Valor nutritivo 36

By the time of the first royal tour to a British settler colony in 1860, there was a long tradition of celebrating royal events and tours in Britain. The commemorative practices involved were readily transplanted in the settler colonies (Canadine, 2001). From this cultural transference similar festivities linked such royal events across space and time: such as the 1860 British North American tour; the 1863 royal marriage celebrations in New Zealand and Australia; jubilees and coronations; and the royal tours of the twentieth century. Preparation followed similar formats: the declaration of a holiday, newspapers extolling the virtues of the event and calling on all citizenry to participate, the public meeting and formation of a planning committee (Ryan, 1990). The declaring of public holidays opened the festivities and tours to anyone “prepared to proclaim their loyalty to the monarchy” (Buckner, 2006:31). Participation implied acceptance of the hegemony represented by the Crown and the empire.

Commemorative trees provide physical markers linking these events and disparate locations. Tree planting was part of the nineteenth century ceremonial and commemorative repertoire. The ODT claimed that Queen Victoria was planting memorial and commemorative trees as early as 1832 (ODT, 15/12/1898). As an example of the transferability of this commemorative repertoire, the planting of two oak trees in the newly renamed Prince’s Square in Launceston, Tasmania, can be used. The Mayor, in his speech, reflected on the appropriate nature of planting commemorative trees, as having found “that at home [Britain], one chief part of the

ceremony we are this day engaged in performing, has been to plant two trees as a memorial to the marriage of His Royal Highness and to name them after His Royal Highness and His Royal Consort. In this respect we are to follow that example” (Cornwall Chronicle, 23/5/1863). Trees were also planted in Hobart. Local newspaper coverage was very detailed except for the tree-planting ceremony. In this regard the reporter described the Governor as having gone “through the observances prescribed for such an occasion”, referring to a “formula” for the event (The Mercury, 22/5/1863). This implied that the readers were sufficiently familiar with the practice as not to require a detailed description. Commemorative tree-planting in Hobart was either common place or many of the inhabitants were familiar with the practice in Britain before travelling to the colonies.

“Catch[ing] the Echoes”

: Celebrating the 1863 royal

wedding

The celebration of the first major royal event since the establishment of many of the young cities and towns of the settler colonies was set against an ever changing background of peace and conflict, success and failure, affluence and poverty, pioneering conditions and survival. In New Zealand, the celebrations were set within the context of conflict between British troops and local militia, and Māori in the North Island, a gold rush in the South Island and popular discontent with the relationship with the British Government. Sinclair (1986) tells of the antagonistic relationship that existed during the 1860s. A range of colonial policy decisions and critical comments made by the British Government were read by New Zealand colonists as unsupportive of the new colony and its domestic issues: such as the withdrawal of British troops compromising colonists’ security; failure to act as guarantor for a loan to help ensure the colony’s internal security; and criticisms of domestic legislative decisions underscored constitutional responsibility issues within New Zealand. These moves and others contributed to a wide-spread opinion that the British Government was attempting to drive New Zealand out of the Empire. This drew calls for the separation of New Zealand from Britain or possible American annexation of the colony (Sinclair, 1986). Popular discussion on separation was further fuelled by articles in public journals and newspapers (ODT, 23/5/1863). Despite the fluid nature of colonial life the marriage of the heir to the British Crown was celebrated with enthusiasm and exuberance. The popularity of the events celebrating the royal marriage and the 1869

visit of the Duke of Edinburgh belied local disquiet, graphically illustrating that settler sentiments lay with the Crown and Empire and not with British Government and British rule (Bassett, 1987).

