King Charles has sat for many portraits over the years, but my favorite is still “the bloody king” portrait by Jonathan Yeo. Yeo started the portrait when Charles was Prince of Wales, but it was unveiled this year to widespread raves. It’s just unique and even republicans thought it slapped. Unfortunately, Yeo’s portrait cannot be Charles’s official portrait, the portrait on display in government buildings and churches. So Charles offered Church of England churches a different, less bloody portrait to put on display. Hilarious news: most of the churches declined the offer of a free portrait.

Most Church of England churches declined to apply for a free portrait of the King, figures show. Public institutions across the UK were offered a photograph of the King wearing the Royal Navy uniform of an Admiral of the Fleet to celebrate the start of his reign. While the offer was taken up by all 23 HM Coastguard centres, 25 per cent of Church of England (CofE) churches obliged.

Only 4,031 of the 15,815 churches – of which the King is the Supreme Governor – ordered the portrait, which was taken by the photographer Hugo Burnand at Windsor Castle last year. His Majesty the King’s Portrait Scheme was a voluntary programme offering a free framed portrait of the King to any eligible public institution that requested one. It was started by the previous government following his Coronation in May 2023 and ended up costing £2.7 million.

The scheme ran from November to August this year and more than 20,500 portraits were provided, with varying degrees of acceptance from different public bodies. Lord lieutenancies followed the Coastguard with the highest rate of acceptance, as 75 of the 99 agreed to home one. Then came government departments, arm’s-length bodies and local authorities, cadet forces and coroners’ courts. A third, or 8,384 of almost 30,000 schools took up the offer. However, there was less enthusiasm from hospitals with 3 per cent ordering the photo. Of 275 universities and higher education institutions, 35 said yes.

After varying take-up of the scheme, its deadline was extended repeatedly. Final figures from the Cabinet Office show a total of 20,565 orders were received. This equated to a “total take-up across the UK from all eligible public authorities, including Government departments, arm’s-length bodies and local authorities and all other institutions” of 31 per cent. This was notably low from public authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which had acceptance rates of 13.7, 13.8 and 10.5 per cent, respectively. The total cost, which included delivery, was £2,710,705. The portraits cost a price of £131.81 on average.

[From The Telegraph]

“Ended up costing £2.7 million” – but who paid? Here in America, government offices switch out presidential portraits, and I would assume it’s a minor line item in the budget, paid by taxpayers. Charles is the head of state, so obviously churches and military installations and schools shouldn’t pay out of pocket to display a portrait of the head of state. But is it paid for the government or by Buckingham Palace? Hm. Anyway, it’s funny that so many churches refused the offer. Why would hospitals display the king’s portrait? Why would coroners’ offices display the portrait? It’s like the coronation all over again – Charles thought everyone would fall all over themselves to celebrate him, and no one went to those stupid watch parties and the whole thing could have been an email (or at least a much more subdued ceremony).

Photos courtesy of Buckingham Palace, Cover Images, Avalon Red.