British Royal Jewels of the Past 1: Ending 2021


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jacqui that helps it A LOT...it really does change the look of it with that row on top.


LaRae

It softens the harshness of the fringe tiara. I never understood the love for fringe because how harsh and stiff it comes off of as.
 
Me either....that top row really helps.


LaRae
 
I agree. They look like an expensive rake.
 
We were all lamenting the other day about how we wish it was in the Royal Vaults and able to be worn.


LaRae
 
It's lovely and we have no idea if it's even intact! No one has worn it in years and years..


LaRae
 
It is stunning! This one and the Emerald and Gold tiara (present from Albert to Victoria) that is on display are my absolute favorite tiaras.


LaRae
 
Queen Victoria's Turkish Rosette Necklace was given to her son Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught. It was worn by his wife, Princess Louise Margaret to the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896. Who inherited the necklace?

Queen Alexandra received the Kokoshnik Tiara as a wedding gift for her silver wedding anniversary. During Queen Alexandra's life time the tiara was not referred to in the press as a kokoshnik. The press referred to it as the Ladies' Tiara, the ladies diamonds, a spiky tiara, a high Russian style tiara, and as the Queen's silver wedding tiara.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Queen Victoria's Turkish Rosette Necklace was given to her son Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught. It was worn by his wife, Princess Louise Margaret to the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896. Who inherited the necklace?

It was inherited by queen Victorias grandson Prince Arthur of Connaught who died in 1938,he married Princess Alexandra ,duchess of Fife who outlived her only son the 2nd duke of Connaught.

I assume the necklace was left to the Fife family.

Artemisia's Royal Jewels: British Royal Jewels: Queen Victoria’s Turkish Rosette Necklace
 
Last edited:
Queen Alexandra received the Kokoshnik Tiara as a wedding gift for her silver wedding anniversary. During Queen Alexandra's life time the tiara was not referred to in the press as a kokoshnik. The press referred to it as the Ladies' Tiara, the ladies diamonds, a spiky tiara, a high Russian style tiara, and as the Queen's silver wedding tiara.

Wasn't it modeled after her sisters tiara?
 
In the early days Ladies would adorn their gowns with Ears of Wheat brooches. It was a popular thing to do. Later in the 1800's many of the ladies would have these brooches made into tiara's.
At the Hillwood museum, (near Vermont I think) is a beautiful Wheat ear tiara on display that dates back to Tsar Paul I. He was the son of Catherine the Great.
It is possibly the oldest tiara around in excellent condition.

They are not my favourite in style of a tiara. But they hold an interesting connotation.
 
Since the below query was brought up by @Heavs in the Lady Gabriella Windsor thread, I am posting this response for informational and educational purposes only re the ancient historical/ cultural significance of the brooch Princess Michael wore last December. Included are comments by the brooch creator and a jewelry historian:

... does that mean [Meghan and Harry have] forgiven Princess Michael for her Blackamore broach...

The brooch worn by Princess Michael last December is surely the furthest thing from any one's mind in the royal family, so I don't think anyone's forgiveness was needed or offered.

Meanwhile, the brooch is not connected to the name you have termed it to be. Princess Michael was wearing a Moretto Veneziano made by Nardi, in Venice. Below is a widely overlooked informative and enlightening article (published in January 2018) that describes the historical and cultural significance of the brooch:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...orld-got-racist-royal-jewelry-wrong-1.5630137
Per Alberto Nardi, whose jewelry company made the brooch:
"A whole lot of nonsense has been written, and I wish to defend an object that is rich in history and unique to Venice... The brooch depicts a Moorish Venetian prince..."

Per jewelry historian Anastazja Buttitta: "What happened here was a cultural misunderstanding... This [figure depicted in the brooch] came from a different cultural context [than is understood] by people in Britain and America who are entitled to feel offended... but we can't use modern day categorizations when we're talking about objects that were crafted during the early modern period...

Since medieval times, the Republic of Venice sought to emphasize its connection with the Classical world, especially that of Rome, a culture in which the concept of racism did not exist... Venice has been represented for centuries by the symbol of a black prince, after the symbol of the lion of St. Mark... In southern Germany, the cult of St. Maurice was widespread. He was a black Roman commander who originally came from Egypt and became a martyr. He was depicted in art as a very distinguished black man, and the Venetians were also influenced by this.”


I think this piece of jewelry is beautifully crafted (as pictured in up close detail in the article). I'm sure it's also very expensive. I wouldn't mind possessing it myself, but I guess it's a no-no to wear it in today's over-reactionary culture.

In a statement originally put out on her behalf, Princess Michael apologized for any offense that was caused by her wearing a piece of jewelry that is a gift and that she'd previously worn multiple times around the holidays. She also described the figure on the brooch as a saint, so she may have been referencing St. Maurice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice
Remember that Princess Michael is originally from Austria with familial origins in Germany. Simply because Princess Michael's father was an SS officer does not mean she harbors discriminatory views. She was a baby when WWII ended and her family fled to Austria.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/apr/16/princess-michael-father-nazi-ss-officer

My impression is that Princess Michael is likely to be more of a snob and more class-conscious than anything else. For all we know, she may have felt wearing the brooch last Christmas was somehow honoring Meghan's heritage. But I do realize the prevailing view is that Princess Michael was being insensitive and out of touch. There's really no way for her to defend herself against that charge, since anything she has said about it has been misconstrued and taken out of context.

It seems to me that the mainstream media prefers to hold onto the narrative that the brooch is derogatory simply because the depicted figure is black, when clearly it's not crafted nor adorned in a derogatory way at all. It is a shame that the article I linked above, which clarifies the brooch's actual history and meaning, has not been widely disseminated.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for posting this Maiamia.
 
You are welcome SLV. I was happy to come across the article today, and I felt it would be enlightening to share. Plus seeing the detail of the brooch up close and in color gives us an amazing view of its exquisite craftsmanship.

Princess Michael does seem eccentric and perhaps a bit pretentious, but the fact that she's highly cultured and that she has an extensive knowledge of art history and the fine arts, suggests she knows more about the history and meaning behind the brooch, than do the judgmental public and media.

http://www.princessmichael.org.uk/
https://www.royal.uk/princeandprincessmichaelofkent
 
Last edited:
People stirring the pot. I thought it was exquisite, and looked more like an Egyptian Queen than anything else.
 
I actually like the Harewood Fringe tiara it reminds me of the one worn by the Greek Crown Princess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom