gobsmacked they ever thought that was a "look" to go for.

If you think the cover photo wasn't flattering, there is another from that set going about on some twitter accounts.

Somehow - whether it's the angle, whether it's because it's a close-up, whether it's the effect of the hat - it's a suprise to me it wasn't scrubbed. Don't know why that one was released.

Catherine's very thin face, and the angle, make her nose appear so big, and with the out of proportion eyebrows, the whole effect is very un-flattering and quite masculine.

I'm also puzzled why no-one moved the vehicle showing behind the building in the colour shot.

That very nice photo would have been much "cleaner" without the back of a car also there.

Rudolph 04-30-2016 06:06 PM

I love the photos. The usual people don't think they're flattering but that's nothing new. It's the same theme on Catherine's fashion threads.

I must say it's not too shabby to land the cover of British Vogue on one's first photo shoot

Duc_et_Pair 04-30-2016 06:09 PM

I am not happy with the commonization of the royal families. I was (am) ridiculized for that viewpoint. Now I can add I am not happy with the celebritization of the royal families. These so-called funny tweets, videos and the modelling. Call me oldfashioned: I prefer a more distant and serene sort of monarchy. This will not work anyway. As we have seen with the Cambridges, more than ever they live by the grace of the media. That gives possibly short-term popularity but erodes the distance, the mystery, the decorum without a monarchy can not survive. There is no difference anymore of an Elle McPherson or a "Kate" on the cover of Vogue. The line between royalty and celebrity has totally been blurred. Barbara or Kate Windsor? What the heck... Thess developments in Europe's monarchies are ill-fated. Mark my words.

Rudolph 04-30-2016 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1885220)
I am not happy with the commonization of the royal families. I was (am) ridiculized for that viewpoint. Now I can add I am not happy with the celebritization of the royal families. These so-called funny tweets, videos and the modelling. Call me oldfashioned: I prefer a more distant and serene sort of monarchy. This will not work anyway. As we have seen with the Cambridges, more than ever they live by the grace of the media. That gives possibly short-term popularity but erodes the distance, the mystery, the decorum without a monarchy can not survive. There is no difference anymore of an Elle McPherson or a "Kate" on the cover of Vogue. The line between royalty and celebrity has totally been blurred. Barbara or Kate Windsor? What the heck... Thess developments in Europe's monarchies are ill-fated. Mark my words.

Now Duc... How many royal ladies before Kate have posed for fashion magazines? It's been going on for decades

HRHHermione 04-30-2016 06:13 PM

It's exciting that she agreed to do a magazine shoot. I hope she'll do more of them when asked- we get such beautiful photos that way.

Rudolph 04-30-2016 06:25 PM

The magazine shoot is part of the National Portrait Gallery's Vogue 100 exhibit. The Duchess of Cambridge is royal patron. It's a very special cover for a British institution.

It's not like she agreed to pose for the Enquirer

Dman 04-30-2016 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1885220)
I am not happy with the commonization of the royal families. I was (am) ridiculized for that viewpoint. Now I can add I am not happy with the celebritization of the royal families. These so-called funny tweets, videos and the modelling. Call me oldfashioned: I prefer a more distant and serene sort of monarchy. This will not work anyway. As we have seen with the Cambridges, more than ever they live by the grace of the media. That gives possibly short-term popularity but erodes the distance, the mystery, the decorum without a monarchy can not survive. There is no difference anymore of an Elle McPherson or a "Kate" on the cover of Vogue. The line between royalty and celebrity has totally been blurred. Barbara or Kate Windsor? What the heck... Thess developments in Europe's monarchies are ill-fated. Mark my words.

Royals can no longer appear to be distant figures. They have to move with the times in order to survive.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises