Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Two New Photos of Prince Louis

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Tonight, Kensington Palace released two new photos of Prince Louis, one of which featured his sister Princess Charlotte. This photo of the two siblings was taken on the Princess's birthday, May 2nd. As is usual for these early photos, they were taken by the Duchess of Cambridge. 


The images are reminiscent of the photo Kate took of George giving Charlotte a kiss:


The second photo is just little Louis, who looks absolutely darling. According to Kensington Palace, this photo was taken on April 26th by Kate at Kensington Palace. 


I am surprised that neither photo featured George. I am sure they have one with him that remains private for the time being. One reason to release an image of Charlotte is almost certainly due to the complaints the Palace received when they did not release a special picture for Charlotte's birthday. But another could be that George seems pretty shy right now, and he is just hitting the age where he understands that he isn't entirely a normal child--that is, he is likely starting to grasp the concept of royalty v. everyone else. It's likely he is helped along in that department by some school chums. This is just speculation. I assume we will get birthday photos of George over the summer, and he will almost certainly feature in his Uncle Harry's wedding, but maybe the Cambridges feel that, for the moment, that is enough. Another option is that William and Kate only ever intended to release a picture of Louis, but once people complained about the palace "phoning in" Charlotte's birthday, they threw what would have been a private shot into the mix. I don't know.

Anyway, sweet, sweet shots. Thanks, Kate and William!! 

45 comments:

  1. They are such beautiful photos. The children are just precious. What a lovely post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cute pictures! I read on another site Charlotte is wearing the same sweater George wore in the Annie L oil portrait-like photo with HMTQ. It probably is the same sweater as it buttons like a boy's sweater & it looks a little worn. But what amazes me is that in the solo photo Louis appears to wearing the same white sweater Charlotte wore as an infant in the photos with George. Wow. A **white** infant's sweater that lives on to be a hand-me-down! That's amazing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and Prince Louis is filling that sweater out nicely at 3 days old, compared to Princess Charlotte's picture at 2 weeks old.

      He's a sturdy little guy! Adorable.

      Belle

      Delete
    2. I figure Nanny Maria is REALLY good at laundering children's clothes ; )

      Delete
    3. Beautiful children. I also noticed that Prince Louis was wearing what appears to be the same sweater Charlotte wore. Good for the Cambridge family for rotating their children's clothing. I am so happy for this lovely family. .

      Delete
    4. Am, I really doubt laundering is one of the nanny's obligation :D :D :D

      Delete
  3. George might've been in school at the time, *and* most little boys that age will NOT pose for pictures (speaking from experience, mine loves to pull a face or run away instead!). Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being royal : ) .

    Anyone else speculating on the background - Princess Charlotte's room? Love those little tulips.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The photo was taken on Charlotte's birthday. I doubt it was in response to criticism that did not come until later in the day when it was clear there would be no new picture that day. I think more likely, this was the plan all along. I just can't imagine a scenario where Jason rings up the Cambridges and says, "Hey, I know you in the middle of birthday celebrations, but people are upset about no new Charlotte birthday picture and we need one now." Actually, I can imagine Jason saying that; I just can't imagine William changing plans to suit the media's needs. That's why that picture that was taken on Charlotte's birthday was released today and not on the birthday. It was the plan.
    Charlotte may have wanted a photo with her baby brother, after seeing George's with her. That's why no picture of George, too. A simple explanation. George has a birthday coming up. Maybe that will be the time for a three month old Louis and birthday George photo.
    Really, so many people have widely contrasting expectations. I imagine the best plan would be to do what you think is best and what works best for the family, at least when it involves the children. The Cambridges will be held responsible for their children's growth and development, not the media or anyone else. anon1
    Thanks for keeping us up-dated on the picture situation, Jane. anon1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or they took the photos for themselves and decided to release them after all the noise.

      Delete
    2. I think that the picture was taken on Charlotte's birthday but not intended for release. The release was very likely a result of public disappointment. The Monarchy must not disappoint in order to continue after the Queen's death. I absolutely agree with Jane's theory.

      Delete
  5. My instinct is that the photo of Charlotte and Louis wasn’t intentionally taken for public release. If it had been I think Kate would have been a bit more careful to focus on Louis’ face. It looks like a sweet shot that isn’t totally solid in its technical merits and I think Kate is an A+ student when she sets out with a goal in mind. Still gorgeous and still happy to see it, but when you compare it to the one of Louis alone - which has great clarity - one wonders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might be right anon 8:32. But really, the focus was not ideal in the series of shots of George with infant Charlotte either (hands, feet out of focus...in one Charlotte's face was a little blurry) I think it's more likely the shots of the siblings were all were taken mostly with available natural light to avoid the use of flash. You can see reflections in Louis's eyes in his solo shot. Not sure if that was a camera flash per se but it does suggest a stronger light source to me vs a more diffuse natural light, say from a window. Plus, the redness of his complexion (normal in babies I know but noticeably absent in the shot with Charlotte) suggests he may have been facing an incandescent light source that gives a redder look than daylight alone or daylight with flash. However they were taken though, they are all sweet!

      Delete
    2. Isn't focus sometimes used to highlight some parts of a photo? The face, or to blur background to emphacise the foreground. I am not an expert on cameras and photography but I do doubt that the focusing was unintended. Catherine knows cameras. I didn't notice Charlotte's face being out of focus in either set of photos. Newborn's eyes appear a little filmy and unfocused because they are. By the way..is silver nitrate still being used in newborn eyes? Or is that a thing of the past. Hope so. Newborns go through enough trauma as it is.

      I don't think the redness and changes in his complexion are due to differences in lighting. More likely timing. It is clearly a rash. The comparative whiteness around his nose and mouth indicate this. Sometimes babies with sensitive skin react to hospital cleansers or even dyes and fragrances on clothing; once home and away from the irritant, the rash goes away. The photos were taken a week apart, with the rash apparently faded by the later photo.
      The Spencers seem to have skin that easily flushes, as does Grandpa Charles, so perhaps that is a factor.
      Maybe he'll be a Ginger like his great-Uncle Charles....now that would be something. anon1

      Delete
    3. You might be right anon1 the facial redness was a temporary rash (or resolving jaundice) But I still think different light sources were used allowing a crisper focus in the solo shot. I'm not saying the light *caused* the redness but different lights may bring out underlying red tones (just as Kate's hair sometimes looks redder & I think even you've mentioned, anon1, light differences vs different hair dyes)

      The reflections in Louis's eyes ("catch lights") aren't a result of "filmy""unfocused" infant eyes. They happen to all ages & are usually desirable in photos. Also their shape may suggest what light source was used. His are tall & thin. To me that suggests he was lit by fairly strong light from a tall window as one of the light sources. It's sweet to think he might be looking at his mother as some stories have said but since he can only see 8-15 inches that's unlikely! It's more likely he's looking at the light as infants do or is attracted to the sound of Kate's voice.

      You are right depth of field can be manipulated to emphasize certain aspects of a scene. But in a *portrait shot* it would be usual
      to blur the background to make the subject "pop" and highly unusual to intentionally blur parts of the subject's body. The professionally shot (albeit somewhat sterile) photo of Will holding an infant Harry shows their feet are closest to the camera yet they are in focus. It wouldn't have emphasized their faces to blur their feet. It would have just been a distraction to have blurred body parts in the foreground. In the Cambridge sibling photos at least one of the children's hands often is pretty unfocused (as PC's hand is here) and PG's shoes are blurred in shots with PC. In the shot of PL with PC Kate could have used a soft focus attachment as JC mentioned but the variable focus within the photo can't be explained that way. (PL seems a bit less in focus than PC as others have mentioned.) I think the blurring in all these photos is due to a shallow focal depth rather than an intentional choice by the photographer to blur parts of the children's bodies for some sort of emphasis (not only would that be very unusual but most would say, not at all effective.) I don't think the variable focus is proof of advanced technical skills but rather, it's an unavoidable effect of shooting in lower light with a lens that is close to wide open. Avoiding even bounce flash with young kids may be desirable but it does mean the focal plane is quite shallow. Here the sharpest focus appears to be on PC's hair. For what it is--a sweet picture of two royal children-- it's certainly fine but IMO it doesn't demonstrate great technical expertise as a photographer. Kate may be an accomplished photographer as you stated anon1. I have not seen enough of her work to have an opinion one way or the other (although I wasn't a fan of the very dark B&W orangutan shot.) I know people frequently mention she wrote her thesis for her Art History degree on Lewis Carroll's photography as if that automatically means she is an accomplished photographer herself. But writing a thesis is quite different from practicing the craft one wrote about. Writing a thesis on Mozart, after all, doesn't make one a great composer! Regardless, I think Kate is certainly accomplished as a mom at taking relaxed,  nice photographs of her children. I'm not sure I'd call the sibling shots "natural" as some have done--they obviously were staged but they ARE very sweet. I also think Kate's attention to her photo backgrounds has vastly improved over the yrs. Some early shots of PG & PC together and PC alone included competing elements like bright windows and/or bright splashes of colors in the background. In the recent shots the backgrounds have been vastly simplified allowing, as should be the case, the viewer's eye to be drawn only to the children.

      Delete
    4. lizzie-I don't believe I said Kate was "an accomplished photographer," so a good part of your rebuttal doesn't compute. I said she knows cameras. I think she is well-aware of all the issues you raised, however. I can't really see a reason for making such an issue of the focus; but, as I stated, I am no photographic expert.

      I can't believe she was photographing her children three days post giving birth as well as managing two other little ones, royal guests, and who knows what else.That was the point for me when reality, exhaustion, discomfort, and general physical and emotional mishmash hit like a ton of bricks. I am sure there was help available for Kate from family and from Nanny, at least for part of the day, but they can't do much for the aforementioned. And I am not sure how much she allows others to do when she is present herself.. Still...she amazes me.
      Considering the above, maybe there was some unintentional lack of focus. I don't understand why it is an issue. There was no claim of expert photography. The photos were identified as coming from a mother, not a photographic studio.
      If it had been me in that situation, the camera would not have been the only unfocused element at work.
      I just get rather weary of nearly every photo of the Cambridge children getting criticized at the same time as more and more demands are being made for new pictures--if the photographs are adorable as these were nearly unanimously considered, then something must be found wrong with the technique and it follows, the photographer. It sometimes feels to me like the goal is finding something wrong, no matter what. It's not as though there were double images .
      I don't believe KP or Kate claimed to be offering professional quality photos. The advantage of Kate's taking the photos is 1) they will be more relaxed with her and 2) it eliminates a non family member being involved during such a sensitive time for the children. anon1

      PS I don't recall saying that lighting was responsible for Kate having red highlights in her hair. I may have done. My point was there was definitely a rash causing the redness on Louis's face, both in the hospital photos, taken outside in natural light, augmented by probable flashes and from various angles, as well as in in Kate's first photo at home. Changes in lighting did not cause the changes in redness, as you suggested, although I am most impressed with all the technical talk about shapes of light in Louis's eye. I do recall a detective story or two where a crime was solved using a photograph of an image reflected in a pair of sunglasses. I think it was Colombo. I thought that was very clever, too.

      PPS- I hate it when my own words are used against me. ;+) anon1

      Delete
  6. I thought his cheeks might be naturally rosy but might be due to photo being taken? He is adorable. It's very nice that Kate and William are sharing their precious baby with all of us. I love Charlotte's hair style. Nice touch with Charlotte kissing photo of her baby bro to be similar to George with his baby sis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The pictures are so endearing! I think that they might have a picture of the 3 of them in George’s Birthday. I can’t wait to see future pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  8. These are so sweet. Louis looks quite a bit like Charlotte. They sure make pretty babies!

    I don't care why these photos were released or how they were taken. These are adorable photos of adorable children. Bravo to William and Kate for sharing their personal family photos with us. No matter what other people may expect of them they didn't have to do this.

    P.S. I got a new grandson this past week as well! He arrived a couple weeks early and didn't wait for Grandma to get there and help with his siblings but, for the next month, I'll be RobinInTexas! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations RobinInTwoStates!

      Delete
    2. Such good news of the safe arrival of your new little one, Robin!

      Pictures..What you said...anon1

      Delete
    3. Dear Robin,
      Congratulations on your new grandson. I am sure that you are going to be a wonderful grandmother.
      Sincerely
      Montaine

      Delete
    4. Congratulations!

      Delete
    5. Congratulations Robin! I'm having a deja vu with your post. I think you welcomed a new granchild a few years ago as well? I have a vague recollection of you commenting about the heat in Texas at the time. The more the merrier!! I don't have to tell you to enjoy your time with them:)

      Delete
    6. Thanks, everyone! Yep, I have 5 grandkids now! The oldest one is 7 years old and my daughter is very tired. The only thing that makes her more tired than the children are her grandparents (my parents) constantly saying "You know what causes that, right?" Distance is a good thing at this point or she may do someone a harm! lol I'll be in Texas for a month this time.

      Delete
  9. While I find the moment captured with the kids lovely, Kate should rethink to give out blurry and out of focus photos. Simply, I can't understand how on earth she thinks it is okay to publish such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a professional photographer, these photos look to be compressed files which may account for the blurriness. They are ALL blurry but you can tell that the full resolution photos are most likely sharp.

      With that said, why such a negative comment when they are willing to share a glimpse of their lives?

      Delete
    2. Because that is my opinion whether you like it or not.

      And why can't you share your own without branding mine?

      Delete
    3. Well, after looking at these photos on a computer (i.e. a larger screen) the photo of Louis and Charlotte is super blurry. Regardless, it is still a touching photo. As a professional photographer, I would not have released that photo or done my best to recapture it.

      "And why can't you share your own without branding mine?" - what does that mean? My original comment was in reply to your comment and I thought that was how conversations worked. You say something, then someone replies with either another statement or a question...

      Delete
  10. Congratulations, Robin :-) Wishing you a wonderful time getting to know your new grandchild.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My mom always said that, as babies, her kids looked like they just got back from a vacation in FL. I think Louie looks like that too! So adorable. Glad Kate shared pics she took herself, adds a sweet touch I ❤️!

