Freud obviously sees the Queen differently than I or anyone else

Miki Jackson, USA

In Henry VIII's time a 'portrait' such as this would have got the artist instant beheading. Come back Henry - all is forgiven. Freud is a fraud - he calls himself an artist, he should take painting lessons from a five-year-old.
Chris Knight, Australia

I officially painted the Queen in 1995, (I am the youngest artist to have done so). Freud is a very idiosyncratic artist and treats all his subject matter in the same way. The Queen has been no exception. He has said he does "paintings of people, not like people". He tries to get to the soul through the skin and almost loses himself in examination of areas of the body.

BBC News Online users said Freud's Queen looks like:

Dame Edna Everage Ronald Regan Alfred Hitchcock Jack Nicholson Pat Evans (EastEnders) Alec Gilroy (Coronation St) Rumpole of the Bailey John Ashcroft (US Attorney General) Richard Butler (ex-UN arms inspector) Mr Potato Head A Spitting Image puppet

Overall accuracy is not important to him. He forsakes "likeness" for his own ends. For this reason I think this is a painting not a portrait. It was not only brave of the Queen to choose Freud to paint her but astute. She has secured a painting of worth.
Christian Furr, UK

I am an artist and I can say from experience that art is not a kind undertaking. Mr Freud obviously sees the Queen differently than I or anyone else, as we each others differently. He, however can render that perception.
Miki Jackson, USA

An utterly arresting portrait. Just exactly what else would you expect if you ask Lucian Freud to do the job, anyway? No more puerile "Ho ho needs to see his granddad" jokes, please.
Mark Taylor, Singapore

I think it is interesting, it is a picture which stands out as a complex portrait. QE2 is in her twilight years, it is silly to hark back to early picture. It's sense of realism is refreshing.
Simon Coffey, New Zealand

I think he may have started out painting the Queen, but ended up painting Margaret Thatcher.
F Diana Hunt, USA and England

The crown and the curls look great, but the face: off with his head!

Lele, USA

People who have gotten their panties in a bundle over the Freud painting need to remember that painting is not necessarily intended to flatter the subject. What did they expect from Freud?
Domenic Rinaldi, USA

The crown and the curls look great, but the face: off with his head!
Lele, USA

The Barbeque Royal

At Lucian Freud she must be annoyed,
but, alas, twas her choice to sit.
Her crown all ablaze o'er that famous blank gaze,
Her Majesty was burnt at the spit.
Hank Conner, United States

Lucien Freud's portrait of The Queen is embarrassingly puerile and naive reminding one of that kitsch Woolworth Weeping Boy school of painting. Freud clearly has not learnt from his grand master Francis Bacon because Freud is still trapped in a 19th century mode of realist illustration which remains on the level of painting-by-numbers. Who says Freud is Britain's greatest living painter?
Alex Russell, England

Ugly due to poor technique. Unfortunately done on purpose to attract attention.
Stuart Ragland Jr MD, USA

If that is Freud's rendition then we should accept it as being art

Leslie Forde, Barbados

The portrait of the Queen is rather unfortunate in nature because it does look rather masculine but I don't think it should be criticised in any way because that's what Freud saw as his reality. If the portrait of the Queen required more glamorisation, those responsible should have asked somebody else!
Nat Shiraiso, UK

If this is the work of supposedly the UK's greatest living painter then God help the UK. Yet another case of the "King is in his altogether" no doubt on the part of the inner sanctum of Art critics.
David Parker, Seattle, US (ex-pat)

If our Attorney General John Ashcroft put on a ladies' wig like the Queen's hair, a crown like that and pearls and dress he would be the Queen's twin! He could then Represent the Queen on official functions she can't get to!
Marti Maraquin, USA

If that is Freud's rendition then we should accept it as being art.
Leslie Forde, Barbados

Lucien Freud's painting is NOT an insult to the Queen. It is not a carefully staged photograph or a video pic with Vaseline on the lens. This is a portrait that shows power and a tough sort of grace that is embodied in the head's position and the way the eyes hold all and reveal little.
Geraldine Hughes, Australia

