The retiree who stole a Goya painting as a form of protest

Kempton Cannon Bunton ocupa a special place in UK historyrecognized for an act that combines cunning, social protest and a deep-rooted sense of justice.

His life, in many ways ordinary, became a legend when he starred in one of the most unusual and moving thefts in the history of British art. The motive for the crime was to eliminate television licenses for retirees.

Bunton, born June 14, 1904, was a retired and disabled former bus driverwho in 1961 survived on a paltry sum: barely £8 a week.

A resident of the city of Newcastle, he was known for his affable character, but also for his strong opposition to what he considered social injustices.

One of the issues that worried him the most was the television license imposed by the BBC since 1946, a fee, initially £2, that any household with a television had to pay.

For Bunton, who viewed television as an essential commodity, this fee, particularly for retirees with limited incomes, was intolerable.

The television licensing system, which is still in force today although with modifications, was a crucial source of income for the BBC to finance programming without commercial interruptions.

This fee was paid by labeling when purchasing the television and thus consumers had to respond to that financial obligation from the moment of purchasing the device.

However, for many Britons, especially those with low incomepaying this fee represented an additional burden.

Bunton had already earned multiple penalties for his refusal to pay and so symbolized resistance against what he considered exploitation of the most vulnerable sectors of society.

One of Bunton’s fights against BBC fee It consisted of removing a certain element from the inside of the television so as not to receive the BBC signal, in order to avoid paying the license, which cost him multiple fines and imprisonment.

His life took an unexpected turn when he learned that the portrait of the Duke of Wellington, by Francisco de Goya, a painting depicting the British general Arthur Wellesley during its service in the Peninsular War, it had been acquired by an American collector with the intention of taking it to the United States.

The British government then decided buy the painting for £140,000 so that it remained in the country and exhibited in the National Gallery in London.

Bunton, outraged by the contradiction of the State spending such a sum on a painting while retirees had to pay to watch television, decided to demonstrate.

On August 21, 1961, Bunton went to the National Gallery and saw a bathroom window that was open.

He entered there, disabled the security system and, with astonishing calm, he took down the painting and went out through the same window.

It seemed like an impossible action for Kempton Bunton to perform, since he was known for his remarkable physical resemblance to Alfred Hitchcock, the famous film director. His robust build, rounded face and sharp expression accentuated this similarity.

But, also, one of the most important films by Hitchcock and in the history of cinema, is titled rear window and shows how life can be focused from that prism, the same one that Bunton chooses to express himself (the open window, also indiscreet) and that join the protest Strictly speaking, a cinematographic quota.

The disappearance of the painting perplexed the police and captured the public’s imagination. The situation it became even more surreal when ransom notes started arriving.

In these letters, written in an exaggerated and extravagant tone, the author promised the return of the painting in exchange for the elimination of television licenses for retirees.

The messages contained details that only the thief could know, such as marks on the back of the boxwhich convinced the authorities of its authenticity.

The Police did not want to negotiate and the letters continued to arrive. In one of them, Bunton demanded the creation of a charitable fund of £140,000 (what Goya’s work had cost) to pay television licenses for retireesappealing to public sympathy and highlighting the disparity between the value of art and basic human needs.

Finally, in 1965, Bunton returned the painting through a lost and found office at Birmingham New Street railway station and handed himself in to the Police.

Initially was not considered a viable suspect because he was 61 years old and weighed 110 kilos, but after his precise story he was prosecuted.

During the trial, the defense successfully argued that Bunton I had no intention of keeping the paintingso he could not be charged with theft.

The jury only convicted him of the theft of the frame, which was the only part that had not been returned. Was sentenced to three months in prison.

The case led to an addition of Section 11 of the Theft Act, which states the illegality of removing any exhibited object without authorization in a building accessible to the public.

In 1996, documents released by the National Gallery suggested that someone else could have stolen the painting and then he gave it to Bunton.

Many years later, in 2012, it was revealed that his son John He had confessed to the robbery in 1969 during an arrest for an unrelated misdemeanor.

John explained that his father had planned to use the painting as part of his campaign and that they would eventually return it. No further legal action was taken against John or Kempton Bunton.

Finally, television licenses were revoked for retireessatisfying, long after the fact, in 2000, Bunton’s unusual ransom demands.

The theft of the painting and Bunton’s story became an icon of popular culture. In 1962, the painting appeared in Dr. No’s lair in the James Bond film. In 2015, BBC Radio 4 broadcast the drama Kempton and the Duke.

In 2020, the story was dramatized in the film The Dukedirected by Roger Michell and starring Jim Broadbent as Kempton Bunton and Helen Mirren as his wife Dorothy.

For his family, Bunton’s figure is complex. Christopher, his grandson, considers his grandfather a hero for his actions, even though he knows that His story represents a family drama and the struggle of the working class.

The Kempton Bunton case reminds us that social justice can be nuanced and that, at times, The most unusual acts can lead to significant change.

Although his methods were questionable, his intentions were noble, and his story remains a fascinating chapter in the history of the fight for equity and justice.

The perseverance of Bunton, who died in 1976 in Newcastle, is a testament to how an ordinary man, with a just cause and an indomitable spiritcan challenge the system and leave a mark on the collective memory.