Why Kate Wore a Trendy Dress and Other Insights on the Cambridges’ Portrait
Art and fashion historian Jonquil O’Reilly decodes the duchess’s fashion choices and the couple’s body language, and explains how a painted piece can capture what a photograph cannot.
Welcome to So Many Thoughts, a semi-weekly newsletter about royal style and the other parts of life I want to think through with you. You can subscribe here and follow me on Instagram at @EHolmes. Thank you!
The first official joint portrait of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was unveiled Thursday, a larger-than-life piece commissioned last year by the Cambridgeshire Royal Portrait Fund. British portrait artist Jamie Coreth said in a written statement that painting the piece “the most extraordinary privilege of my life” and he “wanted to show Their Royal Highnesses in a manner where they appeared both relaxed and approachable, as well as elegant and dignified.”
I shared my thoughts on Instagram (and, in a first, I have included them at the bottom of this email—scroll down and take a look). But I knew there was so much more to say! So I reached out to Jonquil O’Reilly, head of Old Masters at Christie’s auction house. Our conversation has me thinking about the painting in so many new ways. I hope you enjoy her thoughts, below, as much as I did.
Take care, friends.
An Art Historian’s Weighs In on the Cambridges’ Portrait
(Painted by Jamie Coreth, Fine Art Commission)
When I first saw the new portrait of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, I had so many thoughts—but also so many questions. I was eager to hear from an expert on these types of paintings to understand more.
Enter Jonquil O’Reilly, an art and fashion historian who is the head Old Masters at Christie’s auction house. As a Brit steeped in the history of paintings from the early Renaissance through 1800 or so, Jonquil told me she views portraits today through a lens of: “If I’m looking at this 200 years from now, what is this going to be saying to me?”
We had a fascinating conversation this morning, during which Jonquil made the case for Kate’ s dress, decoded the Cambridges’ intertwined stance, and explained what a painted portrait can achieve that a photograph cannot. Our conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
What did you first think when you saw the new portrait of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge?
The royal portraits I’m used to seeing are not of figures that I’ve got any other reference for—I’ve only seen them in paintings and the occasional drawing. What’s really interesting for me, seeing these contemporary painted portraits, is having seen the way that both of these sitters [the term for the person or people being painted] move on camera, how they look in their posed photographs versus how they look in the more candid shots.
For artists, it’s a challenge to create an image that is striking when a sitter is so familiar. And I would say maybe even more of a challenge because one way to [create a striking image] is to have them dressed in all their finery, complete with the mega jewels, a few coronation bits in the background as a key, covered in medals, all of that kind of thing.
The first thing that struck me about what they’re wearing, from a fashion historian’s point of view, is that they’re well-cut, really beautiful clothes. But they’re making a statement about being relatively normal people, I think. Not that everyone can afford a pair of Manolo Blahniks, but you know.
Will and Kate attended the unveiling of their portrait at the Fitzwilliam Museum on Thursday. (Photo via i-Images/Polaris)
We will get to the shoes! But first let’s talk about Kate’s dress, by The Vampire’s Wife. I was so surprised she chose a trendy style rather than something more timeless.
A lot of her clothes, if you're looking at it a hundred years from now, wouldn’t be super easy to place—beyond a sort of 20-year period—to an untrained eye. And yet, for once, Kate’s dress [in the portrait] is actually much more of a specific moment than anything that you normally see her in really.
Why do you think she did that?
I think it was better not to go with something totally classic, to go with something that’s of-the-moment. Because although this is for posterity, I don’t think that necessarily means it needs to age really well.
She’s not gone for something that’s really over-the-top in 2022. She’s gone for something that’s really recognizable to show that she’s super in fashion. But not something that’s going to look silly once that fashion has passed.
Ah, I see. So the dress is recognizable but won’t risk being seen as ridiculous in a century or two?
Exactly. I think that is the really important distinction. I think she wants to be seen as a fashionable woman, that’s why she’ s chosen that dress, that’s why she’s chosen those shoes. When you’re sitting for your painted portrait, you wear something that’s super up-to-date fashion, but not something that’s crazy silly.
