In Royal Fashion

In 1863, shortly after her marriage to the Prince of Wales, Queen Victoria warned her daughter-in-law Princess Alexandra against 'too much dressing or smartness'. This statement accurately sums up the royal family's attitude towards fashion. This is not to say that fashion isn't important, on the contrary, there have been many fashionable royals; some setting their own trends. The same Princess Alexandra set a trend for choker necklaces, because she was trying to cover a scar on her neck. When rheumatic fever left her with a permanent limp, it briefly became fashionable amongst society to do the ‘Alexandra limp’. Later, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent's fondness for blue, became known as: Marina Blue. More recently, the term 'Camilla chic' has been coined to describe Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's growing sense of style.

In Queen Victoria’s day, the preference was for British designers, in support of the British fashion industry, to dress royal ladies. Queen Victoria did her part in helping the lagging lace industry by choosing Honiton lace for her wedding dress and the heirloom-christening gown. Patronizing British designers is still encouraged but occasionally, during a royal tour, a compliment will be paid to a designer from the host country; as in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales when she arrived for a tour of France dressed head to toe in Chanel.

When a tour takes place, care is taken not to offend by ensuring that hemlines as well as outfit colors respect the customs of the host country. For public events, bright colors are chosen so that the royal lady stands out and hemlines are weighted to protect royal dignity. Black is rarely worn as it is considered a mourning color. In 1938, just before a tour of France, Queen Elizabeth's mother died and instead of wearing black, she choose to wear white; an alternate mourning color. This choice was a resounding success and is referred to as the White Wardrobe.

Accessories are just as important. Lately, hats have become a focal point, with some imaginative choices made by guests at the wedding of Charles and Camilla. Shortly after her marriage, Diana's choice of wearing hats revitalized the British milinery industry. Diana and Sarah, Duchess of York were lauded for their use of costume jewellry and it would be extremely rare to see the Queen without gloves, pearls, a priceless brooch and a handbag. It has been reported that she uses her handbags to send signals to her staff, by switching from one arm to another, when someone is taking up too much of her time!

Despite the emphasis on practicality and function, and long after trends have moved on, some royal ladies adopt a personal sartorial style. Queen Mary never strayed from wearing turban style hats and dresses that did not go above the ankle; Vogue magazine described her distinctive style as ‘magnificence that transcended fashion’. In her later years, the Queen Mother was famous for wearing pastel colours, white shoes, and upturned hats with feathers; almost identical as the years went by. Over the years the Queen has remained consistent in her appearance. Despite the occasional nod towards fashion with sleeve and skirt length, the Queen is not a fashion plate, nor has she ever set out to be.

The royal family is one of the best examples of flying the flag for the British fashion industry. Along the way they have set trends, and highlighted unknown designers. And, although some members of the royal family may regard fashion as part of the job, it cannot be denied that it plays an important role in maintaining public interest.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

638th in line for the British throne

Whenever I hear people complaining about the monarchy, its cost, the antics of the various royals, I can't help but feel indignant, and most people don't understand why I take their comments so personally. When I tell them that I'm in line for the throne they chuckle - commoners!

But despite this, I must say that I'm proud of my lineage and provence. I can't claim Dukes, Earls or a few Viscounts in my family tree, however I'm still related. A few generations ago, somewhere along the way, a royal higher up, interbred with someone from a morganatic marriage who then had an affair, fathered an illegitimate daughter, who married and had several children, who then married back into the royal family, had children and voila, here I am today. I confess that I've always harbored a dream that one day I would become Queen of England. I've have the the royal wave down pat (it's all in the wrist), and I've practiced the art of meeting heads of state and appearing riveted at the same time. It's true that as I'm so far down the line of succession that it's an unlikely occurence, but it's still a possibility. Most people don't believe me when I tell them about it, but I still hold on to my royal dignity in the face of it all. I don't have a title per se; Uncle George V limited the use of Prince or Princess. So it's not obvious that I have family connections.

I don't abuse my royal position, maybe the free beer here and there, but I'm not a leech, not like that cousin-in-law 'Freebie Fergie', I would never lower myself. No one asks me about being royal, the burden of it, but if they did I would say that I'm a regular person, I put my pants on one leg at a time like everyone else except that I'm a few pegs higher than them. I do have to work for a living - shocking isn't it? Of course it's not in the family business; my most recent altruitic deed was to donate a can of soup to the local food bank. But I still feel as though I'm making my contribution to the world and making it a better place. It might get more attention if the media were to watch me doing so, highlight the plight of those slightly less fortunate but my calls are ignored. Obviously they're too busy watching Tom Cruise jumping on sofas, otherwise they'd be at my doorstep.

