Is British monarchy turning into a celebrity family?

It would be easy to believe. In this age of mass media and reality TV, we can pay the British monarchy the compliment that they are above such things. But although the days of crown steeped in mystery are long gone, is the royal family slowly becoming part of the global obsession with celebrity?

Britain’s monarchy is special and differs greatly from its existing European counterparts. Take Prince-Willem Alexander, Prince of Orange who, upon his mother Queen Beatrix’s abdication at the end of this month, will become King of the Netherlands. He has recently stated that he doesn't really care whether or not he is addressed as ‘Your Majesty’ and people can call him what they want. Although this may seem very modern and will be supported by those who believe that monarchy is against all the rules of equality, surely this makes him just another rich and famous person rather than a King.

The British monarchy on the other hand is still rife with pomp and ceremony and holds up traditions that have been part of the system for centuries all the while maintaining a certain amount of mystique. The royals rarely give interviews and if they do, they tend to be with the BBC and, in keeping with the monarch’s constitutional responsibility to remain politically neutral, we are seldom sure of what they are really thinking. But we only have to look at the media’s obsession with the Duchess of Cambridge’s baby bump and how she’s dressing it to believe that in becoming more modern, the younger members of the royal family are in danger of throwing off all the traditions of monarchical mystery and offering themselves to the public on a silver (and likely monogrammed) platter. And thanks to the celebrity culture, they become less like role-models and more like the cast of TOWIE or Made in Chelsea, whose every move is an object of entertainment rather than something to look up to.

Fortunately though, the House of Windsor has a long way to go before it becomes as celebrity as some other monarchies, such as Monaco’s House of Grimaldi. Probably known best for the previous Prince, Prince Ranier III’s marriage to American actress Grace Kelly, the recent history of the royal family of the tiny Mediterranean principality is full to the brim with divorces, extra-marital pregnancies and playboy lifestyles. Not only do these things occur, the family seems to make no effort to hide them, evident in the fact that Prince Albert’s nephew, Andrea Casiraghi, who although planning on marrying his long-term girlfriend Tatiana Santa Domingo this year, did not waste any time in conceiving a child. As 2^nd in line to the throne after his mother Princess Caroline, it doesn’t seem very royal to act without any thought to his future role or in fact that of his new-born son.

It would be scandalous for anything like this to happen within the British royal family and thankfully we have an heir on the way, who although will be treated very much like another famous baby by the press, has been born to a married prince who, for now, seems at least aware of the responsibilities that he has been born to and knows that he is not a celebrity in the real sense. Though we will have to see whose example his brother Harry chooses to follow. 

Dear readers??

I'm aware that my posts are getting a bit samey and I'm getting a bit bored of just telling the story of my day trips, which although they were great for me, are hard to describe differently each time.

I don't know who's reading my blog but according to my stats, there are a fair few readers so if there's anything anyone who is actually interested wants me to blog about (in keeping with the theme of Britain, royalty, aristocracy etc.), then please leave a comment. I've got all these page views and no comments.

Would be nice to know if people that I don't know are actually reading any of this. It would give me much more motivation.

Oxburgh Hall

There’s nothing like a castle is there? A glimpse of an English castle reminds us of fantasies of knights and princesses and with all the romanticism attached. And for those interested in the real history of castles, we all know that behind the romantic façades exists a practical building designed for defence and sanctuary, as well as providing a show of power to the little people who need to be controlled.

What now seems to be synonymous with English history, the medieval castle was actually a concept brought to our island by the Normans who came from France to conquer the Saxon kingdom. Many of these fortresses built during the Norman Conquest of 1066 now lie in ruin and Norfolk’s Oxburgh Hall is a much more modern construction built by the Bedingfeld family in the 15^th century as more of a manor house than a defensive castle. Nevertheless, it still has some of the features that we would expect from the home of a fairy princess. Surrounded by a moat and towers and with walls topped by typical battlements, for which in 1482 Edward Bedingfeld had to obtain a retrospective licence to crenellate from King Edward IV, this historical gem of West Norfolk really transports you to another age.

