State Opening of Parliament 1: 2002-2022

[wyevale]

With respect Mbruno, WE like our traditions maintained, and since ours are the only opinions that matters on this subject, your idea is noted, but irrelevant.

 

[TLLK]

Really the Queen wanted William and Charles and Camilla were last minute replacement.

The DM should give it up. Their obsession with William is getting out of hand.

Camilla has a new outfit specially made for the State Opening of Parliament and yet the DM thinks...sorry most of the DM staff doesn't think.

Camilla may have depth perception problems with her vision as she is always hesitant around most steps.

I agree that their reasoning is just ridiculous. Camilla's ensemble was obviously one made for the event and the royals involved would have had this scheduled for weeks.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

I think the rambling, disorganised, chatty and light hearted attitude of the Commons' procession to the Lords is all part of the tradition. It reminds the Lords that they will come when summoned by the Queen, but only because they choose to, not because they have to, and they will arrive in their own good time. That they wear their everyday work clothes adds to the symbolism of not pandering to the Lords, but that is probably just coincidental, I suspect many of them naturally dress like slobs.

 

[hernameispekka]

I think the rambling, disorganised, chatty and light hearted attitude of the Commons' procession to the Lords is all part of the tradition. It reminds the Lords that they will come when summoned by the Queen, but only because they choose to, not because they have to, and they will arrive in their own good time. That they wear their everyday work clothes adds to the symbolism of not pandering to the Lords, but that is probably just coincidental, I suspect many of them naturally dress like slobs.

I agree. When watching a documentary of the royal family there was an episode around the state opening and appearantly they by tradition make as much noise as possible and slams the door in someones face etc. Alot to show symbolism. Just as the royals "kidnapp" someone

 

[Tho Hibbele]

I agree. When watching a documentary of the royal family there was an episode around the state opening and appearantly they by tradition make as much noise as possible and slams the door in someones face etc. Alot to show symbolism. Just as the royals "kidnapp" someone

There's lots of stuff in there that goes back way long in history. That's what makes it so interesting. The UK still has elements in it's constitutional make up that go back to the Middle ages. You don't see that in most continental countries anymore because their constitutional make up mostly dates back to the beginning of the 19th century. Their more ancient laws and customs were mostly replaced in the Napoleonic era. That is reflected in their ceremonial.

Gerard

 

[hernameispekka]

There's lots of stuff in there that goes back way long in history. That's what makes it so interesting. The UK still has elements in it's constitutional make up that go back to the Middle ages. You don't see that in most continental countries anymore because their constitutional make up mostly dates back to the beginning of the 19th century. Their more ancient laws and customs were mostly replaced in the Napoleonic era. That is reflected in their ceremonial.

Gerard

Yeah I know That documentary (I think it was something like life of a royal? Or I don't know...) was really interesting!

 

[padams2359]

The Queen has said on numerous occasions that she does not like jewelry, but it's there and people expect to see it. If she did not wear the personal stuff, or even the Crown Jewels, many would begin to ask that they be sold off. I would like to see Camilla pull the Queen Mary when Charles is king.

 

[Roslyn]

The Queen has said on numerous occasions that she does not like jewelry, but it's there and people expect to see it. If she did not wear the personal stuff, or even the Crown Jewels, many would begin to ask that they be sold off. I would like to see Camilla pull the Queen Mary when Charles is king.

Oh, yes, please! She has the "presence" to be able to get away with it, too.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't really think Camilla likes wearing a lot of jewellery either.


One of the reasons why the Queen has reduced the number of formal events in the BRF is to reduce the need for all the glitzy stuff and I don't really see that changing in the future.


If anything I think under William there will be even fewer events e.g. I can see the State Opening reduced to simply him arriving in a car and in a uniform and Kate may attend in a day dress rather than the full evening dress that the Queen and Camilla have worn.


I don't think Kate likes wearing jewellery either.

