The new portrait of Kate Middleton has stirred up a bit of controversy. The painting is the first official portrait of the Duchess of Cornwall and its black background suggests a tradition of Royal portraits going back centuries.
But centuries years ago Royal painters didn't have to put up with millions of critics on websites and the social media, suggesting Kate looked 100 years' old, dowdy, tired or even like a nightclub bouncer.
Kate herself didn't go on Twitter to rant. "It's just amazing. Absolutely brilliant," she told artist Paul Emsley when she met him at the National Portrait Gallery.
Others saw the portrait as a slight on the world's most popular Princess. Others went to town with Photoshop.
I don't think the portrait is too bad. It could be a lot worse. Look what happened when Britain's top artist Lucien Freud was let loose on the Queen.
Robert Simon, editor of the British Art Journal, commented: "It makes her look like one of the Royal corgis who has suffered a stroke."
I don't think that one was commissioned.
Perhaps Royal artists are wised up to the dangers of over flattering portraits. In 1539 Hans Holbein the Younger was commissioned by King Henry VIII to paint a portrait of the German Princess Anne of Cleves. The king was impressed enough to arrange a marriage with her but when he saw her was disappointed with the real thing.
Remarkably all parties survived the ordeal with their heads attached to their bodies but the unfortunate episode illustrated the need for Flickr etc.