Prince William & Kate release new photo of Prince George & Lupo: adorable?

royals

Yay! Duchess Kate and Prince William have released a new photo/family portrait a week ahead of their epic Australian and New Zealand tour. What strikes me immediately is that this portrait is very different from those Michael Middleton photos taken at the Middleton country estate. In those photos last August, it felt like Kate was the one being photographed, that everything else was noise. But this photo is all about George, Lupo and William for me. This is one of the best photos I’ve seen of William in a while! He looks good. And George looking at Lupo and Lupo making that “OMG BEH-BEH” face… that’s killing me. I love them. Lupo and George. It’s all about Lupo and George.

You know what kills me a little bit? It’s like Will & Kate don’t realize what a good PR-bonanza they’re sitting on with Prince George. Princess Diana understood that people wanted to see her babies, and she was much more forthcoming with the photos and photo-ops. But other than the christening, the Michael Middleton-portraits and the paparazzi photos of Kate and George in Mustique, we really haven’t gotten much of a look at George. So what can we tell from this photo? George is a towhead, just like William was at that age. George actually looks a lot like William, I think. Well, at least we’re not talking about their vacations and how they missed George’s first crawl, right?

The window/location is Kensington Palace. The way it’s shot is a little bit… Flowers in the Attic. Some critics have already pointed out that it’s almost like Will and Kate don’t want the peasants to get a good look at their palace, but maybe that’s out of embarrassment, you know? The purple-tinged walls still have not been fixed. We wouldn’t want the peasants to see purple-tinged walls!

Also: Prince George was left at home on Saturday when Kate, William and Uncle Harry attended the wedding of their friend Lucy Meade – see a photo here. Kate repeated that blue Missoni coat we last saw on her in 2012, during a joint appearance with the Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall.

closeup

I’m including a couple of shots of George from last August.

kate1

kate2

Photos courtesy of St. James Palace, Michael Middleton.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

204 Responses to “Prince William & Kate release new photo of Prince George & Lupo: adorable?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    George is really cute, and so is Lupo. They all look good, in fact.

    I loved the way Diana dressed her babies. It was old fashioned, but I loved it. Kate doesn’t have the same flair. There’s nothing wrong with what George is wearing, but I want smocking! This is your only chance to dress him like a baby, Kate.

  2. Brasileira says:

    I almost couldn’t get past the amazing amount of eye liner Kate has going on there. Girl had a part with the liner.

    • Melissa says:

      I don’t know if it’s the eyeliner, but if you zoom in on her face her eyes look drained.

    • Splinter says:

      She seriously looks like a panda. With all that photoshop they could have lightened it up, couldn’t they?
      I think this particular picture was chosen because of the lovely look George is giving Lupo, both parents’ smiles look like caught on halfway. When you look at the Daily Mail article that compares the first pictures of George outside the hospital with this, you can notice that in this picture Kate’s smile is not genuine, it looks forced, crooked, and has she always had such sharp jaw? So, like I said, this picture was chosen because of the George-Lupo interaction, although Lupo clearly looks alert and uncomfotrtable.

  3. Willa says:

    Omg! His little blue George shirt. So effin cute!

  4. Cotton Candy says:

    They all look stunning in these pictures.

  5. Hautie says:

    I see fear in that poor dogs eyes. I bet that George is crawling so well… just in order to chase down the dog! :)

  6. Sullivan says:

    I think the photo is charming. George and Lupo are adorable.

    • Lainey says:

      They say Lupo is a cocker spaniel. He’s an adorable mutt with perhaps some cocker in him. In fact, he’s cuter than a cocker spaniel. I love that they got a black dog. They are euthanized faster than any other dog in shelters because people don’t want them. They also don’t photograph well on adoption websites and are bypassed for lighter dogs. Meanwhile they make loving, wonderful pets as much as any other.

      The baby is cute too.

      • My2Pence says:

        I’m not sure if you know this, but they didn’t adopt him from a shelter. Her mother breeds these dogs. So yes, they have a black dog, but they didn’t go to a shelter and deliberately choose a dog that needed a good home and would have difficulty being adopted due to coat color.

      • Lucybelle says:

        This makes me so sad about black dogs. As if their coloring has any bearing on their personalities! My Rottie Eli languished at the shelter for 4 months before we got him. I can’t imagine my sweet, gorgeous, protective, funny boy being looked over and put down because of his color. I definitely believe he was meant to be mine. Now I need his 105 pound body in my lap!

  7. jb says:

    yes, Kate’s makeup. wow. I don’t know if I agree about it being about George – I would have preferred they release a few shots – one of George’s complete face. Kate looks the best of the group and it feels like she picked the shot. William only looks really happy when he is away from his family. Its too bad as George does look very cute right now.

