Yep, I find it extraordinary.
I’m sure there will be a more traditional portrait at some point to satisfy the delicate types but this is an outstanding portrait IMHO.
The butterfly was apparently HRH’s idea.
HM’s idea. Keep up, Smapti!
Actually, he was still HRH when he sat for the picture.
the butterfly is a lovely touch.
It must be a strange feeling to think about your life in those terms.
Though it’s a bit different for recent monarchs or really anyone recently. Painted portraits are the only way we know what monarchs of the past looked like but at least as far back as Victoria, there are photographs, film, video and so forth.
I was thinking more in terms of school children studying you in 200 years.
I’m not sure the reign of Charles III will have much historical significance. But I guess the kids might need to know who followed who.
Purely by chance, I saw the King’s new portrait earlier today. I knew I would be in the vicinity of Philip Mould & Co. and so had been planning on popping in to see their current Mary Beale exhibition. But, as it happens, they also have the King’s portrait on display for the next few weeks.
My main issue with it is the way that the body blends into the background. That’s one of Jonathan Yeo’s standard tricks and works well on smaller paintings. Here the portrait is excellent if you stand close to it and concentrate mainly on the face. In that sense, it does look better in the flesh than in most photos. But the real test will be how it looks in situ in Drapers’ Hall. Its interiors are so grand that film companies regularly use them as stand-ins for Buckingham Palace. I suspect that in such surroundings, it will look mostly like a disembodied head.
Kind of like Harrison’s administration for American kids.
This comment made me realize that I’m not even British and I can list off every monarch since Henry VIII, in order.
Is that an embodiment of “life is too short to drink bad wine”?
It may well reflect the opinion of HRH Chuck about the quality of wine consumed by his loyal subjects, the commoners. Suitable for the gas tank of his Aston Martin, not his palate. This is an idea that would have fit well into the plot of The Windsors, a series intended as an outrageous parody of the royal family.
Interesting side note. This popular series was filming its fourth season when the health problems of both King Charles and Kate came to light. The show being a merciless parody of the foibles of the royals, the producers decided to shut it down out of respect for them. Also, the Queen was always out of bounds, and now that Charles is king, the portrayal of Prince Charles as a buffoonish twit would also have probably been judged in bad taste. But damn, Harry Enfield, the actor who plays Charles, has him down to a T! .
Looks like he’s champing at the bit to get back to normal:
The real trivial question will be who was Prime Minister when Charles ascended to power.
I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means. 
“Succession to the throne” is probably the right term. To be honest, I had to doublecheck who it was and it just happened a year and a half ago.