We visited Oxburgh on a rainy day, giving the place a special atmosphere common in films about medieval England. Compared to the other houses that we visited, this was the alternative attraction thanks to its appearance of a fortified castle. Adding to this, the interiors and furnishings of the hall were much darker, making it easy to imagine a knight of the Wars of the Roses wandering through its rooms having crossed the moat begging for sanctuary.

And speaking of sanctuary, Oxburgh is probably most well-known for its priest hole. Due to the Bedingfeld family being Catholic, a priest hole is exactly what it sounds. During the Reformation and the subsequent persecution of papists during the 16^th and early 17^th centuries, wealthy families who were still clinging onto the ‘old faith’ took it upon themselves to welcome the leaders of the now illegal religion into their homes. Of course, if they were caught assisting such ‘criminals,’ things could go incredibly bad for the family. So in a void in the house, a secret room was installed in order to hide the catholic priest. And luckily enough we were able to climb down through the tight trapdoor, which was no easy task, and then enter the comparatively spacious hiding place beyond.

Following our experience down the priest’s hole, we were then able to see the bedrooms where King Henry VII and his queen, Elizabeth of York had once slept and best of all the rooms were filled with artefacts ranging from royal warrants dating back 500 years and tapestries sewn by Mary, Queen of Scots and the Countess of Shrewsbury; the Bess of Hardwick Hall that we had visited a few weeks ago. We were also able to climb up the original stone spiral staircase to the room, from where I’m told it is possible to see Ely Cathedral on a clear day.

As for servant’s quarters, Oxburgh was a little lacking; however we were able to take our afternoon tea in the kitchens, which at least is one step closer to doing it in the drawing room of the one of these great houses.

By far the most unique part of this visit though was the fact that, according to one of the guides, we had been following the current Lady Bedingfeld around the house as she was visiting with her grandchildren. Unlike most other National Trust properties, Lord and Lady Bedingfeld still live in one of the towers of their ancestral home.

Oxburgh may be a ‘fake’ castle not built for war and certain architectural features may have been added during the Gothic-revival period of the 19^th century but it is still one of the most romantic historic places I have ever visited. 

Blickling Photos

Blickling

“Nobody ever forgets their first sight of Blickling.” This is the first line of the National Trust Handbook’s description of this 400 year old masterpiece. And it really is a masterpiece. No matter what angle you look at the house, once a home of the notorious Boleyn family, the way that it seems to sit perfectly in the landscape really is a wonder to behold.

Unlike Felbrigg, this house was clearly designed to impress and show the status of its residents. Thanks to my unreliable sat-nav, our journey to the house was somewhat blind but luckily this provided us with an all the better surprise when we finally saw the house. Driving through what seemed to be just another village, we turned to see the façade of the red-brick house, which, again unlike Felbrigg, had a beautiful symmetry about it and looking at the long gravel driveway leading up to the beautiful yet ominous and foreboding front entrance, it was easy to imagine oneself arriving in a carriage or on horseback to visit the house in days gone by.

The day that we visited Blickling was one of the best we had, weather-wise, so it was just as well that the gardens and grounds of this estate were really top-notch. Not only were the ornamental gardens perfectly well-kept, they were also large enough to spend a large portion of the sunny day wandering around, as was the wider estate. And from almost every point of view, we were able to look up and catch a glimpse of the house sitting so regally in its romantic enclave. Although maybe the sun does cause a small amount of bias.

The house was not at all disappointing either. After the country cottage that was Felbrigg, this veritable palace was bursting to let anyone who came there know that it had royal connections. Not only were the furnishings infinitely more lavish and colourful, the small details, such as the artwork on show, the collection of books on display in the long gallery and the intricate mouldings on the ceilings, which in some rooms appeared as somewhat sinister stalactites hanging from above, were clear announcements of the wealth, power and esteem of the residing noble family. Blickling even boasts a state bedroom complete with gilded ceiling, ornate canopy bed and ionic columns.

