Breaking with Victoria’s Royal Etiquette

The Coronation Durbar — The “Delhi Durbar” or the “Imperial Durbar,” was an Indian, Imperial-style, grand mass assembly organized by the British at Coronation Park, in Delhi, India. It was to mark the succession of each Emperor and Empress of India. It was only held three times—  in 1877, in 1903, and in 1911. These were at the height of the British Empire. The 1911 Durbar was the only one that a Sovereign, George V and his Empress, attended.

May Crown King George in India

LONDON. Dec. 2.—The King and Queen hope to be crowned at Delhi as Emperor and Empress of India on Jan. 1, 1912. The announcement of this epoch making event has come as a great surprise, as there is no precedent for such a function. Queen Victoria, who was proclaimed Empress of India in 1877, never at any time contemplated holding a Coronation Durbar. King Edward visited India when he was Prince of Wales, but adhered strictly to the rules of Royal etiquette laid down by his mother, and never saw any of his colonial dominions after he came to the throne.— Humboldt Times, 1910

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

Royal Questions of Etiquette

There are certain obstacles in the way, but it is hoped that they may not prove insurmountable. In the first place, a Court official of experience says, as the Prince of Wales represents the King, it would be unusual for him to visit any foreign country officially, except as the guest of that country's Chief of State or its government. King Edward personally is said to be strongly favorable to such a visit, yet he may be slow to establish a precedent which hereafter might lead to trouble or misunderstanding. – The Prince of Wales of 1902, would go on to become King George V, in 1910. He was the only “Emperor of India” to be present at his own Delhi Durbar.

Invitation to the Prince  

London is Surprised and Gratified – Serious Obstacles in the Way of His Acceptance – Questions of Etiquette May Interfere With His Being the Guest of the New York Chamber of Commerce—King Edward is Personally in Favor of the Visit

LONDON, April 7.—The suggestion that the Prince of Wales attend the dedication of the new home of the New York Chamber of Commerce excites the liveliest surprise here, coupled with satisfaction at the indication of good feeling on the part of the leading members of America's industrial community. Undoubtedly, it is hoped in political circles, that the expected invitation will be accepted. Inquiries have elicited the fact that in Royal Court, and official circles, it is recognized that there are certain obstacles in the way, but it is hoped that they may not prove insurmountable. In the first place, a Court official of experience says, as the Prince of Wales represents the King, it would be unusual for him to visit any foreign country officially, except as the guest of that country's Chief of State or its government. King Edward personally is said to be strongly favorable to such a visit, yet he may be slow to establish a precedent which hereafter might lead to trouble or misunderstanding. 

Then, the fact that other European Royal heirs apparent and persons of eminence have been invited, raises questions of etiquette which assume very serious dimensions in the eyes of Royalty and Court functionaries. It has been already arranged that the Prince shall go to India next winter to make a tour of the Empire and to attend the proclaiming of his father Emperor of that dependency. The Court official heretofore mentioned, points out that unless the Prince can visit New York on the way, it will be too great a strain on him to cross the Atlantic and back in the autumn, especially as heavy demands on his, by no means, robust constitution will be made by the Coronation festivities. Anyway, it is a fact that such a visit would be extremely popular here, and it is believed in Court circles that the King, who is well aware of the international advantages of such an interchange of courtesies, will do all in his power to accede to the New York Chamber of Commerce's hospitable invitation. – Los Angeles Herald, 1902

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

Court Etiquette Denies A Queen

It was a proud day in the British Empire, but of all its millions, the one who perhaps had the most reason to be proud, was denied by Court etiquette the joy of witnessing the triumphal event. At Sandringham Palace, Queen Mother Alexandra, who, forty-six years ago this month, gave Britain a King, awaited the news that her son had taken his place in the long line of British Monarchs.

All London Resplendent in Glory at Grandest Event in Modern History of Monarchies
————————————————
Golden Crown Sparkling With 3,000 Diamonds and Other Jewels is Bestowed

LONDON, June 22. King George V, Eighth of the House of Hanover, was today crowned King of the British Empire and given the public homage of his world-wide subjects. With his consort, Queen Mary, his Majesty was crowned in the Abbey of Westminster with all the wealth of religious rites and Royal ceremonial prescribed by custom. The picture within the gray-walled Abbey was one of medieval splendor. The coronation services, solemn and imposing, were those handed down from the earlier centuries, and the actors in the principal and secondary roles of today's great function were garbed in reproductions of the multicolored, gold-embroidered trappings worn by their ancestors. The latter made a wonderfully effective setting around the central figures. 

Outside, the usually dull streets had been transformed into a mass of color. The King and Queen's progress to the Abbey and the route to Buckingham Palace was one unbroken ovation. The route was hedged with a vast ployglot host with a background of gaily decorated viewing stands and windows and roofs, all of which were crammed to their capacity. The pressure of the crowds was so intense at many points, that the police cordon was broken and the aid of troops was required to restore order. 

When dawn broke the skies were heavy and showers fell during the progress of the processions of the Royal guests and the junior members of the Royal family to the Abbey; but as the King and Queen left Buckingham Palace to be crowned, the heavens smiled and a flood of sunshine brightened the splendid pageant. It was a proud day in the British Empire, but of all its millions, the one who perhaps had the most reason to be proud, was denied by Court etiquette the joy of witnessing the triumphal event. At Sandringham Palace, Queen Mother Alexandra, who, forty-six years ago this month, gave Britain a King, awaited the news that her son had taken his place in the long line of British Monarchs.

Those who think the Britisher too cold blooded to enthuse, should have seen him “coronate” today. He is fit to stand beside the most rampant American “Fourth of July” or Gaelic celebrator of the anniversary of the proclamation of the republic. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, Germans, Frenchmen and natives of all lands, from China to Peru, joined the hustling throng and yielded themselves up with magnificent enthusiasm to the coronation glamour. – Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 1911

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

Obsolete Royal Court Etiquette

The Royals at the Empire Exhibition – This was the first time he was induced to speak for “distribution” — due mainly to obsolete Court etiquette, which had always required the Sovereign’s words to be conveyed strictly and literally by “word of mouth” (and hearing.)

  

Out with the Old and In with the New!

King George to Talk by Radio 

LONDON, April 22 (United Press)—Britain’s great $100,000,000 “empire boosting” exhibition will be officially opened tomorrow by King George —appropriately enough on St. George’s Day, the feast of England’s patron saint. For the benefit of those unable to attend the opening ceremony, King George's speech will be broadcasted by wireless — the first time the British Monarch has been broadcasted. 

Elaborate ceremonial will mark the opening, and the general public admitted at the scheduled price of one shilling, and expence will be strictly marshalled to conform with the occasion. Wemberley Park being some eight miles from Buckingham Palace, the Royal party will motor the greater part of the distance, changing into state carriages drawn by four horses about a quarter of a mile from the exhibition. 

The King is immensely interested in the arrangements for broadcasting for, although a wireless fan, this was the first time he has been induced to speak for “distribution” — due mainly to obsolete Court etiquette, which has always required the Sovereign’s words to be conveyed strictly and literally by “word of mouth” (and hearing.) The Royal party will also witness a section of the “Pagent of Empire,” depicting the history of the British race and the growth of the empire, and make hasty tour of the exhibition. – Madera Tribune, 1924

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

Royal Etiquette Dos and Don’ts

A King never writes a letter to anybody outside his family circle. All other correspondence has to be conducted through one of his secretaries. Nor does King George accept invitations to dine or stop with a subject. What he does when he wishes to pay such a visit, is to invite himself. Another strictly observed point of etiquette, is that on ascending the throne, a King shall withdraw from any clubs to which he has hitherto belonged.

Royal Etiquette

In England it Assumes a Number of Curious Phases

Things the King Cannot Do... 

He is Barred from Accepting Gifts From Individuals, He May Not Belong to a Club and May Not Marry Without Parliament's Consent

It may sound a little curious, but there are quite a number of things which, despite his exalted position as Sovereign of the Realm, King George V cannot do. These disabilities range over all sorts of matters and concern etiquette, politics, religion and law. To begin with etiquette. It is an established practice that His Majesty must never call upon or grant an audience to a foreign Monarch except in the presence of a responsible minister. Etiquette also precludes him from accepting a gift which a loyal subject may wish to make him. Should, however, the gift be a joint offering, the prohibition does not apply. This enables a King George to accept gifts which are subscribed for by a number of people together.

