To wonder why Prince Louis isn't in this photo ?

[runsmidgeOMG]

Sorry if this has been done already but did anyone else wonder where baby prince Louis was in this photo ?

I get probably didn't want a baby present during the ceremony or around the crowds etc but I feel it would have been a nice touch for Louis to be included in the family photo. It feels as though he doesn't exist.

There are probably reasons that I've missed !!

If he were Harry's baby that would be different. But he's a tiny new nephew - why disturb him by togging him up in a detailed outfit just for a pic?

As he's number 3, even though he's got staff coming out of his tiny ears, I bet he still spends most of his time in an easy babygrow 😂

I would assume that he is not their because it was a picture about the wedding and not a family sitting.

I wouldn’t have expected him to be in any photos as he wasn’t a part of the wedding party.

Maybe he wasn't there because he is approximately 690 hours old!

We know that their nanny was there as she was apparently helping just inside the door of the church so presumably the baby was with her? I think Kate did remarkably well for four weeks in, and she had a just three year old and a not very enthusiastic nearly five year old to deal with. I don't think that throwing her newborn into the mix would have been helpful!

I think it's a lovely photo.

And yes, he wasn't part of the wedding party. And he is a tiny nephew, NOT a child of Harry or Meghan.

I was actually wondering more, why Kate Middleton was on the main photos..

Anyone else wondering that?

i can kind of see your point. If the photo was just the wedding party (including parents of the b and g) then quite right he should not be in it, but Kate is in the photo and was not in the wedding party so she has turned it more into a wedding party plus close family photo. He wont care though, and as someone said he will shortly star in some christening photos.

I was actually wondering more, why Kate Middleton was on the main photos..

Anyone else wondering that?

Um, no. She is the SIL of the groom and the mother of his nephews and nieces. Of course it was appropriate for her to be there, unless you think only blood relatives should have been included? Because that would also exclude Camilla, and, um, the bride.

It’s not a family photo as such, it’s a picture of the wedding party.

Its a gorgeous pic, I wonder how many they had to take to get that shot?

I agree that it is very appropriate having Kate and that it would be silly to have brought Louis in just for pics, that would be weird! No one who excludes babies from weddings does that.

William was the best man (or whatever the Royals call it) so of course kate was on the photos as his wife .

This is the official wedding photo. Maybe they did a family one including Louis that wasn't released? I'm guessing Louis wouldn't be too far away from Kate for too long.

I'm with @CuriousaboutSamphire - having Prince Louis in the picture would have made him part of the story given he's been so little in public. It should rightly be all about the Sussexes

He's a three week old baby not a toy/accessory

I get what you are saying OP. My son was about the same age when my brother got married. We hired a babysitter who looked after him for most of the day at the venue but he was still in the wedding photos in the family photo.

Maybe Louis wasn't at the venue at all. If Kate isn't breast feeding then he could be somewhere different.

like a loaf of bread

He wasn't at the wedding.

He will have his chance to shine in a few weeks/months, for his Christening portrait, I would assume? When they will all (or nearly all at least) get dressed up in different posh bib and tucker to celebrate his special day?

@specialsubject sleep eat and excrete 😂😂😂😂

Sorry do you all get your baby sitter to bring your child to events just for the photo?

He didnt attend the wedding, he wasnt a guest so of course he isnt in the picture

@rexmanning

So what if Kate is a SIL of the groom? That doesn't mean she needed to be on the main wedding pics. My SILs weren't on MY main wedding pics.

If Kate was on there, then the mothers (and fathers) of the other bridesmaids and pageboys should have been on there too. Maybe Edward and Andrew should have been on there too AND Princess Anne? And who knows who else.

Nope, as hard as I try, I can't fathom why Kate Middleton was on the main wedding photos. Charlotte yes, as she was a bridesmaid, George yes, as he was a page boy, William yes, as he was best man, and his parents and hers yes, but Kate Middleton.....nope no need for her to be on them at all, just because she is Harry's 'Sister-in-law.'

We don't know how many other photos were taken at the same time. This one is good, maybe Louis WAS there in some other shots, but bawling his head off & Kate looking stressed trying to calm him with Charlotte and George trying to attract her attention. Would you opt to send a less flattering shot to the general press, or keep it for the photo album?

You sound nice, user. My SIL is in my wedding portrait of our immediate family group and I am in hers because we consider each other to be part of the immediate family.

So what about Camilla? She only married Charles in 2005, by which time Harry was 21, and hasn't therefore been a step-parent in the sense of bringing him up.

I reckon kate is there to control charlotte

Yep @ivegotfamily Kate must be there to control Charlotte as there is no other reason for her to be on the main wedding pics.

This discussion just points out the different ways people see family.

I always took it that for wedding family shots, there is the one of parents of the happy couple, and the one involving all the siblings and their husbands/wives/partners etc - who are now the family of the newly married person.

I am baffled by those who think that the "family" is only the actual siblings.

Where do the various life partners fit into the grand scheme of things?

Or is there an "in laws/ outlaws" vibe on your families?