Act of Settlement move countered by Queen
The Queen has acted promptly to head off a constitutional crisis following Gordon Brown’s inept attempt to win over a few Catholic votes in Scotland by threatening to butcher the 1701 Act of Settlement.
The Act of Settlement 1701
Buckingham Palace has indicated that the Queen will not even consider consenting to any carve up of the constitution until all Dominion Parliaments have agreed to it. That could take years, by which time Brown will just be an unpleasant memory in recent history.
Brown’s party politicking with the Monarchy reveals the depths of this man’s chicanery. Set to be comprehensively bundled out of office by the electorate, any device is now fair game to him. He is a dangerous, out-of-control head of government who could do even more damage to the country before he is sacked by the people.
Some months ago I called for him to be impeached. Today, Simon Heffer in the Telegraph makes the same demand.
The Queen can no longer cry, “Off with his head!”, but a constutional equivalent is available to her. Such is the state of the country’s finances, with even the Governor of the Bank of England making the short journey to the Palace to confer with her last week, it should not be difficult for Brown to be sacked, or for Parliament to be dissolved pending a swift General Election.
A republican constitution is the last thing the public wishes for. As historian Andrew Roberts puts it: “… the Act of Settlement is not the bigoted, irrelevant and obsolete law that Downing Street presents it as – it is one of the key pieces of legislation that has defined what Britain was and still is. … Britain is a Protestant country today largely because of the Act of Settlement. It secured the Hanoverian succession 13 years after the Glorious Revolution replaced the Catholic King James II with the Protestant William III (of Orange) and Mary II.” — Link to article.
Any politician who thinks that the Constitution can be made a political football should be dismissed from his post, no matter how lofty it is.
[...] Update: If you would like to comment on Gordon Brown’s tacky plan to butcher the British Constitution by changing the Act of Settlement for electoral advantage, go to our sister site Royal Anecdotes [...]
By SYNTAGMA » An interesting day in politics on March 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I am a historian who studies early modern England, specifically the monarchy. I have studied more original documents than I can count. They have all been brilliantly interesting, and very eye-opening about the time they were written in.
The Act of Settlement is slightly past the period I study but I treat it the same way. It is not perfect. It reflects the time in which it was written. Obviously Britain today would be different if it had not existed; that does not mean that by doing away with parts of it the history of England will be changed, only the future.
The sexist and anti-Catholic aspects of this document are sorely outdated. What if Prince William had been a girl? What if he falls in love with a devout Catholic who does not want to change her religion? It is better to adjust for these eventualities now than before they become a problem, when trying to rush a change through would not be feasible. Japan, with an even more traditional monarchy than England, considered allowing women to succeed and may well have to consider it again in a generation. Sweden changed the Act of Succession of 1810 and their monarchy and history did not suddenly fall apart.
No matter who proposed this or what their political point is, they have raised an important topic for discussion. In my mind, Britain can only be prouder of an inclusive royal family, one that, on paper, is not sexist or anti-Catholic.
As for this site, the Royal family manages to keep their political opinions private; it would be nice if we all could try to emulate that.
By Kathy on March 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
What can I say? As a Catholic, I don’t think the Acts of Settlement are or were ever appropriate. (Don’t happen to support the Inquisition either, so please, let us not start.) We are living in modern times, and I do not think any state, and I mean any and all — East, West or Middle — should favor any religion over another.
Having said that, PM Brown is quite an inept politician and worse, leader.
By Sojourner on March 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I quite agree with you, Sojourner. I was baptized and raised in the United Presbyterian Church, and then, many years later, converted to become a Roman Catholic. I am in a unique position to see both sides of this issue, and I, too, feel it is a serious mistake for any nation to declare that it’s sovereign must be of a certain faith. It was especially erroneous for America to wait so long in our history before electing a President who was not a member of the Reform Church. America, after all, is a nation comprised of immigrants of all religious persuasions and ethnic backgrounds, which we well know has always been our greatest blessing and strength. The United Kingdom is populated by people of many faiths and ethnic backgrounds, moreso every year. I must believe that such steadfast retention of an archaic and ill-conceived law leaves much of the British populace feeling disenfranchised and undervalued. Nevertheless, this issue, as with any involving religion, is one which generates no small amount of emotion. Queen Elizabeth II is quite right to declare that all members of the Commonwealth/Dominion must declare their support for the issue to go forward. I also agree with one of our RA clan (I believe it was Dan) who said he believes that Charles will abolish this faith requirement for the monarch when he comes to the throne. Further, it is difficult to view as a role model anyone who is mired in religious bigotry.
By Gigi on March 28th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
You’re wrong, Gigi/Sojourner.
The Church of England is the most ecumenical, mildest faith imaginable. Both the Chief Rabbi of the Jews and the Catholic Church here support its establishment as the nation’s religion, so do Hindus, Buddhists and normal Muslims.
They know that the alternative to a very free form of Christianity is a nasty secular State based on the religion of Scientism — think Huxley’s Brave New World.
The British know that the Anglican faith not only gives them immunity from more violent forms of religion, but also guarantees their freedom from totalitarianism and fascism.
