Royal Row Breaches Etiquette

“According to report, previous to the ceremony and while the Queen and Prince of Wales were standing beneath the bow of one of the ships, they quarreled for several minutes. Both Queen and Prince, as the result ot their quarrel, had an apoplectic appearance when it terminated.”– The Royal Arthur - Public domain image

Queen Victoria and Wales Have a Quarrel at Portsmouth

Portsmouth, February 26th.– Great throngs of people gathered here to see the royal pageant accompanying the launching of the new warships Portsmouth and Gosport. The Queen launched the ironclads with the usual ceremonies.

According to report, previous to the ceremony and while the Queen and Prince of Wales were standing beneath the bow of one of the ships, they quarreled for several minutes. Both Queen and Prince, as the result ot their quarrel, had an apoplectic appearance when it terminated. The cause of the royal quarrel is believed to have originated in some trifling breach of etiquette. 

The two war vessels were christened “Royal Arthur” and “Royal Sovereign.” The only foreign war vessel present was the German warship Oldeborg, the flagship of Admiral Von der Coltz, who was specially commissioned by the Emperor of Germany to be present at the ceremonies as the representative of Germany's young ruler. 

The Royal Arthur is a screw cruiser of 7,700 tons, 12,ooo horse-power, and carries twelve guns. Her name was originally the Centaur, which was changed to Duke of Connaught, and finally, at the last moment, by the Queen's command to Royal Arthur. The Royal Sovereign is a screw battleship of 14,150 tons, 10,000 horse-power and carries fourteen guns. – Daly Alta, 1891

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Royal Court Etiquette Ignorance

Whoops! In her first invitation the Duchess intimated that a semi-Court costume would be sufficient, but afterward she sent another card asking those she had invited, to come in full uniform. But alas, for the Duchess of Westminster, only the King himself has the privilege in this dominion of demanding full Court dress, as the Duchess herself was informed very quickly by the Lord Chamberlain. 

’Twas a Fearful Mistake to Make, Don’t Ye Know

London—The Duchess of Westminster has come into humiliating conflict with the Royal Court by asking her guests to appear in full Court dress at the Royal ball she is to give in her own residence. In her first invitation the Duchess intimated that a semi-Court costume would be sufficient, but afterward she sent another card asking those she had invited, to come in full uniform. This would be necessary, she explained, because so many foreign Royalties would be present, in addition to the British King and Queen. But alas, for the Duchess of Westminster, only the King himself has the privilege in this dominion of demanding full Court dress, as the Duchess herself was informed very quickly by the Lord Chamberlain. Full Court costume, this functionary reminded her, is never worn at any private party. 

The Duchess pleaded ignorance of the Royal regulations, whereupon she got a hint that King George and Queen Mary think no Duchess of the realm should should be so lamentably unacquainted with Court etiquette. The result of the incident was that the Duchess ordered her second cards to be cancelled, but she showed, nevertheless, no inclination to place herself in so humiliated a position before her guests. The King could not well withdraw his own and the Queen’s acceptance of the invitation as the foreign Royalties and others had been especially invited to meet George and Mary. The upshot of it is that His Majesty has caused it to be known that he does not expect full Court costume to be worn at the Duchess of Westminster’s Royal ball. The Duchess got up the ball at the request of the King, so while she knows she blundered, she says she feels accordingly vexed at his Majesty’s interference. - San Pedro Daily News, 1911

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Victorian Royal Ball Dress Etiquette

A gentleman ventured to appear in the regulation Court coat and vest, but with trousers. A functionary beckoned him into a corner, and communicated to him the awful fact that be had been guilty of a breach of breeches, which must never happen again. 

Of Bare Shoulders and Breeches

Low dress is de rigueur at the balls at Buckingham Palace, and a few ladies who have thus far ventured to depart from it have been severely commented on by others of their sex. One great lady took the precaution of writing to the Lord Chamberlain, explaining that her shoulders had recently grown so dreadfully thin during a long illness, that they were not fit to be seen, and should be grateful to be allowed to wear a half high dress. This was graciously permitted. 

