ARTIST AND ROYALTY

Evening Star, Issue 20137, 30 March 1929, Page 14

ARTIST AND ROYALTY

UNPOPULAR PRINCE CONSORT Toward the close of his lile Mr Farid Roberts, 11. A., spent some of his leisure writing ieminisconces of notable persons whom he had met. Extracts from these arc given by Miss Jam; Quigley in ‘ Chambers's Journal.’ Mr Roberts had the honour of Several audiences with Queen ATctoria, and the Princo Consort lor a pickme. o) the opening of the Exhibition of 1851, which lie was commissioned to paint. Although ho was greatly charmed by the kindly manner of the Queen, he is more re-* served in his admiration of the Prince Consort. Interviews at Osborne made Roberts realise, that the lavonr _ off Royalty might be irksome to the artist.' The Prince' Consort required radical alterations in his designs, one of which entailed cutting off the heads of the principal figures and practically altering the whole scheme. Roberts felt* no regret at receiving no further commissions, recalling that Landseer, from frequent attendance at Court, had suffered in health and nerves, and had been hindered irom carrying out other

works. , , hollowing the example ol George 111.’ the Queen and the Prince Consort took :i. practical interest in the Hoy a I Academy, not without trying results to the Academy. In 1852 an sissoeinla engraver had to be elected in place of John Landseer. The president announced that ho had received a, communication direct from Her Majesty/ A letter was road from Mr Phipps saying that it was Her Majesty's command that an accompanying request from certain engravers to the Queen that they should be admitted to the full rank of Academicians should ho considered.. This took nearly all by surprise. In addition to this letter, the president. Sir Charles Easfclakc, had a long verbal communication with, the .Prince Consort in the presence oi Sir Charles Burry, in which they were, given, to understand most distinctly the Queen s wishes, as well as his own. Such in cidents, however, did not lessen, the desire for Koval favours from '•nntemporary artists, even though they criticised the Prince in the matter of payment. There is a later entry in the journal in 1858 which refers to tins unpopularity of the Prince Consort; — li There is no disguising the fact flint the Prince is not popular with the higher classes, as from his exemplary life and his great merits and accomplishments lie deserves to be. All sorts of insinuations are made against him as regards transactions with artisC. As regards myself, it has been quite the contrary, my smallest being 50gs, and the opening of the Exhibition, BOOgs, fully its worth, if not more.”

Huberts relates n rather curious coincidence in connection with the deaths of, two artists, Turner and Nasmyth/ “ One thing rather remarkable happened in connection with it (Turner s funeral). More than twenty years before the same undertaker had buried Peter Nasmyth. Both were great painters, the one improvident, tho other penurious, the improvident one a, Scotsman and the other one an Englishman! Both their works wera prized, and largo prices were given fqr them in their lifetime. One died in the most abject poverty, and the other wealthy. 1, being one of tho few friends, who actually knew Nasmyths’ affairs, was applied to. \\ went to the nearest undertaker and made the most economical arrangements I could for his funeral. Turner, who would scarce spend sixpence on himself during his lifetime, arranged in his will for a most showy and costly funeral. Nasmyth was buried in an obscure churchyard in the parish of Lambeth; Turner was interred in St/ Paul’s Cathedral. The same under/ taker buried both. Stanfield and t attended both funerals. 1 had not seen tho undertaker from tho burial of one until ho accosted me at the other.”