Jonathan Yeo’s divisive painting of the king raises the question of whether paintings of the monarchy have become irrelevant and anachronisitic

Why do reports always say that a portrait of someone great and good has been “unveiled”? The word is an empty metaphor that turns the first viewing into a ceremony; it also mystifies the entire procedure and makes it somewhat morbid.

Portraits of kings, presidents, prime ministers and the like are effigies, meant to replace the mortal being. Once the official image has been fixed in place, the living subject can be sent off to die. The unveiled portrait draws a veil over another ceremonial occasion: what we are looking at is posterity’s verdict, so in effect we are attending a funeral.

We would like to hear from people who have seen a portrait of the king in a public building and how they feel about it

Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, is offering portraits of the king to all Church of England churches, as well as job centres, coastguards, universities and other public institutions, having previously offered them to local authorities, court buildings, schools, police forces and fire and rescue services.

Do you have a portrait of the king in your workplace and how do you feel about it? Or have you seen a portrait of the king in a public building and how do you feel about it?