A King never writes a letter to anybody outside his family circle. All other correspondence has to be conducted through one of his secretaries. Nor does King George accept invitations to dine or stop with a subject. What he does when he wishes to pay such a visit, is to invite himself. Another strictly observed point of etiquette, is that on ascending the throne, a King shall withdraw from any clubs to which he has hitherto belonged. Similarly he cannot become a Free Mason, and if he happens to be one at the date of his ascension, he must resign from the craft. King George, however, has not been initiated.

Even in affairs of the heart a sovereign must bow to the will of others. Although King Cophetua might have loved and shared his throne with a beggar maid, the Royal Marriage Act would render the occurrence of any such romantic union impossible in England. Members of the blood royal must have the sanction of Parliament before they can marry, and this would certainly not be accorded unless the birth and position of the lady were beyond reproach.

An English King's position toward the law is somewhat peculiar. Theoretically, he is above the law. In practice, however, he has to obey it, just as have his subjects. He must observe the established legal system of the country. Any royal proclamation which he issues, is only binding in so far as it is founded upon an existing law. It cannot alter the common law or create a new offense, nor can a King set up private tribunals, such as the Star Chamber, or add to the jurisdiction of a court by a special act of Parliament, it has also been decided that if his Majesty were to lose an action brought against him by the revenue authorities, he would be liable for the payment of costs.

By the law of the land the King cannot possibly commit an offense. Any injury or wrong suffered by a subject at his hands has to be attributed to the “mistake of his advisers;” hence it happens that King George is the only person in Great Britain who cannot arrest a suspected felon, even if such a one were to be seen by him entering Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. The reason for this is because no action for wrongful arrest could lie against him, and therefore if the person arrested by him were proved innocent there would then be a wrong without a remedy. Another legal disability of the King is that he is barred of all rights in matters relating to land after a lapse of sixty years. He is also prohibited from serving on a jury or from giving evidence.

Until so comparatively recent a period as 1870 if a subject were convicted of treason or felony, the King could claim his property. Another lapsed prerogative of the crown is one known as “corody.” During its existence, a King who wanted to advance the interests of a royal chaplain could compel a bishop to support such a clergyman until a benefice had been found for him. Nowadays, he has not even the right of founding a bishopric or creating ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Similarly he must always be a member of the Church of England and cannot change his religion.

The theory that the King “reigns, but does not govern” is amply borne out by the political system of the country. While the members of Parliament are his Majesty's “faithful commons,” they have certain privileges which he himself does not possess. Thus, King George can summon or prorogue Parliament at will, but he cannot prolong it beyond a definite period. Similarly he is absolutely debarred from imposing any sort of taxation whatever without first securing the consent of Parliament. 

So jealously guarded is this privilege that a King cannot create new officers with new fees or annex new fees to existing officers, as such a course would be considered as imposing a fresh tax. In bygone times, however, when an English Monarch was in want of funds, he would levy taxes right and left and without asking anybody. The franchise does not extend to English monarchs. King George is one of the few men possessing a genuine stake in the country without the privilege of recording a vote. — London Bellman, 1911

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

Etiquette for George V

Yards of ermine. ~ George V's Coronation portrait.

King George's Coronation Will Enrich the Ermine Trust

By W. B. Northrup

Most Gorgeous Coronation England Ever Saw

Calls for Distinctions Between Strawberry Leaves, Silver Balls, Jewels, Furs and Geegaws Which Lost Their Actual Meanings Generations Ago

London, Sept. 1910— Though King George's coronation will not take place till next June, active preparations, and even rehearsals for the great event are now well under way. Members of the English nobility are already making purchases of ermine and other necessary materials to be used during the elaborate and costly ceremonies. A significant fact in this connection is the present "'corner" in the ermine market; the price of this fur having gone up 50 per cent during the last month.

Ermine skins are now nearly $5 each instead $2.50, the price prevailing a few months ago. Crimson velvet, silk, and other materials necessary for the great state function are also rapidly advancing in price and court dress makers are rushing their orders so as to get them in before the further rise in price anticipated in the very near future. 

Several large firms of court jewelers have already received orders for fitting up crowns and coronets in conformity with the somewhat rigid requirements of English Court etiquette. 

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site 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