Swedish Royal Robes of State

[Josefine]

here are some photos about court dresses
does anyone have some history and dates about these dresses

I will translate this soon

Den svenska hovdräkten är unik. Inget annat europeiskt hov kan uppvisa en dräkt som under så lång tid bibehållit en enhetlig prägel – och det hela började med Gustav III:s dräktreform.

 

[Josefine]

later versions

is this a court dress

ladies of the court

Fotograf

Göran Schmidt, Livrustkammaren

Princesss Sofia Albertinas court dress
for king Karl XIII Coronation 1809

large photo
http://www.lsh.se/livrustkammaren/Sidorna/press/prinsesspress/Bilder%20f%9ar%20nedladdn/009.jpg

 

[SaxeundGotha]

For a while I've been intrigued by some pictures of Queens and Princesses of Sweden I saw a long time ago in which they wore what seem like dark blue/purple/or black? robes of velvet trimmed with ermines.
I had them in my old computer, and have so far managed to find these online:
I had seen one that was full body shot, and showed the mantle being held by 2 pages I believe... that one I haven't been able to find again online. If I remember correctly, I think it mentioned something about the opening parlement... but that was from a time before our present monarchs, who have left those traditions obsolete.
I wonder if anyone has that picture, or any others... and if anyone could explain the use, materials, etc. of these robes. Were they used for coronations/inagurations of sovereigns or opening parlement or court functions?
Any info would be aprreciated.

Can anyone comment on the russian-inspired cut of the sleeves? I mean, it's reminiscent of russian court dress. Speaking of the sleeves, are they one-in-the same with the mantle, or are they part of the dress and the mantle on the back is separate? Are this in a museum somewhere?
Ok, I'm out of questions... for now

Here's one of the pictures on imageshack. My original source is the Webshots community... I don't know who else to credit.

Here are 2 of Queen Louise

and


Thankx a million Josephine, the pics on that other thread are wonderful.
If you ever find any more, let me know.
I am also specifically interested on the lenght of the trains for a comparative study I'm doing of the various courts of Europe in different times in history and different occasions (court/coronations/presentations/weddings) inspired by my original study of french court etiquette - there are many parallels in the numbers and hard facts (just that the latter are hard to come by

 

[fraxales]

Hello, SaxeundGotha.

I have two pics of Queen Louise in state robes (one being the one where she's off to the opening of parliament and her train is supported by two pages. I have scanned them onto my computer but need further guidance from there. I take it I can't just post them onto the thread? Also, I have a pic taken in the throne room of the royal palace, during a session of the opening of parliament which used to take place there; King Gustav VI Adolf addressing the assembled gathering on the silver throne. Interested?

 

[SaxeundGotha]

Hello, SaxeundGotha.

I have two pics of Queen Louise in state robes (one being the one where she's off to the opening of parliament and her train is supported by two pages. I have scanned them onto my computer but need further guidance from there. I take it I can't just post them onto the thread? Also, I have a pic taken in the throne room of the royal palace, during a session of the opening of parliament which used to take place there; King Gustav VI Adolf addressing the assembled gathering on the silver throne. Interested?

Fraxales, HI! Sorry I took so long to reply (was on vacation) but I hope you pass by this thread again. Those would be great pics to have on this discussion - if they're on your computer, you can go to a site like photobucket.com, and host it from there, and paste the url-adress they provide of your photos on your reply in the thread. Make sure to mention in your posting the source or that you scanned them yourself (I got my ears pulled for not doing that when I first began to post . If you have any questions feel free to pm me or one of the moderators, since they result most helpful in this sort of situations.

On to the discussion now: so these robes were worn to parliament every time?

 

[fraxales]

Well, hello to you too!! And it sounds like you had a good holiday...

Thanks for the directions, I'll try them asap. I'm no expert, nor am I Swedish, but that much Ipicked up years ago. The ladies of the court all seem to wear that attire - the most senior being in the upper royal box and it appears the most senior ladies (ie. the queen and crown princess - not sure of that) wore tiara and veil. Hope this helps - haven't delved too much into this sort of thing but like so much in life, you just need someone else to spark an interest.

 

[SaxeundGotha]

All of their trains seem quite long... you say you have the picture of a queen with 2 train bearers (I remember seing it once, though haven't seen it since) - now it makes me wonder if the other Princesses had a trainbearer at least also (?)

 

[SaxeundGotha]

I'm so keen on the lenght of trains and the amount/age/sex of the trainbearers because they seem to pop up in all events where mantles or trains were worn...

I'll list some documented examples I've found in my research, which though not especifically swedish, perhaps it will spark someone else's interest also - and ultimately perhaps provide similar info on the swedish royal robes...

In ceremonies of high state (e.g. marriages and coronations)
In France:
-the Queen had 3 trainbearers
-the Filles of France had 2 traibearers (eg coronation of Ma de Medicis)
-the Princesses of the Blood had 1 trainbearer
-and suposedly, no one else had train or train bearers as atested by Mlle. de Montpensier's memoirs on the ocassion of Louis XIV's wedding to the Infanta.

