Distribution of the Jewels of Queen Elizabeth II

I assume historical pieces stay as part of the royal collection but available to be borrowed upon the discretion of the monarch. Imagine the insurance nightmare if borrowing jewels was like borrowing a book from the library and it gets lost or stolen.

I think, Charles will reserve the Big Gun tiaras to Camilla

I hope that all tiaras and other important jewelry will remain the property of the royal collection. Charles can lend tiaras to his nieces when needed.

Blog Real said:

I hope that all tiaras and other important jewelry will remain the property of the royal collection. Charles can lend tiaras to his nieces when needed.

Click to expand...

I hope they do as well. There's nothing more sad than to see a royal tiara up for auction by a cadet branch of the family to pay death duties.

That being said, I hope King Charles is a bit more generous with the lending practices than the late Queen was. Sophie is a hard working royal and she was only loaned two aquamarine nightmares, with her workhorse all diamond tiara being the renovated wedding antlers that aren't necessarily attractive.

It would be nice to see the vast British jewel vault going the way of the Dutch and Swedish monarchs where all the royal women seemed to get generous access.

kimebear said:

It would be nice to see the vast British jewel vault going the way of the Dutch and Swedish monarchs where all the royal women seemed to get generous access.

Click to expand...

I certainly hope not.

The British way is to provide each lady who represents the crown with enough to be suitably bejewelled, rather than create something akin to a library. The system has worked well, and I see no reason for it to change.

Camilla and Catherine are the leading ladies, and will have a large selection to choose from. Anne and Sophie have 3 tiaras each, that is plenty. From time to time, further necklaces are lent to Sophie, as may be required.

Toledo said:

I assume historical pieces stay as part of the royal collection but available to be borrowed upon the discretion of the monarch.

Click to expand...

All the privately owned jewels will be, I suspect, now be owned by Charles, in a sovereign to sovereign tax free transfer. Those items that were part of the Royal Collection will continue to do so, the Queen's death would not have any bearing that.

From the private collection, some items may be given to individual family members, as per the wishes of QE2, or perhaps Charles.

Toledo said:

Imagine the insurance nightmare if borrowing jewels was like borrowing a book from the library and it gets lost or stolen.

Click to expand...

My guess is that the jewels are self-insured, and no third party insurers are involved.

Blog Real said:

I hope that all tiaras and other important jewelry will remain the property of the royal collection. Charles can lend tiaras to his nieces when needed.

Click to expand...

If they are in the Royal Collection they can't be left to anyone as they are the property of the Royal Collection which effectively makes them the property of the nation. That is why George IV started The Royal Collection - to ensure that these things remain in the UK.

All the tiaras we have seen at weddings, other than the one Zara wore to her wedding are in The Royal Collection now.

Even jewels that are gifted to the royal often end up as part of The Royal Collection by law. There is a maximum value that a royal can be gifted on a royal visit before it automatically becomes part of The Royal Collection.

What The Queen could have done is indicated which piece she would like to be able to wear going forward but they won't own it.

Personal pieces, say given by her parents or Philip, she could leave but if valued over the inheritance tax limit will mean that they are subject to that tax e.g. The Queen's pearls - if valued over the maximum value and left specifically to Anne would attract inheritance tax but if left to Charles with a note that Anne is to be allowed to wear them for the rest of her life means no inheritance tax and they remain 'royal' going forward. I have no idea what those pearls are worth but am using that as an example.

I suspect that the horseshoe brooch will be much the same - for Charlotte for her life but actually left to Charles.

muriel said:

I certainly hope not.

The British way is to provide each lady who represents the crown with enough to be suitably bejewelled, rather than create something akin to a library. The system has worked well, and I see no reason for it to change.

Click to expand...

"The British Way" is a fairly recent animal. Going only back to Queen Mary's days and beforehand, jewels were much more generously given to the royal women. Incoming daughters-in-law were gifted a tiara and jewels for their weddings and other pieces besides. Both Gloucester and Kent lines had no less than four tiaras each at their disposal that personally belonged to them. There was no need for loans.

