In the last few years it seems that the royals have become nothing more than fodder for celebrity magazines and fashion blogs. The royals are in a high profile position to make a difference in the charities they support, yet many times that effort is overshadowed by the focus on what Kate is wearing. Once the royal visit is over we will know more about Kate's accessories and where to buy them than the purpose of the visit. At times, it seems like a wasted opportunity.
The Cambridge's have taken a lot of flak for their work ethic. Some of this criticism is warranted. As the Queen and Prince Philip get older and Charles and Camilla take on more responsibilities, it stands to reason that all hands should be on deck. Yet many times it doesn't seem to be the case and the free pass the Cambridge's received at their wedding is one that should have expired two years ago. The Cambridge's were becoming known more for what they didn't do.
But the signs are good that this is about to change. William, Kate and Harry have joined forces to end the stigma surrounding mental health. William has been vocal in condemning bullying and homophobia, becoming the first royal to appear on the cover of Attitude, a UK gay magazine.
Harry in particular has emerged as a superstar with the charisma of his mother and dedication to some of her causes, including her work in the fight against AIDS. One of the most memorable moments in Diana's royal life occurred in 1987 when she shook an HIV positive patient's hand without wearing gloves. Doing her part in breaking the stigma that AIDS can be spread by hand to hand contact.
Today Harry had his own memorable moment when he took an HIV test streamed live on social media. In attempting to reduce the stigma of HIV testing, Harry put his own reputation on the line had his test turned out to be positive. I can only imagine the media field day that would have ensued as a result of that. Diana would have been proud of him regardless.
In taking a stand on bullying, homophobia, AIDs and mental health, William, Kate and Harry are charting a new course in how to be royal. Showing the public the potential for what the royals can do instead of what they don't do.
Maybe there is hope for the young royals just yet.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Royal Profile: Cornelia James
What do the Queen, Madonna and characters from Star Wars have in common? They have all worn gloves by Cornelia James.
Cornelia James was born Cornelia Katz on March 11, 1917 in Vienna. The eldest of seven children born to Jewish parents. She studied at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts (the same college that turned down Adolf Hitler). In 1939, as the Nazi's approached, Cornelia fled first to Paris then to England with the clothes on her back and a suitcase full of colored leather. She supported herself by scrubbing floors and during the Second World War she put her knowledge of art and design to good use as an occupational therapist teaching glove-making to wounded soldiers.
She founded her high end glove-making company in 1946 and came to the attention of royal family designer, Norman Hartnell. Her relationship with the royal family began in 1947 after Hartnell asked her to make the gloves for Princess Elizabeth's wedding and going away outfits. In 1979, Cornelia James' company was awarded the Royal Warrant as glove-maker to the Queen. An accolade the company still holds. Along with the Queen, royal clients include the late Queen Mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, Princess Anne, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Beatrice, Lady Helen Taylor and the Empress of Japan. Other non-royal clients include Kate Moss, Taylor Swift, Rhianna, Madonna. The company has also designed gloves for theatre, film and television productions such as Downton Abbey, Mamma Mia, Wicked, Moulin Rouge, Pride and Prejudice and Australia.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s there was a shortage of colored fabrics so she dyed her own gloves in over 100 different colors. In 1956 she was christened 'The Color Queen of England' by the fashion accessories industry. She was a member of the National Association of Glove Manufacturers and the Worshipful Company of Glovers. In 1989 she received the Freedom of the City of London. Active in various charities, she donated gloves and scarves for charity events in Hove and Sussex. At the peak of her career in the 1950s Cornelia James had 500 people working at her Brighton factory. As the popularity of gloves waned, company branched out into other fashion items. The company now has three sewers working with her daughter Genevieve and her husband Andrew Lawson to make luxury gloves and fashion accessories known for their handmade high quality.
Affectionately known as "Nellie,' she loved entertaining and was a perfect hostess. Cornelia married Jack Burnett James in 1940, six weeks after they met. They had two children, Peter, a bestselling writer of crime fiction whose characters frequently wear Cornelia James gloves. Her daughter Genevieve Lawson, continues to run the company their mother built. Her husband James died in 1986. Cornelia died in Hove, East Sussex on December 10, 1999.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Sources:
The Independent: Cornelia James Obituary
Cornelia James - About us
Fashion Model directory - Designers Cornelia James
New York Times - Gloves fit for a Queen
The Telegraph: Royal glove-maker - Those gloves take a beating'
Mother Love - Peter James and his mother Cornelia James
Cornelia James - Wikipedia
The Royal Shopping Guide by Nina Grunfeld,1984
Cornelia James was born Cornelia Katz on March 11, 1917 in Vienna. The eldest of seven children born to Jewish parents. She studied at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts (the same college that turned down Adolf Hitler). In 1939, as the Nazi's approached, Cornelia fled first to Paris then to England with the clothes on her back and a suitcase full of colored leather. She supported herself by scrubbing floors and during the Second World War she put her knowledge of art and design to good use as an occupational therapist teaching glove-making to wounded soldiers.
She founded her high end glove-making company in 1946 and came to the attention of royal family designer, Norman Hartnell. Her relationship with the royal family began in 1947 after Hartnell asked her to make the gloves for Princess Elizabeth's wedding and going away outfits. In 1979, Cornelia James' company was awarded the Royal Warrant as glove-maker to the Queen. An accolade the company still holds. Along with the Queen, royal clients include the late Queen Mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, Princess Anne, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Beatrice, Lady Helen Taylor and the Empress of Japan. Other non-royal clients include Kate Moss, Taylor Swift, Rhianna, Madonna. The company has also designed gloves for theatre, film and television productions such as Downton Abbey, Mamma Mia, Wicked, Moulin Rouge, Pride and Prejudice and Australia.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s there was a shortage of colored fabrics so she dyed her own gloves in over 100 different colors. In 1956 she was christened 'The Color Queen of England' by the fashion accessories industry. She was a member of the National Association of Glove Manufacturers and the Worshipful Company of Glovers. In 1989 she received the Freedom of the City of London. Active in various charities, she donated gloves and scarves for charity events in Hove and Sussex. At the peak of her career in the 1950s Cornelia James had 500 people working at her Brighton factory. As the popularity of gloves waned, company branched out into other fashion items. The company now has three sewers working with her daughter Genevieve and her husband Andrew Lawson to make luxury gloves and fashion accessories known for their handmade high quality.
Affectionately known as "Nellie,' she loved entertaining and was a perfect hostess. Cornelia married Jack Burnett James in 1940, six weeks after they met. They had two children, Peter, a bestselling writer of crime fiction whose characters frequently wear Cornelia James gloves. Her daughter Genevieve Lawson, continues to run the company their mother built. Her husband James died in 1986. Cornelia died in Hove, East Sussex on December 10, 1999.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Sources:
The Independent: Cornelia James Obituary
Cornelia James - About us
Fashion Model directory - Designers Cornelia James
New York Times - Gloves fit for a Queen
The Telegraph: Royal glove-maker - Those gloves take a beating'
Mother Love - Peter James and his mother Cornelia James
Cornelia James - Wikipedia
The Royal Shopping Guide by Nina Grunfeld,1984
Friday, April 22, 2016
Royal Review: Elizabeth at 90 - A Family Tribute
Elizabeth at 90 is a special tribute to Queen Elizabeth on her 90th birthday. Featuring rarely seen footage of the Queen through her childhood to being a young mother and monarch, Elizabeth at 90 provides a personal glimpse of the Queen through her family. Various members of the royal family contributed to the special, including the Prince of Wales, Prince William, Prince Harry, Lady Sarah Chatto, the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, Queen Margarethe of Denmark, the Queen's first cousin, Margaret Rhodes and most significantly, the Queen herself. In her entire reign, she has never given an interview, so it is a rare treat to listen to her asides about the footage.
A very enjoyable special. Make sure you enjoy it while it is still online!
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
A very enjoyable special. Make sure you enjoy it while it is still online!
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
A Royal Birthday is like Christmas for fans and critics alike
Happy 90th Birthday Your Majesty!
On par with royal weddings, births and deaths, a significant birthday is like Christmas for fans and critics alike. The perfect occasion for royal correspondents and armchair royal experts to provide best wishes and uncritical commentary. For critics it is a valuable opportunity to get their point across on a high profile scale. For politicians a chance to provide loyal addresses to be quoted in future. In between the saccharine greetings and parade raining tweets, I would like to take a moment to reflect on this occasion.
Along with holding records for the longest reign and marriage, she also holds the record for oldest British monarch. Today she has become the first monarch to ever reach the age of 90. At this rate, if she keeps going, she will be sending herself a 100th birthday card. The Queen can comfortably rest on these laurels, safe in the knowledge that no one will ever come close to surpassing her. To the Queen it seems to be business as usual. Unveiling plaques, lighting beacons and cutting cakes is just another day at the office for her. When she surpassed Queen Victoria, she put the occasion into perspective:
"Inevitably a long life can pass by many milestones - my own is no exception - but I thank you all and the many others at home and overseas for your touching messages of great kindness."
