
The King's Coronation State Portrait is a right royal mess
Thirty-four years after the late Queen Elizabeth II opened the National Gallery's Sainsbury Wing, her son, King Charles III has returned to reopen it, with Queen Camilla, following extensive refurbishment. To mark the occasion, their Majesties' recently completed coronation state portraits were unveiled in the gallery's central hall.
Spare a thought for Peter Kuhfeld (b. 1952) and the self-taught Paul S Benney (b. 1959), the British artists who executed them, who are not quite of the calibre, shall we say, of the greats responsible for the full-length portraits on the surrounding walls. To one side, for instance, there is The Red Boy (1825) by Thomas Lawrence, who is renowned for his painterly flair. And, a few rooms away, there is the colossal equestrian portrait of Charles I by Anthony van Dyck: a defining image of British sovereignty. Tough competition.
The Royal Collection, of which the portraits will form a part, defines state portraits as carefully constructed, 'definitive' images of the monarch (usually dressed in robes and accompanied by a crown, orb, and sceptre) as 'the embodiment of Royal rule'. The earliest known example is Paul van Somer's c. 1620 likeness of James VI & I; another image by Van Dyck, at Windsor Castle, was likely conceived as Charles I's official state portrait. Since the coronation of King Edward VII, in 1902, coronation portrait photographs have also been released – the King's, by Hugo Burnand, appeared in 2023 – in advance of the painted portraits.
Selected by the King, Kuhfeld plays it very safe, adhering to the conventions of a typical state portrait – with, for instance, the imperial state crown positioned prominently to the monarch's side (on a table that, surreally and unfortunately, appears to sprout like a golden fungus from a crimson curtain). Sunlight streams in from a palace window to the picture's left, imbuing the composition with a late-afternoon quality, commensurate with the fact that Charles acceded the throne when he was already in his seventies. Sadly, though, this air of end-of-day decline is exacerbated by Kuhfeld's doddery touch.
Dressed, beneath his robe, in military uniform (just like his great-grandfather, George V, in his state portrait), the King appears kindly but uncertain, with piercing yet close-set cornflower-blue eyes, and lips that seem to tremble. His anatomy, too, is somewhat squashed, providing an unintentionally bathetic note, as if a potentially great man had been diminished. Overall, he comes across as diffident, and – a fatal flaw, this, in a state portrait – does not command his stage.
Benney's sleek portrait of the Queen – who stands further forward in the space of the picture, which makes her appear more self-confident, as well as soignée – is far more satisfying (and reproducible, which is important in our digital age). By representing that eye-catching cascade of her purple robe, the picture also nods explicitly to the state portrait of Elizabeth II. (The women, in both pictures, wear white.) As an image, it has greater clarity and coherence than Kuhfeld's wobbly effort. I relish the fact that, for instance, the colour of the background picks up tiny details in Camilla's costume, such as the hue of a setting in her bracelet on her right wrist, or the fan she holds.
Is it deliberate that the red palette of the King's portrait finds its complement in this green tonality of the Queen's? I'd like to think so – but, if all you had to go on was the respective strengths of these two pictures, you'd assume that Camilla was the regnant monarch, and Charles her consort.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
How do you exhibit living deities?
