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 !!

Is there any relevance to the queen, prince Phil and Kate sitting on chairs?*

Yep

Prince philip is 96 nearly 97
The the queen is 92

I would want to sit down if i was 92 and 96 i wpuld have thought i'd done enough standing in my life time

And Catherine has just had a baby

And Catherine has just had a baby

Also it probably balances the shot better to have someone seated on the other side and Catherine was the best choice.

rex i did quote you but it was also a generalised reply as i'd also just read

If Harry's Dad's wife is in the picture, why the hell shouldn't his brother's wife also be in it ? in a reply and it was more this that made me write what i did.

Why the hell shouldn't Harry's dads wife not be in the picture and hes not just harrys dads wife shes Harrys step mom. Yes she didnt "bring him up" but she was in the picture they went public a while before they married.

I really dont get the issue with either the Grooms step mother and sister in law being in the picture or a child who didnt attend the wedding not being

If you look at William and Kate's equivalent official family wedding photograph the Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla and Harry are on William's side.

Michael, Carole, Pippa and James Middleton are on Kate's side along with all their flower girls and page boys in front of both sides of the family. It's a historical photo with the monarch, two heirs and their future Queen Consorts along with showing the joining of two families.

Meghan only had her Mum there and I think they've balanced the photo well with Doria next to Meghan and then having William, Kate, Charlotte and George on her side as well as some of the flower girls and page boys.

Again it's a historical photograph showing the Queen, heirs and future Queen Consorts with the bride and groom as well as being a family wedding party photo.

Louis's tiny, I don't think William and Kate took George and Charlotte to official occasions (other than their Christenings) until a little older and I should think they'll do the same with Louis.

But that wasn't the wedding party - where was Meghan's Matron of honour/adult bridesmaid/witness for the register person? (I didn't get to see the wedding on Saturday as it clashed with my Cub Scout weekly meeting so apologies if I use the wrong terminology).

That was the family grouping, which would be why the parents, siblings and grandparents of the bride and groom were included. Including their respective husbands or wives.

But that wasn't the wedding party - where was Meghan's Matron of honour/adult bridesmaid/witness for the register person? *

She didnt have any adult bridesmaids that was announced weeks ago

You only need two witnesses to sign the register

Her mum and harrys dad that was it!

where was Meghan's Matron of honour/adult bridesmaid/witness for the register person?

There was noMOH and the witnesses were prince Charles andDoria.

thought I'd missed something, yes he wasn't there so wouldn't be in the photos, makes sense ! I at no point thought they'd steal the show by having Louis in the picture but more looking forward to the "loaf of bread" in arms :)

more looking forward to the "loaf of bread" in arms

It will be his christening soon so there will.be lots of loaf of bread pucs

MurielsBottom

"but I did think the nanny would bring him along, all dressed up, for the photo shoot and then whisk him away."

I wish it was that easy to whisk my newborn out of the house for any reason or length of time. Instead of it being an absolute nightmare every time.

I actually wondered who had Louis, I thought they had the one main nanny, who was at the church seen kid-wrangling on the sidelines.

It's not like she's going to be calling a babysitting service for her royal newborn... or does she have more staff that can step in?

I think they must have a seperate maternity nanny. There were pictures of their main nanny at the church sorting out bridesmaids and I imagine she would be needed for the reception.

I was a small baby wh n my Aunt got married.

I wasn’t there, I was at home.
I’m not in the wedding photos. My siblings were in the wedding party.

I think it’s hysterical that anyone would think that means the family was erasing me or I was invisible.

As for why that particular set of people are in the photo. I would suggest Prince Harry picked the people he is closest to in his family.

It’s hardly rocket science.

www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a20775748/official-royal-wedding-family-portrait-positions-significance/

I guess they wanted Kate in the photo. I'm in the family photos from my ex's sister's wedding, we didn't last long after that either, I bet she's bloody annoyed about it. Maybe they have cut my head off in all the pics, who knows!

I agree that it's a wedding photo, not a family photo.

It's also a formal RF photo insofar as four generations of the RF are included, with MM firmly within the fold, and everyone else (Charles' siblings and their spouses and children excluded, and also representatives of the Spencer family left out). Kate is included even though she is not strictly speaking one of the wedding party. She is there because she will be Queen in due course.

I believe Charles and HMQ have been adamant for many years that this group is the RF, everyone else should get used to shifting for theselves, and I understand that the Yorks have their noses out of joint about that.