| On January 4, 2018, Queen Margrethe of Denmark held a traditional New Year reception at Christiansborg Palace. Representatives of Armed Forces, Emergency Management Agency (Beredskabsstyrelsen), big organizations of Denmark and organizations under patronage of the Royal Palace were invited to the reception. Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary were present at the reception. |
Rachel Gilbert Ball Skirt
Mary´s skirt looks too much as a petticoat, the former skirt she wore with this lovely jacket was much better.
ReplyDeleteThis reception takes place in the morning (9:30 AM).... Mary is dressed as it was an evening event, too much cocktail party over her outfit, IMO.
ReplyDeleteMarie works and is patron for Emergency Management Agency (Beredskabsstyrelsen), strange she and Joachim (Armed Forces) not were present at the New Year's reception !!
As far as I know only the queen (and her husband) and crown prince and princess attend to this reception
DeleteMary's skirt looks like a home ec project gone wrong (and is a bit too long) and I agree with Mille C that it's a bit much for an evening event.
ReplyDeleteI tried not to say this on earlier posts but the men's "costumes" at these events look like they came from backstage at an operetta. Especially their hats!
re the men: I've been saying that for years.
ReplyDeleteI´m not impressed with Mary here either.
ReplyDeleteThe skirt is too long (still), it looks out of place for a morning reception, it is somewhat unpolished for this very formal event, like it was made from leftover fabric bits. I do like her jacket (a lot actually) but I don´t think it is well suited to be worn with a sash, and maybe Mary thought the same since she decided to hide the sash underneath. Only that it now sticks out on the side and looks totally weird.
So there is that.
But now to my main problem with all this, and it is about the picture showing Mary wearing that skirt on an earlier occasion. And it is just so fake. It shows how vain Mary is and how she resorts to all sorts of tricks to give an impression that´s just not real. The proportions are so off in that picture. She´s obviously standing on a box to look supertall (the skirt was longer then and has since been shortened to fit her actual height). And her waist in that picture is just unreal - why photoshop images to look like barbie?
Ask the magazines and photo editors? It isn't just Princess Mary that is digitally altered to look better in magazine shoots or official photos.
DeleteWomen and in particular girls should question every image that the see in magazines or online, as most have been "enhanced", some images aren't even real women or girls, they are nothing more than a programmer's dream (CGI) of what a "perfect woman/girl" should look like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKlVyUJw3TM
Vanessa how ruse your comment is. The earlier magazine picture has of course nothing to do what Mary wanted or did not want or her vanity, magazine pictures are truly planed and arranged with the magazine staff. Also it´s photoshoping is totally after the photographer and editor. On the other hand these pictures taken from this reception are informal, what means there is no such photoshop what changes waists or portions.
DeleteIt's me, I totally agree! It should be part of the education at school how media/advertising use programs like photoshop and how big the gap between reality and "media reality" can be. I have nothing against playing with our visions of Beauty - whatever this is - but especially children and teenager must understand this game.
DeleteAsk the magazine and photo editors? Are you kidding me? She is not a commercial model working for a magazine or a fashion label (although one can be forgiven for thinking that). She is the crown princess of Denmark. She IS the label. She is an official representative of the country, and photocalls and magazine photoshoots are effective ways to create a public image - for the royal family and possibly for the entire country of Denmark. You can be sure that not a single photo is released that is not approved by the court, or in this case, by Mary. It is naive to believe that photos get taken and later freely "enhanced" by some photo editor working for a magazine. That would be a clear case of fraudulent journalism, both with regard to readers (creating false images and stories) and with regard to the photo subject (giving a dishonest portrayal of the person). Journalists frequently get sued for that kind of stuff, and rightly so. At the palace, only accredited photographers are allowed anyway.
DeletePhotocalls are not to be confused with modelling work. Photos taken of models are there to sell a product or service, and are as such created and enhanced to best get the message across. It is not important to give a truthful image of the model as (s)he is not the label, (s)he is just a marketing tool.
So, I´m not saying that there aren´t or shouldn´t be any photoshopped images in magazines. Of course there are. And that´s ok. The problem arises with people who represent others, especially members of a royal family who need credibility and reliability to deserve public support, who should offer moral leadership and function as a unifying institution for the country be relevant, and who need to stand for both traditional values and continuity to justify the status of monarchy for a country. Being fake is not benefitial to this.
