I can only find one point with which I can disagree and that is the suggestion the Charles III rules over us. That is not his roll and yet he fails to understand the constitution and his roll within it. He is the first amongst equals which necessitates him representing, defending and protecting the people of this country from foreign influence and yet when he stood with Klaus Schwab of the WEF to launch The Great Reset he did at one stroke the most outrageous act of betrayal any monarch could perform.
His dear Mother must be turning in her grave.
But as always Frederick your articles are most welcomed and erudite plus entertaining for which I'm most grateful.
I not sure the portrait is significant in any way.
The main issue is the Royal Family is now some sort of drama-doc commodity for the USA, thanks in the main the three members - former Prince Andrew, estranged Price Hazzzz and Duchess MeGain.
The USA MSM really don't understand the role of the Royal Family - and I'm beginning to see the current members are struggling with that as well.
We know a Presidential system is fraught, and usually seeks some sort of dynasty to validate the role. We have a real monarch. It's a role we should help to protect.
My father is of the conviction that much salacious gossip regarding our royal family goes unreported. The stories he tells me about, if true, would be enough to destroy the family. Whether there are (un)official embargoes on what can be reported on in the UK, I can't say. Either way I don't think they are many scandals away from an existential issue.
Dear Frederick, you are both right. However, the members of the family are not more important than the role of monarch in our system, pre Sir-Sir Tone Blurrr / Gordo Brown modification. As David Starkey says, these two undermined the legal system in so many ways, to the point any well-funded NGO or individual could ignore the consensus of law.
Rht Hon Sir-Sir-Sir Charmer-Starmer KC is warming up to complete the destruction (and no, the Conservatives have not sorted this in 14 years so don't deserve yet another chance).
Thus we should not be afraid to fire an individual Royal, should the occasion arise - as long as the role remains intact - but we must not allow a quasi-USA system to be imposed without consent, pandering to minorities in the name of equality.
"Going back to my dinosaur colouring book": indeed, and therein lies the problem: we've become denatured in the way we look at colours: if it ain't 'primary' it can't be good.
I don't want to sound superior (yes, I effing well do!), but if one cannot see the differences between the most;y pink-hued background and the scarlet of the uniform then one ought to ask what is wrong with one's eyesight! I assume (haughtily ...) that the subtle nuances of the greens as displayed by the fresh leaves which the trees have just produced are also lost. I highly recommend a visit to a museum, in order to look at old paintings and portraits, to 'learn' about colours. Mumbling that males don't see colour as well as females do is a cop-out: most painters of those in the museum paintings were male ...
As for me: I think the painting is outstanding - I especially love the blurring of the militaristic lines of the uniform into the more gentle background. I also see a "sweet nod", as certain reporters would write, to the traditional portraitist Sir Thomas Lawrence and his last, unfinished painting of the 1st Duke of Wellington (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw246715/Arthur-Wellesley-1st-Duke-of-Wellington), unfinished because Sir Thomas died .
But if y'all want to regard this painting as weird and worse, remember the old quip addressed at Sigmund Freud: "sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar", and a painting is just a painting ...
Hah, I very much enjoyed this comment. I don't disagree with anything you say - and I appreciate the honest words. I, too, like the painting but still find the imagery peculiar. Perhaps that is its redeeming feature; were it another ordinary portrait it'd fall into obscurity.
It certainly made people talk, with the horde of the chatterati who write columns for the Westminster press right at the forefront. And I do agree: this portrait won't fall into obscurity.
I can only find one point with which I can disagree and that is the suggestion the Charles III rules over us. That is not his roll and yet he fails to understand the constitution and his roll within it. He is the first amongst equals which necessitates him representing, defending and protecting the people of this country from foreign influence and yet when he stood with Klaus Schwab of the WEF to launch The Great Reset he did at one stroke the most outrageous act of betrayal any monarch could perform.
His dear Mother must be turning in her grave.
But as always Frederick your articles are most welcomed and erudite plus entertaining for which I'm most grateful.
Indeed. Overt politicking will be the family's undoing.
Don't miss the monarch butterfly alighting on our reptilian overlord's shoulder. Monarch mind control is a big thing in his circles.
I not sure the portrait is significant in any way.
The main issue is the Royal Family is now some sort of drama-doc commodity for the USA, thanks in the main the three members - former Prince Andrew, estranged Price Hazzzz and Duchess MeGain.
The USA MSM really don't understand the role of the Royal Family - and I'm beginning to see the current members are struggling with that as well.
We know a Presidential system is fraught, and usually seeks some sort of dynasty to validate the role. We have a real monarch. It's a role we should help to protect.
My father is of the conviction that much salacious gossip regarding our royal family goes unreported. The stories he tells me about, if true, would be enough to destroy the family. Whether there are (un)official embargoes on what can be reported on in the UK, I can't say. Either way I don't think they are many scandals away from an existential issue.
Dear Frederick, you are both right. However, the members of the family are not more important than the role of monarch in our system, pre Sir-Sir Tone Blurrr / Gordo Brown modification. As David Starkey says, these two undermined the legal system in so many ways, to the point any well-funded NGO or individual could ignore the consensus of law.
Rht Hon Sir-Sir-Sir Charmer-Starmer KC is warming up to complete the destruction (and no, the Conservatives have not sorted this in 14 years so don't deserve yet another chance).
Thus we should not be afraid to fire an individual Royal, should the occasion arise - as long as the role remains intact - but we must not allow a quasi-USA system to be imposed without consent, pandering to minorities in the name of equality.
I guess pretty well everybody will separate into two camps: the official portrait or Bob Moran’s.
"Going back to my dinosaur colouring book": indeed, and therein lies the problem: we've become denatured in the way we look at colours: if it ain't 'primary' it can't be good.
I don't want to sound superior (yes, I effing well do!), but if one cannot see the differences between the most;y pink-hued background and the scarlet of the uniform then one ought to ask what is wrong with one's eyesight! I assume (haughtily ...) that the subtle nuances of the greens as displayed by the fresh leaves which the trees have just produced are also lost. I highly recommend a visit to a museum, in order to look at old paintings and portraits, to 'learn' about colours. Mumbling that males don't see colour as well as females do is a cop-out: most painters of those in the museum paintings were male ...
As for me: I think the painting is outstanding - I especially love the blurring of the militaristic lines of the uniform into the more gentle background. I also see a "sweet nod", as certain reporters would write, to the traditional portraitist Sir Thomas Lawrence and his last, unfinished painting of the 1st Duke of Wellington (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw246715/Arthur-Wellesley-1st-Duke-of-Wellington), unfinished because Sir Thomas died .
But if y'all want to regard this painting as weird and worse, remember the old quip addressed at Sigmund Freud: "sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar", and a painting is just a painting ...
Hah, I very much enjoyed this comment. I don't disagree with anything you say - and I appreciate the honest words. I, too, like the painting but still find the imagery peculiar. Perhaps that is its redeeming feature; were it another ordinary portrait it'd fall into obscurity.
It certainly made people talk, with the horde of the chatterati who write columns for the Westminster press right at the forefront. And I do agree: this portrait won't fall into obscurity.