A multimillion-pound scheme to hang King Charles III’s portrait in public buildings across Britain has spectacularly backfired, with more than 46,000 institutions refusing the free offer and the Government now desperately trying to hide where the portraits ended up. Freedom of Information documents reveal that just 31 per cent of eligible organisations accepted the monarch’s image, at a total cost to taxpayers of £2.7 million.
The Cabinet Office programme, launched around the time of the Coronation, aimed to provide framed images of the King in naval uniform to tens of thousands of community venues. However, the initiative has been branded an expensive failure after hospitals, universities and even Church of England parishes overwhelmingly rejected the royal portrait.
Ministers are now refusing to reveal which institutions accepted the portraits, warning that naming recipients could “give rise to controversy” and create “negative public perception” – an admission that suggests deep embarrassment about the scheme’s failure.
Hospitals and Universities Shun Royal Image
The rejection rates across different sectors paint a damning picture of the monarchy’s standing in modern Britain. Just three per cent of hospitals displayed the King’s image, while only seven per cent of universities took part in the scheme.
Perhaps most embarrassingly for the monarch, only a quarter of Church of England parishes agreed to hang the portrait, despite King Charles being their Supreme Governor. This represents a rejection by roughly 12,000 churches across the country.
Oliver Dowden, the then-deputy Prime Minister who championed the scheme, had declared the portraits would be “a reminder of the example set by our ultimate public servant.” His words now ring hollow as the figures reveal widespread institutional indifference to the new sovereign.
Local councils proved more receptive, with 73 per cent accepting the portrait. Remarkably, every single one of the country’s 23 coastguard organisations took one, making them the only sector to show unanimous support for the King.
Government Covers Up Portrait Locations
The Cabinet Office’s attempts to conceal where the portraits ended up has sparked accusations of a cover-up. Initially, officials claimed that revealing recipient institutions would constitute an “actionable breach of confidence” – effectively suggesting that public bodies might sue for being identified as having accepted a royal portrait.
When the Guardian challenged this absurd reasoning, pointing out that requesting a taxpayer-funded portrait for public display could hardly be considered confidential, the Government switched tactics. They now claim disclosure would “prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.”
In their Freedom of Information response, officials argued: “The public may have an interest in knowing which institutions applied for the King’s portrait. However, the likely motivation behind such interest may focus more on identifying which organisations did not apply rather than understanding government decision making or policy effectiveness.”
They warned that “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.
Anti-Monarchy Campaigners Cry Foul
Graham Smith, chairman of anti-monarchy group Republic, condemned the secrecy as evidence of “spending money we don’t have on a man we didn’t elect.” He argued that declining public support meant “the chances of there being controversy around spending money on portraits is far more likely than in the past.
“The whole point of freedom of information is to allow the public to judge the conduct and decisions of public authorities,” Smith said. “It is up to the public to determine whether they criticise those who do order or don’t order the portrait.”
Royal historian Dr Ed Owens described the Government’s stance as “a form of obfuscation” that reflects limited enthusiasm for the monarch. The fact that hospitals haven’t unanimously requested portraits suggests there’s a disconnect between the monarchy’s public image and its actual relationship with public institutions like NHS hospitals,” he said.
Monarchy Support in Steady Decline
The portrait scheme’s failure comes amid polling showing support for the monarchy is in “steady decline.” YouGov data reveals the proportion of adults who believe the monarchy is good for Britain has fallen from 60 per cent in July 2019 to just 51 per cent in March 2024.
Those viewing the institution as bad or neither good nor bad rose from 34 per cent to 44 per cent over the same period, suggesting growing indifference or hostility towards the Royal Family.
Dr Owens noted that a century ago, royal portraits were common in most public buildings and many private homes. The current rejection rate represents a dramatic shift in public attitudes towards the monarchy.
“The Cabinet Office seems to be playing an active role in seeking to protect the reputation of the monarchy,” he observed, suggesting the Government’s secrecy reflects anxiety about further undermining the institution’s standing.
Expensive Failure Amid Public Service Cuts
The £2.7 million spent on the portrait scheme has drawn particular criticism at a time when public services face severe budget constraints. Critics point out that hospitals rejecting the portraits are the same institutions struggling with funding shortages and staff retention.
When the scheme was announced with its original £8 million budget, Republic called it a “shameful waste of money.” Smith had argued: “At a time when a majority of local councils are raising taxes and cutting public services, when schools and hospitals are struggling, to spend even £1 on this nonsense would be £1 too much.
The final cost of £2.7 million represents money spent on just 20,565 portraits that were actually requested – meaning each framed image cost taxpayers approximately £131.
Officials Fear “Negative Attention”
The Government’s FOI response reveals deep concerns about public reaction to the scheme. Officials warned that transparency could lead to “negative media coverage or reputational harm” for participating institutions.
This type of negative attention could discourage organisations from engaging in similar schemes in the future,” they claimed, effectively admitting that association with royal initiatives might now be seen as politically toxic.
The response added that scrutiny might “unfairly single out institutions for criticism over a discretionary decision,” suggesting officials recognise that accepting or rejecting a royal portrait has become a politically charged choice.
This represents a remarkable shift from previous eras when displaying the monarch’s image was considered a patriotic duty for public institutions.
Portrait Details and Distribution
The portrait in question shows King Charles in a medal-laden Royal Navy uniform, photographed by Hugo Burnand at Windsor Castle. The image was offered to institutions between November 2023 and August 2024.
According to Cabinet Office figures, 8,384 schools out of nearly 30,000 took up the offer, while just 35 of 257 universities and higher education institutes requested one. The majority of portraits went to government departments and local authorities.
The scheme had been promoted as allowing institutions to “carry on the tradition” of displaying royal portraits, following Queen Elizabeth II’s long reign. However, the rejection by 69 per cent of eligible bodies suggests many see no need to continue this tradition under the new King.
As one social media user commented on the revelations: “Spending almost £3m on pictures of Charles when school children are going hungry is an appalling waste of money.”
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