    • Hazel says:

      Interesting, I was thinking the exact opposite. Kate’s smile doesn’t look genuine, or as tho’ she had one, but lost it as soon as the picture was snapped. Although it is hard to photograph three people & get all three to have just the right expressions, especially when one is a baby. Then when you add a dog to the mix, that really ups the ante. As for George, what a cutie. I think he favors his Middleton grampa. And I’m not quite sure why the photographer chose the ‘fading family photograph from the ’70s’ effect. Maybe to mimic Grampa Middleton’s photos? (though that was a lighting issue, with the light coming from behind the grouping rather than from in front).

  8. Cecilia says:

    I’ve said this before & I’ll say it again. George is so, so…REGAL. He looks like a King.

  9. chaser says:

    When someone is holding a newborn it’s pretty standard for them to be the centre of the photo.

    This photo is great. Love the relationship between a baby and its pet sibling. My cat and daughter are so awesome together.

  10. jess says:

    I think after everything that happened with his mom, William seems to want things a little more private. I think he keeps a good balance.

    • My2Pence says:

      I see no balance in their push/pull with the press. William wants to make it illegal to take any photographs of them unless they are on a royal engagement, to make it illegal to photograph them in a public place. They should not be allowed MORE privacy than the rest of us. He has also, on multiple occasions, threatened the press to stop writing negative stories and only write (fake) positive ones.

      William and Kate Middleton play the press just as much as his mother ever did, complete with favorite mouth-piece reporters (Katie Nichol) and paps (Niraj Tanna) on speed dial. What William doesn’t realize is, his attitude is only going to push the press into an enormous and ugly fight for freedom of speech. And William will lose.

    • FLORC says:

      Diana invited the press into her life. She initiated a dangerous game with them and removed all of her protection. This isn’t my opinion. It’s simple facts. This is not an issue of paps and privacy. This is William wanting full control over his image and the freedom of the press. There’s no balance there.

      • LadySlippers says:

        And Diana and Charles were very protective of the boys’ when they were small. It was only during their war that both (especially Diana) used the press.

      • FLORC says:

        True LadySlippers
        Diana nd history in general is rarely remembered correctly. I really dislike how past events and people are so easily altered to fit current agendas.

      • Maggie says:

        i would want full control as well considering what happened to Diana

      • LadySlippers says:

        But Maggie, Florc’s original point is that prior to Diana dismissing her RPOs she *did* have a lot more control. If Diana had kept her RPOs — Paris would never have happened the way it did.

        Also, Diana was married in and they protect born in much differently than married in. William, unlike Diana post ’94, is operating from a position of solid strength. He will never ever face anything like Diana did — regardless of William’s perceptions.

      • FLORC says:

        Maggie
        LadySlippers is correct.
        Diana not only engaged the press, but dismissed her protection from them. Until that happened She, William, and Harry were all extremely protected and sheltered. To think the press chased Diana down every for years until she died is to pick and choose what facts you want to believe and what facts you’ll dismiss to suit your opinion. And to rewrite history like that is willful ignorance.

      • My2Pence says:

        @maggie. You would choose to do away with important fundamentals of a free society – freedom of the press and freedom of speech – for your own purposes? Because make no mistake, that is what William is toying with. They are already incredibly protected from most of life, far more than any one else — even others in their same position. He is going overboard. As others have stated, the historical facts about Diana and her situation should not be re-written to try to justify his ridiculous behavior.

      • Suze says:

        No public figure has “full control”. However, they do what they can to protect their children’s privacy.

      • Maggie says:

        First of all we’re not taliking about a political person here. Our PM Harper does that and it’s not democratic. Put yourseld in William’s place. His mother died in a horrific crash because the press got out of control. She was hounded whether she invited them in or not. He doesnt want a repeat. I think sometimes posters are very judgemental and heartless when it comes to William and the press. He doesnt want his wife stalked by the press or his child. REASONABLE!

      • FLORC says:

        Maggie
        I’m just going to stae facts here.

        Kate and her family have been found to have a favorite pap and do give tips for locations. William also uses the press.

        Diana did not wear her seat belt, removed all protection, invited the paps into her life and where she was.

        Your argument is to shun freedom of the press.

        William is being unreasonable in his demands since the entire BRF has managed to deal with the paps while William wants to dictate the rules to them.
        Camilla’s life was more in danger post Diana than William’s and she dealt with it correctly. He should take notes.

  11. maria says:

    Seems the baby is good for photo shoots but not to be taken on holidays. Oh yeah, “image rehabilitation 101″ — I was away that day.

  12. GeeMoney says:

    Such a cute photo.