Sophie may have three tiaras at her disposal, but they are not the most elegant looking. Every working royal should have a good quality diamond tiara in her collection, and while Sophie's wedding antlers has royal provenance, it's just not attractive. It took six years of full time work as a royal for her to finally be given another one with a colored stone which doesn't work with a lot of gowns. Having two tiaras of aquamarines is not particularly helpful.

There are plenty of big guns to save for Camilla and Catherine and still have plenty leftover for the other royal women to borrow. It's not like they would leave the main line that way.

kimebear said:

"The British Way" is a fairly recent animal. Going only back to Queen Mary's days and beforehand, jewels were much more generously given to the royal women. Incoming daughters-in-law were gifted a tiara and jewels for their weddings and other pieces besides. Both Gloucester and Kent lines had no less than four tiaras each at their disposal that personally belonged to them. There was no need for loans.

Click to expand...

I agree, it is a recent animal, but 70 years is a long time. Times change. What may have been common practice when Queen Mary was the consort si certainly not the case any more.

kimebear said:

Sophie may have three tiaras at her disposal, but they are not the most elegant looking. Every working royal should have a good quality diamond tiara in her collection, and while Sophie's wedding antlers has royal provenance, it's just not attractive. It took six years of full time work as a royal for her to finally be given another one with a colored stone which doesn't work with a lot of gowns. Having two tiaras of aquamarines is not particularly helpful.

Click to expand...

That is a matter of personal preference. Sophie was very close to QE2, and if she really wanted a different tiara, she could well have had a conversation with HM. After all, she did secure consent to alter her wedding tiara.

Iluvbertie said:

All the tiaras we have seen at weddings, other than the one Zara wore to her wedding are in The Royal Collection now.

Click to expand...

I do not believe this to be factually true, and the 4 tiaras listed below were personally owned by QE2.

> The Halo Scroll used by Catherine was purchased by George VI in 1936, and was personally owned by QE2 since the death of the Queen Mother.

> The Queen Mary bandeau used by Meghan was owned by Queen Mary, and ownership rests with the main line since.

> The Greville emerald bandeau used by Eugenie was part of the Greville bequest to QEQM, and following her death, was personally owned by QE2

> The Queen Mary Fringe tiara used by Beatrice was inherited by QE2, I presume via the QEQM.

If you have any evidence to suggest that they are owned by the Royal Collection, I would be happy to hear or read about it.

muriel said:

I do not believe this to be factually true, and the 4 tiaras listed below were personally owned by QE2.



> The Halo Scroll used by Catherine was purchased by George VI in 1936, and was personally owned by QE2 since the death of the Queen Mother.



> The Queen Mary bandeau used by Meghan was owned by Queen Mary, and ownership rests with the main line since.



> The Greville emerald bandeau used by Eugenie was part of the Greville bequest to QEQM, and following her death, was personally owned by QE2



> The Queen Mary Fringe tiara used by Beatrice was inherited by QE2, I presume via the QEQM.



If you have any evidence to suggest that they are owned by the Royal Collection, I would be happy to hear or read about it.

Click to expand...

But didn’t Queen Elizabeth II inherit all of those directly from the Queen Mother for tax purposes? There’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t continue to be cognizant of that and choose to pass them directly to King Charles for the same reason.

HRHHermione said:

But didn’t Queen Elizabeth II inherit all of those directly from the Queen Mother for tax purposes? There’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t continue to be cognizant of that and choose to pass them directly to King Charles for the same reason.

Click to expand...

I agree. I would expect all of these jewels to now be privately owned by King Charles. Not sure how there might be a Royal Collection angle to this at all.

Blog Real said:

I hope that all tiaras and other important jewelry will remain the property of the royal collection. Charles can lend tiaras to his nieces when needed.

Click to expand...

Yes we don't want the Windsors to end up like the Belgians will an paltry jewel chest!

HRHHermione said:

But didn’t Queen Elizabeth II inherit all of those directly from the Queen Mother for tax purposes? There’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t continue to be cognizant of that and choose to pass them directly to King Charles for the same reason.

Click to expand...

And why should she have put them in the royal collection to the stateowned Jewels?

Stefan said:

And why should she have put them in the royal collection to the stateowned Jewels?

Click to expand...