On 10 March 1863, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales and Princess Alexandra of Denmark were married at Windsor. The wedding of the heir to the British throne was of great significance for the royal family, Britain as a nation and the Empire. Succession was assured with Albert Edward, and the Prince’s marriage brought about the prospect of further heirs and the continuation of order. News of the event reverberated around the Empire as details of the wedding and associated social events were dispatched by sailing ships to be disseminated through British settler communities. Neither time nor distance diminished the enthusiasm with which communities in the colonies received the news and celebrated the event. The spirit of this was expressed in the New Zealander (26/5/1863):

… And not in England alone will they find responsive echo, but throughout every colony and possession of that mighty empire upon which the sun never sets. Though we cannot participate in the glorious spectacle that has evoked such triumphant joy throughout the length and breadth of our fatherland, we can fully appreciate and heartily share in the interest of the happy event. Distance neither dulls nor dims out loyalty or our love; and with the truest sincerity we pray that health, happiness and honour may be the inseparable attendants of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

For many communities across the Empire, this was the first opportunity to celebrate a major royal event. Through this event they were able to publicly express their allegiance, loyalty and their “Britishness” to the head of the Empire.

News of the royal wedding reached Australia just two months after the event and several weeks in advance of New Zealand. Australian colonial governors were prompt in declaring public holidays, in many cases leaving timeframes of as little as seven to ten days for preparations of entertainments. By the time the first English newspapers were reaching New Zealand, Australian newspapers were detailing preparations being undertaken in their colonial capitals. Newspapers and letters from Sydney and Melbourne described extravagant and expensive preparations for processions, feasts, fireworks and elaborate illuminations. Communities wishing to permanently memorialise the event on the day had few commemorative choices due to the restricted timeframe, making the commemorative tree a popular choice, as was

the case of Victoria and Tasmania (The Age, 20/5/1863; The Argus, 20/5/1863, 21/5/1863; The Mercury, 22/5/1863; Cornwall Chronicle, 23/5/1863; Schneider, 1998).

News confirming the royal wedding was received with great enthusiasm in New Zealand, as it had been in Australia. The expression of loyal sentiment for the Queen and her family found greater support amongst the general population than with some of the provincial leaders, bringing with it particular expectations about the appropriate manner in which the event would be celebrated. The Governor of New Zealand failed to declare a colony-wide public holiday, thus no single day unified the colonists of New Zealand in country-wide celebrations. Each province was left to designate its own day and make appropriate arrangements. City and provincial newspapers of the day indicate that numerous celebrations were held in diverse locations in various provinces. The Superintendent of Auckland, Robert Graham, was petitioned to declare a public holiday. His personal lack of interest was evident in the holiday declaration: “it has been represented to me that a general desire is felt by the inhabitants of this Province to shew [sic] their loyalty …” (The New Zealander, 24/6/1863). Financial constraints meant that no provincial funds were available for contributing to celebratory costs (The New Zealander, 26/6/1863). Despite having to raise money by subscription to pay for festivities, a committee was able to organise a parade, a dinner for the troops, Militia and Volunteers, games and amusements, a children’s feast, bonfires, fireworks, and free and subscribed concerts and balls. Canterbury had its own problems at the heart of which was an appropriate choice of day. Superintendent Samuel Bealey was very prompt in announcing a public holiday for the province, but his lack of consultation culminated in the province “celebrating” the royal marriage twice. Bealey also lacked foresight into public feeling and expectations in the celebration of this event. On Friday 21 May, the superintendent declared Tuesday 25th May a public holiday for the celebration of the royal wedding. Monday, being Queen’s birthday, was already a public holiday. With no time to plan any celebratory activities, little in the way of public festivities were observed. This move did not correspond with the community’s expectations after months of anticipation. The Press newspaper editorial staff was highly critical of the superintendent’s leadership in this matter:

A public notice has been issued by order of the Superintendent appointing a holiday to-morrow to commemorate the Prince of Wales’ marriage. The step is so illjudged we are inclined to treat it as a hoax. Without notice, without preparation, without turn for communication to all parts of the province, how is a holiday to be kept worthy of such an occasion? The Queen’s birthday is ill enough kept. We might fairly expect the head of the Government to assume the position of the head of society, and set the example of some formal recognition of the day on which loyalty loves to display itself. …

If the Government idea of a commemoration is a day of idleness ending at the beerhouse, we hope there is a different spirit among the people. We have said nothing before, waiting for the Government to give the sign, but we were not prepared for anything so simply snobbish as this (The Press, 25/5/1863). The mood had not improved greatly after the public holidays were over:

Two dreary days of abstinence as well from business as from pleasure, two holidays devoted to external humiliation and general glumness, is an event too remarkable in the history of a rational people to be lightly passed over. … These two days tell a tale or afford an index to the growth of character in the people amongst whom we live (The Press, 28/5/1863).