Should I be called to duty I'm ready and willing to accept the sacrifices, the responsibility, constant attention. I might take a couple more coffee breaks and play solitare here and there, but I would take the job with the utmost seriousness. However, I would still expect benefits and three weeks vacation, not to mention time in lieu for all of the overtime I would incessantly complain about. Family is important to me so I would make sure that my assistants kept them at bay - there's always someone trying to do a power play for position or favour with the monarch. Just look at Princess Michael of Kent, practically in the Queen's back pocket.

Understandably I wouldn't wish misfortune on anyone but sometime I wonder what it would take to bring me closer. Every time a baby is born I move further and further down the line. I'm used to it but I would think that Margarita Armstrong-Jones will mind once she's old enough to understand. So, what can I do? I can't very well prevent everyone from siring and interbreeding now can I? Even if the immediate royals were to go over a cliff in a tour bus heading to Buffalo, it might bring me closer, but not by much. There would have to be some sort of family reunion, where most of them meet in the same place, then maybe an unfortunate tornado then hits and that takes care of another 100. If they have room on their ships, an alien invasion takes another 50. Ah, who am I kidding! Maybe more people could follow Prince Michael of Kent or the Earl of St. Andrews' example and marry Catholics to remove themselves from the line of succession. I could possibly marry up but now that Prince Charles is off the market my options are limited. Prince Andrew is only fourth in line and his chances of becoming King are about as likely as mine. However, if Prince William and Harry are into older women...hmmm, I think my husband would have something to say about that.

I don't know what it is about being Queen that appeals to me. Is it the power? the deference? having my image on stamps, coins, china, and portaits in municipal buildings? It's probably all of that and more. But what does it really mean to be a member of the royal family? If we use Diana and Fergie as examples it doesn't seem to be all that it's cracked up to be. Poor Camilla and Sophie! I've heard that the Queen works long hours and she only gets Easter and Christmas day off. It seems that there's no retirement either and that one must have an excellent sense of dedication to keep the job going. I like my weekends off so maybe I should stick with my present position as a minor royal. Apparently there's some talk of paring down the monarchy so unlike those closer to the throne, at least I'm safe. Who would want the constant worry of having to lose their job? Especially one that doesn't pay very well. I think that I would make a boring royal too, wearing the same outfits over and over and preferring to stay below the radar while carrying out my requisite load of duties. Earning my keep doesn't have to entail controversy does it?

I think I'll keep my day job.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Royal Military Service

As Prince William begins his career as a soldier, he is following a long-standing family tradition of military service. Most royal Princes have received training in the armed services; indeed, at one point it was considered a foregone conclusion. Now it seems to be at the individuals discretion, as in the case of the present Duke of Gloucester, David Linley and the sons of the Duke of Kent. However, when William ascends the throne, he will be Head of the Armed Services.

Almost every heir to the throne has had some type of extensive military training, even if they have not seen active duty. An exception to this is Queen Victoria and her son Edward VII, who as Prince of Wales had hoped for a career in the Army but served only briefly in the Grenadier Guards in 1861. There is less of an expectation for royal women, most of whom hold honorary titles. The Queen became the first female member of the Royal Family to be a full-time active member of the Armed Services when, as Princess Elizabeth, she joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service in 1945.

Due to his position as heir and the potential diplomatic issues, it's unlikely that Prince William will see active combat. The Duke of York, at the time second in line to the throne, is the most recent member of the Royal family to see active service, during the Falklands War in 1982. The last king to lead his troops into battle was George II in 1743 when, aged 60, he took the field for the last time, defeating the French at the Battle of Dettingen in Germany. The last British Sovereign to have seen action in battle was George VI who, as a 20-year-old Sub-Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, fought in the battle of Jutland in May 1916.

The Royal Navy seems to be the most popular choice for the services, a tradition that goes back 700 years. A career in the navy was seen as a suitable occupation for a prince. King George V, as Prince George of Wales, the future King George VI as Prince Albert, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales have served in the Royal Navy (The Prince of Wales also trained in the Royal Air Force as a pilot), and The Duke of York served for 22 years as an officer in the Royal Navy. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, served in the Royal Marines for 3 years.

Since the 1870's several members of the royal family have received their naval training at Dartmouth.The first royal princes to attend Dartmouth were Prince Albert Victor and his younger brother, Prince George (later King George V). The original college was based in a ship but in 1903 training shifted to a shore based college split between two sites, Osbourne on the Isle of Wight and Dartmouth. The first member of the royal family to attend the new college was Prince Edward (later Edward VIII). His brother Prince Albert (later George VI) arrived at Dartmouth in 1911. Other members of the royal family that have taken courses at Dartmouth include, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex. Their father, at the time Prince Philip of Greece, attended and the first recorded meeting between the Prince and Princess Elizabeth took place there in July 1939.

Prince William, and Prince Harry are training at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. This academy was formed in 1947. It is descended from two older institutions, the Royal Military Academy (founded in 1741) and the Royal Military College (founded in 1800). Along with Prince William and Prince Harry, the present Duke of Kent and his younger brother Prince Michael also attended Sandhurst.

