Controversy over proposed demolition and redevelopment of the Mason's Arms pub in Kensal Green

 

The Mason's Arms in happier times

 The proposed new building of flats with pub on the ground floor

The proposed redevelopment of the Mason's Arms in Kensal Green with flats above a ground floor replacement pub is similar to the current redevelopments underway at the Queensbury in Willesden Green and the Showboat in Alperton.

The proposal follows the hard-fought battle in Kensal Green over Harriet Tubman House Community Centre.

CAMRA and Historic England,  a community run pub, as well as the Vicar of the nearby St John the Evangelist have all pitched in submissions alongs local residents and people from wider afield with family links to the pub.

 

 The redevelopment site is the pub itself and the adjacent vacant plot

 

Below are extracts from submissions to the Brent Planning Portal. If you would like to submit an objection or support you have until June 28th. LINK

 

HISTORIC ENGLAND

 

Historic England has concerns about the proposals on heritage grounds. Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. We encourage you to defer determining these applications until Historic England’s listing assessment for the Mason’s Arms public house has been completed. We also recommend that further structural information regarding the rebuilding of a section of the listed cemetery wall is requested prior to determining the listed building consent application so that the impact on the wall itself and the adjacent grade-II listed catacombs of the North Colonnade can be fully assessed  

 

   

CAMRA  

 

Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch strongly object to the planning application to demolish the Masons Arms public house, Kensal Green NW10. The Masons Arms is an historic public house that has served the Kensal Green community for well over a century. Its long-standing presence, architectural character, and relationship with nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II listed horse trough and the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery wall, give it clear historic and townscape value. Although the building itself is not listed, national planning policy recognises that non-designated heritage assets can still hold local historic significance, and their loss must be taken into account in the planning balance.



The proposed pub area is much smaller, at 256.5 sq m, compared with 630 sq m in the current public house, resulting in a clear reduction in community floorspace, which is a material planning consideration. This is not an equivalent replacement and therefore conflicts with both the London Plan Policy HC7 and Brent Local Plan Policy DMP21, which requires that any redevelopment of a public house must provide a facility of comparable or improved size, layout. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable and unjustified loss of a public house that has community value and which contributes to the economy and in particular the night time economy of the borough.



The proposed six storey development is excessively bulky and out of scale with the surrounding streetscape, its height, massing, and overall visual dominance would create an overbearing presence that disrupts the established character of the area. This is a material planning consideration, as national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan all require new development to respect local context, respond positively to existing townscape, and avoid harm to the character and appearance of the area.



The application removes the existing function room, a space that has historically supported community meetings, funeral wakes, weddings, birthdays, and local group activities. Its loss would permanently diminish the pub's role as a multi functional community venue, further undermining the policy requirement to retain or enhance community value.



No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing pub is unviable or that it has been properly marketed, as required by Brent's planning policies. Without such evidence, the demolition, or change of use of the Masons Arms cannot be justified. The proposal therefore fails to meet the tests set out in national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan for the protection of public houses. The lost of pub's garden, which was sold off and permission granted for change of use, means having a function room will be important to aid the long term viability of the pub.



CAMRA also notes the frequent risk that promised replacement pubs are delayed or never delivered once residential units are occupied. To prevent this outcome, and to ensure compliance with policy, it is essential that if permission is granted, Brent Council imposes a condition requiring that the new public house is fully fitted out, let to an operator, and open for trading before any residential units are occupied. Without such a condition, the community asset is at risk of being lost in practice even if nominally replaced on paper.