 

[Dman]

I don't really think Camilla likes wearing a lot of jewellery either.


One of the reasons why the Queen has reduced the number of formal events in the BRF is to reduce the need for all the glitzy stuff and I don't really see that changing in the future.


If anything I think under William there will be even fewer events e.g. I can see the State Opening reduced to simply him arriving in a car and in a uniform and Kate may attend in a day dress rather than the full evening dress that the Queen and Camilla have worn.


I don't think Kate likes wearing jewellery either.

I don't think any of the pomp and pageantry of the State Opening will be reduced. The monarchy would lose the little beauty it have left.

I think the royal ladies of Windsor like their jewels, but I think they have been a little frightened my the media response. The critics always bring up the state of the economy and that the royals are out of touch with the times. No other monarchy is bullied by the media more than the British royals. It's unfair that the other royal families of Europe are more comfortable with their jewels and family heirlooms than the British royals.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen started cutting back the pomp and circumstance very early in her reign - as much because she didn't like the events (the formal debutante presentations) as an effort to be more inclusive. She cut down having all the royal family attending the State Opening in the 1980s or 90s.

Look what Charles wore in 1981 compared to what he wears now and the cut-back is quite obvious. http://www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/5335384/7514580.jpg?480

Even look at the formality from 1966 - when the late Duchess of Kent even attended. Royal Jewels of the World Message Board: Re: Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent

It is obvious that the Queen sees the silliness in a lot of the formal occasions and has modernised them and made them more relevant by reducing the showiness and included more ordinary people.

It isn't a case of being bullied but of being relevant and not rubbing people the wrong way.

She can't do much with the State Opening other than stop all and sundry in the family attending as she has done (Charles, for instance, didn't attend for around 20 years as she saw no need for the heir to be there) and reducing the showiness.

 

[Dman]

The Queen started cutting back the pomp and circumstance very early in her reign - as much because she didn't like the events (the formal debutante presentations) as an effort to be more inclusive. She cut down having all the royal family attending the State Opening in the 1980s or 90s.

Look what Charles wore in 1981 compared to what he wears now and the cut-back is quite obvious. http://www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/5335384/7514580.jpg?480

Even look at the formality from 1966 - when the late Duchess of Kent even attended. Royal Jewels of the World Message Board: Re: Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent

It is obvious that the Queen sees the silliness in a lot of the formal occasions and has modernised them and made them more relevant by reducing the showiness and included more ordinary people.

It isn't a case of being bullied but of being relevant and not rubbing people the wrong way.

She can't do much with the State Opening other than stop all and sundry in the family attending as she has done (Charles, for instance, didn't attend for around 20 years as she saw no need for the heir to be there) and reducing the showiness.

I don't think it was the Queen's choice to cut back on the royals attending the State Opening in the 90's, but I think that was due to the change to the House of Lords that it caused the royals to stop attending. Charles now no longer wear his parliamentary robes, but she has now eased Charles back to attending, and now with Camilla. The heirs should be there. The Queen is making that statement loud and clear. I see no reasons why William and Catherine shouldn't be there though. It don't have to go back when the Kent's and Gloucester's attended, but it's very appropriate to have the two senior heirs in attendance.

I do think the British royals have been bullied when it comes to their jewels. The other monarchies have made it known that it's very possible to remain relevant and modern, all while maintaining their beauty and glamour.

 

[Osipi]

I do think the British royals have been bullied when it comes to their jewels. The other monarchies have made it known that it's very possible to remain relevant and modern, all while maintaining their beauty and glamour.

I think its kind of humorous when its implied that when the bling is put on display, its time to whine about the economy that is putting hardships on the people. Actually, dusting off some of the royal jewels in the Tower and in the Queen's vault aren't costing anything other than maybe noticing where a piece may need some repair so it'll last another 200 years or so.

