Posted on 05/14/2024 1:53:16 PM PDT by rdl6989
King Charles III marked another first in his reign this week, unveiling the first official portrait of himself since his coronation last year.
Charles and his wife Queen Camilla were on hand Tuesday as the king's portrait was unveiled at Buckingham Palace.
The portrait, which stands over 6 feet tall, was painted over the course of three years by Jonathan Yeo, a U.K.-based artist, according to the palace.
The painting features a striking red background and shows Charles wearing the uniform of the Welsh Guards, of which he was made Regimental Colonel in 1975, according to the palace.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Bookmark
That’s.... really awful.
He looks like Han Solo, but embedded in Queerbonite.
Certainly not great. Some of the Queen's portraits were excellent.
Interesting. Hideous. Face and hands are the only things with much detail, everything else is done in shades of red.
Visually it reminds me of some of the work of SF illustrator Kelly Freas.
Obviously some symbolism here. I'm not good with that stuff. Chris Knowles of the Secret Sun Blog is astute with symbols. (Read with discernment.) Will be interesting to see what he might say.
Yes! That’s exactly what I thought of too.
King Chuck III, ol’ sausage fingers, burning in hell... great pic, you really got him!
That is truly awful-the artist made him look like a toad wearing clothes-that artist should have been hanged...
It's just that there was nothing whatsoever about the person of Elizabeth R that was troweled on, rough or impressionistic. She projected both feminine and masculine energy as a delicately beautiful woman with a highly unique persona full of gravity, humor, strength, impeccable style, and spirituality at the same time. Light came from within her, not harshly glaring on her surface. She truly deserved the term “majesty.”
To depict her was an opportunity of a lifetime for him to grow beyond his long-established habits—a challenge for an older person to which he failed to rise, instead remaining self-satisfied in his hidebound ego. The result was not accurate; did not convey her essence at all.
That painting sucks!
I gotta ask... anyone else out there see “Charles III” and whose first thought is that this thread concerns some House of Stuart claimant to the throne? Still not quite used to Chuck as a “Charles (Roman numeral)”
It says in the article that it took over THREE years! Takes a while to paint something awful I guess.
Queen-consort
He is a nut case so it fits.
Maybe the painters check bounced. after the face part was done.
Darned if those aren’t pretty awesome. Who did them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
