King Charles’ Bloody Portrait Shows the Royal Brand Is Stale

Much like The Emperor’s New Clothes, where the tailor exposes the vanity of his ruler, the unveiling this week of Jonathan Yeo’s portrait of King Charles III has been very … revealing.

The portrait has been met with both gasps of astonishment and ridicule throughout the world, as well as the expected praise. The dramatic red wash has been the subject of considerable discussion across news outlets and social feeds: Some have suggested the scarlet hue is Dante’s Inferno, the “flesh & blood of all murderd [sic] by the Empire’s bloodlust,” or reminiscent of a literal bloodbath.

The artist insists: “The vivid colour of the glazes in the background echo the uniform’s bright red tunic, not only resonating with the royal heritage found in many historical portraits but also injecting a dynamic, contemporary jolt into the genre with its uniformly powerful hue / providing a modern contrast to more traditional depictions.”

Fair, though it’s easy to understand why so many have been so critical.

The U.K. is currently in a recession, with an ongoing cost of living crisis that’s left people struggling to pay their bills and feed their families. Jobs are being cut, and the British bank has raised interest rates. This week saw the launch of the Labour party’s Six Big Pledges, listing the need for more teachers, shorter NHS waiting lists, a publicly owned energy institution and economic stability.

The royal family costs taxpayers £86.3 million ($109.6 million) each year. How do families struggling to pay their heating bills feel about this portrait? It’s no wonder many are seeing red.

May 2024 marks the first year of the reign of King Charles III—a year marked by illness, the story of his first marriage (fictional or true) being shared to all Netflix subscribers, and his family still working out what to do with their black sheep Prince Andrew, all taking place under the pall cast by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s defection.

After this week’s backlash, maybe he should pick up the phone to seek strategic advice from someone outside of the inner circle—as in 1957, when Queen Elizabeth II approached the journalist John Grigg to help her make the British monarchy relevant again after he publicly criticized the institution in his magazine, the National and English Review.

Leaving the past behind

A brand’s strength and reputation is often built on its history, values and story, but it is driven by its vision for the future. What does this painting say about history? What does it say about the future?

Dressed as the head of the armed forces and commander in chief, emerging from a red mist, the royals’ past is on display. And while the King has apologized on behalf of the empire for its colonial “involvement,” has everyone really forgiven and forgotten? Is the royal family so out of touch that they do not see how this image would be interpreted?

A core tenet of good brand strategy is a deep understanding of your audience and a point of view on how your brand can play a meaningful role in their lives. What role are we to understand for the royals in our lives from this painting? If the royals want us to see them differently, then they need to be looking forward, not backward, and offer a clearer vision for the meaningful contribution they can make to the lives of their subjects.

Future-proofing

A common exercise used in brand strategy development is to ask leaders, “What headline do you want to see written about your brand in the future?” This reveals how they want to be known, and gives strategy folk a few clues about where they should try and take the business.

How does Charles want to be remembered? How does he want the royal family to be seen? Charles’ request to include the monarch butterfly as a double metaphor—about his ascent to the throne, as well as his environmental activism—is both awkwardly on the nose and invites criticism about the family’s use of private jets and game hunting. Looking at this portrait doesn’t give us any sense of a changed future.

What it takes to change

The effort to change perception must be equal to the gap between current and future states—a big change requires a big gesture. So, in many ways, expecting this portrait to do or be anything other than a picture is folly. Change for the royals won’t come from a new framing or brave color palette; it must come from genuine changes in behavior.

But what motivation do they have to change? We, as marketers, know that in the business world, a failure to change and adapt to market needs means extinction. But for the royals, there is no threat of extinction. People can’t vote with their wallets or pens, so if there is a drive for change, it is only really about vanity. Which brings us back to the painting.

This isn’t a signal for changed times; it’s simply a fairly predictable display of pageantry—a self-serving celebration of the past without a point of view for the future. Nothing much to see here. As you were.