The proposed development would harm the setting of the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery boundary wall, which runs directly behind the site. As a Grade I listed structure, it is of exceptional national importance, and national planning policy requires that great weight be given to its conservation. The existing Masons Arms forms part of the traditional low rise townscape that frames and supports the historic character of the cemetery wall. Replacing it with a six storey building would introduce an intrusive and disproportionate mass that would dominate views, disrupt the historic scale of the street, and erode the legibility of the cemetery wall as a heritage asset. The development would harm the setting of the Grade II listed horse trough located immediately outside the Masons Arms. This heritage asset derives its significance not only from its physical form but from its historic relationship with the surrounding streetscape and long established public house. Demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a six storey structure would fundamentally alter the scale, character, and visual context of the trough, diminishing its historic setting and eroding its legibility as part of the area's traditional streetscene. This impact is a material planning consideration and is contrary to national policy on heritage protection, which requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings. If permission is granted, the developer should submit a plan for storage of the Grade II listed horse trough, so it does not get damaged during redevelopment of the site, the Brent Conservation Officer should oversee the plans for the trough, to endure it is not harmed by the new development. Original bricks should be used where possible in the repair of the listed boundary way, overseen by the Brent Conservation Officer.



A further material planning consideration is the significantly higher carbon footprint of demolition compared with retrofitting. National planning policy requires decision makers to support development that moves towards a low carbon future and to give substantial weight to reducing embodied carbon. Demolishing the existing Masons Arms and constructing a new six storey building would generate a far greater volume of embodied carbon than refurbishing and upgrading the existing structure. Brent Council's own climate emergency commitments, all of which expect applicants to demonstrate that demolition is the least carbon option. No such justification has been provided, and the application fails to show that demolition is necessary or environmentally responsible.



The proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which recognises public houses as essential community facilities and expects local authorities to guard against their unnecessary loss. It is also contrary to London Plan 2021 Policy HC7, which requires boroughs to protect public houses and resist proposals that would lead to the loss of their community, cultural, or economic value.



For these reasons, CAMRA North London Branch objects to the application and urges Brent Council to refuse planning permission.

 

SUPPORT

 

I am writing in support of the proposed redevelopment of the Mason's Arms on Harrow Road.

The building is a locally significant former public house with clear architectural and historic value, and I fully recognise and respect its heritage importance. In its earlier years, it was a well-loved and attractive feature of the area. However, in recent years it has suffered from a prolonged period of vacancy and deterioration, despite repeated attempts by various owners to restore it to viable use.

At present, the building is in a poor state of repair and has remained empty for extended periods. Its current condition has contributed to significant issues around the site, including ongoing anti-social behaviour. There have been instances of unauthorised occupation associated with the building, and the immediate surroundings have suffered from visible neglect, including graffiti and general deterioration. There have also been concerns about unsafe activity taking place in and around the site, including fires being lit nearby. Taken together, these issues have had a negative impact on the immediate environment and have contributed to a feeling that the area is unsafe.

The condition of both the Mason's Arms and the adjacent Hazel Road open space is a significant concern in terms of public safety and community use. The area can feel unsafe after dark, and this is a concern shared by many local residents, particularly women, when walking through or near the space in the evening. Anti-social behaviour in and around the site contributes to this and limits the ability of the open space to be fully enjoyed by the community.

I understand that concerns regarding heritage and local character are important considerations in relation to any redevelopment of the site. However, it is also clear that the existing situation is not sustainable, and that the building is no longer serving the community in a positive or functional way.

The proposed redevelopment offers a credible opportunity to bring the site back into productive use. I understand that the developers have engaged with the local community over a sustained period, including holding meetings and responding to feedback. This has resulted in revisions to the scheme, including a reduction in height by one storey, which demonstrates a willingness to respond constructively to local concerns.

In addition, the proposal includes commitments to improvements to the nearby Hazel Road open space and playground, including investment in new play equipment, improved lines of sight to increase natural surveillance, and, of particular importance, significantly enhanced lighting. These improvements would make a meaningful difference to safety, visibility, and overall usability of the space.

The scheme would also provide much-needed new housing in the area, including a significant proportion of family-sized homes, which is particularly welcome given the ongoing local shortage of suitable housing. I also understand that efforts are being made to retain and incorporate important historic features of the original building, such as the trough, which is appreciated.

Overall, I believe this proposal represents a balanced approach that respects the heritage of the site while addressing its current dereliction and unlocking wider benefits for the local community.