The Queen will no doubt express the same sentiment today and people will laud her all the more for it. With her unquestioned dedication, the Queen has more than earned the respect she is given. No matter how valid their opinions may be, critics cannot dampen the Queen's universal appeal without making themselves look bad. As the Queen well knows, it is easy to get caught up in the occasion. Best to wait until the hyperbole has died down before making a comment that won't fall on deaf ears.
Unless you want your message to get drowned out, today, (April 21, 2016) is not the day to talk about how the monarchy is wrong in principle and has no place in the modern age. How undemocratic the system is and how there is no guarantee that the monarchy is safe and secure for the foreseeable future. Be patient and wait until the bunting has cleared. Your time will come.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The enduring fascination with Catherine Cambridge's skirt
Never in the history of royal watching have we ever been so fascinated by another woman's skirt. Yes, we talk about the length and color of Catherine's clothes, marveling when the outfits sell out. We also discuss what we seen/don't see when said skirt get blown up in the wind. As was the case with Catherine as she stood with Prince William at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the war memorial in New Delhi.
*Clutches pearls*
Catherine's skirt has blown up! Let's write articles and dissect the moment. Let's keep a running tally while we're at it. Use it as another example of Catherine's seeming stubborn refusal to invest in wind defying skirts that are chic, affordable and stylish for the rest of us. Why can't she weigh her hems down? Is she an exhibitionist? Let's speculate on that too. Forget the purpose of the solemn moment or the visit in general. It all boils down to how Catherine looks and what she is wearing. That's a completely different article altogether.
Were it any other woman: mother, daughter, sister, close friend, co-worker, we would likely be sympathetic. It happens to the best of us at some point, no? We would not dare to make comments on a public forum when it comes to those closest to us. That would be inappropriate and bitchy. There is no way to positively spin shaming another woman. No way. There is nothing constructive about it, it does not add value and doing so will not lead to the greater good of women everywhere. As a matter of fact it will to the opposite.
So the next time another woman has a public wardrobe malfunction, show some respect. You will be grateful for that response when it happens to you.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
*Clutches pearls*
Catherine's skirt has blown up! Let's write articles and dissect the moment. Let's keep a running tally while we're at it. Use it as another example of Catherine's seeming stubborn refusal to invest in wind defying skirts that are chic, affordable and stylish for the rest of us. Why can't she weigh her hems down? Is she an exhibitionist? Let's speculate on that too. Forget the purpose of the solemn moment or the visit in general. It all boils down to how Catherine looks and what she is wearing. That's a completely different article altogether.
Were it any other woman: mother, daughter, sister, close friend, co-worker, we would likely be sympathetic. It happens to the best of us at some point, no? We would not dare to make comments on a public forum when it comes to those closest to us. That would be inappropriate and bitchy. There is no way to positively spin shaming another woman. No way. There is nothing constructive about it, it does not add value and doing so will not lead to the greater good of women everywhere. As a matter of fact it will to the opposite.
So the next time another woman has a public wardrobe malfunction, show some respect. You will be grateful for that response when it happens to you.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Royal Review: Pocket Giants - Queen Elizabeth II by Victoria Arbiter
Picture it. You find yourself on in a life or death situation where you have no access to Wikipedia and need to know everything there is to know about Queen Elizabeth II to ensure your survival. (Yes, it could happen).
Sure you could wade through the latest tabloid or the dozens of biographies of Queen Elizabeth II, some with varying degrees of factual accuracy, but that would be a waste of precious time. No. You need a solution. Stat!
Enter Queen Elizabeth II (pocket GIANTS) by noted royal commentator, Victoria Arbiter. Published by History Press, Pocket Giants is a series of 128-page short biographies of notable individuals including John Paul II, Henry V, Winston Churchill, John Lennon, Nelson Mandela, Henry Ford, Buddha and many more. It was only a matter of time before the well respected Queen Elizabeth II joined the ranks. It is a challenge to condense the life of someone who has lived as long as the Queen has. While we may have glimpses of her officially, we will never truly know what makes her tick on a personal level. The Queen's life, from her birth to the present day has largely been distilled for the public by unofficial biographers. As the author herself writes: 'her likes, dislikes, opinions and political leanings can only be speculated upon'.
This biography is a condensed version of the Queen's life to date. If you follow her life in any detail, all of the significant moments are covered with no surprises or controversial revelations. My only criticism would be that the author spends too much time on the death of Diana. Diana's life deserves a Pocket Giant of its own - if it doesn't have one already. (Note to self: Pitch to History Press).
Queen Elizabeth II is a nice book to pass the time at airports and is chock full of information sure to impress your dinner guests. It may even save your life (but probably not).
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Royal Review: In Defense of the Princess by Jerramy Fine
Jerramy Fine has an unerring knack for provoking skeptical questions. Such as..
Did she really go to London to find her prince?
Can holding your fork the wrong way ruin your chances of finding happily ever after in London?
Is it possible to settle for just ONE eligible royal?
With her fourth book, In Defense of the Princess: How Plastic Tiaras and Fairytale Dreams Can Inspire Smart, Strong Women
she has done it again. Now the question is: Can fairy-tale dreams empower women? On the surface, it is easy to dismiss the question. According to the author, the princess dream is innate, since the beginning of time and should be celebrated. To do otherwise is to deny an crucial element deep down inside of yourself. Every woman, royal or not, can be a princess. Interwoven with examples of real and animated princesses it is easy to buy into it.
I liked Jerramy's previous books and I think she has a compelling and entertaining writing style. In Defense of the Princess, she tenaciously takes on the 'anti-princess brigade' with gusto. She makes detailed arguments for common criticisms associated with the princess phenomenon. Starting with the most prevalent criticism of all: Disney Princesses.
For some parents, the Disney princess is something to protect your child from. According to the author, if you peel back the marketing and downplay the negative aspects of their stories (Giving up your voice. Allowing yourself to be held captive. Running away from your problems and becoming a recluse) you will find progressive, resourceful women. As long as you focus on the positive elements your child could choose far worse role models. It is all in how you choose to look at it.
The message is spun relentlessly positive. Plastic tiaras are not just toys, they represent divinity, believing in fairy-tales is about embracing your truest self, acknowledging your inner princess is about aiming high and never settling for less than you deserve, princess-critics are people who have repressed their deepest fairytale desires. While the author makes compelling arguments, elements of them border on reaching.
If you are looking for permission to embrace your inner princess (along with arguments to defend yourself), you will definitely find it in this book. For naysayers, the verdict will still be out.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Did she really go to London to find her prince?
Can holding your fork the wrong way ruin your chances of finding happily ever after in London?
Is it possible to settle for just ONE eligible royal?
With her fourth book, In Defense of the Princess: How Plastic Tiaras and Fairytale Dreams Can Inspire Smart, Strong Womenshe has done it again. Now the question is: Can fairy-tale dreams empower women? On the surface, it is easy to dismiss the question. According to the author, the princess dream is innate, since the beginning of time and should be celebrated. To do otherwise is to deny an crucial element deep down inside of yourself. Every woman, royal or not, can be a princess. Interwoven with examples of real and animated princesses it is easy to buy into it.
I liked Jerramy's previous books and I think she has a compelling and entertaining writing style. In Defense of the Princess, she tenaciously takes on the 'anti-princess brigade' with gusto. She makes detailed arguments for common criticisms associated with the princess phenomenon. Starting with the most prevalent criticism of all: Disney Princesses.
For some parents, the Disney princess is something to protect your child from. According to the author, if you peel back the marketing and downplay the negative aspects of their stories (Giving up your voice. Allowing yourself to be held captive. Running away from your problems and becoming a recluse) you will find progressive, resourceful women. As long as you focus on the positive elements your child could choose far worse role models. It is all in how you choose to look at it.
The message is spun relentlessly positive. Plastic tiaras are not just toys, they represent divinity, believing in fairy-tales is about embracing your truest self, acknowledging your inner princess is about aiming high and never settling for less than you deserve, princess-critics are people who have repressed their deepest fairytale desires. While the author makes compelling arguments, elements of them border on reaching.
If you are looking for permission to embrace your inner princess (along with arguments to defend yourself), you will definitely find it in this book. For naysayers, the verdict will still be out.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Wednesday, March 09, 2016
Well played William and Catherine, well played
Dear William and Catherine,
I must say I am flattered. You have taken a page from my previous post offering you advice on how to quell criticism and released photos of your family. William, you provided an aside about Charlotte (step 3) and now you have released adorable photos of the four of you on a skiing trip.
Goodness! at this rate you will spoil us.
There will be critics of this approach. Sure, sure it shows you on a skiing trip at a luxury resort most can only dream about going to. Some would even accuse you of neglecting your duties, work schedule and question whether you really want to be...OH LOOK BABIES!!
Bringing the kids along was a smart move. It is also a wise move that you chose to go to a cold
You did show a lot of nerve releasing these photos after you returned from your jaunt. How dare you want to vacation in private? Sheesh, William don't you know that everything you do is of public interest? Going forward, please provide all of us with a detailed itinerary of your meal times, bathroom breaks and what you are wearing.
Back to the photos. In the absence of anything else to do, this BEGS to be overanalyzed. In no particular order.
Playing in the snow
There are two other photos in this series. One looks like you are dancing in the snow. (Hey, some like it cold. Who am I to judge?) The other one, you are standing together looking away from the camera. Possibly at your kids playing with the nanny? You did bring the nanny with you, didn't you?