It remains to be seen whether Prince William will follow the family's naval tradition. Like his grandfather, father and uncle, it is more than likely he will gain his pilots license at some point in his career. While not mandatory, an all round training in the services can only serve him well in his future role.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

The Royal Prolific Challenge

On February 13th,I challenged myself to become more prolific in my royal writing. I started on the 14th and for the next 10 days I will be posting daily on my other royal blog: The Royal Chronicles.

Hope you can drop by and check it out!

Thanks for visiting

Marilyn :o)

BTW: I'm still posting on this blog as well

Althorp - Much Ado About Nothing

It has recently been reported that Althorp, ancestral home of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, is being opened to the public for weddings and corporate events. As a result, this may cause some consternation from people who think that Diana's brother, Earl Spencer is cashing in on the Diana connection.The article also adds that,

"It will be the first time Althorp has hosted functions since Diana's death in 1997"

Hardly. What these people may not realize is that Althorp has been open to the public since 1953; 8 years before Diana was born, 28 years before Diana's wedding in 1981. I'm sure the Diana factor doesn't hurt, adding a cachet other ancestral estates don't have, but ultimately Althorp was used for commercial purposes well before Diana came along.

The commercial use of an estate is nothing new. Broadlands, where the Queen and Prince Philip spent part of their honeymoon, Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House, two of the Queen's properties are used commercially, Frogmore House and Grounds, containing the mausoleum of Queen Victoria, Harewood house, another estate with a royal connection, is open to the public. Princess Mary, the Princess Royal (mother of George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood) is also buried within the grounds. Do we see people up in arms over that?

For people who think Earl Spencer is cashing in, it should be noted that Althorp has a legal obligation to open to the public for at least 60 days each year. This applies to every stately home in the UK that contains outstanding works of art. I have been to Althorp, and other than a portrait and a few photos scattered about, the actual house doesn't really mention Diana. The bedroom touted as 'The Princess of Wales' room, was named in honour of Princess Alexandra, Princess of Wales, wife of the future King Edward VII. The Diana exhibit, tastefully done I might add, is only open for three months of the year. From July 1 to August 30, and all profits are donated to the Princess of Wales Memorial fund.

When Earl Spencer starts renting out Diana's wedding dress, then we'll start to worry

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Royal Profile: Sir Angus Ogilvy

Angus James Bruce Ogilvy, the second son of the Earl of Airlie, was born on September 14, 1928 at Cortachy Castle. His family was no stranger to the royal family, having had close associations as friends and trusted courtiers. His father was a 'Lord in Waiting' to King George V, his grandmother was a close friend of Queen Mary and his elder brother held the office of Lord Chamberlain.

He was educated at Heatherdown, Eton and Trinity College, Oxford. He graduated in 1950 with a degree in philosphy, politics and economics. From 1946 to 1948 he was commissioned into the Scots guards.

He and Princess Alexandra of Kent (The daughter Princess Marina of Kent and sister of Prince Michael of Kent) were childhood playmates and had been friends all of their lives. They became engaged on November 19, 1962 and were married on April 24,1963 in Westminster Abbey. Despite being married to a popular member of the royal family, Sir Angus was able to keep a relatively low profile. They had two children - James (born 1964) and Marina (born 1966).

After leaving Oxford be pursued a varied and successful career in the City of London, and by 1956 he had become director of a number of companies. In 1973 he became embroiled in a controversy over his involvement with 'Tiny' Rowlands company Lonrho and its activities in Rhodesia. He was later exonerated from any blame but he was obliged to resign from several directorships of various companies and 16 City appointments. Despite the controversy, several companies refused to let him go.

Knighted in 1989, the Queen appointed him a Privy Counsellor in 1997. He was a member of the Royal Company of Archers, the Queen's ceremonial bodyguard in Scotland. In later life, he was involved in a large number or charities and his interests included reading, music and architecture. In 2002 he was diagnosed with throat cancer and died two years later on December 26, 2004 - the day after his wife's 68th birthday.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

At least they have nice personalities

Sometimes I'm disappointed with the British royals these days. It's not just the possibility that Prince Charles might take over some of the duties of the Queen, it's the complete and utter lack of sex appeal in the present royal family. I'm not talking about Diana and Fergie, or anyone else who has married into the royal family. The gene pool was in dire need of boosting, so they did their part. No people, I'm talking about the blood royals.

If anyone at one point did have some appeal, it has definately gone by the wayside. Prince Charles did, as I wrote about in my posting Prince Charles: Royal Sex Symbol. But he's really the only one, with royal blood, who had any appeal. And this is only because of his position. The potential to become a princess would make Prince Charles attractive to anyone.

Sure there's some evidence of sex appeal within the family. A couple of photos of Prince William without his shirt on should tide us over. Some thought that the 21st birthday photo of Prince Harry on his motorcycle, channeling Marlon Brando, was sexy. Zara Philips is a good clotheshorse, and Princess Beatrice looked great on the cover of Tatler. But really, who are we kidding here?

