Do the royal shots show real picture?
How predictable that "experts" – defined in my Lidl Imprecise Dictionary as "people whose views you shouldn't trust" – have panned the pictures taken of the royal baby and family.
The infant is much like any other – bald and asleep – and the adults make a comely pair, responsible-looking and decent. That they are not in proper, paid employment is a sad indictment of our times. The pix have been panned because they were taken by an "amateur" (ie someone good at something without making money at it).
The amateur under advisement is Duchess Kate's dad, Michael Middleton. His are pleasant snaps, sharp enough for the most part, with the subjects portrayed in warm and honest poses.
However, Mr Middleton committed the cardinal sin of shooting into the light for a couple of them, thus ensuring a chorus of tutting from the sort of folk who write impenetrable advice on forums. You know the sort: deploying acronyms and jargon in a superior manner, while entirely failing to communicate.
Middleton's snaps have been compared unfavourably with the proper, posh ones taken of the late Lady Di and Prince Charles by yon Lord Snowden .
But D & C look right artificial and uncomfortable in Snowden's snaps. A bit like the marriage itself, right enough.
So perhaps these professional chappies do have the edge after all.