My personal favourite aspect of the house though was the staff. In some National Trust properties, it is commonplace to see room guides wandering around in period costume while they inform visitors of the details of the room. What was different about the Blickling staff though was that, although they were not actual household staff in the sense that they were in charge of cleaning etc., they did adopt characters to play in fitting with their costume and surroundings. So in one room we saw one woman doing needlework and another ‘dusting’ a table. The most enjoyable part though was when we went down to the kitchens we were greeted by two elderly maids who then curtseyed to us. This was such a nice touch to add more personality and realism to the surroundings, which National Trust properties can lack due to the fact that they’re not occupied. What’s more, being curtseyed to added to my fantasy that we were actual guests of the former owners of the estate.

Of all the week’s visits, Blickling was probably my favourite. Perhaps it was the sun; perhaps it was being able to have our afternoon tea outside. But it was more likely due to being able to spend a complete day in the presence of such beauty.

Felbrigg Hall

Felbrigg Hall

If planning on spending a week touring Norfolk via its National Trust properties, it only makes sense to start with the smallest and work your way up. Which is what we ended up doing, albeit not entirely intentionally, starting with Felbrigg Hall. 

Compared to other large country houses, whether in National Trust care or owned by the original family, Felbrigg is certainly much more of an afternoon visit than a day-out. It is not the grandest of houses. It’s big but not beautiful and the previous owners were mere misters rather than lords but as it says in their guidebook, Felbrigg is “full of delights.”

As I said, the house is fairly small. And incredibly dark. Of course, the National Trust keeps most of the rooms in their houses dark in order to preserve the valuable contents from over exposure to sunlight, but here the furnishings were dark and the pictures somewhat morbid. Not ever owned by anyone of particular importance (unless you consider wealth alone important), it is understandable that this would be the case. Not only has the house been spared the honour of a royal visit, thus making the need for grandiosity more of a personal choice than a matter of protocol, but without kings having been entertained, the family obviously didn't see the need for displaying their pictures either. And a portrait of a king or queen does much more for a dark, wood-panelled room than a plain oil painting of a rich farmer and his dowdy wife. And not only this, but it also makes a place all the more interesting to visit.

Nevertheless, Felbrigg does offer its garden, mostly dead because of the weather, and the wider estate, which was once one of the largest in Norfolk. One of the most impressing things about the house though, something which it seems I’m only discovering thanks to the National Trust, was the inclusion of ‘downstairs’ in the tour. Although technically another wing of the house instead of actually being downstairs, an aspect of the property that destroyed any hope of symmetry, the machine of the house where the servants went about their daily duties out of sight of their employers was, unusually, far more interesting than the house itself.

Not only were the kitchens on display, but visitors were also able to peek into the butler’s pantry, the china closet and enter the servants hall where they would have eaten all their meals and socialised in-between jobs.

Unfortunately for Felbrigg, its major shortfall was in the tea-room. When asking for a ‘pot of tea for two,’ I’m used to this meaning enough for two people. Apparently at this residence, guests like us weren't worthy of such indulgences as more than 2 cups each per pot. Maybe this was a reference to the former family’s evident thriftiness.

Aristocratic Norfolk...and tea!

Oh what a week I've had. What started as a somewhat nerve-wracking first meeting of my boyfriend's parents in his native Norfolk turned into a comprehensive tour of great houses in the county.

Thanks to joining the National Trust (and subsequently making our money back from visiting so many sites) we started our week visiting the house of gentry and after working our way through houses, halls and castles, we eventually ended the week visiting the country retreat of Her Majesty The Queen at Sandringham.

Not only did we visit some beautiful places, we made it a ritual to take afternoon tea, albeit in the visitor's cafes and not in the drawing rooms of the houses, but nevertheless my little holiday did become a veritable tea tour of the Norfolk.

Watch this space for posts about my amazing week doing what we British do best...taking tea in some of the most beautiful homes in the country.

A Royal Education?

As reported in my last blog, Hello! magazine has recently conducted a survey whose results have shown that there is great support for the Queen. In addition a report by the Daily Mail following the celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee showed that 90% of us are happy with the way the queen is ‘doing her job’ and even 77% of people are satisfied with the British monarchy as a whole. Despite these staggering and greatly pleasing (to me as an ardent monarchist) figures of support, the question must be asked, how much do we really know about the monarchy? And do we know and are we being taught enough?

I am a history student. That is, I’m a student of languages who reads history in his own time. British history is my speciality and I consider myself to have a healthy knowledge of the British royal family, past and present and of their role in our society. So why don’t I study history at university instead of deigning to read languages? The simple answer to this question is that I don’t have so much as a GCSE in history. Why? Because the high school that I attended only taught history classes (after Key Stage 3) on subjects such as the world wars, the assassination of President Kennedy and the wartime atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Of course, I don’t doubt the importance of educating young people on these periods of history but when it came to choose which subjects I wanted to continue studying, this modern history pathway didn’t incite any interest in me. Without doubt, there are many history students who like nothing better to ignore periods before the outbreak of the Great War. But surely when one constant aspect of Britain’s story that still appears in our lives today, the monarchy, there should be some teaching on the role of, at least, the incumbent monarch if not her forbears.

Paying myself the compliment that I don’t believe that we should adopt an American stance and have daily flag raising and swearing of allegiance or that we should revive the custom of having a small, framed picture of the queen hanging in our classrooms, what does concern me is the lack of knowledge about British history when so many school pupils know more about the biography of Big Brother winners than they do of Elizabeth II. If I were to ask my peers for some simple facts about, say, the Battle of Trafalgar, such as who fought in this battle, or which empire was the largest in history, the majority would struggle to find an answer. While it’s easy to act like those who can’t answer are less intelligent, it would be fairer to acknowledge that the British education system fails in teaching most pupils about the basic facts of their own history. And where this may become an issue is when, with so much support for the Queen, people are treating Her Majesty more as a celebrity than a true head of state and descendant of history.

On a recent trip abroad, I had the misfortune of watching a television programme created for BBC America and presented by our very own Cat Deely called Royally Mad. Five self-declared royalty buffs from the United States were sent on a royal-themed tour around London prior to the wedding of Prince William. What struck me the most was not that these so called mad royalists didn’t seem to have the faintest idea of the history surrounding the monarchy - rather they were more interested in the more celebrity-style aspects of the royal family – or that they were obviously much more interested in Prince William and Kate Middleton than they were in the Queen. Rather the most strikingly painful part of watching this programme was that I have noticed these same American attitudes in Brits, who really ought to know better.

Not everyone needs to know the genealogy of more obscure royals like Princess Michael of Kent nor do they need to understand the ins and outs of the Victorian social calendar but what should be taught is why the husband of the queen at present is not called king, why symbols representing the queen show the letters E.R. and, most importantly, what the Queen, as well as The Duke of Edinburgh and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the future of the monarchy do for Britain and the Commonwealth and for us as a nation and as a people. 

The Queen as Popular as Ever

After a year of British pride, including the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games in London, it's not surprising that a poll by Hello! magazine showed that the majority of people are supportive of Her Majesty The Queen.

Although it's not clear whether those surveyed were readers of the magazine that does include a large amount of royal news from Britain and abroad, it is nevertheless staggering that three quarters of respondents said that they believe the Queen has done a good job and should continue carrying out her constitutional role. However 69% are of the opinion that at her age of 86, she should begin to scale down the amount of work that she does. Given that she has recently been recovering from illness that was serious enough to have her hospitalised for the first time in the last decade, I have to say that I agree. While it is clear that Her Majesty believes that her duties must be carried out for as long as she is able and she has absolutely no intention of abdicating, a reluctance that she confirmed during the Jubilee, it does seem that if she is to maintain healthier for longer, she should cut back.

And with several 4 children and 6 grown-up grandchildren, half of whom are already married, why shouldn't the Queen delegate more. In Hello!'s survey, 80% of people think that Prince William should be taking on more royal duties. The Duke of Cambridge, who will be 30 in June, has so far made his military career his priority, living a relatively private life on the Isle of Anglesey with his wife. But as he will eventually have to fill the shoes of his grandmother, as well as likely those of his father as Prince of Wales before that, it makes perfect sense that William should begin to shoulder some of the responsibilities attached to him as future king.

Fortunately for William, he and his wife, the former Kate Middleton, are already just as popular as the Queen, with many people wanting to see the couple as much as they want to see her. In fact, 62% of people enjoy seeing the Queen and the Duchess teaming up on royal outings.

