The Last Night

Read More »»

Trooping the Colour 2010

Read More »»

The Changing of the Guard

Read More »»

"All up!" It's the Queen's Swan Upping

Swan Upping is the annual census of the swan population on stretches of the Thames. This historic ceremony dates from the twelfth century, when the Crown claimed ownership of all mute swans. At that time swans were regarded as a delicious dish at banquets and feasts.

Today, the Crown retains the right to ownership of all unmarked mute swans in open water, but The Queen only exercises her ownership on certain stretches of the Thames and its surrounding tributaries.

This ownership is shared with the Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers, who were granted rights of ownership by the Crown in the fifteenth century. Nowadays, of course, the swans are no longer eaten.

In the Swan Upping ceremony, The Queen's Swan Marker, the Royal Swan Uppers and the Swan Uppers of the Vintners' and Dyers' livery companies use six traditional Thames rowing skiffs in their five-day journey up-river.

The Queen's Swan Uppers wear traditional scarlet uniforms and each boat flies appropriate flags and pennants.

When a brood of cygnets is sighted, a cry of "All up!" is given to signal that the boats should get into position. On passing Windsor Castle, the rowers stand to attention in their boat with oars raised and salute "Her Majesty The Queen, Seigneur of the Swans".

Read More »»

Thanks for the iPod

Just look at that big California smile, the Obama's beaming from cheek to cheek, the President resembling the modern day happy-faced politician. Traditional monarchs don't do happy face, at least not in the same way, their outward demeanor tends to be more restrained and composed, even when they plaster on the forced grin, as the Queen hilariously appears to be doing here, which looks even more forced than usual. The irony is that the involuntary smile is more sincere than the happy face, because while you can easily fake a happy face, one cannot easily fake an involuntary smile. Her Majesty appears genuine enough, but the President doesn't even look real, he looks like he belongs in a wax museum.

But let us not begrudge the President's (presumably sincere) excitement at finally meeting the Queen. And let us not begrudge our Grand Old Duke's wish to be somewhere else - if His Royal Consort looks singularly unimpressed, remember he's been entertaining American presidents since Truman, they by now probably mean as much to him as the Queen's corgis.

Let us take issue, rather, with the incorrigible shallowness of the gift-giving. I realize the President is addicted to his gadgets, that he apparently can't do without his blackberry and teleprompter. But giving the Queen an iPod as an official gift with the sound of his own voice recorded on it, is only marginally better than the unworkable DVD collection he gave Gordon Brown the other week. I will admit that President Obama has a very pleasant and well modulated voice, but IT gadgets are little more than transient objects that are meant to be discarded, unlike say a fine painting or a rare old book. So thanks for the keeper - suffice it to say, it's the thought that counts.

Read More »»

Mexican President Receives Knight of the Bath

Perhaps we shouldn't criticise republican presidents for their chronic inability to dress up to royalist standards, or even up to gentlemen standards, for they have never received the training. Here the President of Mexico at a State Banquet given by Her Majesty, commits a major faux in the wearing of his white tie. That is, the waistcoat should never extend below the bottom of the tailcoat - egad, how embarrassingly obvious.

The Queen and President Calderon of Mexico make their way to the Ball Room at Buckingham Palace for a State Banquet given by The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh on the first day of a State visit by the President and First Lady of Mexico, 30 March 2009. His Excellency is wearing the insignia of an Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Civil Division of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, presented to him by Her Majesty earlier in the day. © Press Association

Read More »»

Trooping the Colour 2008

Read More »»

CROWN-IN-PARLIAMENT

The Imperial State Crown is transported to the Palace of Westminster ahead of the State Opening of Parliament, 6 November 2007.

11am
The actual Queen's speech is scheduled for 11.30am (and for all the pomp and circumstance, it's actually very brief. The emargoed advance copy released to journalists only covers two pages and will barely take 10 minutes to read aloud. Of course, the Queen's copy is actually written on goat skin).

However, already the House of Lords is filling up with peers in their red plumage. Baroness Thatcher shares a joke with Lord McNally.

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has just left Downing Street in his armoured Jaguar to attend the occasion. As well as this being Gordon Brown's first Queen's speech as prime minister, it has an added irony if within it, there is a bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Some of the red-robed peers now seated in the upper chamber may metaphorically be turkeys waiting for Christmas. We pray this will not be the case.

11.03am
First sighting of Her Majesty. Drawn by six grey horses, the Queen and Prince Philip have just emerged from Buckingham Palace.

The Queen has now arrived at the sovereign's entrance of the royal palace of Westminster.

Looking like something from a fairytale, she enters the House of Lords wearing a diamond and pearl encrusted crown...

...which is soon replaced by the purple pomp of the Imperial State Crown.

11.15am
According to the TV commentary, the Princess Royal is in the royal procession, in her official role as "gold stick in waiting".

11.20am
MPs are gathered in the central lobby. The etiquette is that the frontbenchers at least walk into the Lords chamber together in pairs, like Noah's Ark. So Gordon Brown will be shoulder to shoulder with David Cameron, followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequor and his equivalent critic, and so on and so on. By tradition, MPs crowd into the Lords chamber to hear the speech. And, by tradition, the republican Labour backbencher Dennis Skinner remains in his seat in the Commons and shouts abuse at the monarch.

Meanwhile, Black Rod begins his procession up to the door of the Lords chamber - which is slammed in his face. He strikes it three times, and is permitted entry. He requests MPs follow him into the Lords chamber where the Queen is awaiting them.

11.30am
The Queen, hand in hand with her husband, has arrived in the Lords chamber, and the pair are seated on the golden thrones. "Pray be seated," she tells the peers.

11.40am
The action has switched to the Lords, where MPs now crowd into the small amount of standing space around the entrance. Gordon Brown, perhaps conscious the cameras are on him, is chatting and laughing amicably with other MPs. The lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, presents the Queen with her copy of the speech, known more formally as Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech or Gracious Address.

"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

"My Government's central priority is to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, knowing that all else, including economic prosperity and social stability, will be added. "To this end, my Government will honour my Coronation Oath, which was to maintain the laws of God and the True Profession of the Gospel. They will follow the precepts of the Holy Bible, which was given to me to be the rule for my whole life and Government. "My Government will legislate in humility, recognising that God makes the law, not fallible human beings...(you're a better person than I if you feel the need to replace the above with the actual speech)

11.50am
The monarch departs. The Speaker of the Commons plods back to the Commons chamber. MPs, chatting across the party lines, troop back in behind him.

The actual debate on the Queen's Speech, opened by Mr. Brown and Mr. Cameron, begins in the Commons at 2.30pm.

Read More »»

Where's your morning suit, Mr. Harper?

SPEECHES FROM THE THRONE, like yesterday's opening of the Canadian Parliament, are important and prestigious state occasions, and as such deserve the pomp and ceremony traditionally associated with them. Ideally this means that the Queen, if present, is enthroned and crowned; the Governor-General is vice-regally sashed in the Windsor uniform; that chief justices of the Supreme Court are wigged and gowned (though sadly in Canada's case, no longer wigged); that speakers and clerks are robed with bar jackets, and bicorned or tricorned as the case may be; it means the Sergeant-at-Arms is adorned with the custody of the ceremonial mace; that military officers are smartly decked out in all their glory and honour: medals, scabbards, swords and all; and the sitting Prime Minister, the first gentleman of Parliament, is formally dressed in his best morning suit.

I can't remember when the last time a Prime Minister wore morning dress. Mackenzie King was the last to wear a frock coat and top hat. Diefenbaker certainly wore his morning suit, as did Pearson and Trudeau after him. If you didn't wear it at every Throne Speech, you certainly did following your first election as Prime Minister, and you certainly did if the Queen was in attendance. But 1977 was the last time the Queen sat on the Canadian Throne (see below, Prime Minister Trudeau wears morning dress with signature rose). Alas, the tradition of the morning coat has given way to a miserly political culture that is always at pains to demonstrate its frugality. Haute couture for the politician is to be avoided at all costs. For them, the imperative is "business as usual".

