Records reveal how Palace tried to secure show of support for a new royal yacht
It was widely thought Queen Elizabeth II strongly favoured the commissioning of a new yacht but the royal family could not afford to be seen to be trying to influence political decision-making.
However files released by the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that senior courtiers privately approached No 10 to see if the prime minister would make a Commons statement stressing Britannia's 'inestimable value' to the nation.
But the plan – which amounted to a thinly veiled show of support for a new yacht – was scotched by the Cabinet Office, which warned that any such comments would be highly 'prejudicial'.
One senior official noted caustically that a claim by the Palace that the Queen was 'indifferent' as to the outcome of a review of 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 none too subtle lobbying on behalf of a new yacht.
On May 13 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
Why I left the Conservatives
There comes a moment for many soldiers – and most politicians – when you realise the battle you think you're fighting isn't the one your leaders are waging. That moment came for me watching Kemi Badenoch tell Sky News's Trevor Phillips there are real differences between Reform UK and the Conservatives. She was right. The difference is the Reform leadership – voters grasp the scale of our national peril and back a party serious about addressing it. Many in Britain feel we may already have passed the point of no return. Our cities grow less cohesive, the country effectively bankrupt. For over a year, Conservative colleagues have insisted Reform was just a noisy protest vehicle. 'We're all saying the same things,' they claimed. But we're not. Kemi was correct: the differences are real – and it's those differences that brought me, with regret but clarity, to conclude I am no longer a Conservative. I remain a conservative – as do millions of voters – but our values now align more with Reform. This isn't hard when the government I supported presided over the arrival of well over four million mostly unskilled migrants and their dependents. You can't blame people for wanting better for their families – but you can blame a government, my government, for allowing 728,000 net arrivals in a single year. The army has 33 infantry battalions; since 2018, we've let in nearly 250 battalions' worth of undocumented young men of military age. And it was the Conservatives who launched the well-meant but job-exporting Net Zero agenda, pushing UK energy prices to four times those in the US. Now the Conservatives offer cautious reform: modest tax cuts, a managed Net Zero transition, an inquiry into the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). Reform offers a sharper reset: immediate tax cuts, hard borders, and a clear-out of ideologically captured institutions. One wants course correction. The other believes only bold change can restore public trust. The Conservative party I thought I joined believed in sovereignty, secure borders, low taxes, personal responsibility, and cultural confidence. That party is no longer in government – and no longer deserves to be. It wasn't just defeated at the ballot box – it was hollowed out by careerists masquerading as conservatives. They got there thanks to CCHQ's obsession with the divisive dogma of 'diversity, equality, and inclusion' (DEI) over merit and sense. A government elected on promises of control and competence delivered drift, disillusionment, and denial. Reform's policies are not extreme. Some of my former media colleagues smear them as such. They should look to themselves. As a Sikh friend said: Reform is refreshingly colour-blind. Its platform is what the Conservative manifesto should have been: tax and regulatory reform, full border control, energy sovereignty, making Brexit work, restoring national pride, and the first duty of government – protecting the public. When I talk to people in Gravesham in Kent, the seat I served for 19 years, they don't bring up DEI or Net Zero. They talk about the boats. About crime, housing, doctors, bills, and broken services. And the quiet anger at seeing economic migrants in hotels seemingly prioritised over British citizens — including homeless veterans. They see a system that punishes effort and rewards dependency. This is not ideology. It is betrayal. A former cabinet minister friend recently said: 'Reform may win many more seats — and just split the vote again.' But that misses the point. The vote is already split. For millions, the Conservative party stopped being a conservative vehicle long before it was thrown out of office. Reform has taken up that mantle – and wears it with pride. 'They're the only party speaking common sense,' a local Reform supporter told me. 