The King's Satanic Portrait

Unveiled on May 14 2024, Jonathan Yeo’s painting of King Charles III, the first official portrait of the British monarch since his coronation, immediately provoked fascination and unease in equal measure. 

The viral painting is a vivid depiction of the British monarch in ceremonial red attire, immersed in an ocean of crimson, sword in hand. Instead of the polite, dull royal portrait the public had come to expect, it looks more like the cover of a metal album or a poster of Michael Haneke's film. 

This portrait, intense and aggressive in color, it definitely looks more fitting to Vlad Tepes, whom some claim to be a distant relative of  the King's through the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bloodline. Fun fact, Charles has a house in Transylvania, a particular choice to say the least. He always travels there alone. 

To me, King Charles III has always been one of the most intriguing figures of modern royalty. I have always appreciated his refined presence, his deeply introspective personality, and his genuine love of literature and art. 

Let's explore why this portrait unsettled the public, and what it may reveal about the man behind the Crown.

The Art the Public Was Not Ready to See

Although it makes sense for a royal portrait to be more artsy nowadays, an institution built on continuity depends precisely on visual stability. When that continuity is disrupted, the public instinctively reacts with shock.

Truth be told, monarchs are painted to look distant, neutral, and completely devoid of anything interesting to them. Royal paintings, as a rule, often include crosses, religious symbolism, and neutral backgrounds linked to moral elevation. Not the case. We only see a butterfly, the dual symbol of peace and transformation, and a lovely touch perhaps also signifying his concern for ecology. 

When the Royal Family posted the portrait on their official Instagram page social media went crazy, recoiled in horror and calling the art work "disturbing", "creepy" and "satanic".  "King Charles' portrait is giving Lucifer!", one wrote. "He looks like a soul-sucking vampire" said another, "it's well known who these people serve: Satan". Others went even further, openly asking: "Is King Charles the Antichrist?". 

Some perplexed journalists have defined what is not known as King Charles satanic portrait as "a mess" and "sad". 

Seems like it's the choice of color the most disturbing thing. Does red symbolize royalty, as many experts have claimed? Not to that extent. Internal fury and rage? Hard to believe. A statement about monarchy's bloody history? Pointless.

Despite attempts by experts to rationalize the use of the color, red has long been associated with evil, hell and temptation. To the untrained eye, the painting, no matter how stunning, visually resembles occult oil illustrations. 

The artist had to recognize the connotations as he was painting it. And it is difficult to believe that the King himself was unaware of them.

Charles III waited in the wings longer than any of his predecessors - more than sixty-five years. Queen Elizabeth II’s guiding principle, a life devoted entirely to service to the British people, made him the oldest and longest-serving heir in British history. His accession at seventy-three makes it difficult to view him as the representative of a new era.

After such a long and often dramatic life, it seems more reasonable to assume that his intention is precisely the opposite: to avoid turbulence and make his reign as smooth and uneventful as possible.

Yet paradoxically, his age and life experience are also powerful reasons to finally act according to his own convictions. In other words, he became King when he had nothing to prove any longer. Let the painting be exactly what he likes. 

Charles III and Prince Hal

The painting clearly representes King Charles' libertine nature. To better understand the symbolism surrounding the former prince, it's essential to consider how he has long perceived himself through the lens of literature, particularly Shakespeare.

Charles III has always shown a deep affection for Henry V, and more specifically for the figure of Prince Hal, the hedonist and dissolute heir who later becomes one of England’s most celebrated kings. As Crown Prince, Hal is more interested in debauchery, whores, and taverns than in royal duties. He knows those responsibilities are coming, but for now, he prefers to observe the world from its margins. 

Hal deliberately commits himself to a life of indulgence, so he can turn it around in a big, dramatic reformation, becoming almost unrecognizable as sovereign. This transformation from libertine to hero king fascinated Charles.“You only have to look at Henry V or Henry IV Parts I and II” he told the BBC, “to see the change that can take place.” 

One passage in particular held great meaning for him: the monologue in which Prince Hal speaks of his destiny, and the moment in which he will have to "pay the debt" that he "never promised". 

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. 

In both cases, kingship does not arrive as a triumph. 

King Charles III and Faith

As a demonic practitioner, there is something in Charles III worldview that feels closer to the occult than most people would expect. 

As monarch, he is constitutionally the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a role inherited automatically with the Crown.