But state occasions are not "business as usual". They are supposed to be lavish affairs, their purpose and intent being to lift us up from the drudgery of administration, and to remind us that there is something at play here that is greater than our own petty and lilliputian concerns as taxpayers. Prime Minister Harper understands this, which is why yesterday's Speech from the Throne was godly in its invocation: "May your deliberations be guided by Devine Providence, may your wisdom and patriotism enlarge the prosperity of the country and promote in every way the well-being of its people." This is evidence that we still believe in the function of God, and His supremacy over all events throughout our history. But if God, King and Country are all in the room, the least Harper could do is dress for the part.

(Above/below: Prime Minister's Chretien and Martin dress the part in 2000/2004)

Read More »»

First female Beefeater to guard Tower of London, protect Crown Jewels

Well isn't this good timing. Not a day has gone by since I informed the blogosphere (see post below) that the Queen's Yeomen of the Guard are not the same as the Yeomen Warders, the historic Beefeaters who guard the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London, and we learn the first female Beefeater is about to be appointed in the ceremonial guard's 500 year history to undertake, among other duties, the Ceremony of the Keys ritual.

Ceremony of the Keys:

"In this ceremony the gates of the Tower of London are secured each night shortly before 10.00 pm by the Chief Yeoman Warder escorted by an armed guard of four men. After locking the gates, the Chief Yeoman Warder is challenged by a sentry bringing his rifle into the on-guard position. He allows him to pass after recognising the Chief Warder as the bearer of Queen Elizabeth's keys by saying 'Pass, Queen Elizabeth's keys, and all's well'.

The Chief Yeoman Warder and his escort are met by a ceremonial guard on the Broad Steps near the White Tower, which then presents arms. The Chief Warder concludes the ceremony by raising his Tudor bonnet and proclaiming 'God preserve Queen Elizabeth', to which all present reply 'Amen'. The keys are then carried by the Chief Warder to safekeeping, whilst the Last Post is sounded. The ceremony has taken place over the same piece of ground, in war as well as peace, for about 700 years."

- from Queen's Official Site

Read More »»

Yeomen of the Guard: The Oldest Extant Military Corps in the World

The "Queen's Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard" are a bodyguard of the British Commonwealth Monarch. The oldest extant British military corps, and indeed the oldest military corps in existence in the world today, it was created by Henry VII in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth Field. As a token of this venerability, the Yeoman still wear red and gold state dress of Tudor style, equipped with a Wilkinson Sword on the left hip, and an eight-foot Partisan carried in the right arm.

History of the Queen's Body Guard

"The history of the Queen's Body Guard can be tentatively traced back to the armed personal guards of the Saxon and Norman sovereigns. However, its real historical origins are found in those who were charged with guarding the Plantagenet rulers of eight hundred years ago. These latter guards however, were known by various designations, such as “Cross Bowmen of the Household,” and “Archers of the Guard of the King’s Body,” and were often created anew by the Monarch on his accession. It was King Henry VII, the first of the Tudor dynasty, to make his Royal Body Guard a permanent institution and confer on it a definite title, a title it continues to hold.

Since its creation as a permanent Corps, the Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard has an absolutely unbroken history of over 520 years; for even during the brief period of The Commonwealth between 1649-1659 it continued to serve with King Charles II during his enforced absence in France, and at the Restoration accompanied him on his return to England, took its historic place in his triumphal entry into London, and stood around him at his immediate Coronation."

