Controversy over Prince William and Kate's Depictions on Royal Mint Coins

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    misprint
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the depictions of Prince William and Kate Middleton on Royal Mint coins, focusing on the artistic representation and public reactions to their likenesses. Participants express various opinions on the accuracy and aesthetics of the coins, as well as broader sentiments about the royal family and their public perception.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants criticize the coin designs, suggesting they do not accurately represent Kate Middleton, with one stating she looks like a "middle aged hag" and another comparing her to Sarah Ferguson.
  • Others defend the designs, claiming they closely resemble the actual appearances of Prince William and Kate Middleton, with one participant providing a side-by-side comparison with a photo of Kate.
  • A few participants speculate on the artistic choices, questioning whether the engravings were intended to depict the couple in a future state or if there are protocol reasons for not showing them smiling.
  • There are comments on the public's tendency to critique the royal family, with some suggesting that the British people enjoy complaining about them regardless of the subject matter.
  • Discussions also touch on the financial aspects of the royal family, with participants debating their funding, the value of royal assets, and the perceived waste of taxpayer money on royal upkeep.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the quality of the coin depictions or the broader implications regarding the royal family. Disagreement is evident in the differing views on the accuracy and artistic merit of the coins.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference the financial aspects of the royal family and their public role, indicating a complex relationship between the monarchy and taxpayer funding, but these points remain unresolved and speculative.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in public perceptions of royal representations, artistic critiques, and discussions on monarchy-related financial matters may find this thread engaging.

What's your opinion of the likeness?

  • An amazing likeness!

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • So-so... I'm surprised it was approved.

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • I wasn't aware the Royal Mint hired blind engravers.

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • William and Kate who?

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
mugaliens
Messages
196
Reaction score
1
The "artist" at the Royal Mint did http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101223/lf_nm_life/us_britain_royals_coin" with Prince William and Kate's depictions.

Unless, of course, he was either shooting for how they'd look in twenty years, or worse, trying to pattern them after the Queen Elizabeth II...

What's your opinion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Holy crap! They might as well have put a mustache on her. Are they going to redo it?
 
I don't see what you guys are seeing. Looks just like her to me.

On the left is the best picture I found of her from the front and without a smile.

kate-middleton.jpg
 
I thought everyone liked the Queen - they weren't very nice to her (either).
 
I don't think it's that bad. Perhaps the cheek area could do with some improvement, but aside from that not terrible.
 
I voted "blind engravers". She looks more like Sarah Ferguson and he looks like some foreign dictator.
 
She's looks like a middle aged hag on that coin.

This is a beautiful, vibrant young woman.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I don't see what you guys are seeing. Looks just like her to me.

On the left is the best picture I found of her from the front and without a smile.

kate-middleton.jpg

i think the coin is pretty close to the left pic with the exception that they gave her a bit of a fivehead.
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
I don't see what you guys are seeing. Looks just like her to me.

On the left is the best picture I found of her from the front and without a smile.
A quick google search found a much better pic, IMO:
kateES1107_468x871.jpg
 
  • #11
Al68 said:
A quick google search found a much better pic, IMO:
Yes. I deliberately avoided any pics that showed her smiling, since she is not smiling in the engravement.
 
  • #12
maybe it is against protocol to show royals smiling.
 
  • #13
Perhaps it's a rendition of what they'll look like after a horrible, all night long fight during their honeymoon...
 
  • #14
CRITICS TIZZIED THAT KATE MIDDLETON DOESN'T LOOK MORE LIKE HER COIN

LLANTRISANT, WALES (AFP) – The parents of Catherine Elizabeth "Kate" Middleton, Carole Elizabeth and Michael Francis Middleton, issued a heartfelt apology Wednesday for their part in the failure to provide the Royal Family of the United Kingdom a future duchess that more closely resembled their recent commemorative coin.

Britain's Royal Mint accepted the apology and suggested in a press release that this should be regarded as an important lesson for all couples who hope to one day provide the Kingdom with a prince or princess.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/parody"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
[PLAIN]http://celelog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Kate-Middleton-Prince-William.jpg
[PLAIN]http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20101223/i/r1673771469.jpg?x=213&y=213&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=410&q=85&sig=2Qqnv65QhNmkDpK.YoeqfA--

Its not THAT far off.. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
So... it boils down to people being surprised that different facial expressions look different?
 
  • #17
It boils down to the British just loooooove to kavetch about their Royal Family. If it weren't the coins, they'd have their knots in a short about what colour buttons the prince is wearing.
 
  • #18
Turns out she's been nailed for wearing one of those silicon "bio-energy & rejuvination" bracelets that equalizes your energy.