'The Tories became Labour-lite.' He's not wrong: think Chagos, woke policy drift, tax hikes, and the slow purge of the wealth creators who fund the system. From the refusal to cut migration, to cowardice in confronting public-sector radicals, to the erosion of free speech, the Conservatives chose to manage decline, not resist it. Labour, of course, is worse – not just timid but dangerous. Their instinct is always for more state, more spending, more control. The Conservatives at least hesitated before doing harm. Labour doesn't even pause. We cannot hand them another blank cheque in 2029 because the so-called Right remains divided. This is no time for technocrats or those who simply fancy being Prime Minister. It requires conviction. Kemi is a fighter – but she's surrounded by too many who'd be Lib Dems if the Lib Dems were winning. She can't charge from a trench full of MPs who won't follow her. I joined the Army to serve the country, not the institution. The same applies now. If we want to rescue Britain, we must be honest about who's still willing to fight for her. Reform is not perfect – but it is serious. I didn't leave the Conservative party, it left me. It used good people's votes to govern as Labour-lite and squabble over promotions. In doing so, it handed Britain to an ignorant and disastrous Labour government. Some may say I've moved to Reform because it may win my old seat. Of course, that's a consideration. But it's not the reason. I know the road from protest to power is long. Reform may flare bright and fade. It must grow beyond its extraordinary founder, lose some of its more combative edges, continue to attract serious talent, further professionalise, and develop to become a credible government-in-waiting. That will require discipline, time, and luck to challenge the deep vested interests in Parliament, the civil service, the unions, and the wider public sector. No: I've made this choice not because it's easy or inevitable, but because right-thinking people need to come together. As Ronald Reagan said, 'You gotta dance with the one that brung ya.' The Conservative party forgot to dance with the people who brought it to power. The challenge for Reform – and any future allies – is to become fully fit and credible for the rescue mission of 2029, which may well be the United Kingdom's last best chance.
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
Exclusive: Ex-Tory MP defects to Reform
Reform UK has today unveiled its latest defector. Adam Holloway served as the Conservative MP for Gravesham in Kent from 2005 until 2024. A former soldier, he focused heavily on military matters in the Commons and served in the Whips' Office in the governments of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. His decision to switch parties follows a number of other ex-Tory MPs defecting including Jake Berry, Anne Marie Morris and Ross Thomson. More defections are expected in the coming weeks. In a statement, Nigel Farage told The Spectator that 'Adam's parliamentary and military experience will be vital as we look forward to the next general election.' He added that Holloway's 'bold move shows that we are the only serious option in Kent and is testament to the fantastic work our councillors are delivering across the region.' In May, Reform UK won 57 on Kent County Council, with the Conservatives reduced to just five wards overall. Holloway told The Spectator that he had decided to quit the party as he now believed that it was beyond salvation. He said that 'Kemi is a fighter but she's surrounded by too many who'd be Lib Dems if the Lib Dems were winning. She can't charge from a trench full of MPs who won't follow her.' With his experience in the Armed Servives, he is expected to lead heavily on Reform UK's campaigns to grant immunity from prosecution for former British soldiers.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Sprawl or nothing: medium density advocates despair as Brisbane swings back to urban expansion
Almost two decades ago, the Queensland historian Peter Spearritt issued a dire warning. If planning attitudes didn't change, Brisbane would become 'the 200 kilometre city' – a giant conurbation, solid suburbs from Noosa to the NSW border, causing traffic chaos and dooming millions to a worse standard of living. 'I don't think many people realised just how dramatic continuing suburban sprawl would be,' he says. Queensland's governments did put some legal limits on untrammelled expansion. But with the city facing an epic housing shortage, many planners are now concerned the new conservative state government will return to the city's historic sprawl-or-nothing approach. The government has started test drilling on a proposed underground freeway designed to permit new suburbs in farmland west of Caboolture. At $14bn, the four-lane north-west transport corridor would be the most expensive road project in the city's history. The first new suburb, Waraba, is set to boast 70,000 residents once complete. Spearritt, now an emeritus professor of urban history at the University of Queensland, says legal limitations on sprawl are crucial for a city with few geographical barriers – unlike Sydney, Brisbane doesn't have national parks on three of its four sides. 'There were no green space barriers, and that makes it much easier to just basically develop former agricultural land forever,' he says. Brisbane has always been an unusually car-dependent and low-density city, even by Australian standards. There's a simple reason for this: since 1885 Queensland has more or less banned townhouses and apartments. It worked. Just 11.3% of residents of the Brisbane local government area live in townhouses, which is even lower than the state average, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Ten times more people told the 2021 census they drove to work than took the bus or train. Locked out of the inner city, decades of newcomers have been forced into new communities in Logan, Ipswich, Moreton Bay and even further afield, swelling the populations of those outer areas by millions. In 2006 the state government stepped in, setting the first south-east Queensland regional plan. For the first time it established an 'urban footprint' – a limited area where development is permitted. 