Who was the last sexy royal? Well, Princess Margaret did have a sex appeal going for her, the Duke of Windsor, when he was Prince of Wales, had the women swooning. Prince George, Duke of Kent (husband of Marina, Duchess of Kent), rumoured to be bi-sexual and a drug addict, was also supposed to be sexy. Prince Andrew, or 'Randy Andy' was attractive in his day. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, can be counted because he does have royal blood. But, that seems to be about it. Can you believe that in 100 years, we've only had five genuinely sexy royals? This doesn't include Prince Charles, because if he didn't have that aura of symbolic power about him, we probably wouldn't give him a second glance.

Because the well seems to have run dry, we have to look at other royal families to find attractiveness. Isn't it sad? Some people who have nothing better to do, would argue that I'm being completely shallow and that they've been genetically blessed with good health and longevity, and that should override physical features. However, the fact that they've lived as long as they have, simply reminds me more and more that there isn't a beautiful royal amongst them.

*Sigh* At least they have nice personalities

© Marilyn Braun 2006

What would the neighbors think....

I have a love/hate relationship with the internet. When it's working, I love it. When it doesn't work, I hate it. But yet I keep coming back for more. In otherwords I'm having technical difficulties and I hope to be back later today or tomorrow.

Right now I don't have stable internet access, so I'm resorting to covert operations in order to post this. Very hush, hush. See how dedicated and addicted I am to this blog? I need help and as soon as I have my internet up and running I'll search for some friendly doctors who can prescribe the appropriate medication.

In the interim, feel free to browse my archives for hidden gems. Alternatively, you can use the search box I've added to find articles on your favourite royal subjects: Camilla, William, Diana, royal weddings, royal engagement rings, royal jewels, fascinating royal profiles....

Have a fantastic and technologically glitch free weekend.

Marilyn :o)

Marilyn's Royal Blog is back!!!

Dear Visitor,

If you're a visitor to my blog (or if you subscribe to a service that let's you know when I've changed it), you may have noticed that I've updated several times today.

I'm currently trying out another blog program - experimenting if you will, and I decided to import some of my articles over to the new blog, which is www.royalchronicles.wordpress.com. It's not a permanent move, I'm just trying it out. I'm thinking that I will eventually move this blog to a website, but I don't think that's going to happen very soon. When it does, I'll let you know.

Anyways, once I did this, I went back into Blogger and found my blog had practically disappeared (links, current articles, profile, even the template, you name it, it was gone) , except for a list of my archives and a friendly re-direct to wordpress. so that you too can get a wordpress blog! Not what I had in mind.

My only consolation was that all of my articles were still in Blogger - Phew! You don't know how relieved I was about that. Meanwhile, I was panicking and almost in tears trying to figure out where this blog had gone. I've worked very hard on this blog and I'm proud of it and the last thing I wanted is to have it disappear.

Thankfully I had some friendly help and I was able to calm down and repair my blog. The idea of having to go in and upload 90 articles, and try and add all of the links to other sites again was daunting to say the least. Luckily calmer heads prevailed with good advice and I don't have to do that.

The moral of this story is: Always keep a back-up copy of your template!

Thank you for your patience and thanks for visiting

Marilyn :o)

The Christian Tradition Continues

The son of Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark was christened on January 21st. Born on October 15th 2005, his name was a secret, for reasons unknown, until his mother spoke them at the moment of his baptism - Christian Valdemar Henri John.

I had previously written about his name in my post The Naming of a Prince. I don't envy the parents who must have felt pressure to continue the tradition that alternates Christian and Frederik for future kings of Denmark. They said the name had been decided for some time and that it wasn't a difficult choice. But I disagree. What if they didn't like the name Christian? What if they had wanted to call him Frederik? Maybe these thoughts were running through their minds. We'll never know. In the end they decided to go with Christian, thus avoiding upsetting the order of things. But really, there are plenty of other perfectly good monikers available, just read the World of Royalty Blog, which mentions the various Danish names the couple could have chosen.

I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed by the choice of Christian. It's a nice name but it was no surprise. Not to mention a complete lack of originality. Of course I would have bended too but still, isn't part of the fun of choosing a name dashing the hopes of everyone around you? Especially people who make unsubtle suggestions. Sure people discussed the possibility of 'Gorm', highly unlikely but maybe it was on their list. Erik and Christopher would have been modern choices with precedent and Hans has a good ring to it in the year that celebrated the 200th birthday of Hans Christian Andersen. I'm not a fan of choosing a name that is currently fashionable, so 'Canute' would have made the prince stand out amongst his prep school peers. Don't feel so bad, his bodyguards would have protected him.

Hopefully the Prince and Princess will have more leeway in choosing the name of their second child. If it's a boy they could go with some of the names I've mentioned above. If it's a girl, how about Marilyn??