However, his spirituality has always been broad, philosophical, and introspective. In 1994, Charles sparked controversy when he expressed a preference for being described as “Defender of Faith” not “Defender of the Faith,” (Fidei Defensor), a distinction intended to acknowledge England’s religious diversity.

Where does King Charles III truly stand when it comes to religion?

Charles has always shown a mental inclination toward the esoteric and the mystical. After studying anthropology, he found himself deeply attracted to non-western cultures and paganism.

In the mid 70s, the then prince "fell under the spell" of Laurens Van der Post, a South African guru, writer, and explorer. For many years, he served as a mentor and confident to Charles. Recognizing his introspective temperament and the fact that he couldn't be treated as a "normal person", Van der Post encouraged the Prince of Wales to explore “the old world of the spirit” and talk to his plants.

His influence pushed all of Charles’s "Renaissance man" inner buttons. 

Charles knew that his spiritually couldn't sit well with the Anglican Church. When he confessed to have a deep and "religious" connection with the natural world, he added that this would "not sit well" with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

For sure, he is a semidetached, particular type of Anglican. He has shown a real affinity with Eastern Orthodoxy, even adorning part of his home with prized Byzantine icons, and with Islam, being particularly fascinated with its architecture and the Koran. 

From a witch’s perspective, all of this reads differently: it's clear is that the King's worldview overlaps with occult ways of understanding reality. 

This became especially clear during his first Christmas broadcast as monarch in December 2022. In a moment that quietly revealed his spiritual philosophy, Charles addressed the nation by saying, “So whatever faith you have — or whether you have none…” The phrase was striking for its tone: inclusive, reflective, and unconcerned with rigid boundaries.

Given his voracious reading habits, his clear apathy toward his official religion, his lifelong interest in philosophy and symbolism, and his intellectual curiosity, it's difficult to imagine that Charles III has not encountered the dark occult tradition.

On Power and the Aesthetics of Inner Sovereignty

Charles of Windsor is known for many things, from his complicated personal life to his desire to protect the planet for future generations. But his love of opulence is also well documented.

Easily one of the best-dressed people alive, King Charles has always been a true dandy. His carefully selected suits, worn with aplomb, are always impeccable. He clearly dresses out of respect for his heritage, his country, and himself.

Without being overly vain, he has taken great pride in his appearance, choosing to emulate a lineage of exquisitely dressed relatives — Lord Mountbatten and his great-uncle, the Duke of Windsor, who famously insisted on living in a form of Edwardian grandeur.

That vision of elegance and cultivated excess clearly resonated with Charles far more than the rigid, almost puritanical restraint that defined his mother’s reign.

“He is really just accustomed to getting precisely what he wants when he wants it, regardless of how that makes other people feel,” a longtime friend once said.

Men shaped by old money carry a presence that feels Luciferian. How so? It's because they look untouched by ordinary human anxiety. There is a certain detachment, self-possession, and quiet authority about these Savile Row men. Their power is inherited, internalized, and therefore effortless. 

To the collective psyche, that reads as unnatural, but we perceive this immediately. 

You can’t help but imagine them shaking hands with Belial after a pact in exchange for power.

A Portrait Without Apology

Is King Charles III’s portrait a hidden message? Is it true that the mirrored painting shows an image of Baphomet?

What I can confirm is that Luciferian high-profile people often choose the most significant moments of their lives, moments of culmination, legacy, or irreversible ascent, to leave subtle markers of meaning. They rarely announce their beliefs openly, especially when they occupy positions of extreme visibility. These symbolic gestures are meaningful to them and unmistakable to those who know how to look, but not legible to the masses. 

However, in the age of social media, subtlety no longer remains subtle for long. Images and aesthetic choices are instantly disseminated and reinterpreted by highly perceptive observers. People today are more visually literate and more suspicious than in previous generations: nothing of prominence passes unnoticed. The audience is no longer naïve.

The portrait probably only makes sense to him and those who know him well, like his beloved wife. Queen Camilla has been quoted as saying the artist captured her husband perfectly. “You’ve got him", she said. 

As mentioned previously, at his age, currently undergoing cancer treatment, and with Prince William ready to take over, Charles III is finally free to do what he wants and, of course, too old to care about the consequences. I'm sure he will likely pay no mind to critics.

I’ll let you be the judge. What is your opinion of King Charles III’s fierce portrait?