Distribution of Jewels in the British Royal Family

[PrincessofEurope]

i thought that we should have a forum where we can compare the jewels of the British royal family as in each jewel forum we seem to always compare what each royal lady has with each other

ill start with a controversial topic - is it fair that camilla has already worn three tiaras in a short space of time whilst diana in her entire royal life only had the use of the lovers knott tiara and was loaned the spencer tiara. also sophie only had her wedding tiara until 2004 and princess anne really only uses two tiaras.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think it's fair that the jewels reflect position but I would point out that one of the tiaras the Duchess has worn belongs to her and always has. She's only used two on loan from the Queen.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

BeatrixFan if jewels reflect position why did the Princess of Wales only have one tiara from the Queen and one family tiara and the Princess Royal only really uses the Greek tiara and the aquamarine tiara yet the Duchess of Cornwall has two tiaras from the queen and the tiara from her first wedding - its a fair point if the amount of jewels you have is reflected by your status

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, Diana probably would have got more had time gone on. Princess Anne has the same amount of tiaras as Camilla has. Or rather she has the use of two the same as Camilla has. It's not really a contest, it's a family thing and some members of the family get better baubles than others - that happens in most families.

 

[Marengo]

And doesn´t Sophie have three tiara´s? I think it is wise of the Queen to keep her jewels together and to make sure that no major pieces will ´disappear´ into the junior lines of the family. But on the downside, we don´t get to see a lot of her enormous collection (she probably has more jewels than the other reigning european royals together). So to lend some pieces every now and then is a nice sollution (as she started doing recently, to the DoC).

 

[PrincessofEurope]

Well, Diana probably would have got more had time gone on.

officially Diana was married to Charles for 15 years yet she only got ONE tiara yet Camilla has been married to him for 2 years and has the use of TWO tiaras so i cant really see your point that if Diana had been around for longer she would have got more tiaras as she was around for more years

 

[BeatrixFan]

Ok, give Diana another tiara, see how it looks on her.

Come on, it's not a competition.

 

[norwegianne]

It seems to be roughly the same amount of tiaras made available to the younger European female royals in general, so I don't see the problem.

 

[Warren]

If tiaras, of all things, are going to be used as the subtext for another Diana vs Camilla battle, we may as well end the discussion here.

Thanks.

Warren
Royal Jewels moderator

 

[jcbcode99]

As I recall, Diana often complained that tiaras gave her headaches and that she didn't particularly care to wear them. The Spencer tiara was quite lightweight and sat low on the head, whereas the Lover's Knot was a heavy thing. I would think, in the fifteen years that Diana was married to Charles that Queen Elizabeth (at least in the beginning years) would have offered Diana another tiara to wear--but, I think that due to the headaches that Diana declined those offers. What other tiaras could HM majesty have given to Diana that would have not been so heavy? HM wears the Girls of Great Britian quite often because it is so light. The Boucheron was still in the possession of the Queen Mother. Perhaps scroll tiara that Anne and Margaret wore years ago--but for the most part, I imagine all other tiaras were dreadfully heavy and the headaches played a big role in the number of tiaras she wore.

That being said--HM is very selective about her gems--and who can blame her? She watched pieces of her family's history get sold to pay death duties. I'd hold onto them ,too.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

i have often wondered just how many unseen jewels the Queen has in the vaults it is a real shame that there is no sort of public record for her jewels.

do any forum members know what the queen gave princess beatrice for her 18th birthday maybe it was some of the jewellery from the vaults??

 

[Marengo]

Well, HM could have given/loaned her an awfull lot of jewels, she does have a large amount of tiara´s, also small tiara´s.
On another note, even the late Queen Mother didn´t use a lot of tiara´s after her husband died, if I recall correctly there were only two tiara´s she frequently used in later years.

---

I don´t expect HM to ´present Beatrice or Eugenie with an hostorical tiara, she didn´t do so with Sophie or Sarah either, my bet would be that they both would get a new tiara, or maybe Sarah´s one.

 

[Warren]

I have often wondered just how many unseen jewels the Queen has in the vaults.

Many wonder, but those very few who know aren't telling.
The Queen's personal collection is strictly private, and nosey-parkers like ourselves aren't likely to get an answer anytime soon.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

Marengo go you think that the queen maybe gave beatice a diamond necklace or braclett or earings or some other piece of jewellery i dont suppose at the moment either beatrice or eugenie have any need for a tiara and they possibly wont until they marry (will they ever attend state banquets if the royal family members is scaled down after the queen dies?)