Just a suggestion.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

A meal fit for a Queen

Members of the public are being asked to choose what the Queen will eat for her birthday luncheon. Instead of contributing to the poll, I've decided to respectfully submit my own four course menu. I've read that the Queen and Prince Philip enjoy simple fare and I'm a big fan of the four basic food groups, in the parlance of Martha Stewart - it's a good thing. When you're the Queen's age, it's even more important to eat healthy. However, she shouldn't sacrifice taste, so here are my suggestions:

Appetizers

Weiners de cocktail & Poppers de japaleno (always good to have a vegetarian option)

Soup

Potage des pois fendu avec du jambon

I love split pea soup. Sure you could do potage de courge de butternut avec la sauge, but why not try something different?

Main Entree

Mini-pieuvres avec Dîner Kraft or Macaroni au fromage et aux légumes

Or more commonly known as macaroni and cheese. It's a classic standby, it's easy, it's tasty and according to the box it has some nutritional value. Serve it with tuna, add a sprig of parsley and voila, it becomes a $20.00 entree at an expensive restaurant.

Dessert

Bagatelle des fêtes au JELL-O

A staple of hospital and nursing homes, JELL-O is an easy standby and it doesn't have any calories. Add garniture fouettée Cool Whip, décongelée, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, good!

Bon appétit!

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Royal Rumour has it...

Rumour has it that the Queen will step back, pare down on her duties and allow the Prince of Wales to act as Regent.

If true, I'm disappointed. I'm not a monarchist, but I'm comforted knowing that the Queen is still around. Like a grandparent I never visit, on a personal level, I care about her. She's the only queen I've ever known. She's on my stamps, my money, and on the various souvenirs I collect.

The Queen, of course, as earned the right to kick back and relax a bit. She'll be 80 in April. When her peers are retiring and spending winters in Florida, playing canasta, and making crafts with sea shells, she is doing investitures, reading important papers, travelling, and holding state dinners for 200+. Admirably she's still going strong.

Sure the Prince of Wales will do a great job, he's been apprenticing since he was 3 1/2 years old. Unlike Queen Victoria, who did not allow her heir, Edward VII, to access any papers, the Prince of Wales will be more prepared for his future role by QE2. It's reassuring, but it's not the same. What about the glamour and pagentry of monarchy? No one wears a tiara and priceless jewels like the Queen.

But should he really be handed the reins at the moment? With all of the furor surrounding his marriage to Camilla, shouldn't she let the dust settle? Won't this bring up all sorts of issues? His suitability as king? His name as sovereign? Camilla's title? His religious beliefs? There are all sorts of things for royal experts and the annoying Penny Junor to speculate on.

In her Coronation vows, I don't recall hearing anything about stepping back. Maybe it's in the interpretation. If we question her dedication, there are royal loopholes and disclaimers to prove us wrong. Legal experts will tell us we should have read the fine print.

It's nothing new for an heir to take on more duties when the monarch is unavailable or incapacitated. The Queen, when she was Princess Elizabeth did so, but it just seemed different then. With a young and beautiful queen there was something to look forward to. Can we say the same thing about the Prince of Wales?

I'm sure the Prince of Wales will make a great king; when the time comes. Until then I'm just not ready to see her go.

Let's hope it's just a rumour.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Royal Review: Freddy and Fredericka by Mark Helprin

I have to say that I was looking forward to reading this book. One chapter in I started to have my doubts about that.

Freddy and Fredericka is about a fictional Prince and Princess of Wales, who bear a striking resemblance to the real Prince and Princess. There's the Queen (Queen Philippa), Prince Philip (Prince Paul), Diana (Princess Fredericka), Prince Charles (Prince Freddy), and Camilla (Lady Phoebe Boylingehotte). All of the main characters from the real soap opera are here.

The story begins with a falcon named Craig-Vyvyan which is supposed to predict the future monarch; if it flies from the arm of the heir, it means that they will be the next sovereign. After several attempts, the falcon has not flown for Freddy. At this point in the story one can only hope that it never does.

The character of Fredericka, fashionable, universally loved and lauded, is portrayed as an empty-headed, shallow, and manipulative, seemingly with no redeeming qualities. Although I'm sure the real Princess of Wales had her faults, this portrayal is taken to the extreme and it becomes annoying after a while. Freddy, more sympathetically portrayed, is misunderstood, contemplative, constantly upstaged by his glamourous wife, criticized by his father, and finds solace in talking to plants and Lady Boylingehotte. Can you already see where the story is going?

Of course we can read about that in royal biographies, so Helprin's tale takes a turn. When Freddy and Fredericka's antics make the monarchy look bad once too often, they are cast out into the real world, left to their own devices, to recapture the American colonies. The events that follow are completely plausible for two naked people forced to parachute into New Jersey in the middle of the night. They have no food, clothes, money, or ID. They also can't tell people who they are.

