The storm began with the unveiling of a portrait depicting King Charles I. Commissioned by a renowned artist, Jonathan Yeo. The portrait was intended to commemorate the monarch's reign and legacy. However, what ensued was far from the expected reverence.

Critics swiftly took to X to voice their disapproval, citing concerns over satanism, accuracy and the glorification of a contentious figure. Many argued that King Charles's reign was marred by conflict and tyranny, making him a divisive symbol rather than one worthy of celebration.

Conversely, supporters of the portrait hailed it as a tribute to a complex and pivotal figure in British history, saying that it is art. They emphasised the importance of acknowledging historical nuance and understanding the multifaceted nature of monarchy.

As the debate raged on X, The controversy highlighted broader questions about the role of art in reflecting and interpreting history, as well as the responsibility of institutions to engage with diverse perspectives.

In the wake of the controversy, the portrait continues to hang, a silent witness to the tumultuous currents of public opinion. Yet, beyond the canvas, the debate serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent in navigating the intersection of art, history, and contemporary discourse.

As the dust settles, one thing remains clear: the legacy of King Charles I, like the portrait itself, is a subject of perpetual scrutiny and debate, reflecting the ever-evolving landscape of British identity and memory.

‍