Popular Posts

Royal Profile: Cecil Beaton

When Cecil Beaton visited a clairvoyant in 1926, she told him that he would have a lot to do with royalty. At the time he could not have realized just how prophetic that statement would be.

Cecil Walter Hardy Beaton was born in London on January 14, 1904, the grandson of a blacksmith, and the eldest son of a prosperous timber merchant. He had three siblings: Reginald (Reggie) born 1905, Nancy (born 1909) and Barbara (Baba) born 1912. When he was 11, his grandmother bought him his first camera, which he taught himself the basics of photography, using his mother and sisters as his first models. When he became more proficient he sent his photographs off to London society magazines, writing under a pen name but recommending the work of 'Beaton'.

Raised in Hampstead, he attended Heath Mount School, London where he felt like an outsider much of the time. It wasn't until he attended Harrow School that he hit his stride and involved himself in the theatre, designing sets, sewing costumes and performing. Although not academically inclined, to please his parents he attended St. Thomas' College, Cambridge, studying history, art and architecture. He continued to work on his photography in his homemade studio, sending photographs to the major fashion magazines. Through his university contacts he was commissioned to photograph the Duchess of Amalfi. The photograph, bought and printed by Vogue, gave him his first ever published work.

In 1925 he left Cambridge without a degree and his father gave him a job in his office as a clerk. He lasted eight days. Bringing along his camera, he spent his time attending society parties, taking photographs of the elite and London glitterati. These photographs formed his first exhibition in 1927. Shortly afterwards he set up his own studio, establishing himself as London's definative society photographer. As his success grew he set his sights on the glamour of Hollywood, eventually photographing Marlene Dietrich, Tallulah Bankhead, Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn and Greta Garbo, amongst others.

During the Second World War he worked for the British government and military as official photographer and his images of the devastation were later published in the book Winged Squadrons (1942). In addition to his flourishing photographic career, he wrote several books, worked as an illustrator and set designer for various theatrical productions; winning four Tony awards. For his work in film, he won two Academy Awards for costume design for Gigi in 1958 and My Fair Lady in 1964. His black and white costumes for My Fair Lady were inspired by the 1910 Black Ascot following the death of King Edward VII.

He would photograph the royal family for fifty years, starting in 1930 with Princess Louise, daughter of Queen Victoria. In his royal photographs he was greatly inspired by painters Franz Xaver Winterhalter and Thomas Gainsborough and used blow-ups of their paintings as backdrops for some of his most successful and romantic portraits of Queen Elizabeth and the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. These portraits did much to restore the image of the monarchy after the Abdication in 1936, particularly transforming the image of Elizabeth, Duchess of York from minor royal into regal personage when she became Queen. Some of his most notable photographs included the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in 1937, the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, as well as the first official photos of the infants Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. Beaton was also influenced by photographers Marcus Adams and Bertram Park and in the 1950's and 1960's his photographs took on a more informal style, inspired by Irving Penn and Richard Avedon.

In 1957 he was became a Commander, Order of the British Empire, in 1960 he was made a Chevalier, Legion of Honor, and he was knighted in 1972. He suffered a stroke in 1974, and although one side of his body would be permanently paralyzed, he taught himself to write and draw with his left hand and had his cameras adapted. However his health would remain damaged and he died in Broadchalke, Wiltshire, 18 January 1980.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Diana the hero?

Diana, Princess of Wales has recently been named on Time Europe magazine's issue 60 Years of Heroes. Personally I was quite surprised at her inclusion as I don't think she belongs anywhere on a list like this.

Don't get me wrong, I liked Diana. I collected all of the books and magazines and I grieved in my own way when she died. But to add her (along with Sophia Loren and The Beatles) to a list of heroes which include Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, Margaret Thatcher, Bob Geldof, and Mother Teresa, is obviously going for the popular vote from people who would otherwise not read this list. Ah, names I recognize and can (somewhat) relate to! In Diana's case, if only for the fact that she was female, a mother, unhappily married who found her voice, coming out sadder and wiser in the end by bucking a system that holds the future for her children. But the comparisons to reality end there with a supposed reluctant celebrity who knew how to use her beauty to her advantage when it suited her. But honestly, in her position, would she have really been kept down for very long? What did she really and truly have to lose?

During her marriage she walked a line between fashion plate and trying to find a purpose. She took on the issue of AIDS, shaking the hand of a patient while gloveless. She went public with her eating disorder. Toured slums, touched lepers, took children into her arms and knelt by the wheelchairs of the elderly. All while dressed in designer clothes. Once freed from the binds of her royal marriage, Diana found a new sense of purpose when she took on the anti-landmines campaign, becoming almost a global, humanitarian ambassador; a role no one had conferred upon her. She did not invent anything in her lifetime, did not earn the Nobel Peace Prize, did not climb over any fences, and was not imprisoned. Had she not been beautiful, or died tragically, it's questionable how much we would really remember or revere her today.

For royalty to make a difference, boost morale and bring attention to important issues is not a new concept. Early in her reign, the Queen toured leper colonies too and just look at Princess Anne with her work with Save the Children. Unlike Diana, neither of them are young and beautiful, so we don't look.

Are we just under the spell of hero worship? No more so than when we elevate a celebrity for doing nothing more than donating to charity, giving face time on a telethon or adopting a child?

Maybe my definition of what makes a hero is different, because in this case I tend to think we are.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Camilla's jewels?

Just when we thought that things were smooth sailing for Camilla, controversy has reared its head yet again. This time its about jewelry.

It seems that Camilla wearing jewels is big news. Her engagement ring came from the collection of the late Queen Mother. She wears tiaras from the collection of Her Majesty Elizabeth II and stop the presses! One would think that the only thing to top her wearing these tiaras is if she were granted the Royal Family order, which is at the personal discretion of the sovereign.

I've mentioned in a previous blog posting that I think wearing jewellery previously owned is bad luck. Just my personal picadillo. I might however revise that notion if I were lent some of the fabulous royal jewels of priceless provenance. However, Camilla is in a different situation than I am. As the wife of the sovereign she will be entitled to wear whatever happens to be in the royal collection, including pieces formerly worn by Diana herself. As the wife of the heir to the throne, she needs to look the part. As the wife of the Prince of Wales, shouldn't she, of all people, wear a jewel with the Prince of Wales feathers?

The original owner of the jewel in question, was Queen Alexandra, who as Princess Alexandra, wife of the future King Edward VII, received this pendant as a wedding gift in 1863. Now admittedly Queen Alexandra was a much beloved figure. Did we see people up in arms when the piece was worn after her death by Diana? No, because it was entirely appropriate for her to wear it. As is the case with Camilla.

When will people stop seeing Camilla as encroaching on the memory of Diana? Or stop denying Camilla a legitimate place in the royal family?

© Marilyn Braun 2006