Duchess of Cambridge 40th birthday photographs

[eternalopt]

Pictures released of the Duchess for her 40th - she looks amazing! Love her hair like that www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/kate-middleton-duchess-cambridge-photos-birthday-b1989379.html?amp

The mention of Cecil Beaton got me falling down a rabbit hole of beautiful pictures! And yes, I think there are very reminiscent

The Queen turned 40 in 1966, and that was the year she wore the Normal Hartnell dress, that become Princess Beatrice's wedding dress, for the State Opening of Parliament.
(Also the year she presented the Workd Cup wearing a hat that did not stand the test of time and looking fairly ugly now)

I also will not hold my breath on MNers and RR articles that declare she 'broke protocol' with a one shoulder dress and putting hands in her pockets

As there are loads of pix over the years of HmQ and other senior royal women in one-shoulder dresses, the I think criticism of that would be misplaced.

I did notice the hands in the pockets and thought it unusual - you wouldn't do that when on parade!

The Queen with her hands in her pockets

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/10233656/queen-hands-pockets-new-photo-royal-fans-praise/

She looks beautiful

Interestingly I think that Katherine's hair looks more unstyled than it normally does especially in the Victorian one. I don't claim to look anything like her, but my hair does a similar inconsistent curl/wave pattern if it dries naturally.

Again, in no way a celeb, my wedding photos were photoshopped as were my son's professional baby photos (his skin did look a bit weird as he had baby acne and they smoothed it out). I would be surprised if the photos hadn't been.

@JADS

Interestingly I think that Katherine's hair looks more unstyled than it normally does especially in the Victorian one. I don't claim to look anything like her, but my hair does a similar inconsistent curl/wave pattern if it dries naturally.

Again, in no way a celeb, my wedding photos were photoshopped as were my son's professional baby photos (his skin did look a bit weird as he had baby acne and they smoothed it out). I would be surprised if the photos hadn't been.

I agree re her hair, JADS. It also looks less ‘full’ and her hairline looks further back than usual. It looks like this is much more likely to be her natural hair and hairline whereas the masses of thick, shiny hair we usually see is hairpieces for extra volume (wiglets, extensions etc)

[quote RoseAndRose]The Queen with her hands in her pockets

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/10233656/queen-hands-pockets-new-photo-royal-fans-praise/[/quote]
Yes, I'm aware of the queen with her hands in her pockets.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

WTF does Meghan have to be dragged into everything?

One thing I'm a bit though is why bother taking the phots in Kew, they could have been taken anywhere for what we see.

@ajandjjmum

WTF does Meghan have to be dragged into everything?

Oh? If there are other royals treated the same way, let us know, then it won't be Meghan who gets 'dragged into everything'.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

One thing I'm a bit though is why bother taking the phots in Kew, they could have been taken anywhere for what we see.

They were taken in Kew?? I missed that. I assumed a studio as there is nothing in the background to suggest she's anywhere really!

I read it somewhere.

What's the point though? Not a single bloom to be seen.

@rubicscubicle stop the tedious comparisons and trying to drag Meghan into everything. We get it, you read gutter press.

This thread is about the new photos released to mark Kate's 40th birthday.

Hang on a minute.... she is dragged into conversations countless times on Royal threads when the thread is nothing to do with either of them. I've seen it many many times.

One of my first thoughts was... hands in pockets, one shouldered dress... I wonder if that will come up given it was a hanging offence with Meghan on threads.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

One thing I'm a bit though is why bother taking the phots in Kew, they could have been taken anywhere for what we see.

..because that's where the photographer wanted to be?

I thought it was Kew because of the amazing light - which sort of sounds feasible, although I know nothing about photography.

I really like her but the red dress one has a shadow around her chin which makes it look weird 🤷‍♀️ otherwise fab!!

Luredbyapomegranate, the white dress is very like a princess Margaret photo.
I have been thinking that the'fluffy-round-the-edges' look reminds me of one taken of PM, by Anthony-Armstrong-Jones. It might have been before the were engaged.

..because that's where the photographer wanted to be?

Fair enough, but it brings nothing to the photos and while it's a nice vignette it's nothing in the photos to suggest they were taken there, so why even mention in in the press release?

[quote Courcheval]@TheWomandestroyed
Perhaps the earlier thread got deleted because a few comments mentioned Kates resemblance to a certain other person?

Just guessing though![/quote]
Yes possibly, who decides on deleting, is it a collective or just one person?

The photographer is an Italian fashion photographer, born Ravenna, Italy, based in Paris, France. Say no more. The pics are PERFECT. I don't need to know anything else.

@ajandjjmum That's what I read too. I'm not sure why the light would be better there. Maybe something to do with one of the greenhouses? Or perhaps it's something to do with being on that particular bit of the Thames? It does sort of herniate there. Kew is a beautiful place.

Can only guess that they were taken in a glass house at Kew.

There is no more light in the gardens than anywhere else outside.

They were done in November at Kew is what I read. And it was because of the light

[quote BringBackThinEyebrows]@rubicscubicle stop the tedious comparisons and trying to drag Meghan into everything. We get it, you read gutter press.

This thread is about the new photos released to mark Kate's 40th birthday.[/quote]
Those are not from the gutter press. It was an article showing the comparisons.

The person was correcting me in saying that the queen has done it, and there was no protocol broken. I showed them that this was the declaration. If I knew anyone else who had the same rules put upon them, I would have linked them. Do you know of any royals that have thee same rules?