[62 
NATURE NOTES. 
manufactured. In every case it did not take a very close scrutiny to ascertain 
that they were unquestionably genuine. The only “manufacture” consisted in 
cutting the plume in two, and fixing the upper and lower half side by side, so 
that a single feather does duty for two in the “ brush.” Thus one of the most 
beautiful of birds is being swept off the face of the earth, under circumstances of 
peculiar cruelty, to minister to a passing fashion, bolstered up by a glaring 
falsehood. 
This letter was reprinted or commented upon in the principal 
newspapers, daily and weekly, London and provincial ; and 
almost simultaneously with its publication it was officially 
announced that the wedding trousseau of Princess Maud in- 
cluded “ a going-away toque of burnt straw with full osprey 
plume.” The Daily Chronicle of July 3, in a leading article, 
called attention to this in the following words : 
We are sure that Princess Maud is not aware of this — that she has not read 
the articles in our own columns, nor the letters of Professor [Sir William] Flower 
in the Times. We are perfectly certain that nothing would induce her for a 
moment knowingly to condone any act of barbarity committed wilfully upon a 
beautiful and helpless animal. We venture to feel assured, therefore, that when 
these facts are brought to her knowledge, as we shall take care that they are, 
she will order these plumes to be immediately removed from her hat, and let it 
be known that she will never again wear them, thus exerting her great influence 
upon the eve of her own happiness, on behalf of the welfare of a gentle and 
beautiful creature. 
This article was brought under the notice of the Princess, 
and the Chronicle of July 13 “chortled in its joy” when it 
announced, on the authority of “ an authoritative letter from 
Marlborough House,” that the obnoxious “ toque ” would not 
be worn. “ We have now very great pleasure in stating,” said 
the Chronicle, 
that the Princess Maud has no intention whatever of wearing a hat with “ osprey ” 
feathers or trimmings on her departure from Marlborough House, and that she will 
therefore give no countenance to the fashion in question. We need not say that 
her decision does her very great honour, and, as we said before, this gentle and 
womanly deed will add greatly to the volume of good wishes which will follow 
her into her married life. 
The critic might, we think, consider that the newspaper had 
become somewhat hysterical, for after all the decision of the 
Princess was only that which the Chronicle expected and 
humanity dictated, and therefore, however gratifying, hardly 
did her “ very great honour.” But it is not every day that a 
newspaper can claim to have influenced the decisions of Royalty, 
so the effusion was pardonable. 
But the Chronicle's delight was short-lived. Only three days 
later we read : — 
Our astonishment was great, in receiving the official list of the gowns and 
decorations worn by the ladies of the Royal Family at the Queen’s garden party 
on Tuesday last [July 14], and in finding among them the Princess of Wales “with 
a full osprey,” the Duchess of York in a bonnet “with white flowers and aigrette,” 
the Princesses Victoria and Maud of Wales “ with white and black ospreys,” the 
I’rincess Christian “ with a white osprey,” and the Duchess of Connaught “ with 
a tall white osprey.” The Duche.ss of Buckingham, the Countess of Cadogan, 
and the Duchess of Bedford followed the example set by royalty. 
