The Constitution Unit at University College London keeps a beady eye on the activities of the Lords. Its Deputy Director, Meg Russell sends us regular research updates which are both informative and challenging. Her website is at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/staff/russell.html
The Unit has recently published on the web a copy of Meg’s evidence to the House of Lords Information Committee inquiry on People and Parliament. Here she argues that the House of Lords has changed enormously in the last 10 years, but that this change has been little noticed. In order to better connect with the public she therefore suggests that the Lords needs a small symbolic change, a change of dress for the Queen’s speech, from ermine robes to normal daywear for peers. Meg says “ This is the only way I can see to end the ubiquitous but quite unrepresentative media image of the Lords as an ermine-clad institution, which adds to its image as outdated and ‘unreformed’.”
I wonder how many agree? I certainly do. It is galling that every time a peer is photographed in the press or the Lords are shown on TV, there we are in our robes, which I have only actually ever worn once, the day I joined. (and will wear for the second time at State Opening on Wednesday 18th November). The ceremony may be beautiful but the disadvantages are serious.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/parliament/house-of-lords.html
The two links go to “remote.parliament.uk” which is presumably some strange internal thing that just gives a nasty warning error message here. The first link is also incorrect. The links should be:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/staff/russell.htm and http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/parliament/house-of-lords.html
Hope that’s helpful.
Thanks Matthew, don’t know what happened there….
I’d miss it a little, but Meg has a good point. If it is necessary, then I can’t really complain.
Of course it’d have to be accompanied by as many public statements to the media on the composition, purpose and advantages of the House as possible to have a decent chance of success in my mind.
Why always the obsession with dress, and with doing away with our traditions? I think most people are intelligent enough to realise the robes are only for formal occasions (just as the Queen doesn’t normally attend sittings) and they will also realise what people wear is unimportant. Those who aren’t that intelligent are going to be thinking about other things, and not about politics or whether the House of Lords is a good idea. MPs don’t exactly have a good image with the public anyway, and they don’t wear ermine.
Where would you stop? The Queen couldn’t wear her crown. Sorry, I can only think this whole idea comes from someone with republican sentiments.
And what about Black Rod? To better represent day-to-day work in Parliament, perhaps he should be replaced by Black Laptop or Black CCTV Camera.
I would have that the fact the Lords are unelected would be the first reason people would give for why the Lords in ‘unreformed’. I really think people are intelligent enough to realize that whether or not someone wears a red gown has no effect on the work they do. Russell’s arguments seemed to be based on very patronizing assumptions. You might just as well argue that parliament should be moved to a newly-built building because otherwise people might think parliament in general is stuffy and “unreformed”.
As you might have guessed, I am in favour of keeping the beauty and tradition of the Queen’s Speech intact while concentrating reform efforts on more substantive issues like providing democratic legitimacy without undermining the unique strengths of the Lords.
Must we away with everything in Tradition? We are moving further and further awaty from our heritage, all in the interest of “Modernising”. The reason the Lords were reformed in 1999 was to modernise the outdated institution, and the reason for electing the Lords is modernisation. I disagree since those changes havent helped anything, and made things worse. Need we drop our Ceremonies too?
I like the robes, and think they should stay.
I’m torn actually, I can see both sides. I personally love the robes that the Lords wear; however I know that the uninitiated might be turned off by it.
How about a gradualist approach?
This year ten percent could use the summer or winter fur of any weasel, stoat, otter or ferret cut by modernist tailors to replace the ermine. Then ten percent each year could replace the ermine thus and see how that works.
Well I’m a bit torn myself here, they are very pretty but the ceremonials are all a bit Victorian and not all that ancient. franksummersby3ba, I quite like your approach…I have long suspected that most of us who hire robes get white rabbit anyway, there’s a subtle difference in quality I note between those who have their own (like Lady Thatcher) and those that are hired. Actually the best are those worn by hereditary Dukes and Earls, now they don’t have to hire them from Ede and Ravenscroft like us ordinary life peers. And they get more flashy gold trim too.
Rather more seriously N Holzapfel, Russell’s point is that the Lords has been reformed and the evidence is that there has been major change in the past decade but that it is readily dismissed while the Chamber is made to look fuddy-duddy. I do not deny however that there is still room for modernisation and as I have made it clear before that I am not opposed to introducing a mainly elected second chamber.
I was under the impression that the robes are essentially identical to those of the 17C and that the gold trim is universal (in parliamentary robes though not in coronation robes) to all peers the differences being the number of rows of ermine & gold from 4 for Dukes to lowly barons with 2
🙂
Somehow I doubt if the press has failed to notice the ongoing changes and alter their stock pictures of the house that this change will make much difference…
By all means get rid of the robes along with other out-dated practices in the day to day working chamber (IIRC there is something about points of order and hats). However I wouldn’t personally want to go so far with state occasions like the opening of parliament. The state opening of parliament seems likes the right place to have a little pomp and circumstance.