Adopting new identities, they make their way across America, finding food, clothing, and a new respect for each other. With surprising capability, they support themselves working as dishwashers, railway workers, cleaning toilets. They also become art thieves, dentists, and political speechwriters.

Some of the names used in the novel are too farfetched to be funny; Princess Fredericka's ancestral estate is called 'Feta', Prince Freddy's estate is 'Moocock'. Their new identities are a tongue twister: Mr and Mrs. Lachproof Bachquaquinnik Des Moofoomooach. My apologies to anyone with this as their real name.

Some of the arguments in semantics that the main character's get into, usually at inopportune moments, are funny, the misunderstandings while explaining themselves are hilarious. However there are times when some of the passages drag on. No doubt these are supposed to satire politicians and political situations but it just becomes an unnecessary distraction to the main story of Freddy and Fredericka.

Stripped of their royal personages, wealth and priviledge, we see them as real people, human, flawed. As they discover each other and question their royal positions, one can't help but feel compassion towards them. This makes the book a page turner and I found myself rooting for the characters to reach their destiny, whatever their choice ended up being.

Will they stay in America and reclaim the colonies? Will they return to Britain and their royal positions?

I highly recommend reading this book to find out.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Royal Trivia Time!

Did you know...

• The Queen became one of the first Heads of State to send an e-mail on March 26, 1976 during a visit to the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, a military unit based at Malvern, Worcestershire.

• The Queen has 30 god-children

• The Queen became the first member of the Royal Family to be awarded a gold disc from the recording industry. Around 100,000 copies of the CD of the 'Party at the Palace', produced by EMI, were sold within the first week of release.

• Prince Philip is the first member of the royal family to use a helicopter

• The first Royal Walkabout bt the Queen and Prince Philip took place during a visit to Australia and New Zealand in 1970.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

Royal Profile: George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood

The Rt. Honourable Sir George Henry Hubert Lascelles, KBE, 7th Earl of Harewood, Viscount Lascelles and Baron Harewood was born on February 7, 1923 at Harewood House, the family manor in Yorkshire. He was the first son of Henry, the 6th Earl of Harewood and Princess Mary, later the Princess Royal. He was the first grandchild of King George V and Queen Mary and is a first cousin of Queen Elizabeth II. Until he succeeded to the title of Earl of Harewood in 1947, he was known by the courtesy title of Viscount Lascelles. He has a younger brother, Gerald (1924-1998).

He was educated at Eton and King's College, Cambridge and later commissioned into the Grenadier Guards, attaining the rank of Captain. During World War II he fought in Italy, was wounded and captured by the Germans and imprisioned in Colditz from 1944 to May 1945. After the war, in 1945-6 he served as 'aide de-camp' to the governor-general of Canada at the time, the Earl of Athlone (husband of Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone). During the monarch's absence abroad, he was appointed a Counsellor of State in 1947; the first person without a royal title to do so. He was appointed again during Queen Elizabeth's major post Coronation Commonwealth tour in 1953-54.

In 1949 he married Marion Stein, and the couple had three sons: David, the current Viscount Lascelles (b 1950), James (b 1953), and Jeremy (b 1955). The marriage was dissolved in 1966; making the earl the first member of the immediate family to divorce. Two years prior to this, he had a son, Mark Lascelles (b 1964) by Patricia Tuckwell, whom he married in 1967. Marion Stein later went on to marry politician Jeremy Thorpe, who caused a scandal in 1976 when he was accused of having a homosexual relationship with another man.

He has devoted most of his career to the opera, for which he is a recognized expert and has written major books on the subject. He was editor of Opera Magazine and worked for the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden as Director. He has been Chairman of the Board of the English Opera, Artistic Director of the Leeds Festival and the Edinburgh International Festival. Artistic Adviser to the New Philharmonica Orchestra and Managing Director of the English National Opera North. In 1985 he retired to devote more time to running Harewood House.

The Queen created him a Knight Commander of the British Empire in 1986. He received the Australian Order of Merit in 1959. His memoirs, The Tongs and the Bones, was published in 1981.

Update: The Earl of Harewood died on July 11th, 2011. He is survived by his wife Patricia and his four sons.

© Marilyn Braun 2006

The Royal Christmas Broadcast

Through one of the marvels of modern science, I am enabled, this Christmas Day, to speak to all my peoples throughout the Empire. I take it as a good omen that Wireless should have reached its present perfection at a time when the Empire has been linked in closer union. For it offers us immense possibilities to make that union closer still.

On Christmas day 1932, King George V made the first royal Christmas broadcast. His speech was short, no more than 251 words, and lasted two-and-a-half minutes, but it started a tradition that has continued to this day. The text of this Christmas speech was written by poet and writer Rudyard Kipling and it was broadcast live by radio from his study at Sandringham. The time chosen was 3 pm - the best time for reaching most of the countries in the Empire by short waves from the transmitters in Britain.