What did you make of the shimmery fabric of the dress?
I’m always interested in the textiles that are shown in paintings because that was a clear way of displaying wealth, but also showing where you’re from and what artisans you’ve got access to—cloth of gold or specific brocades and velvets. Kate has chosen to wear a fabric that is going to go out fashion pretty quick, I would say. But it’s such a challenge to paint, I think it is really enjoyable. To me, that was really interesting.
It makes me think of the moment when you cross over from very thick, heavy, patterned textiles of the Tudor and early Stuart period, and you come towards a moment in the court of Charles I when [Sir Anthony] van Dyck starts painting. Van Dyck was much more interested in hands and faces. He painted people in these glossy, plain, light silks, because then the portrait doesn’t end up looking busy.
For a modern dress, what Kate is wearing here is really eye-catching and luminous. But your eye is immediately drawn to her face.
And then there are those Manolo Blahnik heels, a style made instantly recognizable by Sex and the City.
Your average person might be able to look at something and say, “Oh, that's Gucci,” or, “Oh, that's Dior,” but I don’t think they’re not going to be able to look at that green dress and know who it’s by. Whereas those shoes are so iconic. It’s something recognizable. It’s something that you know is expensive.
She’s treading that line because, on the one hand, she’s going to get pasted if she’s wearing or haute couture and that kind of thing, isn’t she? But on the other hand, she is still a royal and she does still need to be a cut above the rest, particularly for a portrait, which is for posterity.
What did you make of the jewelry she chose? She is wearing the Duchess of Cambridge’s Pearl Pendant Brooch, on loan from the Queen, and pearl earrings and a bracelet from Princess Diana.
Jewelry is one of the sort of major factors that you take into account when it’s female portraits or when it’s double portraits. [In the past] jewels would be constantly dismantled, melted down, recast and re-set in different ways. You have the same jewel, which has passed down for centuries in the same family, but it will be reset in a variety of ways for every owner. I find it really interesting that Kate’s jewels are from a previous generation.
And to me, the fact that she’s wearing her mother-in-law’s jewelry—they’re so recognizable and she hasn't had them reset, as far as I know—is a clear statement that she is aligning herself with the Queen of Hearts. There are two sides to how Diana is represented: the ultra glamorous, ultra chic side, and then there’s very much the mother who did not want her sons to be brought up in the traditional royal way necessarily. I read it as her very much wanting to be aligned in the public eye with Diana in terms of motherhood and the gentle, softer side of the royals.
What did you think about their body language and positioning?
Not looking directly to the viewer, I think, makes them much more approachable. The same with their stance. Kate looks very immediate and that’s obviously very deliberate. It looks like someone’s just caught their eye, caught them in conversation for a second and made them smile—versus stiffer, face-on, looking at you the whole time, locking gaze with the viewer.
Having [Kate’s] body turned slightly, it’s also more appealing. But she’s turned to him, which I think is quite interesting. She would’ve been facing him and then she’s turning to look out, isn’t she? That, to me, is a very united, quite a tender thing, rather than both being side-by-side or rather than having one of them seated. I think that's sending a very clear message of their unity and their approachability.
British portrait artist Jamie Coreth next to his painting. (Photo via i-Images/Polaris)
And what about Will’s stance? What vibe did you get from his hand in his pocket and his knee bent?
Confident and relaxed. That, I think, is because he doesn't often come across as relaxed in his photographs despite his best attempts.
That sort of knee cocked and one foot slightly turned out [pose] is something you tend to see in earlier portraits, where it’s almost a balletic pose. The point of those poses was to show off your legs because for men it was important to have a very slender calf and a really strong thigh. That was the height of masculinity, showing that you were fencing and dancing and all of these ideals that you wanted from courtly life.
What we wanted to see [from royals] then was the definition of power, shown through physical strength and physical prowess. Henry VIII was shown with the body of an ox but then the legs of a ballerina, that balance between his imposing power and his clear inclusion in courtly life.