Although it may look like for this recent Opening that Camilla had a new, very regal gown made for the occasion, I would bet my last turkey on rye sandwich that it was a very practical move to make. There are many more state openings of parliament in her future and this year was the time time to have one made for her that like the Imperial State Crown, can be used for this special event in the years ahead.

 

[Tiggersk8]

Yeah I know That documentary (I think it was something like life of a royal? Or I don't know...) was really interesting!

Was it Monarchy : The Royal Family At Work? As I said earlier in the thread, the episode all about the preparation that goes into The State Opening of Parliament is fascinating. It's available over at iTunes for anyone interested.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think it was the Queen's choice to cut back on the royals attending the State Opening in the 90's, but I think that was due to the change to the House of Lords that it caused the royals to stop attending. Charles now no longer wear his parliamentary robes, but she has now eased Charles back to attending, and now with Camilla. The heirs should be there. The Queen is making that statement loud and clear. I see no reasons why William and Catherine shouldn't be there though. It don't have to go back when the Kent's and Gloucester's attended, but it's very appropriate to have the two senior heirs in attendance.

I do think the British royals have been bullied when it comes to their jewels. The other monarchies have made it known that it's very possible to remain relevant and modern, all while maintaining their beauty and glamour.

The change to the House of Lords happened in 1999.

The change to who attended the State Opening happened in the late 80s - early 90s - about a decade earlier.

Charles changed from the full robes to just a uniform in the 80s.

There is no reason for William to attend at all. If Charles didn't attend for well over 20 years as heir there is no reason for William to attend until Charles is in his late 80s. Even going back to 1901 - http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/stapleton/fullsize/2378574.jpg no George V at the first State Opening of Parliament of his father i.e. no heir there at all. This was the case for most of the State Openings in the early half of the 20th Century - monarch and spouse only. Elizabeth introduced Charles and Anne but never Andrew - even as 2nd in line he didn't attend.

Why bring in the other monarchies? Each monarchy is different and has to present themselves to their own people and their own people alone.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

On pictures it looks better than on TV. I have seen members of the House of Commons in their often ill-fitting, wrinkled , cheap-looking greasy daily suits, with total desinterest and no feeling for decorum, walking and chatting and busy with their mobile, going to the House of Lords, like the Queen's Speech is something between the soup and the potatoes.

I have even seen members of the House of Lords not even dressed properly to go with the red cloak with white fur. Look at how these Peers and Peeresses are awaiting the Queen... Not even doing the effort to dress properly. So yes, the main persons (the royals) and their cortège: awesome. When not focused on them, hmmmmm... the expected spic-and-span execution of protocol and pageantry leaves lots improvement.

This is how the British Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House listened to the Queen's Speech, some around them even wear their plastic badges, no effort to look smart. At the other side of the North Sea, Cameron's colleagues do change clothes for the King's Speech: wearing a jacquet (morning dress), ladies with hats...

Also in republics the pageantry can be surprisingly glittering. Monsieur le Président de la République française with his escorte, Signor Presidente on his way to the Palazzo Qurinale. The average US news consumer only sees UK news but the grandeur in other European capitals is also outstanding, on similar days.

Wow, thanx for that info and visuals. It looks really amazing and it's nice to see crowds showing up to witness it. It looks impressive without looking ridiculous.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one. Nowhere else in Europe does a monarch or president wear anything like the Imperial State Crown with full royal regalia to open a session of parliament.

BTW I've repeatedly said before in these forums that I find the British state opening of parliament old-fashioned and unnecessary and have expressed my opinion that something akin to the Dutch protocol would make more sense in the modern world (ditto for the coronation). Of course, I have been criticized by the British/Commonwealth posters (and some non-Brits as well) for having that opinion.

It does look ridiculous in a modern world with modern issues to address, buI guess you just have to be glad it doesn't happen in your own country. On the other hand a moder. Monarchs only purpose is to be seen and look flashy. Every country has the ridiculous aspect that makes those around them go "wtf". I still shudder to think what the world thought of us during the Lewinsky scandals.

 

[Dman]

The change to the House of Lords happened in 1999.

The change to who attended the State Opening happened in the late 80s - early 90s - about a decade earlier.

Charles changed from the full robes to just a uniform in the 80s.

There is no reason for William to attend at all. If Charles didn't attend for well over 20 years as heir there is no reason for William to attend until Charles is in his late 80s. Even going back to 1901 - http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/stapleton/fullsize/2378574.jpg no George V at the first State Opening of Parliament of his father i.e. no heir there at all. This was the case for most of the State Openings in the early half of the 20th Century - monarch and spouse only. Elizabeth introduced Charles and Anne but never Andrew - even as 2nd in line he didn't attend.

Why bring in the other monarchies? Each monarchy is different and has to present themselves to their own people and their own people alone.

I think William and Catherine will be in attendance for Charles's first State Opening and will attend from then on.

Charles was still in his robes in the 90's when he attended the Opening. Also, Princess Margaret attended in the 90's.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles wasn't in his robes in the 80s. He may have worn them once, or twice, in the 90s for a special event but most of the time he didn't wear them when he was with Diana. He didn't wear them when he was in his 20s (the late 60s - 70s either).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't think any of the pomp and pageantry of the State Opening will be reduced. The monarchy would lose the little beauty it have left.
[...]

It has considerably changed in the Queen's reign. Since the House of Lords reform, almost all hereditary peers have lost their seat and with that we also see a diminish of the ladies peeresses in glittering jewels. What is left from the ladies peeresses and their jewels is no any comparison how it once looked.

Before the House of Lord reform, we would have seen the royal Dukes (the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent) in all their finery, watching the proceedings.

I have no doubt that there will be more changes: the House of Lords is one of the most undemocratic institutions, with real executive, administratieve and judiciary powers in a modern state. In all other modern European countries, when there is a bi-cameral system, the Upper House is also elected, directly or indirectly, by the electorate.

When Europeans criticize Russia for a lack of democracy, President Putin only needs to point to the more than 600 appointed, non-elected members in the Upper House of the so-called "Mother of all Parliaments"....


So I am sure we will see a reform, sooner or later. When the House of Lords will change in an elected body and no longer an assembly of appointed Peers and Peeresses, of appointed Lords Spiritual (Anglican Bishops and Archbishops), of appointed Law Lords (justices), etc. the State Opening will have a total different look. Mark my words.

 

[wbenson]

The change to the House of Lords happened in 1999.

The change to who attended the State Opening happened in the late 80s - early 90s - about a decade earlier.

Charles changed from the full robes to just a uniform in the 80s.

The Gloucesters and the Duke of Kent were there in 1998, and Charles wore his parliamentary robe all three times he attended in the 90s (1991, 1994, and 1996). Edit: I just found ITN's clips from the 80s, and he didn't wear the robes then, although he did in 1970. Interestingly so did Prince Philip (in 1970), which I'd never seen before.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It has

When Europeans criticize Russia for a lack of democracy, President Putin only needs to point to the more than 600 appointed, non-elected members in the Upper House of the so-called "Mother of all Parliaments"....

.

Wow, well that sucks. Totally makes you think whIle at the same time bringing the part down.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Oh for goodness' sake, don't for an instant over-state the power of the House of Lords. They have almost no real power, they can only delay legislation, not stop it. All the power in the UK rests in the directly elected House of Commons which can create, stop and alter legislation with a simple majority. They can also over-ride the House of Lords if they reject legislation.

The House of Lords is one of the weakest 2nd chambers in the Western world. They have no veto power over legislation, they cannot originate bills concerning taxation or supply, they cannot oppose a bill which was included in the governing party's manifesto, even their ability to delay bills is curtailed by time restraints.

Their members are not directly elected, they are appointed by each of the parties of the House of Commons generally depending on their relative strengths at general elections. Or by an Independent Appointments Commission who appoint non-party political members. They're also not paid a salary.

There has been much gnashing of teeth about whether to make the HoL an elected chamber but I sense little appetite for it among the public. Holding yet more expensive elections when we already have one elected chamber seems silly to most people. The HoL does a pretty good job of scrutinising legislation and is full of all sorts of experts in many fields who simply would not stand for election if it became an elected chamber. It would be filled with yet more career politicians who know nothing of the real world.

The British system of government is not perfect but please, could people be careful before accusing us Brits of being like Russia?!

 

[Lee-Z]

The British system of government is not perfect but please, could people be careful before accusing us Brits of being like Russia?!

I think some people enjoy showing disdain for certain countries/monarchies luckily we only write opinions on these boards and very rarely facts

 

[Mbruno]

I do think the British royals have been bullied when it comes to their jewels. The other monarchies have made it known that it's very possible to remain relevant and modern, all while maintaining their beauty and glamour.

Other European royals are frequently seen wearing their jewels, but the continental monarchies , at least after the fall of the great royal houses (France, Austria, Russia, etc.) and in some countries even long before that, have done away with coronations. Countries like Sweden or Spain have exquisite physical crowns, but the king never wears it. Britain is the exception.

I have nothing against a state opening of parliament and a speech from throne. I just don't see the point of forcing the queen to wear a heavy piece like the crown, especially at her age.

So I am sure we will see a reform, sooner or later. When the House of Lords will change in an elected body and no longer an assembly of appointed Peers and Peeresses, of appointed Lords Spiritual (Anglican Bishops and Archbishops), of appointed Law Lords (justices), etc. the State Opening will have a total different look. Mark my words.

Not much of a reform, but I believe the new Law Lords (justices) are no longer members of the HoL as there is now something called the Supreme Court of the UK, which has replaced the HoL as the highest court in the land. Only justices who were created life peers in the past (i.e before the reform) still have the right to attend the HoL, but I'm not sure if they do.

 

[wbenson]

Only justices who were created life peers in the past (i.e before the reform) still have the right to attend the HoL, but O'm not sure if they do.

When the Supreme Court was created, justices who had peerages were prohibited from speaking or voting in the House of Lords until they leave the court.

 

[Mbruno]

When the Supreme Court was created, justices who had peerages were prohibited from speaking or voting in the House of Lords until they leave the court.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Elly C]

I have nothing against a state opening of parliament and a speech from throne. I just don't see the point of forcing the queen to wear a heavy piece like the crown, especially at her age.

For most Brits continuity and symbolism are important. The pomp surrounding the Queen's speech at the State Opening of Parliament is what we expect - were the Queen to abandon the crown/the heavy train etc. it would appear a diminished event and the Queen's role similarly so. Yes it is perhaps logical to make things easier for an elderly monarch and update the wearing of the regalia but I believe we Brits are sensitive such changes and it wouldn't play out well.

 

[MARG]

Sad but true. Although I see a time in the future when the actual crown will be ceremonially carried in front of HM and placed in place of honour during the State Opening.

Just thinking, and also remembering HM reign, so maybe not. Sheer determination alone may carry her through to the end.

Whichever way it happens, it will be her choice.

 

[wyevale]

It isn't broken, so why the need to fix it ? Just because the continental royals do it one way, why do we need to ape them ? Our royal family didn't start trundling around on bicycles when the Dutch royals [temporarily] did so...
The continuity and symbolism of 'the King in Parliament' embodied in the State opening [as now constituted] is part of the warp and weft of life here, and why should everything be standardised to 'European models' , whose history is SO different from ours ?

 

[wbenson]

There has been one time in the Queen's reign when she attended the opening of parliament but all the ceremonial was set aside. In March 1974, the economic situation was so bad that she traveled by car and wore day dress, with none of the usual processions, etc. happening.