I don’t think that was the argument the original poster was making. Aren’t the state owned jewels known as the Crown Jewels? The ones displayed at the Tower.

I think the poster in question just meant that the tiaras are now in the collection of the monarch and likely to transfer sovereign to sovereign rather than being given away to others.

Edited to add: I found this on the wiki for the royal collection and I think this is what’s confusing here. “Spread among 13 occupied and historic royal residences in the United Kingdom, the collection is owned by King Charles III and overseen by the Royal Collection Trust. The British monarch owns some of the collection in right of the Crown and some as a private individual”

Something can be in the royal collection and still be privately owned by the monarch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Collection

There are three collections:

The Crown Jewels kept at the Tower of London including things like St Edward's Crown

The Royal Collection which is kept in the various royal palaces and includes jewellery, art works etc. This collection was started by George IV and is also now the property of the nation. Whenever a royal visits somewhere and is given an official gift over a certain amount it automatically now is added to the Royal Collection although the recipient royal has the right of use for his/her lifetime. This doesn't includes gifts given as wedding or birthday presents.

The third group of jewels are those that are privately owned.

While monarch to monarch inheritance remains free from inheritance tax these jewels can remain privately owned but when a government does decide to change that exemption it will make sense to put them into the Royal Collection or they will be taxed.

Official gifts given to members of the BRF in the course of their "work" are assessed as to whether that member can use it or it goes straight to "The Crown". As I understand it, the final decision lies with the Monarch and of course the advice given to him by the relevant aides. With jewellery, there are the "Crown Jewels" and then, just like Winsor Castle or Buckingham Palace, the Crown Collection which is comprised of such gifts.

For example, the Ruby, Emerald and Sapphire demi-parures given to Camilla on tour would fall under this category and she would have use of them but they would belong to The Crown while her marvellous collection of pearls are her own personal property. On the other hand, personal gifts are handled differently. HM inherited, among other things, the "Greville Bequest" and while she wore few pieces, her mother adored the Bucheron which was next seen on Camilla who, like the QM, seems to prefer it above others., just as the Lover's Knot last seen on Diana is now worn by Catherine who also seems to prefer it above others. Both of these and more are deemed "lifetime loans" and return to the monarch upon the death of the wearer.

Gifts given for a wedding or birthday are, as I understand it, the property of the recipient with the caveat that if it is diplomatically troublesome it will not be used in the immediate future or, as occurred with Meghan's chandelier earrings, she wore them and their provenance was "leaked". Needless to say, we haven't seen them again.

So, if the general rule holds true, all of the Queen's inherited and gifted jewels are now the property of King Charles and, if his mother had wished any trinkets given to friends, or family, that would be left to Charles to follow her wishes. Since we have heard nothing official about the disposition of the Queen's will we know that Charles is in the process of selling between a third to a half of his mother's stable, one can only conclude that the direct Sovereign to Sovereign transfer took place.

So everything from estates to horses and tiaras now belongs to the King to dispose of or not as he so wishes. Let's hope the house rules stay the same as regards the vault and as per common usage, the contents fall under the stewardship of his Queen.

Iluvbertie said:

There are three collections:

The Crown Jewels kept at the Tower of London including things like St Edward's Crown

The Royal Collection which is kept in the various royal palaces and includes jewellery, art works etc. This collection was started by George IV and is also now the property of the nation. Whenever a royal visits somewhere and is given an official gift over a certain amount it automatically now is added to the Royal Collection although the recipient royal has the right of use for his/her lifetime. This doesn't includes gifts given as wedding or birthday presents.

Click to expand...

I am confused about the policy about gifts to the Sovereign. The late Queen Elizabeth II wore parures, for example the Aquamarine parure, whose stones were official gifts (in this partcular case a coronation gift from the government of Brazil). Yet, those jewels are not part of the Royal Collection and are privately owned as far as I understand.

The same confusion applies to other monarchies. This week in Germany, we saw Queen Letizia wearing two earrings (a diamond and ruby one, and another set in diamond and sapphires) and a ruby bracelet that are part of demi-parures reportedly given to Queen Sofia by Middle Eastern rulers. Yet, they seem to be privately owned now.

