Draft of destroyed Churchill painting immortalized in The Crown

• Work was produced by Graham Sutherland to mark Churchill’s 80th birthday
• Churchill called it a ‘remarkable example of modern art’ at its unveiling

A portrait of Sir Winston Churchill painted in preparation for a work that was later destroyed on the orders of his wife could fetch up to £800,000 at auction.

The Houses of Parliament had commissioned British artist Graham Sutherland to paint a portrait of the then prime minister for his 80th birthday in 1954.

An episode of hit Netflix drama The Crown revolved around the creation of the painting and showed Sir Winston’s wife Clementine watching it go up in flames following its unveiling.

Sir Winston – who was depicted by John Lithgow – was seen branding the portrait a ‘humiliation’ as he shouted at Stephen Dillane’s Sutherland.

The real Churchill – who was in his second and final stint in Downing Street – described it to his doctor as ‘filthy and malignant’ and threatened not to attend the unveiling ceremony inside Westminster Hall.

Although he did show up, he damned Sutherland’s painting with faint praise by telling massed MPs and dignitaries that it was a ‘remarkable example of modern art’.

The PM hated the depiction because it showed all of his advanced years. Historian Simon Schama said in 2015: ‘The painting is an extraordinary homage to Churchill. What Sutherland saw in front of him was a magnificent ruin… Churchill said it made him look half-witted. It doesn’t. It is a man of years.’

A portrait of Sir Winston Churchill painted in preparation for a work that was later destroyed on the orders of his wife could fetch up to £800,000 at auction

The Houses of Parliament had commissioned British artist Graham Sutherland to paint a portrait of the then prime minister for his 80th birthday in 1954. The real Churchill described it to his doctor as ‘filthy and malignant’ and threatened not to attend the unveiling ceremony inside Westminster Hall (above)

The painting was later taken to Chartwell and was eventually burned on the orders of Clementine Churchill.

At the time he was chosen to paint Churchill, Sutherland was at the forefront of the modern art scene.

When the pair met, Churchill asked him if he would be depicted as a ‘cherub or the bulldog’.

Sutherland recalled saying in response: ‘It entirely depends on what you show me, sir.’

The preparatory painting being sold – which shows Sir Winston side on against a dark background and was produced at Chartwell, Churchill’s Kent Home – will be exhibited at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire before it goes under the hammer.

It will go on view to the public from April 16 to 21, displayed in the room where Sir Winston was born 150 years ago.

The oil on canvas painting will then travel to Sotheby’s in New York and will remain there from May 3 to May 16 before it travels to London, where it will be exhibited between May 25 to June 5.

On June 6 it will go to auction with a guide price of £500,000 to £800,000.

Sutherland’s preliminary work was one of several sketches and oil studies he produced before crafting the final version.

In Netflix series The Crown, Sir Winston – who was depicted by John Lithgow – was seen branding the portrait a ‘humiliation’ as he shouted at Stephen Dillane’s Sutherland

John Lithgow’s Churchill talks to Stephen Dillane’s Graham Sutherland as the artist paints him in the first season of The Crown

English painter Graham Sutherland with his unfinished portrait of Winston Churchill, 1954

He kept the work that is being sold and later gave it art dealer Alfred Hecht. Hecht kept it for the rest of his life and bequeathed it to its current owner.

Over the course of his life Sir Winston was painted by artists including Sir William Orpen, John Singer Sargent, Walter Sickert and Sir Oswald Birley.

Andre Zlattinger, Sotheby’s head of modern British and Irish art said: ‘The name Churchill evokes for each person a different snapshot of a multifaceted man.

‘In this rare portrait, Churchill is caught in a moment of absent-minded thoughtfulness, and together with the backstory of its creation, it gives the impression of a man truly concerned with his image.

‘This version shows Churchill closer to how he wished to be perceived, his less austere and gentler side, and so it is tempting to imagine how his reaction might have differed.

‘Having remained within the close circles of the artist and the sitter for generations, the sale of this work is an opportunity to acquire a piece of history.’

Read more