What are we looking for now from our royals? We’re not looking for the same thing. We’re looking for them to be approachable, of the people, and all of that kind of thing. So that’s what that pose is playing to, I think.
I was also struck by how they had their arms around one another. That’s not something they are known for in most of their public appearances.
I read it as really intimate and what's interesting is the contrast. You would expect it to be the other way around. You would expect a painted portrait to be much more formal and feel much stiffer. I spend so much time lecturing on Old Masters and explaining why they look stiff and unapproachable to a modern eye.
It’s really interesting for me to look at a portrait like this and see it flipped. As a couple, they look much stiffer in photographs, even in candid photographs, or even in their own posed “What a little lovely family we are” photographs.
I think that’s the beauty of a painted portrait. The artist is reading your personalities. They’re not capturing a snapshot, they’re taking whole hours worth of sittings and spending time with a person to see how they move, how they are when they’re relaxed. They’re incorporating all of that into the portrait, rather than capturing the second when you’ve got to get their personality, get them looking right, get them not blinking or putting on a slightly weird face either.
Interesting! So a painted portrait captures something much different than a photograph?
When I smile, my eyes disappear and I’m all teeth. But I like to think that when you are with me and I’m laughing and I’m smiling at you, I don’t look like I’m about to eat you. But in photographs that’s occasionally how I come across. You’ve got all of those things to overcome in a photograph. And yes, you've got a million shutter moments to try and capture that moment, but chances are your sittings are going to be far shorter.
Whereas with an artist, they have all that time to drink you in and to convey that because they’re not constrained to have an expression that they’ve caught on your face, match a pose that they really liked and match the perfect light on your clothing to catch that shimmer. Because they can keep that dress, put it on a mannequin, put it in the most fabulous light that they want and then paint the dress that way. And the face however they want! It’s a layer of artificiality that makes it feel much more natural, if that makes sense.
And how about their expressions? What did you see in them?
I read them as being, again, like those poses. Intimate, relaxed. Not in a candid, caught-off-guard way. More that somebody’s got to know them and this is how they are normally when they’re more relaxed.
I think that’s what they're trying to say. Whether they actually are this relaxed, who knows? Looking at the images you see in the press, this isn’t how they come across normally. This is much more relaxed.
What about the direction of their gazes? What do you make of them looking so far to the viewer’s left?
You know when they are doing [television] interviews and they’re looking to the side, talking to somebody who’s directly next to the camera? That would've been one way to do it. But the fact that it’s all the way over to the side makes it feel more genuine, that they’ve been caught in a moment. As if somebody said something and made them laugh. For me, it makes it feel more immediate.
And how about the minimal background? The artist said the color and the hexagonal detail was inspired by the architecture of Cambridge.
It’s a very classic British portrait type background to me. You’re not taking anything away from the sitters, not even with a draped curtain or anything like that. All of your focus is drawn to the figures and to their expressions and their pose.
But also it's harder with male dress these days. Men have only been dressing in this specifically boring way for the last 150, 200 years. Prior to that, men would’ve been dressed equally, if not more, spectacularly than women. So it was much easier for [men] to pop. Whereas if you are very plainly and elegantly dressed, as of the fashion now for men, you need a plain background so that you don’t sink into it.
Thank you, Jonquil! You can follow her on Instagram at @JonquilOReilly.
What are your thoughts on the portrait of the Cambridges? Do you see anything differently now? Please Hit “Join the Discussion” and leave a comment on my Bulletin page.
In a newsletter first: I wanted to share my Instagram posts here. Let me know if you like this! (Tip: Pinch + zoom if needed to read on your phone).
Lastly, here is New York Magazine’s guide to getting an abortion and a list of abortion funds you can donate to right now.
Like what you’re reading? Please forward to a friend! You can subscribe here, follow the fun on Instagram at @EHolmes, and find my New York Times bestseller, HRH: So Many Thoughts on Royal Style, wherever you get your books.