Obsequious NPG and the Mary portrait

breda said :

How can a citizen of another country have Australian nationality?

You seem to think the words ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ mean the same thing, but they don’t. Citizenship is a legal condition. It can be documented and measured arbitrarily, and it’s absolute. Nationality, though, is more fluid. It is relative to birthplace, cultural influences, parentage and other immeasurable variables, and it doesn’t change the way citizenship does. Most people are citizens of the country most closely associated with their nationality, but that doesn’t apply to everyone.

breda said :

#2

How can a citizen of another country have Australian nationality?

Agree that it is difficult to see what she has done in ‘influencing or contributing to the shaping of Australia as a nation and a society’. At least the Queen has a legitimate claim on that basis, if only by default.

Dual citizenship is hardly uncommon.

#2

How can a citizen of another country have Australian nationality?

Agree that it is difficult to see what she has done in ‘influencing or contributing to the shaping of Australia as a nation and a society’. At least the Queen has a legitimate claim on that basis, if only by default.

deye said :

It’s a Gallery, they move things around all the time, especially for current events. If she is to visit for it’s official unveiling it is possible that the location they have moved it to was the most suitable for holding that type of event.

Sorry, apostrophe police moment: “Its official unveiling” : )

It’s a Gallery, they move things around all the time, especially for current events. If she is to visit for it’s official unveiling it is possible that the location they have moved it to was the most suitable for holding that type of event.

+1 caf Republicans are not generally known to be big fans of royalty – regardless of the flavour.

I agree however that it is a complete joke that the NPG has allocated pride of place to a woman who happened to marry well but has otherwise no basis for being honoured above hundreds of thousands of others who have done valuable real work to advance this country.

A real republican NPG would not hang portraits of anybody who happens to hail from a family that lucked out in some ancient bloody machiavellian European coup 300, 400 or 500 years ago. It is likely worshipping a throw of the dice because that’s what put the ancestors where they were.

I wonder how many monarchists love a punt?

As an avowed republican I can tell you that the idea that the republican movement is in any way advanced by supposedly privileging one royal over another in some imagined slight based on the positions of portraits on the wall is absurd.

She has certainly appeared on the front covers of zillions of asinine women’s magazines here in Australia, so you could certainly argue that she has influenced Australian society.

You could, of course, also argue that Oprah has influenced Australian society in the same way. So where do we draw the line in terms of who is hung in the Portrait Gallery? If a person was born here, or has lived here, and has become well-known by whatever means, that is surely sufficient for her portrait to be hung.

I can find no reference to the building having been structured or the portraits positioned in a pattern that signifies the prominence of the subject or the ranking of their contributions to Australian society. So although hanging a portrait in such a prominent position may indicate a high degree of honour, it does not indicate the ranking of the subject in relation to other subjects. You’ve made that bit up yourself.

The gallery is honouring a fine woman whose nationality remains Australian regardless of her citizenship. The gallery commissioned it, and the gallery has selected a position for it, so whether Mary would choose the position is of no consequence unless she actively objects to it (and even then, it’s not her choice!).

For this portrait in particular, though, it’s not merely the subject that’s significant. This artist’s sketch for the portrait, along with Jorn Utzon’s Opera House in the background, illustrate beautifully the cosmopolitan nature of Australian society. It also wisely avoids the slightly embarrassing irony of a Tasmanian marrying into the most inbred family in Europe (isn’t her husband the 3rd cousin once removed of the Duke of Cambridge?)…

I suspect your reading of Mary’s portrait is a little shallow. A “more modest portrait” wouldn’t bring these broader themes to bear; it would just be a picture of an Aussie expat who’s done pretty well for herself. Mary may be humble enough to be pleased with this, but there’s more to Mary than just her achievements; it’s the context of her achievements that matter. I think this story deserves the prominence it is enjoying.

Footnote: Princess Mary’s “Lazarus” portrait was indeed taken all the way to Copenhagen at taxpayer’s expense by the National Portrait Gallery then director Andrew Sayers in early 2006.
Given the political climate on Green issues, perhaps the explanation for this exercise is that Australia is scrabbling around for non-green&carbon-related “duties” for the princess … and hang any PR risk to the princess of looking like something of a narcissist checking out your portrait again in front of the press!