---

Royal Warrants of Appointment

It is a great delight to have this debate, and I am grateful to the Clerks of the House for providing me with robust advice on how to frame the issue. At one point, their robust advice was that I could not have the debate, but I have now been allowed to do so, so it is a great delight to be here. It is also a great delight to be here because I think, although some historian may correct me, that this is the first time that the House of Commons has debated the royal warrant system since 1628. Of course, the Commons did not have a very warm relationship with the royal family in 1628. The royal warrant system is very old. The first King of England to issue a warrant of appointment for people to provide him with services was Henry II, who granted one to the Weavers Company in 1155. Several other companies were given warrants over the succeeding decade and a half, but not until 1300 was the splendidly named Reginald de Thunderley made Purveyor of Cloths to the Great Wardrobe for Edward I’s second wife, Queen Margaret. He provided 14 kinds of striped cloth for her valets. Many senior and important figures in Britain’s history have held royal warrants of appointment. William Caxton was appointed printer to Henry VII in 1476. The poets laureate and the Masters of the Queen’s Music have also come under the royal warrant system of appointment historically. Henry VIII appointed Thomas Hewytt, the first person to supply food to the royal household under a royal warrant. He was to supply ““Swannes and Cranes”” and ““all kinds of Wildfoule””. When Charles II was restored, he set about doling out royal warrants fairly assiduously and had given them to a wide range of people by 1684, including a sword cutter and a golf-club maker. Of course, the system has changed dramatically over the years. In the earlier period of Britain’s, and particularly England’s, history, a major distinction was drawn between tradesmen and purveyors: tradesmen were those who provided things for the royal household above stairs and were ruled by the writ of the Lord Chamberlain; purveyors were those who provided things to the royal household below stairs, and were organised by the Lord Steward, who chaired the Board of Green Cloth. Those who dislike the Government for having dismantled some of their most ancient elements might find it is interesting to note that the Board of Green Cloth existed up until the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, when it still had a role in licensing the sale and provision of alcohol in royal palaces. There have been other changes. Throughout the 18th century, a fee was charged to people who wanted a royal warrant. It was already a sign of distinction, and many tradesmen and purveyors fought hard to get one. However, by 1837, when Queen Victoria started granting royal warrants, no fee was chargeable; indeed, it was determined that it was an important principle that no fee should be charged because there had been corruption in the granting of many royal warrants. Royal warrants were organised by the Lord Chamberlain, who has chaired the royal household’s tradesmen’s warrants committee from that time until today. In 1837, royal warrant holders had to swear an oath when they were first provided with their warrant. The system has changed again in our day. Indeed, there have been significant changes under Her Majesty the Queen, as the system has been modernised. Currently, only three members of the royal household provide new warrants—Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, although, by tradition, royal warrant holders who hold a warrant from Her Majesty the Queen Mother are allowed to retain it until five years after her death, and that period will obviously elapse later this year. Royal warrants are now held for five years—they used to be held for 10—and can be renewed. They have to be renewed if the individual warrant holder who holds the warrant on behalf of the company leaves the company, dies, becomes bankrupt or is unable to continue holding the warrant for any reason. If the company changes ownership, there has to be a review of the royal warrant. There is a single meeting of the royal household tradesmen’s warrants committee every year in November at which warrants are reviewed and decided on. The Lord Chamberlain, along with other members of the royal household and representatives of each of the households of the three warrant-granting members of the royal family, constitute the committee and they have established some minimal criteria whereby it is decided whether someone can hold a royal warrant. The first of these is that someone must have provided the good or service in question for at least three years, and that they must still be providing it. For instance, during the second world war, when an important printer in the east end of London was bombed by the Germans and was no longer able to provide the service, another warrant holder, who was also a printer, decided to assist them to maintain their royal warrant by dividing the work that they had in half and allowing them to operate out of another factory. A person is not allowed to remain a warrant holder if they are bankrupt, but there are not many other distinctions beyond that. I can find only one case of the deliberate removal of a royal warrant from any company in the UK. Mohamed al-Fayed had his royal warrant from the Duke of Edinburgh removed in 2000, perhaps understandably considering the remarks that he had made about the royal family. The other area in which there is a guaranteed, additional criterion is the stipulation by the Prince of Wales that a company that wants his royal warrant must have a strong environmental policy.