Coronation of British Monarchs


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
. The biggest Pearls in the Crown which will undoubtedly move towards a republican form of State after the demise of the present Queen (Australia and Canada).

I'm not so sure about that. For starters, there isn't really any politically viable movement today for a Canadian republic. That might change if and when the NDP comes to power (as I suspect it is a crypto-republican party), but, again, as of today, the Canadian Conservatives are staunchly monarchist; the Liberals, although not particularly enthusiastic about the monarchy, are officially against abolishing it; and the NDP simply doesn't have an official position. Until one of the 3 major political parties embraces republicanism, I don't see it happening. And even then, there is the obstacle that, in addition to the Canadian federal parliament, all 10 Canadian provinces would have to agree with the abolition of the monarchy, which is a very high bar. Finally, a secondary, but not at all irrelevant issue, is that native peoples in many Commonwealth realms, especially First Nations in Canada (and maybe the Maoris is New Zealand?), seem to be contrary to a republic since their land claims and partial sovereignty status rest on treaties made with the Crown that would be on uncertain grounds if the monarchy were abolished.

In Australia, on the other hand, although a majority may eventually be in favor of a republic, it seems like republicans themselves cannot agree on who would replace the Queen and the Govenor General. Many republican voters actually voted against the republican constitutional amendment in the 1999 referendum because they disagreed with the proposed indirectly elected president. Politicians, on the other hand, didn't want a president elected by popular vote in a national election because they feared a French-like scenario where a partisan president with a strong popular mandate of his/her own could clash with a prime minister of another party that held a majority in the House of Representatives. In fact, a popularly elected president would substantially change the balance of power in Australian politics and the way Australia has been governed since 1901, which in turn would conflict with the "minimalist" approach taken by Australian republicans so far of bringing about a republic with minimal change to the Australian constitution. Besides, the constitutional bar for a republic is also high in Australia, where a national majority and a majority in a majority of states would be required in any referendum.
 
Last edited:
From Warren's Collection...


"The Coronation: How they planned the most successful public relations event of the century"
Author: John Pearson
Source: Good Weekend
Published: February 1, 1986

 
September 9 marks a historical milestone for the Queen as she becomes the longest-reigning monarch in British history.

The record was previously held by her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria, who reigned for 63 years and seven months.

Here is a look back at Queen Elizabeth II's Coronation.

There were more than 8000 guests at the Queen's Coronation on the 2 June 1953, and an estimated 3 million people lined the streets of London to catch a glimpse of her.
Read more: A look back at Queen Elizabeth II's Coronation - ITV News
 
Royal Family member about television

Hello,

I wonder if somebody here can help me.

Earlier I heard a special about the British coronation ceremony of Elisabeth II. in the radio and there was one member of the Royal family who criticised television massively. I think it was the first time they wanted to show the ceremony in the TVs.
I think it was a man and he said something like, this medium will make the people stupid or something like that.
My question is: Who said it and could you please post the exact quotation of it?

Thank you and greetings from Germany!
Sorry for grammaticaly faults.
 
In 2012 as the Jubilee celebrations began, I was honoured to meet the Queen twice. At Lambeth Palace, three Muslim colleagues and I presented Her Majesty with a decorative frame with Quranic text embroidered on a cloth that had once been used to cover the holiest of Muslim sites, the Kaaba. I met her again shortly afterwards, when she came with the newly-married Duchess of Cambridge to Leicester cathedral to begin her Jubilee tour.

Our meeting came sixty years after the young princess became Queen Elizabeth II, following her coronation in Westminster Abbey with St Edward’s Crown. The service was three hours long and attended by 8,000 guests. It now feels like it belongs to a different age. And of course it does. Britain is a more plural and more secular country than it was in 1953. This has led a number of people to suggest that when the next coronation occurs, a traditional and, in particular, Christian ceremony is no longer appropriate.

As the Chair of the Islamic Society of Britain, you might expect me to agree with those impressions. But like the majority of the population, as revealed in a new poll conducted by ComRes for the think tank Theos, I support the idea of a Christian coronation. Only 19 per cent of people thought that a Christian coronation would alienate people of non-Christian faiths from the ceremony, while only 22 per cent of people from a religious minority agreed that it would alienate them.
Read more: Take it from a Muslim: British coronations should be Christian - Spectator Blogs
 
Hello,

I wonder if somebody here can help me.

Earlier I heard a special about the British coronation ceremony of Elisabeth II. in the radio and there was one member of the Royal family who criticised television massively. I think it was the first time they wanted to show the ceremony in the TVs.
I think it was a man and he said something like, this medium will make the people stupid or something like that.
My question is: Who said it and could you please post the exact quotation of it?

Thank you and greetings from Germany!
Sorry for grammaticaly faults.

I found it by myself.
For everyone interested: It was the Bishop of Canterburry, who said TV is one of the biggest dangers for the world.
 
I am trying to find more information about the robes of Queen Maud at the coronation of George VI in 1937. Did she wear the robes of a Queen or those of a British princess of the blood!?
 