    And I don’t blame them for not being heavily photographed with Prince George all of the time… in this day and age, you have to try and preserve your privacy as much as possible.

    • T.C. says:

      I kind of agree when it comes to regular kids of celebrities because they aren’t public figures. George on the other hand was born a public figure and is a future King. It’s strange that there are such few pictures of him. My opinion is the reason we don’t see him much is that he is always with his nannies or his Middleton grandmother. If he is in public Kate and Wills would have to actually take care of him and try to control him which they wouldn’t be able to do. Then they would get bad press for not looking like good parents.

  13. Macey says:

    I love this photo and think they’re a beautiful family, they always look so cute together.

    now Ill leave the thread before all the Kate haters start bashing her for whatever they can think of.

    • My2Pence says:

      Difference between criticism and hate.

      crit·i·cism
      1. the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

      hate
      1. intense or passionate dislike.

    • Suze says:

      We don’t see so much of the three of them, but I agree, in the very few photos they have released, they all look good. I like the strategy of including Lupo in the family shots – it’s sweet and humanizing. Plus it seems as if George and Lupo are buddies.

      I’m trying to remember the early days of Wills and Harry. I do think that Diana and Charles guarded them pretty closely – photo-wise. Until their marriage went south, they worked as a team to protect the family.

      I want to say that we saw a bit more of Harry and Wills, but not until the kids were school age.

      I could be wrong. I am relying on ancient memory!

      • LadySlippers says:

        Suze,

        You are correct. I said essentially the same thing up thread.

        Both Charles and Diana limited the boys’ exposure to the press as babies because they both knew that the boys’ would get a lifetime of press intrusion and wanted to keep that at bay for as long as possible.

        After both boys went to school (like normal three year olds) it became more difficult to control those shots but both Charles and Diana went out of their way to protect the boys. Even during the 90′s (after the war was well on) she tried to *appease* the press’s insatiable appetite with family shots.

  14. My2Pence says:

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the extreme level of filtering and photoshop on this picture. Rarely if ever do we see a published photograph of what any of them, Kate Middleton especially, really looks like.

    William looks like he just wants this photo session to be over. Her smile looks forced, fake, and doesn’t reach her eyes.

    • LadySlippers says:

      I don’t like the filtering/ lack of colour either.

    • suki says:

      Photoshop??! Nonsense. If that was the case they would have given Mr. Baldtop some hair!

      • My2Pence says:

        @suki. They did add hair, thickened and darkened quite a bit. William has nowhere near that much hair now.

      • FLORC says:

        And photoshopped Williams teeth whiter. In the Midds family shots Kate’s teeth are whiter than Williams, but here his are better than hers. Hmmm…

      • TG says:

        I know @Suki such a tragedy that Wills lost his hair. He was so handsome back in the day. I still remember that awesome phot from his college years. That must be difficult for a man to lose his hair that early in life and to lose his handsomeness along with it. He still had a nice aristocrat I look but it isn’t the same. Perhaps as he gets older he will be more handsome because his age will catch up to his looks. One of the attorneys aty work is very sensitive about his hair loss and we tell him all the time that he still looks good and that women don’t care about stuff like that. Which is true to a certain extent. If a guy has money or has a great personality and character or a good sense of humor than that can go a long way in attracting a woman. Although the b*tchy part of me makes me wonder what Kate thinks of it and howich she probably despises Wills for not having hair.

      • Cersei says:

        The picture has been photo-shopped so much that I initially mistook it for a painting.

      • LadySlippers says:

        On Tumblr one of my favourite posts was someone showing 4 pics of William and Harry: 2 pics of them in their teens when William was hot and Harry looking kinda gangly/geeky; then 2 recent pics of William and Harry. The caption was:”Clearly we all bet on the wrong horse”. I loved it! Lol

        (Anyone remember who created it?!???)

    • FLORC says:

      My2Pence

      Kate’s smile of the last few years has always done that. If her smile does reach the eyes it looks maniacal.
      I’ve brought up the point before we pick up on insencere smiles all the time. The science behind it is great.

      And at this point we’ll never see an unedited photo of either of them and that’s sad. Facial imperfections is what (imo) make someone beautiful. Kate has wrinkles, pox marks, and freckles. To have all these things edited out makes her look like a mannequin.

    • ncboudicca says:

      She looks exactly like her official portrait here, except that we can see her teeth. Washed out and off-color.

      George is awesome.

    • mena says:

      It’s funny that right now Cressida is being praised by the media for posting a make-up free selfie and then W&K release this.

      W&K look a bit out if step, I think.

