It was supposed to be a unifying national moment: a multimillion-pound coronation-era splurge to ensure King Charles III’s avuncular likeness would be peering down at you while you paid your parking ticket, worshipped God, or tried to avoid eye contact in a police station.
However, a program to distribute portraits of Charles to community institutions around the U.K. has been revealed as expensive and unpopular following a Freedom of Information request by the avowedly republican Guardian newspaper.
Around 20,000, or 31 percent, of institutions offered the portraits of the king in naval garb accepted. At a cost of £2.7 million ($3.7 million), it means that each royal likeness cost around £135. More than 46,000 eligible public institutions rejected the offer, a 69 percent miss rate.
Oliver Dowden, then deputy PM, said at the time of the coronation that the portraits would be “a reminder of the example set by our ultimate public servant.”
Of the 20,000 portraits that did find homes, the Cabinet Office declined to say specifically where they ended up, arguing such details could “give rise to controversy” and create “negative public perception,” according to the Guardian.
In general terms, however, hospitals barely touched them (3 percent take-up), universities were unimpressed (7 percent), and only a quarter of Church of England churches fancied displaying a picture of the man who is officially their “Supreme Governor.”
Local government offices were keener—73 percent said yes—and the coastguard was unanimously enthusiastic, with each and every one of the country’s 23 coastguard bodies snapping up the freebie, the Guardian reported. Nothing boosts morale during a maritime rescue quite like a framed King Charles beaming down from the wall.
But overall more than 46,500 public institutions that could have ordered a portrait did not.
“The public may have an interest in knowing which institutions applied for the King’s portrait,” the government said in its freedom of information response to the Guardian. “However, the likely motivation behind such interest may focus more on identifying which organizations did not apply rather than understanding government decision making or policy effectiveness. This type of scrutiny does not necessarily serve a broader public interest and could unfairly single out institutions for criticism over a discretionary decision that does not impact their ability to provide public services. This type of negative attention could discourage organizations from engaging in similar schemes in the future due to negative media coverage or reputational harm.”
Graham Smith, chairman of the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic, accused the government of covering up “spending money we don’t have on a man we didn’t elect.”
The Guardian highlights that the monarchy is in “steady decline” in the polls. Still, at least the king has plenty of coastguard offices where he can still feel wanted.
Want more royal gossip, scoops and scandal? Head over to The Royalist on Substack
The post King Charles’ Free Portraits Snubbed on a Spectacular Scale as 46,000 Institutions Say No Thanks appeared first on The Daily Beast.