- from Yeomen of the Guard's new Official Site

The Yeomen of the Guard are not Beefeaters

The Queen's Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard should not be confused with the Yeomen Warders who are permanently employed as custodians of the Tower of London and protector of the Crown Jewels, a duty the venerable Warders have carried out for many centuries. The Tudor uniform of the Queen's Body Guard and the Yeomen Warders state dress are practically identical, the only apparent difference is a crossbelt which is worn by the Queen's Body Guard and was used centuries ago to support a long barrelled rifle called a Harquebus.

As it states on the bodyguard's website, the present Yeomen of the Guard "no longer carry the harquebus, or a quiver of arrows with the long-bow of by-gone days, or indeed protect the body of the Sovereign in its true meaning, but we are as proud and certainly no less loyal to our Sovereign, because, we are:

The Queen’s Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard (The Body Guard)."

Read More »»

The Decent Draperies of Life

Against the modern mania for explaining, rationalizing and modernizing symbols as irrelevant, or out-of-date, the Queen's speech illustrates the importance and the mystique of symbols and ritual in our common life. In that five minutes, something special happens. I am connected, via an old lady in a slightly ridiculous Norman Hartnell hat, to something that matters, to identity, tradition and heritage....

In that moment, we are united in loyalty, in duty, and in our allegiance to something bigger than ourselves. That is what symbols, ritual and titles do; they remind us of our place in the scheme of things; they maintain our ideals...

Human beings aren’t rational. We don’t put everything in boxes. We crave a sense of belonging to something, bigger and more mysterious. We seek connection, and transcendence. Our minds aren’t scrubbed clean of mystery, but attuned to it. Royalty, for all the tabloid gutter-press has done to it, is a source of mystique, a symbol of something important, something sacred.. The tangible expression of words like honour, duty, integrity and service, all mixed up in their minds with the glories of the past, and our common heritage. This, in a nutshell, is what makes symbols important. They connect us with what they represent. They hallow the ordinary. That’s why Burke called titles and processions, and symbols like this "the decent drapery of life". They are things which make the ordinary special, which remind us, even for a moment, that we are part of something transcendent.

The Monarchy does this, of course, but there are other things, small things and insignificant things, perhaps, which point upward towards the things that really matter. Our symbols are expressions of what we value, and what we are a part of. Titles are symbols like this. Not just titles like ‘Your Majesty’ or ‘Ýour Grace’, but titles like ‘Mr. Justice Davies’, ‘Father Brown’, ‘Mr. Smith’ and smaller, homelier titles, like ‘Dad’ ‘Mum’ and Áunt Mary... We show our respect not just for him, but for the ideal of family, a family of which we are a part. We touch something special. Something bigger than us. We don’t call Mr. Justice Davies ‘Mr.Justice’ because he is something special, but because he represents something we value. By showing reverence to him, and wearing robes and wigs and bowing and scraping, we aren’t bowing to the fat, red-faced old man in the robe, but to what he represents-To justice. A friend of mine said to me the All those óut-of-date’ rituals are expressions of ideals. We need ‘the decent drapery of life’ to touch the ordinary and bring it into contact with the divine, the divine we are programmed to appreciate and to pursue.

Rejection of titles and symbols is inevitably a rejection of the ideals with which they connect us. "Mum" who asks to be called "Mary" by her children is really saying Í don’t want to be Mum, and I don’t believe we are a family’. Progressive Teachers and trendy clergy who say "Call me Bob" are denying not an historical title, but they are denying any difference between themselves and their charges, and rejecting the position of responsibility and the ideal which the title denotes.