      • FLORC says:

        http://m.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/makeup/2014032917845/cressida-bonas-make-up-free-selfie/

        I love it. More because it’s charity related than the usual “look at me i’m naturally beautiful” some celebs put out.

      • mena says:

        FLORC, the thing is, I’m not sure Cressida did it for charity. Some Tumblr-ites have said she didn’t use the charity’s hashtag.

        Cressida (& her lawyers) have been complaining about people taking photos from her social media accounts. Something about violating her privacy. I think the tabloids may have said her selfie was for charity, just to make it harder for Cressida to complain about them taking it.

        If Cressida complains, she’d have to admit that her selfie was private & not in support of the charity which makes her look… well… uncharitable.

        That sideshow aside, it is very funny to me that Cressida is getting a lot of praise for her ‘au natural’ beauty while W&K are clearly doing KimK-like levels of retouching on themselves.

      • FLORC says:

        Mena
        Because she didn’t use the hashtag for the charity this photo is not being seen as a charity promotion? Personally, I’d like to know the date the photo was taken and how it was posted,
        I’m aware of the personal photos leaked issue, but could this be a simple mistake of forgetting a hashtag? Did she list any hashtags with the photo?

      • mena says:

        I’m not sure if she used the charity hashtag or not. Or when it was taken.

        What we do know is that Cressida’s Instagram is private. That makes it hard for her to join a social media campaign when, technically, the public isn’t supposed to see it.

        What we also know is that Cressida has been complaining (through her lawyers) about people taking photos from her social media accounts.

        But she’s getting a lot of good press for this stolen selfie, as opposed to the criticism she has gotten for her other photos. So what does she do?
        - complain & stay consistent
        - or only complain when she gets bad press

        It’s a slippery slope.

      • FLORC says:

        Very slippery mena.

        Lots of photos have leaked from her private accounts. That doesn’t mean she hasn’t let 1 picture go out publicly, but i’m not savvy with internet stuff. Can you do that on instagram? Release 1 photo openly, but keep all others private?

      • Bridget says:

        More than anything I’m appalled that anyone’s selfie would be a topic of conversation. I agree with Karl Lagerfeld, that the selfie is like electronic masturbation. It sounds like the slowest news day ever if Cressida’s selfie is a topic at hand.

      • mena says:

        FLORC, I don’t have Instagram, so I don’t know if they have that option. But I don’t think so.

        Cressida’s Instagram account is supposedly under the username ‘cressbo’. That account is private and there are no photos visible to the public.

        If that selfie came from that account, it was meant to be private, like all the less-than-flattering photos she claims were stolen. Hard to take her seriously if she only complains about some photos getting stolen, but not others.

      • FLORC says:

        Mena

        I can see some ugly photos being embarrassing. The fake tusk thing more so taken out of context and out of time.
        I guess my main issue here is why put something online you dont want the world to see? This is why I don’t have social accounts…

      • mena says:

        Exactly FLORC, I agree with you.

        I think people who complain about their online photos being “stolen” don’t have much of an argument.

        If you put photos up on the internet, the internet will find them.

      • wolfpup says:

        I agree. Kate almost looks whooped (totally bossed around) to me.

        I’m wondering, why all the photoshop? Why does she need to look “pretty” instead of just looking like herself? Where’s the self-esteem?

  15. PunkyMomma says:

    I just want to gobble Georgie right up.

  16. lucy2 says:

    Very cute photo. I love the baby and the dog looking at each other.

  17. ZsaZsa says:

    I just love the fact that George’s focus, attention and smiles are all for Lupo. It’s just one of those things. He probably likes to sit in his bouncer and watch lupo run around.
    I think we’ll see more of George when he goes on tour with his parents. I also think it’s right that George has precious privacy- this boy will be king and would have none in the future. Poor wills had the cameras rammed down his throat as a child through no fault of his own, so I can understand his feelings for his son

    • My2Pence says:

      If they do not want this for their child, they are free to find a way to remove themselves from the line. They figured out how to get rid of David, they could find a way out for William and George if they really wanted to.

      The boys did not have “cameras rammed down his [their] throats” continually as children. The press was more respectful because the royals were 1) releasing regular photos and 2) providing public/private photo ops like polo matches, visits to the firehouse museum, etc. where the press were cordoned far away but could still get candids.

      The more they hide him from the press, the more the press will take chances to get additional photos. If they took a more logical approach and released photos more often (like Charles and Diana, and like pretty much all the European royals do with their children), they would be more likely to reach an acceptable balance.

      The taxpayers aren’t demanding 24/7 access to every aspect of their lives, merely for a better balance. Releasing the occasional photo is not going to destroy George’s privacy.

