Royal baby portraiture decaying?

[cliveh]

Well if we are discussing a loss of quality then a look at the past examples would be in order.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2...ies-kate-middleton-pregnant_slideshow_item2_3

Not sure what your point is?

 

[eddie]

A grandfather took a photo of his new grandson, and the grandson's parents. No big deal, and certainly no need for a critique. I'm sure an "official" portrait will be produced at some point. We can lambaste that one, when it's released.

 

[Jim Taylor]

A grandfather took a photo of his new grandson, and the grandson's parents. No big deal, and certainly no need for a critique. I'm sure an "official" portrait will be produced at some point. We can lambaste that one, when it's released.

+1. But I guess the official photographer will only be charged with realising someone else's image of what the 'perfect' royal-baby photo should look like, so I don't think there much merit in lambasting it at all.

Que Sera.

 

[cowanw]

Not sure what your point is?

Just a few more data points to decide if Royal baby portraiture is decaying. I thought it went a bit farther back in time. I am sure the only point is the on top of my head.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't think royalty or religion should interfere with polotics.

... Or photographers either.

 

[cowanw]

here's another viewpoint
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/royal-baby-pictures-william-kate-george

 

[benjiboy]

here's another viewpoint
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/royal-baby-pictures-william-kate-george

Yes in years to come they will be just ordinary Will and Kate, your friendly neighbourhood constitutional monarchs .

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The comment in the article that the Cecil Beaton photo was a bit dull, well it was commissioned by the royal family. I think that being dull is part of their job description.

 

[cowanw]

I get what you are saying, but at that time I'm not sure that that is fair. After a abdication, a war, and a marriage, the royal family was anything but dull. And Cecil Beaton was a real favorite of the Queen Mother for his rejuvenation of the monarchy with his totally different pictures of the then Queen Elizabeth. Cecil Beaton certainly could never be called dull.
Prince Phillip didn't really like him, remarking on his floppy hats. The Queen Mother liked him. She had a propensity to gays in her entourage. I expect he got the job of photographing the baby pictures of Charles because of the Queen Mother.
Personally I like Richard Speaight"s images of the Queen then Duchess of York and Elizabeth the second of the Vanity Fair images

 

[cowanw]

This is like watching a train wreck. This article tells you all that is wrong interactively
http://www.theguardian.com/artandde.../20/prince-george-photograph-right-royal-mess

 

[AgX]

But seemingly nothing wrong with the baby concerning that critic. And the baby is the person the photo is about...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

While the British are happy to have a member of the royal family dedicate a new shopping center they would not be happy with the dedication of a new bordello. That's what I meant by dull, newsworthy but not too newsworthy.

Edward VIII with his Nazi sympathies and his dalliance with "that Simpson woman" was a publicity nightmare. When he was forced to abdicate it was the best for the country. Had he continued on the throne he might have destroyed the monarchy single handedly. Now George VI was a proper king, a bit dull but proper.