Well, my wife and I studied the painting last night and we like it. I'm sure the next official portrait will make her look like she has a cob up her ass but this one was neat.

Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light(TM)(C)(R), as part of his series "Homey Castle With Smoke and Chimney." Available in a limited edition of 50,000, each hand-embossed with the artist's name by a child in Bangladesh.

Yeah.

Whatever.

She's a beautiful woman. The painting doesn't do her justice. It makes her look 45, and the left eye is a little out of whack.

Maybe the artist had an off night.

It happens to the best of 'em. Even Eric Clapton, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_M9zWORBuA&feature=player_embedded#!

My step-grandmother commissioned a portrait of her mother through a local artist whom she sponsored. It turned out to be a grotesque and unflattering likeness that exaggerated her flaws--like this portrait but worse--and it was even more cringe-worthy because it was intended for public display.

Probably because it was expensive, my step-grandmother committed to it. The portrait was unveiled at the lady's birthday party, and amidst everyone's barely restrained reactions, she responded as graciously as the princess has.

I felt bad for both of them. What can you say?

I had a bad one done of me as well. Topless. I didn't pose topless. The artist imagined the neck part down. I could just die remembering it. I was able to talk her into keeping it for her private collection, but I had the excuse of the naked boobs.

What ever did you say to him?

Kate says she likes it. That's interesting on multiple levels.

Married the wrong sister.

IMO, that is.

Pippa looked better on that ONE day (ironically Kate's wedding day) because Kate was in a very modest wedding gown and Pippa was in a dress molded to her body in the best way possible. Compare other photos, though. Kate's more beautiful.

Hey, I know how to make it better. She needs to wear a hat.

Maybe she can borrow one from Prince Andrew and Fergie's daughters - I don't think they are wearing theirs any more. And they looked so smart in them at the wedding.

> Hey, I know how to make it better. She
> needs to wear a hat.

I know how to make it better: She needs to publicly & immediately disavow the fartling fraudulence of 21st century "royalty" in all contexts, and with sincere apology, returning the money to the commonweal wherever possible.

She needs to say "Shit, sorry, don't know what I was thinking," retreat from the public sphere, and bother us no more.

You should no more fawn over this idiot than you should over a "princess" of Saudi Arabia, whether or not she's licensed to drive.

People. Please. We're not in kindergarten anymore.

Amy prattles endlessly about "reason-based" this & that, as if anyone who believed in Jesus was therefore disposed to accept whatever mass-movement stupidities were in the air.

I think Amy's wrong.

But it's hard to doubt that Britain's ancient acceptance of royalty as superior beings —perhaps tapping a nearly-universal submission to the unpleasantries of birth order— nourishes the atrocities described here and here. THAT's what a reflex of adoration and fealty will do to you; you'll simply stop paying attention in those times when your intuition would otherwise protect you.

Fuck the royals... Fuck 'em. No exceptions.

Our age applauds the common man and hates the rich. Any royal portrait becomes part of the public perception.

This portrait is an advance concession to avoid "off with her head" in a soon-to-be extreme, populist Britain.

Royalty portrayed as one of the common men.

BULLETIN * BULLETIN * BULLETIN * BULLETIN

    ATTENTION: MEDIA TYPES

I linked those Savile stories in the comment here, yesterday. Today, the New York Times removed this addendum from their story:

The report also did not challenge the assertions of Mark Thompson, the head of the BBC at the time, that he had no role in killing the Savile investigation and was unaware of the sexual abuse accusations until he left the BBC last September. Mr. Thompson is now president and chief executive of The New York Times Company.

And there's the Piers Morgan thing.

Why do Americans put up with this shit from those people?

He aged her, and put one god-awful "sucked a lemon" smirk on her face. What was he thinking? Hideous.

The aging around the eyes is unflattering, but I like the expression on her face...reminds me of Mona Lisa.

Reminds me of an idiot woman who is living, for no good reason, on public money.

I just googled Kate Middleton and selected the images. The biggest thing I notice is that in 95% of the images, she is always has a full smile.

The other thing is she always wears vibrant colors, not a dull blue.

Just my 2¢.

Whatever you think about the monarchy, Kate Middleton is a pretty young woman. But this portrait makes her look like a dowdy 45 year-old. One of my favorite comments about it is from the WSJ:

"The 31-year-old Kate Middleton, a favorite of the paparazzi around the world, looks older and exhausted in the painting, and there are bags under her eyes. It looks as if the artist, Paul Emsley, was trying to reimagine the photogenic royal as a ghost at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry."

"depicted a pattern of abuse in broadcast studios, hospitals, homes for the mentally disabled and other places of care for the vulnerable"

Jimmy Savile, wish I believed in hell so he can burn in it. This guy fucked kids well into his mid 80's and got away with it too.

I've read that there were around 300 victims........That the police know of....

(luvyoo purp)

The execution of the light and shadows don't flatter her, looks like a mortician applied her make-up, angle of the face is unflattering, and she looks old--an I just finished a year long bender with LiLo old.

She says she likes it, and maybe that's true. But if it's not, she obviously can't say so, with her job and all. It

The brilliant tweet about the portrait: Ecce Kate.

(We all hate to have to explain a joke.)

Even in the painting she's one of the most beautiful women I've seen.
Pot, meet Kettle.

The painting adds 20 years and 200 bottles of scotch.

Crid, surely you don't hate royalty just because of Savile. It's not like he doesn't have his counterpart over here somewhere.

Americans WANT a ruler, a daddy figure. That's part of our problem now.

So is there some other problem? It's the Brits' bag to hold now.

Set aside our recent & intensely fulfilling — nay; nearly erotically fulfilling — years of mutual disrespect, because the question is entirely sincere. It formed the basis of my first comments about it last week: "it's really surprising to me that this didn't happen in the United States."

Who do we have who could compare?

Well, Michael Jackson, of course. But with important differences!

• MJ's predations were far more limited in number.

• MJ's predations were more limited in depth. It's at least slimly possible that they were not overtly sexual, even if they weren't meaningfully less loathsome.

• MJ spent his last twentyish years under clouds of suspicion and opprobrium.

• While government (the Reagan White House!) feted MJ as grandly as Liz did Savile, it's at least plausible that Reagan's appreciation of youthful celebrity, calibrated in the age of Rudy Vallee, was completely confounded by the social distance to MJ's weirdness. Reagan wouldn't have known the difference whether Jackson diddled children or did not.

Queen Elizabeth and the bureaucrats of the BBC and all the charities whose children Savile brutalized do not have that excuse: He approached them in contexts of contemporary adulthood, catchphrases be damned. They should have known.

• Government itself (via government broadcasting) was not how MJ established his realm of terror. He made his mark through straight commerce, rather than conning the government servants whose first responsibility is to public well-being.

• And Jackson did that with genuine talent; Singing with wind in his lungs from God in Heaven and in diction from the ventricles of the American heart, our black dialects. Certainly much of his persona was pure bullshit, especially in adult life. But his young gift was indisputable, much more than a catch phrase.

Posted before proofreading but you see what I was getting at.

The Savile nightmare says things about British character.

There's data in there, and we should take note.