Its hard to say for certain because judging by this photo, Queen Mauds velvet train is of the same design as Queen Mary's AND the duchesses of Kent and Gloucester. Only Queen Elizabeths is especially distinguished by its embroidery..

http://i57.tinypic.com/333wopz.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't the length of the robes distinguish between a queen and a princess? I wonder also if the tiara Queen Maud is wearing might give a clue - can it be identified?
 
Wouldn't the length of the robes distinguish between a queen and a princess? I wonder also if the tiara Queen Maud is wearing might give a clue - can it be identified?

I don't know so much about royal jewelry, but it is her own Malteser Tiara. Queen Sonja have used it several times.

The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Tiara Thursday (on a Friday): The Malteser Tiara

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EFb2Yd9fJhI/Uur3UP_gGVI/AAAAAAAAZjo/krNFsyE5rR8/s1600/_m.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3CjYyv_pBLQ/Uur346mMMLI/AAAAAAAAZjw/F4c5TbCy_0Q/s1600/_sm.jpg
 
She wore the robes of a Princess. I found the following quote from Style & Spendour, The Wardrobe of Queen Maud of Norway.

For the coronation ceremony Queen Maud used the ermine-trimmed purple velvet robe she wore for her father’s coronation in 1902. It was made by Ede and Ravenscroft, a company founded in 1689 and still in business today as specialists in ceremonial attire. For the coronation of Edward VII, Ede and Ravenscroft made the coronation robes and the robes for members of the royal family, as well as ceremonial suits for the nobility, the court and the clercy.

In the accounts of Ede and Ravenscroft, the details and the price of Princess Maud’s robe are entered on 24 June 1902 under the title H. R. H. Princess Charles of Denmark. The title was later amended to H. M. Queen of Norway. The purple velvet robe trimmed with gold lace and ermine, and lined with white silk, cost 96 guineas. Included in the bill was red velvet for Maud’s princess crown at 15 shillings, as well as a lacquered lead box in which to store the gown with Maud’s name painted on it in gold, costing two pounds, seven shillings and sixpence.

Dressed in her golden gown, ermine-edged robe, necklaces and diamond tiara, as well as her medals, Maud embodied British royal tradition, for she took part in the ceremony as a British princess, not as a Norwegian queen. Her husband King Haakon did not accompany her, as British coronation etiquette did not allow the kings of other countries to participate.
 
Strictly speaking those are not Maltese crosses on the tiara, but crosses pattee. Some tiara nerd on the RJWMB as found out about it since the ROoSS blog was published.

Cross pattee: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ldry.svg/2000px-Cross-Pattee-Heraldry.svg.png

Maltese cross: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...altese_cross.svg/2000px-Maltese_cross.svg.png

I know, this is nit-picking. Sorry :flowers:. I just find it fascinating that the tiara has been labeled Maltese cross tiara for ages, and after decades somebody finds out about the wrong assignation.
 
No, she definitely attended as a Queen. Her and Queen Mary's presence was the first time that crowned heads attended the coronation of a new monarch.

The robes are the question, which is confusing because: If the robes are that of a British Princess and her and Mary had the same robes but Mary was never a British Princess.

She wore the robes of a Princess. I found the following quote from Style & Spendour, The Wardrobe of Queen Maud of Norway.

 
Well, Maud was Queen of Norway at the time of the coronation, but she didn't attend the coronation in her capacity of being Queen. She attended because she was a born Princess of GB and wore the robes assigned to that status. I don't think that there are robes for Norwegian queens, and she certainly couldn't have worn the robes of a British queen.

As for Queen Mary I can only guess: There were no traditional robes for a dowager queen, because the dowagers queen have never before attended coronations. But could she wear robes denoting the same rank as the current queen? So wearing Princess robes was a way out of that dilemma.
 
Oh, thanks! I have never taken notice of the Norwegian coronation robes before. They look magnificent, but I think that Maud really couldn't wear them to a British coronation. You don't wear white to a wedding. And you don't wear your coronation robes to somebody else's coronation.:p
 
Further image of the Queen Maud and the Norwegian Royal Family at the Coronation:

http://40.media.tumblr.com/43e9543f3bb67883e2d027ec8d5a8bc8/tumblr_mpu0viB8Dy1rmfhybo1_500.jpg

It seems that there is a difference between the robes of a dowager queen (i.e. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother) and those of a British princess/royal duchess.

The following image shows the greater width of gold lace bands on the Queen Mother's robes than those of Princess Margaret (notice too the ermine trim is different on each of the robes). In Wyevale's image above, you will see that Queen Mary's robes have the same bands and ermine trim as the Queen Mother.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/26/98/bf/2698bf60e8fe2c2f5090032572168b08.jpg

As Queen Maud wore the same stye of robes as Princess Margaret (and therefore of a British princess), what Tillia says is quite correct - otherwise she would have worn the same robes as Queen Mary (and later QEQM).

Imagine what might have been said had she turned up wearing her own Norwegian coronation robes!
 