To us, America often seems in the grip of the religious right and various Amageddonist cults, opposed by the secular left on the East Coast. We don’t care for that polarization.
The gentle form of Anglicanism we have is more a way of life based on tolerance and freedom than any system of rigid authoritarianism.
Political correctness — which is a type of fascism — arrived on these shore from America and the Clinton administration. We British hate the restrictions and loss of liberty that it brought us.
If ever Anglicanism is replaced at the heart of our Constitution by that or by any other creed, including secularism, we would be much less free, and the wise know that.
By John on March 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Such is your opinion, John, to which you are entitled, but I doubt very much that you speak for all of Great Britain. At any rate, the matter may be put to the test after Charles becomes King, as it has been said that he wants to alter the Coronation Rite to be all-inclusive. Regarding the USA, America opposes a national religion, just as she opposes a national language. There are good and appropriate rationales for these decisions, none of which have anything to do with Clinton or the Religious Right, both of whom have far less power and influence than you apparently suppose. The proof of that statement is that Hillary Clinton did not win the nomination, and Barack Obama did win the nomination and the Presidency. I agree with you regarding Political Correctness, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether it is appropriate for a nation as diverse as the UK to continue to make it illegal for a member of the Royal Family to become the monarch if that person is a Roman Catholic or is married to a Roman Catholic. I believe that the answer is no. Bigotry in any form is counter-Christian, no matter what rationale attends it. Such is my opinion, at any rate.
By Gigi on March 28th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Gigi, we are not as diverse as some would make out. Some 93 percent of British people come from Christian backgrounds. As the Catholic peer Lord Rees-Mogg (a former editor of The Times) said yesterday, there is no appetite among Catholics to dispense with the Church of England as the Established Church, as would happen if this change were made.
Britain is not America. Americans rarely understand that Anglicanism underpins our freedoms because we don’t have a written constitution.
In a unitary State, it supports invisibly all that we are. The Queen knows that, which is why she will oppose this crass move from an idiot Scottish bigot to destroy the heart of what it is to be British.
By John on March 28th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
John,
Is the Duke of Norfolk still intriguing? Will that family ever stop?
Yes, the Anglican faith is mild and tolerant — so much so that in the US whole congregations are converting en masse to Catholicism because they perceive Anglicanism as too liberal.
The problem with Anglicanism is how it came about – because Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. It has always suffered from legitimacy as a result – in the eyes of Catholics, at any rate. Moreover, the middle-of-the-road reform of Elizabeth I never went far enough to satisfy the Protestants reformers.
It is a uniquely English institution, that exists mostly as a result of English history, not as a result of measured theological reasoning or mystical inspiration.
That said, there’s no problem with the monarch being the head of this peculiar institution. It’s a British thing, that is all.
However, I do understand that Catholics now outnumber Anglicans in England. And, a English Pope is not inconceivable. We’ll see how it turns out.
By Alicia on March 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Take care, John, that you do not discard the baby with the bathwater, as they say here. Let us recollect that the Queen Mother was entirely of Scottish lineage, which means that Queen Elizabeth II is half Scottish. Further, although I am not by any means a fan of the Labor Party nor of Gordon Brown, how is this proposal of his a form of bigotry? It seems to me to be quite the opposite. If, as you say, the current system comprises the heart of all it is to be British, that suggests that you believe that the country which existed prior to the edict of King Henry VIII was not authentically British. Britain has existed before the time of kings, before the Christian era, even before Roman Britian, when the Druids held sway. I would hope, and indeed I believe, that the heart of all that is Britain is Brittania’s ancient and sacred freedoms, which far outdate and outweigh the creation of the Anglican Church. I recall reading that King Edward VII once stated, firmly and profoundly, to a somewhat narrowminded statesman, “You don’t understand me! I must be the King of ALL the people!” I would hope and trust that Queen Elizabeth II shares the noble and broadminded sentiments of her Great Grandfather.
By Gigi on March 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Oh egad, I meant to type ‘Britannia.”
Another typo!
By Gigi on March 28th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Sorry, tried to post with the wrong name, can’t type. I think I’m clearly out of the loop and in the dark. I understand England has no constitution and because of that tradition is important. If the Anglican Church’s traditions and beliefs do, in fact, underpin its government, wouldn’t that make England’s parliamentary government a theocracy?
By lionhound on March 29th, 2009 at 12:52 am
I think this is a topic that may be hard to discuss because we see with different eyes according what is familiar to us. The US is a relatively new nation based on a sectarian constitution, England is parliamentary so much of it’s rule is based on tradition (if I understand it correctly) and the Anglican Church drives that tradition. To Americans it may be simply an issue of freedom of religion. To the British it may be an issue of tradition and government more than religion itself. Do I understand it correctly?
By lionhound on March 29th, 2009 at 1:18 am
John,
Friendly joking aside, I thought you did invite comments in your first post. Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, sincere apologies.
I take it you are Anglican, though you must admit, not exactly mild nor ecumenical
I only wanted to say that I think it is a shame that energy is being expended in protecting a remnant from a politically and religiously intolerant historical moment that is truly no longer relevant. Just take your example of the US: Benedict XVI would probably laugh his tiara (TRUE NAME of papal headgear!) off at any suggestion that Catholic political leaders give him an edge in national politics.