      This would allow the taxpayers (who DO pay for them in some way) to see “in” and to build up affection for this family unit. If William and Kate Middleton do not allow that to happen, many more people will see no reason to keep this lot around. IF affection can be built up for this duo, around their laziness, multiple luxurious homes paid by the taxpayers, and ridiculously-expensive vacations also paid in part by taxpayers, then the monarchy might have a chance to survive. See the brilliant way Sweden is providing access to Estelle to see the way this should be done.

      • ZsaZsa says:

        David was removed because of his nazi connections.
        The taxpayer no longer pays for the royal family- they haven’t for a few years now.
        The royals being papped was a recent thing due to demand.
        They didn’t say they didn’t want to be in line. Just a bit of space.

        The royal family only owns Balmoral and sandringham. Both are paid in up keep by the queen.

        Many people would rather have the royal family than the corrupt politicians anyway.

      • My2Pence says:

        @zsazsa. David was removed for many reasons. Please take the opportunity to read through multiple threads here where the funding issue has been debated and discussed many times. Royal finances are shrouded in secrecy – deliberately so. The situation of the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy of Cornwall does not make it cut and dried. It is not so simplistic as “they are not funded by the taxpayers” or “they are funded by the taxpayers”

        Their security is paid by the taxpayers, even when they go on vacation. So the recent jaunt to the Maldives was roughly $100,000 in taxpayer money for the travel for the protection officers. Plus $500/meal for each of the (probably 6) officers with them. All from the taxpayers. Other costs are hidden in multiple budgets, including the massive costs to local police forces for their time in Wales, more than a million in upgrades to the Wales home, time in Berkshire ($17,000 per DAY), and more than a million in upgrades to the private Middleton home. All paid for by taxpayers.

        The Duchy debate continues. When and if the royals are thrown out, assessments of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster will be done. These assessments will include all of the years that the royals paid no tax whatsoever, unlike other non-royal duchies and landowners who did pay those taxes and didn’t get those breaks. Once all of that is calculated out, a very small fraction of that money would be given to the Windsor family if the people decide they no longer want a royal family. At the end of the day, the BRF is not independently wealthy and they rely on the support of the taxpayers.

        Why on earth would you think that royals aren’t corrupt or corruptible? Just look at the scandal around Charles and the birthday party paid for by a questionable source.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581439/Mega-rich-society-hostess-facing-massive-fraud-probe-paid-500-000-birthday-party-Is-Charles-love-billionaires-taint-scandal-again.html

        And why damn all politicians and assume they are all corrupt? There are good, honest ones out there. Do some research, find the good ones, and throw your support behind them.

      • Suze says:

        Zsa Zsa, there has been a lot of discussion here about what is paid for by the taxpayer, vis a vis the royal family. In 2012 The British government spent $52 million on property upkeep, communication, security and travel expenses for The Queen. The Queen saves countless millions every year by not having to pay any rent, mortgages or property tax on her various castles. And the other royals benefit directly from this as well.

        All royal families are supported by their country’s taxpayers, by differing degrees. Whether or not they are worth it is up to the people of that country.

        King Edward abdicated – he was not removed. However, he did have unsavory personal connections and opinions, and it was with great relief that his decision was to leave. The royals can stand toe to toe in corruption with politicians.

        Papping of the British royals goes back to Prince Margaret days. Not so recent.

      • ZsaZsa says:

        Princess Margaret is recent times.

        Why would anybody pay rent on something they already own? As I said before the Queen has private homes that she pays for the up keep from her own pocket.
        There’s also a huge difference between state visits and private business. If people want to spend money on the queen attending it’s up to them but it’s not going in her back pocket.

        David or Edward abdicated because they basically told him some few home truths and he had no choice. I will advise you to read up on it.
        On a whole the politicians have wasted more money on expenses and such than the queen or the royal family ever has

      • Suze says:

        LOL, I meant PRINCESS Margaret!

      • Suze says:

        The queen (nor other royals) pay no rent on Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, which as you correctly pointed out, they don’t own. Yes, she pays for the upkeep on the homes she owns.

        Still, it’s a stretch to say that the taxpayers do not support the queen. They do. Whether it’s a good deal or not is up to the people she governs.

        I’ve read plenty about the abdication (and it was an abdication, not a “removal”), but I appreciate the advice nevertheless.

        And, yes, LOL, Princess Margaret. But that was 50 years ago! That’s about as far back as the paps go.

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        @zsazsa – “many people would rather have the royal family than the corrupt politicians anyway”

        Not really an either/or thing. (A) the royal family does not govern (though perhaps if we could see Charles’ letters to cabinet, we might see his attempts to do so) and (B) since they are not elected, are there really many people who would prefer to have them run government? Lol, they can’t even manage their own taxpayer-provided budget each year without going into deficit!