Vanessa: there is two kind of public photos; one is informal one is like the article in fashion magazine. Photos above taken on the reception are informal. What means they are like things are, they can be photoshoped only about basic old developing ways. If you have a big pimple at your face, that can be removed, nothing more. That is the ethic of journalism. Then there are these fashion magazine photos what are all fake, not true at all, they are all badly photosoped in many ways, also if the target is a royal or any other public person. In those "high" magazines there is never any articles about any royal women (or anybody else so far) without serious photoshoping. Of course many wish they were more natural, but probably majority want to see more dreams than reality and this habit continues. That is of course no cause of Mary.
DeleteAlso when I look at that pic you so much attack I do not see such a massive changes you see. I see very different lens focus (long focus lense makes person slimmer, reception pictures has been taken with wider angle lense what makes person thicker), good and well mastered lighting (makes thinner etc, reception picture in harsh flash), maybe very high heels, skirt arranger to make that beautiful S shadow what makes her also look taller. The main difference between these pictures is that the magazine ones are well mastered, the reception pictures just a moment´s catch in bad light.
About long skirt, this reception has always been carried out as white tie, with long skirts, orders and male uniforms. Mary has again nothing to do with the dress code here.
@ Coralie and Blondiini - totally agree 👍
DeleteThe skirt was longer in the vogue shot. Denying that is useless. Look how far Mary´s hand reaches relative to that first horizontal seam. Clearly not the same. A few centimetres have been taken off from that tier alone. Do that at every tier, and the skirt is easily 10cm shorter. And yet, the now shortened skirt still longs too long on her - but it doesn´t as much in the vogue shot. Weird - isn´t it? It is OBVIOUS she stood on a stool or something for the photoshoot in order to look extra tall, disguised by that extra long skirt.
DeleteSome here claim that the skirt has the same length in both photos when seen side by side here. But Mary was much further away from the camera for the vogue shot - just compare the size of her head in both shots!
Camera lenses, lighting, angles - sure, I can see the difference too. And I know that pictures get edited and touched up before publishing. Professional photographers would correct the white balance, enhance the contrast, crop the frame and so on. But no such editing would ever change the waistline of a person relative to other body parts. Changes like that are not editing - that´s faking an image.
And then there is the question of who is behind these changes. Is it the magazine doing them without Mary´s consent (and Mary the poor victim?). I say hardly - she definitely knew about them and approved them before the photos were released; after all she would benefit from being perceived as the fairytale princess. I would go as far as saying that she not only approved but requested the changes in order to create just that perfect princess image about herself. Wouldn´t be the first time either. If it was any other way, the photo had never been published, and the magazine instead sued.
Vanessa, I find that Mary overdoes the "I am a princess" look whereas her husband seems to prefer looking scruffy.
ReplyDeleteI love his beard and mustache personally
DeleteGood grief! The royal women are suppose to wear floor length dresses at these first of the year receptions in Denmark! It is not a tiara event, but it is a floor length skirt event. Mary, after so many years of being the crown princess, I would imagine knows what to wear at official events much better than keyboard critics. Look up what she wore to these events in the past years. It is always floor length skirts.
ReplyDeleteThat's it! 😑
DeleteMary looks great, the lenght of the skirt the model is wearing is the same, so maybe that's how it should look. The prince looks funny. And the queen! Hasn't she heard is not nice to wear fur coats? or are they fake furs? Embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteMary looks great, the lenght of the skirt the model is wearing is the same, so maybe that's how it should look. The prince looks funny. And the queen! Hasn't she heard is not nice to wear fur coats? or are they fake furs? Embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteCrown Princess Mary looks wonderful. I really love the chocolate brown and bronze combination.
ReplyDeleteMary looks gorgeous and I love her outfit in shades of brown!! So smart of her to combine the two pieces she already had to make the new look!!
ReplyDeleteyep a georgeous mother of four, and looks great always!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNot a hit, much better the other day.
ReplyDeletePost a Comment
(We will not publish anonymous comments that were posted without stating a name or nickname)