 

ANTWERP ARMS (OBJECTS)

 

I represent a successful community pub in north east London.



Thirteen years ago our pub was purchased by a developer who planned to close it and turn the site into a block of flats. The Antwerp Arms Association was formed as a community benefit society and the pub building listed as an asset of community value. We purchased the building from the developer using a community share issue and social funding. We have been in business for 11 years trading as a cooperative venture.



So the Mason's Arms doesn't have to be a block of flats with a basement bar that will struggle to be viable.



Wait for problems from operating a commercial bar under a housing development as the licensing complaints for noise, smells and nuisance rack up from those living above.



Where will all the storage and kitchen facilities go in a single storey new pub ?



Where will the manager and staff (on London living wages) live when there is no accommodation for them above their bar ?



This pub could have a new life. It could provide a really nice bar and food outlet, a safe community space, along with housing on its upper floor. It would provide much needed jobs by directly employing a range of people. It could deliver skills and training in the hospitality and bar sector and it could benefit small companies in the local area by stocking their beers and produce.



The benefits to the community from saving this pub as a community enterprise would, in my view, outweigh the advantages of providing a few extra housing units. It would also save a locally important building.



Our association would be happy to help those in the local community who want to save the Masons Arms as a pub and community hub.

 

OBJECTS

 

I object against the demolition of another Victorian building in Kensal Green. For that reason the Mason's Arms should keep its Victorian features and charm. After the Council allowed the demolition of Harriet Tubman House we don't need another Victorian landmark to disappear from Kensal Green. It was a betrayal from the Council to allow the demolition of Harriet Tubman House after the vast majority of people consulted objected. What is the point of a consultation if you do not listen to the results? Victorian buildings are in line with the Victorian terraces, save your modern buildings for empty spaces. Respect the views of those who love historical heritage and want to protect them. The existing building looks more charming that the proposed tall block of flat. I'm afraid the council is only interested in the council tax they'll receive by the new tenants which is greater than from a pub. Greed is a deadly sin don't you forget.

 

SUPPORTS

 

I would like to express my support for this proposal.

I have a personal emotional connection to this pub, as it is actually where I first met my partner many years ago. Because of that, it has always held a special place in my memory, and it has been genuinely sad to watch it struggle over recent years despite multiple attempts to keep it going successfully.

Having worked in hospitality myself, I understand how incredibly difficult it has become to make pubs and restaurants financially viable, especially independent venues. While it is always unfortunate to see change happen to places with history and memories attached to them, I honestly believe this proposal represents the best and most realistic long-term use for the site.

I particularly appreciate that the scheme still re-provides a pub space in a more modern, energy-efficient and practical format that has a much stronger chance of succeeding. It feels like a balanced and sensible approach rather than simply removing the use altogether.

I am also very happy to see a fresh supply of modern, energy-efficient apartments being delivered in what is genuinely my favourite area of London. The area badly needs new homes, especially homes designed to modern environmental standards, and I believe this proposal will make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

Architecturally, I think the scheme has been handled thoughtfully and with sensitivity to the surrounding character.

Overall, while there is naturally some nostalgia attached to the existing pub, I believe this proposal strikes a fair balance between preserving community use, delivering much-needed homes, and improving the long-term future of the site. I strongly support the application.

 

OBJECTS

 

I am Vicar of the Parish of St John the Evangelist, Kensal Green, the boundary of the parish extending to close to where the Masons Arms is situated. The parish sits in both the City of Westminster and the Borough of Brent. I say this, as although I write in a personal capacity, I have seen many developments in the 13 years I have held my post and the loss of two buildings of note. I believe this application should be seen in the context of the loss of historic buildings for flats and any impact documents should relate to the broader area of Kensal Green and not simply a closely defined locality. I note the present closure of another pub closer to the church on the Harrow Road, the area behind it being (at one point) the last remnant of Kensal Green itself.