It is this one that caught my eye because both of you look so happy and relaxed and has the potential for controversy. Catherine is wearing the same skiing outfit from previous ski trips (You know, the one where you missed the 10th anniversary of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret's Memorial Service in 2012? Oh never mind). Anyways, you look like you enjoy each others company, at least during photo opportunities. However, Catherine is throwing snow at you. We could look upon this as a playful moment between the two of you. OR is Kate blinding you from the cost of her clothes bill? Safety experts could weigh in on the dangers of throwing snow. Oh the potential tabloid headlines!
William holding Charlotte
I have read some kvetching that you have never been photographed holding Charlotte. Not true, you held her in her car seat when you left the hospital with her. Isn't Charlotte just so adorable? Just like you once were! Adorbs! I smell a potential story about Charlotte's dental development too. Perfect for those slow news days.
The family of four
We've seen all four of you in Summer, Autumn and Winter. Now we just need a Spring photo. All of you are looking at in the same direction. William, you must stop teaching George to look suspiciously at the cameras. Plenty of miserable looking people in your family already.
The family of four (again)
Seriously William? This pose is SO last Autumn!
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Behold! Top 10 solutions for William and Catherine's current publicity woes
Dear William and Catherine,
It must be difficult to watch as one media outlet after another gleefully roasts both of you. The honeymoon is clearly over, you are no longer the 15 year old boy who can play the Diana card to deflect. In all honesty, it was inevitable and it is only surprising it didn't happen sooner. As the old guard get even older, did you really think you could get away with playing at normal indefinitely? Truth be told, this was a long time in coming and you only have yourselves to blame for this turn of events.
What to do?
As we speak, your PR people are no doubt cowering in fear as you rage on, denying your role in this situation. Not conducive to finding a solution, now is it? Thankfully, I'm an armchair PR expert so I've come up with some solutions for you.
In no particular order:
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
It must be difficult to watch as one media outlet after another gleefully roasts both of you. The honeymoon is clearly over, you are no longer the 15 year old boy who can play the Diana card to deflect. In all honesty, it was inevitable and it is only surprising it didn't happen sooner. As the old guard get even older, did you really think you could get away with playing at normal indefinitely? Truth be told, this was a long time in coming and you only have yourselves to blame for this turn of events.
What to do?
As we speak, your PR people are no doubt cowering in fear as you rage on, denying your role in this situation. Not conducive to finding a solution, now is it? Thankfully, I'm an armchair PR expert so I've come up with some solutions for you.
In no particular order:
- Deploy your children. Release pictures of George and Charlotte. Or more importantly Charlotte. We already know what George looks like. There is nothing like a picture of a rarely seen baby to distract from your willingness to be a future King.
- Get pregnant. Err, I mean Catherine, not you William. Place the focus on the future, not the present. Also, now we can't say you do nothing behind the scenes.
- Have Catherine change her hair color. Or cut it some of it off. It doesn't have to be much. Planck length should suffice. Trust me, people will notice and it may even set a trend!
- Have Catherine wear a tiara or dig something out of the royal jewel vault that no one expects. Imagine the kerfuffle if she wore St. Edward's Crown? True, Charles will be ticked but oh well. At least Historic Royal Palaces shop will be thrilled with the extra sales.
- At your next engagement, give some type of exclusive aside about Charlotte. Is she eating solid foods and reading Shakespeare? Fantastic! If not, make something up. As your grandmother knows, a well chosen comment can do wonders.
- Cooperate with the media. Share information with them and look moderately pleasant. Have Catherine make eye contact with the camera and smile. It is not that difficult. Or is it?
- Leave the pilot gig behind. Yes, I know you will probably miss the gold sticky stars the media gives you when they make you sound as if you single handedly rescued people. Don't worry, there are plenty of unearned consolation prizes to replace those gold stars.
- Fire your PR staff and hire new ones. Or actually listen to the sensible ones if there is anyone left after the purge.
- Give up your place in the line of succession and leave it all behind. You do want to be 'normal' don't you?
- Do nothing. People will get bored of roasting you eventually. We are also fickle and have short memories. Just look at Charles and Camilla!
Bonus solution: Take a page from your aunt Anne and grandfather, Prince Philip, and just get on with it.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Royal Focus: Royal Family Order
Since the reign of King George IV, most sovereigns have created a form of royal family order for members of the royal family, usually female, to wear on formal occasions. Two monarchs who did not create orders (as we know them today) are William IV and Edward VIII. Edward abdicated before he could do so and William IV's order consisted of two square crowned buckles with the ciphers of him and his consort, Queen Adelaide.
The order as we know it today features a portrait of the sovereign surrounded by diamonds and suspended from a silk bow which changes color upon each new reign. Some versions vary in size depending on the recipient. For instance, King Edward VII gave his wife Queen Alexandra a larger and more elaborate version of his order. Lesser versions of these orders exist for Mistresses of Robes and Ladies-in-waiting.
Orders are normally worn with evening dress, and if more than one order is worn, they are layered with the more recent order is at the top. They are usually pinned to the left shoulder but there have been some exceptions to this. In C.R. Leslie's painting, The Christening of Victoria, The Princess Royal, Queen Adelaide, the Duchess of Kent and the Duchess of Gloucester can be seen wearing the George IV order on their right shoulder. In the past, family orders have been worn by royal brides (Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent), funerals, coronations, day-time events and State Openings of Parliament. Since King George IV's time, the appearance of the order has changed and evolved:
King George IV regarded his order as a personal memento rather than a state decoration. His order is made of gold and silver and features diamond frame of oak leaves and acorns. The King is depicted in his Field Marshal's uniform, Golden Fleece, stars of Garter, Holy Spirit, Black Eagle and St Andrew on a dark background with a white, fringed bow.
Unlike King George IV, Queen Victoria did not create an royal family order. Instead, she created her own Victoria and Albert order. The order began as a family token given to her elder daughters at their confirmations. However, after Prince Albert's death, as a way to honor his memory, Victoria established the order on February 10, 1862, her twenty-second wedding anniversary.
Unlike other sovereign family orders, both the Queen and Prince Albert appear on the cameo badge. The badge is made of white on brown onyx, silver gilt, enamel, diamonds, rubies and emeralds on a white silk ribbon.
The order was divided into four classes and was granted to the Queen's daughters, daughters-in-law, grand-daughters who were British princesses and other European Queens. Classes were in a descending order for members of the Royal Family and Royal Household and the design varied depending on the Class. The second class featured a shell cameo instead of stone and set with pearls rather than diamonds. The First Class order was given to her daughter in law, Princess Alexandra (future Queen Alexandra), the day before her 1863 wedding and she wore it on her wedding dress the following day. Princess Victoria Mary of Teck (later Queen Mary) also wore the Victoria and Albert badge, along with the Order of the Crown of India, on her wedding day in 1893.
Although there was no official register, a list of known recipients by class is here. The last holder of this order, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, last surviving grandchild of Queen Victoria, died in 1981.
King Edward VII's family order was maintained as an informal family gift rather than an official order. It depicts the King wearing a Field Marshal's uniform with Garter sash and Bath badge on a brown background. The badge is suspended on a blue, yellow and red striped ribbon - the King's racing colors. His portrait is painted on enamel and this is the form it the badge has taken ever since. Queen Alexandra, his daughter's, daughter-in-law and his sisters were amongst the recipients.
His wife, Queen Alexandra had her own unofficial order given to family members and those in her service. The design of the badge is inspired by a miniature portrait of King Christian IX and Queen Louise given out to mark their Silver Wedding anniversary. Like Alexandra's, it is set in an oval frame of pearls and diamond crosses set with diamond chips and suspended from a red and white bow. Alexandra's own version (above) has Edward VII in Field Marshal's uniform with Garter sash and ribbons in front of Queen Alexandra who wears a white dress, pearl choker and crown. Alexandra's Danish heritage is also reflected in the red and white ribbon; the colors of the Danish flag.
In the image above, the Queen wears the orders of her father, King George VI and her grandfather, King George V. The King George V order was established in 1911 and came in four sizes, the largest for Queen Mary and smaller badges for his sisters, aunts, daughters-in-law and grandchildren. The King is wearing the uniform of the Admiral of the Fleet and he wears the Star and Riband of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Chain. His miniature is surrounded by brilliant cut diamonds and surmounted by a diamond imperial crown, which has a crimson enameled cap of maintenance. The pale blue silk ribbon is the same color as King George IV's. The Queen is the only surviving recipient of King George V's family order.
The King George VI family order was established in 1937. Like his father, the King wears the uniform of Admiral of the Fleet, the Star and Riband of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Chain. King George VI's riband color is pale pink. The Queen and Princess Alexandra (received in 1951) are the only surviving recipients of this order.
Queen Elizabeth II's family order was established in 1952 and given to several royal ladies on Christmas day of that year. Her miniature portrait is based on a photograph by Dorothy Wilding and bordered by baguette and brilliant cut diamonds and surmounted by a Tudor Crown in diamonds on a red enamel cushion. Her riband bow is chartreuse yellow. The Queen is wearing the King George IV State Diadem and the Star and Riband of the Garter. The jewels she is wearing are the Nizam of Hyderabad diamond necklace and her diamond and pearl drop earrings; a wedding gift from the Sheikh of Bahrain. The Queen never wears her own order. The queen has lesser versions of her order, given to her Mistress of the Robes and Ladies-in-waiting.