The most-watched TV programme in human history isn't the Moon landings, and it isn't M*A*S*H; chances are it's Ramayan, a magnificently cheesy 1980s adaptation of India's national epic. The show has a status in India that's hard to overstate. Something like 80 per cent of the entire population watched its original run; in rural areas entire villages would crowd around a single television hooked up to a car battery. When the show ended, omitting the 'Uttara Kanda', the fairly controversial last book of the original poem, street sweepers across the country went on strike, demanding the government fund more episodes. The government caved. But while every country has its pieces of cult media, in India the cult is literal. Some viewers would take a ritual bath before tuning in. Others would decorate their TV sets with garlands of flowers, or light oil lamps in front of the screen and perform aarti, a devotional rite in which a flame is waved in circles in front of an image of a god. And why not? There was an image of a god on the screen. He might have been played by an actor in a plastic crown, but Ramayan was a representation of Lord Ram. Abrahamic faiths can be quite iffy about this kind of thing. At my maniacally Orthodox Jewish primary school, I was told in no uncertain terms about all the terrible punishments God periodically imposed on those of his followers who tried to make images of Him. At one point, in an art lesson, we were told to draw a picture of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments; one boy who made the mistake of depicting Yahweh as an enormous stick figure had to watch his effort being ripped up in front of the entire class. Christianity has traditionally been more relaxed, but it has its own long history of recurring iconoclasms: Byzantine monks burning images of Christ; black-clad Puritans bursting into English churches to smash all the stained glass. In America, Catholic churches might have deposited heaving busloads of their parishioners outside suburban cineplexes to see The Passion of the Christ, but nobody got on their knees and started worshipping the screen. You could venerate an image of the crucifixion in a church, but Raphael's version in the National Gallery is only a work of art. As it happens, Indian religions used to be fairly similar. The earliest form of Hinduism was the Vedic religion that existed from around 1500 to 300 BC, and which was, as far as we know, firmly aniconic. If they did make any images of their gods, we haven't found them. What we do know, from the writings they left behind, is that their worship was focused around a sacrificial fire. The oldest collection of Hindu texts, the Rig Veda (c.1500-1000 BC), consist of hymns to be sung in front of these fires and extremely detailed descriptions of the sacrifices to be thrown into the flames. From there, the fire-god Agni would share out the sacrifice with the rest of the pantheon. Mostly, Agni was given gifts of ghee, grains and soma. Sometimes there were animal sacrifices. It might have never been actually carried out, but there's one more, the Purushamedha sacrifice, in which you offer the gods human flesh. It's likely that the Hindu tradition of devotional images came about in response to Buddhism, but Buddhism was also, originally, very strict about images. This makes sense, given early Buddhism's focus on nothingness and impermanence. During his life, the Buddha didn't call himself 'me' or 'I', since the self doesn't exist, but Tathagata, which means something like 'the one who has thus gone'. For the first few centuries of the religion, there was a strong taboo on any direct representation of the Buddha as a man. The preferred way to show him in stone carvings was as an absence. You could symbolise the Buddha with the image of an empty crown, or a riderless horse. The most popular image was the Buddhapada, a pair of footprints: the hollow left by something that no longer exists. The familiar smiling, seated figure didn't emerge until more than 500 years after Siddhartha Gautama achieved enlightenment. It's as if we had started depicting Henry VIII in 2025. The preferred way to show the Buddha in stone carvings was as an absence The situation is very different today. Hinduism still has room for interesting abstract forms, like the phallic lingam that represents the god Shiva, but most Indian religions are intensely visual religions. When Hindus visit a temple, they won't usually say they're going for puja (prayer), but for darshan, which means 'vision'. The most important element in worship is to look at the image of the god. But it goes both ways: there's darshan dena and darshan lena, giving and receiving sight. You look at the god, the god looks at you. The murti or idols in Hindu temples often have large, brightly painted eyes. The representation does not have to be exact, but the idea is that any image of a deity will be inhabited by that deity. Sometimes small street-corner shrines in India will consist of a small, roughly carved disc, or even just a corn husk, watching you with painted eyes as you pass. This makes exhibiting some of these objects difficult: how are you supposed to display a historical artefact that is also a living deity? At the British Museum, Ancient India: living traditions tries hard to accommodate their dual status. There's a room dedicated to each of three major Indian religions, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, and along with some of the treasures of the British Museum's archives there's also a short video in which a modern-day British practitioner explains their worship. Some of these treasures really are extraordinary. A tiny gold reliquary that contains the first-ever figurative representation of the Buddha ( 1st century). There's a magnificently fluid Ganesh, carved out of volcanic stone a thousand years ago (see below). Stranger are the fierce, grimacing yakshas, teeming nature-spirits that might have evolved into the more stately Hindu gods. But there's also a plasticky Ganesh statue from 2007 owned by an events company called Om Creatives Ltd, and a photo of the god being paraded on the banks of the Mersey in 2014. Many of the figures of gods and sages are displayed on wide plinths, giving visitors space to leave an offering in front of the murti if they want. When I went, none of the visitors had done so. The museum is its own kind of religion, with its own rituals. Statue of Ganesh, made in Java from volcanic stone, 1000–1200. © THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM But if we're considering these works as part of a living religion, and not just objects from the past, it's striking that India's second-largest religion doesn't appear anywhere in the exhibition. Islam has been an Indian faith for more than a thousand years, and in that time plenty of uniquely Indian traditions have emerged. There are Sufi shrines, dargahs, that are also sacred to Hindu deities, where strange new forms of syncretic worship have taken shape over the centuries. Islam tends to be strongly aniconic, but then so does Sikhism, another autochthonous Indian faith that doesn't get a look-in here. Part of the problem is that the curators are a little too eager to make a clear identification between the religions of two millennia ago and their practitioners today. There is no straight line between them; religions, like everything else in the world, constantly change. These objects might have meaning for modern-day Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, but the people who actually made them are gone. Maybe my favourite object in the exhibit was a tiny first-century copper statuette of a four-armed goddess found in the Deccan, central India. She has flowers in her hair and a girdle around her hips, but we no longer know her name. Whatever cult worshipped her is now extinct. But maybe her presence is still in there, looking out at the new kind of devotee that shuffles around the museum, seeing and being seen.