In England:
-Queen Elizabeth II on her coronation had 6 trainbearers
-The Queen Mother, in the same occasion, had 2? (not too sure)
-the other Princesses of the Blood I think had either 1 or 2?

In the Vatican: the cardinals had 1 "caudatario" which is latin for trainbearer. Remember that Cardinals ranked as Princes of the Blood.

THEN THERE WERE COURT CEREMONIES

In France, Spain, England, the train of the Queen and Royal Princesses would have been carried simply by their Dame d'honneur, Camarera Mayor or Mistress of the Robes of their respective households. Meaning, they would have only 1 train bearer.

IN LESS CEREMONIOUS OCCASIONS: AT COURT

In France at least, all women, from the Queen to all the way "down," duchesses, had their trains carried by some exotic Indian or Moorish boy (as atested in many contemporary portraits and memoirs -especially the one that rumored that the Queen had borne a black child from her little "moor" which became the moment in which all the titled court ladies switched back to white-french pages....)

Eitherway, I thought all of this interesting, thus why I would like to know a bit more about the other courts and their customs.

PS Also very interesting, I find, is the attire and prescriptions having to do with court and royal/imperial mourning. Has anyone noticed the different (yet fairly uniform) mourning veils/hats worn by the different royal houses?
The previous Queen of Denmark and her daughters; The 2 Queen Elizabeths of England at the death of George VI, etc. I wondered if any such precept existed in Sweden also - pics and info would be more than welcome!

 

[Lyle]

Two more originally posted in the Princess Sybilla thread by GrandDuchess and Josefine (from Corbis).

 

[fraxales]

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i248/fraxales/Parliament.jpg

Yeeha! I have successfully uploaded the picture of the opening of parliament. (Hope I did everything correctly.)

As regards your question on trainbearers, there's not always room to accommodate them - as in the above photo. You will see that the Queen and her daughters are in the royal box (top right), the only two wearing tiaras (and veil, which I'm sure has some sort of significance as well) are the Queen and {who I'm sure is} Princess Sybilla. The Queen's pages are standing behind her but there is one more male (and an additional one possibly out of sight?) who I would imagine might have been Princess Sybilla's page - but that is mere assumption and I cannot verify that.

SaxeundGotha, hHave you seen any photos of the King's marriage to Queen Sylvia? She had a long train which was also borne by two (male) pages and not bridesmaids.

As for veils, I think it depends on the level of tradition and respect that has survived as acceptable in today's age; not used in more modern monarhies like Belgium and The Netherlands but certainly firmly in place (if you'll pardon the pun) in monarchies like the UK, Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

is this a court dress

In a sense, it is, but not one of those very formal ones. I thought the photo looked like she's in mourning (black veil) but waving with a smile, I think it might have been taken on the palace balcony on the occasion of King Carl XVI Gustaf's accession to the throne following the death of his grandfather, the previous king.

Also, looking through my scrapbook, I see that both the Queen and Princess Victoria adopted the same dress code for the funeral of Prince Bertil, so I assume this must be official (royal?) mourning dress code. Oh, and it's just a normal skirt length, not to the floor.

 

[SaxeundGotha]

To go in order, and do justice: many thanks to Lyle for the Princess Sybilla pictures - she looked wonderful in the ceremonial robes.

And now to Fraxales: you ARE on a roll Lovely pictures. I especially enjoy the one of the plenary parliamentary session: it has nothing to envy of the British State Opening of Parliament - I had seen pictures of the empty chamber in a small brochure/booklet of Sweden I bought on e-bay, but never in its full glory - WOW - so sad it is not like that anymore (I don't think this chamber is even used anymore, is it? I've seen pictures of a modern-looking riksdag (sp?) which I assume has taken the place of the palace parliamentary chamber...
but back to the robes: I wonder if the Princesses without a veil were single or married? Sometimes the wearing of a veil would've signaled that the wearer was married (and if black, widowed.) This formality, however is not always the rule; during the Victorian era (the british one that was, not the swedish one that is to be ) even young girls would've worn a little white veil (and flowers and hats or even birds! all piled on their heads...) in imitation of their mothers; in the Muslim countries the girl takes the veil only since her first menstruation period to signal she's eligible for marriage... the same was observed in Spain in days gone by (as a vestige of the Moorish occupation of the country back in the 8th century).
On a similar note (and hopefully not too off-topic) in the West (especially visible in the Victorian era and with the daughters of the Tsar of Russia) is the convention of girls wearing their hair long and down until they "came of age" or "came out to society" - usually sometime around the age of 16. From that time on, they were allowed to put their hair up (and wear a small veil to church or when wearing a tiara on state occasions). Their hair-dos, though up, however, were not as elaborate or "big" as those of married ladies until they themselves wedded.
So past the history lesson: I again have to wonder if on the collective pictures above, those Swedish princesses lacking a veil did so because of their marital status OR indeed because they were junior members of the royal family? To support the latter hypothesis, however, we do have the case of the picture showing the gallery replete with court ladies (on post #4, scroll up ) who are probably married and yet they don't wear a veil either....