At the St. Patrick's Day ball at Dublin, a few years ago, a gentleman ventured to appear in the regulation Court coat and vest, but with trousers. A functionary beckoned him into a corner, and communicated to him the awful fact that be had been guilty of a breach of breeches, which must never happen again. When the culprit faltered out that he had been informed that trousers were now permissible, the functionary replied, severely, “at a levee, sir, but breeches, always breeches at a ball!” – Daly Alta California, 1876

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Chafing at Royal Etiquette

All smiles on her coronation, but reality loomed large –– By Court etiquette, Elizabeth must not do anything directly. She can give orders to her private secretary, to her Ladies of the Bed-Chamber or Ladies in Waiting, to her principal advisers and these, in turn, relay her orders to the lower echelons. This has irked the Duke of Edinburgh more than any single rule of the palaces, and he has broken it more than once...

Elizabeth, and Her Consort, Chafe At Rituals Of Royalty

LONDON (UP) Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, as young folks might be expected to do, are chafing a bit these days at the stupendous ritual and custom that hedges them around in the Royal Court. Wise Courtiers say nothing and wait for the irritation to subside, as they know it will in the course of time. It always has. Modernization of Court proceedings is always in progress, but it moves slowly. There are certain to be changes during the anticipated long reign of Elizabeth II, but nothing as dramatic as some of the sensational press are now demanding. 

For one thing, it is obvious that pressure on the Queen, if the buffering army of functionaries were removed or cut radically, would be greater than it is under the present system. Thus, cutting away too much red tape would expose the Queen to the very evil from which her self-appointed saviors seek to rescue her. The Court of St. James is a very old Court, and, in a county where tradition is venerated as nowhere else, there is a reluctance to drop customs for any reason whatsoever. It is quite true that there are servants in the Royal households who have servants to wait upon them. But it has always been that way, and despite the unionization of the palace help, there might be considerable unrest if this were changed. – Madera Tribune, 1953

👑Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Applauding Royal Court Etiquette

An Italian coloratura soprano of great international fame, Madame Tetrazzini's voice was remarkable for its phenomenal flexibility, thrust, steadiness and thrilling tone. She enjoyed a highly successful operatic and concert career in the U.S and Europe, from the late Victorian Era to the 1920s.

In her last year of residence in America, Madame Tetrazzini, has added much to her English speaking attainments and she now acquits herself delightfully in general conversations. She is persistent in using English words and when these fail her, her dramatic art is brought into use and she acts out the word. As we pulled into the station on the way to Los Angeles the bell on the engine clanged monotonously and she was reminded that in Italy the bells hang in church towers, "We have no bells on our trains there,” she said, "but only" and then the word "whistle," not coming readily to her tongue, she puckered up her lips and emitted a low, melodious imitation of a train whistle. 

Describing her Continental experience last summer the diva mentioned her singing at the opera during the coronation ceremonies in London, She described the wonderful floral decorations of the theater itself and then the astounding display of jewels as they appeared upon English royalty and the men and women representing the foreign courts during that remarkable pageant. The jewelled headresses of the Indian princes, Maharajas and other notables received vivid description from the singer and then she alluded laughingly to the incident of her own appearance when despite Court decorum and in defiance of rules of etiquette, the King and Queen clapped their hands enthusiastically and brought forth a demonstration of applause otherwise unheard of in that performance. Madame Tetrazzini explained that applause on such grand occasions is not customary and occurs only when led by the members of the royal family, so that her ovation earned an extra fame for her. “They said I had a wonderful claque,” said she, "with the King of England to lead it.” – Los Angeles Herald, 1912

🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia  

Etiquette and Royal Rituals

Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh at the opening of Parliament in 1952

On Rituals of the Royal Court

LONDON (UP) – Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, as young folks might be expected to do, are chaffing a bit these days at the stupendous ritual and custom that hedges them around in the Royal Court. Wise courtiers say nothing and wait for the irritation to subside, as they know it will in the course of time. It always has. Modernization of Court proceedings is always in progress but it moves slowly. There are certain to be changes during the anticipated long reign of Elizabeth II, but nothing as dramatic as some of the sensational press are now demanding.

For one thing, it is obvious that pressure on the Queen, if the buffering army of functionaries were removed or cut radically, would be greater than it is under the present system. Thus, cutting away too much red tape would expose the Queen to the very evil from which her self-appointed saviors seek to rescue her. The Court of St. James is a very old Court, and, in a county where tradition is venerated as nowhere else, there is a reluctance to drop customs for any reason whatsoever. It is quite true that there are servants in the Royal households who have servants to wait upon them. But it has always been that way, and despite the unionization of the Palace help, there might be considerable unrest if this were changed.

