Tumgik
#British Nobility
tiaramania · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
TIARA ALERT: Katherine O'Connor wore the Countess of Lindsay's Pearl Fringe Tiara for her wedding to The Honorable David Lindesay-Bethune in at Elie Parish Church in St. Andrews, Scotland on 16 September 2023.
197 notes · View notes
madeleineengland · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Eloise's reaction when Theo gave her books 📚
+
Tumblr media
755 notes · View notes
7-percent · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
My Lords, Ladies and gentlemen...
In response to an ask from @calaisreno, I thought I might produce a  resource for fanfic writers who include peers of the realm in their stories.  @calaisreno wanted to know why the poet was called “Lord Tennyson” rather than “Lord Alfred”.  
There are rules about how British nobility are referred to when writing and different ones for when you (or your characters) are speaking with them. 
I learned the protocols the hard way. In my career I have had contact with many peers of the realm; learning the etiquette was challenging but luckily I had this (a more modern version!) to help me. 
Tumblr media
When someone male gets a Knighthood or a woman becomes a Dame, the normal way of addressing them in conversation is “Sir First Name” or “Lady First Name”. I’ve worked with a Sir Nicholas (my boss) and a Sir Brian (another boss). Writing a letter or a memo to them would get the full first and last name: Sir First and Last Name. 
When a knight becomes a lord, the rules change. All peerages (life peers, barons, marquis, viscounts and earls) always have a PLACE associated with their name, eg  Lord Holmes, Viscount of Sherrinford, often shortened to Lord Holmes of Sherrinford. Face-to-face, one would say “My Lord” (in Brit English usually pronounced “m’lord”). No first names involved!
Interestingly, peerages for women have different rules. Mrs Thatcher became a life peer with the title, “Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire”. Face-to-face, she would be addressed as Lady Thatcher, or m’lady. 
To answer @calaisreno, directly, Alfred Tennyson, the English Poet Laureate, initially declined a baronetcy in 1865 and 1868 (when tendered by Disraeli), finally accepting a peerage in 1883 at Gladstone's earnest solicitation. In 1884 Victoria created him Baron Tennyson of Aldworth in the County of Sussex and of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight. He would be addressed as Lord Tennyson, not as “Lord Alfred.” 
38 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
Anglo-German Royalty
Francis, Duke of Teck with his three sons, Prince Adolphus, Prince Francis and Prince Alexander.
Photo taken at the Wedding of Prince Adolphus to Lady Margaret Grosvenor.
In order to maintain the British Royal Family, King George V had to change the German names but I prefer them.
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Teck and Battenberg sound better😌.
From the Royal Collection
The Duchess of Teck with her sons, Prince Adolphus and Prince Francis.
Tumblr media
31 notes · View notes
ryan-is-a-god · 1 year
Text
My emails only take two forms:
Corporate approved, "you sound like a bot".
17th century British nobleman.
The latter is my natural form, the first is the result of meticulously rewriting to sound more, "natural" and "less try hard".
0 notes
illustratus · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
The challenge by John Arthur Lomax
133 notes · View notes
bethanydelleman · 6 months
Text
Every so often I go down these rabbit holes on Wikipedia of royals and nobles on the British Isles and something that always stands out to me is that so many of the marriages are political, so many are between minors (as young as 14 on both sides, engagements even younger), and neither side really has a choice.
Like for example, Arthur Tudor was engaged to Catherine of Aragon when he was like 2 years old and married when he was 15 (Catherine was 16). He did exchange letters with his betrothed (in Latin!) but only met her a few weeks before the wedding. He said he was very happy to marry his wife, but did he really have a choice? He might just have been making the most of it or obeying like the child that he still was.
Girl Being Forced to Marry For Political Reasons Against Her Will is such a common trope, and maybe it's more of the focus because women had less power in marriage and less ability to take lovers, but it seems like a lot of these marriages were people who were both basically told whom they would marry. Just because men can keep having sex with whomever they want doesn't mean that they haven't lost anything in these interactions and that it wouldn't do emotional damage. And the putting on a nice public face would be similar for both of them.
Anyway, maybe a writing idea? I'm not sure where I'm going with this, except that I feel for these young and powerful men who were often as much pawns in their parents' schemes for influence as the girls.
62 notes · View notes
xamaxenta · 5 months
Text
Not me getting really excited every time i see a blond male character with a front/slightly off centered hair part with longish wavy hair like SABO!?!???