In England, as you yourself say, Catholics and Anglicans are more often than not allies. And yet — please correct me if I am wrong — the only religious group the act disqualifies is Catholics. It doesn’t make sense anymore, is all I am saying.
I will not post again on this issue.
By Sojourner on March 29th, 2009 at 1:27 am
If I may change the subject, I just read something that seems quite uplifting! I realize there are those who feel the Mail is not a credible news source, but there is a very interesting story in the Mail that states that Prince William cancelled the planned ski trip to Klosters (to which he had invited his friends) and instead accepted an invitation to join the Middleton family on their ski trip. Further, the Mail says that Prince William and Kate traveled economy class and that Prince William gave his First Class seats to Mr. and Mrs. Middleton. If this story is true, it certainly supports the premise that Kate and Prince William continue to have a serious relationship. I am quite encouraged!
By Gigi on March 29th, 2009 at 2:41 am
gigi – i saw that as well. can the second in line take a commerical flight – was wondering about security, etc….? if this story is in fact true if william was “just good friends” will kate and her family i would hardly think he would be going on a family holiday with them..
thoughts
By coni on March 29th, 2009 at 3:07 am
I am assuming that there were nearby seats on the flight purchased for Prince William’s Royal Protection Officers who I am reasonably certain accompanied the Prince on the trip. Does anyone know this place the Middleton’s went on vacation? Is it on a par with Klosters?
By Gigi on March 29th, 2009 at 3:22 am
Strange that if you use the word Scottish in a particular case, you’re accused of attacking the entire nation of Scotland. As I have some Scottish blood myself, I never do that, although I agree with PG Wodehouse’s little dig: “It’s easy to spot the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.”
And, it’s not true that there are more Catholics in England than Anglicans. The measure was calculated by numbers going to Church regularly. The vast majority of Anglicans use the church for “Hatch, Match and Dispatch” only. That is, births marriages and deaths.
There are many, many more Anglicans here than any other religion or denomination.
By John on March 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Hello All,
Not to be off track here, but did we not have the discussion of not being political here? Yes I can see this is a HOT topic, but it also seems to me that we have a WIDE difference of opinions here and I do not wish to see us get to the point of people getting upset and leaving.
That being said…I disagree with you John and I think it is high time that England moves into the 22nd Century and stop with the bigotry of Catholicism and the anti-female line of succession.
Oh, for the record I am a converted protestant over 40 years ago from Catholicism.
By MikeH on March 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Mike, if we did move into the 22nd century, we’d be well ahead of the world.
By John on March 29th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Well I WAS thinking ahead John
By MikeH on March 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Oh and I meant to say, well written piece John, no matter waht side you sit on.
By MikeH on March 29th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I bestride both sides, Mike, but my loyalty is to my right leg.
By John on March 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Because the NCAA’s are monopolizing most of my time, I have not been as informed as I prefer to be regarding the Royal Family. A few minutes ago, I transferred my attention from the large screen to the small screen and discovered an intriguing story in HELLO Magazine, wherein Sarah, Duchess of York seems to give a positive response to the possibility that she and Prince Andrew, Duke of York, may someday reunite! Such a reunion would certainly please me, since I felt for years that the machinations of the lofficious and power-mad ittle men (courtiers) at the Palace undermined–intentionally and with unbecoming pettiness–the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of York. Fortunately, the determined continued friendship and congenial cooperation of the Duke and Duchess, especially in parenting the two Princesses of York, minimized the collateral damage of the divorse, but I would still greatly prefer to see the Royal York family unit reconstructed.
By Gigi on March 30th, 2009 at 1:53 am
By Gigi on March 30th, 2009 at 1:57 am
There’s an interesting article in The Times today by Catholic peer, William Rees-Mogg. It’s well worth reading. LINK
By John on March 30th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Hardly sexist, Kathy. We’ve had a Queen for the past 57 years, and for most of the 19th century, and for 126 of the past 177 years: 71 percent of the time.
And the Catholic Church doesn’t allow women any role in its upper ranks at all. Why should we?
By John on March 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am
The Catholic Church does not allow women to become priests, John, because the Priesthood is patterned after Jesus Christ and after the earlier priestly tradition of Melchesidek, but women are not barred from management. Mother Theresa is proof of that statement. Catholic Orders of teaching Sisters, nursing Sisters, and the schools and hospitals, clinics or hospices pf the Catholic Church are run and managed by women. Most Catholic Parishes have Parish Councils made up of parishoners who participate in the management decision-making process and many of these Council members are women. I volunteer weekly at a hospital which is part of a large and well-known Catholic healthcare system. It is owned, managed and run by the Catholic Order of nursing Sisters who created it many years ago. If you could see, as I have, the degree of respect and reverence our Bishop displays towards this Order of nursing Sisters when he visits the hospital, you would realize the significance of the management role of these Sisters, and by extension, of women in the Catholic Church.
By Gigi on March 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Gigi, the equivalent of the Monarch and heirs are Popes, Cardinals and Priests, not volunteers in charities. Women there are none.
By John on March 30th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I’ve changed “management” to “upper ranks”.