Given at the discretion of the sovereign, there is no specific timeline for when a royal lady receives the royal family order, nor is it automatic for those marrying into the royal family. There is also no specific age for recipients and even children have received it. In 1826, at the age of seven, Princess Victoria, (future Queen Victoria), received the order from her uncle, George IV. The present Queen received the orders of her grandfather, King George V and her father, King George VI as a child and can be seen wearing them at her parent's coronation in 1937.
Princess Anne received her mother's order in 1969, the Duchess of Gloucester in 1973, Katharine, the Duchess of Kent, reportedly not long after her marriage in 1961 and Sophie Wessex in 2004 (five years after her marriage). Despite marrying the Queen's (reportedly) favorite son, Sarah Ferguson never received the order nor has Princess Michael of Kent.
As it is never announced in advance, it is difficult to know exactly when an order is given. Therefore, we have to go by when it was worn in public for the first time. Despite being a senior royal, Diana did not wear a royal order when she attended her first or second State Opening of Parliament in November 4th, 1981 and November 3rd, 1982 respectively. Diana wore the order a few weeks later, for the first time on November 18, 1982 (16 months after her marriage) at a banquet honoring Queen Beatrix at Hampton Court palace.
Camilla Parker Bowles married Prince Charles in April 2005 and attended her first state banquet in October of the same year. She is not wearing the order at that event, instead she wore something more striking, the Delhi Durbar tiara. She reportedly received the order two years after her marriage and can be seen wearing it in October 2007. This was widely interpreted as a visible sign of acceptance by the Queen.
At present, there is speculation about whether Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has received the order. Rumors abounded that she would wear it at the October 2015 banquet to mark the Chinese State visit but this turned out to be false. Should Catherine wear it in the near future, it will likely provoke some deeper scrutiny by the media and royal watching community, with various possible interpretations. Could Catherine having the order be seen as a sign of approval and support of the current status quo of her not being a full-time royal? Or could it be the Queen's form of a 'nudge' to finally step up to the plate? We will only learn when we see her in public wearing it.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Sources:
Royal Orders by Hugo Vickers
Royal Insignia in The Royal Collection
The Royal Encyclopedia
The official website of the British Monarchy
The Royal Collection Website
The Queen's Jewels
Wikipedia
Project Gutenberg
Victoria & Albert in Love
Five Gold Rings: A Royal Wedding Souvenir Album
 | ||
| William IV & Queen Adelaide Family Order Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2016 |
The order as we know it today features a portrait of the sovereign surrounded by diamonds and suspended from a silk bow which changes color upon each new reign. Some versions vary in size depending on the recipient. For instance, King Edward VII gave his wife Queen Alexandra a larger and more elaborate version of his order. Lesser versions of these orders exist for Mistresses of Robes and Ladies-in-waiting.
Orders are normally worn with evening dress, and if more than one order is worn, they are layered with the more recent order is at the top. They are usually pinned to the left shoulder but there have been some exceptions to this. In C.R. Leslie's painting, The Christening of Victoria, The Princess Royal, Queen Adelaide, the Duchess of Kent and the Duchess of Gloucester can be seen wearing the George IV order on their right shoulder. In the past, family orders have been worn by royal brides (Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent), funerals, coronations, day-time events and State Openings of Parliament. Since King George IV's time, the appearance of the order has changed and evolved:
 |
| Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2016 |
King George IV regarded his order as a personal memento rather than a state decoration. His order is made of gold and silver and features diamond frame of oak leaves and acorns. The King is depicted in his Field Marshal's uniform, Golden Fleece, stars of Garter, Holy Spirit, Black Eagle and St Andrew on a dark background with a white, fringed bow.
 | |
| Sovereign's badge of the Order of Victoria & Albert Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2016 |
Unlike other sovereign family orders, both the Queen and Prince Albert appear on the cameo badge. The badge is made of white on brown onyx, silver gilt, enamel, diamonds, rubies and emeralds on a white silk ribbon.
The order was divided into four classes and was granted to the Queen's daughters, daughters-in-law, grand-daughters who were British princesses and other European Queens. Classes were in a descending order for members of the Royal Family and Royal Household and the design varied depending on the Class. The second class featured a shell cameo instead of stone and set with pearls rather than diamonds. The First Class order was given to her daughter in law, Princess Alexandra (future Queen Alexandra), the day before her 1863 wedding and she wore it on her wedding dress the following day. Princess Victoria Mary of Teck (later Queen Mary) also wore the Victoria and Albert badge, along with the Order of the Crown of India, on her wedding day in 1893.
Although there was no official register, a list of known recipients by class is here. The last holder of this order, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, last surviving grandchild of Queen Victoria, died in 1981.
 |
| King Edward VII Family Order Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2016 |
King Edward VII's family order was maintained as an informal family gift rather than an official order. It depicts the King wearing a Field Marshal's uniform with Garter sash and Bath badge on a brown background. The badge is suspended on a blue, yellow and red striped ribbon - the King's racing colors. His portrait is painted on enamel and this is the form it the badge has taken ever since. Queen Alexandra, his daughter's, daughter-in-law and his sisters were amongst the recipients.
 | ||
| Order of Queen Alexandra Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2016 |
His wife, Queen Alexandra had her own unofficial order given to family members and those in her service. The design of the badge is inspired by a miniature portrait of King Christian IX and Queen Louise given out to mark their Silver Wedding anniversary. Like Alexandra's, it is set in an oval frame of pearls and diamond crosses set with diamond chips and suspended from a red and white bow. Alexandra's own version (above) has Edward VII in Field Marshal's uniform with Garter sash and ribbons in front of Queen Alexandra who wears a white dress, pearl choker and crown. Alexandra's Danish heritage is also reflected in the red and white ribbon; the colors of the Danish flag.
In the image above, the Queen wears the orders of her father, King George VI and her grandfather, King George V. The King George V order was established in 1911 and came in four sizes, the largest for Queen Mary and smaller badges for his sisters, aunts, daughters-in-law and grandchildren. The King is wearing the uniform of the Admiral of the Fleet and he wears the Star and Riband of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Chain. His miniature is surrounded by brilliant cut diamonds and surmounted by a diamond imperial crown, which has a crimson enameled cap of maintenance. The pale blue silk ribbon is the same color as King George IV's. The Queen is the only surviving recipient of King George V's family order.
The King George VI family order was established in 1937. Like his father, the King wears the uniform of Admiral of the Fleet, the Star and Riband of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Chain. King George VI's riband color is pale pink. The Queen and Princess Alexandra (received in 1951) are the only surviving recipients of this order.
Queen Elizabeth II's family order was established in 1952 and given to several royal ladies on Christmas day of that year. Her miniature portrait is based on a photograph by Dorothy Wilding and bordered by baguette and brilliant cut diamonds and surmounted by a Tudor Crown in diamonds on a red enamel cushion. Her riband bow is chartreuse yellow. The Queen is wearing the King George IV State Diadem and the Star and Riband of the Garter. The jewels she is wearing are the Nizam of Hyderabad diamond necklace and her diamond and pearl drop earrings; a wedding gift from the Sheikh of Bahrain. The Queen never wears her own order. The queen has lesser versions of her order, given to her Mistress of the Robes and Ladies-in-waiting.
Given at the discretion of the sovereign, there is no specific timeline for when a royal lady receives the royal family order, nor is it automatic for those marrying into the royal family. There is also no specific age for recipients and even children have received it. In 1826, at the age of seven, Princess Victoria, (future Queen Victoria), received the order from her uncle, George IV. The present Queen received the orders of her grandfather, King George V and her father, King George VI as a child and can be seen wearing them at her parent's coronation in 1937.
Princess Anne received her mother's order in 1969, the Duchess of Gloucester in 1973, Katharine, the Duchess of Kent, reportedly not long after her marriage in 1961 and Sophie Wessex in 2004 (five years after her marriage). Despite marrying the Queen's (reportedly) favorite son, Sarah Ferguson never received the order nor has Princess Michael of Kent.
As it is never announced in advance, it is difficult to know exactly when an order is given. Therefore, we have to go by when it was worn in public for the first time. Despite being a senior royal, Diana did not wear a royal order when she attended her first or second State Opening of Parliament in November 4th, 1981 and November 3rd, 1982 respectively. Diana wore the order a few weeks later, for the first time on November 18, 1982 (16 months after her marriage) at a banquet honoring Queen Beatrix at Hampton Court palace.
Camilla Parker Bowles married Prince Charles in April 2005 and attended her first state banquet in October of the same year. She is not wearing the order at that event, instead she wore something more striking, the Delhi Durbar tiara. She reportedly received the order two years after her marriage and can be seen wearing it in October 2007. This was widely interpreted as a visible sign of acceptance by the Queen.