'It was a big political moment. I think it got fairly widespread support,' Spearritt says. 'Was Brisbane actually thinking about how it would shape itself for the future? And I guess that sort of approach has been completely swamped by the rhetoric about the housing crisis'. As expansion slowed, the pace of inner-city development did not speed up. As a result, house prices and rents have skyrocketed, as development approvals head in the opposite direction. Under Labor, the state government used the regional plan to set density targets for councils – effectively requiring 60% of new homes to be apartments and townhouses. Now the Liberal National party planning minister, Jarrod Bleijie, has signalled radical change to the unpopular rule. 'We are going to review every regional plan in Queensland and we are going to review them in consultation with local government,' he told parliament in March. 'The time for state government acting like Big Brother over local government is over.' Asked last month if he would ditch the targets, he confirmed that there would be a move back to sprawl. 'We need to look at the urban growth everywhere, across every regional plan, including the south-east Queensland regional plan,' he said. 'The problem with the current south-east Queensland regional plan, the density is upwards, but developers are finding it incredibly difficult to afford to build vertical towers at the moment and to find buyers for them. So it's no use putting in the regional plan to just go up, when the towers and housing is actually not being provided.' The government has also budgeted to spend $2bn subsidising council infrastructure to speed up development in new-build estates, including in regional Queensland. The Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) is one of many groups concerned that the city's urban footprint boundaries might be expanded. Jen Basham, the council's urban sustainability lead, says: 'Further urban sprawl is not a solution to the housing crisis – it's slower, more expensive and environmentally damaging.' A recent QCC report found that the city could more than accommodate all new growth within its current boundaries – and that doing so would cost the taxpayer less and result in better social outcomes. New suburbs tend to be more car-dependent because there are few alternatives, the report says. That means greater emissions and many hours trapped behind the wheel for the residents. Sprawl also tends to cost more – an estimated $75,000 per dwelling in Sydney, according to the NSW Productivity Commission – due to the need to construct new infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. Instead, the OCC report concludes, Queensland should look to the long-banned 'missing middle' housing typologies – townhouses and small apartments. Dorina Pojani, an associate professor of urban planning at the University of Queensland, says increasing density doesn't have to mean towers blocks. 'That's a failure of the imagination,' she says. 'What about the missing middle: row housing, 4-5 storey apartment complexes, co-housing, and so on? We need to move away from both the detached single-family and the tower typology. Zoning codes need be overhauled.' Travis Jordan, an organiser of the Yimby (yes in my back yard) group for greater Brisbane, says there is another factor in favour of reform. The single-family house with a picket fence on 400 sq m isn't for everyone, he says. Some people want to live within walking distance of work, shops, schools and friends – and the law shouldn't stop them. 'Priorities change. The things we wanted to stop 40 years ago might be things we want to encourage now, and the kinds of homes our parents wanted might not be the ones our kids want to grow up in.' Jordan says other Australian cities are making better choices. The NSW and Victorian state governments have rolled out new rules limiting the power of councils to halt more sustainable development. Globally the real leader is New Zealand, he says. Since 2016, cities including Auckland have eliminated bans on apartments and townhouses, a policy that now has national support. Research has found that as a result, there has been a huge spike in construction, and a resulting dip in rents. Jordan says it's time for Brisbane to follow their lead. 'For most of the last 20 years, 'tall versus sprawl' is all our planning schemes said you were allowed,' he says. 'Instead of saying that's too hard, the government should be standing up to the busybodies who want to tell everyone else what kind of homes they're allowed to build on their land.' But Brisbane city council, the hemisphere's largest and most powerful, flat out opposes missing middle development. It passed a new version of the century-old ban on townhouses in 2020. 'Spreading the density right across every suburb of Brisbane is not the right answer,' lord mayor Adrian Schrinner said at a candidates debate in the 2024 election. In 2015, Spearritt announced that his warning had already come true. Brisbane had fused 200km of unending city. Ten years later, he doesn't see much political will for reform. 'I think it's depressing that that there's not more interest in the quality of community life and the quality of the urban environment. It's almost as if people have sort of given up,' he says. 'Maybe it'll take another generation to realise – Jesus, this city is really getting awful.'
