The King's Satanic Portrait

The King's Satanic Portrait

Unveiled on May 14, Jonathan Yeo’s painting of King Charles III, the first official portrait of the British monarch since coronation, has prompted both admiration and perplexity. 

What is the fuss about? The viral painting is a vivid depiction of the British monarch in ceremonial red attire. Sword in hand, with a butterfly perched on his shoulder, Charles III looks larger than life and magnetic. 

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but I find the portrait magnificent, vibrant, and evocative. I couldn't believe my eyes. 

What is the meaning? The whole painting looks more fitting to Vlad Tepes, who people say is a King's distant relative through the Saxberg-Gotha bloodline. Honestly, it's what I would choose if I were a queen, for example, so I was surprised, to say the least. 

It makes you think, and it makes you recall. You probably have a lot of questions.



The Royal Family posted the portrait on their official Instagram page and needless to say, social media went crazy, recoiled in horror and calling the art work "disturbing", "creepy" and "satanic". Some perplexed journalists have defined it as "a mess" and "sad". 



 Get a life. But truth be told, royal paintings, as a rule, tend to be classic and predictable, so we must understand every stunned comment. To me, Charles III is one of the most intriguing royals and I've always liked him. I appreciate his top-level, sophisticated clothes. He always looks effortlessly impeccable and resplendent. 

Men with regal allure seem old money Luciferians to me




To my mind, the painting clearly representes King Charles libertine nature. Why? Allow me to explain. He is a literature lover, with an enthusiasm for Shakespeare, especially Henry V and its opening monologue. The former Prince of Wales likened himself to Prince Hal - later Henry V-, the hedonist and dissolute heir of Henry IV, more interested in debauchery, whores and taverns than in royal duties.



Prince Harry confirmed his father's reverence for Henry V in his book Spare. “Pa didn’t merely enjoy books, he exalted them. Especially Shakespeare. He adored Henry V. He compared himself to Prince Hal,” Harry writes. Was it just a coincidence that when he was born Charles named him Henry?

Eventually, Henry V turns into a responsible monarch but he was only 26 when he ascended. 

King Charles acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022, after waiting his whole life to "pay the debt" he "never promised" (Shakespeare, Henry IV - Part 1) His mother, Queen Elizabeth, held the throne for more than 70 years. She would not abdicate. Charles III passed the current record of William IV, who became king aged 64 years. 

In other words, he became King when he had nothing to prove any longer. 



Honestly, the vivid red background is enough for me - and for everyone, despite attempts by experts to rationalize the use of the color. Internal fury and rage? I don't think so. Does red symbolize royal, as many experts have claimed? Not to that extent. Is it because represents his role as a head of the Welsh Ward? Nice try. A statement about monarchy's bloody history? Lol. Pain because of Diana? Yeah, sure. 

The only thing missing is the horns. 

There is no PR involved, because at his age, as a said, and with Prince William ready to take over, the King, currently undergoing cancer treatment, simply doesn't need it. A secret message? For what? He is finally free to do what he wants and of course, too old to care about the consequences. At this point, I'm sure Charles will likely pay no mind to critics. The portrait probably only makes sense to him and those who know him well, like his beloved wife. Supposedly Queen Camilla was quoted as saying the artist captured her husband perfectly. “You’ve got him", she said. 

And yes, the elite adores demonic artwork. 



I'll let you be the judge. What's your opinion about King Charles III fierce portrait?


You are the best Lila!


At first glance, did I assume the portrait of King Charles III to indicate the extent he was metaphorically burnt by public furore due to his soured relations with Princess Diana. His marital problems had unintended consequences such as some of his best social work such as promoting the interests of the non-christian youth of England through The Prince’s trust (A very luciferian initiative due to its non-conformism and departure from bias towards Christianity), going unnoticed and overshadowed by his former wife’s humanitarian efforts.

I would have thought King Charles III weak willed until the sudden demise of Diana, which might have very well been his doing and yet again portrays the Luciferian mindset of advancement of one’s interests at the cost of another. I don’t believe there is a way to make this sound defensible, but Diana stole the spotlight what was rightfully Charles’ without any concern over her husband’s response whatsoever.
This was an rebellious stance and a lot for Charles to handle, given that the more interesting spares and consorts of former rulers including that of Elizabeth II downplayed their supremacy to allow the monarch their perpetuity, stability and mass adoration. Any human would have harbored resentment towards their other halves for being disproportionately successful in comparison to them, with Charles having more reasons to be frustrated over his emasculation, in the process considering Diana to be his enemy or competitor for public favour, and we all know how Luciferians react to our adversaries.

Whether Charles III in fact was a Luciferian or not, is a topic open for debate but maybe it is time people sympathized with him for it is really easy to love Diana and hate Charles along with Camilla. Maybe this portrait is that call for attention over most of his life being infernal so to speak, causing him to be compared with our very own exalted ruler of hell.

Humsika Srikanth

When I saw the portrait on X/Twitter, I laughed out loud because I immediately thought of the main antagonist Vigo from the 1989 film Ghostbusters II, who is always in portrait form: you get the references you get, ha ha ha ^^.

To get serious again, the portrait itself made me wonder about the fact that I couldn’t necessarily see the rest of the body properly because of the colour on the body, which clashed with the red background and gave me the impression that the portrait was ‘messed up’ (as for me, an official portrait highlights the different colours).

Faced with the ‘fait accompli’ of a portrait that wouldn’t change, I’d get used to it fairly quickly, over time. Nevertheless, I’m learning things about King Charles in this article and my view of the portrait may change with hindsight and time……but I’ll always remember the laugh I had the very first time, ha ha ha.


Leave a comment

Please note, comments need to be approved before they are published.