"The Two Crowns" by Sir Frank Dicksee (1853

The Two Crowns, by Sir Frank Dicksee (1853–1928). 1900. Oil on canvas. 91 x 71 3/4 inches (231.1 x 182.3 cm). Collection of the Tate Britain, London, accession no. NO1839. Image courtesy of the Tate Britain under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NonDerivatives licence (CC BY-NC-ND). [Click on the image to enlarge it.]

Dicksee exhibited The Two Crowns at the Royal Academy in 1900, no. 167, where it was purchased for the Tate Gallery by the Trustees of the Chantrey Bequest for £2000. Heather Birchall, writing on the Tate Britain website, sees this painting as a reminder of the transience of earthly power and success:

In The Two Crowns Dicksee portrays an English medieval prince returning home in triumph on a white horse decorated with three feathers. Wearing a golden crown, he gazes up at a crucifix, Christ's crown of thorns contrasting starkly with the jewelled headpiece and opulent armour of the prince. Although surrounded by admiring onlookers, the prince is transfixed by the sight of this representation of Christ, a vivid reminder of the lack of importance of temporal power and riches. The Two Crowns is one of a number of paintings by Dicksee with a medieval theme, including The Redemption of Tannhäuser (1890) and The Passing of Arthur (1899). But in contrast to both these works The Two Crowns does not represent any particular historical event. Dicksee seizes the opportunity to create a scene brimming with pomp and ceremony. The jubilation of the crowds at the Prince's homecoming is represented with flying banners and coloured confetti thrown by the youthful maidens in the foreground and from the balcony above."

Simon Toll identifies the model for the male figure of the king on horseback as Giovannino Mancini (116).

Contemporary Reviews of the Painting

The Two Crowns was extensively reviewed by the critic of The Art Journal, not surprising since it had been selected for purchase by the Chantrey Bequest:

Mr. Frank Dicksee sends one picture only, but it will attract much attention at the Academy…. The present large upright is an imaginary pageant piece, every available space crowded with moving figures, the women gaily apparelled. An old-time king is making a triumphal entry into his capital after the wars. The white steed on which he rides, with fine arched neck, seems proud of the plumes set between the ears, and conscious of the honour done to itself as well as to its rider by the garlanded girls who press round on all sides and scatter rose-petals as they shout their welcome. The clean-shaven king, in gilded armour and orange-lined cloak, is in the full-tide of manhood, strong, conscious of the potency of his sway. At the moment depicted he has passed beneath the shadow of a cross, which supports a life-size effigy, in bronze, of the Christ. The crown of thorns, not of gold, the bended head, the nailed hands and feet; the sight of these has interrupted, for a moment at any rate, the current of the earthly king's thoughts, and, for this brief fraction of a second, he is unconscious of the waving flags, of the hundred lancers that follow in his wake, of the garlanded women, of the decked balconies, of all the emblems of his success. The idea of contrasting the figure of a triumphant earthly monarch with that of the crucified Christ in a scene such as this is an excellent, if not an original, one. [180]

A reviewer for The Magazine of Art felt that Dicksee's colouring here was a little jarring: "Of the figure paintings, the most important in scale and intention, after Mr. Abbey's Trial of Queen Katharine, is Mr. Frank Dicksee's Two Crowns, which has been purchased for the Chantrey Fund collection. It is crowded and elaborate in composition, and tells its story with due effect, but as a colour harmony it is as yet a little strident. Age will probably improve it and give it more reserve and mystery" (386). The art critic of The Spectator, likely Henry Strachey, contrasted the work by Abbey to Dicksee's submission:

It has been said above that Mr. Abbey's work is neither stagey nor a costume picture. To realise our meaning by contrast it is only needful to turn to Mr. Frank Dicksee's The Two Crowns (No. 167). There is an absolute unreality about the people; they never existed for themselves, but only for the sake of their garments and gold armour. This last is marvellously painted, but the realism is carried to the extent of being a trick, the eye being deceived into the belief that the fingers could pick off the projecting pieces. This is unreal realism. The effect produced is of electric light turned on to an actor. [632]

The Times critic commented "among the good judges, all those who have not gone over with bag and baggage to the camp of the moderns will justly admire its many formal perfections…. It is certainly a leading example of an art founded upon an English tradition, with many most admirable qualities" (qtd. in Dibdin 18). The Daily News was equally enthusiastic, remarking, "Of a composition so full of detail, and with the detail so masterly rendered, perhaps the highest praise is that as a whole it impresses you" (qtd. in Dibdin, 18).

Related Material

Bibliography

"Art. The Royal Academy." The Spectator LXXXIV (5 May 1900): 631-32.

Birchall, Heather. "The Two Crowns." London: Tate. Web. 8 July 2026. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/dicksee-the-two-crowns-n01839

Chamot, Mary, Dennis Farr and Martin Butlin. The Modern British Paintings, Drawings and Sculpture. Vol. I. London: Tate Gallery, 1964.

Dibdin, E. Rimbault. "Frank Dicksee - His Life and Work." The Art Annual, 1905. 16-18.

Kestner, Joseph A. "The Male Gaze in the Art of Frank Dicksee." Annals of Scholarship, VII (1990): 191.

"The Royal Academy – II." The Magazine of Art XXIII (1900): 385-90.

"The Royal Academy of 1900." The Art Journal LXII (June 1900): 161-83.

Toll, Simon. Frank Dicksee 1853-1928, His Art and Life.Woodbridge: ACC Art Books, 2016, cat. no. FD.1900.1, 116-120 & 234.

The Two Crowns. ArtUK. Web. 8 July 2026.

Created 8 July 2026