Letter: Bogus interpretation of Queen Mary
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I see that "Planners go to war against the Queen of Scots" (11 June).
So should art historians.
The old chestnut portrait you reproduce of "Queen Mary" is as bogus as any naff Disneyesque historical pleasuredome. The picture itself is at Montacute, from the National Portrait Gallery, and is a lovely Elizabethan portrait, but of an unknown lady - a prime example of the Northern Renaissance from which the punters are said to run away.
May the Lord preserve us from tatty Interpretation Centres, Theme Parks, Experiences, New Art History and all their ghastly anodyne kin. Meat not gruel, please.
CHRISTOPHER FOLEY
Director
Lane Fine Art
London SW10
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments