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.