I object to this proposal on two grounds. First the Masons Arms )in its current building) could be a viable and successful venue as a pub. It is situated next to the All Souls Cemetery and West London Crematorium. I have attended receptions at the Masons Arms and as I meet many families in relation to funerals I believe the Masons Arms could serve, if properly managed, a place for post service refreshments (amongst other things). I know that demand locally is not being met. I should add that it is of regret that the council gave planning permission for the building in the pub garden, thus adding to the sense of inevitable closure and demolition. In an area with such little green space I simply cannot comprehend this decision.



Secondly the building itself is worthy of retention even if my point above is ignored. It could be converted to other use and an attractive building retained. I note that the interior of the Masons Arms is listed as a "One Star pub" on CAMRA's National inventory as having "special historic interest".

Wembley’s Majestic Cinema – Part 2

Part 2 of Local History Post by Tony Royden and Philip Grant:

1.The Exterior of the Majestic Cinema, just before its opening, in original black & white and colourised.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

Welcome back to the second part of the Majestic Cinema’s story. If you missed Part 1, you can find it HERE. In this article, some of the original black and white photographs have been colourised, using AI, to help show the splendour of this ‘super cinema’.

 

By December 1928, the builder’s hoardings had been removed and Wembley’s new super cinema was in full resplendent view. Passers-by would stop in awe at the new “majestic” building: The architects, Field and Stewart, had erected a handsome frontage constructed of Luton grey facing bricks and Atlas white stone dressings. At the heart of the structure, rising elegantly to the top of the building, was a gleaming copper dome, held aloft by a drum of Atlas stone columns, inset with stylish bay windows. Extended over the main entrance was a striking bronze canopy, shining warmly under carefully crafted lighting. At sunset, the entire façade could be seen bathed in floodlights. The intricate frieze, the sweeping cornice and decorative pillars were highlighted by a subtle, yet dazzling light effect – it was a sight to behold.

 

On 14 December the “Wembley News” carried a half-page advertisement, announcing: ‘In a few weeks’ time the Wembley Majestic will be opened, and the public will be able to visit this veritable Wonder Cinema, where they will be provided with absolutely the most up-to-date and best that can be offered in the world of entertainment.’

 

2.From a full-page advertisement in the “Wembley News”, 11 January 1929.
(Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

Four weeks later, on the morning of the Majestic’s grand opening, a full-page advertisement appeared in the Wembley News, which carried the headline ‘A Real Cinema for Wembley at last’. We can only speculate what the owners of the existing Wembley Hall Cinema, and the Elite Cinema (located in the former British Empire Exhibition Conference Hall in Raglan Gardens - now Empire Way – which had only opened in March 1928), thought about that headline! But they would soon have a chance to find out how popular their new competitor was.

 

What happened regarding the cinema chain which had plans to open own their ‘super cinema’ directly across the road from the Majestic? We know planning permission was granted and bricks were delivered onsite to start construction ... but they were simply too slow. The Majestic’s lightning pace from conception to completion, in just 12 months, won the race and it’s safe to assume that the cinema chain must have got cold feet and abandoned their plans. The derelict land where they had intended to build (at the corner of the High Road and Park Lane) went on to become high street shops, with a bank on the corner itself.

 

The Majestic’s opening night, on Friday 11 January 1929, was by invitation only, but enough invitations had been sent out to fill its 2,000 seats. The guest of honour was Isodore Salmon, the Conservative M.P. for the Harrow Division of Middlesex (which included Wembley), who was also Managing Director of his family’s catering business, J. Lyons & Co. He and his wife sat alongside another leading local figure, Titus Barham, accompanied by his wife, Florence. Other invitees included all the members of Wembley Urban District Council and many of the local clergy.