I hope nobody had to pay to have THAT done to the Queen!!!!
David Newman, USA

England should definitely switch to euro bills to avoid putting this caricature on its legal tender.
Nathaniel Williams, Canada

Freud is a brilliant artist, the Queen is a remarkable woman

Anna Burke Harris, USA

Spitting images puppets were far more forgiving than this.
Neil Fraser, Canada

This picture is very ugly. It makes my great great great grandma look good.
Austin, 9, USA

Superb work of art. Freud is a brilliant artist, the Queen is a remarkable woman, one of the great ladies of this century. Both the subject and the artist show the transition to this new millennium.
Anna Burke Harris, USA

It would frighten the Corgis.
J Curen, New Zealand

I think the portrait is great, timely, and honest. We are fortunate to have it. The Queen's visage reflects the strength and resilience of age, perhaps of a life lived unflinchingly with courage. It reflects her. She is not frail, but wise. Quite a blessing for the nation considering what she and the royal family have experienced in the last 20 years.
M.R. McCauley, USA

To me, it looks like an old queen all right, but of a paunchy transvestite dressed up in rhinestone drag, rather than the enduring Elizabeth. I think Lucian Freud has got caught in a caricature of his own style. Unflattering isn't necessarily equivalent to psychologically insightful. It lacks compassion. Compared to, say, some of Rembrandt's self portraits in old age, it is not the masterpiece some critics are claiming it to be.
Larry Sibley, Nova Scotia, Canada

There's no subtlety in the expression, it doesn't seem to offer any real insight

Richard Gee, Scotland

It is hard to believe that anyone would give credence to this piece of garbage and even hint that it is art. Further more this should be regarded as an attack on the Monarchy and the so-called "artist" ought to be escorted (kicked) out of the country on his butt from which comes his "talent�. There is no reasonable person who would want to see this trash on display anywhere.
Jack Sunderland, USA

I disagree with the comments saying it isn't flattering - that's beside the point. I just think it isn't a very good portrait. The only feeling which comes across is dourness - there's no subtlety in the expression, it doesn't seem to offer any real insight.
Richard Gee, Scotland

Somewhere behind the over-zealous use of strokes is a painting of the queen. It looks as if the painter ran out of brushes and paint and finished it with a pallet knife and the colours available from dulux, then borrowed the skills of a decorator.
Ken D, England

It could be a nice portrait of a lady, but it doesn't really look like the Queen herself. Without the crown I probably wouldn't have recognised her.
Sirkku Laine, Finland

Give her a pair of glasses and we now have Dame Edna

Lauren Harkins Niemer, US

Courageous, haunting and heroic image. This is a portrait of someone who has seen and experienced life.
Elaine Crowell, Canada

Give her a pair of glasses and we now have Dame Edna.
Lauren Harkins Niemer, USA

I would assume that the queen was familiar with the artist's style. If so she must have been happy to sit for the portrait knowing it would be "warts and all". I think that says a lot about the queen.
Frank, England

If the monarchy, and the monarch, are to be more than window dressing, I think it's important to acknowledge them as human beings. Whether I agree with her actions and opinions or not, the Queen has endured the second half of the 20th century as a world leader. Is this portrait of Elizabeth unbecoming? Or does it reflect the times and what she's seen? If it does the latter, I think it's far more becoming than any "flattering" portrait could ever be.
Connie Howard, USA

The portrait (?) at best depicts a "lost soul", but in fact is a disgrace to the Royal Family. It should never hang, but the "artist" should!
William, USA

I think the portrait is a fine one and rewards close attention. It shows the stolidity and psychological reticence of the Queen in a way few of her numerous other portraitists have been able to do in over 50 years.