And then i check the tags and i get disappointed but its almost always a weebified version of some victorian man and thats pretty funny
36 notes · View notes
blackswaneuroparedux · 11 months
Text
Anonymous asked: You’re one of the smartest and well-grounded defenders of conservatism I have read here but I’m curious how you would defend the British monarchy. What would you say to those critics who think the coronation of King Charles III and the monarchy in general is just a waste of time as its rituals are out-dated and therefore has no symbolic value? How will you and your family be celebrating the coronation of King Charles III?
Thank you for your kind words, however undeserved. I’ve already started celebrating the coronation. I was in London earlier in the week seeing family and friends and I was just taking in the magnificent royal pageantry makeover of central London. One of my gentlemen’s club is in Pall Mall (it feels weird to say that as a woman) and just walking down there up to Fortnum & Mason and Hatchards bookstore in and around Piccadilly and Green Park gave me goosebumps. I only wish I was there longer but alas I had to get back to Paris; but at least I bought some food and tea stash from Fortnum & Mason to bring back to friends.
I’ll be properly celebrating the coronation by hosting a ’street party’ on our French vineyard with my cousins and inviting some of the British expats and French neighbours to celebrate with lots of fine wine and champers in full flow. Like millions of others, my immediate family are doing their own thing to celebrate the coronation. Overall, it should be a great day. And historic too. I have a spring in my step even if the very next day I have the weight of work on my shoulders as I rush to the airport the very next day to step back on the punishing corporate treadmill. 
Tumblr media
On the face of it, the British monarchy runs against the spirit of the times. Deference is dead, but royalty is built on a pantomime of archaic honourifics and frock-coated footmen. In an age of meritocracy, monarchy is rooted in the unjustifiable privilege of birth. Populism means that old elites are out, but the most conspicuous elite of all remains. Identity politics means that narratives are in, but the late queen kept her feelings under her collection of unfashionable hats. By rights, support for the crown should have crumbled under Elizabeth and especially under Charles. Instead, the monarchy has thrived. And it continues to thrive and thus maddening the bourgeois woke elites and perplexing race grifting decolonisation academics. And yet millions of Britons and many others around the world will tune in and celebrate the coronation of King Charles III. Unless your head is firmly embedded in the pages of the Guardian newspaper, poll after poll has shown the majority of Britons have supported the monarchy as an institution and the republican movement in the UK is a joke. Clearly the majority of Britons don’t see the monarchy as a waste of time or its rituals out-dated and nor having symbolic value? Why is that?
Tumblr media
Most of the criticisms of monarchy are no longer valid today, if they were ever valid. These criticisms are usually some variation of two ideas. Firstly, the monarch may wield absolute power arbitrarily without any sort of check, thus ruling as a tyrant. However, in present era, most monarchies rule within some sort of constitutional or traditional framework which constrains and institutionalises their powers. Even prior to this, monarchs faced significant constraints from various groups including religious institutions, aristocracies, the wealthy, and even commoners. Customs, which always shape social interactions, also served to restrain. Even monarchies that were absolute in theory were almost always constrained in practice.
In Britain even the monarch was subject to the law from medieval times. As Sir Edward Coke put it in the famous 1610 Proclamations case, “the King hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. If anyone doubts these issues are still relevant, the Supreme Court quoted these very words in its 2019 judgement on Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament. And the pre-existing law referred to, that “common law of the land”, went back - both in legal myth and in the popular mind - to Anglo-Saxon times, the era of Athelstan and St Edward (whose crown King Charles will wear).
Tumblr media
A second criticism is that even a good monarch may have an unworthy successor. However, today’s heirs are educated from birth for their future role and live in the full glare of the media their entire lives. More importantly, because they have literally been born to rule, they have constant, hands-on training on how to interact with people, politicians, and the media. This constrains bad behaviour, in theory. But it doesn’t always of course - just look at the antics of Prince Andrew and Prince Harry. Whatever your views of these people they are essentially peripheral figures to the central and singular importance of the monarch himself. The late Queen rarely put her foot wrong.