At present, there is speculation about whether Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has received the order. Rumors abounded that she would wear it at the October 2015 banquet to mark the Chinese State visit but this turned out to be false. Should Catherine wear it in the near future, it will likely provoke some deeper scrutiny by the media and royal watching community, with various possible interpretations. Could Catherine having the order be seen as a sign of approval and support of the current status quo of her not being a full-time royal? Or could it be the Queen's form of a 'nudge' to finally step up to the plate? We will only learn when we see her in public wearing it.
© Marilyn Braun 2016
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Sources:
Royal Orders by Hugo Vickers
Royal Insignia in The Royal Collection
The Royal Encyclopedia
The official website of the British Monarchy
The Royal Collection Website
The Queen's Jewels
Wikipedia
Project Gutenberg
Victoria & Albert in Love
Five Gold Rings: A Royal Wedding Souvenir Album
Thursday, December 31, 2015
I declare before you all, I dislike it when people quote that speech
You: What speech?
Me: The Queen's 21st Birthday Speech
You: Sacrilege! How can you possibly dislike a speech where a young woman declared her dedication to the nation? Have you no heart?
Okay, I have nothing against the speech itself. It is patriotic and who can argue with the sentiment? No, I dislike when other people repeat it. Especially now that the Queen is almost 90. Actions speak louder than words and since she spoke those words in 1947, she has more than proven her dedication to the point there is no question. Whatsoever. If you think you have a good reason to question it, you haven't been paying enough attention.
In recent years she has hit several milestones. In 2012 she celebrated her Diamond jubilee. In 2015 she became the longest reigning monarch in British history. In 2016, the Queen will turn 90. On that occasion we will no doubt hear this chestnut trotted out time and again by people who have only read about her in books or observed her from a distance. No doubt they have memorized the words so that when someone asks how the Queen has remained so dedicated throughout her reign they can say: "Well, in 1947 she said....'I declare before you all.."
The actual speech is much longer (835 words) but it is the following 34 words that people quote the most:
Good heavens! Even I'm doing it!
Yes she is dedicated. She has reiterated it a number of times over the years, most recently rededicating herself anew in 2012 during her Diamond Jubilee year. To be quite honest, I thought the last reminder to be completely unnecessary. A) Because she has proven it B) Because if you're on a roll, why jinx it?
The main reason I dislike quoting that speech is because it tends to ignore a crucial reality. The Queen is mortal and she will die. It makes no allowances for anything less than that. She is slowing down (regardless of whether people want to acknowledge it). Holding her to a speech she said at 21 is completely unrealistic in light of how old she is. Sometimes I wonder, if, for arguments sake. If the queen were to decide to retire/abdicate would people hold it against her? Mention the mere idea and you won't be allowed to complete the senten--
"It will NEVER happen! She said so herself...'I declare before you all...' andalthough I've never met her the very idea is an anathema to her..."
But she is getting older...if anyone deserves a break it is her?
"NO!..It will NEVER happen..."
As wonderful as it would be, the Queen cannot keep going. She has remarkable stamina for her age. Longevity is in her DNA. But the people who quote the speech at every milestone want her to keep going, regardless. As if the idea of her slowing down/taking a break (read: acknowledging her mortality) is wrong. When Pope Benedict XVI resigned and monarchs in Netherlands, Spain and Belgium abdicated because they knew their limits they were criticized as quitters. Instead of being seen as a prudent decision in light of their health or to make way for the new generation, it was seen as a negative.
Those families acknowledged reality while we maintained smug bragging rights.
"Well, they couldn't hack it but our queen..OUR Queen knows what dedication is.. Why, she said so herself in 1947: 'I declare..'"
Now, fast forward 10 years to her 100th birthday. Still reigning, dedicated and going strong.
Me: Maybe she should take a break? Step down?
"NO, NO...she said 'I declare before you all'
Fast forward to 2030. The Queen is 104 and although in sound mind she is frail and fading slowly. Maybe it is time to call it a day?
"Never! Remember when she said 'I declare before you all..."
As she gets older this will become more absurd. It's as if it is a point of pride for people. We are here to remind her that she must keep going - no. matter. what. It wouldn't surprise me if people quoted it on her deathbed. The Queen did not write the speech and privately she must have misgivings about being held to those words: 'Out of all of the things I have said since then, that is what people remember?' How many of us would want to be held to something we said when we were 21? Even if it was the most moral, righteous, perfect statement. It would be a lot to live up to for anyone.
Here's the thing. Those words do not represent her reign. They do not encapsulate who she is as a person. If she decides to step down tomorrow, it will not diminish her stellar duty and devotion. If anyone deserves a break, it's her! After her death, it will be a long time before we see anyone as dedicated as her again.
So the next time she has a bout of ill health or another monarch steps down, instead of quoting that speech, how about looking at her realistically and cutting her some slack instead?
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Me: The Queen's 21st Birthday Speech
You: Sacrilege! How can you possibly dislike a speech where a young woman declared her dedication to the nation? Have you no heart?
Okay, I have nothing against the speech itself. It is patriotic and who can argue with the sentiment? No, I dislike when other people repeat it. Especially now that the Queen is almost 90. Actions speak louder than words and since she spoke those words in 1947, she has more than proven her dedication to the point there is no question. Whatsoever. If you think you have a good reason to question it, you haven't been paying enough attention.
In recent years she has hit several milestones. In 2012 she celebrated her Diamond jubilee. In 2015 she became the longest reigning monarch in British history. In 2016, the Queen will turn 90. On that occasion we will no doubt hear this chestnut trotted out time and again by people who have only read about her in books or observed her from a distance. No doubt they have memorized the words so that when someone asks how the Queen has remained so dedicated throughout her reign they can say: "Well, in 1947 she said....'I declare before you all.."
The actual speech is much longer (835 words) but it is the following 34 words that people quote the most:
I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Good heavens! Even I'm doing it!
Yes she is dedicated. She has reiterated it a number of times over the years, most recently rededicating herself anew in 2012 during her Diamond Jubilee year. To be quite honest, I thought the last reminder to be completely unnecessary. A) Because she has proven it B) Because if you're on a roll, why jinx it?
The main reason I dislike quoting that speech is because it tends to ignore a crucial reality. The Queen is mortal and she will die. It makes no allowances for anything less than that. She is slowing down (regardless of whether people want to acknowledge it). Holding her to a speech she said at 21 is completely unrealistic in light of how old she is. Sometimes I wonder, if, for arguments sake. If the queen were to decide to retire/abdicate would people hold it against her? Mention the mere idea and you won't be allowed to complete the senten--
"It will NEVER happen! She said so herself...'I declare before you all...' and
But she is getting older...if anyone deserves a break it is her?
"NO!..It will NEVER happen..."
As wonderful as it would be, the Queen cannot keep going. She has remarkable stamina for her age. Longevity is in her DNA. But the people who quote the speech at every milestone want her to keep going, regardless. As if the idea of her slowing down/taking a break (read: acknowledging her mortality) is wrong. When Pope Benedict XVI resigned and monarchs in Netherlands, Spain and Belgium abdicated because they knew their limits they were criticized as quitters. Instead of being seen as a prudent decision in light of their health or to make way for the new generation, it was seen as a negative.
Those families acknowledged reality while we maintained smug bragging rights.
"Well, they couldn't hack it but our queen..OUR Queen knows what dedication is.. Why, she said so herself in 1947: 'I declare..'"
Now, fast forward 10 years to her 100th birthday. Still reigning, dedicated and going strong.
Me: Maybe she should take a break? Step down?
"NO, NO...she said 'I declare before you all'
Fast forward to 2030. The Queen is 104 and although in sound mind she is frail and fading slowly. Maybe it is time to call it a day?
"Never! Remember when she said 'I declare before you all..."
As she gets older this will become more absurd. It's as if it is a point of pride for people. We are here to remind her that she must keep going - no. matter. what. It wouldn't surprise me if people quoted it on her deathbed. The Queen did not write the speech and privately she must have misgivings about being held to those words: 'Out of all of the things I have said since then, that is what people remember?' How many of us would want to be held to something we said when we were 21? Even if it was the most moral, righteous, perfect statement. It would be a lot to live up to for anyone.
Here's the thing. Those words do not represent her reign. They do not encapsulate who she is as a person. If she decides to step down tomorrow, it will not diminish her stellar duty and devotion. If anyone deserves a break, it's her! After her death, it will be a long time before we see anyone as dedicated as her again.
So the next time she has a bout of ill health or another monarch steps down, instead of quoting that speech, how about looking at her realistically and cutting her some slack instead?
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Royal Focus: Princess Mary 1914 Christmas Gift Tin
They were meant to bring comfort and boost morale to those fighting in the front line during the First World War. The Princess Mary Christmas tin from 1914 is possibly the best known wartime royal memento, but she was not the first royal to send a thoughtful item to the troops. Her great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, had done something
similar in 1900 during the Boer War.
As a personal New Years gift, Queen Victoria sent tins filled with chocolate to British soldiers serving in South Africa. The chocolate was supplied by three British chocolate manufacturers: Cadbury's, Fry's and Rowntree's. The red, blue and gold tins were designed by Fry's and copied by the other companies. Although they vary in size, all feature a portrait of Queen Victoria with her royal monogram and South Africa 1900 written beside it. Below the portrait, written in cursive is 'I wish you a happy New Year' with her signature below it. As Quakers, the companies were reluctant to support the war effort because of their pacifism but loyalty to the Queen won out. Following Queen Victoria's example, in 1901 Queen Alexandra sent a Christmas gift to the Boer War troops in the form of 5,500 monogrammed silver mounted briar pipes.
