That doesn't sound right, Kolo. If that were so, then the Son would be sitting to the left of the Father, and the Father to the right of the Son.
Moreover, the Son becomes the central figure, displacing the Father. The Son's aureole stands out and eclipses the Father's and the Spirit's, etc. This simply cannot be the right interpretation, or its theology and symbolism seem even heretical.
Here is the same icon from the Assumption Cathedral of Moscow (Kremlin), which really puts the above in perspective:
The angel on the left is not even looking at Christ, and the one on the right has a different afterglow. Moreover, only Christ's wings are fully spread, dominating the picture, and a Christ is again the central image, dominating the scene. Jesus' are aureole doesn't have the cross and the Ο ΩΝ in it.
Furthermore, the angle on the left is gazing at the one on the right, and so is Christ, and the one on the right is gazing straight, not looking at anyone.
Besides the fact that the one on the right also has some headpiece which too me looks very feminine, and a different color hair and some square white foreground to his capital afterglow. Curiously, Christ is sitting to the right of that angel, which at least gets that part theologically correct.
And then there is this whole "sitting to the right" problem: if the son is sitting tot he right of the Father, then the Father is sitting to the right of the Spirit. And if the Son's place is one of privilege, that makes the Holy Spirit a sort of a "third fiddle".
That's what happens when you mix Judas and Hellenism with a sprinkling of Zoroastrianism. :)
My understanding was that the Son visited with two angels. Can we get a clarification on this?