Even detractors of the monarchy had to admit the Queen herself conducted herself admirably. Christopher Hitchens, hardly a pro-monarchist but a staunch republican, was spot on when he shrewdly said, “the British monarchy doesn't depend entirely on glamour, as the long, long reign of Queen Elizabeth II continues to demonstrate. Her unflinching dutifulness and reliability have conferred something beyond charm upon the institution, associating it with stoicism and a certain integrity. Republicanism is infinitely more widespread than it was when she was first crowned, but it's very rare indeed to hear the Sovereign Lady herself being criticised, and even most anti-royalists hasten to express themselves admiringly where she is concerned.” Hitchens inadvertently highlighted an unseen truth about the longevity and relevance of the monarchy which is it has never been about the glamour or the gossip but about its symbolism which are deeply rooted in the ancient history of these lands.
Tumblr media
Critics may decry nostalgia for monarchy but they are missing the wider point which is the monarchy is at the beating heart of modern constitutional democracies. As in previous centuries, monarchy will continue to show itself to be an important and beneficial political institution wherever it still survives.
Look around and you’ll see that constitutional monarchies are undoubtedly the most popular form of royal leadership in the modern era⁠, making up close to 70% of all monarchies. This situation allows for democratically elected governments to rule the country, while the monarch performs ceremonial duties. Most monarchs are hereditary of course but I would argue in republics like the US and France for instance one has a ‘republican monarchy’. The presidency has all the symbolic trappings of a monarch and plays that unifying role for the nation. As an aside it’s interesting to note that the French president, Emmanuel Macron, technically serves as a Co-Prince of Andorra - a fact I enjoy making my good French republican friends squirm in discomfort. But France remains resolutely a republic despite many other European countries being a constitutional monarchy.
Tumblr media
Monarchy has a long history in Europe, being the predominant form of government from the Middle Ages until the First World War. At the turn of the twentieth century every country in Europe was a monarchy with just three exceptions: France, Switzerland and San Marino. But by the start of the twenty-first century, most European countries had ceased to be monarchies, and three quarters of the member states of the European Union are now republics. That has led to a teleological assumption that in time most advanced democracies will become republics, as the highest form of democratic government.
But there still remains a stubborn group of countries in Western Europe which defy that assumption, and they include some of the most advanced democracies in the world. In the most recent Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, six out of the top ten democracies - and nine of the top 15 - in the world were monarchies. They include six European monarchies: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.
It remains a historical paradox. These monarchies have survived partly for geopolitical reasons, most of the other European monarchies having disappeared at the end of the First or Second World Wars. Their continuance has been accompanied by a steady diminution in their political power, which has shrunk almost to zero, and developing roles that support liberal democracy. What modern monarchies offer is non-partisan state headship set apart from the daily political struggle of executive government; the continuity of a family whose different generations attract the interest of all age groups; and disinterested support for civil society that is beyond the reach of partisan politics. These roles have evolved because monarchy depends ultimately on the support of the public, and is more accountable than people might think.
Understanding this paradox of an ancient hereditary institution surviving as a central part of modern democracies is a key part of understanding why monarchies persist and will continue to exist.
I would argue though that even within the modern constitutional monarchy, the British monarchy uniquely stands out from all the other European ones such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, and Spain.
Tumblr media
David Starkey, despite being curmudgeonly and provocative with his outsized remarks remains one of our finest medieval and royalist historians. He has always been particularly good at explaining the shifting tone of monarchical power in Britain. After the straightforward Anglo-Saxon model, English kings had to incorporate the Norman way of doing things, with its "chivalric virus"; we then see the Tudors appear with their imperialist vision, followed by the disastrous Stuart belief in the divine right of kings, which James I subscribed to intellectually, and which Charles I paid for with his head. After that we see Hanoverian mediocrity, followed by Victorian pomp, and Windsor flexibility – changing nationality and name as wars with Germany, their ancestral home, demanded.
From the beginning, Starkey argues, England’s monarchy has been unlike any other, divorced from imperial Roman traditions and based on an unspoken contract between king and people, and so reflecting a deep sense of patriotic exceptionalism. From Alfred, who effectively invented the idea of an English nation, to George III, who became the incarnation of bluff, beef-eating John Bull during the Napoleonic Wars, and on to George VI, the personification of quiet determination during Britain’s darkest and finest hours, successful kings have come to embody a wider spirit of national defiance. Perhaps that explains why, for all his faults, we remain fascinated with Henry VIII: he may have been a monster, but he was proudly, unapologetically, our monster. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 which really was one of this nation’s finest hours that did much to lay the seeds of our modern constitutional monarchy that we have today. Compared with the blood-soaked warrior kings of the past our recent monarchs have been personally colourless and politically irrelevant, except at key moments to unify a nation on its knees (against the imminent Nazi invasion during World War Two and the Blitz) and provide a point of continuity in the face of massive societal and economic change.
