This year, we’ve seen a surprising number of royal “portraits.” A few months ago, Jonathan Yeo unveiled his portrait of King Charles to widespread acclaim. Soon after, Tatler commissioned Hannah Uzor to do a large-scale portrait of the Princess of Wales, to widespread mockery. Yeo’s portrait of Charles actually looked like him and it was thought-provoking. It slapped, honestly. Uzor’s portrait of the then-missing Kate was just flat and very basic. Well, the trend of royal portraiture continues. British artist Dan Llywelyn Hall has a new exhibition called The Reign, in which he painted some modern royals to look like historic royals. As in, the Duchess of Sussex is painted as the White Queen, Elizabeth Grey. Prince Harry is painted as Bonnie Prince Charlie.
The Duchess of Sussex has been portrayed as the White Queen in a nod to her “influential” outsider status. Artist Dan Llywelyn Hall depicted Meghan, 42, as Dame Elizabeth Grey, who became Queen of England after marrying Edward IV in 1464, and Prince Harry, 39, as Charles Edward Stuart, otherwise known as Bonnie Prince Charlie.
He said: “I thought putting Meghan in the role of the White Queen, who was a queen consort and possibly the most influential ‘outsider’ in royal history, might have a fine irony to it and not necessarily beyond the realms of reality.”
Mr Llywelyn Hall, who at 32 was the youngest artist to paint Elizabeth II, has produced 10 new portraits inspired by royalty throughout history for the Society of Antiquaries. Artist Adam Dant has painted a further 10 works. Their exhibition, titled The Reign, marks the 150th anniversary of the society, which is based at Burlington House in London’s Piccadilly, and will be auctioned to support the cataloguing and digitisation of around 25,000 prints and drawings from the 18th and 19th centuries.
Mr Llywelyn Hall said: “The Royal family is possibly the most enthralling longest-running drama in history, the inspiration of theatre, books and every art form. It seemed that these figures caught on the knife edge of public opinion were ideal for drawing comparisons from distant monarchs – like the exiled princes and princesses of the past, that lurk in the background but are still irrevocably tied to the job. We can’t help ourselves and wonder whatever next?”
He added: “In Harry’s case, I have entered the story before he met Meghan – the young party-goer with his future very much in the balance, a bit like the Bonnie Prince I have likened him to.”
Hall’s artistry seems in the same vein as Lucian Freud, and I would guess that Freud is an inspiration for Hall. As for the paintings themselves…the Harry piece bears a resemblance, I’ll admit, although it’s giving “Henry VIII” more than Prince Harry. Meghan-as-the-White-Queen though… I’m not so sure. Anyway, I hope these paintings sell! At least they’re interesting.
Portraits courtesy of Dan Llywelyn Hall’s Instagram.
I’m not a fan of the style.
He has no idea how to draw someone not British white. it looks not remotely inspired by how she looks.
I’m not sure race is the issue— although racism might be— neither of these portraits are at all good.
my very first thought when I saw this portrait of Meghan, was “Oh Wow. He painted her BLUE. Like a Hindu Goddess!” – leading me to believe that, subliminally, he thinks she’s a goddess. My story. sticking to it.
No depth, no resemblance, no soul, just clumps of paint on canvas,both of them. Like somebody who just took some painting classes.
I hard pass for me.
The brits are obsessed with Meghan.
You don’t say 🤣🤣🤣
Who asked for this?
I must admit that the first thing that popped into my mind was, “Were these commissioned by Tattler too?” So, I know what you mean.
I don’t like them so a very hard pass.
Isn’t it weird how british artists can’t paint Meghan? With Harry’s, I can see the resemblance. I looked at his online gallery, his QE2 portrait also shows a great likeness. It is like they are trying not to represent her in paint or don’t know how to.
They tried to make him look like a leprechaun.
I’m sorry but I could stitch more convincing portraits of these two in the style of the Bayeux Tapestry than… whatever this is.
lol. I think, the issue is, he tried to portrait them as other figures. With Harry, at least his ginger hair & beard give some kind of resemblance. With Meghan, I don’t see anything particular to her. If that was his style, I would understand. But, he made a great effort to capture QE2 from what I see. It looks like he didn’t actually want to paint them.
Yeah, that four leaf clover was a choice.
I looked at the “Meghan” portrait and thought Maria Callas getting ready to go on stage for a fae period drama.
Based on what I have seen recently, British painters can’t paint anyone. Holbein this aint
They’re interesting as old time portraits in a modern style. But I’d never guess that was meant to be Meghan?? Harry is mainly identifiable because of his red hair.
I think the opposite. Though neither portrait are very good likenesses, the Meghan drawing gives some semblance of Duchess Meg in profile. The nose is not exactly right, of course, and the shoulders depicted are overly narrow. Meg’s lovely, well-defined shoulders are one of her best features. I appreciate, though, the artist’s historical reference to Dame Elizabeth Grey as the outsider who became a Queen and who had a huge influence on the monarchy.
Harry, pre-Meghan, as Bonnie Prince Charlie, may be a neat concept, but the artist did not pull it off well in this drawing. This portrait kind of resembles Harry as he looks today, not as he looked in his youthful rebellion period, when he was cleanshaven!
I agree that the irony of Meghan as the White Queen is intriguing, but I cant decide if I’m annoyed that Meghan’s race is always conveyed as the most notable thing about her, or if attempting to ignore the fact that Meghan’s race was intrinsically tied to public opinion of her, is just another version of “I don’t see color”, a philosophy enjoyed soly by white people.
Also, wasn’t Elizabeth Grey supposedly a nasty, nasty conniving woman? History was written by men at that time, so I know I should take that description with a grain of salt, but if that is the generally accepted view of Grey, then likening her to Meghan BUGS, and I think it’d likely that Grey’s supposed influence as an outsider was only incidental, and the painter MAINLY did Meghan as Grey because Meghan ISNT white.
I know I would like it BETTER if I could immediately recognize it as Meghan.
I appreciate this art without analysis.
Harry as Van Gogh is the first impression I got as well. Maybe they’re done in different mediums, but these look like the work of two separate artists. Harry has broader brush strokes and a more layered painterly effect while Meghan looks like it was done with pastels (or worse, crayons). Not a fan of either effort.
Same! And I thought Meghan looked like goth Anne bolyen more than anything
My thought too!
@Lindsay, Art always involves interpreting and analyzing. By you not wanting to analyze, in essence, you are accepting/ ‘appreciating’ what you see at face value, and deciding not to make any kind of judgment, which is your rightful preference. Your choice is yours. Others see something worth discussing, expressing, examining, comparing, enjoying, disapproving, approving, and/ or illuminating.
Don’t like it. I don’t even recognize Meghan in that portrait.
Loved the Charles portrait though.
These are not flattering comparisons, historically speaking. Look up the Battle of Culloden and the Little Princes in the Tower. I find this whole thing quite unsavory (thanks for posting it! English history rabbit hole has been dived into)
sorry I keep editing—‘the young party-goer with his future very much in the balance’? again, not flattering. i’d go do far as to say insulting.
Yes, I doubt comparing Harry to Bonnie Prince Charlie was meant to be complimentary. And the “white” Queen for Meghan? Seriously?
IKR? Could have chosen anyone else, but chose “The white Queen????
I disagree on Meghan, yes maybe the title “white” queen is unfortunate in this context but she married the king and the establishment turned against her, criticising her for things her predecessor also did and so on just because she was a commoner. That sounds very familiar. She was also a very influential woman. I thought it a well chosen comparison (although I agree with those saying they’re not recognising Meghan)
I completely agree with M. In a time when a King could only marry for political advantage and the bride had to be a virgin, Edward the IV chose to marry for love. She was 5 years older than the King and widowed with two young sons. Elizabeth Woodville Grey did not come with wealth or titles.
I believe they had 10 children together with their two sons becoming the Princes in the tower. They disappeared after the death of the King and the throne was taken by the King’s younger brother. Elizabeth was very loved by the people of England as a York Queen and the symbol of the York house was the White Rose. The comparison of Meghan to her, I think, is a great compliment.
@M, do you know what is on Harry’s head, which looks like a target?
@sevenblue and that is relevant to my comment how? My actual first sentence is how I disagree on Meghan, I didn’t write anything on Harry’s portrait.
But as you brought it up, I don’t see a target on Harry’s hat, but a hat worn by Bonnie Prince Charlie in a historical portrait. I actually agree with people saying that Bonnie Prince Charlie wasn’t a flattering choice which is, you know why I hadn’t written anything about Harry
In case you were sincerely asking, it’s a white cockade (easier to recognise in the historical painting)
@sevenblue – Yes the badge on the hat in the painting is the The Jacobite Rose Pin Badge. When the Jacobite Rebellion was in the works, people wore a white rose as a symbol of support the the Jacobite cause and was a symbol of Bonnie Prince Charlie. Its also call the white rose of Scotland.
