Dude, I know the difference between a painting and photo! The enduring image we
have of Queen Victoria as a stern-faced old frump is because that's what she was by
the time photography had become commonplace. When this portrait was done in 1843,
photography was barely in it's infancy. And hard as it may be to believe, Victoria was
an attractive, vibrant young woman at one time. At least that's the "public image"
this portrait was meant to convey. Note the bare shoulders, tussled hair and "carefree"
facial expression. Not the prim & proper, stiff upper-lipped reserve we associate with
the later "Victorian Era."
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 01:51:09 AM by maidboy »
"I'm perfectly sane and I have the papers to prove it." --Jimmy Piersall