Queen Elizabeth II: The most visually depicted monarch

Many renowned artists have portrayed the Queen over the decades and the Queen remains one of the most visually scrutinized and recorded people in history
Queen Elizabeth II, who died on September 8, 2022, will be laid to rest in London on Monday, and hundreds of foreign royals and leaders would attend the state funeral in London. As she exits from the scene, the world is bidding adieu to “probably the most visually depicted and represented individual ever to have existed across the entire span of human history,” as observed by British historian David Cannadine. There were scores of portraits done by many renowned artists over the decades, and the Queen remains one of the most visually scrutinized and recorded people in history.

One of the most talked about series was the portraits by American artist Andy Warhol. He made this silkscreen print series of the Queen in 1985, as part of his “Reigning Queens” series. The artist created this work of art based on an official photographic portrait taken in 1975, and in it the blue-eyed Queen is wearing a tiara, and she looked very regal and handsome. This is one image that immortalizes the queen.

Though the Queen did not have a court painter as such, some artists got the chance to do her portrait on more than one occasion. One was Italian artist Pietro Annigoni, who painted a portrait of the Queen between 1954 and 1955, and again in 1969. While the first portrait captured the public imagination of the Queen, commissioned by the City of London livery company, framed against what could pass for an Italian Renaissance landscape and dressed in Garter robes, the second one was a portrait in tempera grassa on paper on panel. Here the Queen is depicted wearing the red robes of the Order of the British Empire, and it was done in 18 sittings. A photograph by Cecil Beaton in which Elizabeth wears the red Order of the British Empire robes has been considered a source for the portrait.

In 2000, Lucian Freud began painting the Queen. It was a commission by the Queen’s former private secretary Robert Fellowes, who was friend of Freud’s. After many sittings spread over May 2000 and December 2001, the artist painted the queen in heavy impasto. It was a tiny painting, which was 9 by 6 inches, and it lead to huge controversy. Some critics even commented that it was a huge error for Lucian Freud. But the queen was very pleased according to Freud’s biographer William Feaver. She said to Freud: “Very nice of you to do this. I’ve very much enjoyed watching you mix your colours.” However, the general opinion was that the painting, portrayed in a pensive mood, seemed the antithesis of earlier, romanticized depictions of the Queen.

In 1997 the English painter Justin Mortimer did a portrait of the Queen, commissioned by the Royal Society of the Arts. Here also the monarch comes off looking cheerily detached, as the portrait, set against an acidic yellow background showed her head floating away from her body. Earlier, in 1967, Gerhard Richter produced an oil painting based on a published photograph. Prior to that he had captured the image of the Queen in a lithograph as well. Another one worth mentioning is the unflattering portrait of the Queen, done in 2006, by American artist George Condo, which was later displayed at Tate Modern, which invited the wrath of the art lovers and media alike. After the death of the Queen, there were many sand art, done by various people in different parts of the world, including India. In London, a world record holding artist, Jignesh Patel, created a mural for the late monarch as his tribute.

However, there were many points of disagreement with the monarch at the political level in India, which has its roots in British Rule. When the Queen visited India on three occasions, this concern was raised by many. During the 1997 visit, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of India’s independence, she made a stop at the Jallianwala Bagh, a site in Amritsar, where British troops had fired upon a peaceful gathering of protesters in 1919. While many Indians expected the Queen to deliver a formal apology during that visit, she did not. Her only comment was, “It is no secret that there have been some difficult episodes in our past – Jallianwala Bagh, which I shall visit tomorrow, is a distressing example. But history cannot be rewritten, however much we might sometimes wish otherwise.”
Another disagreement was about the fabled Kohinoor diamond adorning the crown of the Queen; even now there is demand that the diamond, taken away from India, should be returned.
“Flaunting the Kohinoor on the Queen Mother’s crown in the Tower of London is a powerful reminder of the injustices perpetrated by the former imperial power,” wrote eminent writer and parliament member Shashi Tharoor. “Until it is returned at least as a symbolic gesture of expiation, it will remain evidence of the loot, plunder and misappropriation that colonialism was really all about.”
Image courtesy: The Andy Warhol Foundation, Wikipedia, https://www.gerhard-richter.com/, and https://www.wikiart.org/