Alex Bennee: The points of order and hats applied in the Commons – you had to be seated and covered in order to raise a point of order during a division. A collapsible top hat was retained for the purpose. It was thrown to anyone wishing to raise a point of order. That provision has now been done away with, along with various other procedures seen as unnnecessary and not helping the image of the Commons. There is no equivalent in the Lords.
You have to HIRE your robes ?! As John McEnroe might have said “You cannot be serious !!”
What on earth is the point of slaving away all your life for a peerage, or indeed coughing up a million to the party in power for a ‘Big P’ and a ‘sniff of the ermine’ if one doesn’t get the costume as part of the deal ?
Do you know, my aspiration to be a Lord just took a bit of a knock. Still, I guess it is still the best club in town, but never mind the troops not getting the right equipment, what sort of country have we become if the Lords have to hire their robes ?
I know what the solution is – put in a good word for me and I shall make it my mission as Lord Bedd of Gelert to ensure that Lords in the front-line have the tools for the job.
My pitch to the ‘voters’ will be that we as a country will have gone down the pan if we don’t preserve these traditions for future generations of amateur Gilbert and Sullivan societies..
After all the old feudal system never used to saddle peasants like me with vast amounts of debt like the so-called ‘Labour Party’..
Tally-ho..
Bedd Gelert: One can hire robes, but it is also possible to buy one’s own robes. They are far from inexpensive. I have my own – I managed to buy mine from a departing hereditary peer. Croft is correct about the differences in the number of chevrons on a robe, so I had to buy mine from a departing baron.
Crikey ! as Boris might say – but good to see that the ‘make do and mend’ culture is alive and well in the Lords. Disappointing though that even when in the Lords ‘all are equal, but some are more equal than others…’
p.s. I read in the papers, so cannot vouch for its accuracy, that the new Supreme Court does not have a Press Gallery. Interesting, no ?
Basic economics suggests with a cornucopia of barons their robes must be the cheapest to buy second hand 🙂
Thinking about it there are a few peers who might have several sets of robes – the present Duke of Norfolk’s father inherited a barony from both his mother and his father as well as the dukedom from a cousin.
Straight lines I thought not a chevron?
The traditional clothing gives me the impression of learned and wise debaters and decision makers … but I can understand that the general population might get the impression of “unreformed”ness.
I wonder, are we as a country creeping towards the American situation–where competence is seen as “elitist”?
Perhaps the robes’ demise (along with other aspects of the “elitist” image) is a sad necessity, in order that the Lords’ place as an effective upper house, able to scrutinise and reject legislation, can be maintained.
Without addressing the substance of your remarks which are a brutal but quite supportable criticism of the USA. I would post a point, the force which developed the Harvard Game (which is the purist’s term for the NFL and NCAA and other American football games) from Rugby is our love of written rules over custom — thus in the particular copy of the rules extant in our leagues the forward pass was not prohibited and so the refs allowed it. In the commonwealth similar things had happened and were quashed by tradition. In the US Supreme Court it was universal tradition for an attorney to wear a morning suit but it was one day violated and the court would not enforce a contempt ruling because of the lack of a written rule of the court. I personaly feel written rules are vital for us but am the type who is willing to write a rule enforcing morning suits for pleadings, jackets for restaurants,robes for commencements and clerical garb for religious services. Some sources seem to suggest that the garb of Lords is actually newer in universality at Parliament than the life of the UK’s Beau Brummel who founded his own sartorial empire for men which still dominates. Standards of dress in the US were almost obliterated by the cultural phenomenon known as the 1960s. Sports uniforms endured and the rest has made a slow and uncertain recovery. Personaly I would be delighted to see hereditary and former military peers in armor with modern and ancient acoutrements for some occasion or another in your country. But I do not have to stare down the forces of fashion magazines and films for my country’s sake. I do have other problems…
Baroness Murphy, you do not know how much your post has already demonstrated the likeness of the Lords with us mere subjects!
As councillors at Lincoln we wore robes. Just the same debates took place as exist on this thread, on and off, for years, and probably continue to this day.
Effectively the wearing of robes (which were provided and only for full council meetings) became discretionary, though not wearing them was definitely frowned upon at the Council’s Annual Meeting, which, in Lincoln, coincides with the Mayor making.
Wearing of robes was obligatory in procession at annual services at Lincoln Cathedral (which few attended, in part for this reason).
But not for the first time, you’ve set my mind spinning with possibilities.