So when the Queen's family are so popular, here's hoping that the elderly monarch will be able to pass some of her more mundane duties to the younger members of her family. For the sake of her health so we can enjoy her as our ruler for years to come, but also to provide the young royals will the opportunity to train themselves up to assume the roles that will inevitably be passed to them.

Pomp and Ceremony

When people ask me why I’m supportive of the monarchy, the long list of reasons normally includes the economic benefits of our royal family. Everyone always asks why we as taxpayers should be paying for one family to live in the lap of luxury in such an age. First of all, I like to remind people of the White House and how, although elected, the president of the United States lives in what is essentially a palace paid for by the state. And although, I’ll save this for another time, do we really want one of our politicians, none of whom garner as much support from the people as the Queen, to be living in Buckingham Palace, which after all is owned by the state and not Her Majesty herself. But of course, the most obvious economic benefit of having a long established monarchy is tourism.

It seems obvious that foreign visitors, as well as British people outside of London, such as myself, would want to visit beautiful and historic homes. However, this still applies to countries that have long abolished their monarchies, such as France and Russia with such palaces as Versailles and St. Petersburg’s winter palace. But similar to what I highlighted in my previous post about great houses, visitors are attracted to the living, breathing monarchy, not just an architectural wonder filled with antiques. Furthermore, the pomp and ceremony surrounding the monarchy, such as the grandiose State Opening of Parliament, during which the imperial state crown travels in its own coach and the Queen addresses her government in all the regalia of a British ruler, would all be lost if the Queen were just a rich woman and the country headed by an elected leader. And this is probably one of the reasons why London is the most visited city in Europe. But what about the other 10 European monarchies, such as Denmark, whose Queen can trace her royal lineage back to the 10^th century, making the Danish monarchy the oldest in Europe?

I have recently read The Great Survivors: How monarchy made it into the 21^st century by King’s Speech author Peter Conradi. Although not the greatest work of non-fiction, it is full of so many interesting facts about Europe’s royals. The most striking information that Conradi reports on is how different the Norwegian or Belgian monarchy are from our own. In some cases, even I started to ask, what’s the point?

When it comes to royal power, the most profound and frankly disappointing difference between Britain and her neighbours is the coronation; the official and, in our case, religious investiture of a new king or queen.  Not many people alive today remember the 26 year old Queen Elizabeth being crowned in 1953 but thanks to the power of the then infant television, the images of the grandest royal event are preserved for all to see. The gold state coach, the robes and the various crown jewels all played a part in the national event that saw the young queen swearing to devote herself to her nation. Although this was 60 years ago, it is likely that a very similar event will take place upon the eventual accession of Princes Charles and William. We only have to look at the Duke of Cambridge’s wedding to Kate Middleton to prove that British people are not against huge and extravagant royal events. And it’s these events that are missing from Europe.

When Harald V became king of Norway in 1991, the country’s parliament had long since removed the article in the constitution that stipulated a king (or queen) should be formally crowned. As a result of doing away with the royal tradition of the monarch being God’s representative on Earth, Harald swore an accession oath in the Council of State and the Norwegian parliament, instead of being crowned in a church, such as Westminster Abbey, despite the fact that he does in fact remain the nominal head of the church. The crown was not placed on his head, instead they were merely displayed. Most un-royal, in my opinion, was that instead of being the head of a grand procession, the king simply travelled to the ceremony in a car, as he does for the state opening of parliament.

The same, some-what presidential, forms of royal investiture occurs elsewhere. The King of the Belgians is sworn in before Parliament, sitting on what Conradi calls “a throne more or less knocked together for the occasion,” a contrast with the 700 year old King Edward’s Chair used for British coronations. The kings of Spain and Sweden simply swore oaths in the presence of the Crown Jewels and parliament.

For me, the pomp surrounding monarchy is what differentiates them from the elected politicians. Not only do such royal events maintain the historical traditions that I believe a monarchy needs to survive, they also make the royal family visible to the people looking royal, not like any ordinary person. And then there’s tourism. Why would a tourist visiting from a republic be attracted to a monarchy that simply lives in a large house and takes part in virtually no ceremony? Although anti-monarchists may look on  events such as the royal wedding and any future coronations as a waste of public money, they are more than worth it as a method of advertising the monarchy to foreign visitors, as well as making us, the British, all the more proud of our Queen and her family. 

Fairer sex, fairer crown?

The history of western civilisation has been mired by inequality. And not least of these inequalities is the treatment of women as second-class citizens. From the lowest in society up to royalty, women have struggled to be treated in the same way as men. In the twelfth century, the only surviving child of King Henry I of England, a daughter, ascending to the throne upon his death brought about a civil war and was, for all intents and purposes, passed over for her cousin who is now listed in royal chronology as King Stephen of England. In those troubled times, the role of a monarch was to be a fighter and protector and to lead armies into battle. And even today, these are considered to be almost entirely masculine qualities. But now, as we prepare to change the centuries-old law to a more gender-fair rule that the first born of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, whether male or female, will be the heir apparent, are we better off with a queen than a king?

Our current Queen, Elizabeth II, has just celebrated her diamond jubilee. 60 years on the throne makes it that only around 15% of the population of the United Kingdom have lived long enough to even remember the country being headed by a king. As it happens, a common question asked by foreigners (and likely by many Brits under 50) is: why is the husband of the queen not calle^th century and also not including the short-lived and disputed reigns of Matilda and Lady Jane Grey), the country has been ruled by a woman for only 191 years. But even after all those years of male rule, it seems that we cannot imagine the United Kingdom without a Queen as head of state.

d king? To many people, the concept of having both a king and queen is the stuff of legend and fairy tales. However, of 40 monarchs since the Norman Conquest, there have only been 6 Queens who have ruled in their own right, that is, inheriting the throne rather than being called queen because they happened to marry a king. In 940 years of monarchy (subtracting the 6 years of Cromwell’s commonwealth in the 17

But why? After all, being ruled by a man seems to be a trialed and tested method that has lasted for almost a millennium. First we must consider the role of a monarch in the 21^st century. A role that Queen Elizabeth has polished and perfected (although not without the odd hiccup) over her 60 year reign. In times gone by, kings came to power through plain brute strength. In order to seize power and thereafter keep it, a man strong in mind and body was required to keep control of the masses and to keep rival noblemen off the throne that he had fought to achieve. William the Conqueror landed in England in 1066 and took the throne by force from the Anglo-Saxon king Harold Godwinson and changed the history of the British Isles forever. King Stephen took the throne from his female cousin Matilda by starting a civil war. And battle after battle during the 15^th century passed the crown like a tennis ball from one warring faction to another. But these days are well and truly gone. The last king to die in battle was Richard III at the end of the Wars of the Roses in 1485 and the last British king to even set foot on a battle-field was George II as early as 1743. Can you imagine Elizabeth II on horseback giving a rallying speech to troops? Even the queen’s grandson, Prince Harry, a man unlikely to be king, had to be recalled from service in Afghanistan for his own safety.

No, the popularity of this modern monarchy does not lie in the physical strength of its leader. It lies in what the queen’s grandfather George V called ‘the happiness business.’ And perhaps we could say that this is a more female role. Elizabeth II, at the ripe old (but very much alive and kicking) age of 86 spends her time opening schools, unveiling plaques, patronising charities and visiting hospitals. Painting the perfect picture of a modern European monarchy, Queen Mary, the highly conservative wife of George V, was known to have said to her daughter-in-law, The Duchess of York (the future Queen Mother), ‘You are a member of the British Royal Family. We are never tired and we all love hospitals.’ (This quote, however figurative it may seem, could really be considered to be completely true. How often is it that we see the queen struggling up a flight of stairs, looking grumpy at yet another plaque or even needing to sit down during four hours in the rain on a boat in the Thames?)