Oh, but taking a second look, on the subject of the veils and tiaras again....
Princess Sybilla (on post #16) and Princess Maria (on post #8), Louise as Crown Princess (on post #9), and the pretty Princess (on post #2), all WEAR a veil (and a tiara***) - which again supports that it could be a symbol for being married -?-
Well, what do you think? Or perhaps someone who may know could save us from all the speculation? -nah, the speculation is fun


***On the use of tiaras: I'm not sure if in Sweden the Royal Princesses were exempt from this rule (as were the daughters of the tsar in Russia) but in articles regarding the coming of age/presentation at court/to society, various accounts mention that the use of tiaras would've been reserved solely to married women of quality (this being practical in the sense that the husband should perhaps provide his wife with a suitable trosseau and family jewels upon marrige - a single woman not having the means to spend on an expensive piece of jewelery as a tiara.) Tiaras were also, as they still are, common wedding presents amongst those families that account them in their patrimony - the mother-in-law often giving one of her own collection to her new (or more commonly, eldest) daughter-in-law. This is to signal that they will be allowed to sport them from then on.
It's an interesting tid-bit, I find, because even to this day, Queens Elizabeth, Margarethe, Beatrix, Sofia, etc. have made such wedding-gifts upon the respective Lady Diana, Crown Princesses Maxima and Mary, and Leticia. (though there was some problem with the gift of Margarethe to Mary if I remember correctly - the latter appearing without a single jewel at some state dinner because Margarethe had given her none at the beginning? - well that's from another thread altogether....sorry.)

So what's my point? I'm not sure.... 'cuz I ramble and go off-topic every turn of the road. Oh well.

On the "Glittering Royal Events: Enthronements" website in the section about the Inaguration of King Carl Gustav it says:

<< In the tribune were seating the sisters of the King with their husbands, wearing the traditional mourning dresses of the Swedish Court. >>

Were they really wearing mourning dress or was it the dark velvet and ermine robes of state? Does anyone know or have pics? The picture on the site does not show the royal tribune.

 

[grevinnan]

I believe the Princess Christina in post #3 is wearing the traditional mourning dress.

 

[fraxales]

I agree with you - the speculation IS fun: almost like detective work...

I'm not sure who Princess Maria was (post #8), nor the "pretty princess" (#2) , was but were they not also "of the blood" (immediate family of the king)? The one in post #2: it's unusual to see someone dressed like that, bearing flowers. Was that not, perhaps, her wedding? (I know the black sounds absurd...)

The royal courts of Europe adhered to (still do, really, though probably not "to the letter" these days) accepted rules of protocol (whether written or not) and the use of tiara was certainly reserved for married princesses. I think it still is - that is why it was highly unusual for Maxima to have worn a tiara at Haakon's wedding in Oslo and the reason Mary did not wear one for that state visit (think it was the Grand Duke of Luxembourg?) was because she was engaged but not married. (Margrethe could easily have tossed her one, otherwise...)

[On post #16, I wonder if the Princesses would have worn a tiara had they been married, if it was something only reserved for Sybilla because she was "Crown Princess" (not sure if at that time) or even if the girls would have participated to that degree had they already married? Just very interesting...]

Coming back to the use of veils, it is interesting to note that women who meet the pope (certailnly at the Vatican) are required to wear black, veil - only Catholic queens are allowed to wear white but veil is still mandatory. Also, the dress code for the ladies attending Queen Elizabeth's coronation was white, with tiara. If you didn't possess one, you were required to wear a veil.

 

[SaxeundGotha]

I agree with you - the speculation IS fun: almost like detective work...

I'm not sure who Princess Maria was (post #8), nor the "pretty princess" (#2) , was ... The one in post #2: it's unusual to see someone dressed like that, bearing flowers. Was that not, perhaps, her wedding? (I know the black sounds absurd...).

