I don’t want to wade through all the internet crap, so I’m relying on either British, English, or Royal-o-philes to explain exactly what the differences are between all the umteen gazillion different crowns (ok I exaggerate - however there were at least three by my count) that her Majesty got to wear for being on hand for the State Parliament opening just recently and what they each either represent or indicate.
I need this information, because I, being a silly Democratic Republic citizen, thought that she only actually had the one crown, and it meant rather simply that she was the person in charge. Obviously that belief isn’t matching the complexity of the actual situation.
There was only one crown at the State Opening of Parliament. It was the Imperial State Crown, which is the only one she has worn since her coronation in 1953. She was crowned with St. Edward’s Crown, but it’s very old and heavy, and before she left the abbey she went into a back room and ditched it and most of the layers of robes she was wearing, putting on the Imperial State Crown and a single robe like the one she wore yesterday.
Ok, but the Imperial State Crown is the big purply one that they had the whole crowning ceremony with the pillow and all, right?
What’s the one with the little white crosses/squares all over it that she wore on the way over while in the carriage? And I think there was a different one on the way out, but I wasn’t able to tell as clearly. Do those not count as crowns? How do you know which ones count or not?
The two main ones are the Imperial State Crown (more silvery and more angular), and the St. Edward’s Crown (more goldish and rounded; looks like it’s been pushed down at the top).
The State Crown is what she wears at the State opening of Parliament; the St. Edward’s Crown is heavier and was last used at her coronation, 60 years ago.
Don’t know what she was wearing en route to the Parliament; can you provide a link?
As for why so many crowns - well, she’s the Queen and part of the tradition is display of wealth.
St. Edward’s (the reference is to Edward the Confessor, King from 1042 to 1066, canonized 1161) is the crown used for coronations, but it’s extremely heavy and IIRC a bit on the fragile side. Victoria ordered the Imperial State Crown produced to (1) symbolize the British Empire, and (2) give her something regal but lighter to wear for formal “crowned-Queen” occasions such as State Openings of Parliament…
Question: Does Elizabeth have distinct physical crowns as Queen of Canada, of Australia, etc.? If not, does she have distinct ‘notional’ crowns (i.e., designed but never goldsmithed) in those roles?
The closest I can think of is a diadem with snowflakes and maple leaves used on some recent medals in Canada, but even the crown above her on that example is the usual representation of St. Edward’s Crown.
The OP probably noticed the George IV state diadem:
Wiki notes:
Bolding mine. Given that the Imperial State Crown weighs about 2 pounds, one can understand why the monarch might wear something else during the procession, limiting the crown to the official ceremony.
The Scottish Crown, Sword, and Sceptre are the oldest British crown jewels (because they were hidden away before Cromwell could have them melted down).
There are two key points no one has yet mentioned.
The reason that there are two crowns - the St Edward’s Crown and the Imperial State Crown - is because there were originally two sets of regalia: the set used for the coronation, which never left Westminster Abbey, and the personal set, which included one or more ‘state’ crowns used whenever else the king wanted to wear one. Both sets were destroyed in 1649. When the new regalia was made after the Restoration, the distinction was preserved. A deliberate decision was made to replace all the old regalia, even to the extent of replacing items that no one was sure what they were actually for. But with the difference that both sets were then housed together in the Tower of London. Moreover, the state crown was usually broken up and a new one made for each new king. That is why you see conflicting dates for the present Imperial State Crown - the basic design and most of the jewels have been in use since the nineteenth century, but successive Crown Jewellers have fiddled about with it at the beginning of each new reign.
The George IV State Diadem has an odd history. It was made for George IV and was worn by him (with a hat beneath) for the journey to Westminster Abbey for his coronation. However, since then it has only been used by the reigning queens, Victoria and Elizabeth II, and so could be considered to be just a tiara. But, if so, it is the grandest of the royal tiaras, being worn by them only for the journies to the Abbey at their coronations and, in the case of the present Queen, for the carriage processions to and from Westminster when she goes to open Parliament. It’s also what she wears on UK stamps, as well as in many official portraits. But it has one further use, relevant to the matter of Commonwealth crowns. There have been a few rare occasions when the present Queen has opened other Commonwealth Parliaments in person. On those occasions, she was unable to wear the Imperial State Crown, because of the tradition that the Crown Jewels cannot leave Britain (or is it just England?). So she has then worn the State Diadem instead, leaving it ambiguous whether she was wearing it as a substitute crown or merely as a tiara. Except when opening the Scottish Parliament. As she has the Scottish Crown, she can use that, but, as she never wears it, it is simply placed in front of her.
Becaus, while she is queen of Scotland in the same way she is queen of Wales or of Cornwall, she is not Queen of Scots. the Scottish and English Crowns (not crowns) having been merged into that of Great Britain back in 1707.
Thank you all very much - that was all sorts of informative, and now I have the terms and language to go poking about on my own more effectively.
Especial thanks to **yabob **and **APB **for the information on the George IV State Diadem, a term I didn’t even realize was still in usage for currently-used adornment.
Mainly because there is no longer a Scottish coronation. Charles II had been crowned when in Scotland in 1651, but none of his successors between 1685 and 1707 visited Scotland after they had succeeded to the throne and after 1707 the coronation at Westminster was thought sufficient.
But starting with George IV’s visit in 1822, the Crown began to be brought out for royal visits to Edinburgh and the idea arose that it should be formally presented to each monarch when they did so for the first time. But this didn’t involve them actually wearing it. By 1953 this had developed into a large-scale ceremony in St Giles’ Cathedral - famously, there were complaints at the time that the Queen did not wear any special for the occasion. But again it was simply presented to her on a cushion and she just touched it.
So there was no modern tradition of her wearing the Scottish Crown when the rituals for the opening of the Scottish Parliament had to be invented. And in any case, there was no particular wish from the Scottish Parliament for anything too grand. The contrast - or rather the similarities - with the huge fuss in 1953 did not go unnoticed.
The Musgroves were a family of Royalists who had been entrusted with the regalia when the Stuart cause appeared lost. The regalia were hidden on their estate, and the location was described in a riddling ritual that was passed on from father to son, but the purpose of the ritual had been lost, until a servant in the Musgrove family figured it out. He died trying to reclaim the regalia.
OK, no idea about Oz and Canada, but here are the Scottish Crown Jewels.