It comes down to a question of whether the nation wants a Court or doesn't want one. And Elizabeth is known to love the pomp, the panoply, the ceremonial which blazes about the British throne. The Royal household is an immense establishment. There are eleven private secretaries and assistants to the sovereign. There are 23 officials in the privy purse, treasury and Royal charities office. There are 36 Royal chaplains. There are 20 physicians and surgeons and a special coroner. And many others. Before Queen Mary’s time there were even greater numbers of royal Courtiers, but the redoubtable old lady—as other Queens before her—chopped away a few of the jobs. And her grand-daughter, will doubtless whittle away a few more.

By Court etiquette, Elizabeth must not do anything directly. She can give orders to her private secretary, to her ladies of the bed-chamber or ladies in waiting, to her principal advisers and these, in turn, relay her orders to the lower echelons. This has irked the Duke of Edinburgh more than any single rule of the palaces, and he has broken it more than once by strolling down corridors asking the desired information or giving orders in person. Queen Elizabeth is expected to shorten the chain of command down the line from the throne as her contribution to the streamlining of etiquette.

Another windmill at which the critics are tilting is the strict procedure for public engagements. The newspapers contend that the Queen should not be tied up a year ahead to visits such as the one to New Zealand. The implication is that these things ought to be spun-of-the-moment affairs quickly accomplished by plane instead of great processions by sea with public interest drummed up over a period of time, this is a rather naive approach. 

New Zealand will invest a fortune in the Queen's visit and it may well be the event of the year there. Security has to be considered. Shops will get ready for extra business. New Zealanders from out-country may want to arrange to be at the points visited by the Queen. She will open playgrounds, lay cornerstones, attend ceremonials, make speeches. — The Edinburgh Courier, 1953

👑Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette and Royal Bloomers

Queen Victoria would have probably been as shocked at having her luggage gone through, bloomers and all, by foreign customs agents, as her daughter in-law was in 1904. Most likely, even more shocking to Queen Victoria, would be to hear that her old bloomers sold at auction for nearly £10,000 in July of 2015

Kissing the Queen's Hand?

An incident of the Queen's journey to the south deserves to be recorded. At Toulon, Admiral Gervais was so carried away by his feelings that, in violation of all royal etiquette, he kissed her Majesty's hand and kissed it with fervor, an act which was taken in very good part by our kind-hearted sovereign.— Pall Mall Gazette, 1895

Searching the Queen's Baggage?

The Queen of England has had an experience with the foreign custom-houses for the first time in her life, and it is said that she did not enjoy it. It was while she was returning to England from Denmark, and her thirty trunks were thought to belong to some one else in Belgium and thoroughly searched. This, of course, was a grave breach of etiquette, and some one must have suffered besides the Queen.—New York Tribune, 1904

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Royal Etiquette and Slanguage

One monarch's, “Oh, cucumbers!” is another monarch's, “Shut up!” Every era’s slang is different.

Princess Scorns Etiquette Rules and Drops into Slang

When royalty unbends, as royalty so often loves to do and takes on the parlance of the common people with spontaneous naturalness, the common people chuckle and are well pleased. At least this is true today in Bulgaria. 

It is being related that Princess Nadejda, sister of King Boris, was listening recently to the dignified matron of the royal court, Madame Peatrava-Tchomakova, telling something that purported to be true, but for the princess the earmarks of fiction were too apparent. 

Nadejda stood it as long as she could, and then burst out with “Oh, cucumbers!” There was a burst of laughter which almost drowned Nadejda’s quick apology, for court etiquette had been gravely damaged. The expression of the young princess might be rendered in English by, “Oh, rats!” — (AP) Euxinograd, Bulgaria, 1924 

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette Denies Royalty Pleasures

"Born to the purple" refers to one being born into a reigning, or royal family. It can also refer to being born into a privileged class of society. It does not however, refer to one's automatic nor guaranteed happiness.

Debarred from Childish Pleasures

One "born to the purple" hardly gets a glimpse of those hearty and simple pleasures that so add to the happiness of childhood. Here is little Queen Wilhelmina of Holland, not yet in her teens, but as subject to the iron rules of etiquette, as a slave is to his master. 

Most of her waking hours are spent in study. Her only playmates are pigeons and dolls. Much as she desires it, she is not allowed to associate familiarly with other girls because they are not her equals. She can speak French, but she doesn't know how to play tag or make a mud pie. — Los Angeles Herald, 1891

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Moderator and Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

A Breach of British Royal Etiquette

An Indian Maharajah's Daring Act 

When George V was proclaimed “Emperor of India”: Each Indian ruler or "native prince" was expected to perform proper obeisance to the King-Emperor by bowing three times before him, then backing away without turning. As Delhi prepared to mark 100 years as India's capital, a previously lost diary written by an Anglo-Irish aristocrat provided a fascinating insight into an extraordinary but largely forgotten act of dissent against colonial rule by an Indian maharajah.

Lilah Wingfield witnessed the moment 100 years ago when, in front of 100,000 spectators, the Gaekwar of Baroda, otherwise known as Maharajah Sayyaji Rao III, bowed improperly when presenting himself before the British monarch, then turned his back disrespectfully and walked away.

It was an audacious act of defiance at an event that contemporary observers have described as a thousand times grander than royal weddings over the past 60 years in London.

Grainy image from BBC News of the maharajah "Laughing disrespectfully" while walking away."It was one of the strongest gestures of dissent by a princely ruler," he said, "and took place against a backdrop of growing support for India's independence movement." The maharajah's act of dissent came as colonial rule in India reached its zenith. According to author Jessica Douglas-Home, the maharajah's gesture caused shock among British officials attending the event.

The 1911 Delhi durbar, or mass assembly - when George V was proclaimed Emperor of India - was the only such assembly to be attended by a British monarch in person.

The durbar was a display of unparalleled grandeur attended by nearly all of the great and the good in British India, who stayed in a tented city near Delhi that accommodated 250,000 visitors, guests and their servants.

Each Indian ruler or "native prince" was expected to perform proper obeisance to the King-Emperor by bowing three times before him, then backing away without turning.

The maharajah not only ignored royal etiquette by turning his back on the king and queen after formally introducing himself but compounded his perceived insolence by reportedly "laughing disrespectfully" as he departed from their presence.

Lilah Wingfield's observations are recorded in a book by her granddaughter, Jessica Douglas-Home, about her travels in India at a time when it is now realised that British colonial rule had reached its zenith. Within 40 years, India would be independent.

Although Mrs Douglas-Home inherited her grandmother's photos of the durbar, the diary detailing Miss Wingfield's views of the event was lost for many years before being discovered in an English secondhand bookshop and sent on to her.

The Viceroy of India, Charles Hardinge.  The Viceroy originally was the head of the British administration in India. After Indian independence in 1947, he became the representative of the Indian monarch and head of state.

“They reveal that the Gaekwar of Baroda - second in importance only to the Nizam of Hyderabad - broke every rule in [Viceroy of India] Lord Hardinge's book,” Mrs Douglas-Home writes in A Glimpse of Empire.

"He arrived at the amphitheatre in full dress and covered in the historic Baroda jewels, but removed them all just before the moment came for him to approach the king.

“On reaching the shamiana (the dais) he made a cursory bow from the waist, stepped backwards and then, wheeling around, turned his back on the royal couple and walked from their presence nonchalantly twirling a gold-topped walking stick.”

Mrs Douglas-Home said the maharajah's gesture caused shock among British officials attending the event.

From then until his death in 1939 he was for the most part ostracised by the British authorities even though he wrote a letter of apology soon afterwards which said that if he had not seemed to conform to the ritual, it was due to “nervousness and confusion in the presence of Their Majesties”.

The maharajah was partly rehabilitated in 1919 when he was made a Knight Grand Commander by the British.