Oh, I saw the picture of the princess (on #2) a couple of days back in another of the Swedish threads...so she's there, I just don't recall the http: adress off of the top of my head - understandable, Ithink but on to the point: it said on the caption that it was the day of her first presentation at court (her "coming-out") which would explain the flowers (recalling for example the debuttantes at Victoria's court - as seen on the Laffayette website, wearing a veil, court mantle and carrying flowers was de rigueur for such occasions.
About the color though... I DOUBT these robes would've been black... they aren't mourning costume because 1) was worn to all parliaments etc, when the court was NOT in mourning and 2) the veils were white for those wearing one, which in mourning would've been black. These robes are more likely dark blue (recalling the swedish coat of arms - following the french example for their mantles powdered with gold fleurs-de-lis) or at any instance: dark purple (like the mantles of the Princesses of the Blood and Empire-State Mantle in Britain). Logic though, would make it dark blue, as in France (which is the court that the Nordic Kingdoms and Russia imitated in such things -apart from the german court(s), ofcourse.
This imitation of France - in my opinion, and hopefully no Swede comes after me now - is possibly why the coat of arms are so similar (on a dark blue field, 3 golden crowns/lillies). I'm sure that to make the just-said declaration I probably should've checked the dates of adoption of such respective shields, etc. but I'm almost certain such was the case.
The French have been the great starters of the continnental etiquetes: for even the only other recognized etiquette: the Spanish/Imperial/Vienesse (depending on which territory the Hapsburgs were at) stemmed from the Burgundian Court and the Hapsburg inheritance of it. Burgundy, of course, is in France, and was ruled by a cadet line stemming from the French royal line. All the courts of Europe would follow either the french or spanish/imperial model - even Russia, and ofcourse, all of the german states of the "Holy Roman Empire." In England, too the french model was imitated (ie wearing purple mourning) because of their claim to the French throne....

Oh, there was a third major court with original etiquette: The Pope's, wether in the Laternan, Avignon, or Rome. But that one, since it was the only "theocracy" was not imitated, and thus remained exclusive - if not ellusive and it would be unjust to not mention it. I wonder why there isn't a thread for the Vatican in the Royal Forums?

-I always do manage to go off topic don't I? Either way... what were we talking about veils?

Yes, all women visiting the Vatican must wear a black veil (and if Spanish, mantilla with comb). Originally, only the Spanish Queen had the prerogative to wear white (for her title as being "most-catholic"). It isn;t until recently (not more than the last 100 years) that such right has been extended to ALL Catholic consorts of the Crowned Heads of Europe. I understand, though, that one muslim queen (I think it was Rania, though I can't be sure right now) was also allowed to wear a white veil because white, for muslims, means what black weeds to us westeners: mourning.
With that idea of mourning, it must be remembered that French Queens had the sole right to wear "white mourning" instead of black for their husbands the Kings (eventually, this stopped, sometime before Catherine de Medicis). White mourning, was also worn by Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother?) on her state visit to Paris in the summer of 19~~(?). I don't remember all the details for that royal visit, but I remember reading it on a book about the Royal Wardrobe in England and again online a couple of years back. (I guess that although not Catholic, and not a claimant to the French throne she had no place wearing it, but as queen, she's rather allowed as she pleases... and as I can recall, Paris loved it and cheered her for her white mourning....) Sorry for the tangents, once again - I just hope it gets people exited and interested
Oh (and here I go again.... the Old Queen of Belgium I remeber her wearing usually grey (not black to funerals) and in the Netherlands(?) the Queen and her sister wore white coats for the funeral of ... - well sorry for the sketchy details - maybe someone with a fresher memory can expand (or link us to the various threads that may be discussing this things...)
So back to Sweden! Blue velvet and ermine rather than black?

Oh, and about the coronation of EIIR, ladies had to wear either tiara or veil, because it was a religious ceremony and "evening/full dress" was mandatory: which ruled out hats - the preferred way for ladies to cover for church-service in Anglican churches.
Today however, almost no one covers for church (be it catholic, or much less, protestant). I do think in England it is still in vogue to wear hats, so most women will wear on on sunday, but elsewhere, it's all in disuse. Only in "highly solemn" ocassions does one see all ladies covered (now ussually a hat is de rigueur) at royal weddings etc. inside a church.
And the only time Queens and Princesses will for sure wear a veil is upon visiting the Pope (though EIIR wore a hat for 1 of her latter audiences...); the Queen of Spain still wears a mantilla and comb once in a while, but even she "the most-catholic" doesn't wear anything on her head at most church services. I've never seen the Princesses of Sweden in veils (I guess one must wait till their weddings... they should get married, soon! I wonder if at funerals they'll wear one anymore?

 

[fraxales]

Oh, and about the coronation of EIIR, ladies had to wear either tiara or veil, because it was a religious ceremony and "evening/full dress" was mandatory: which ruled out hats - the preferred way for ladies to cover for church-service in Anglican churches.
Today however, almost no one covers for church (be it catholic, or much less, protestant). I do think in England it is still in vogue to wear hats, so most women will wear on on sunday, but elsewhere, it's all in disuse. Only in "highly solemn" ocassions does one see all ladies covered (now ussually a hat is de rigueur) at royal weddings etc. inside a church.
And the only time Queens and Princesses will for sure wear a veil is upon visiting the Pope (though EIIR wore a hat for 1 of her latter audiences...); the Queen of Spain still wears a mantilla and comb once in a while, but even she "the most-catholic" doesn't wear anything on her head at most church services. I've never seen the Princesses of Sweden in veils (I guess one must wait till their weddings... they should get married, soon! I wonder if at funerals they'll wear one anymore?