Further compounding this disaffection was the two days pay lost by the workers whose workplaces closed for the two public holidays.

The situation was rectified two weeks later when the Provincial Secretary Office wrote to the Christchurch City Council informing them of the Government’s grant of £150 towards the celebrating of the royal marriage on a day to be determined by the Council in consultation with the Lyttelton Municipal Council (CCC Inward Letters 1863a; The Press, 11/6/1863). Dates were set for 7th July for Lyttelton and 9th July in Christchurch so that the inhabitants of each centre could attend both celebrations if wished (CCC Inward Letters 1863c). The Christchurch City Council voted a sum of £300 to aid the grant of the Provincial Government (CCC Outward Letters 1863a). The Prince of Wales Wedding Celebrations Committee met on 10 June to begin preparations for the festivities. From this meeting it was resolved “That a procession [sic] be formed to proceed to the entrance of the city, by the Ferry road, where the first two trees of the plantation along the Town Belt be planted in commemoration of the marriage”. The site is illustrated in Figure 5.1. Also planned were rural sports, a children’s feast and entertainment, Maori entertainment (a feast for prominent Maori of the area), fireworks and illuminations (Prince of Wales Committee, 1863a; The Press, 11/6/1863). Tree planting was to represent the official commemorative

function for the festivities, with the role of the trees being to perpetuate memory of and sentiment for the event and the day.

On the day residents gathered at Papanui to form a procession three quarters of a mile long, with the trees in place of honour. The procession travelled through the centre of town to Ferry Road where the trees were planted by the wives and daughters of prominent Christchurch men and named by the Superintendent and Mr Olliver. In the Superintendent’s speech he compared the empire and its slow growth with that of the oaks, weathering the good and the bad and accruing the benefits now shared. However, the theme of the speech was loyalty, tailored to counter recent public discussion on possible separation from British governance. The Superintendent emphasised that

[w]ith rare exceptions the English people have been distinguished by a deep and fervent loyalty. Even under very severe trials that feeling has maintained itself so that loyalty may truly be said to be characteristic of our nation; how desperate then should we be were we to vary from this state of feeling…. For it would be a great and fearful loss to the generations to come were the kindly tie which binds us to the Mother Country to be at any time severed” (The Press, 11/7/1863).

With this ongoing public debate it was clear that sentiment felt for the Crown and Empire was not extended to the British Government. Despite the rhetoric, the tree planting fulfilled a simple function of marking the day and the event.

These sentiments were echoed at another tree-planting ceremony at the site for the new high school opposite Hagley Park (Figure 5.1). Two trees were planted by Mrs Jane Deans, wife of the first European settler on the Canterbury Plains, and Mrs Fraser, the wife of Rev Fraser, of St Andrew’s church, and subsequently named the “Albert Edward Oak” and the “Princess Alexandra Oak” after the royal couple. Dr Turnbull, secretary of the Directors of the Boys’ Academy, in his address to the assembled pupils and adults, spoke of the sentiment that led to the celebration of the day (Lyttelton Times, 15/7/1863; Amodeo, 2006). He considered the efforts taken to celebrate the royal wedding reflected the “anxious desire that the rising generation might continue to share the benefits of British Constitutional Government, and cherish a spirit of fervent loyalty to a Royal house”. For present and future pupils of the new school the trees were to be “a souvenir of the loyalty of their fathers” and of an

important day in the history of “their country” (Lyttelton Times, 15/7/1863). A third planting of trees was undertaken at the Government Domain, later the Botanic Gardens, of which the Edward Albert Oak still survives (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.1. The location of the trees planted in Christchurch on 9 July 1863 to celebrate the royal wedding.

