Recently there have been debates and seminars about reform of the procedure and governance of the House of Lords. Many serious issues, such as the composition of committees, the scrutiny of bills and so on, have been examined. On a lighter note, it was queried whether peers should still wear the familiar scarlet robes (dating back in design to the 17th century if not earlier). They are worn at the state opening of Parliament and, when a new peer is introduced for the first time, by the new peer and his or her two supporters. There have been a lot of introductions recently, as a result of the creation of 56 peers in the dissolution honours list. Day after day, the proceedings of the House have started with the procession that brings in a new member and gives us a chance to see who it is.
It has been suggested that wearing the scarlet robes should be discontinued because they make an inappropriate distinction between the members of the Commons and of the Lords. Moreover they are unhelpful to the public’s image of the work carried out by the Lords. For myself, I appreciate the colour and the symbolism (like army uniforms, academic gowns, barristers’ wigs and so on). It means that you are relinquishing your own personality and adopting the impartiality of office. What does the public think?
I say leave it alone. Why must we always give up our traditions in this country? If you ask the public what’s wrong with politics in this country, they wouldn’t say, “The red robes that peers wear.”
Why is it inappropriate to distinguish between the Lords and Commons anyway? Whatever next, reupholstering the benches in the Lords in green?
I think it should stay the way it is. A peerage is an honour bestowed by the Crown, so it makes sense that there should be some distinction. Besides, I do not really see it harming anyone. I would imagine less people would watch the State Opening if the robes were lost. Furthermore, it is simply a sign of respect. The more formal an occasion, the more formal one should dress. It is rude not to. Even at a regular sitting, you wouldn’t expect a member of the Commons to show up in jeans, sandals, and a t-shirt. No one is making MPs wear suits and professional clothing, but they do it because it fits the occasion. So, why shouldn’t peers wear robes once for the most formal state occasion of the year? Again, I don’t think the public thinks less of peers because they wear robes. If the public was paying for them, that might be different, but they are not.
I also think that it is wrong to suggest that peers and MPs should NOT be distinguished by dress. They are not the same. Besides, there is nothing preventing MPs from having their own distinguishing clothing. If I am not mistaken, Privy Councillors and other office holders actually have court dress and uniforms that they could wear to distinguish them. Knights could wear their order’s robes, and so forth. Anyone left without a specific dress could wear standard court dress. It’s the Commons that is distinguishing itself from the Lords by refusing to wear knee breeches!
“Privy Councillors and other office holders actually have court dress”
I think you could count all the PCs who actually own the uniform on one hand and have fingers to spare. I know of only one who had it made.
Name him!
Never heard of this court dress before. Intriguing.
Croft: My apologies. I by “have court dress and uniforms,” I meant “have court dress and uniforms designated for them” (ie. there are regulations that specify what they can wear the 1st class civil uniform or perhaps should wear it certain circumstances). Of course, as you point out, this is never really done any more. I would not know which Privy Councillors have actually ever worn these uniforms. My point is that they could wear them if they wanted to do so.
Chris K: After much research, I found two details on the court dress. One is from a 1912 book (doubtless updated later) which has an image of the uniform:
http://www.costumes.org/history/galleryimages/dresswornatcourt/court2/pages/41color.htm
After looking even further, I found a single, recent picture of a PC in his uniform. Lord Steel can bee seen in the book “Keepers of the Kingdom” on page 148. You should be able to pull it up in the “look inside” feature on amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Keepers-Kingdom-Ancient-Offices-Britain/dp/0865652023#reader_0865652023
Thank you very much for that. May even buy the second book.
I know it’s not popular, but I want both chambers put in a new building with new decoration. This includes the clothes worn by it’s members.
The imagery of the House of Lords was developed to represent the landed class. Now it represents an educated (in a good way) class. Thus the imagery we use should be different. Even if we can’t have a new chamber, at-least drop the worst vestiges of the old Lords, like ermine gowns.
“It means that you are relinquishing your own personality and adopting the impartiality of office.”
If the office refered to is that of “Peer” then the above assumes a more sinster tone, that the political appointments usually from the commons, hide all the sins and wickednesses of office of former HofC members.