Whew! What a mouthful, SaxeundGotha!! I had all these points in my head to comment on and now I can't even remember what the first few were...

I think you may be right - the only colour pictures I had to go on were the "plenary session of parliament" and Princess Christina's mourning dress. I assumed the black-and-white ensemble had some religious, albeit Swedish, connotation to it, much like the Amish/Quakers (not sure which people, I' miles away). I didn't think of the possibility the blue which does make more sense, thank you very much.

As for the Dutch funeral of Queen Juliana, it all comes down to what the monarch dictates/wishes. Queen Wilhelmina had insisted on a "simple" funeral, with not even heads of state attending (that's what she'd requested - I'm not sure if any did attend) and it was to be a "white funeral". The funeral coach/bier (that the correct term for it?) was elaborately draped in white, as were the horses and accompanying carriage bearing the family's wreaths. The female members of the royal family were completely decked out in white. For her husband's funeral, Queen Beatrix stipulateded black for mourning and the "bier" and horses were redone in purple. I'm sure Juliana requested white for her funeral (the ladies seemed to have met her halfway with the coats) but instead of doing a major overhaul of the funeral bier, they draped white curtains/screens on either side.

As for the Swedish Princesses, I'm sure that they WILL wear veils at funerals. The Nordic churches (albeit at royal level) still seem rather conservative and the pictures of Prince Bertil's funeral had the close family members (Princesses Victoria and Benedikte, Queens Ingrid, Silvia and Margrethe ) all wearing veils. I'm sure the Norwegian queen would have worn one if she was there (can't remember seeing her, nor Princess Madeleine).

As for the Vatican and Her Catholic Majesty, as I'm sure her official title still is, the veil is Vatican requirement but the mantilla is just a Spanish (was it Valencian? Andalucian? Oh, I forget... ) custom. And yes ERII did wear a het on her last trip to Pope John Paul II but attached to it was a veil which hung down to her bottom! She actually did look very elegant that day.

 

[Iain]

); the Queen of Spain still wears a mantilla and comb once in a while, but even she "the most-catholic" doesn't wear anything on her head at most church services. I've never seen the Princesses of Sweden in veils (I guess one must wait till their weddings... they should get married, soon! I wonder if at funerals they'll wear one anymore?

Maximina wore a mantilla when she and Willem Alexander attended Mass at Rotterdam Cathedral to celebrate the Golden Jubilee of the Diocese of Rotterdam.

 

[SaxeundGotha]

LOL spelling can be tricky sometimes

As far as mantillas with comb go, yes, the "traditional" one sees have their origins in Seville and Andalucia regions - these, though they were falling into disuse, have made somewhat of a comeback - especially during Holy-Week and Easter (hopefully all the ladies deck themselves this coming thursday and Good Friday with their black mantillas and Easter Sunday with their white and cream ones.... they are a sight to see....

Apart from Holy week, in Spain it is usual for the mother of the bride-groom in a wedding, to be the "lady of honour" and wear a mantilla (if the ceremony is in a church - never doing so in the civil ceremony, ofcourse.) This can best be seen in the recent wedding of the Prince of Asturias.

The mantillas are to Spain what the kokoshniks (half-moon cloth russian tiaras) were to Imperial Russia (and I'm sure would have still been had the Bolshevicks not come along....) - they once were worn by women of distinction (in Roman times) then fell into disuse and into the domain of the peasantry who incorporated into the regionnal paesant's dress - and then rediscovered by the royal/imperial courts as political tools to appear more "nationalistic" AND because they were prettily redisigned and modified by the court jewelers (eg Faberge, Cartier, etc).

To this day in most ibero-american countries, if you are of true spaniard's blood, you probably own a mantilla or at least a comb that would have belonged to your grandmother or great grandmother, etc. They are heirlooms and as highly prized at that. Usually the comb would be of tortoise-shell intricately carved - though there are also rarer examples out of mother-of-pearl, ivory, metal, and now-a-days -plastic The traditional comb, however, is considered to be the tortoise shell one.

Wearing a mantilla is usually a sign of nationality or descent - for a spanish woman (eg in the Embassy level) to not wear a mantilla in the Vatican is almost hailed as treason - literally (I remember reading years back of the wife(?) of the ambassador not wearing one and being sharply critisized by the press for not doing so.)

One needs not be spanish to wear one though - Jackie Kennedy-Onassis wore a white mantilla a couple of times (a gift of the Duquesa d'Alba I believe). I think the Granduchess of Luxembourg has also worn one (though hers is probably by family tradition - her family being cuban of spanish descent).

