“Coronation committees of several sorts followed one another in quick succession in 1952 and 1953, and one of the most important of them was the Coronation Joint Executive Committee.
Together with many other people of varying degrees of significance, it consisted of the Permanent Under-Secretaries of State of the government departments concerned, the High Commissioners of the Dominions, Officers of the Royal Household or their representatives, and shining stars of state like the Archbishop of Canterbury and, of course, the Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk) who, as they say in New English, chaired it. The secretary of the committee was a very capable civil servant from the Treasury, Sir Robert Knox, who recorded what was said and no doubt omitted what he thought should not have been said.
I was filled with admiration for the way the Earl Marshal handled this committee, which met several times during the first few months of its existence, and after that more frequently until the actual coronation. I attended these meetings as the Earl Marshal’s right-hand man in order to supply him with information when required, concur in his planning if possible, and help in solving problems as they arose.
There was no shortage of problems. Most of them were pretty well what one would expect in the circumstances; some were trivial, and a few required a good deal of thought and deliberation.
Just for example, should baronets be invited to attend the ceremonies in the Abbey or not? And where could Queen Salote of Tonga and her entourage have lunch after the ceremony?
The committee, led by the Earl Marshal, was of the opinion that baronets should be excluded. This I thought unfair to baronets who, after all, are a substantial body of people with hereditary titles which were given to them at one time or another by the Sovereign of the day as marks of honour and distinction, and I dared to speak up along those lines on behalf of the endangered species.
Secretary of the committee: “They are only being excluded because there are so many of them and room in the Abbey is limited”.
Earl Marshal: “Would having a representative meet the case? The senior baronet, the most anciently created, could represent his order”. (Carried unanimously though I thought stingily.)
As regards Queen Salote’s lunch problem, I suggested a suitable spot might be a large screened-off area in the Abbey Coronation Annexe for which there seemed to be no known purpose. (Carried nem. con.)
But of much more importance, indeed in this case almost of supreme importance, was the question whether TV coverage should be allowed in the Abbey. TV at that time was considered by many people to be a rather second-rate entertainment medium (as some do still, it must be admitted) and not really suitable for broadcasting visually such a sacrosanct occasion. Also many feared that, because it came through live, it could not be edited or cut if anything untoward should happen. In addition to that, others were worried that the intense overhead lighting which was necessary for TV, besides showing up too clearly the little physical imperfections from which so many of us suffer, would also be unbearably hot for everyone, and particularly for elderly gentlemen with bald heads, of which there would inevitably be a considerable number.
But the most potent argument of all against TV was that it would be unthinkable to ask Her Majesty the Queen to agree to suffer TV conditions in such solemn and at the same time trying circumstances, and for so many hours on end.
A general sigh of relief therefore went up from the committee when the Earl Marshal announced that the Queen herself opposed it, and he therefore proposed, supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that it should be banned, except perhaps for the procession in the nave of the Abbey.
In face of such massive anti-TV opinion, I scarcely dared express my own humble thoughts. Bit I did, in fear and trembling, suggesting that TV coverage would give immense pleasure to millions of people in this country and abroad as well, and that there would surely be a lot of very adverse comment if it were banned. I also drew attention to the prestige propaganda value it would probably have all over the world.
No one actually yelled “shut up” though it would have undoubtedly expressed the general feeling. I had only one supporter, in the person of John Colville, the Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s Private Secretary at that time, who tried to support my views. But his words of wisdom did not influence the voting and the proposal was carried by acclamation. There were no hard feelings, however, though the Earl Marshal did remark to me rather plaintively, ” I thought you were supposed to be on my side!”
But, as everyone knows things in fact turned out differently. Colville reported his action to the Prime Minister who, much to his surprise, told him to go back to the committee and inform them that the Prime Minister (whom Colville represented on the committee) and the entire Cabinet wholeheartedly supported the committee’s view that the Queen should not be asked to endure the ordeal of TV. The Prime Minister then sought an audience with the Queen and expressed to Her Majesty his view, which was also the view of the Cabinet and of the Coronation Committee. Her Majesty, however, surprisingly it might be said in the circumstances, declared that, on the contrary, she was entirely in favour of television in the Abbey. Mr Churchill returned to No. 10 and, having instructed his astonished Private Secretary to go back again to the committee and arrange for a reversal of the decision they had taken, observed, “After all, it is the Queen who is to be crowned, and not the Cabinet! She alone must decide”.
The Earl Marshal and the Archbishop had of course been misinformed in the first place about the Queen’s wishes regarding TV, though no one knows how that came about. When the “reversal” meeting was held, I had the good manners not to look smug as the whole committee voted in favour of full television coverage at Her Majesty’s coronation.
For part of this behind-the-scenes story, which I could not have related in such detail otherwise, I am indebted to an article by Sir John Colville in The Sunday Express of 9th January 1983.”
The Hon, Sir George Bellew, KCB, KCVO, KStJ, FSA.