      • Sixer says:

        ZsaZsa

        The RF costs about £200m – this includes the Sovereign Grant, security and protection, and the lost revenue from the two duchies.

        This is a drop in the ocean of government expenditure, of course. For example. we spend about £80bn on old age pensions. But it is still a significant cost to taxpayers.

        You are right in that a UK without a monarchy would still have to pay for the state functions currently carried out by the RF. But it would be a great deal less expensive. For example, the Irish presidency costs in the single figures of millions. The French presidency, which has considerably more executive functions, costs less than half what we spend on the RF.

        We could also argue that without the RF living in them, the palaces and castles would be able to generate a tourist profit and the upkeep costs would thus take care of themselves – a further saving. Tourism might actually increase rather than the (pie in the sky) warnings of a decrease without the RF. People could actually SEE the blinkin’ sights!

        Plus, the RF as newly private people would have to pay tax like everyone else. Plus, the income from the two duchies would revert to the exchequer.

      • LadySlippers says:

        ZsaZsa-

        Welcome.

        And as many others have pointed out, the BRF’s cost to the tax payer is debatable. In fact, by the very same people replying to you (including me).

        And the honest truth is we don’t know how much of the BRF is borne by the taxpayer. We don’t know because so much of the Royal Finances are hidden and obscured with the resulting assumptions probably incorrect. However, we are left with assumptions and inferences based on the limited knowledge we DO have but that’s solely the result of keeping the Royal Finances so obscure in the first place.

        As for a Royal Family being more honest than a politician. Really? People in power, regardless of the reason they are in power, don’t always conduct themselves in the manner we’d like. And that’s everyone. Dishonesty seems to be an equal opportunity employer.

        I do agree that David ‘abdicated’. However, I would hope that that FUBAR ‘event’ would not be repeated. I seriously doubt that it will happen again. At I hope it doesn’t.

  18. Snoots says:

    I love how they include Lupo in the family photos! It’s hard to get a good photo of a baby and a dog together so it’s cool they make that effort.

  19. Emily C. says:

    William looks good? What? When I saw this picture, I realized he gets uglier with each picture. There’s something off about his smile, it’s sort of half-assed. It looks more like he’s trying to hold in a sneeze than that he’s smiling.

  20. Okie says:

    I also noticed the window as frame. It was probably intended to give the audience the impression we are peering into their private lives (a glimpse through the window), but it can also be read as creating a division between us and them, a reminder that we are not a part of their lives and there’s only so much we are permitted to see. I guess it entirely depends on your opinion toward WK/BRF.

  21. Mel M says:

    Agree with Kate looking like she’s forcing a smile. The window is weird to me but George is really cute. It stinks that we only see the side if his face though. I have to disagree able him looking like Wills though. Seeing pics of Kate as a baby makes me think he favors her more in the face, especially those christening pics.

  22. rep says:

    They did give william some hair, you can hardly tell he’s bald.

  23. themummy says:

    I think the photo is lovely and find some of the negative comments here to be a real stretch, some very unrealistic and just odd, To each their own, of course, but whatever. I think it’s perfectly lovely, And the baby is adorable.

  24. Zigggy says:

    Cute! Very nice family photo.

  25. T.fanty says:

    Is anyone else seeing the George sweater and just thinking that they got it at Asda?

  26. Damaris says:

    George is a big boy now! And Prince William looks good here, too. They’re such a beautiful family.

  27. Mel says:

    I honestly thought it was a photo-realistic painting – and not a flawless one – because K’s face looks so contrived and odd.
    The baby and the dog are nice, of course, but all in all it’s a strange picture. I don’t think it’s “adorable” at all.
    But then, there are very few things that I do find “adorable”.
    This family is not one of them.

  28. booboobird says:

    Too dark, too forced, too are-we-done-already.
    and what’s with the name sweater?! I know baby G’s name, thankyouverymuch.

  29. vava says:

    I wish they would have cropped that photo to exclude the hideous parents. Kate looks fake and smug, Willy looks uncomfortable. Please someone – take her eyeliner pencil away!

    Don’t the English use screens on their windows?

  30. Cordelia says:

    A. The photoshop job on their official portraits are always a bit strange/immature- it’s like they are using Instagram filters. B. Does Will have just that one shirt? C. George and Lupo are the best!

  31. Talie says:

    He looks a lot like Kate, I think. His hair also looks like it will be darker. Adorable pic — he seems like he has a lot of personality.

  32. Xantha says:

    And the PR damage control begins. I guess babies really do make everything better.

  33. dahlia1947 says:

    I love this picture! They look really good here! And Lupo and George look adorable!

