New documents reveal behind-the-scenes Palace plot to replace royal yacht Britannia
By 1993, the 39-year-old royal vessel was nearing the end of its operational life, prompting John Major 's Conservative government to consider a significant £50 million investment in a new yacht.
It was widely believed that Queen Elizabeth II strongly favoured the commissioning of a new yacht, but the Royal Family was keen to avoid any public appearance of political interference.
However, documents from the National Archives at Kew reveal how senior courtiers privately approached Downing Street.
Their aim was to persuade the then Prime Minister to issue a Commons statement highlighting Britannia's "inestimable value" to the nation.
This thinly veiled attempt to garner support for a new vessel was swiftly rejected by the Cabinet Office, with officials warning that any such comments would be "highly prejudicial".
One senior official caustically remarked that the Palace's assertion of the Queen's "indifference" regarding the yacht's future "hardly rings true".
The issue of a new yacht came at an extremely difficult time for the government and for the Palace, with support for the royals at a low ebb.
There had been an angry public backlash the previous year when ministers announced the taxpayer would pick up the bill – which eventually ran to £36 million – for the restoration of Windsor Castle following a catastrophic fire.
In the aftermath of her 'annus horribilis' – which also saw the separation of Charles and Diana – the Queen agreed that she would for the first time pay taxes.
With Mr Major due to announce the historic move in a statement to parliament, the Queen's private secretary Sir Robert Fellowes saw an opportunity to secure what would amount to a show of support for a new yacht.
He asked the prime minister's principal private secretary Alex Allan if Mr Major would insert a passage referring to the importance of Britannia as well as the Queen's flight and the royal train.
He suggested the prime minister should tell MPs that it was not just a question of cost 'but also the style in which we wish our head of state and members of the royal family to represent us' in their public duties.
'It is always difficult to put a price on prestige but I have no doubt that over the years these items have been of inestimable value to this country.'
Sir Robin's proposed addition to Mr Major's statement went on: 'I would also like to make clear that there is not, and never has been, any pressure from the Queen to build a replacement for HMY Britannia.
'Should the government decide it is in the national interest for the yacht to be replaced that would be of course another matter.'
However, Nicolas Bevan, the official heading the working group set up to consider the future of the yacht, warned that the proposed remarks could be 'prejudicial' to any future decisions.
'For example to say that the royal yacht has been of inestimable value to this country will not be a helpful remark if ministers in due course decide not to replace Britannia,' he said.
'Equally it hardly rings true to suggest that it is a matter of complete indifference to the Queen as to whether Britannia is replaced or not.'
Despite the palace's protestations of neutrality, the files suggest courtiers were involved in what amounted to some not-so-subtle lobbying on behalf of a new yacht.
On 13 May, 1993, senior government officials, led by the cabinet secretary Sir Robin Butler, were invited to a 'splendid lunch' on board Britannia where they were regaled by the former lord mayor of London, Sir Hugh Bidwell, and the Earl of Limerick, a senior banker, on the value of the yacht to UK business.
Expressing his thanks afterwards to the master of the Queen's household, Major General Sir Simon Cooper, Sir Robin noted that the setting had 'brought home the issues to those involved in a unique way'.
However, when news of the meeting leaked out, government press officers were instructed to impress upon journalists – unattributably – that the Queen and royal family were 'not fighting any kind of rearguard action on the yacht'.
Despite misgivings over the costs, the Major government finally announced in January 1997 that they would build a replacement yacht if they were returned to power in the general election later that year.
The move was however widely interpreted as a desperate attempt to shore up support among wavering Tory voters, and when Labour was swept to power in a landslide they promptly reversed the decision.
When Britannia was finally decommissioned – after returning the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, following the handover to China – the Queen, who rarely displayed any emotion in public, was seen to shed a tear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says US is close to reaching a trade deal with China
TURNBERRY, Scotland, July 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday his administration was close to reaching a trade deal with China, but gave no other details. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters at the start of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Remembering victims of historical injustice
Campaigners are right to say that the miners' strike, which saw the violent repression of strikers at Orgreave in 1984, remains an enduring source of injustice (Government launches Orgreave inquiry, 40 years after clashes at miners' strike, 20 July). And Pete Wilcox, the bishop of Sheffield, who is to chair the Orgreave inquiry, is right to recognise that the acknowledgment of truth is essential for long-term community healing. Sadly, Orgreave is not the only example of where truth and justice have been forsaken when excessive violence has been used against people on strike. Two hundred years ago, on 3 August 1825, six people were seriously wounded and seven killed by soldiers at North Sands, Sunderland, during the 1825 seamen's strike. The killings were met with anger and outrage, with many local people believing that those who died had been wilfully murdered. Soldiers had fired like target practice into a crowd of 100 from a boat on the River Wear. The threat posed by the crowd, made up of a combination of women, children, strikers, workers and bystanders, was greatly exaggerated. The only inquiries were two short inquests into just two of the seven deaths. At the time, the killings were reported in national newspapers and were undoubtedly one of the most significant events of 1825. What happened at Sunderland is not so different from that six years earlier at Peterloo, on 16 August 1819, yet knowledge and awareness of these two massacres are vastly different. The Sunderland seafarers' union, the Seamen's Loyal Standard Association, stated that 3 August 1825 should 'ever be remembered', but over time, the North Sands Massacre has been virtually forgotten. The denial of truth and justice at Orgreave is unfortunately just one of several incidents where those policing industrial action have used unnecessary violence and then placed the blame on their victims. All victims of historical injustice should be remembered and their communities allowed to David Gordon ScottThe Open University Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