Dunedin did not suffer the problems experienced by either Christchurch or Auckland. Mr Jonathon Hyde Harris, Esq., Superintendent of Otago, waited on the Governor’s failure to declare a colony-wide holiday for four weeks before declaring Tuesday, 30 June, Otago’s day of celebration (ODT, 27/5/1863; 12/6/1863). By this time Southland had had its celebrations and Christchurch its “holiday” (ODT, 10/6/1863). A public meeting was held on 23 June, a week before the intended celebrations and a committee formed to prepare for the festivities. Preparations were intensive. Funding included £500 from the Provincial Government and subscriptions raised. Editorial comments in the ODT concisely summed up the significance of the holiday for the province as “afford[ing] a proof of our thorough identification of feeling with the national sentiment of attachment to the throne, the institutions, the fatherland, we have left far behind us, but have never ceased to remember and to love” (ODT,

25/6/1863). This was manifest in the choice of oak trees for recording the sentiment for the day.

Figure 5.2. The Albert Edward Oak in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens.

On Tuesday 30 June a three-quarter mile long procession weaved its way through the streets of Dunedin to assemble at the Botanic Garden Reserve to witness the official ceremony of the day. The address to the Queen from the people of Dunedin expressing loyalty and congratulations was presented to the Superintendent. Following his reply, the Superintendent moved to plant the memorial oaks, in doing

so reminding his audience that it was their responsibility to ensure the trees safety. Three cheers were given for the royal oaks, the anthem sung and the trees ceremoniously named. These celebrations and speeches varied little in sentiment from other places. ODT editorial commentary illustrated the commonality of festivities between New Zealand and Australia by drawing on the traditional context of such celebrations, ceremonially linking the colonies with Great Britain through the successful transference of cultural practices to the colonies. In spite of Dunedin’s geographic distance from Britain and the use of non-customary local flora as decoration, Dunedin’s festivities followed the “ancient ways”, the traditions of “home”:

… We have walked in procession; we have feasted and toasted the Queen, her son, and the new daughter of England; we have provided treats for the children, and free banquets for such as chose to come and partake. We have made or listened to eloquent speeches and indulged in loud peals of huzzahs; we have fired feux de joie, put up triumphal arches, and waved many-coloured banners.

And in planting commemorative trees

we have chosen as the memorial trees to render perpetual the expression of the sentiments that moved us yesterday to this unwonted display – the old traditional oak of the fatherland (ODT, 1 July 1863).

From this commentary and the comments of the Mayor of Launceston about following examples from “Home”, it can be seen that the manner of celebration and tree planting was not a peculiarity of the colonies. That this reflects a wider practice is shown by an example from Darlington, Britain, where two Wellingtonia gigantea (Sequoiadendron giganteum) trees were planted in South Park as part of their royal wedding celebrations (www.northeasthistory.co.uk).

This discussion has highlighted the main events recognizable in the description of festivities in Auckland, Christchurch, Hobart, Launceston, Melbourne and numerous other towns across Australia and New Zealand. The development of settlement, decades long in Australia, had not seen the development of colonial based alternative modes of commemoration. This reinforces the comments of both Mountfort (Lochhead, 1999) and Cronon, Miles & Gatlin (1992) that even as migration and settlement in a new land opened up many possibilities for breaking with the old ways and starting new traditions and the reinvention of oneself, distance from home acted

to reinforce identity with the home country. The celebration of the royal marriage exemplified the success of the transference of festival practices from Britain. Strong feelings of identification with and belonging to the British Empire, and not with the British Government, found resonance in the performance and spectacle of traditional celebratory practices and displays of patriotic fervour. This shows another layer of complexity in the settler/metropole relationship.