By John on March 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Fine, John, but the word ‘volunteer’ does not relate to Orders of Sisters. I am a volunteer but they are professionals who have made the service of humankind their life’s work. True, they cannot be a priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope, but their influence and their value is recognized throughout the Church.
By Gigi on March 30th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
As always, lively and interesting conversation but I do prefer the non-political/religious bits…:)
By Julie on March 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
gigi – am following the ncaa as well.
love all things sports! in regards to sarah ferguson – i understood the courtiers where not supportive of her but if i recall correctly she did make some blunders on her end as well. would be lovely if they did reunite…
By coni on March 30th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I have no doubt that the “males first” rule will change, sooner or later, regardless whether John chains himself to the doors of Parliament on the day of the vote.
As for discrimination against Catholics, why single them out for special rights? The British Monarchy as represented by the line of succession discriminates against EVERYBODY who isn’t a descendant of a single family. It’s not exactly an equal opportunity employer when it comes to the top job! Therefore, this issue should not be cast in terms of non-discrimination.
The issue is whether the Sovereign remains Supreme Governor of the Church of England. For obvious reasons, this title cannot be held by anyone other than a confirmed member of the Anglican Church. (How can you become titular head of a church if you aren’t a member?!)
I don’t believe that the heart and soul of Britishness would disappear from the realm if “defender of the faith” were removed from the Oath. So few people go to church as it is, and the Sovereign plays so minimal an administrative role, that there would be barely a blip on the Beeb about it.
By Dan on March 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
If John does, indeed, chain himself to the doors of Parliament on the day of the vote, we shall serve Royal Anecdotes Tea on that very spot, so that John is within easy and comfortable reach of the tea table. The champagne, tea service, sandwiches and Balmoral Dundee cake will be located at the end of the table nearest John.
Our fearless leader must be provided with sustenance and support, at all costs. To whom do we apply for permission to hold our tea on government property, does anyone know?
As for “Defender of the Faith,” that title was granted to King Henry VIII by the Pope in recognition for a scholarly work King Henry authored, assisted in his research, it has been said, by Saint Thomas More. The text of the work delineated the power and authority of the Pope and further delineated the Sacraments, I believe. The faith the Pope meant when he created King Henry VIII Defender of the Faith was the Roman Catholic Faith and later King Henry himself chose to change it to the Anglican branch of the Reform tradition. In the wider view, the title can be seen to mean the Christian faith, but today’s population diversity seems to require a broader view still. It is said that Charles wishes the title to be altered to “Defender of Faith,” i.e., meaning faith in God. This change would make the meaning of the title more inclusive.
By Gigi on March 30th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
We are treating this as if it were a full-blown constitutional crisis, one that calls (from some impassioned circles) for the forced toppling of government, and while we’re at it, Brown’s head.
Yet the vast majority of Britons — upwards of 80%! — support (or don’t give a whit about) these changes.
The die is cast, friends, but never mind. None of us will live to see these changes have any effect whatsoever. That is, unless Prince William throws Kate over for a Grimaldi.
Can you imagine?
By Dan on March 30th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Since women have been on the Throne for 71 percent of the last 177 years, I think we should tighten the Act of Settlement to ensure equal access for men. After all, we are human beings too. Why should women get all the plum jobs.
Dan, you’re right: 80 percent of the nation support the status quo, as do most Catholics for their “act” of settlement. Why should we deprive people of what they want because of some theoretical concept of perfection? Let the people speak, say I!
By John on March 30th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
John, according to the BBC poll, 81% of Britons support changing the succession laws.
Which papers are you reading?
By Dan on March 30th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I was referring to a poll showing 80 percent support for the Monarchy, Dan, which means the Queen’s judgement of its future, not Gordon Brown’s.
Which newspapers are you reading?
By John on March 30th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
You’ve got an interesting way of reading around the lines, John!
The poll shows 76% in support of the monarchy, 81% in favor of changes to allow the monarch to marry a Catholic, and 89% in favor of males and females being treated equally in the line of succession.
Of course, the poll was done by the BBC, that bastion of liberal moral decrepitude.
By Dan on March 30th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Never trust the BBC, Dan. It’s a hotbed of insurrection.
By John on March 30th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
One perplexing detail in all this, according to one of the flurry of articles I have read:
The proposed change would allow a future Sovereign to marry a Catholic, but the change would not affect other laws mandating that the Sovereign him/herself CANNOT be a Catholic.
In other words, Kings and Queens regnant, and their heirs, would still have to be (and to be raised) in the Church of England.
I’m glad this issue has come along. It gives us all something else to think about while the world continues down the slope!
By Dan on March 30th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
John,
I understand your concern about changes that could impact the very constitution of the Royal Family. HOWEVER…
Can you be brought back to a bit of gossip? Are you going to write about the “Princess in Waiting” book?
By Sojourner on March 30th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Talking of “Princess in Waiting”, Daily Mail and other papers have articles that Kate’s ancestor was a jailbird. Interestingly many comments on DM criticize the article. How can we be responsible for our ancestors?
BTW, is this a reason that William got cold feet?