EDIT: QEII's Burmese ruby parure also belongs to the class of personally owned jewelry made (in part) of gifted stones, but, in this case, I understand the stones were a wedding gift from the people of Burma, so that might explain why there are not in the Royal Collection.

Mbruno said:

I am confused about the policy about gifts to the Sovereign. The late Queen Elizabeth II wore parures, for example the Aquamarine parure, whose stones were official gifts (in this partcular case a coronation gift from the government of Brazil). Yet, those jewels are not part of the Royal Collection and are privately owned as far as I understand.

The same confusion applies to other monarchies. This week in Germany, we saw Queen Letizia wearing two earrings (a diamond and ruby one, and another set in diamond and sapphires) and a ruby bracelet that are part of demi-parures reportedly given to Queen Sofia by Middle Eastern rulers. Yet, they seem to be privately owned now.

Click to expand...

I have no idea about the laws in other countries. Each country will have its own rules.

In the UK the rules changed in the early 2000s after Sophie was gifted an amazing set in the Middle East while on an official tour there. The decision was then made that gifts like that are effectively gifts to the UK and not to the royal in question. It wasn't backdated but even so a lot of gifts previously given are expected to be treated the same way.

Iluvbertie said:

I have no idea about the laws in other countries. Each country will have its own rules.

In the UK the rules changed in the early 2000s after Sophie was gifted an amazing set in the Middle East while on an official tour there. The decision was then made that gifts like that are effectively gifts to the UK and not to the royal in question. It wasn't backdated but even so a lot of gifts previously given are expected to be treated the same way.

Click to expand...

I really wonder why they changed after Sophie was gifted something? I also thought the policy cam after Camilla was gifted something

SirGyamfi1 said:

I really wonder why they changed after Sophie was gifted something? I also thought the policy cam after Camilla was gifted something

Click to expand...

I think the policy was brought in around 2006.

MARG said:

Official gifts given to members of the BRF in the course of their "work" are assessed as to whether that member can use it or it goes straight to "The Crown". As I understand it, the final decision lies with the Monarch and of course the advice given to him by the relevant aides. With jewellery, there are the "Crown Jewels" and then, just like Winsor Castle or Buckingham Palace, the Crown Collection which is comprised of such gifts.

For example, the Ruby, Emerald and Sapphire demi-parures given to Camilla on tour would fall under this category and she would have use of them but they would belong to The Crown while her marvellous collection of pearls are her own personal property. On the other hand, personal gifts are handled differently. HM inherited, among other things, the "Greville Bequest" and while she wore few pieces, her mother adored the Bucheron which was next seen on Camilla who, like the QM, seems to prefer it above others., just as the Lover's Knot last seen on Diana is now worn by Catherine who also seems to prefer it above others. Both of these and more are deemed "lifetime loans" and return to the monarch upon the death of the wearer.

Gifts given for a wedding or birthday are, as I understand it, the property of the recipient with the caveat that if it is diplomatically troublesome it will not be used in the immediate future or, as occurred with Meghan's chandelier earrings, she wore them and their provenance was "leaked". Needless to say, we haven't seen them again.

Click to expand...

All gifts received by members of the BRF during the course of their duties are assumed to be part of the Royal Collection, unless they are specifically deemed to be personal gifts (typically wedding or birthday presents). These items include jewellery, including the Ruby, Emerald and Sapphire demi-parures received by Camilla in 2006 from the Saudi royal family.

These items are distinct from the Crown Jewels which include items like the Orb, Spectre and the various Crowns.

@Iluvbertie has explained the categorisation in more detail in post 46 well above.

Found this beautiful video on some of these jewels mentioned as part of the Collection

Royal Jewels that deserves to make a comeback

muriel said:

That is a matter of personal preference. Sophie was very close to QE2, and if she really wanted a different tiara, she could well have had a conversation with HM. After all, she did secure consent to alter her wedding tiara.

Click to expand...

I think we have seen that Sophie and the late Queen were quite close, and I agree that Sophie could have said something about the state of her borrowed jewels, but she obviously had a great deal of respect for the Queen and wouldn't have been greedy. I don't think either of them saw the void that Sophie would have to fill in carrying out public duties with the Sussexes taking a step back.