That particular function of the “upward/sideways” move always seemed to me a desirable thing until the Iraq war vote, and the continuing responsibility of Afghanistan.
Now it seems highly undesirable.
However I enjoy the robes. they have them in local governments, and they can be a lot of fun, sure that Baroness Deech enjoys it more than anybody! Tease Tease!
” I want both chambers put in a new building with new decoration” djb13 is clearly refering to the Yorkshire Moors theory of Government, which I was taught at school; move the whole of Whitehall and Parliament to the Yorkshire moors.
I think that robes of office are important as they do separate person from office, which is a little appreciated, but quite important aspect of any position of power.
I say keep the Robes. Tradition defines a Nation, and tossing them is Tossing an essential element of our Culture. Granted, tossing out old Tradition in Favour of New ads is whats in vogue nowadays, but I find all this change unsettling rather than exciting and wonderful.
As to the motivation, of course they make a Distinction between the Lords and the Commons, wasn’t that the point? But then, the Lords likes being the Dominant House, and prefers not o have even Symbolic shows of Power from the Lords. They want to create a situation in which the Lords looks just like them, has less power than they do, and is basically thought of as nothing but a Soundchamber for them.
But lets not give in to their modernist, Equality and Democracy claptrap.
I understand the unease about the robes and it’s damned unhelpful that the press focus on it whenever lords reform is in the news but I think the robes should stay. It’s part of tradition and is important in distinguishing between the two houses. Like it or not the lords is different from the commons in composition, function, style and origins. I don’t think a further multiplication of ‘suits’ will make people feel any different about it. In fact I’d go as far as to say it could further undermine the legitimacy the Lords has earned.
As I commented when Lord Norton raised the topic of reform a few months back, the Lords’s attire impresses upon me the wisdom and expertise within it.
If all else is equal, keep the robes. However, if it is a matter of maintaining the Lords’s function and effectiveness or keeping the robes, in the interest of the former, do away with the robes. Function is, of course, more important than image.
Elaborating the previous paragraph: Perhaps the public’s desire for “reform” is based solely on image–no, I don’t hold the highest views of the general public’s critical faculties–and if that is the case, making the Lords’s image more modern in the public eye would reduce the latter’s desire to change for change’s sake. Ergo, in this case, continuation of the Lords’s essential functions as an upper house would continue, where it would not be otherwise.
The law lords cost us 140,000 pounds for their robes.
Do we pay for all the robes for Lords?
Tax payer’s money or are they expensed?
Factual question
Lord Blagger: the answer to your question (which has been covered on this blog before) is that peers have to hire their robes from Ede and Ravenscroft, just as do graduating students. They have to pay for it themselves. Some peers buy their own, and this was particularly the case for hereditary peers who passed them down. I seem to remember Lord Norton bought his from an expelled hereditary peer. Remember, they only actually need robes for their introduction, and then if they choose to attend the State Opening (and get one of the limited number of seats).
That doesn’t answer the questions.
1. is the cost claimed on expenses?
2. Is it offset against taxation. Shades of uniforms versus suits spring to mind.
Lord Blagger: 1. No. 2. No.
Most importantly and necessarily let there be continuous information-advertisement that ceremonial-robes represent the responsibilities (and response-abilities) of the office, not of the person, party. Politics, or even coloured-history (much of which latter may not be what our modern-thinking would judge to be sustain-worthy).
Let the same be so for the Commons, where the speaker already has a black gown; and where I think that every member should have a simple thin black gown to wear, mandatorily for ceremonial occasions, but at other times voluntarily worn according to the member’s intending speaking-participation.
———————
I would certainly recommend that the six ‘thinking’ colours should be introduced into certain kinds of discussion, debate, or all-round Thinking explorations, be they in the Chamber or in a Committee or ‘think-tank’ room, and be clearly displayed for all to see in accordance with what particular thinking-discipline needs to be focussed upon by the whole assembly for any particular time-slot in those particular Thinking proceedings:
White for Facts, Factors, Figures;
Yellow for Positive advantages;
Green for Creative ideas;
Black for Risks;
Red for Emotional-thinking;
Blue for planning what sequence of colours to go through next, and perhaps how much time to allot to each kind of thinking therein.