Please, please, please do Camilla

Ross Urquhart, UK

Sure, it's unflattering, but there are enough chocolate box images of the Queen to make up for that.
Ross Urquhart, United Kingdom

Please, please, please do Camilla!
Matylda, USA

What is art? A truckload of bricks a load of manure, this effort surely is in this category
T Davies, Canada

We took a vote in our family and decided the artist should not be paid. Just because he can't paint himself any better then he painted the queen does not make her picture valid.
Diana, USA

The world is still spinning - get on with your lives

Vince Whirlwind, UK

Given the excitement caused by Peter Jackson's film of Lord of the Rings, it seems like a smart marketing move on the part of the Palace to portray the Queen as an Orc.
Philip Hughes, USA

It's a painting. It's not important. The world is still spinning. Get on with your lives.
Vince Whirlwind, Pontefract, UK

Undeniable talent as a cartoonist. This is a Freudian slip. (Sorry, too obvious. But irresistible).
Jamie Rothschild Curtis, USA

I suppose every artist is entitled to his or her own view of other people and the word, but, I would probably give an artist a "hit upside the head" if he painted me like that. I can only think it would have been a mirror of the expression she had when she first viewed the portrait. She looks a bit nauseous.
Mary, United States

From the earrings up: the Queen on a bad day. From the earrings down: President Reagan at 5pm.
Kathy Trimingham, Bermuda

I have often wondered if art critics see things the same way as us mere mortals. Piles of bricks and displays entailing nothing more than an empty room with alternate light sources appear to bring high praise from them. I'm sure Mr Freud is a master of his chosen field, but speaking for myself, family and friends his recent portrait of Her Majesty, looks more akin to her spitting image puppet than the real person.
Sarah Bremer, British Forces Germany

I think that the picture is not of the Queen at all. It looks more like Richard Butler, the ex-UN arms inspector in Iraq - in drag.

Paul Mercer, Saudi Arabia

This is what art should be all about. It describes the Queen from the inside - or at least the painter's concept of her. Further, it shows what a great artist Freud really is - he could have painted an image to please the Queen and the masses, but his maturity, integrity and honesty did not allow him to do this.
James Morgan, USA

As a portrait of someone I've never seen to be the paradigm of jollity, I think Freud has got it just right. If I wanted a perfect image of the Queen I'd look at my change.
PWBC, UK

I'm astonished it took Freud so long. It looks like it was knocked off in 10 minutes by a half-blind pavement artist using wet chalks. So bad it should be entered for the Turner Prize.
Barry Simpson, UK

It looks like Biffa Bacon's mum! More cartoon than "art", it is not a painting that sheds any virtue on the artist. If as many believe, art is something that enhances life, then this picture fails.
Andy, UK

What we must not forget is that it is simply art and Her Majesty is just another subject for Mr. Freud's work. The portrait is a riveting, bold and powerful
Rebecca, USA

It looks as if Her Majesty just swallowed a glass of pickle juice. Interesting, in a Dorian Gray sort of way, but not great art in my honest opinion. I think the Queen probably deserved better than this.
M Lloyd, USA

At last an antidote to all the kitsch and servility of royal portraits. The regalia strikes an appropriately ludicrous touch.
Tim Davies, UK

The Queen knew what to expect when Freud was commissioned. Whilst hardly his greatest portrait, it is realistic.
James Smith, UK

The Queen as an aging night-club bouncer. Brilliant! An up-to-date portrait for an out-of-date system.
Phil, UK

It's a pity that Mr Freud's relative Sigmund is not still alive to give him a psychoanalytical consultation.
Brian Dandy, UK

Really good portrait. It will be a great piece for the royal collection.
Matilda, Lithuania

Looks like Alfred Hitchcock in drag.
Stewart, UK

This is no Freudian slip but the face of Majesty, naked and unashamed. What a pity that the Queen didn't go the whole Jerry Hall way and show us all the Crown Jewels.
Livingstone Wallace, Switzerland

This should guarantee Mr Freud never gets a knighthood and quite right too! A one-way ticket to Traitor's Gate is appropriate!
Dr John M Land, UK

Why is it people want to see the Queen as a Cosmo model? After all we are talking about a woman in her 70s. I think the artist has captured the essence of the Queen with great style.
Greg, British Virgin Islands

What's everyone so upset about? It's a Spitting Image!
Romy, Netherlands

My first reaction was disgust, but once I saw a better reproduction (on this web site) I thought it was fabulous.