By Mikado-watcher on March 30th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I think all of the articles regarding Kate as of late have been absolute rubbish! I agree that they are nonsense and unfair… I have noticed that most of the articles as of late have been negative… John, I thought perhaps the holiday might break some relationship news?
I am annoyed at William now. Why has he not defended her or asked for her hand? I am 29 years old and find this behavior very caddish!
Any news ?
By london4704 on March 31st, 2009 at 3:17 am
I know that I sound like a broken record, but I have the feeling that they have been secretly engaged for a while and are simply not ready to announce this as yet. When they are ready, I imagine Prince William will present the ring to Kate, the Queen and Prince Philip will announce the engagement and I will go wild finding roses to fill the rose bowl for the Royal Anecdotes Gala Royal Engagement Tea!
Any time they are ready, we are ready, I am certain. In the interim, let “…the dogs bark but the caravan passes by…”
By Gigi on March 31st, 2009 at 4:54 am
Sojourner, I’ll cover the book when I’ve read it. Most of the coverage in the press is just the puff of the publisher’s PR department.
This book could be profoundly out of date in any case.
By John on March 31st, 2009 at 10:09 am
That’s quite a set of stones the Queen wore to the State banquet for the President of Mexico. I don’t think I’ve seen those before.
Blue becomes her.
By Dan on March 31st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“This book could be profoundly out of date in any case.”
Very possibly. The book was probably conceived early last year – when everyone thought there would be a wedding this year – back when Vanity Fair wrote articles about Kate and put her on the best-dressed list.
By Alicia on March 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
The photo I saw was small, Dan, but I believe that the Queen is wearing the set of turquoise stones she was given as a wedding gift. I remember reading that the Royal collection of splendid jewelry is so large that the Queen sometimes asks her dresser if she has ever worn certain pieces in the collection. Down through the centuries, jewelry has been added to the Royal collection, all of it first quality and some of it priceless. If you saw a larger photo of the Queen with the President of Mexico, could you provide a link for us?
By Gigi on March 31st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Gigi, there is a growing gallery of images from the Mexican State Visit available at the top of the Royal website. One of my misgivings of the redesigned site is that the images do not have a “click to enlarge” option.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/
By Dan on March 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Dan, you click on the thumbnail and the picture enlarges into the large left pane.
By John on March 31st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Yes, but I mean larger larger. (Sorry, I’m not easy to please.
)
By Dan on March 31st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
am much looking forward to gigi’s next tea – hope we dont have to wait for an engagement…
By coni on March 31st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
By Gigi on March 31st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
The Act of Settlement debate (here at RA) has been exceedingly enjoyable to read thus far… Thank you all.
John, do you really have chains in your possession?
By Cristina on March 31st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Do we think she wore Turquoise because it is a stone that is frequently used in Mexican Jewelry?
And, about the book… I was wondering if there was any leaks or side gossip about it, other than the promo stuff. But yes, I will be patient.
By Sojourner on April 1st, 2009 at 12:34 am
The stones are not turquoise, they are extremely large aquamarines. They are part a parure created from aquamarines given by Brazil to the Queen at her coronation.
From wikipedia below —
Brazil Parure
The Brazil Parure is one of the most modern jewels in the collection. In 1953 the President and people of Brazil presented Elizabeth II with the coronation gift of a necklace and matching pendant earings of aquamarines and diamonds. It had taken an entire year to collect the perfectly matched stones. The necklace consists of nine large oblong aquamarines with an even bigger aquamarine pendant drop. The Queen has since had the drop set in a more decorative diamond cluster and it is now detachable. Her Majesty was so delighted with the gift that in 1957 she had a matching tiara made. The tiara is surmounted by three vertically set aquamarines. In August 1958 the Brazilian Government added to their gift by presenting Elizabeth with a bracelet of seven oblong aquamarines set in a cluster of diamonds and a square aquamarine and diamond brooch to match.
I believe the Queen Mother also had an aquamarine tiara, given to her by her husband when he was Duke of York.
By Alicia on April 1st, 2009 at 2:05 am
Splendid information, Alicia! You really ought to be on Her Majesty’s Secret Service!! Thanks you for deducing that the Queen is wearing the magnificent aquamarines and for the inforamtion and the link. Since aquamarines are my birthstone and one of my favorite gemstones, I am astounded that I did not recognize them.
If John has chains in his possession, I am sure they are in the form of chain mail, which no Knight in Shining Armor can do without.
It is a stirring testament to John’s intestinal fortitude that he can fit into his suit of chain mail and the highly burnished armor, when one considers the shocking quantities of Balmoral Dundee cake we have forced, yes forced our fearless leader to ingest at Royal Anecdotes Teas of late. 
By Gigi on April 1st, 2009 at 3:21 am
I don’t know whether it is due to the Conficker worm working its way through the world’s PCs today or to the G-20 protests in the City, but the Daily Mail website is not navigable from my desktop.
How am I supposed to judge what Sarah Brown and Michelle Obama are wearing today?
By Dan on April 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
That is a dilemma, Dan.
Somehow we shall all have to rise above it. Techonology is splendid except when it doesn’t work. 
I spent an hour and a half yesterday perusing the Royal Website, enjoying myself immensely!
