I've spent some time in Britain, and I have to disagree.
When you have those heavily overcast days, the outside ambient light is much lower - not the fakey "sunset" light beloved of Kinkade. And there's almost always rain and mist, especially as dusk draws in. So you NEED the house lights on. An ordinary overcast day in England or Scotland is much, much brighter, and you don't need the house lights.
William Dyce, a minor Victorian painter, handles the English sunset light in an objective way:
Pegwell Bay, Kent. If you look closely in the original, you can see the Comet of 1858 in the middle horizon.
I do not think people who enjoy Kinkade's work really expect it to be realistic. It is not that. But it is beautiful none the less. Not worth the money, but beautiful. Complaining that it is "fakey" is really a sort of fallacy argument in that you are disgruntled that it is not something it was never intended to be. No one cares that it doesn't look like a photograph. Your posted Dyce work is so precise it could be a photograph. That's amazing to me. Kinkade doesn't even try to do that. I think the criticism that all his paintings look alike is valid. But the "it's fakey" criticism is invalid, imo.