Imagine what might have been said had she turned up wearing her own Norwegian coronation robes!
In that case we probably wouldn't have this discussion now, because the echo of that scandal would still be ringing in our ears today! :eek: Imagine that Queen Maud would have popped on her own crown instead of the coronet!
 
There were no traditional robes for a dowager queen, because the dowagers queen have never before attended coronations. But could she wear robes denoting the same rank as the current queen? So wearing Princess robes was a way out of that dilemma.

Yes, there was no precedent for a dowager queen and I guess they must have taken the style from the highest available rank (i.e. a princess) other than a monarch and added the thicker banding and ermine.

I don't think Maud could have worn robes denoting the same rank as a British queen regnant, which incidentally seem to be the same as those of a queen consort - the thickest of ermine and gold lace bands with the further addition of decorative embroidery such as flowers and symbols framed within the bands.

I guess also that protocol prevented her from wearing the same robes as a dowager queen or maybe it was simply her choice.

In that case we probably wouldn't have this discussion now, because the echo of that scandal would still be ringing in our ears today! Imagine that Queen Maud would have popped on her own crown instead of the coronet!

What a dilemma that would have been - the BBC commentator (had there been such a thing) would have been more confused and muddled than ever!
 
I thought the restriction was for Monarchs, not their Consorts or Dowager Consorts
 
I noticed that Crown Princess Martha wore no robes so it was just the female members of the BRF that wore them.

Yes, she will have followed the dress code for non-British royalty/guests.

Cepe - what restrictions do you mean?!
 
"By a tradition said to date back to the days of the Plantagenet Sovereigns, no British Queen Dowager had ever attended the Coronation of her husband's successor on the throne..........The origin of this tradition is obscure, but it is no doubt connected with another tradition of apparently equivalent antiquity: that no crowned head attends the Coronation of a European Sovereign....Torn between her inborn respect for historical tradition and by her inevitable wish to watch a son of hers being crowned as King of England, Queen Mary decided that she would for once herself make a constitutional innovation, and ask the King if she might not witness the Abbey ceremony and take her own part in the Coronation procession through London. This decision of Queen Mary's added to the sense of solidarity with which the whole Royal Family was facing the new reign." Queen Mary, James Pope-Hennessy, paperback, commencing page 583.
 
Yes, she will have followed the dress code for non-British royalty/guests.

Cepe - what restrictions do you mean?!

previous post from Tilia yesterday #287 mentioned the restriction that Monarchs do not attend Coronations of other monarchs. I thought that applied literally to other Monarchs - but I could be in error.
 
Maud is also the aunt of the King being crowned. So she is more than just a foreign Queen consort.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Maud is also the aunt of the King being crowned. So she is more than just a foreign Queen consort.

George's death had also made her the last surviving child of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, 'Toria having died six weeks before. Julia Gelardi's Born to Rule - Granddaughters of Victoria, Queens of Europe mentions that the "Queen of Norway" attended her nephew's coronation, "dressed in a simple gold gown with an ermine-lined purple robe about her shoulders and a diamond tiara", which implies that she attended as Queen of Norway not British Princess.

In his biography of Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, Hugo Vickers addresses the issue. At page 157 of the paperback version, he writes, "Besides the King and Queen and the little princesses, the figure who attracted the most interest was Queen Mary. Tradition ordained that no other crowned head should be present, but Queen Mary had asked to be allowed to attend, and she presided over the Royal Box. Everyone wanted to cheer her but could only greet her by rising silently to their feet." In a footnote to that paragraph, Vickers says, "Therefore no foreign kings and queens were present, though there were many crown princes. However Queen Mary was accompanied by her sister-in-law, Queen Maud of Norway."

Vickers seems to be implying that the prohibition against dowager and crowned head had merged, and that Mary and Maud were regarded as crowned heads rather than in any other capacity they might also hold. I would have thought that "crowned head" would mean the actual monarch, not his consort, but perhaps that's not the case and my old friend "coverture" might play a role here.

And maybe George VI's coronation marked the start of a divergence from the old traditions, and a greater emphasis on family ties.
 
Last edited:
previous post from Tilia yesterday #287 mentioned the restriction that Monarchs do not attend Coronations of other monarchs. I thought that applied literally to other Monarchs - but I could be in error.

Oh sorry, yes I see what you mean!

I think the restriction does include the spouse of a monarch. It would make sense for that to be the case. Given Queen Maud's unusual position, an exception enabling her to attend the coronation makes sense too and the same goes for Queen Mary.
 
I read somewhere years ago that, following the turmoil of the Abdication, Queen Mary herself wanted to be present at her son's Coronation in order to both show her support for him as a monarch and emphasise the continuity of the royal House to which she'd dedicated her life.
 
I read somewhere years ago that, following the turmoil of the Abdication, Queen Mary herself wanted to be present at her son's Coronation in order to both show her support for him as a monarch and emphasise the continuity of the royal House to which she'd dedicated her life.


Yes, I've read the same thing about Queen Mary wanting to show support for her son and daughter in law and also to show that things went on as usual even after the abdication. A bit of a Royal "Carry on"


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Back
Top Bottom