Napper's 'banned' Queen portrait finally goes on display
John Napper's painting of The Queen - photograph courtesy of St George's Hall
A controversial portrait of The Queen, hidden from view for 60 years because it looked nothing like her, has finally gone on public display.
The artwork, painted by John Napper in 1952, shows the monarch with an extraordinary long neck.
Napper himself described it as "a beautiful painting of a queen, but not this Queen".
After spending six decades in council vaults, the portrait went on display in Liverpool's St George's Hall on Friday.
The city's deputy Lord Mayor, Gary Millar, said: "We are very proud that Liverpool now has the original first painting hanging in St George's Hall, which has been rehung to celebrate the anniversary of the Queen's Coronation.
"It will be the first thing people will see if they come to get married or have a civil partnership or attend a citizenship ceremony.
"It is an honour for us to work with the friends of the hall, the staff there and the city council to rehang this beautiful painting."
Napper, who died in 2001, painted a second portrait of The Queen, with a smaller neck, after the original was rejected by the council. That picture still hangs in Liverpool Town Hall.
The artist's widow, Pauline, told the Daily Telegraph: "I remember the painting well. He was disappointed with the angle at which he painted it, he only had one sitting.
Paul Emsley's portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge
"It was due to be hung up high so that you would look at it from below. If you looked at it from that angle it looked normal.
"Then when they showed it they didn't put it up high and then it didn't look like the Queen."
She added: "It is a beautiful painting, obviously he would have been pleased that it is going on display. I am pleased too, it is a beautiful portrait."
The public unveiling of the work comes a week after the first official portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge was panned by some critics.
Paul Emsley's work, which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery, was accused of making the Duchess look older and lifeless.
The Guardian's art critic, Adrian Searle, wrote: "The portrait is as soundless and smooth as an undertaker's makeover."
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~09~RS~)


Assault caution for Charles Saatchi
Afghan forces take security lead
Startling statistic
Generation cool
Cheaper shoes
'No answers'
Super-charged sport
Fast Track
Comment number 111.
Commonsense10a18th January 2013 - 16:50
The queen looks very pretty and attractive.
Not a bad painting at all.
Link to this (Comment number 111)
Comment number 60.
Deborah18th January 2013 - 15:50
The painting of Kate is dreadful, it makes her look older, tired, and the unpleasant, gloating smirk makes her look like she's about to take immense pleasure in someone else's misfortune. Bizarre given how attractive and lively she looks in most photos.
Link to this (Comment number 60)
Comment number 45.
Furious Blueberry18th January 2013 - 15:25
Hilariously bad.
It should be hung up alongside the painting in the Spanish church that was touched up by that helpful old lady.
Link to this (Comment number 45)
Comment number 38.
zrzavy18th January 2013 - 15:17
With art, it's rather like "the King's invisible suit of clothes". A painting might be rubbish, but if it is by a well known artist, people are afraid to say it is rubbish in case there is a deeper meaning which they have missed through their own ignorance, but which they believe everybody else can see.
Link to this (Comment number 38)
Comment number 24.
Cogito Dexter18th January 2013 - 15:00
I think it's very pretty. Ok, it doesn't look much like the Queen would have looked when it was painted, but it doesn't stop it being agreeable on the eyes. I'd be happy to have a print of it framed on a wall in my house.
Link to this (Comment number 24)
Comments 5 of 6