 

3.Photo of Mrs R.H. Powis from the 18 January 1929 “Wembley News” supplement. (Brent Archives)

 

After the playing of the National Anthem, the lights lowered and the evening’s programme commenced with a showing of a pre-recorded film. Appearing on screen was Mrs R.H. Powis (wife of the Chairman) arriving by car outside the Majestic, where she was presented with a key to unlock the ornamental bronze doors. On entering, the film cut to inside the auditorium and to Mrs Powis on stage, declaring the Majestic Cinema open. At that moment, the screen went up, the stage lights came on and there was Mrs Powis in person to finish her opening address (wearing the same attire that she had worn in the film). This was met by rapturous applause from the audience who marvelled at this piece of technical showmanship – and it may have been enjoyed even more than anticipated as the film had, perhaps by accident, been shown at double speed, so that it resembled a slapstick comedy!

 

 

4.Mr and Mrs Powis and the stage party at the opening of the Majestic Cinema, 11 January 1929.
(From the “Wembley News” supplement, 18 January 1929, at Brent Archives)

 

With the audience in the palm of her hand, Mrs Powis spoke enthusiastically about the immense local support there had been for the Majestic Cinema project and what an honour it had been for her personally to have opened it. She invited the audience to absorb the splendour of the surroundings, expressing that it was a building they could be proud of. She hoped the residents of Wembley would appreciate all that had been done for them, and trusted that they too would come and patronise the theatre when the doors opened to the public.

 

Mrs Powis then introduced her husband (Chairman of the Majestic Cinema) who delivered a much longer speech. He started by praising the enterprise of his ten fellow directors (also present on stage) who had been willing to risk their money in this local cinema venture. The building, of which they were immensely proud, had cost around £100,000 (approximately £5.5million in today’s money), and no expense had been spared in its making (although, by way of contradiction, he said that he ‘had to be the drag to prevent them from spending too much money’). Also appearing on stage were the two local architects, Messrs Field and Stewart, happy to take a bow when introduced, for they had designed a building which truly did live up to the ‘Majestic’ name. Mr Powis then praised the builders, W.E. Greenwood and Son, who had worked tirelessly, and had engaged seventy-five percent of the labour locally. The beautiful scheme of decoration throughout the auditorium, which engulfed the audience, was Mr Greenwood’s concept, with the work carried out to his designs.

 

5.Two views of the Majestic Cinema’s interior designs, one of which has been colourised.
(From the “Wembley News” supplement, 18 January 1929)

 

6.Another colourised view of the cinema’s interior designs.
(“Kinematograph Weekly supplement”, 2 May1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

In an article published in the “Kinematograph Weekly” on 17 January 1929, there was lavish praise for Mr Greenwood’s ‘unique’ and ‘beautiful decorative scheme’. The décor was described as being ‘upon atmospheric lines’ and ‘in the Italian renaissance style’. It continued by saying: ‘The patron looks out onto a beautiful Italian garden. The rich colour-scheme employed is at once restful and pleasing to the eye. The views of mountains, trees and temples on the side walls are in relief, and their application is remarkable for the sense of real depth conveyed to the patron. The various effects achieved by Mr. Greenwood called for much ingenuity and imagination. The whole of the ceiling is made to represent an Italian sky, and is unbroken by ventilating grids or lighting fixtures.’ The Majestic was hailed as being 'the most satisfactory form of the "atmospheric" type of picture theatre yet erected in England. '

 

7.Colourised view of the Majestic’s auditorium, as viewed from the stage.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

Most of the auditorium’s lighting was provided from the front of the balcony, as described in “The Bioscope”, 12th June 1929: ‘The floodlights employed were concealed under the auditorium balcony. The front of the balcony was divided into 16 different sections, each section being glazed with specially diffusing glass panels.’ A remarkable feature of the lighting was that there were no notable shadows.

  

Another innovative design was used for ventilation: ‘Air is introduced into the building by a series of louvres, which are practically invisible behind decorative features which harmonise with the surroundings, and is extracted through thousands of minute holes in the barrel roof, which are also invisible.’ The painted plasterwork bushes of the Italian garden theme also hid the grilles through which music from the cinema’s John Compton Kinestra organ was played.