Matt Lopez-Dias, UK

I may not be a so-called expert on art, but I have to say as a straightforward member of the public that the portrait (in the loosest sense of the word) of our Queen as daubed by Freud is an absolute disgrace.

Take a photograph of the Queen. Her face is full of colour and life, facets completely missed in this painting. If we should expect simply to see portraits of what people really look like, please paint them, not the rubbish by this so-called revered artist.
Simon Baxter, England

I think the Freud portrait is a work of great power. It shows a woman who has lived a life of duty and learned much from it. It is not pretty, but why should it be?
Ian Kramer, UK

I wouldn't mind an unflattering yet realistic portrait but this isn't even that. I have seen better portraits on the Gallery on Vision On! Once again the Royal Family is open to ridicule.
Steve Rose, UK

His portrait appears to give the Queen fat lips, no cheekbones, a wide neck and copious bruising. I would have thought it was a drag act played by an overweight former rugby player trying to look like the Queen. Not impressed.
David Weston, UK

I think the painting is a very honest and cutting portrayal of such a powerful person. Many other artists would not have had the courage to portray the Queen in such a manner, and if that was the case, then art would have made no progress in the past 500 or so years. He was no more or less insulting to Her Majesty than to any other works of art of his.
Robert Phillips, UK

Style is subjective. If you don't like it, then you're entitled to say so, but you're not entitled to make objective claims about it. Perhaps those objecting would rather see Liz pictured as a latter-day Britannia astride a lion, complete with trident, next to a still life bowl of fruit or some Haywain-esque scenes?
JFH, UK

Disgusting! The so called "art critics" are pulling our legs! What a con! Terrible! Shame!
Patricia Ward, Australia

It would appear to me that Freud has successfully given us two portraits for the price of one. He has cunningly merged the portrait of the Queen with that of the Prime Minister.
Rob Holman, Chislehurst, England

If you like it or not it is unmistakeably The Queen. He seems to have concentrated far more on the detail of the crown than the face. Although the crown doesn't fit at all. He must have put a lot of effort into this - a criteria often overlooked in art, particularly for the Turner Prize. 15, maybe 20 seconds to choose which light switch? I don't like the painting but I appreciate the effort he put in.
Tony Flitton, England

A major factor in Freud's painting seems to be that he does not pretend that normal standards of physical beauty matter. Old people do not have the sort of beauty which we love in the young, but their faces are full of character. To imagine that the importance of the monarch is in her physical beauty is an insult to her. Well done Freud! Not that I particularly like the portrait.
Stephen Griffith, Syria

It's the first decent royal portrait since Holbein was painting Tudors but of course the standard Philistine arguments a la "but it doesn't look real"/"it's ugly"/"it's a national disgrace, off with their heads" will of course surface.
Seb O, UK

Perhaps best viewed at a very great distance.
B Osborn, USA

I think it is a complete insult to that gentle Lady. His art is not worthy of fame.
John Murphy, USA

Once again, art has got people talking which is perhaps what art is all about? I love the textures of the painting and think the crown is particularly striking. Agreed, the chin looks rather manly but it's a stunning painting. Why commission Freud if you want a flattering portrait?
Sophie, England

As a Brit I can appreciate this its ugly, funny but shows all the experiences and tragedies that this woman has gone through. Actually it is the face of the nation; colourful, full of vigour in spite of it all! It is a winner!
Bernard Webb, USA

I like it! She looks statesmanlike

Susan Gildersleeve, US

Why should we care if anyone likes it or not (especially employees of the Sun); that's irrelevant. It was commissioned and painted and that's that. Holbein and Van Dyke are dead. Deal with how living artists portray monarchs or don't bother to have portraits of them done any more.
Jon Webster, England