    ReplyDelete
  12. What sweet photos of these two! I am sure we'll get a nice family photo when Louis is christened (maybe around George's B-day?). I am sure Kate and William do not want to detract from Harry and Meghan's day so they are being very careful with any news they generate. They may have also wanted to wait until Gan-Gan and Grandpa Charles got to meet Louis before we got to see pictures of him. Thank you for sharing such nice photos William and Kate. I choose not to join the kerfuffle over birthday pics of Charlotte. I think it is quite fair for the Cambridges to limit exposure until their kids grow a bit more--their lives will be public propery soon enough!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George was around three months old and Charlotte around two months old. I'm guessing Louis will be Christened in July since the family will go on summer holiday in August.

      Delete
    2. Robin, remember the anxiety around George's birth that he would not be born before the Queen's scheduled July Summer retirement to Balmoral? I think he finally appeared just a few days before HM left. anon1
      There would likely be no significant RF events scheduled for the time of Balmoral residence, late July to mid-September. September is getting into the resumption of royal engagements and a rumored tour to Australia and New Zealand for H&M. There will be Eugenie's wedding after that in October. Plus, what about Zara's baby? She and her husband will likely prefer a scaled-down birth and christening but I wonder if the Queen will appear?
      I don't think the timing for all these happy royal family events, combined with the yearly Ascot, Trooping, garden parties, Wimbledon-- could have been better if it had all been a plan cooked up by the PM to distract from BREXIT issues. ;+) anon1

      Delete
  13. I quite like these photos, and don't in the least mind that the one taken on May 2, wasn't as sharp; to me, a photographic ignoramus it looked as if Kate might've used a soft lens.

    Regarding Louis' looks, he seems to me to share some facial characteristics with Charlotte--and who knows, maybe with George as well. The pics of Big Bro taken by Mike Middleton when George was about the same age, weren't the best; talk about out of focus!

    We all know how bloody obsessed with symbolic dress Kate is; hence I think that by putting Charlotte into what used to be George's cardigan, and by putting Louis into what used to be Charlotte's, and to top it off, by having George kiss a very young Charlotte, who in turn, kissed infant Louis, we have been given a clear message of intent. Simply put, it goes like this:"We are the 21st Century Three Musketeers! All for one, one for all!!"--or something like that. She's probably daft if she thinks she can keep them functioning as a unit (Try to picture Charles, Anne and Andrew --sorry, Edward, but you don't make the cut here--working like a smoothly oiled wheel, in complete accord; mind-boggling, isn't it?). Nevertheless, I wish her the best of luck.

    And I do think Kate is a very good amateur photographer.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I respectfully disagree, JC. I think they will very definitely function as a unit. Diana was, and Kate is, a very different mother from the Queen. Hands on mothers who put children first and duty second will benefit those children all of their lives. William and Harry function as a unit, Kate slid right in, and hopefully Meghan will do the same. I don't think it will be quite as seamless with Meghan as it was with Kate simply because Kate was on the scene for 8 years before she and William married.

      Delete
  14. George, Charlotte and Louis are being brought up very differently to the Queen’s children (no disrespect to her). The Middleton children are patently close and loving and I can see Kate and William raising their children in the same way. Also, bear in mind William and Harry are very close- Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely, Linda. Kate is close to her siblings and Harry and Wills are close. I think think the Cambridge children will enjoy a very happy childhood.

      Delete
  15. Gorgeous gorgeous pictures!! Little Louis reminds me of the few baby pictures we have seen of Kate. Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Any idea regarding the christening date? How old were George and Charlotte when they were christened

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I accidentally answered your question up under Hoosier Lori's comment. Oops! I'll say again here: George was around three months old and Charlotte around 2 months old. I think Louis will be Christened in July before the family leaves for their summer holiday in August.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Robin! I'm already excited to see what Kate wears to the wedding and the christening

      Delete
  17. Any idea regarding the christening date? How old were George and Charlotte when they were christened

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think they just released Charlotte for her birthday. I'm sure we will see George for his. Good point, Jane. It's best if he isn't blasted all over the internet, with him going to school with kids that obviously have parent and can see the internet as well.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I wonder if in the christening photos will include the new in-laws- James Mathews and Harry's new wife? Or if they will somehow avoid the pubic hunger for a photo with them all in it to keep the focus on the occasion.

    I find it funny that the photos are so tirelessly dissected by the same people who complain if they don't send them out.
    These seem like purposefully taken for public view to me. Such a very early photo of Louis at three days old is a sweet sharing of their new small boy seems an almost friendly thank you for all the warm wishes. I think they thought to send out Charlotte with the new guy on purpose. It looks a little staged for a family pic and they don't seem like fuzzy staged private kid photo people. The picture with Charlotte recognizes how much she has grown and her new role in the family very nicely. I wonder if it will only be Charlotte or George in the wedding party but not both?

    ReplyDelete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!