It would be unfair to say that these occupations of the royal family are not also well-done by men too. The Prince of Wales’ popularity has been increasing due to his approach to conservation and pictures of him laughing with ‘the people’ on various official visits. And this is very reassuring. Prince Charles is the heir apparent and if he survives his mother, he will be king. But what is curious is that he doesn't manage to garner the same level of popularity as his mother. Of course this can be easily attributed to the popular memory of his disastrous first marriage. But moreover, the queen has come to represent to us a grandmother of the nation. Almost everyone alive today remembers a relatively shy young girl taking the throne, turning into a mother, a grandmother and then now even a great-grandmother. She has never appeared threatening, forceful or snobbish in her role and we all love her for it. It is hard for even the staunchest of the rare British republican to say a bad word about her as a person, even if it’s not so difficult to insult the institution.

In the 21^st century, we don’t need to ensure that the crown passes to a strong man who armies will follow till death in battle. Nor do we need someone who can keep the rabble at bay through fear. We prefer a leader who is noble, a role model and above all who we can all feel happy about. Future kings, Princes Charles and William, will have some big shoes to fill but they will make sure the ‘happiness business’ prevails. And even if it turns out that The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child is a boy, thus making the proposed new law redundant for the time being, we know that in future, the chances of living during the reign of a queen will not be at all as unlikely as in the past.

Instead of declaring, like Elizabeth I, that ‘I have the heart and stomach of a king,’ we can rejoice that female monarchs are able to proudly shout from the rooftops, ‘I have the body of a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a queen! And of a queen of England too!’

What makes Britain's great houses great?

Britain is full of palaces, castles and so-called great houses but what exactly is it that makes them some of the best in the world?

Last week, I visited Harwick Hall in Derbyshire. Set in the serene Derbyshire countryside, this remarkable example of Elizabethan architecture is a real treasure. From the rolling snow-topped hills that surround to form the estate to the collection of centuries old tapestries hanging from the walls of almost every room, Hardwick is a great place to visit if you're interested in history.

But there is one thing missing...

As an attraction, the house built for the formidable 16th century courtier, Elizabeth, Countess of Shrewsbury, better known as Bess of Hardwick, is one of my favourites. When there, you can really feel that you have stepped back in time. Aside from the occasional rope blocking certain routes and protecting the antique furniture, this house is one of the few that really makes you feel that you are visiting the countess herself back in Elizabeth times. But unlike my other faves, such as Castle Howard, Chatsworth House (another one of Bess's) and even Buckingham Palace, this great house is no longer lived in.

When I visited Versailles near Paris, the huge, gilded palace of France's Louis XIV, I did not see a place where kings, queens and noblemen once lived. I saw a museum. The same goes for the Louvre, which today is better known for housing the Mona Lisa rather than once being a royal home. Part of my interest in these houses is that they served a purpose other than tourism and thankfully in Britain, this is something that we still have.

The Duke of Devonshire still lives at Chatsworth, The Marquess of Bath still occupies Longleat, Windsor Castle, the largest occupied castle in the world, is still the weekend retreat of Queen Elizabeth II.

It's this sense of the past in the present, the heirs of previous nobles and royals still walking the same hallways that their ancestors did that makes these houses worth visiting. And even better, there's a chance that you may run into a lord or lady, giving a tourist attraction a heart and soul.

Somehow though, the unoccupied palatial houses of Britain still conjure a certain feeling in me that cannot be matched in foreign palaces. Maybe it's because I know that not too far from there, there are plenty of houses still used as such by their original aristocratic families and I hope, despite a changing world and economic difficulties, that this can continue for many years to come.

As a student at a traditional British university, an institution that can trace its origins back to the 18th century in a country whose millennia-long history can be seen everywhere, one might think that I would be surrounded be like-minded people in full support of one of the most traditional aspects of our society.

Unfortunately for me, however,  most other students and young people (I'm 22) seem to be indifferent to the idea of monarchy at best and outright against the system in general with many openly identifying as republican or socialist. And bizarrely, despite the fact we have a long-established royal family that could be described as the most powerful (and therefore successful) in Europe, I, the monarchist, find myself outnumbered by those who wouldn't be totally against Britain becoming "The United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Fortunately though, I know that there are other monarchists out there. So I will be sharing my views, musings and knowledge about what interests me most...monarchy and aristocracy.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, my lords, ladies and gentlemen, watch this space.