I think it is one of the ugliest paintings I have ever seen. If that painting came up at car boot sale, I doubt that it would fetch a fiver.
Chris Jackson-Lockyer, USA /UK

This portrait of the Queen isn't even close to accurately portraying her. It should not hang in the Queen's collection!
Margaret Bourdette, USA

Bold, yes. Cutting, certainly. Honest, I think not. The portrait does not capture the true nature of the Queen, strong and powerful, yet graceful and delicate at the same time. Freud has managed to make our monarch look like a butch criminal in a bad disguise. I can understand why he asked her to pose in the famous Diamond Diadem; it is the only way to actually recognise it is the Queen.
Richard, UK

You know, at first glance, I was disgusted by the portrait. However after studying it, I can see the years of hard work and dedication to duty have taken their toll on Her Majesty. He has managed to capture that in her eyes and although it is not flattering, I can see where he is coming from. Any comment from Her Majesty? I am sure she has something to say!
Ellen Morrison, Canada

I like it! She looks statesmanlike. I particularly like the crown with the hair. She has real weight and presence in that picture, and I think that's more important than making her look feminine-pretty: she's a queen, not some girly princess.
Susan Gildersleeve, USA

I don't think the portrait is honest. I think it is unnecessarily mean-spirited.
Rob Peck, Canada

On the news this morning they said that Freud does most of his painting through the night. Well, it is about time he switched the light on!
Mark, England

Rather than blasting them for "opening themselves up to ridicule", I actually think the Royal Family deserve praise for commissioning Lucien Freud. Portraiture isn't about flattery - it's about reflecting a personality, getting under the skin. Portrait painting is not, and doesn't pretend to be photography. Freud is a fantastic, world famous British artist. Good on the Queen for a controversial choice.
R. Somerfield, UK

My first reaction was disgust, but once I saw a better reproduction (on this web site) I thought it was fabulous. The only thing I find hard to take are the severe shadows.
Matt Lopez-Dias, UK

And the winner of the 2002 Turner prize is....
Simon Millard, UK

Firstly, to Simon Baxter, the painting is not necessarily intended to provoke in the same manner as your photograph would be. Who know's perhaps the colour and life in the Queen's face is a facade - the painting unlike the photograph can more directly provoke such a consideration. Secondly, with regard to Robert Phillips' opinion: the Sun is part of modern day culture.
Alistair Philip, UK

It is a sincere portrait reflecting the Queen in her true humanity. It seeks not to glorify but to humanise the British Crown.
Gee, UK

This portrait is a disgrace. Send Freud to the tower.
Dale Hampton, USA

He's lucky he wasn't painting Henry VIII. He'd have been beheaded. It isn't a very good likeness to Her Maj - although the crown gives you a good clue - and the way he's done it suggests that you're not supposed to like her. I'm not an ardent monarchist but I think she deserves a more sympathetic treatment.
P, UK

If Simon Baxter simply wants a representation of physical appearance than a photograph will suffice. I contend that an artistic interpretation should reflect a deeper caricature and stimulate thought and discussion. In this Mr Freud has clearly been successful - Bravo.
James, France

If an artist is true to his own work, when he creates a portrait, it is merely how the artist's mind portrays that person and not necessarily how the rest of society see the same individual. There is no doubt that Mr Freud is an extremely talented artist.

What an honour to be portrayed with such purity of character

Monica, US

I personally do not feel that Mr. Freud's portrait of Her Majesty is at all flattering as I do not see her in the same light as Mr. Freud, but that is only my opinion. I feel that the only real opinions that matter are Her Majesty's and Mr Freud's.
Robin Bairstow, USA

This is a superb modern portrait. I love the contrast between the sweeping brush strokes used for the hair and face and the delicate work on the diamonds. It gives a feeling of the real person under the formal crown.