The arguments over robes seem very much those applied for or against school uniforms. They are an item of expense for every parent sending their children to a school with uniforms (though I think there is generally help for those most hard up) but they manage to at least reduce the more obvious differences in parents’ income levels and provide a visual demonstration of unity which (hopefully) works for the good name of the school.
So I don’t think robes are, overall, an entirely bad thing for special occasions. The question to my mind is all this red and ermine (or rabbit) stuff really match the image the Lords wants to create today? And apart from purely traditionalist reasons, the answer must surely be a thumping great ‘Nay’.
I mean, fur wearing in 2009? It’s a good job the Commons hasn’t noticed or they’d make it illegal like everything else.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the House announced that, after all this time, it really was fed with wearing ermine and that rabbits are not noted for their acting ability, and it held an open design competition on what should replace the present robes? With sufficient lead-in time I’m sure this would produce a whole array of fascinating designs and probably make the future careers of any British designers shortlisted. Cost would be a criteria. Perhaps you could rerun it every ten years.
And I do think wearing of the new robes for special occasions really should be mandatory for the Lords as it stands. This is surely symbolic: some are born robed, and some have robes thrust upon them!
I’m so glad this weighty topic has roused such passions. Seems most of you want to retain the pomp at least for State Opening. I am deeply impressed that Lord Norton has his own robes and one can pick them up cheap, I had no idea. But any one who wants to have a look at the rental variety available can look at the Ede and Ravenscroft website at http://www.edeandravenscroft.co.uk/ceremonial-dress/peers-robes/
The Lord Chamberlain’s office keeps a small stock of robes which are allocated by ballot. For the past five years year I have failed to win robes in the ballot so now I’ve finally decided it’s time to hire if I fail again. The whole event is a bit hit and miss, for example one has to bid for a ticket for a spouse to sit in the peeress’s gallery (my peeress thinks he’d like to go this year), not by any means guaranteed, or for a guest in the Royal Gallery. Peeresses are requested to wear evening dress (and tiaras are de rigeur), gentleman guests are asked to wear full dress uniform, morning suits or suits. The Theoretical Chemist says ‘put me down for an admiral suit then’ but I fear Lord West would suss him out.
Bedd Gelert, hiring robes is at least an optional activity but sorry to disillusion you. Stephenpaterson, I’d love to see the Councillors of Lincoln in full fig.
Personally I’d quite like to swap my robes to join the evening dress and tiara brigade, you can hire a quite nice tiara from Garrards in Regent Street for a few thousands a night if your Grandmother didn’t thoughtfully leave you one.
I’ll let you know how I get on at State Opening after the event..
Lord Norton clearly does things properly, a coat of arms and his own robes. Though he’ll need a coronet for the full effect!!
Perhaps the ‘theoretical peeress’ (sorry chemist) could get one of those soviet military uniforms with medals from head to toe!
Ede and Ravenscroft? So it is just like a university graduation. Baroness Murphy, presumably you wear a gown when you attend a university graduation? Do you hire those? As universities retain the traditional dress, it would seem strange for the House of Lords to abolish it on ceremonial occasions.
As an aside, even new universities have old-fashioned gowns, despite the fact they have no history of wearing them. At my university, we used to joke about the rival, new university in the city, and why they needed to copy older institutions’ academic dress. When I started a new job, I decided to re-use the same joke in conversation with my new colleagues. Having heard someone mention Salford University, I suggested that wearing leather jackets might be more appropriate for their graduation ceremonies. My new boss wasn’t too pleased, given that he had completed his PhD at Salford!
Jonathan: ‘what type of academic dress would be suitable for each university’ – I can think of one which was based on the site of a house of ill repute!!!
Well I say a feild test. Let me become a Lord, an wear the robes, and then Ill tell you if I like them.
(I rather like that idea, actually.)
Jonathan,
I do indeed have to hire robes from Ede and Ravenscroft for my ceremonial role as Chair of St George’s, University of London graduation day but the university organises it all and pays. I have a wonderful choice of scarlet gown with gold edging and a ‘Thomas More’ velvet hat from my MD Manchester, a burgundy with blue edging and mortarboard from PhD London and my real favourite, a dove grey watered silk gown with pale blue hood with emerald edging from an honorary doctorate from Stirling. There are others but not so spectacular. I remember at Stirling they decided initially not to have gowns as they were established as part of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution’in the 60s and wanted to be modern. But within a few years by popular student demand they introduced trad gowns again.
I’m stopping here, we’ve strayed a way from the Lords I think and I have a speech to write. I am participating in the first debate of the term, on pharmacy services, in the dinner break on monday evening. I fear few people have ‘got back into the saddle’ yet as there are very few peers registed to speak; all the more time for me of course.
Keep the robes for so many reasons, most of which have been mentioned.
What are the day-to-day dress codes for both Houses?
Life! Hire today gone tomorrow?