  34. Reece says:

    I have multiple thoughts on this.
    -George is ADORABLE!! THOSE CHEEKS! I could munch those face pillows all day.
    -I think he does look a lot like Kate but it’s hard to tell since he’s looking at Lupo.
    -Poor Lupo. He looks stiff. George must be his “Arch-Nemesis” atm. lol
    -The idea of the pic is nice but the execution leaves something to be desired. It’s so photoshopped and filtered it looks like a painting or an instagram pic. Or really it looks like those pictures that come in frames. It’s just blah.
    -I wish they’d stop trying to appear so especially not special and take simple picture. Quite frankly I’d like to see something with only George.

  35. Dawn says:

    I think it is a beautiful family portrait. He looks like a happy and healthy baby and like he actually knows not only the dog but his parents as well. How refreshing.

  36. MrsBPitt says:

    I wish we could see George’s whole face…from what I can see he looks adorable, but I don’t see much William (and I hope he does look more like Kate)…although like I said, it hard to tell in this side-view picture…

  37. Alin says:

    nice PR picture ;-)
    They lighten Williams teeth and give him more hair… but Kate´s dark eyebags stay the same? That´s unfair!
    I think the eyeliner impaires Kate´s eyesight. She has to be half-blind or so with all the black paint around her eyes. There is no other explanation why she makes her eyes look so tiny, dark and puffy! It´s hard to spot her iris.

  38. hmmm says:

    Georgie is a cutie!

    So the next PR campaign begins, using Georgie as the prop. I really dislike the desaturation. Colour expresses emotion and this pic has been neutralised. BTW, I think we have a glimpse of what the decoration may look like- the curtains are a deep greige (cross btw grey and beige)- oh my!

    Is this supposed to look candid because it looks very formal? The composition has no central focal point so the eye wanders. A shot of them up in the window certainly puts them above us, keeps them remote, although I guess it’s supposed to be casual and neighbourly. Very telling.

    Georgie is a cutie and so is Lupo. I don’t understand why George has a jumper with his name. Who does that?

    ETA: Oh and it turns out that some other woman wore the Missoni coat to the wedding as well! LOL

  39. LAK says:

    PGTIPS is adorably cute.

    That’s all.

  40. Jen34 says:

    George looks just like his dad. They are a gorgeous family.

  41. icicle says:

    George looks adorable here and love how alert and fcused on Lupo he appears.

    Just my opinion but he is the only element in this photo that “feels” real. William and Kate look strained. Lupo appears distracted and possibly stressed.

    Except for George and will give Lupo the benefit of the doubt, this photo has a disagreeable, weird vibe to me.

  42. Suze says:

    Everyone looks good, but I just hate the “instagramming” of photos. I would like to see a nice, naturally lit photo of the three of them.

    Lupo and George have adorable chemistry.

  43. A Fan says:

    Yup, adorable…and lovely…and appropriate. No criticism here.

    [*But, I don't ever have criticism for them - they're off limits as far as I'm concerned*]

  44. Bella says:

    Its as nice photo Lupo and George eyeing each other its too cute. But PLEASE PLEASE Kate STOP wearing soo much eyeliner or at least change the method of applying it. It too much that makes her eyes small, tired and old.

  45. Itsetsyou says:

    Why is Will pushing the “just your normal middle class family” on pictures but through all of his actions show he will never give up his royal perks? Vacations and I-do-as-I-please motto while-you-are-paying-for-it?? It looks so fake! Who are these two trying to trick? Refuse the title and start living like a very wealthy middle class family then. Don’t effing pretend you are one.

  46. wow says:

    They’re finally getting it. All they need to do is put out a picture of George and everything is right with them again. And now they can go on their country tour of Australia with goodwill and no criticism.

    Smart PR move. Good job, royals. Well played. Maldives, who? Pre-vacation, what?

  47. pam says:

    the baby is fat – no two ways about it.

  48. Liz says:

    George is a beautiful boy! Every time I look at Will I think, lazy turd.

  49. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    I wonder if they get Prince George bud in England – Kate looks high as a kite.

  50. Jaded says:

    Totally transparent attempt at mollifying the affronted masses. Too little too late. You’re still rich, lazy do-littles with no discernible value, compassion or focus on what you should be doing instead of taking endless vacations and living the good life.

  51. Bridget says:

    Obviously William is getting thin in the hair. Perhaps instead of fighting it he could just crop it even shorter? Or is that too plebian?

  52. Jess says:

    Adorable family, love it. But I will always have a thing for William, good lawd he’s just so hot!

  53. sarah says:

    Ok so for some reason this shot reminded me of the scenes in House of Cards where Frank and Claire stand in front of the window and smoke. Ha!

    Also I think they might have shopped two photos together so G is looking at the dog. I have a friend who is a professional photographer and she told me she does a lot of “composites” when there are multiple dog/kid subjects due to wriggly-ness.

    And -lastthing- look, Will is even doing the “rolled-up shirtsleeves” look that politicians try to use when they want to “connect” with “regular people.” Snort

  54. Lisa says:

    The baby looks just like Uncle Gary.

  55. Ms. Turtle says:

    I’m genuinely curious, from an outsider, not a citizen of the UK, what all of you who criticize them as “lazy” and “do-nothings” would have them do? You just don’t think they do enough public appearances? Does this go for Charles and Camilla too? Harry? Or is it just Kate and William? I am baffled by the criticism so I’d love an education.

    I don’t understand the criticism of holidays. Royals have taken holidays long before these two came along. It seems to me some of the criticism is just to criticize. (While I respect your right to do so)

    • My2Pence says:

      Lengthy overview. The royals work to serve their country and to earn their ridiculously-privileged lives. If they do not work, they should receive no privileges. The rest of the royal family works far more than William and Kate Middleton.

      Royal Family Engagement Totals 2011
      http://www.examiner.com/article/prince-charles-busiest-british-royal-2011-duchess-of-cambridge-ready-for-more

      Royal Family Engagement Totals 2012
      http://www.examiner.com/article/prince-charles-still-busiest-british-royal-2012

      Royal Family Engagement Totals 2013
      http://www.canada.com/entertainment/Royal+family+carried+fewer+engagements+2013/9342008/story.html

      Average retirement age in the UK 64.6 for men, 62.3 for women (both are on the rise). Please note the ages of the royal workhorses vs. the lazy duo.

      Her Majesty, 87 (88 this month)
      Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 92
      Prince of Wales, 65
      Duchess of Cornwall, 66
      Princess Royal (Anne), 63
      Princess Alexandra, 77
      Duke of Glouchester, 69
      Duchess of Glouchester, 67
      Duke of Kent, 78
      Earl of Wessex, 50
      Countess of Wessex, 49
      Prince Michael of Kent, 71
      Princess Michael of Kent. 69

      Lazy Duo:
      William. 31
      Kate Middleton, 32

      William was not working full-time at RAF, otherwise he wouldn’t have been in danger of losing his wings. He was clearly skiving off those duties, but wasn’t doing royal duties either. He took paternity leave in the summer of 2013, went back basically for a going away party, and has been on a ridiculous “gap year” pretending to learn things he should have learned the first time he did this kind of course in his early twenties. This “course” prevents him from doing full-time royal duties, but it allows plenty of time for him to go hunting and head to the Maldives?

      Kate Middleton started out extremely slow, after feeding the public the lie/line in the engagement interview that she was going to work hard. Yes, she got pregnant. And most woman – particularly those in government jobs (as she is) – work 40 hours per week through their pregnancy. No, she did not have HG it was never diagnosed, she most likely had norovirus. She was perfectly fine to go on vacation and flit around shopping during the pregnancy but couldn’t work? Now she keeps getting photographed out shopping, at the hairdressers, etc. but the excuse is “she is a full-time mom she cannot do royal engagements”. A full-time mom with cook, cleaners, housekeeper, multiple nannies, personal assistant, and 27 office staff. She has plenty of time to pamper herself but no time to serve the taxpayers a token few hours a week?

      The few times they do show up for engagements they appear reluctant and often end up acting inappropriately. (Middleton laughing through remembrance ceremonies, William caught on video referring to someone at a fund-raiser “a bore”, etc.). The other members of the royal family work far more, are professional, and appear happy to do their jobs.

      Much of the criticism from the holidays comes from the fact that they don’t work in between those holidays. HM takes weeks off every year, quietly on royal properties. She doesn’t spent $100,000 in taxpayer payer money on flights for security staff so she can hang out on the beach in the Maldives for a week. That’s a big difference. Not only do William and Kate Middleton not work anywhere near as much as they should, they are throwing their “ill-gotten gains” in the face of the struggling taxpayers.

  56. Francis says:

    IMO George looks likes a cuter baby Uncle Gary and Kate. I don’t see any Windsor or Spencer in his face from that side view, that’s all Goldsmith Middleton so far.
    Kate looks exactly like that portrait a lot of the press complained about. She doesn’t look good in this new released photo, her eyes look very hard, over done eyeliner. George looks like the only one having fun in the photo.
    I just get a Gwyneth Paltrow, Chris Martin vibe from William and Kate, like they meet up for vacations and photo ops, then Kate hangs with her mom and William has his own life and friends.