By Gigi on April 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
The Mail site is up and running now, Dan. Michelle Obama is wearing J. Crew eclectic mix-match and Mrs. Brown is wearing a classic navy ensemble.
By Gigi on April 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Interesting goings-on in the City of London. Protesters chanting “Abolish money!”
Is that different from “Disappear the money!” which is what the bankers have done?
By Dan on April 1st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The Obamas gave the Queen a signed volume of Richard Rodgers music and an inscribed pre-loaded iPod (with the Rodgers tunes, perhaps? It’s also reported to hold video footage of the Queen’s 2007 visit to Jamestown and Williamsburg, VA.)
She allegedly already has an iPod.
By Dan on April 1st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
By Gigi on April 1st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
i think the i-pod is a fun gift. from what i understand she is interested in keeping up on the latest technology. am sure she gets her share of stuffing boring gifts. as far as michele obama’s black and white outfit – while the royal family only wears black at funerals that same dress code doesnt apply to the rest of us. also, i believe i’ve seen photos of the younger royal set in black.
By coni on April 1st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Coni, you’re right. Black is a very fashionable colour for women here. The Monarchy is much more up to date than people realize. The Queen likes to keep up with things.
By John on April 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I think both Michelle Obama and Her Majesty looked lovely. Mrs. Obama has a flair for style in American clothing that we have not seen in a long time in the White House. I work for the fashion industry, and people in my office are always agog to see what she wears next.
As for the IPod, why not? I think it’s a nice gesture from a very modern couple and I believe the Queen likes modern technology herself.
By NCKat on April 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
When the head of a country visits the head of another country, in this case the sovereign, there is strict protocol to be followed and a protocol officer from both countries are in charge of that. It doesn’t matter who else in the Royal Family wears black occasionally, it is not appropriate for the wife of the President of the US to wear black when she is invited to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen. As for the Queen keeping up with the lateset technology, I am sure she can do that without any help from the President of the US. The Queen’s gift of a silver-framed picture was very appropriate. The Ipod and the Richard Rodgers book, signed or unsigned, was not, in my opinion. Evidently the Queen listens to her protocol officer and just as evidently, the Obamas do not listen to theirs. Bad show, bad form.
By Gigi on April 1st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
There’s a report that the “no touch” rule was violated, but by both sides. The Queen at one point put her hand on Mrs. Obama’s back (she rarely, if ever, does this), and Mrs. Obama reciprocated.
No detail goes unnoticed!
Mrs. O’s black outfit took me by surprise, but I don’t think it was a faux pas. Brighter colors and less formal attire become her, but she probably didn’t want to upstage HM, or wear anything casual. Black is always appropriate, so long as it is balanced by another color (white, in this case.)
But I bet HM was disappointed. Never one to shy away from bright colors herself, it is probably an aspect of Mrs. Obama’s tastes that she appreciates.
By Dan on April 1st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Gigi, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the protocol of the black outfit – it was clean, simple and understated. Would you rather Mrs. Obama have worn a color that doesn’t suit her? Then the press would have had a field day! I think she held up her end beautifully. I’m sure one of her stronger, jewel-colored outfits would have been much more out of place so I think she showed good taste and style.
Black is always a safe choice.
By NCKat on April 1st, 2009 at 9:59 pm
By Gigi on April 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Gigi, you’re being uncharacteristically harsh. What’s inappropriate about a rare volume of music? The Royal Collection contains many such treasures that represent the culture of the nation they come from.
Such negativity matches the black that you find so offensive.
By Dan on April 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I love music, Dan and l I loved Richard Rodgers’ music but I do not think that item and the ipod were appropriate gifts for our President to give the Queen of England. Judging from the comments on the media websites, quite a few people think those gifts were inappropriate as well. When I recall the lovely and distinctive gifts that were selected by past Presidents, including a specially designed and gorgeously etched glass bowl by Steuben, the ipod and book pale by comparison. We need to put our best foot forward, in my opinion.
By Gigi on April 1st, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I’m also sure it’s a gift the Queen will remember and treasure – there must be an overflow of silver plates, frames and other objects’d'art stowed away somewhere. This is something she can use. It also sounds like someone must have done their research to uncover what kind of music she likes. No reason why she wouldn’t like Rodgers and Hammerstein — they are after all, giants of American music.
By NCKat on April 1st, 2009 at 10:16 pm
dont recall this much fuss in the media when george w bush gave gordon brown a leather bomber jacket…everyone has their own gift giving style..the queen always gives a photo of her and prince philip in a frame – thats her style… think way too much is being made of this…
By coni on April 1st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
ABC News has an interesting take on the meeting:
http://tinyurl.com/chq6lf
I like the way Mr. Obama is quoted as saying “… I think what the queen stands for and her decency and her civility, what she represents, that’s very important.”
By NCKat on April 1st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I too startled by the black and white. Not so much because it was a breach of protocol (gotta live on the edge now and then, eh?) But I do think it was a lost chance to wear some designer fabulousness. Not ostentatious, or overly dramatic, mind you, but still an eye catching and cool 8-). Take, for example the dress she got off the plane with — I LOVED that one!