 

[Daneborn]

Princess Sybilla (on post #16) and Princess Maria (on post #8), Louise as Crown Princess (on post #9), and the pretty Princess (on post #2), all WEAR a veil (and a tiara***) - which again supports that it could be a symbol for being married -?-

the 'pretty princess' is Princess Ingrid, born 1910, later Queen of Denmark, and my favorite royal of all times

About marital status;
When she married (1935) she instantly became a member of the Danish court so as a young princess she was obviously able to wear the royal robe. (or whatever you call the huge dark dress / coat with train, I'm not a native English speaking person )

The photo could be from her 18 year birthday.

 

[fraxales]

the 'pretty princess' is Princess Ingrid, born 1910, later Queen of Denmark, and my favorite royal of all times.

AHA!!!! Boy, do I feel stupid - I should have recognized her!!!! But her connotation with Denmark closed my eyes to the possibility... Thanks for putting us out of our misery, Daneborn - now I can sleep better...

SaxeundGotha, I agree it was wonderful getting a glimpse of that ceremony (for that is all I got - it kept playing up (pardon the pun) on me). I, too, wish we had more access to things like that.

As for the mantillas at Easter time, you say they are a sight to be seen...but can you see beyond the first ONE???? Do you have any Spanish links? You seem to know quite a bit...

Back to Sweden, with all that pomp and glamour, do you know if their coronations were symobic or were they actually crowned?

 

[SaxeundGotha]

the 'pretty princess' is Princess Ingrid, born 1910, later Queen of Denmark, and my favorite royal of all times

About marital status;
When she married (1935) she instantly became a member of the Danish court so as a young princess she was obviously able to wear the royal robe. (or whatever you call the huge dark dress / coat with train, I'm not a native English speaking person )

The photo could be from her 18 year birthday.

Thanks Daneborn - it was actually bugging me by now (I knew she had a name...but was hoping someone would post it for us....and you did!
Eitherway, now we know title and name - she still is the "pretty princess in the veil" wouldn't you agree?

 

[SaxeundGotha]

As for the mantillas at Easter time, you say they are a sight to be seen...but can you see beyond the first ONE???? Do you have any Spanish links? You seem to know quite a bit...

Back to Sweden, with all that pomp and glamour, do you know if their coronations were symobic or were they actually crowned?

My great-grandmother was from Spain, and I inherited my matilla from her through grandma and mum I've been in Spain a couple of times, once with a group of friends during Easter in Seville (amazing!) and I made them all dress up and wear mantillas (one of my friends still refused to wear anything but tennis-shoes, which totally singled us out as not being from there, but we had a great deal of fun. I don't have pictures from that trip because instead we took a camcorder - great idea until my friend lost the tape....(yes, the same that wore the sneakers.... she's a bit hard-headed, but she's my best friend...) Wearing a mantilla, with sneakers, and holding a camcorder didn't make her any less conspicuos either...

And how did we see above the mantilla and combs? LOL (nice one) I'm not sure I can answer that... it's mostly a sea of blonde and chantilly lace draped on peoples heads... I imagine if everyone were to sway their heads from side to side it would be like a field of hay in....ok maybe I got a bit carried away LOL... sorry. Memories...

Back to Sweden, with all that pomp and glamour, do you know if their coronations were symobic or were they actually crowned?

I have read that they were crowned in a church cermony. This was done while seated in the silver-coronation chair. The most famous coronation picture I know of is of King Gustav III. If you google:images his name, in the first page of thumbnails you'll see the coronation scene.
The painting doesn't have a lot of definition (where went the Rembrandts? ) so it's hard to make out who is who aside from the King, Queen beneath a dais in the back ground, and the Bishop/Archbishop and Minister who are placing the crown on his head...
There are however, a couple of other figures (I just googled the image to make sure of what I was talking about) that are wearing robes and coronets.... I wonder who they are? Did the nobility wear coronets and coronation robes too or just the crown prince and other children of a king?
Oh Fraxales, you've revived the thread! Now it's a mission to find out who these other robed individuals are and what where they wearing and why....

I have a book on the swedish crown jewels with pictures of some of the crowns (including I believe 2 of those worn by the Crown Princes in the 18c.) but it's all in Swedish - which I don't as of yet, speak....
I also have some photocopies from a book by Lord Twining that a friend made for me from one of the rare copies that exist - in New York - of such precious book. In one page are about 6 pictures of these princely crowns (open, radiated, with the vassa badge alternating, with an embroidered silk skull-cap insert, and adorned with pearls and diamonds.... All of that is in one of my platic boxes marked "research" up in the attic, but I'll see if I get it down sometime - if it be of interest to anybody....
The existence of so many examples of these coronets would reaffirm that they were worn.... but with what robes? I wonder if all or any of these are in display at one of the royal museums in Sweden.... I know that the Coronation Crowns, orbs, sceptres (and key) are in display - and can be seen in the RF's official website.
Now that I remember (though it may just be for another country) I think I have in a disk some scans of "burial" or "funeral" regalia made for some deceased monarchs... I think Swedish.... they were set with smokey-quartz and black stones and made of less precious material.... I have too find that too... I always go off-topic either way, so it's ok I guess...