But does this history make Britain’s monarchy unique. Yes, it does. It’s not just the history but the rituals that define the monarchy in Britain that make it so unique today. Indeed far from being out-dated and empty of any symbolic value, the uniqueness of its rituals make the monarchy in Britain stand out because it’s precisely because of its Christian influenced rituals are embedded in the DNA of the monarchy tied to the history of these sceptred isles as Shakespeare put it.
Tumblr media
G.K. Chesterton wrote that “the opponents of ritual attack it on the ground that it becomes formal and hollow. So it does. But ritual only becomes formal and hollow where men are not sufficiently ritualistic.” What did he mean by that? A clue can be found in publication of The Black Book back in 1820 which was radical critique of the corruption and power of the English Establishment. It made this comment on royal ritual: “Pageantry and show, the parade of crowns and coronets, of gold keys, sticks, white wands and black rods; of ermine and lawn, maces and wigs, are ridiculous when men become enlightened, when they have learned that the real object of government is to confer the greatest happiness on the people at the least expense.” Forty years later, Lord Robert Cecil, the future third marquess of Salisbury, having watched Queen Victoria open parliament, wrote with scarcely more approval: “Some nations have a gift for ceremonial. No poverty of means or absence of splendour inhibits them from making any pageant in which they take part both real and impressive. Everybody falls naturally into his proper place, throws himself without effort into the spirit of the little drama he is enacting, and instinctively represses all appearance of constraint or distracted attention.”
As Sir David Cannadine, the great British historian, suggests, the elite's desire to temper the radical consequences of democracy was a crucial reason for their invention of so many royal rituals since the later nineteenth century. Indeed, for Cannadine, it is precisely the 'invention' and performance of royal rituals and Christian traditions, perfected at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, which prevented the British monarchy from suffering the same fate as its Austrian, Prussian and German equivalents.
The Queen's coronation in 1953 was the first major international event to be broadcast on television, with an estimated 20.4 million viewers in the UK alone, 56% of the adult population. The coronation was the first media event seen by the majority of the population, and was for many their first experience of 'watching the box'. What people saw or were presented in the case of the British monarchy, were many references to its past by pointing out similarities between Elizabeth II and her famous predecessor Queen Victoria, by highlighting the longevity of rituals, or by implementing (seemingly old, but often invented) traditions in royal events like jubilees. In all of these cases, a diachronic genealogical link to the past is established in order to point to the institution's continuity, stability and anchorage in British history.
Tumblr media
But Chesterton is onto something that has never really been talked about when we look what is behind the Christian symbology of rituals (real or invented).
The uncomfortable truth - for republicans and others of no Christian faith - is that Britain’s monarchy stands as the world’s only remaining state religious institution. The coronation is more than mainly a religious ceremony, as if that remaindered it for everyone not religious. It is a symbol among much else of the world’s oldest and only global narrative: God’s story. It goes all the way back to the crowning of Edgar by St. Dunstan in AD 973, drawing, it is said, an on even older Frankish ceremony. It takes place in Westminster Abbey, the national shrine. The oath is administered by the highest clergyman in the land. His office takes precedence even over the monarch himself. There is not just the formula “So help me God” repeated as does the U.S. president at the end of every secular statement; there is not simply an oath “upon my honour and integrity,” as in Turkey, or upon the honour of the nation, as in France.
The new queen in 1953 was asked, “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the gospel?” And she, and now as Charles will, pledged to do this, kneeling at the altar of the greatest temple in the land, hand upon Bible; “the most valuable thing this world affords,” the priest intones. And of which the priest then adds:
Here is wisdom. This is the royal law. These are the lively oracles of God.
Then, in the even more amazing rite of unction that stretches in one unbroken line from the anointing of Solomon by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet in the Hebrew Bible, the king is anointed with oil under a gold awning in a ceremony of the utmost holiness and away from the gaze of onlookers (it will not be televised). The archbishop hands him the symbols of his rule:
Receive this orb set under the cross, and remember that the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ our redeemer.
