Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's hard to say this one is bad. It's bad. There, I said it. It's almost laughably bad. You know it's bad when a real life photo of her looks much much better.

THIS. It's AWFUL. She looks mean, haggard and old. She's gorgeous in real life. MY ass she loved that painting. Queen told her to suck it up and she did. The photographer wanted to capture the real Kate? Does he hate her?

Shes gonna need restelin

Anonymous wrote:

The pic on the right, I think, appeals to shallow young hipsters for whom a big, cheeky, baring of the teeth is all that is needed to impress fellow shallow hipsters. The traditional english like to imagine that royalty symbolizes something more subtle than that--more of quiet steady sort of power. Her portrait is more appropriate--this isn't 'America's Next Top Model', ffs. And sorry gals, she's an english girl. Without the big grin, there can be great saggy folds. It just genetic.

She is not a hipster and is not appealing to any hipsters regardless of her facial expression.

For the record I know you all trip over yourself for this chick, but she looks old, very old
Time will not be good to her. It is too late for the sunblock she should have thought of that years ago.

Anonymous wrote:yeah what is up with the bags under the eyes though?

So it's not air brushed and and all blurry edged with a downward angle Myspace profile shot that you could post on Instagram™. She's going to be the Queen of mother-f*cking England. There are things that are more enduring than how many likes you get on FB--I know, hard to believe, not everyone cares to look like a fake, plastic perfect, 21 year old Barbie doll replicant.

The artist's last painting was very controversial but eventually sold 1k on ebay

http://entertainment.topnewstoday.org/tv/article/4036755/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/18/80-year-old-botched-restoration-jesus-painting-sells-for-over-1000-on-ebay/

The pic on the right, I think, appeals to shallow young hipsters for whom a big, cheeky, baring of the teeth is all that is needed to impress fellow shallow hipsters. The traditional english like to imagine that royalty symbolizes something more subtle than that--more of quiet steady sort of power. Her portrait is more appropriate--this isn't 'America's Next Top Model', ffs. And sorry gals, she's an english girl. Without the big grin, there can be great saggy folds. It just genetic.

someone needs some tips from playboy

yeah what is up with the bags under the eyes though?

Anonymous wrote:

Studied the best portrait artists and IMO its a good portrait. He choose not to 'photoshop' her an I respect that choice. Most PPs have never seen her in person much less an untouched photo (even candid ones are retouched). So how would you know?

So you're saying the real life photos of her are fake, and the FAKE PAINTING of her likeness is what she really looks like? C'mon. Even with touch-ups, you can tell when someone is ugly or not in real life, and Kate Middleton is not haggard and 40ish-looking in any photo I've seen. But the painting is.

Ok. PP, are you a guy? Because if not, you are queen-iest b*tch, ever.

Young Queen Elizabeth II

http://surisburnbook.tumblr.com/post/40258884821/hahahahahahaha-i-knew-having-a-portrait-artist-in

she is expecting... did they just paint this (sorry if it said something about it in the article... i didn't click) maybe her face is thicker? just a thought? also, its not *that* bad. No she's not bubbly and smiling, but she is a far cry from the candid shot of the queen at the opening ceremony that really made itself known on the internet. she is pretty, i like it. She looks stately and dignified.

Ps, when i first saw it i agreed with a lot of you, but thinking less along the lines of "hey lets make this my pro pic" and "i am becoming queen" it is nice.

Studied the best portrait artists and IMO its a good portrait. He choose not to 'photoshop' her an I respect that choice. Most PPs have never seen her in person much less an untouched photo (even candid ones are retouched). So how would you know?

So you're saying the real life photos of her are fake, and the FAKE PAINTING of her likeness is what she really looks like? C'mon. Even with touch-ups, you can tell when someone is ugly or not in real life, and Kate Middleton is not haggard and 40ish-looking in any photo I've seen. But the painting is.

I don't know. Queens and princesses aren't supposed to actually smile or grin in a painting. This one has a Mona Lisa aspect to it that is somewhat mysterious. I think it has a more timeless quality to it than the usual annoying modern candid shots that are all the rage with the hipsters. She's meant to look "queenly" after all.

Studied the best portrait artists and IMO its a good portrait. He choose not to 'photoshop' her an I respect that choice. Most PPs have never seen her in person much less an untouched photo (even candid ones are retouched). So how would you know?