On the other hand, the IPod was a very very sweet gift. And IPods are always appropriate.
Macs Rule!
PCs aren’t cool!
Er… sorry. Forgot myself there for a minute, and got caught up in the spirit of protest wafting from London…
By Sojourner on April 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 am
Err, anarchy in the streets and in the keyboard! I meant to write
1. I too was startled
2. still eye-catching
3.
By Sojourner on April 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 am
Sojourner, Thanks for lifting the spirit! I too liked what she wore off the plane. She looks great in belted brights.
On further reflection (and meaning no affront to Gigi
) I think the Rodgers songbook might have been TOO protocol-ish. There’s no denying his importance to American music, but America’s greatest musical gift to the world is jazz, and one of the volcanic centers of jazz from its genesis has been the city of Chicago. A memento of Chicago’s jazz would arguably have been no richer a gift of American culture (everybody loves the King and I, Sound of Music, and Oklahoma!), but a gift of greatness from the First Couple’s hometown might have been more personal. I think the Queen has had a life filled with Appropriate Official Gifts, and appreciates those with a personal touch. Nothing against Nancy’s Steuben crystal, but we get a lot of that where I’m from.
I wonder, does this brief meeting put down the possibility of a State Visit?
By Dan on April 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 am
I also would have preferred to see Mrs. Obama wear a nice pastel color when meeting the Queen for the first time; however, I remember Her Majesty wearing a black suit with short white jacket and black hat when she arrived at the White House for her official welcome at the start of the State Visit in May, 2007. If black and white is appropriate for the Queen to wear to the White House, I suppose it’s equally acceptable for First Lady Michelle Obama to wear the same to Buckingham Palace.
By Arthur on April 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Of what has been shown in Australia (no mention of gifts) the Obama’s cut a fine figure and are elegantly presented and behaved. Mrs Obama, in my opinion, has looked better presented and poised than the other women in her company. If the Queen made the unusual move to touch Mrs Obama, she must be pleased with her, that must count for something and in my opinion is more important than the colour Mrs Obama wore.
By Cristina on April 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 am
Cristina, you made a wonderful point! The Obamas could have chosen fancier gift, but under tough economy and the Queen is very aware of it (she canceled trip to Dubai), I think ipod with selections of American music is not a bad choice.
By Mikado-watcher on April 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I believe I heard that the iPod was loaded with video and photos from the Queen’s last state visit to the US. I agree that, given the economy and that the Queen has a practical streak, these gifts seem entirely appropriate.
By Evelyn on April 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“Bad show, bad form.” Are you kidding me? The Obamas’ only challenge at this point is to keep the momentum going.
By Jan on April 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
So, new article in the Guardian (reprinted word by word by the San Fransisco Chronicle of all places
). Unless I am mistaken, I detect actual reporting — new quotes from several sources, comments that show some insight, and an attempt at balanced, restrained and yes, coverage that is fair and respectful of its subjects.
But… my tiny url is not working!
By Sojourner on April 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
Sojourner,
Read the same article, thought it was a very interesting look into the Princes and their work with charities and how much doesn’t get reported by the press.
The author made a good point when they compare Prince William to his father at the same age, at the same age his father was next to be King, as Prince William isn’t as close to the throne and at this time is not needed to do as many engagements.
By American Cousin on April 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Re the detailed critique of Michelle Obama’s clothes on her European trip: I think we need to remember that her focus in life has not been clothes. Ms. Obama has been a very busy person, going to Princeton then Harvard Law School, managing a challenging career, being a wife and mother.
She apparently likes clothes, but she only seemed to pick up the pace in her dressing and grooming after she hit the campaign trail. She accepted the role of public figure and clothes came with it. Then she took another big step forward after becoming first lady. So, let’s give Michelle a break. She’s doing the best she can I think for a woman who has been doing other things besides being a clothes horse.
I would hate to be in her little black heels and be dissected at every turn.
By Karen on April 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I was looking at the Buckingham Palace pictures of the Obamas with PP and HRH and pondering…
I always thought PP was tall, in fact taller than PC… I guess his bearing has always been so imposing, he seemed much taller!
By Sojourner on April 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Sojourner, Prince Philip is 87 so he’s undoubtedly shrunk a bit since his prime.
However, the Obamas are both very tall. I’m told it’s something to do with a high protein diet in youth. No doubt 12 inch steaks are served for breakfast in Chicago.
The Queen looked diminutive in comparison to them. Obama can rightly say, when he gets back home: “The Queen of England looks up to me.”
By John on April 4th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Steak and eggs!
By Sojourner on April 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
How about milk?
By Mikado-watcher on April 4th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Is it the protein or the amount of growth hormones we’re feeding our cattle?
By Lionhound on April 5th, 2009 at 1:49 am
The Mail on Sunday (online) is reporting that Prince William has already taken all his RAF holiday leave for 2009. No time off left for a royal wedding or honeymoon this year.
By Evelyn on April 5th, 2009 at 2:28 am
But that wouldn’t preclude any announcement of an engagement, would it?