 

8.A 1929 advertisement for the John Compton Kinestra organ. (Image from the internet)

 

As part of the opening night’s entertainment, the audience were treated to an organ recital, “In a Monastery Garden”, played by Mr Davies on a Kinestra organ like the one pictured above. There were also performances by a number of variety acts including; The Six Ninette Girls, The Plaza Boys, Jade Winton and The Famous Australs – all backed by the wonderful music of the Majestic orchestra, conducted by J. Samehtini. After a showing of a current newsreel, the evening concluded with a screening of the 1928 British-made detective film, “Mademoiselle Parley Voo”.  The opening ceremony was declared a huge success by all who attended.

 

So what did the Majestic have to offer? From the early days of its conception, the Chairman and his fellow directors wanted to be able to bring live West End performances to Wembley (along with the latest film releases) and they were now set to accommodate the grandest of stage productions. The Majestic was built with a 50-foot-wide fully equipped stage, twelve dressing rooms for the artistes (six on either side of the stage – female on one side, male on the other), a musical director's room, a boardroom and an orchestra pit in front of the stage.

 

9.The original Ground Floor plan for the Majestic Cinema. (Brent Archives – Wembley plans microfilm 3474)

 

In the original planning application, the floor plans show the main auditorium was to have 1192 seats, with a further 432 seats located in the “Grand Tier” (or balcony) making a total of 1624 – but with subsequent applications, this was increased to near 2000, making it substantially larger than many West End theatres. The whole of the seating and furnishing had been carried out by Maples & Co, a long-established and successful company, expert in cinema work. The seats were comfortable and every seat gave a perfect view of the stage and screen.

 

The High Road entrance to the Majestic led to an octagonal lobby that was known as a “Crush Hall”. This had an imposing dome above it (not to be confused with the roof dome visible from the outside), which was expertly painted with light, airy clouds and cleverly illuminated by concealed lights. The hall included a pay-box, chocolate kiosk and a side-entrance to a 120-seat café (with the café’s main entrance from the High Road). The hall extended into a large foyer where two ‘handsome staircases leading to the balcony’ could be found, along with the entrance into the auditorium.

 

10.The Majestic Cinema’s café.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – image courtesy of the British Library)

 

 

On the first floor, above the café and shops, was the Majestic Ballroom: Measuring 107 ft. long and 30 ft. wide, it could comfortably accommodate 500 dancers. In an article published in the “Kinematograph Weekly” on 17 January 1929, the ballroom was praised for being ‘one of the finest apartments of its kind in the provinces’. Its decorative treatment was carried out on classical lines and its comfortable ‘"Pollodium" cane furniture was manufactured by Edward Light & Company Ltd. The ballroom was self-contained, with its own lounge, retiring room and dressing rooms.

 

11.A colourised view of the Majestic Cinema’s ballroom.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

As well as having all the amenities of a classic movie theatre, the Majestic also had a second floor, known as the “Mezzanine Floor”, where a luxurious lounge could be found – directly under the roof's dome. Natural light would have permeated from the circle of bay windows beneath the dome and we can only imagine how spectacular the views must have been (especially as Wembley was not as built-up an area at that time, and there would still be some open fields and countryside to observe).

 

At the end of the opening night’s extravaganza, around one thousand of the cinema’s guests, who had remained until the entertainment programme finished at 11pm, were invited to a reception in the ballroom. They were treated to a banquet of food and drink, and there was dancing to the music of Mr Samehtini’s cinema orchestra. An exhibition was also given of “Modern Ballroom Dancing” (as described in his 1927 book of that name by Victor Silvester, whose father, the Vicar of St John the Evangelist Church at the other end of the High Road, had been a guest that evening). The celebration of the Majestic’s first night went on until 1am on the Saturday morning.

 

Wembley’s Majestic Cinema had opened, but would it be a success, and why can’t we see it now in the High Road? To find out the answers, join us next weekend for the final part of our story!

 

Tony Royden and Philip Grant.

The Opening of the British Empire Exhibition, 23 April 1924

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The front page header for Wembley’s local newspaper, reporting the event. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

Wembley had made front page news in April 1923, when its new stadium had hosted an F.A. Cup Final amid chaotic scenes. One year on, crowds again descended on Wembley, but this time for a much more organised event. The stadium had been built for the British Empire Exhibition, and on 23 April 1924 (Saint George’s Day) the exhibition itself was to be opened.

 

One week earlier, the press had been allowed to share the details for the opening with the public. It would be conducted by King George V, and would be preceded by a royal carriage drive through Wembley itself. Even though the procession would not take place until after 11am, there were apparently large crowds of people lining the route two hours earlier, with several hundred police officers drafted in to control them.

 

Timetable for the procession, from “The Wembley News”, 17 April 1924.

 

 Members and Officials of Wembley Council, from “The Wembley News”, 24 April 1924.
(Both images from Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

Among those looking forward to the event were the members of Wembley Urban District Council (what a contrast they look from the councillors and Senior Officers of Brent, 100 years later!). It had been agreed that they could give a brief welcome to the King on his way to the stadium. Wembley had only been set up as a separate local authority thirty years earlier, now they would have the chance to be part of a famous occasion. 

 

The Council had decorated the High Road with flags and bunting, and had asked the residents of Swinderby Road and Ranelagh Road to decorate the fronts of their houses as well. There was a small crowd waiting to see the King and Queen arrive by car from Windsor, and transfer to an open carriage at the junction of Eagle Road. Seventy years later, a lady who had been there as a local teenager remembered Queen Mary instructing her husband as to what he had to do (or, as she put it, ‘giving him earache’!).

 

Wembley Town Hall in the High Road, decorated for King George V’s silver jubilee in 1935.

 

All the shops in the High Road were closed for the day, so that staff and shoppers could witness the Royal visit. The procession did not stop at the Town Hall (demolished in 1962, and replaced by a department store – now Primark), as the Council had built itself a decorated platform at Wembley Green (now commonly known as Wembley Triangle, where the High Road joins Wembley Hill Road).

 

The Council and the King, from “The Wembley News”, 24 April 1924.
(Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

Typical of attitudes to the Royal family at that time, “The Wembley News” reported that: ‘Their majesties had consented to break the great procession at the Green and to receive the homage of their local subjects.’ Three minutes was allowed in the procession timetable for this stop, which saw the Home Secretary introduce the Chairman of Wembley Council, Mr Hewitt, to ‘their majesties’.

 

The Chairman handed an illuminated address to the King, having to stretch across as the carriage had not stopped close enough to the Council’s platform. Then a girl, Betty Soilleux, had to climb onto a chair to present a bouquet to the Queen. The King’s only recorded words during his encounter with Wembley Council were to ‘express his disappointment at the weather’, which was grey and chilly.

 

 

 A paragraph from “The Wembley News”, 24 April 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

The procession then passed on and into the stadium, where invited guests, and up to 100,000 members of the general public, who were allowed to stand on the terraces free of charge, had already been entertained with music from military bands. Among the crowds were all the pupils of Wembley’s Elementary schools (for children aged five to thirteen), who had been brought there to witness the ceremony.

 

The royal carriage inside the stadium. (From a coloured newsreel film)

 

The King was welcomed onto an ornate royal dais by the Prince of Wales, as President of the Exhibition. Dressed in naval uniform, the Prince gave a short address, inviting his father to open ‘a complete and vivid representation of all your Empire’. He hoped that the result of the Exhibition would be: 

 

‘to impress upon all the peoples of your Empire … that they should work unitedly and energetically to develop the resources of the Empire for the benefit of the British race, for the benefit of those other races which have accepted our guardianship over their destinies, and for the benefit of mankind generally.’

 

[Personally, I find the sentiments in that statement offensive, although they do reflect the views held by the British elite at that time!]

 

The royal dais at the east end of the stadium, 23 April 1924. (From a coloured newsreel film)

 

The King’s opening address was broadcast via wireless across the country by the new BBC, the first time that his voice had been heard on radio. This extract from his speech gives a flavour of how he viewed the British Empire:

 

‘The Exhibition may be said to reveal to us the whole Empire in little, containing within its 220 acres of ground a vivid model of the architecture, art and industry of all the races which come under the British Flag. It represents to the world a graphic illustration of that spirit of free and tolerant co-operation which has inspired peoples of different races, creeds, institutions, and ways of thought, to unite in a single commonwealth and to contribute their varying national gifts to one great end.

 

This Exhibition will enable us to take stock of the resources, actual and potential, of the Empire as a whole; to consider where these exist and how they can best be developed and utilised; to take counsel together how the peoples can co-operate to supply one another’s needs, and to promote national well-being. It stands for a co-ordination of our scientific knowledge and a common effort to overcome disease, and to better the difficult conditions which still surround life in many parts of the Empire.’

 

King George V reading his opening address. (From a coloured newsreel film)

 

As I wrote in a guest post at the start of this year, King George V had visited most parts of what would become “his Empire” when he was younger. He saw himself as a father figure, and had some concern for the needs of people in other nations within his “family”. But he still had the blinkered, British-centric, view that the Empire was “a good thing”. If he had been taught the history of how the British Empire had come about, and the various atrocities committed in the course of British imperialism (some very recent then, like the Amritsar, or Jallianwala Bagh, massacre just five years earlier), he was ignoring those facts, or at least keeping quiet about them.

 

The world-wide spread of the Empire was demonstrated when, after King George had spoken the words: ‘I declare the British Empire Exhibition open’, they were sent by telegraph through under-ocean cables to Canada, then via Pacific islands, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and St Helena, arriving back at Wembley in just 80 seconds. A Post Office telegram boy then delivered the message in an envelope, and handed it to the King.

 

Postcard showing the telegram being delivered to the King. (Source; Brent Archives)

 

The telegram boy was 17-year old Henry Annals. Seventy years later, and still living in Wembley, he said that he had been delivering messages to the Exhibition site for over a year, including during the 1923 F.A. Cup Final. For most of that time it had been a muddy building site, so he was given a new uniform to wear on the morning of 23 April, and had to quickly sew on a light blue arm band, as a sign that he was allowed access to all areas of the ceremony.

 

The Post Office also took advantage of the occasion to issue Britain’s first ever commemorative postage stamps. They featured a lion, which was meant to represent the strength of the Empire, although it was not the lion design chosen as the symbol for the exhibition itself.

 

The two 1924 British Empire Exhibition commemorative stamps.

 

Some people may have been satisfied with a First Day Cover of the new stamps as a souvenir of the opening of the Exhibition, but the Vicar of Wembley asked for more. John Silvester (father of the ballroom dancer and band leader, Victor Silvester), who was also attending the ceremony in the stadium as a Wembley councillor, asked the exhibition organisers to give him the thrones used by the King and Queen! 

 

They said “yes”, he could have them for his church, after they had been used for the closing ceremony for the 1925 edition of the exhibition, as the organisers were not sure what to do with them after that (they were large and heavy - made of Canadian pine and English oak). One hundred years later, they are still in St. John the Evangelist Church, at the western end of Wembley High Road.

 

The Royal Thrones, in the north aisle of St John’s Church.

 

I’ve commemorated the centenary of the British Empire Exhibition’s opening, and there will probably be other articles relating to the exhibition later in the year. The centenary of this major exhibition at Wembley Park gives us the opportunity to learn more about the history of the former British Empire, which has many dark sides as well as the benefits claimed by the speeches at the opening ceremony. 

 

I would also repeat my (and Martin’s) earlier invitation to anyone whose roots are in one of the nations represented at the 1924 exhibition, to share their views on “Empire”, or their family’s stories of how they came to Wembley (or Brent). Please do that in a comment below, or in your own guest post. Your voices deserve to be heard, and learning more about the past, from different perspectives, should be one of the legacies of this centenary year.

Philip Grant.

 

(With thanks to Mike Gorringe for the notes of his meeting in 1994 with Henry and Mrs Annals.)