Although he had reigned since 1910, it wasn't until the summer of 1932 that he was convinced to do a Christmas broadcast using the 'untried medium of radio'. King George V continued to broadcast until the end of his reign. His voice noticeably weaker, his last speech came in 1935, a month before his death.

There was no Christmas broadcast in 1936 as King Edward VIII abdicated just before Christmas. His successor, King George VI delivered his first Christmas message in 1937,  thanking the nation for their support during the first year of his reign. George VI had stammered most of his life and he would always find making the broadcast to be an ordeal. There would be no broadcast in 1938, as it had yet to become a regular tradition. However the Second World War would change that.

In 1939, three months after war had been declared, he made a speech that was to have a profound effect. Wearing his uniform of Admiral of the Fleet, he reassured his people in the uncertain times ahead. During the Second World War these broadcasts played a large part in boosting morale and reinforcing belief in the common cause. All of his broadcasts were live except for his last one, in 1951. Suffering from lung cancer, the message was pre-recorded as he was only able to manage the recording in intervals. Despite this, his optimistic words were to touch his listeners, who were unaware of the seriousness of his illness.

He died in February 1952, and his heir, the present Queen, made her first broadcast on Christmas day of that year. Using the same desk and chair as her father and grandfather, she broadcast her radio message live from Sandringham. This message would be recorded and re-broadcast all over the world for the benefit of those who could not get a good reception that day. In 1953, while on her Commonwealth tour, she made her speech from Auckland, New Zealand; the first and only time that it would be done outside of the United Kingdom.

In 1957, on the 25th anniversary of her grandfather's first broadcast, the Queen's Christmas message was televised for the first time. From 1960 onwards, the broadcasts were recorded in advance so that tapes of the speech would be sent across the Commonwealth for transmissions at convenient times.

The Queen has given a broadcast every year of her reign except one. In 1969, when the documentary film 'Royal Family' was shown, it was decided not to broadcast a Christmas message. Instead she released a written message. Listeners missed the broadcast and wrote to the BBC to complain. A message had been broadcast without break ever since.

The broadcast has kept up with modern technology. In 1932, King George V had the 'wireless', in 1957, the Queen broadcast live on television, and in 1998 the broadcast appeared on the Internet for the first time. Today, the message is recorded a few days before Christmas and lasts up to 10 minutes.

Since 1932, the Christmas broadcast has become a chronicle of global, national and personal events, reflecting current issues and concerns. Lending a personal touch, the Queen talks about her hopes for the year ahead and what Christmas means to her and many of her listeners.

This year will be the Queen's 52nd Christmas broadcast. We can look forward to this tradition continuing for many years to come.

For a complete archive of the Queen's Christmas broadcasts click here.

 

© Marilyn Braun 2005

The Queen's To-Do list for Christmas

√ Record Christmas speech

√ Send Christmas cards

√ Wrap 550 employee gifts

√ Buy more wrapping paper, tape and stamps

√ Re-gift fruitcake

√ Put dustcovers over the furniture at BP

√ Pack for Sandringham

√ Put lights up at Sandringham

√ Buy kris kringle gift for Princess Michael

√ Choose menu for dinner

√ Make sure there are enough Christmas crackers this year

√ Rent It's a Wonderful Life

√ Roast chestnuts over an open fire

√ Hang stockings with care

√ Buy Mistletoe

√ Decorate Christmas tree

√ I'm NOT Martha Stewart! Buy mince pies, trifle, and Christmas pudding this year

√ Make sure camera has plenty of film

Phew!


© Marilyn Braun 2005

Dear Lilibet...

It's coming up to the end of the year and I just thought I would check in and see how things are with you.

You've had an eventful year, what with Charles getting married again, Andy costing the taxpayers too much money, Harry and the sicknote incident, and now William with the whole boots thing. Not to mention Princess Michael and her jam. No matter how you raise them they still surprise you don't they? At least you didn't have to worry about Anne and Edward this year. By the way, Beatrice looked just stunning on the cover of Tatler. Let's hope she doesn't take after her mother.

I don't blame you one bit for not going to the wedding. If I were in your shoes I wouldn't have gone either. It was a splendid service afterwards, even if I did have to watch it on tv like everyone else. No hard feelings though.

I went to Calgary earlier this year, actually just two weeks after you had left. You're not avoiding me are you? ;o) It would have been lovely to see you and Philip. Next time you're in Toronto, you must stop by. Our flight was fine and almost uneventful. We were worried about the baby but she was a trouper. Coming back was another story! Can you believe she's just turned one! Time just flies doesn't it? Did you get the photos I've sent you?

We arrived in Edmonton and made our way around to Jasper and Banff. You recommended the Banff Springs hotel, so we thought we would stay there. Unfortunately we couldn't get a discount, even after mentioning your name as you had suggested. Oh how embarrassing! I told security that you would hear about this.

