Did the artist look at the King's portrait and say "hold my beer"

[MrsLeonFarrell]

Tatler has a new portrait, allegedly of the Princess of Wales, on its cover. I know it's been a while but I'm pretty sure most of us remember what she looks like.

Link to BBC article laced with sarcasm.

BBC News - Kate Tatler portrait prompts strong reaction online
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-69049830

'Certainly she was thought to be something of a plain Jane (in some quarters) in the years before Meghan.'

good grief.....

For example:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2036896/Kate-Middleton-trendsetter-You-wouldnt-look-twice-Duchess-Cambridge.html

Wait did you really just use a picture of a women recovering from major abdominal surgery and about to start preventative chemotherapy for cancer to argue that she’s a plain Jane and ageing?

Yes, you did. Says everything about you.

A snapshot of opinions before Meghan came on the scene and the UK went wild for both Meghan and Harry. Until of course their favourite Royals were dumped upon and the ‘rise’ of Kate began in the tabloids.

Makes the UK people look somewhat easily manipulated. No?

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1823210/how-come-kate-middleton-doesnt-get-nearly-as-much-attention-as-diana-did/p3

Certainly she was thought to be something of a plain Jane (in some quarters) in the years before Meghan.'

What?
Then Meghan came along and everyone realised how good looking Kate is in comparison?
Seems an odd thing to say.

Unfortunately, it had to be included because the artist said she had utilised it amongst hundreds of other images. In trying to understand why the artist painted in a particular way it cannot therefore be ruled out. Oh and well done you for your attempt to use the cancer card to shut down a debate about a portrait. Nice (not) try! Grow up soon.

No, the tabloids had an agenda. The pitting of one Duchess against another became entrenched in the Daily Mail.

No, the tabloids had an agenda. The pitting of one Duchess against another became entrenched in the Daily Mail.

Oh, right.
I'll certainly bow to your greater knowledge of the DM.
I read the article you linked to and Kate was described as "beautiful" but "no trend setter".
Where did the "Plain Jane" thing come from?

@Tizzwazz This is hilarious! Ever since the discussion earlier this week about dress casual in NYC v. UK, I've been observing my fellow commuters here in NYC. Kate would indeed stand out:

• she's about 6 inches taller than most NYC women.
• she's dressed very neatly and isn't wearing jeans, scrubs, sandals or sneakers.
• she isn't wearing a backpack.
• she isn't walking while scrolling on a phone.
• she lacks the tough and driven expression so may possess.

Nordstrom isn't doing badly but Neiman Marcus is recovering from bankruptcy. Maybe the buyers should get out more.

Tizzwazz

Certainly she was thought to be something of a plain Jane (in some quarters) in the years before Meghan.

Still not sure what these "quarters" were.
Did the idea come out of some people's hindquarters?

A snapshot of opinions before Meghan came on the scene and the UK went wild for both Meghan and Harry. Until of course their favourite Royals were dumped upon and the ‘rise’ of Kate began in the tabloids.

Makes the UK people look somewhat easily manipulated. No?

Who are easily manipulated? The fans of Meghan who have claimed that Kate never got a hard time in the press, and that press hostility was uniquely aimed at Meghan? Which has never been true, as you’re demonstrating.

All the royals women have been subject to the kind of misogynistic treatment you’re posting here.

I remember some of the comments, posts, twitter posts etc. Further, some research into the World Wide Web history will also elicit the ‘plain’, ‘boring’ etc aspects of Kate by some. Easy to google…

Oh and well done you for your attempt to use the cancer card to shut down a debate about a portrait

I wasn’t attempting to shut down a conversation about a portrait. I was just judging your behaviour as demonstrated in your post. Hope that helps. 😀

Thanks for showing that Catherine has been bullied, criticised and harassed online and in the media for decades, and that Meghan only faced the exact same as all other women who marry into the RF face.

The unique aspect was the dog whistle commentary, sick humour, photograph of a ‘royal’ chimpanzee, snide, snarky and untrue articles regarding her African American heritage, women MPs speaking out (70 I think).

As reported in Jamaica:

https://x.com/JamaicaLivenews/status/1791783610955047243?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Tizzwazz

I remember some of the comments, posts, twitter posts etc. Further, some research into the World Wide Web history will also elicit the ‘plain’, ‘boring’ etc aspects of Kate by some. Easy to google…

Doubtless it is "Easy to google".
You just sounded like you had information at your fingertips.
So there were "comments, posts, twitter posts etc."?
I've never been on TwiX and don't want to waste my time looking for random comments and posts that you remember somewhere on the "World Wide Web".
You could probably found anything said by some randomer if you're desperate enough to search extensively on "the web" (as I've heard the kids are calling it nowadays).
"Boring" and "plain", eh?
Do thoses necessarily refer to looks?
Certainly different from "Plain Jane", your initial choice of words.

I don’t get your “airbrushed” comment, given that you have included photos of the Princess that clearly show her ageing, and that any retouching would definitely be a no no after the Mother’s Day debacle 🤷‍♀️

Wait so you’ve just proven that the Toxic British media was very critical of Kate in past , And they weren’t specifically after Meghan because she was Biracial instead they were doing what They usually do , ?

At least this shows why a woman who is scrutinised already and now with cancer does want privacy. The vileness of criticism of a woman ageing.

The painter is going further than the face though - it's the dressed body as well. The left hand side (as we viewers look at it - so Catherine's right hand side) has been painted as though there is more unfilled space in the dress and so it hangs differently on this side than the other, more filled out, side.

I think a pp mentioned something similar about the neckline.

I love the King's portrait; it's the kind of thing people would look at and think, of the red bit, that it's easy to do, but the texture and hidden detail is not easy at all. I know Pollock just chucks paint on a canvas, but unless you have an eye for it, it's hard to do with skill and make more of than the basic act.

I think the full version of the Tatler portrait is better than this partial shot; the subtle split colouring of the background and the lines in the dress are effective, I think. Obviously her face in this portrait looks basic and I can see why it would garner the comments about GSCE students (although doing most of them a disservice in my opinion!), but it's a take on reality. It's a little like how Modigliani represents his models? I don't think it deserves all the vitriol; the overall portrait has impact.

I initially didn't recognize Kate when I saw the portrait. I was somewhat stunned when I found out the identity of the subject. I do like the Charles portrait. I find the Tatler portrait to be a lot more amateurist but I'm not an art critic.

BemusedAmerican

I initially didn't recognize Kate when I saw the portrait.

Nor did I.
I saw the bit about a portrait of the PoW and saw the cover and thought "I wonder what the portrait's like then?".
The face looks Asian to me and the hands are in a very awkward position. Looks like they're placed that way because the artist doesn't like drawing hands.

The painting is utter rubbish and looks nothing like Catherine in any guise. The artist is really scraping the barrel in her attempts to justify the shitty portrait she produced.

If you take away the doctored highly selected images the tabloids like to push

The whole Mother’s Day debacle was because the tabloids cannot use altered photos, so you are talking rubbish in your comment above @Tizzwazz as your pictures clearly demonstrate……. not sure what your agenda is trying to find unflattering pictures of Catherine, particularly the cancer announcement one, why would you do that?