It is this that is the radioactive heart of Britain’s monarchy, and the secret of its strength. I think King Charles knows this. And so King Charles III will, I hope, defend faith in such a way that accounts for the universal and particular, all the while remaining committed to Christianity, the fabric of Britain’s history and heritage.
Both the monarchy and its rituals are together a protection against tyranny and a remedy for weakness. For, long forgotten by secular pundits, it models itself on the Christian belief that authority is what it is because it has been crucified; that only Christ the servant king is truly powerful, and because all are fallen, all can be restored only through him. The eternal Light that will outlive the rise and fall of worldly civilisations is just what the nations of the world need to hear.
Tumblr media
Coming back down to more earthly concerns, the British public look to the monarchy to represent continuity, stability and tradition, but also want it to be modern, to reflect modern values and be a focus for national identity, inclusive of creed, colour, and sexual orientation. The monarchy provides the poetry and the government provides the prose.
Writing in the 1860s, Walter Bagehot, The Economist’s greatest editor, noted that under Britain’s constitutional monarchy “A republic has insinuated itself beneath the folds of a monarchy.” The executive and legislative powers of government belonged to the cabinet and Parliament. The crown was the “dignified” part of the state, devoted to ceremony and myth-making. In an elitist age, Bagehot saw this as a disguise, a device to keep the masses happy while the select few got on with the job.
You do not need a monarchy to pull off the separation, obviously. Countries like Ireland rub along with a ceremonial president instead. He or she comes from the people and has, in theory, earned the honour. A dud or a rogue can be kicked out or prosecuted. To a degree, history lays down the choice - it would be comic to invent a monarchy from scratch.
However, constitutional monarchy has one advantage over figurehead presidencies that is the final reason behind our British monarchy’s surprising success: its mix of continuity and tradition, which even today is tinged with mystical vestiges of the healing royal touch. All political systems need to manage change and resolve conflicting interests peacefully and constructively. Systems that stagnate end up erupting; systems that race away leave large parts of society left behind and they erupt, too. Look at France, a country I live in now and I love, it had a revolution to overthrow a king only to end up with an emperor who made war on Europe, and left a country that has gone through as many republics as often I’ve changed my underwear in a working week.
Tumblr media
Under our late Queen Elizabeth II, Britain changed unrecognisably. Not only had it undergone social and technological change, like other Western democracies, but it was also eclipsed as a great power. More than once, most recently over Brexit, politics choked. During all this upheaval, the continuity that monarchy displays has been a moderating influence. George Orwell, no establishment stooge, called it an “escape-valve for dangerous emotions”, drawing patriotism away from politics, where love of country can rot into bigotry. Decaying empires are dangerous. Britain’s decline has been a lot less traumatic than it might have been.
Elizabeth’s sleight of hand was to renew the monarchy quietly all the while, and King Charles’s hardest task will be to renew it further. The prospect is daunting, but entirely possible. My money is on the monarchy.
God save the King!
Tumblr media
Thanks for your question.
58 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
Charles Haigh Wood (British, 1854-1927) Anxious Moments, exhibited 1899
76 notes · View notes
tiaramania · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
TIARA ALERT: Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington, wore the Wellington Diamond Tiara for the State Opening of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster in London on 7 November 2023.
116 notes · View notes
madeleineengland · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Anne's bedroom (Persuasion 2022)
237 notes · View notes
hckat · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
John Collier, 1897: “Lady Godiva”
370 notes · View notes
digitalfashionmuseum · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
Oil Painting, 1746, British.
Featuring Anne, Duchess of Chandos in an Off-White Dress with Pearl Details.
By Joseph Highmore.
National Museums Liverpool.
53 notes · View notes
the-romantic-lady · 1 year
Text
So let me get this straight. If the media reports are to be believed (which I don’t think they should be) then it is interesting that all the scaling back is happening to everyone except Charles and Camilla. No coronets for peers but a crown for the King. No tiaras for the ladies but a crown for the queen. “Scaled back” event means less invitations to mps and peers but by all means show off the gold carriage for the king.
I am not for this scale backed nonsense but where is Charles and Camilla’s compromise in all this?
44 notes · View notes
navree · 6 months
Text
watching the crown is a trip because it's a very good show about some of the most ass backwards people you will ever witness on a screen acting like it's still fucking tudor times, and some of them are also incredibly insufferable about it
5 notes · View notes