BBC News
10 hours ago
- BBC News
Trooping the Colour 2025 - How to watch King Charles III's official Birthday Parade on BBC TV and iPlayer
There's music, majesty and military precision from Horse Guards Parade in London on Saturday 14 June for the Trooping of the Colour, the annual celebration to mark the Sovereign's official birthday. Here's how to watch the Trooping the Colour Parade on the BBC. When is King Charles III's birthday? King Charles III's actual birthday is 14 November - he was born on 14 November 1948 - but the Sovereign's birthday (or HM The King's official birthday) is celebrated on another date, usually in the summer months. What time is Trooping the Colour - The King's Birthday Parade on TV? Coverage of the King's Birthday Parade begins at 10.30am on Saturday 14 June on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. Clare Balding introduces live coverage from the heart of London as the Coldstream Guards troop their colour on Horse Guards Parade. Marking the official birthday of His Majesty the King, this world-renowned spectacle, full of music, majesty, and military precision, culminates with the annual RAF flypast and the royal family's iconic balcony appearance. Radzi Chinyanganya will be on the ground, speaking live to those associated with this remarkable day. Audio-described commentary is available on Red Button and BBC iPlayer. There is also commentary-free, uninterrupted coverage of the live events in London on BBC iPlayer. Highlights of the day's events will be broadcast on BBC Two and iPlayer from 7pm.


The Independent
15 hours ago
- The Independent
What happens if no one wins £208m Euromillions jackpot?
Friday's Euromillions lottery draw could see a lucky member of the public take home the largest prize ever awarded in the UK. At £208million, anyone winning the National Lottery 's jackpot would be instantly richer than the likes of Dua Lipa and Adele. While the ticket holding the keys to the hefty sum hasn't been played, ticket-holders are still being urged to check their numbers to see if they have won any of the smaller prizes on offer. What happens if no one wins? With the total prize money now capped, Friday is the final chance before a 'Must Be Won' draw is triggered, meaning the money has to be given away that night. This means that all the prize money will be awarded even if no players match all five numbers and both Lucky Stars. The prize will work in the same way as a standard draw, but if no one picks the winning ticket, it will roll down to the next tier. This means that anyone who matches five numbers and one Lucky Star will be able to get their hands on the life-changing prize money. If there are no winners in this tier, the prize money will roll down to the category below. What have the National Lottery said? Andy Carter, senior winners' adviser at Allwyn, said: 'This Friday EuroMillions gets even bigger. 'Not only will we see the £208 million EuroMillions jackpot up for grabs – which would make the biggest-ever National Lottery winner – but there will also be an incredible 13 guaranteed UK millionaires made through EuroMillions Millionaire Maker. 'That's a not-so-unlucky Friday 13th for the lucky ticket-holders who end up bagging these life-changing prizes. 'Get your tickets early to ensure you'll be in with a chance of a massive life-changing win.' He added: 'The EuroMillions jackpot is now capped, so any money that would have gone into increasing the jackpot now boosts prizes in the next winning prize tier, meaning that we could see multiple UK players banking huge prizes for matching just the five main numbers and one Lucky Star.' Has this happened before? After the jackpot was increased to a €200 million in February 2020, it was stipulated that the prize could stay at its maximum value for four draws before a Must Be Won draw would take place. Prior to that, the original rules had said the jackpot could be rolled 11 times, before a series of changes between 2016 and 2020, as the cap gradually increased. In October 2019, a UK player managed to match all the numbers to win £170m after the jackpot had rolled over four times. Similar rollovers occurred twice in 2006, when the jackpot had to be won after 11 consecutive draws which saw no winners. In one case, three players split the share of the jackpot to win £42m each, while in the second case, 20 players ended up winning £6.7m each. The last major Euromillions win came in July 2022, when an anonymous UK ticket holder bagged the existing record of £195m.