I would imagine there had been conversations about some of the nicer diamond tiaras in the collection being saved for Harry's wife when he started to take on his share of the royal duties after marriage. Sophie still being an active royal during Charles' reign was probably not ever considered.

kimebear said:

"The British Way" is a fairly recent animal. Going only back to Queen Mary's days and beforehand, jewels were much more generously given to the royal women. Incoming daughters-in-law were gifted a tiara and jewels for their weddings and other pieces besides. Both Gloucester and Kent lines had no less than four tiaras each at their disposal that personally belonged to them. There was no need for loans.

Sophie may have three tiaras at her disposal, but they are not the most elegant looking. Every working royal should have a good quality diamond tiara in her collection, and while Sophie's wedding antlers has royal provenance, it's just not attractive. It took six years of full time work as a royal for her to finally be given another one with a colored stone which doesn't work with a lot of gowns. Having two tiaras of aquamarines is not particularly helpful.

There are plenty of big guns to save for Camilla and Catherine and still have plenty leftover for the other royal women to borrow. It's not like they would leave the main line that way.

Click to expand...

That was then, this is now. Royal daughters-in-law no longer receive expensive selection of gifts, and mind you some of the daughters-in-law came from noble and royal families who were gifted jewels from their families. There was less or no scrutiny over royal spending on jewels. Not to mention, the issue of death duties which affects cadet members. Plus there used to more tiara events back then, but now there are less and less of those now. Tiaras are very expensive these days, and people prefer money over tiaras when duty duties are coming for you, so no point giving tiaras to junior members who are less wealthy and don’t partake much in royal life.

SirGyamfi1 said:

That was then, this is now. Royal daughters-in-law no longer receive expensive selection of gifts, and mind you some of the daughters-in-law came from noble and royal families who were gifted jewels from their families. There was less or no scrutiny over royal spending on jewels. Not to mention, the issue of death duties which affects cadet members. Plus there used to more tiara events back then, but now there are less and less of those now. Tiaras are very expensive these days, and people prefer money over tiaras when duty duties are coming for you, so no point giving tiaras to junior members who are less wealthy and don’t partake much in royal life.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I dislike seeing historic jewels go up for auction.


That's why I said that I hoped the jewels go into a family trust type situation like the SRF has, where all the royal women get to borrow for special occasions. For some reason, the idea of Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise borrowing tiaras offends some people.

kimebear said:

I don't disagree. I dislike seeing historic jewels go up for auction.


That's why I said that I hoped the jewels go into a family trust type situation like the SRF has, where all the royal women get to borrow for special occasions. For some reason, the idea of Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise borrowing tiaras offends some people.

Click to expand...

I don’t have an issue, but the thing is that Eugenie, Beatrice and Louise aren’t going to be working royals and won’t have much use for the tiaras now. Louise might wear a tiara on her wedding day, but that’s many years from now and even though I highly doubt it, she might go to the coronation and wear a tiara. The York girls might wear a tiara for the coronation, but after that I doubt they will wear tiaras again unless Sarah has retained her York tiara. The SRF and Dutch have more tiara events compared to the BRF I think.

SirGyamfi1 said:

The SRF and Dutch have more tiara events compared to the BRF I think.

Click to expand...

Also true. But the BRF has some tiaras in the vault that we haven't seen in years that could be dusted off and used on the occasions where there is a white tie event, and I'd like to see Sophie in something a little nicer than what she currently has. The Sapphire Bandeau and the Double Meander come to mind.

kimebear said:

For some reason, the idea of Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise borrowing tiaras offends some people.

Click to expand...

It certainly does not bother me if B,E or L asked to borrow a tiara. The issue is that I just do not know when they might. They are too far low down the pecking order to get invited to a state banquet.

muriel said:

It certainly does not bother me if B,E or L asked to borrow a tiara. The issue is that I just do not know when they might. They are too far low down the pecking order to get invited to a state banquet.

Click to expand...

Yup. I’m sure Louise will be loaned one for her wedding one day, as Beatrice and Eugenie both were. It’s just that there won’t be many other tiara occasions for them. People are just being practical.