 

[Saragli]

Does anybody know when they stoped wearing state robes to the Solemn Openining of Parliament.

 

[SaxeundGotha]

Here's a cropped version of the painting depicting Gustav III's coronation - by Pilo.
It's the best (in terms of color/resolution/definition) I could find that showed the actual crowning.... the real picture is much larger and encompasses quite a large view of the church/cathedral where it took place and of its participants.... a bit hazy, tht paintor's technique, but interesting none-the-less:


cropped pic from the weltchronik website

 

[robby86]

Do they still wear these robes today? And if so when would they do so? Has any member of todays RF worn it?

 

[fraxales]

Does anybody know when they stoped wearing state robes to the Solemn Openining of Parliament.

I am no Swede (tho I wouldn't mind!) but I would hazard a guess and say the moment King Gustav VI Adolf died - I believe it was around that time that they "reformed" the monarchy and the King, essentially, became a figurehead (probably because they felt Carl XVI Gustav was too young?).

And, Robby86, I don't think these robes are worn any more (certainly have not seen coverage of them in my time). These days, the most glittering occasion in the royal calendar is the Nobel Prize awards ceremony...sadly.

[I may be wrong; my interest in royalty waned a few years back as it was such a battle for any information. Now that we have the internet, and this forum in particular, the spark has been relit!]

 

[GrandDuchess]

Do they still wear these robes today? And if so when would they do so? Has any member of todays RF worn it?

No, the old version of the Court Dress is not used anymore in our time. The last time the old version was used was at the Solemn Opening of Parliament in 1974 when it was held for the last time at the Royal Palace, in the old fashioned way with a speech from the throne and a very pompous ceremony. But, the old fashioned Court Dress was never abolished by a royal decision, though it was just stopped to be used when the Constitution was modernised and after Carl Gustaf became King and there was no Queen and Princess Sibylla had passed away.

The new, present being, Court Dress was introduced in the 80's.

 

[magnik]

It's little pitty that they were changed, but imagine, today Royal Ladies in old Robes of State...

 

[SaxeundGotha]

Oh, I think they would look beautiful - though I must admit, that perhaps a bit anachronistic - which may sound almost hypocritical of me (such a stiff suporter of the old guard) but it's the truth:
The monarchy is not at fault, perhaps I'd venture to say it is society at large: people now-a-days tend towards informality, comfort - things not compatible with a ceremonious royal enviroment which calls for exactly the opposite... even England, probably will not hold the traditional coronations in the upcoming reigns (despite what they will say) because truly times have changed. One hundred years ago - people still were bound by the rules of etiquette and propriety, people knew (or at least aknowledged) their place and that of their "betters" - but today we live in an otherwise irreverent society of democrats/republicans/socialists which little by little (in their respective ways) are doing away with our more traditional institutions. Taking away their power and leaving them ceremonial roles has been the first step - social pressure to reduce the ceremoniousness of the monarchies, is the second step - what is left? The monarchies of today face a precarious future, for all they have left is the support of their people: so long as they have a high enough approval rating, they should be fine (but should that ever drop... which occasionnally all dynasties have borne an "unpopular" monarch... it would be their end.
Of course, us royalists will forever be supporting the monarchies, but in a world of numbers, we perhaps are too little against the mass - could we do anything to prevent this eradication? I ask.

I ask because such a question would seem relevant in a forum in which we "aprove" or "dis-aprove" of the choices the members of these various royal families make - it is more than frivolous talk about the hats or jewels they chose to wear at a certain event - we judge every action and decition they make... most of us would agree that they are not "royal" because they decend from Gods, or have a divine right to be there, rather we recognize WE keep them were they are... some of them are ripped to shreads, and really, what fault have they to be who they are?

I know this has nothing to do with this thread (we keep it light over here in Sweden ) but I was looking over some other threads which are in the worst taste... it made me think and reflect - so I posted - didn't mean to - but sorta-glad I did....

So imagining the royal ladies of today in the old-royal robes? I think they would look fantastic, but sadly "not with the times" - I just wish that "the times" had still a royal tribune (carpeted and all) for our royals, but it seems that rather than us dressing to honour their presence, we've invited them to join us down here in the world of tennis-shoes and baseball-caps to seat in the plastic seats along ourselves... it comforts us that they are down at our level now - just that once you come down here, it's hard to go back up there (most people woul even prefer this never to happen) whoch means that all the beautiful ceremonies, crowns, regalia, palaces, and things which are so admirable - become mere museum-pieces = viewed by all as artifacts, but no longer enjoyed by any, personnally...

It's a paradox: if the royals move with the times and concede to give up certain things, they have a chance to remain where they are - yet by "making concessions" they are eliminating their stronghold and place...
it's a critique on the times, not the monarchy....

On a lighter note! I did find the pictures of the coronets of the various Princes and I just need to scan them and post them - if anyone is interested in vieweing them? They span from 18c to 20c.