@M, I meant @Lacey, not you. Sorry for the confusion.
@Lacey, thank you for the explanation. I am very ignorant on british history and symbols.
Bonnie Prince Charlie was a terrible person. I don’t think this painting is meant to flatter Harry.
Yeah, I thought the whole ‘Harry before Meghan’ concept was actually kinda snotty. They want him back in that role. And they want her gone.
Hallo, I agree with and definitely see y’all’s point about Elizabeth and appreciate the context that you’re all giving. I’m focused solely here upon the heinous crime committed upon two of her children. To me, making this comparison to a woman with two children—It’s so sinister, their story has chilled me since I learned of them as a child in I think Huckleberry Finn. I didn’t know about Elizabeth until today, and when I saw that detail I gasped aloud. I wonder, students of art or historical costumery, is there any significance to the veil?
Allis Anges, TOTALLY agree with you with every part of your comment. Also, I THINK I recognize a fellow Sharon Kay Penman fan. Am I right? 🙏
Harry looks like van Gogh and the set up looks like della Francesca’s Frederico and Battisa, but a bit skewed in positions. All I’ve got. Weird.
You took the words right out of my mouth with the Van Gogh comparison. Most definitely weird..
Definitely a resemblance to Van Gogh. And to King Charles, more than Harry.
I don’t know who Meghan is supposed to look like, but I don’t really see her.
Yes, Van Gogh was my first thought.
I would never have guessed those paintings were supposed to be Harry and Meghan.
Me, either. How do you make two such handsome people look so ugly? Terrible.
Yes, the paintings are drawn in a rather crude, unfinished, and exaggerated style. Not polished representations.
Harry’s is reminiscent of a Van Gogh self portrait.
And.
Not in a good way.
Yes, said the same above. Overall a crap painting. However, it’s got us all talking, even negatively.
That was also my thought, Harry’s pic reminds me of the style of Van Gogh, the Meghan portrait skin color with that blue cast is kind of ghoulish, not my favorite
I kinda like it. I would’ve preferred with brighter colors to make it more modern with the same painting style
These are excellent. I disagree with others here about there being no resemblance, but that’s not really the point of good portraits. The paintings are fascinating because of the artist’s intent and interpretation.
^^ In this respect, yes. The artist’s interpretation, motivation, and intent make the paintings interesting to examine and discuss.
Those look more like Boris & Natasha than Harry and Meghan.
Hard, hard pass.
(Loved the *red* Charles though)
Yeo’s painting of Charles being washed out by blood was a stunning image (and message). Uzor’s subject is flat and basic. Fair for the portrait to reflect the dull, basic mean girl as she actually is and not embiggened. Not photoshopped and from certain angles, the likeness wasn’t that off. Keen seeks cameras, guffaws and poses at funerals to hide those angles. I don’t care for Hall’s take on the gimmick or style, but at least he didn’t portray them as Wallis and Edward.
Yeo also did a painting of David Attenborough all in green. It was the opposite of Charles’ red in that it felt very soothing. He’s got a really interesting style.
My only question is, why is Meghan purple?
I get art is subjective, and I do not like it at all.
I like these but I don’t necessarily find them complimentary, although I don’t really think art has to or even should be complimentary. I see the likeness in both of them.
❤️ them. I’m taken somewhere historically through two of my favorite famous people.
Yes, the historical aspect is what gives the drawings depth and resonance. Although, I have heard of Woodville, Hall’s take and interesting details about her life made me go look her up with new understanding. The portrait on Wiki of Woodville is the one Hall utilized for his Meghan interpretation.
I think Meghan’s portrait is giving Anne Boleyn, which is not a compliment either
That’s a big nope from me, dawg.
lol, same!!
Each new version of portraiture is getting worse and worse. Please stop.
Meghan has a delicate nose and pretty, small ears. But he portrays her with a large bulbous nose and big ears? Hmm.
Agree, Jazz Hands. It deserves a “hmm.”
Yeah, not a fan of these. But I’m a “commoner” so what do I know, lol.
ETA: Meghan’s portrait is giving Wallis Simpson so major side eye for that.
I love them, especially Meghan’s.
It is!
Meghan as Elizabeth Woodville?
As a student of the period and formerly card-carrying member of the Richard III society:
on the one hand: YIKES
on the other hand: well, the Woodville marriage did really end up bringing the whole royal house down so it might be more prescient than not.
(It won’t be because Meghan is a schemer who won’t let go.)