By NCKat on April 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
In another website they pointed out that RAF officers get 6 weeks vacation a year. Unless a lot of PW leave has taken place under the radar (possible), it looks like Hatey Katey is in for more of the proverbial EIF (egg in the face)
By Sojourner on April 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I imagine that if Prince William and Kate wish to announce their engagement and marry, the amount of leave PrinceWilliam has available to him will not be an issue. The Queen, after all, is the C-in-C of all military and if the Queen wishes for the wedding to be scheduled and go forward, I feel sure she can arrange some leave for Prince William.
We have glorious Spring weather, albeit very windy, for Palm Sunday here. I am wishing all of you a blessed and meaningful Holy Week.
By Gigi on April 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Thanks for that thought, Sojourner. I don’t remember anywhere in the article where Katie Nicholl mentioned *how much* vacation time Prince William has taken. It could well be that she’s mistaken about how much time RAF officers receive.
And thank you, Gigi, for reminding me that if the Queen feels the time is right for their royal wedding, it will happen, regardless of the usual policy on military leave. I’m sure this was made clear to the RAF before Prince William was allowed to make this commitment. I’m also sure that Prince William would prefer to serve under the same terms as other officers, if possible.
By Evelyn on April 6th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Blessed Holy Week to all!
I’ll worry about the amount of leave that he has coming when an engagement is announced…and not before as I think we need to get that detail finalized before we worry about a wedding
Or am I picking nits?
By Julie on April 6th, 2009 at 2:41 am
I’ll pick nits too, for I am not at all concerned about time off either…
A Blessed Easter celebration to all!
By Cristina on April 6th, 2009 at 3:05 am
How about an weekend wedding? So William can go back to work on Monday!
By Mikado-watcher on April 6th, 2009 at 6:24 am
The important royal weddings have usually been weekday events.
By Evelyn on April 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I believe that a Royal Wedding between Prince William and Kate will be a major state wedding, once requiring the strictest protocol and the full menu of grandeur, pomp and ceremony as only Great Britain can do. That will mean lavish entertainment for foreign Royalty, heads of state from around the globe, government officials and diplomats, and the large extended family. It will probably include fireworks, a concert, banquets, perhaps even a ball in addition to the actual wedding and reception/wedding breakfast. The entire schedule of pre-wedding, wedding and post-wedding events will almost surely require three or four days. My recollection is that Royal Weddings are seldom scheduled on weekends, but that may just be a recent development. Royal Weddings used to be forbidden during Lent, as I recall, but I doubt that such a restriction is still in force. I look forward to hearing all the glossy details about the gala events, believe me! Such merriment is just what we need to reduce the gloom of the current downturn in the economy, in my opinion.
By Gigi on April 6th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
One reason such an event would be scheduled during the “work week” is for the cost of security personnel. They will, no doubt, be working overtime anyway, but extending the overtime into the weekend would increase costs even more. (I’m assuming that protection officers are hourly employees, not salaried.)
By Evelyn on April 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Evelyn, the security officers are an elite squad, not hourly-paid bouncers. Many of them are trained to SAS standards.
They have been very successful over the years, except when Princess Anne was nearly shot or kidnapped in the Mall.
By John on April 6th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
That was a frightening incident , John, which I remember well. Princess Anne was traveling in a car with her first husband (Captain Mark Philips), the chauffeur and a Royal Protection officer–in the Mall in broad daylight–and yet it was a miracle that she wasn’t killed or abducted. It was truly outrageous.! On the other hand, the young Queen Victoria was fired upon by would-be assassins two or three times during her the early years of her reign, twice when she was traveling in an open coach in the area near Buckingham Palace with the Prince Consort. These terrifying incidents, along with the Kennedy assassination and the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, demonstrate that if some crazed lunatic is determined to attempt to kill a public figure, even one who is guarded by trained professionals, there is a disturbing degree of likelihood that their nefarious schemes will be successful.
I also recall that the attempt to abduct or kill Princess Anne and the assassination attempts on Queen Victoria are memorable because both these young women displayed remarkable, steely courage in the face of personal danger. The members of the Royal Family are never more awe-inspiring than when the chips are down and their blood is up!
By Gigi on April 7th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Thanks for that bit of info, John.
By Evelyn on April 7th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Gigi makes a good point – apparently, no U.S. President has been the focus of more assassination venom than the Obamas….
By Amity on April 7th, 2009 at 2:34 am
I personally was not outraged by the news that some of these men went to train in the slopes of the Alps. How else are they supposed to protect the RF?
Hellooo!
As long as the RF is going to go on these jaunts, these men need to become very familiar with a terrain they would not get to spend time in otherwise. Taking untrained protection officers, now THAT would be silly and wasteful.
By Sojourner on April 7th, 2009 at 2:57 am
I agree with Sojourner. The Royal Protection officers need to train for any and all terrains, any and all situations, especially since the official travel schedules of the Royal Family take them to all parts of the globe. Our counterpart here is the Secret Service, who guard the President and the First Family, and believe me, they are trained to handle anything that can possibly happen anywhere, from the sands of the desert to the coldest, most forbiding of northern climes.
By Gigi on April 7th, 2009 at 3:45 am
I’m sure they got their workout this week as Obama was in many of those situations
By Julie on April 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pm