 

[fraxales]

It's a paradox: if the royals move with the times and concede to give up certain things, they have a chance to remain where they are - yet by "making concessions" they are eliminating their stronghold and place... it's a critique on the times, not the monarchy....

Gee....how deep! Your longer comment was so heavy, it almost dragged me down... That was obviously a result of your posting comments at four-thirty in the morning, SaxeundGotha!!!

I agree with you on your views. It's sad that no-one is perfect and, yes, at some stage you'll have a monarch that destroys all the good work that had been done previously (present examples seem to be the kings of Nepal and Tonga, though I haven't followed their problems closely).

However, the republicans can all say what they like but when it comes to meeting a royal or being exposed to any prestige/pomp associated with royalty, they're first in the queue! We should not look at monarchs as glorified gods but what they really are today: the representation or embodiment of their people and their (unique) cultures. [It is my interest on royalty that has taught me so much about the different cultures, ceremonies and traditions.] At all times, whether good or bad, their is someone who'll represent their country who is proud of it and its traditions, who'll feel something quite personally when disaster strikes (as we all do) and to whom the people can look in times of distress (we only need to think on the Spanish royal family after the Madrid bombings, the Swedes after the tsunami). They have their uses in a way, I believe, no president or elected leader would (which in most cases is carried out as a popularity contest in order to win the next election and, therefore, is nothing more than personal gain). They are particularly welcome, I would think, in places like Belgium where there is strife between the different peoples and can helpo cement that bond. No president of Thailand or Great Britain would have the respect of the people in the way their respective monarchs currently do.

The republicans are also quick to trash previous monarchs but in many ways it is thanks to those "tyrants" that they have a legacy they can be proud of and enjoy prosperity in today's world; one only needs to look at France for all that...you can't tell me their revered etiquette and cuisine are the result of the revolution and the one thing on EVERY tourist's itinerary is the Palace of Versailles! So, they should count their shekels....

Also, I believe the monarchy engenders a pride in the people, an incentive to improve oneself and society in general. It has been absolutely terrible to live in a part of the world where you witness, every day, the destruction of that society, that respect, that order, and life, in general, that one used to aspire to. Today, certainly in my world, it is a heartless, cruel existence where people have become animals, basically - if not in deed then certainly in motive. And all because there's nothing, nor anyone, we as a nation can look to because we're so divided and more worried about survival. And the saddest thing is that you realize the entire world will eventually go the same way, it's just a matter of time.

Sorry if I sound so down but I hope you understand why I think Monarchy gets the thumbs up and republicans their heads off!

On a lighter note! I did find the pictures of the coronets of the various Princes and I just need to scan them and post them - if anyone is interested in vieweing them? They span from 18c to 20c.

Well, what you waiting for?

I got so side-tracked with my previous comment that I forgot to ask why shouldn't the ladies of today wear "old robes"??? We forget that royalty, like all things, adapts and changes as the times require, so I think we could have seen some interesting adaptations in that regard. Also, after having watched the video of that Solemn Opening of Parliament, I have come to the conclusion that the real reason for abolishing the ceremony at the palace is that the old politicians got fed up of trapsing that great distance through the snowy conditions!

I didn't know what people meant by feeling terrible about killing a thread...my apologies.

 

[carlfraley]

I agree with you - the speculation IS fun: almost like detective work...

I'm not sure who Princess Maria was (post #8), nor the "pretty princess" (#2) , was but were they not also "of the blood" (immediate family of the king)? The one in post #2: it's unusual to see someone dressed like that, bearing flowers. Was that not, perhaps, her wedding? (I know the black sounds absurd...)

The royal courts of Europe adhered to (still do, really, though probably not "to the letter" these days) accepted rules of protocol (whether written or not) and the use of tiara was certainly reserved for married princesses. I think it still is - that is why it was highly unusual for Maxima to have worn a tiara at Haakon's wedding in Oslo and the reason Mary did not wear one for that state visit (think it was the Grand Duke of Luxembourg?) was because she was engaged but not married. (Margrethe could easily have tossed her one, otherwise...)

[On post #16, I wonder if the Princesses would have worn a tiara had they been married, if it was something only reserved for Sybilla because she was "Crown Princess" (not sure if at that time) or even if the girls would have participated to that degree had they already married? Just very interesting...]

Coming back to the use of veils, it is interesting to note that women who meet the pope (certailnly at the Vatican) are required to wear black, veil - only Catholic queens are allowed to wear white but veil is still mandatory. Also, the dress code for the ladies attending Queen Elizabeth's coronation was white, with tiara. If you didn't possess one, you were required to wear a veil.

She was HIH THE GRAND DUCHESS MARIE PAVLOVNA OF RUSSIA, MARRIED TO HRH PRINCE WILLEM, SON OF HM KING GUSTAV V OF SWEDEN, MOTHER OF PRINCE LENNART OF SWEDEN