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. 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" someoneI 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
Yeah I know That documentary (I think it was something like life of a royal? Or I don't know...) was really interesting!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
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.
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.
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 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.
Yeah I know That documentary (I think it was something like life of a royal? Or I don't know...) was really interesting!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
[...]
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.
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"....
.
The British system of government is not perfect but please, could people be careful before accusing us Brits of being like Russia?!
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.
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.
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.
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.