What’s wrong with Elisabeth Woodville? Am I missing something? Beyond every historical figure being somewhat yikes by modern standards, she was a women her contemporaries thought should not be married to the king, being a widowed mother-of-two commener, who managed to keep her head and become quite powerful in her own right
I actually can feel it and I also agree with Kaiser that this portrait is more a Henry 8th vibe than anything Stuart. Elizabeth Woodville was always about her man and her kids … then her family. She never let Edward’s family sideline her.
I am not an artist, my daughter is, and I am no art critic, but I have a lot of questions.
Why are all of the portraits in the last few months looking like the ones that my kid did when she was 10? I mean, art is subjective, but I am so confused as to why the portraits are not actually portraits. The KC one is symbolically on point, absolutely, the Kate one is just bad, and I swear these look like something high level children paint.
Again, to each their own, but I don’t get it.
Hard agree. I am clearly not the audience for this artist or his work because I’ve seen better art in high school art classes.
They’re OK. British people have major obsession with Meghan and Harry. But the painter is right about Meghan’s status as an influential outsider. The Royal Family never accepted her but everything they do now is either with her in mind or was first done by her.
^^ Exactly @Amy Bee. ITA with your comments. 👌🏽
HHHHHMMMM … interesting that the artist depicts Meghan as Queen Consort to a King that was often alleged to be a bastard. Elizabeth Woodville was a widow with two sons when she met Edward and his family tried to reverse their marriage. Edward and Elizabeth were arguably a real match. She was devoted to him and to her sons who disappeared after their father’s death. Richard III was blamed but it was more likely her new son-in-law Henry 7th … a real piece of work. He sent her to a convent and isolated her from her family. She conveniently died 5 years later. It’s really remarkable how the Tudors tried to erase her as Queen … reverting to her pre-Edward name of Elizabeth Grey from her first marriage. Also … she was Henry the 8th’s grandmother.
Thanks Katya. This historical perspective on Elizabeth Woodville and the Princes in the Tower is fascinating. Many Richard III advocates and investigators also disbelieve that he had the princes murdered despite the neat Tudor deception which has dominated down through the centuries. I suppose you are right that Henry VII was a real piece-of-work, since he clearly turned on the woman who tapped him to be king, and then likely had her sons killed while deviously plotting to put the blame on his adversary, Richard III. The history of the British monarchy has always been hidebound by murderous intrigue, deception, and familial warfare. 👑 🤯
Art is certainly not subjective- there is most definitely bad and good art. Good art is not always beautiful. That is not a qualification of art.
Portraiture is not meant to necessarily look just like a person, but rather capture something about the person and bring it to the surface through technique, medium, and other artistic choices. I think these are rather wonderful, both of them.
My degree is in Fine Art with a minor in Art History and Criticism.
Thanks for sharing your knowledgeable perspective @Elo. 🫡
I disagree with most here it seems. I can see Meghan in that portrait, but Harry’s really distorted. It seems like the artist struggled with the lower half of both faces. If this was exhibited by a university student, I’d rave. For someone so far along into his career, it looks unskilled, rather than a deliberate stylistic choice.
There is nothing or of Meghan (or Harry) in these portraits. Very odd.
This style of art is not my cup of tea. The only thing I’ll say is I find it interesting that the portrait of Harry has lots of red–on the face, too. The portrait of Mehan is blue tones. What does that tell us?
Someone thinks he’s the new Van Gogh. These are hideous!
I like the Harry portrait. Meghan is painted to look like Kate around the mouth and chin.
I like the thinking behind the portraits from the artist. PH portrait is inspired by his life before Meghan. Meghan’s is inpired by an influential queen, whether it is from hates or loves, they cannot stop talking about her.
They are semi avant garde portraits. I like Chucky’s portrait better. I do not mind these. Art will never makes sense to everyone.
The expressionist painting of Harry somehow reminds me how much German is in his lineage. (Not a knock, I also have pre-1900 German ancestors and I have redheaded cousins.) Expressionist portraits can bring something to light that photos miss, I like it.
Meghan’s portrait reminds me of early-ish Picasso, I really love it.
Dislike intensely. The look in the eyes is all wrong as are most of the features. The color is garish.
I think Meghan looks like Sarah Paulson in that pic, and Harry looks a bit like Tim Roth.
Why is she purple?
What is Meghan wearing on her head? Is it raining outside or something? The Harry is okay. I won’t remember either portrait a second after I leave this page.
Hideous. Modern British painters just can’t get beyond Lucien Freud. And this from a country that produced Gainsborough, et al.