There really isn’t much to say about the official royal portrait of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge except “Oh my fucking god douse it with fire!”
Buckingham Palace should officially change its name to Barkingham Palace because WOOF! The painting of Kate, as done by artist Paul Emsley, is nothing less than a disaster. Beloved UK news site The Daily Fail is going in hard on the portrait, calling it “rotten.”
Robin Simon, editor of the British Art Journal and Daily Mail art critic, said today: ‘Fortunately, the Duchess of Cambridge looks nothing like this in real life.
‘I’m really sad to say this is a rotten portrait.’
Januszczak told BBC News: ‘I was disappointed, to be honest. I have been waiting for it, like everybody else, with great expectation because the Duchess of Cambridge is someone who we know likes art and was presumably going to be an enlightened patron.
‘But I think she’s been let down really by the picture. In the end, it’s yet another pretty ordinary painting of a royal of the sort that we’ve been really churning out for the last few hundred years in Britain.’
I have to admit, when I first saw this portrait, all I could think of was those classic keyhole covers for all those VC Andrews novels in the 80′s. You know, those books where the siblings inevitably ended up having some type of completely improper incestual relations? (SPOILER: Let’s just say the Chris/Cathy dynamic was a LOT different in the film version of Flowers in the Attic than it was in the actual novel.) Yeah, I really don’t know what my mom was thinking letting me read those novels in sixth grade. But Kate’s royal portrait is giving me flashbacks, and I may or may not be checking out the Kindle library to see if they have those books in e-form.