Hopefully she bought it or got it as a present and wears it because she thinks it's purty and not that it works. OY.
 
  • #19
DaveC426913 said:
It boils down to the British just loooooove to kavetch about their Royal Family. If it weren't the coins, they'd have their knots in a short about what colour buttons the prince is wearing.

Coming from someone who live in a country that recognises the Monarch... how dare you speak ill of her family! :wink:

Personally, can't stand them. They are a drain on resources and serve no practical purpose (well I suppose a bit of tourism but I'm sure a half decent attempt at a theme park would cover that).
 
  • #20
How much money can the royal family really lay claim to? If they were cut off, how much would belong to them? At one time they controlled most of the wealth, but after being set aside politically, what deal was made?
 
  • #21
jarednjames said:
Coming from someone who live in a country that recognises the Monarch... how dare you speak ill of her family! :wink:

Personally, can't stand them. They are a drain on resources and serve no practical purpose (well I suppose a bit of tourism but I'm sure a half decent attempt at a theme park would cover that).

Actually, I said nothing at all about the family. Only about the British people. :smile:
 
  • #22
Evo said:
How much money can the royal family really lay claim to? If they were cut off, how much would belong to them? At one time they controlled most of the wealth, but after being set aside politically, what deal was made?

They don't get that much in the grand scheme of things, but it's still waste as far as I'm concerned.

They get certain amounts for upkeep of the palaces etc. I honestly don't do the whole conservation thing. For me, if it's old and especially if it's falling down, just get rid of it. Don't spend money doing it up. (I hate listed buildings.)

Let's face it, they are funded by tax payer money and for what? To entertain a few foreign diplomats and attend a variety of engagements each year. A load of crap an ambassador could be dealing with for far less cost.

As someone put it earlier on TV, the government grasp every penny from some rather controversial places to save £1 billion (tuition fees etc) and then go and blow £13 billion on two weeks of sport next year.

There are some things I just don't see us having a need for, these are the places we should be making cuts first.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
Actually, I said nothing at all about the family. Only about the British people. :smile:

Sorry, was trying to do the royal 'we' thing wrt "family", it failed miserably.
 
  • #24
Evo said:
How much money can the royal family really lay claim to? If they were cut off, how much would belong to them? At one time they controlled most of the wealth, but after being set aside politically, what deal was made?

Queen Liz 2nd is worth about £349 million ($542 million Canadian) according to Forbes. But the Royal Household doesn't get audited. The Royal Collection is worth about $16 billion Canadian. But that's in trust, so I have no idea how that would be divvied out.

Buckingham Palace denies these amounts, though, as exaggerated.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/23/indepth-queen-elizabeth-ii.html?rdr=871
 
  • #25
Newai said:
Queen Liz 2nd is worth about £349 million ($542 million Canadian) according to Forbes. But the Royal Household doesn't get audited. The Royal Collection is worth about $16 billion Canadian. But that's in trust, so I have no idea how that would be divvied out.

Yes, but the government gives them what is effectively an extortionate income. Damn scroungers should start supporting themselves. After all, they expect the public to do so with much less behind them.
 
  • #26
jarednjames said:
They don't get that much in the grand scheme of things, but it's still waste as far as I'm concerned.

They get certain amounts for upkeep of the palaces etc. I honestly don't do the whole conservation thing. For me, if it's old and especially if it's falling down, just get rid of it. Don't spend money doing it up. (I hate listed buildings.)

Let's face it, they are funded by tax payer money and for what? To entertain a few foreign diplomats and attend a variety of engagements each year. A load of crap an ambassador could be dealing with for far less cost.

As someone put it earlier on TV, the government grasp every penny from some rather controversial places to save £1 billion (tuition fees etc) and then go and blow £13 billion on two weeks of sport next year.

There are some things I just don't see us having a need for, these are the places we should be making cuts first.

Like I said. Them British loooooove to kavetch about em... :biggrin:
 
  • #27
jarednjames said:
Yes, but the government gives them what is effectively an extortionate income. Damn scroungers should start supporting themselves. After all, they expect the public to do so with much less behind them.

For some, sure. For others, not so much:

Wikipedia said:
since 1993, the Prince of Wales has voluntarily paid income tax. The Prince paid a voluntary contribution to the treasury of 50% of his duchy income from the time he became eligible for its full income at the age of 21 in 1969, and he has paid 25% since his 1981 marriage.

That's not too bad.
 
  • #28
Newai said:
Buckingham Palace denies these amounts, though, as exaggerated.

Naturally. It wouldn't do to let a property tax into the midst...

Waitaminute! Aren't royals supposed to tax their subjects for income? Time for another quest, I see!