In 1914, the same year of Princess Mary's gift tin, her grandmother, Queen Alexandra the Queen Mother, also sent a similar gilt-tin as a personal gift to members of Household regiments. These tins contained a card and 18 cigarettes, each printed with her name. Alexandra's tins were not as widely distributed as Princess Mary's making them rarer.
However, it is the Princess Mary Christmas brass tin from 1914 which is the best known. Inspired by her hospital visits to wounded soldiers, Princess Mary, the seventeen year old daughter of King George V and Queen Mary, sent out a public appeal in national newspapers for the 'Sailor and Soldiers Christmas fund' to provide a Christmas gift for ‘every sailor afloat and every soldier at the front'. In the first week the fund had received £12,000 in donations. The following week this amount had risen to £31,000. By the time the fund closed in 1920 it had raised £162,591.
The embossed brass tin boxes were designed by Messrs Adshead and Ramsay. They feature a profile portrait of Princess Mary surrounded by laurel leaves with two Princess Mary 'M' monograms on either side. Inscribed on a cartouche at the top of the box are the words 'Imperium Britannicum', with a sword and scabbard on either side. In other cartouches around the edge and sides of the box are the names of Britain’s allies in the First World War; France, Russia, Belgium, Servia, Montenegro, and Japan. France and Russia are each superimposed on three furled flags. At the bottom is inscribed 'Christmas 1914.' flanked by the bows of battleships forging through a heavy sea.
There were challenges in producing the brass tin itself and its contents. Some items were considered luxuries and with metals being used to create munitions, brass was becoming harder to come by. Sheets of brass had to be ordered from the United States and a large quantity was lost in the 1915 tragic sinking of the US Lusitania. As metal shortages increased, many of the subsequent tins were made of cheap alloy metal. Despite the difficulties, the boxes were a success. The recipients were divided into three classes, and there were different variations in the contents, which you can read about here.
With over 2.5 million tins distributed, unlike Victoria and Alexandra's tins, Mary's are neither unique or rare. But they were no doubt cherished by appreciative recipients serving in the Great War.
Resources:
Harewood: A Christmas Legacy Continues
Kinnethmont: The Princess Mary 1914 Christmas Gift
Australian War Memorial: Princess Mary's Christmas Gift
National Army Museum: Queen Victoria's Gift Chocolate Box, 1900
Presentation Pipes with particular reference to the Queen Alexandra Pipe
Museum Victoria Collections
Queen Victoria and Queen Alexandra's tin images from Imperial War Museum
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
 |
| Imperial War Museum © IWM (EPH 3347) |
In 1914, the same year of Princess Mary's gift tin, her grandmother, Queen Alexandra the Queen Mother, also sent a similar gilt-tin as a personal gift to members of Household regiments. These tins contained a card and 18 cigarettes, each printed with her name. Alexandra's tins were not as widely distributed as Princess Mary's making them rarer.
 |
| Imperial War Museum © IWM (EPH 2716) |
However, it is the Princess Mary Christmas brass tin from 1914 which is the best known. Inspired by her hospital visits to wounded soldiers, Princess Mary, the seventeen year old daughter of King George V and Queen Mary, sent out a public appeal in national newspapers for the 'Sailor and Soldiers Christmas fund' to provide a Christmas gift for ‘every sailor afloat and every soldier at the front'. In the first week the fund had received £12,000 in donations. The following week this amount had risen to £31,000. By the time the fund closed in 1920 it had raised £162,591.
 |
| Photo © Marilyn Braun |
The embossed brass tin boxes were designed by Messrs Adshead and Ramsay. They feature a profile portrait of Princess Mary surrounded by laurel leaves with two Princess Mary 'M' monograms on either side. Inscribed on a cartouche at the top of the box are the words 'Imperium Britannicum', with a sword and scabbard on either side. In other cartouches around the edge and sides of the box are the names of Britain’s allies in the First World War; France, Russia, Belgium, Servia, Montenegro, and Japan. France and Russia are each superimposed on three furled flags. At the bottom is inscribed 'Christmas 1914.' flanked by the bows of battleships forging through a heavy sea.
There were challenges in producing the brass tin itself and its contents. Some items were considered luxuries and with metals being used to create munitions, brass was becoming harder to come by. Sheets of brass had to be ordered from the United States and a large quantity was lost in the 1915 tragic sinking of the US Lusitania. As metal shortages increased, many of the subsequent tins were made of cheap alloy metal. Despite the difficulties, the boxes were a success. The recipients were divided into three classes, and there were different variations in the contents, which you can read about here.
With over 2.5 million tins distributed, unlike Victoria and Alexandra's tins, Mary's are neither unique or rare. But they were no doubt cherished by appreciative recipients serving in the Great War.
Resources:
Harewood: A Christmas Legacy Continues
Kinnethmont: The Princess Mary 1914 Christmas Gift
Australian War Memorial: Princess Mary's Christmas Gift
National Army Museum: Queen Victoria's Gift Chocolate Box, 1900
Presentation Pipes with particular reference to the Queen Alexandra Pipe
Museum Victoria Collections
Queen Victoria and Queen Alexandra's tin images from Imperial War Museum
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
National Novel Writing Month - Royal Style!
Yikes, it's been a while since I updated this blog!
Since I started this blog in 2005 I always envisioned it as a place to vent my frustration with royal coverage, to add my own satirical viewpoint to royal news and also to make informative posts that people would enjoy. Each year the amount of posts goes downhill. I feel guiltier and guiltier knowing that I am letting this blog languish. I make a vow each year to change that but...it doesn't change.
What can I say? Life gets in the way.
There is always a nagging feeling that I should get back to it. For the most part I find royal news to be relatively uninspiring. I think that blogs like mine, which provide commentary are simply not interesting. Who wants to listen to someone rant? People prefer blogs that deal with royal clothes and jewels and that's OK. But I do find it frustrating at times and I feel as though I can't keep up.
I've been focusing more on writing fiction. I did a few blog posts featuring my work in progress 'The Kidnapping of Princess Alexandra'. I took the work down, mainly because I did not feel that the posts did the storyline justice, it was too distracting and after a while I didn't get the point of doing it any longer.
Instead, I signed up for National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo for short). Each November, participants are challenged to write 50,000 words in 30 days. If you have never heard of it, here's a link. Let me tell you, it is not for the faint of heart. The idea is to simply write whatever you want, without editing yourself and see where the story takes you. Nothing is scarier than starting with a blank page. Even scarier is throwing most (if not all) of the work I had already written out the door and started from scratch. It forced me to focus on the story, take it in a different direction and all sorts of storylines started to pop up, things became clearer and also more confusing too. But I loved the challenge of NaNoWriMo and finished my 50K words ahead of schedule. Here's my Winner badge to prove it.
That's about all you get. Well, that and a PDF of a winner certificate to fill out. Oh yes, and bragging rights. Oh, and the satisfaction of having actually completed something. Which I would say is far better than winning money but that would be a lie.
Right now I have a 50K work in progress, multiple story-lines I didn't have before, a beginning, an ending but a very (very) disorganized middle. Instead of posting the work in progress here, I have started posting it on a site called Tablo.
Here is the link to the story: The Royal Correspondent
Feel free to follow along for the ride!
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Since I started this blog in 2005 I always envisioned it as a place to vent my frustration with royal coverage, to add my own satirical viewpoint to royal news and also to make informative posts that people would enjoy. Each year the amount of posts goes downhill. I feel guiltier and guiltier knowing that I am letting this blog languish. I make a vow each year to change that but...it doesn't change.
What can I say? Life gets in the way.
There is always a nagging feeling that I should get back to it. For the most part I find royal news to be relatively uninspiring. I think that blogs like mine, which provide commentary are simply not interesting. Who wants to listen to someone rant? People prefer blogs that deal with royal clothes and jewels and that's OK. But I do find it frustrating at times and I feel as though I can't keep up.
I've been focusing more on writing fiction. I did a few blog posts featuring my work in progress 'The Kidnapping of Princess Alexandra'. I took the work down, mainly because I did not feel that the posts did the storyline justice, it was too distracting and after a while I didn't get the point of doing it any longer.
Instead, I signed up for National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo for short). Each November, participants are challenged to write 50,000 words in 30 days. If you have never heard of it, here's a link. Let me tell you, it is not for the faint of heart. The idea is to simply write whatever you want, without editing yourself and see where the story takes you. Nothing is scarier than starting with a blank page. Even scarier is throwing most (if not all) of the work I had already written out the door and started from scratch. It forced me to focus on the story, take it in a different direction and all sorts of storylines started to pop up, things became clearer and also more confusing too. But I loved the challenge of NaNoWriMo and finished my 50K words ahead of schedule. Here's my Winner badge to prove it.
That's about all you get. Well, that and a PDF of a winner certificate to fill out. Oh yes, and bragging rights. Oh, and the satisfaction of having actually completed something. Which I would say is far better than winning money but that would be a lie.