By constantly showing a statement, or a small nest of statements, as to the meaning of robes and other Significations and trying out some publicised sessions using the Six different Thinking-disciplines, the Houses would be better informing and enabling The People to understand Parliament and follow Proceedings, thereby enabling The People to become better mind-participant, and in a real sense to significantly carry Britain forward into a more cogently participatory Democracy.
———–
Perhaps consider also the brief wearing of a simple letter Y or N to signify ‘for’ or ‘against’, and possibly A for abstention, Q for question, and S for Suggestion.
————-
JSDM2347Sn180710).
History, pageantry and ceremony are extremely important to any Nation and the way it conducts itself. The USA feels it`s lack in these circumstances.
Of course things have changed, no longer are the Lords in the Court of the Sovereign but the ceremonial wearing of gowns is still I feel important. Dress can change a person and one would hope the red and ermine would have an effect of their Lordships – a word that in modern times perhaps also needs altering.
The question was however ” What does the public think ?”
Are we the public, the few that regularly post here ? I would not say we are a good cross section, our interest in politics being a lot keener than the average. So what would the my public, friends and relatives say ?
Well for starters they have no idea what the House of Lords does and the Lords themselves are still viewed as the landed and gentried few. To be honest most probably couldn`t care less until the media stated that it would save money.
So education would help I hear you say ? Nope ! Why does the cleaner want or even need to know how and what goes on the boardroom of BP ? Government is mostly faceless to the working man with a few exceptions, they`re there to blame when you`re skint, your car is broken due to pothole damage or your overtime appears taxed at 70%.
I would say that the red and ermine is probably superfluous to the public which is probably how they feel about Government in general.
Then again when one picks up a pint of milk in the supermarket you don`t think of the cow, the farmer, the health and safety, Bovine TB, pasteurisation,delivery, packaging etc.
“I would not say we are a good cross section…”
That may be, but this is one of the few reservoirs from which I would care to drink.
I shall acept that as a compliment for my meagre part and reciprocate, just don`t tell Lady T I do miss her wisdom, wit and input when she isn`t around.
I like the idea of adding Robes to the Commons. It sounds much more reasonable than the removal of the Lords Robes. Of course, as the Commons is a gaggle of American Wannabees, and they think the Robes are old fashioned in their mad dash towards “Modernising Britain” I doubt they’d go for it.
Robes are worn on many occasions. At this time of year we see groups of graduates all arayed in their accademic robes. When I was a school the masters all wore their gowns and at formal occassions such as Prize Giving and at the annual carol service they wore the hoods as well and as schoolboys we used to comment on the different colours.
Robes are still worn in Local government by the Mayor/Lord Mayor. and in the law by the Judges and barristers.
Part of the display at the state openning is the uniforms of the soldiers, yeomen of the guard etc and then in the chamber by the peers on the one side and the judges in the centre.
I don’t know how they are going to manage at the next corronation because there will not be room in Westminster Abbey for all the peers and I doubt that there will be enough robes to go around.
I understood that the amount of ermine distinguished the rank of the peer, Dukes, Earls etc but this of course only applied to the hereditories.
Baroness Deech, I wonder if I’d be keener on hanging on to our robes if they were flattering, rather than make us all look like a sack of potatoes? Ah no, that’s far too flippant.
But we are trying to modernise a little and the papers simply won’t ever portray us a normal human beings doing worthwhile real work while the photos are always of that one peculiar event of the year. Regrettably I think that rules out too the evening dress and tiaras that the male peers’ wives wear on that occasion and I rather hanker after. Best get rid of all the silly dressing up, it interferes too much with what we are trying to achieve. (Sorry, I’m not strictly a member of the public for this blog).
“Portray us a normal human beings”.
My Lady,(not a term I use to address normal women), you are Aristocracy to all intents and purposes. You are not of the common variety.
I see nothing wrong in looking regal, which isn`t a sack of potatoes nor looks it.
And there are always occasions for dressing up. 😉
As a serviceman it was #8`s for work and #1`s for special occasions.
I toatally agree with Baroness Deech on the wearing of robes for introductions.