A further attack on the ‘decent drapery of life’ is the "continuing debate" among the literati, demanding a new National Anthem and a new flag. Every three years or so, someone will come out demanding that either (or both) be changed immediately. ‘They are irrelevant!’ they cry. ‘They don’t matter; they’re colonial hangovers and they must go!’. Let us be under no illusions here about what these people are actually saying. The Union Jack in the corner of our flag symbolizes (there’s that word again) our links with Britain, and the tremendous contribution that the British have made to contemporary New Zealand. It is a symbol of where most of us have come from, and the culture and history that represents. Moving the Union Jack is a rejection of European culture. Replacing it with a Silver Fern is an affirmation of what? Sport? Kiwi culture? Kiwi identity? Can we define any of these without reference to British culture? Is our own identity completely separate from where we have come from? I don’t think so. We are a separate nation, but retaining the Union Jack recognizes that our roots are European; that we share in European culture and European history; that we are a part of something bigger than just three islands at the bottom of the world, European Civilisation. If we wish to reject this in favour of a constructed Asia-Pacific identity, let us be clear about what we are doing. These things matter. Similar considerations apply to the National Anthem. God Defend New Zealand affirms the place of God inside and above our National life. The call for a new anthem is an attack, not on dull English tradition, but on the place that God has in it.

Of course, Justices, clergy, parents, spouses and monarchs and people who march under flags are not perfect. They make mistakes, and do dreadful things. The Queen is an ordinary person, as The News of the World makes very clear. But the more flawed those who hold the titles, and the more inadequate the symbols, the more important it is that we recognize and respect that which they represent. The fact that the Queen is an ordinary person should make me cling more, not less, to the "drapery" that she is also more than that, she is the connection to the ideal of a good government, doing justice with mercy. A bad judge, a bad cleric, a bad parent-They should make us cling more to true religion, give us more reverence for true justice and family., because the worse they are, the less we can afford to reject the ideals they represent....

There is no such thing as a perfect world. As Oscar Wilde put it: ‘The truth is rarely pure, and never simple" . Pure Justice is rare, ideal families do not exist. But as Burke puts it "We have emplanted in us ideas of what is just, fair, honest and pious which no learned sophistry nor political craft can entirely expel from our breasts" We ought to, and we do, value Justice, value family, value marriage and good government, and pursue them. The symbols we use elevate the ordinary, and express what we value. That is why we ought to value them too. They remind us who we are, and what we are a part of. They are our heritage. A heritage we must hold on to in a changing world.

Pitt the Younger (originally posted here)

Read More »»

From Honours to Merit Badges

Part of every June 6 is the Queen's Birthday Honours. It is saddening beyond measure that Labour abolished British Honours and knighthoods in 2000, in favour of the Order of Helen Clark, I mean the New Zealand Order of Merit. Knight Grand Cross of the Noble Order of Saint Michael and Saint George becomes "Member of the NZ Order of Merit." And you don't even get to call yourself a knight, Sir or Dame, just "MNZM" after your name. Underwhelmed? Me too.

The old knighthoods had history, and heritage. They weren't just a merit badge for correct conduct, they were an honour and an obligation. Being a Knight of Saint Michael and Saint George, being called "Sir" and having a coat of arms, all that was more than just window dressing. Being a knight is mixed up with chivalry, honour, tradition and obligation. It is more than the community saying "Well done", it is a way of tying our high achievers into the fabric of the community. Reminding them of their obligations, to be generous, and community-minded. Chivalrous and gentlemanly. We expect Knights to act rightly. And more than that, it was a very public salute to excellence, to kindness and to service. "The NZ Order of Merit" is on the same level as a Scout merit badge. Handy to have. Nice to look at. But not elevated, not a real honour, Not a knighthood.

In abolishing British honours, the government said they wanted to reflect that Sacred cow "The New Zealand identity", to bring a distinctive flavour to the honouring of Kiwis by Kiwis. This, they said, would strengthen the community, and abolish elitism. Oh please. Yet again, this infantile insistence on destroying our inheritance has left the community weaker. It has loosened the ties of affection that unites the Queen and her people, and her people with each other in community. Who cares about the Order of Lenin, I mean Merit? It has no transcendent significance. It has no history, no "Honourable" heritage, and, although it shows the recipient is A Nice Chap, it doesn't remind him of his obligations to the Queen and community that gave it him either. A healthy dose of elitism does no-one any harm. Our best, brightest and kindest deserve more than a gold-plated merit badge. They deserve honour. It is a shame that Labour no longer believes in the concept.