Maharajah Sayyaji Rao III's "Commendable Bravery" ~ Princely states (also known as "native states" or "Indian states") were nominally sovereign entities of India during the British Raj. They were not directly governed by the British, but rather by local rulers under a form of indirect rule, subject to a subsidiary alliance and the suzerainty or paramountcy of the British Crown. Indian historian Amar Farooqi says that while the maharajah's actions showed "commendable bravery" it was not at the time - or in later years - given as much attention as it merited.  Officially, there were 565 princely states in India at the time of India's independence in 1947, but the great majority had contracted with the Viceroy of India to provide public services and tax collection. Only 21 of the major princely states had actual state governments, and among them only four were large (Hyderabad, Mysore, Baroda and Jammu and Kashmir). They acceded to one or other of the two new independent nations of India and Pakistan between 1947 and 1949. The accession process was largely peaceful except in the case of Jammu & Kashmir (whose king decided to accede to India, but only after an invasion by Pakistan based tribal militia) and Hyderabad. All the princes were eventually pensioned off. 

The actions of the maharajah are today seen by Indian and British historians as coinciding with the beginning of the end of British rule in India.

King George V ~ It was planned as a show of strength in which Indian royal families paid homage to their king ~The Delhi Durbar, of 1911 was held for the formal purpose of enabling King George V as Emperor of India to announce his coronation to his subjects in India, and to receive homage from the Viceroy and his officers, and from the Indian ruling princes. The Emperor and Empress, Queen Mary, sat on a covered dais in an arena composed of two amphitheaters. The total number of participants and spectators was estimated at 100,000, including over 30,000 British and Indian soldiers.

"It was a brave and symbolic act of resistance carried out at an enormous event in front of anybody who was anyone in British India," says Anna Jackson, head of the Asian department of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

"No-one could have predicted that barely three decades later the entire British edifice would collapse.

"The event was supposed to be a show of strength in which Indian royal families paid homage to their king."

Indian historian Amar Farooqi says that while the maharajah's actions showed "commendable bravery" it was not at the time - or in later years - given as much attention as it merited.

"It was one of the strongest gestures of dissent by a princely ruler," he said, "and took place against a backdrop of growing support for India's independence movement."

Prof Farooqi says that while the British played down the maharajah's dissent, few Indians - apart from well-connected nationalist leaders - would even have known that it had happened.

"It is not recognised much now because nationalists campaigning for Indian independence at the time and in later years did not want to be associated with princely rulers," Professor Farooqi said. "Their perceived decadence was a source of some embarrassment.

"They wanted that part of the independence struggle to be be deleted from history because maharajahs were seen as too closely associated with the worst excesses of the Raj.
                            

Sayajirao, who had already caused consternation among the British officials by refusing to wear his full regalia of jewels and honours, was third in line to approach the King-Emperor. Eyewitness reports state he walked away "laughing" after  perfunctorily bowing only once, before turning his back on the King-Emperor. Other accounts state that he refused to bow at all.  For several years previously, Sayajirao had angered the British by his open support for the Indian National Congress and its leaders. His granddaughter Gayatri Devi, states in her autobiography that due to some reason he had been unable to attend the rehearsals and didn't know how to greet The King-Emperor. Either way, the breach of royal etiquette proved to be the last straw. He was openly forgiven when he was awarded a GCIE* in 1919.

“That is why today in India so few schoolchildren know about the rulers of princely states. Princely India simply does not exist in the textbooks”. Prof Farooqi says, however, that the maharajah has received recognition for the pioneering reforms he introduced - many ahead of their time - in Baroda.

He was the first Indian ruler to introduce compulsory and free primary education in his state in 1906, placing it far in advance of the rest of British India.

In addition he played a key role in the development of Baroda's textile and banking industries, expanded women's rights, improved access to education, banned child marriages and legislated against discrimination between different castes.

But he is probably most widely remembered in India today for his decision in 1913 to finance three years of postgraduate studies for BR Ambedkar, revered as the principal author of the Indian constitution, at Columbia University.

The maharajah's legacy is one which his late-grandson, Ranjitsinh Gaekwad, said at the time was a “constant source of pride.”

“At that time it boosted the morale of all those working towards achieving independence for India,” he said.

“He wanted to instil in his countrymen a sense of pride and self esteem, which he achieved by this and many other actions. Baroda state was the one of the best administered states of British India.”

*The Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire is an order of chivalry founded by Queen Victoria in 1878. The Order includes members of three classes : Knight Grand Commander (GCIE), Knight Commander (KCIE), Companion (CIE). No appointments have been made since 1947.

Main article from BBC News, 2011

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia