New King Charles portrait leaves people absolutely baffled as fans spot bizarre detail
Topics: King Charles III, Royal Family, Queen Camilla, UK News, News, Social Media
Rhiannon Ingle
Featured Image Credit: PA
Topics: King Charles III, Royal Family, Queen Camilla, UK News, News, Social Media
Two new paintings to mark King Charles and Queen Camilla's coronation in 2023 have finally been unveiled at the National Gallery - and everyone is saying the same thing.
Now, Charles' portrait was painted by Peter Kuhfeld who has worked with the monarch for many years, having been commissioned by him to paint Princes William and Harry as young children. Camilla, 77, on the other hand, was painted by artist Paul Benny.
After the controversy surrounding Charles' first official portrait by Jonathan Yeo, which was unveiled in 2024, it's clear fans were buzzing to see what the latest additions to the archive of royal portraits which were just released to the public today (6 May).
Advert
However, it's clear that not everyone was too thrilled with the depiction of 76-year-old Charles as many rushed to social media claiming the portrait was 'blurry' and simply nowhere near as good as Camilla's.
One X user penned: "Charles's portrait looks like a Wallace and Grommet [sic] character - you can imagine it hanging in Wallace's house. Camilla's portrait is lovely."
"His face is very blurry. Camilla’s portrait was giving more presence and depth than Charles’s," quipped a second.
A third chimed in: "King Charles portrait looks like he’s from 1700s lol."
"The Queen's is perfect. The King's too blurry," hit out a fourth, while a fifth agreed: "Looks blurry. Out of focus."
A sixth piped up: "Comparing the portraits of King and Queen, I think she's come out of it much better than he has. There's something a little underwhelming about his portrait, as if he's shrinking into the background. There's a bit more forthright glamour about hers!"
"I think Camilla’s is much better," echoed a seventh, while another declared: "Compared to the level of detail in previous ones, King Charles' portrait looks... cheap. Lighting and composition are good, though.
"In regards to body language I think the artist could have chosen a different posture."
And a final X user lamented: "I think the King should have gone with the same artist as the Queen!"
"I think he was pleased. It’s a very odd thing for a sitter to look at themselves, I just hope that I’ve got an aspect of the man and King, I just think that’s very important," said Kuhfeld, who took more than 18 months to complete the painting after five sittings with the King.
The paintings are both full-length portraits, with the King standing in the throne room at St James’s Palace while the Queen Consort is in the garden room of the couple’s London home, Clarence House.