Anyways, we drove on and went to the Icefields, Athabasca Falls, the Hot Springs, as well as the Royal Turrell Dinosour museum in Drumheller. It seems that you and Phil have opened a lot of places; just plaques everywhere! You must have so many memories and gift shop souvenirs.

We stopped off at Lake Louise; what a beautiful tribute to a family member. But did the province have to be named after her too? I would have been happy with a school, a parkway or even a hospital. I would have even settled for a street sign. Obviously a lake wasn't good enough for her.

Well dear, I'm looking forward to your Christmas message this year. They just keep getting better and better.

All my love to you and your family.

Marilyn

© Marilyn Braun 2005

Camilla and the Specter of Diana

Like Laurel and Harvey, Abbott and Costello, Siskel and Ebert, Camilla and Diana's names seem to be intertwined. Whether it's about fashion or exclusion from state prayers, when discussing Camilla, Diana's name invariably comes up. And it's not likely to end anytime soon. Their names will go down in history as a cautionary tale of what not to do when you marry into the royal family. Future generations take note. But other than being blonde, well-to-do, divorced, born under the sign of Cancer, mother's of two children, and married to the same man, what do they really have in common?

More than you would think. According to the recent issue of Majesty magazine, they are related through an illegitimate line from King Charles II and his brother, James, Duke of York. It has even been said that Charles is related to both women; albeit through a legitimate line.

Although blood is supposed to be thicker than water, there are limits. Especially when a distant cousin has an affair with a cousin's husband, who also happens to be a cousin. In this situation family ties are bound to get strained. Tongues wag and relations take sides. Things could have gotten nasty. Then Diana died, and everyone was saved from awkward moments at family gatherings.

But although Diana is gone, she is not forgotten.

We only need to look at the coverage of Charles and Camilla's recent American tour. Although I consider myself to be an avid royal watcher, I have no idea what Charles and Camilla did or where they went. I was too busy reading the comparisons between Charles and Diana's 1985 tour and the 2005 one. The media packed Diana's bags and brought her along. It was inevitable that this would happen, but reporting it for the entire tour? didn't the newspapers have anything better to write about?

In the current issue of Vanity Fair, there's an article titled 'Charles and Camilla, Together at Last', which makes it to the third page before it mentions Diana. True, the path to marital bliss cannot be told without mentioning how inconvenient Diana was. But do we really need to rehash every part of the drama? There's nothing new in this article. No explosive revelations. Nothing we haven't heard royal experts heatedly discuss on Larry King.

Few remain neutral when discussing Camilla and Diana. Although the Camilla campaign has won much of the public over, for the unconverted, the consensus is to blame Camilla for everything that went wrong in Diana's marriage, and her resulting death. If the monarchy eventually implodes, that will be Camilla's fault too.

It seems that Camilla will always live under the specter of Diana. In the absence of accomplishments on Camilla's part, it's more interesting to compare the two. After all, has Camilla walked through a mine field? shook hands with an Aids patient? had everyone from her childhood nanny to her spiritual advisor write a book about her? caused a massive outpouring of global grief at her death? We'll have to wait and see. For now Diana takes the lead in those categories.

So many of the comparisons between Camilla and Diana are negative towards Camilla. But like Diana, I'm sure that Camilla has her own remarkable qualities. Her ability to be down to earth is not unlike Diana's common touch. Like Diana, she has renewed interest in the monarchy. She may never make the same impact or be as universally lauded, but does she need to? If we can leave the past behind and focus on all of the positive that Camilla can bring to her role, then in time Camilla may have a chance to make her own mark. Then those comparisons can be put to good use.

And that may not be such a bad thing afterall.

© Marilyn Braun 2005

Prayers for Camilla

Just when we thought that Camilla has finally been accepted, she gets snubbed again! This time, she's being excluded from the state prayers. The Queen, Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales are included. When Diana was still in the fold, she was included too. In hindsight, we should have been praying for Diana more. So why not give Camilla the same theologial sanction?

Of course, this is not intended as a snub, she is, after all, included in the prayers for the rest of the royal family. But the problem is, she's not just any member of the family, she's the wife of the Prince of Wales and she should be treated with all of the respect that position entails.

If anyone deserves prayers it's Camilla. Prayers for the baptism of fire people have put her through. Prayers for the cruel comments levelled at her. Prayers for all of the comparisons she's had to endure. Prayers for having to defer to her 'She who must be obeyed' mother-in-law.

Don't you feel as though we've been fooled all along? That all of the supposed signals of her acceptance: marrying Prince Charles, Harry and William 'loving her to bits', appearing on the royal Christmas card, being loaned a priceless tiara, and getting 'pass the salt' proximity to the Queen at the Norwegian banquet in October, mean nothing?

Hasn't the Queen and her courtiers learned from previous experience? Diana? the civil ceremony snub? If they're not going to give her respect outright then why not just make a show of it? Leave her in the prayers once and then no one will notice. I know I don't pay attention.

Let us pray the Queen will start.

© Marilyn Braun 2005