Pitt the Younger (originally posted here)

Read More »»

In Defence of Pomp

Readers, please find below the text of a letter that I wrote to a Peer of my acquaintance last fall.

My Lord X,

I read today of the findings of a British Parliamentary Committee, which is apparently recommending, to the British Government and Crown, the abolition of (at least Parliament-recommended) knighthoods, and the renaming of the Order of the British Empire, to the Order of British Excellence. I thought it might be of some use or interest to Your Lordship, to hear the opinion of one subject of the British Commonwealth, regarding these recommendations. When we met, we discussed the general subject of peerages and knighthoods, in relation to subjects of former British Empire, and current British Commonwealth, nations. At that time, Your Lordship suggested that, for example, the honour of the Order of Canada, was a satisfactory and equivalent substitution for both peerages and for formerly applied Imperial honours such as the OBE. I did and do not agree with that view, but I did not argue the point at the time. Given these recent developments, however, I feel obliged to speak my mind on the matter. As you are, My Lord, the only British Parliamentarian with whom I have the honour to be personally – if only slightly - acquainted, I hope Your Lordship will forgive my indulgence in advancing my views on this subject. In my defence, let me say that I believe very deeply that this is a matter of the utmost importance - of greater importance, indeed, than is apparently believed by the Parliamentary Committee in question.

I believe sincerely that the ties that bind the nations of the British Commonwealth, have always been and remain of great importance today – if in no other sense than that we share certain, common threats to our security, beliefs and way of life, which compel a unified response – a response that must be animated by a clear knowledge, sense and reflection of our own, shared nature and beliefs. Every nation and every people must subscribe to a history, and a set of principles, which collectively define its substance and which guide its policies and actions. For Canadians, in particular - who by common consent rejected the rather more radical and fundamentally more geographically-rooted tenets of the American Revolution - it has traditionally and always been the institutions of Great Britain and her Crown, which have fulfilled this role; and which have dulled the relative allure of the equally meritorious and more geographically-proximate and -rooted spirit and institutions which have replaced them in the United States. I know from my own family experience that the binding, defining and inspiring power of British institutions has been operative throughout Canadian history, for and with respect to peoples of all geographical and ethnic origins. That power is, in my opinion, indissolubly linked with the pomp & ceremony of the institutions of Great Britain, the British Crown, and their associated grandeur, histories, honours, titles and ranks. This is a critical point, in that it suggests that, if the fact and ceremony of the historical and, particularly, the Royal associations are removed and alienated from these institutions, honours and privileges; they shall cease to have the same meaning and force. I am quite certain that noone in Canada – of any political or other opinion or persuasion – would honestly assign to the Order of Canada, the same fundamental meaning, and sense of honour and gravitas, as to the Imperial honours which it replaced. It therefore follows that the effective abolition of these honours even in Great Britain would have the most undesirable consequences, in terms of a dilution of the impact and intrinsic power, merit and meaning imputed to their replacements.

In a world in which the mutual allegiance of the nations of the British Commonwealth – an allegiance underwritten fundamentally by adherence to a shared set of principles – and the allegiance of Great Britain herself to her own roots, and evolved core beliefs and principles; mattered not at all, these consequences might be considered of little but sentimental weight. However, such is not the world in which we live today. If nothing else, the men and women of our British Commonwealth military forces, who are now engaged throughout the world in difficult and dangerous tasks in our defence, deserve more on which to “hang their hats,” than the potential reward of honours and institutions which are without history and devoid of intrinsic meaning or merit, and which explicitly reject the ties that bind them to their predecessors and counterparts at other difficult and pivotal moments of our common history. I therefore humbly and respectfully urge Your Lordship, should Your Lordship be so inclined, to reject the findings and recommendations of this particular Parliamentary Committee, with all the passion and conviction that Your Lordship can muster.

I remain your sincere and humble servant,

Walsingham

Read More »»