Queen Consort Camilla would be making a mistake if she chooses not to use a traditional ivory sceptre during the Coronation, the Mail’s diary editor Richard Eden has told PALACE CONFIDENTIAL.
Earlier this week, he wrote in his diary column that Camilla, 75, may reject the historical sceptre, which has been used by every Queen Consort at Coronations since 1685, because of an anti-ivory campaign championed by her stepson, the Prince of Wales.
Dropping the artefact would be the latest move away from tradition, and King Charles is widely reported to be keen to modernize.
Other changes expected at the ceremony on May 6 include a significantly shorter running time, with around an hour expected to be trimmed from the service.
In addition, the Queen Consort will not wear the controversial Koh-i-Noor diamond, following a warning from India that it would bring back ‘painful memories’ of British colonialism.
Discussing the move further on the latest episode of the Palace Confidential series, Richard Eden said he believes this would be unwise, and that going ‘too far’ in trying to appease everyone would be a ‘big mistake’.
He explained: ‘Apparently [Camilla] is not going to have the Queen Consort sceptre, which has been used by every Queen Consort for more than 300 years at the Coronation of a King.
‘Now the reason is that it’s made of ivory, but it’s particularly awkward because… Prince William has campaigned against the trade…in modern ivory…and the illegal killing of elephants. But it’s thought he’s not keen on using historical ivory either.’
He added that the Prince of Wales has been ‘quite passionate’ about the issue, according to reports which claim he intervened and suggested Camilla should not use the sceptre.
Describing the issue as an ‘interesting sign of the times’, Richard said that if the Royal Family ‘starts apologizing for the ancient artefacts in the Crown Jewels, they should be apologizing for their role in slave trade too’.
He added: ‘I think it’s a mistake to go down this route because you will never satisfy these people.
‘There’ll always be someone offended and if they go down this route, you’re apologizing from the start.’
He said the family should be free to acknowledge ‘the good and bad things of [they’re] past’ but that it would be ‘a big mistake’ to go too far.