There is no point is producing a copy of a 500-year-old style that pretended to be an accurate likeness. We all know exactly what the Queen looks like from photos.

Congratulations to Lucian Freud for painting the portrait and to the Queen for allowing herself to be painted in this style.
Alan, England

Didn't Reubens get into trouble for painting as he saw?
Hazel, UK

Shocking at first, but incredibly intriguing. This is an artist's interpretation of who the Queen is, not a photograph of her face. What an honour to be portrayed with such purity of character.
Monica, USA

A disrespectful and irrelevant item of attention-seeking "artistic" self-indulgence.
Michael J.Bye, Canada

I love the eyes. It's so honest.
Bruce Hill, Canada

The Sun, the Mirror et al can do and say whatever they want, and sadly people listen. It's a portrait of the Queen - not an attractive one, but an interesting one, and that's it. I for one think it has great emotional depth - well done that man.
Dan Norcott, UK

I first saw the painting on the cover of a newspaper before I was aware of any controversy. I knew instantly who it was, and thought it refreshing that a royal portrait should be so honest. There is colour in there, and life, sympathy and affection. I would suggest looking at it, as I did, from a greater distance than you would hold a newspaper, and with an open mind.
Keith Meldrum, England

To be honest it just doesn't look like the Queen. Remove the crown and it could be any elegant older lady. With the crown it looks more like the Queen Mum. Compared with the 1996 Anthony Williams portrait this is a poor effort.
Andrew McKee, UK

Once again we see a case of the emperor's new clothes in the art world. This is a bad painting, yet not wanting to offend the artist, the critics have claimed it a triumph.
Mark, USA

This man may indeed be a fortunate member of the artistic community, but this depiction of the Queen is absolutely disgraceful. One simply does not portray a member of Royalty in such a light. The style is so rough, and so typical of his earlier work, that it lacks originality. While it may be expressive, it makes Her Majesty appear to have a beard of all things!
Rev. Morningstar, USA

Robert Phillips forces his opinion on us yet criticises the Sun for voicing their opinion of the painting.

I would think that most of us "non-critics" view the picture for what it is, a very poor representation of our monarch, maybe a worthy statement in art, but hardly flattering to the Queen.

It is an insult to a wonderful lady!

Len Ross, UK

The most thought provoking aspect of this work is that it supposedly took the artist 18 months to complete!

Let us allow the Queen to grow older with grace. Not have these "interpretations" of her thrust upon us year after year to rapturous acclaim from the art world.
Jeremy Young, UK

I am no Art critic, but as an ex-pat living abroad I am horrified to see this thoroughly ghastly portrait of Her Majesty the Queen. I read that it is "thought provoking". How long does one have to think before coming to the conclusion that the artist is a very unhappy man who has very little time for the British Monarch. If this is a great example of his work, I sincerely hope I am never in a position to see any more of it.
Pamela Wallis, Cyprus

Our poor Queen! What a load of rubbish - my 4-year-old could do a better job, shame on Freud and shame on those pompous "critics" who should have lambasted this dross from the start.
P Deegan , UK

I hardly think one should take the Sun photographer's comments about this brilliant portrait too seriously - after all it's not a rag noted for its understanding or support of art - other than nudes that is.
James, USA

Looks more like a portrait of the Queen's spitting image puppet. Look at it squinting and you can see a better resemblance. Otherwise it is not how our Queen should be depicted, she's much better than that
Phil Freeman, England

Yes, this is a masterpiece. The portrait depicts the worn out face of a woman who has done a job well and for a long period of time. The face reflects accurately the number of times she's been slandered and humiliated by the press, yet said nothing. She looks out with sadness on the UK, with all its petty problems and wonders. She knows her time is nearly up, but yet it reflects nobility. If no-one else wants it, I'll have it for my living room.
Anthony, England

If historians a 100 years or so from now look at this so called work of art, do you really think that they would see our Queen as she truly is or think she was a lead player in Nightmare on Elm Street? It is an insult to a wonderful lady!
Len Ross, UK