Right now I have a 50K work in progress, multiple story-lines I didn't have before, a beginning, an ending but a very (very) disorganized middle. Instead of posting the work in progress here, I have started posting it on a site called Tablo.
Here is the link to the story: The Royal Correspondent
Feel free to follow along for the ride!
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Queen Elizabeth makes history, it's almost enough to make you want to become a monarchist
I've never made any secret that I'm not a monarchist. It is in the tagline for my blog. I do things which conflict with that. For instance, I avidly collect magazines and some memorabilia whenever a royal event happens. I also read articles and lurk on message royal message boards. Not to mention that I went to Britain for William and Catherine's wedding and hit royal landmarks during my recent trip.
I'm a complicated individual. Don't judge me.
However, I also disagree with the monarchy. Not based on anything political but on principle. The idea of bowing down to someone because of an accident of their birth is an anathema to me. During twitter arguments I secretly rejoice when a republican has made a valid point and fume when a monarchist has shot it down with a predicable, yet valid, one. I have a hard time understanding monarchists who admire the royals for the sake of admiring them. Showing deference because they believe royals and those in authority are somehow 'better' than the rest of us. It is just not true.
On this occasion in particular, my republican leanings make me wonder what we are celebrating for. The Queen's longevity? She definitely has great genetics. Sure, her stellar sense of duty should be acknowledged but it also goes without saying. Yet people try. At the rate we are exhausting saccharine platitudes, will there be anything left to say in the future? Is it any wonder the republicans are vociferously presenting the other side? In all honesty, I think members of the Republican movement make themselves look bad when they try to argue against it. Railing against an 89 year old woman would make anyone look bad.
However, sometimes you can also have too much of a good thing. In the last four years we have had the royal wedding, Diamond jubilee, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, now this. Planning for her 90th birthday is underway and there is even speculation about her Platinum jubilee in 2022. Haven't we run out of cake yet?
Despite all of this, reading the coverage about Queen Elizabeth II becoming the longest serving monarch in British history, I can't help but feel a small sense of pride. She made it! Looking at photographs of her, I see her evolution, the growing respect. Her sense of duty is unquestionable and all in all, I would say she has been an asset to her realms. History will be kind to her. Because she has set the bar so high, the same cannot be said about those that come after her.
Based on this, getting off the fence has its appeal. Even if it only for one day. Despite this temptation, I know that I will never be a monarchist (nor a true republican), but I will always remain fascinated.
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
I'm a complicated individual. Don't judge me.
However, I also disagree with the monarchy. Not based on anything political but on principle. The idea of bowing down to someone because of an accident of their birth is an anathema to me. During twitter arguments I secretly rejoice when a republican has made a valid point and fume when a monarchist has shot it down with a predicable, yet valid, one. I have a hard time understanding monarchists who admire the royals for the sake of admiring them. Showing deference because they believe royals and those in authority are somehow 'better' than the rest of us. It is just not true.
On this occasion in particular, my republican leanings make me wonder what we are celebrating for. The Queen's longevity? She definitely has great genetics. Sure, her stellar sense of duty should be acknowledged but it also goes without saying. Yet people try. At the rate we are exhausting saccharine platitudes, will there be anything left to say in the future? Is it any wonder the republicans are vociferously presenting the other side? In all honesty, I think members of the Republican movement make themselves look bad when they try to argue against it. Railing against an 89 year old woman would make anyone look bad.
However, sometimes you can also have too much of a good thing. In the last four years we have had the royal wedding, Diamond jubilee, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, now this. Planning for her 90th birthday is underway and there is even speculation about her Platinum jubilee in 2022. Haven't we run out of cake yet?
Despite all of this, reading the coverage about Queen Elizabeth II becoming the longest serving monarch in British history, I can't help but feel a small sense of pride. She made it! Looking at photographs of her, I see her evolution, the growing respect. Her sense of duty is unquestionable and all in all, I would say she has been an asset to her realms. History will be kind to her. Because she has set the bar so high, the same cannot be said about those that come after her.
Based on this, getting off the fence has its appeal. Even if it only for one day. Despite this temptation, I know that I will never be a monarchist (nor a true republican), but I will always remain fascinated.
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
Will the Queen's legacy be in what she says or what she does?
As the Queen draws closer to breaking Queen Victoria's record for the longest reigning sovereign in British history, there will be much commentary about the significance of the moment. Much of it will be the inevitable saccharine tributes with the oft-quoted 21st birthday speech thrown in for good measure. But some of it will be critical as well. As in the case of David Starkey's comments that the Queen "has done and said nothing anybody will remember." Although I think that is a harsh assessment, when it comes to her actual reign, he raises a point.
Other than 1992's 'Annus horribilis' speech and her aside right before the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum for people to "think very carefully about the future," I genuinely can't think of anything that will provide history with the defining words to encapsulate her reign. The Queen is the embodiment of keep calm, carry on, and only respond if the problem doesn't immediately go away. On occasion it backfires and she is brought to heel for it. But moments like that are rare.
It could be said - and no doubt it will be - that it is not what she says, it is what she does. Or doesn't do. The Queen does not give sound bites. She does not give interviews. She does not pander to the public. She does not need to. She steers clear of controversy and remains neutral. It is one of the reasons why she is so well respected. She may not say much but, how can you argue with such a shining example of selfless duty?
In the last 63 years, had she expounded on every topic like Prince Charles, the media would stockpile the ammunition. Her public pronouncements have been limited to her annual Christmas speech and at the State Opening of Parliament. I can't think of anything memorable in either case. But then again, I'm not expecting to. I doubt anyone else is either. The times of looking to the royal family to set an example are long gone.
When the Queen dies and newscasts look back upon her reign, the images are likely to be filled with scenes from her coronation, along with public appearances of her waving and smiling throughout the decades. Commentators who have only observed her at distance will speak for her, using the word 'duty' over and over again to define her legacy and what she was really like as a person.
In the absence of her own words, she will leave us to draw the definitive conclusions.
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Other than 1992's 'Annus horribilis' speech and her aside right before the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum for people to "think very carefully about the future," I genuinely can't think of anything that will provide history with the defining words to encapsulate her reign. The Queen is the embodiment of keep calm, carry on, and only respond if the problem doesn't immediately go away. On occasion it backfires and she is brought to heel for it. But moments like that are rare.
It could be said - and no doubt it will be - that it is not what she says, it is what she does. Or doesn't do. The Queen does not give sound bites. She does not give interviews. She does not pander to the public. She does not need to. She steers clear of controversy and remains neutral. It is one of the reasons why she is so well respected. She may not say much but, how can you argue with such a shining example of selfless duty?
In the last 63 years, had she expounded on every topic like Prince Charles, the media would stockpile the ammunition. Her public pronouncements have been limited to her annual Christmas speech and at the State Opening of Parliament. I can't think of anything memorable in either case. But then again, I'm not expecting to. I doubt anyone else is either. The times of looking to the royal family to set an example are long gone.
When the Queen dies and newscasts look back upon her reign, the images are likely to be filled with scenes from her coronation, along with public appearances of her waving and smiling throughout the decades. Commentators who have only observed her at distance will speak for her, using the word 'duty' over and over again to define her legacy and what she was really like as a person.
In the absence of her own words, she will leave us to draw the definitive conclusions.
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
18 Years Ago Today..The Death of Diana
Hard to believe that it has been 18 years since Diana's death. I will never forget where I was when I heard she had been in an accident.Flipping through the channels late at night, the image of a car crashed in a tunnel appeared on my screen. The channel was MSNBC News with Brian Williams. Diana's name peaked my interest and I continued watching the awful scene with the crumpled car surrounded by police vehicles. As the details slowly emerged, Dodi and the driver were dead but Diana was miraculously still alive. There were few details about her exact condition but she was alive. Listening to updates about paparazzi involvement did not surprise me in the slightest.
On-lookers were being interviewed near the tunnel, some stating they had even taken photographs and I found myself disgusted by that. Note that this was before Facebook or Twitter or even Instagram, where nowadays, anything seems to go no matter how grossly inappropriate it may be. However, back then it was surprising. It was hard to process what was happening but I found myself reaching for my books about Diana, looking at pictures of her and wondering if anything would ever be the same again. Would she live? If she did, what condition would she be in? I admit there was a part of me that thought, if she is too badly injured, maybe it would be better if she did not survive. Her life will be far more difficult and she would become an even bigger curiosity. This time for all of the wrong reasons.
Finally, the awful news. Brian Williams announcing that Diana was dead. This beautiful woman was gone from the world. Even worse, William and Harry no longer had their mother. Watching the boys walking behind their mother's coffin was heartbreaking. The next morning I immediately went out and bought every newspaper I could find. Bells toiled on the radio and I broke down when I heard them. Throughout the week leading up to the funeral I bought every magazine in tribute to her. At the time I worked in a hospital which Diana had served as a patron. There was even a portrait of her there. The hospital had set out a condolence book and there was one very upset woman, who spent a lot of time writing in it. It really felt as though the world had stopped. I had the same feeling on September 11th, 2001.
Many years later, in 2003, I got the chance to go on 'my pilgrimage,' to Althorp. After viewing the exhibit on her life in the stables, I walked towards the oval island where she is buried. My thoughts were somewhat macabre. Was she really buried on that island? It didn't look nearly deep enough. A part of me still believes that she is buried in the small temple nearby. Say what you will about her brother, he created a beautiful, moving exhibit and everything about the estate is tastefully done. From time to time I still look at my books about Diana. Marveling at her beauty and charisma and natural report with the public. The public reaction to Diana's death may have been over the top at times but it is not surprising. It is still hard to believe that she is gone.
RIP Diana.
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Friday, August 14, 2015
Who creates the market for paparazzi photos of Prince George? We do!
Here we go again. Prince William and Catherine appealing to our better nature in the interests of protecting the privacy of their children. This morning Kensington Palace sent out a three-page press release to that effect . However, this time it provided more background on what goes into photos of Prince George between official appearances.
Sad to say, this will change nothing. We will decry the pursuit of Prince George on twitter and royal message boards. Royal correspondents will play devils advocate regarding whether the royals are entitled to privacy when in a public setting. And while this is a very complex problem which will continue to come up, one part of the press release is the most telling:
Until now it was easier to turn a blind eye to that fact. After all, the pictures are adorable, no? When Prince William complained about press intrusion, it came across as petulance and wanting to have it both ways. Go on twitter and you will find complaints about censorship and how controlling the royals are when it comes to their coverage. It is very easy to say that when the royals are in public they are 'fair-game' and that it is entirely legal to photograph them. However, just reading paparazzi tactics and the potential threat they pose, makes it more difficult to justify it that way.
The very people who decry the pursuit of Prince George are the ones who contribute to the demand for them. Complain about how distasteful the pursuit is today, coo over how cute George looks in his crocs tomorrow. While you're at it, don't forget to pay lip-service to Diana's tragic death and you have covered your bases until the next time it happens.
When it does, just repeat and don't act surprised.
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Sad to say, this will change nothing. We will decry the pursuit of Prince George on twitter and royal message boards. Royal correspondents will play devils advocate regarding whether the royals are entitled to privacy when in a public setting. And while this is a very complex problem which will continue to come up, one part of the press release is the most telling:
"...many people who read and enjoy the publications that fuel the market for unauthorised photos of children do not know about the unacceptable circumstances behind what are often lovely images. The use of these photos is usually dressed up with fun, positive language about the 'cute', 'adorable' photos and happy write ups about the family. We feel readers deserve to understand the tactics deployed to obtain these pictures."
Until now it was easier to turn a blind eye to that fact. After all, the pictures are adorable, no? When Prince William complained about press intrusion, it came across as petulance and wanting to have it both ways. Go on twitter and you will find complaints about censorship and how controlling the royals are when it comes to their coverage. It is very easy to say that when the royals are in public they are 'fair-game' and that it is entirely legal to photograph them. However, just reading paparazzi tactics and the potential threat they pose, makes it more difficult to justify it that way.
The very people who decry the pursuit of Prince George are the ones who contribute to the demand for them. Complain about how distasteful the pursuit is today, coo over how cute George looks in his crocs tomorrow. While you're at it, don't forget to pay lip-service to Diana's tragic death and you have covered your bases until the next time it happens.
When it does, just repeat and don't act surprised.
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Royal Book Challenge: Diana Fashion Books - Part One
Within my collection, I have many books covering Diana's fashions throughout her royal life. Some of these books are short on text and follow a similar style so I have decided to divide the posts into parts, each post featuring a few books at a time. Just like her future daughter-in-law, Diana's fashions were covered just as avidly. Had the internet existed back then, Diana would definitely have had multiple blogs devoted to her style. There is no question that in the early years of her marriage, Diana was at her loveliest and most radiant. Her style choices may look dated today, but none of them take away from how dazzling she was in her early twenties.
Covering Diana's 'sensational' fashions during her April 1985 tour of Italy, the 'inaccurate' estimates for the cost the (17 day) tour wardrobe have increased to £100,000. Each tour stop outfit is discussed in detail, along with appropriateness of it and whether or not she had worn it before. The date for one tour stop, May 2, 1985 is particularly poignant given that her granddaughter Princess Charlotte would be born on that day 30 years later. At the very end of the book there are some charming photographs of the prince and princess with William and baby Harry aboard the Britannia.
Diana Princess of Wales: The Book of Fashion
68/500
Out of the three books, this one has the most photographs and the most details. At the very end you will find an detailed list of each outfit Diana wore from the day her engagement was announced to October 1983. Interspersed amongst the photographs are charming bits of information. For instance, Diana had 'springs' sewn into the brims of her hats to keep them on. During one event on the Canadian tour, Diana's plain-clothed police woman detective, kept her gun down the front of her dress. Photographs of Diana with clenched fists are not 'a sign of frustrated anger,' but to cover her fingernail biting habit. Also, Diana celebrated her 22nd birthday in Canada and amongst her gifts was a 30lb piece of iceberg, which the princess was said to be 'delighted with.'
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
From the Royal Heritage Series, the text for this book was written by Jane Owen. Published in 1983, it covers Diana's fashions primarily for the tour of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Her style evolution to date is discussed in detail and estimates for the cost of her tour wardrobe are not surprising (£1,500 a week!). Little did anyone know that Kate would spend far more than that on a single outfit.
Covering Diana's 'sensational' fashions during her April 1985 tour of Italy, the 'inaccurate' estimates for the cost the (17 day) tour wardrobe have increased to £100,000. Each tour stop outfit is discussed in detail, along with appropriateness of it and whether or not she had worn it before. The date for one tour stop, May 2, 1985 is particularly poignant given that her granddaughter Princess Charlotte would be born on that day 30 years later. At the very end of the book there are some charming photographs of the prince and princess with William and baby Harry aboard the Britannia.
Diana Princess of Wales: The Book of Fashion
68/500
Out of the three books, this one has the most photographs and the most details. At the very end you will find an detailed list of each outfit Diana wore from the day her engagement was announced to October 1983. Interspersed amongst the photographs are charming bits of information. For instance, Diana had 'springs' sewn into the brims of her hats to keep them on. During one event on the Canadian tour, Diana's plain-clothed police woman detective, kept her gun down the front of her dress. Photographs of Diana with clenched fists are not 'a sign of frustrated anger,' but to cover her fingernail biting habit. Also, Diana celebrated her 22nd birthday in Canada and amongst her gifts was a 30lb piece of iceberg, which the princess was said to be 'delighted with.'
© Marilyn Braun 2015
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Saturday, August 01, 2015
Royal Review: Fashion Rules at Kensington Palace
When I found out about this exhibit, I immediately put in on my list of must see things to do while I am in London. Having now visited it I can say that I am thoroughly disappointed.
Covering royal fashion from the 1950s to the 1980s, the dresses featured in the exhibit were worn by The Queen, Princess Margaret and Diana, Princess of Wales. I think the thing that most disappointed me about the exhibit is the amount of dresses featured, which I think amounted to 20. Having reached the end, I asked whether there were any other dresses and I was told that was it!
I would think that few people would consider the present Queen to be a style icon. At least not in comparison to her sister, Princess Margaret. The Queen has her style moments but for the most part has played it safe throughout her life. Looking at her hairstyle, it has barely changed; short with petalled curls. The Queen has favoured the same designers, Hardy Amies, Norman Hartnell, whose work is on display here. Her dresses are made from the best fabrics, with ornate embroidery and beading and the workmanship is truly something to behold.
Princess Margaret could afford to be more bold in her clothing choices, but other than one dress with a kaftan and turban, I did not see that reflected in the exhibit. Whether through lack of availability or permission to display them, I think this is a shame. It would have been nice to get a better sense of Princess Margaret's style choices.
Diana's dresses are at the end and mainly cover the mid-eighties to early nineties. Unlike the Queen, Diana did not play it safe with one designer and the dresses displayed include work by Zandra Rhodes, Jacques Azagury and Catherine Walker, whose work she favoured towards the end of her life. The dresses featured are from Diana's 1997 dress auction, which have changed hands since that point. I'm not certain if the Royal collection actually owns these dresses or not but if so, it is at least nice to have her reflected in the exhibit. Here are some photographs I took during my visit.
Popular Posts
-
Aside from books that have yet to be released, or ones I've waited until they've ended up in the bargain bin, I can't say I'... -
Best known as the mother of Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, she was part of a family that can trace their ancestry back to 1557. Born on ...
-
When I was in my twenties, I spent the large part of it being confused with who I was and what I was supposed to be doing with my life. Toda...
-
6 - 8 oz spaghetti Parmesan Cheese For the Bolognese sauce: 1 can tomatoes 1 small can tomato puree approx 6 oz minced beef 2 oz mushrooms, ... -
Fresh off my post encouraging Catherine to develop her royal role sooner rather than later, imagine my chagrin when discovering an article i...
-
On this episode, new ways to enjoy the royal wedding with a friend, who is waging war on 'moronic muzak'? On his wedding day, what p...
-
Diana, Princess of Wales has recently been named on Time Europe magazine's issue 60 Years of Heroes. Personally I was quite surprised at...
-
Y'know, I don't have a problem with artwork. As a matter of fact, I go to the museum at least a couple of times a year to make mysel...
