The king is said to have repented, thereafter.
The argument is quite sympathetic and relevant. We will certainly pay respect to any object that is considered to be connected in any way with a loved one. People treasure objects, pictures, and different things. Respect about things is a part of our daily life. But, I think we cannot ignore three issues with Vivekananda's analogy:
1. The painting of the king was based on his visible appearance. Someone saw him and painted his picture. But, nobody can claim that they have seen God.
2. If someone treasures the picture of a crocodile saying that for him it is the picture of the Prime Minister of India (just because he hasn't seen him, and based on certain description or metaphors, thinks he looks like a crocodile), then belief must address reality somewhere.
3. Probably, the picture of a crocodile with the caption of the Prime Minister is not honor but a misrepresentation in objectionable terms.
Of course, in some contexts the objects of veneration are objectionable as well. For instance, the Roman Catholics say that they do not worship the icons but venerate them. Only God is due worship, and that veneration is not the same as adoration. It may not seem the same as idolatry, of course; but, it also doesn't look much different from ancestor worship.