 

[jcbcode99]

Wait a minute-let's get back to Sophie--her tiara that she received for her wedding was in fact created from the elements of Queen Victoria's regal circlet; I think that is pretty historical.
As for Beatrice--wasn't her 18th birthday present her coat of arms? That's what all the grandchildren get when they turn 18.
As for jewellery--who knows, but Beatrice hasn't shown any inclination to be a part of the "firm" so the need for her to have access to mountains of jewels is really unnecessary. Hopefully we will see some items, but I think that in light of how some very historical pieces were sold upon Princess Mary's death and other members of family, that we won't likely see many truly historic pieces being given. Perhaps purchased gifts are more suited.

 

[Stefan]

And doesn´t Sophie have three tiara´s? I think it is wise of the Queen to keep her jewels together and to make sure that no major pieces will ´disappear´ into the junior lines of the family. But on the downside, we don´t get to see a lot of her enormous collection (she probably has more jewels than the other reigning european royals together). So to lend some pieces every now and then is a nice sollution (as she started doing recently, to the DoC).

It's not clear if Sophie has 2 or 3 tiara's. She has her wedding-tiara and the aquamarine-tiara. Recently it was discussed about the tiara she wore on the Gala at the Royal theatre in Copenhagen the evening before Frederik and Mary's Wedding. It is either a piece from a tiara of Princess Alice of Greece or it was loaned from a jeweller.

Asd for tiara's for the younger royals i think they should make a pool like the dutch Family and lent them out for certain occasions. The could put a lot in like the Strathmore-Rose tiara, the scroll tiara, the teck circle necklace/tiara. and a lot more.

 

[Thomas Parkman]

And Oh Joy, Camilla, she of the fabulous ruby breastplate dripping with all those HUGE VULGAR rubies, oh horrors, has now had the opportunity to wear the Dehli Durbar, pant, slurp, drool without any emeralds, sigh, and the marvelous Greville tiara of the Queen Mother. I just wish one of our photoshopping geniui, Lady K, where are when we need you, would comforth and do his or her duty and plop the Dehli Durbar on the Marvelous Camilla with the breastplate of the HUGE, VULGAR rubies and everybody could have a canniption.

I, for one, am totally delighted. The more tiaras the better and the merrier. Everybody ought to have at least two, even if they were gotten from WallMart on sale and made from wrecked automobile galss.

I lmyself want to break into that bank vault in Tehran and steal that fabulous 8 inch aigrette with the sixty carat emerald and find myself a turban to go with it. With my luck I would get caught and beheaded before the screaming masses and outraged mullahs and set off an international crises and the price of oil would go past the moon.

I just wish they would start hauling out all those stomachers, of which they must have a barnful. A superbly tiaraed royal in full court dress with diamonds covering the bosom and dangling from the ears dripping down to the waist is one of those sights that just makes life worth living. Why, oh why did we ever have to go and have that confounded American Revolution. Cheers.

 

[daisygoogles]

Well, Diana probably would have got more had time gone on.

officially Diana was married to Charles for 15 years yet she only got ONE tiara yet Camilla has been married to him for 2 years and has the use of TWO tiaras so i cant really see your point that if Diana had been around for longer she would have got more tiaras as she was around for more years

Camilla only borrows the tiaras for now. Diana's Lover knot was gifted to her on her marriage.

 

[daisygoogles]

Maybe we would see more fabulous jewels if the Queen let more royal ladies borrow the jewels instead of gifting them. Let the royal ladies borrow to their hearts content and that way they can stay in the family and not get lost in the future.

 

[ellenw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the two tiaras that the Duchess of Cornwall wears (aside from her own) tiaras that belonged to the Queen Mother? The honeycomb Boucheron and the Delhi Durbar. Or are they the property of the crown?

My reasoning is that the Queen Mum died in 2002, and Diana in 1997. If they were personal property, then Diana wouldn't have had access to them, would she?

 

[jcbcode99]

Diana was not "given" the Lover's Knot tiara--she was gifted it but it remained the property of the Queen; upon her death it was returned. In my opinion, it should have been returned when the separation occurred. The same is true with Queen Mary's emerald choker--gifted but not given. There is a big difference---
Also, Camilla has proven devotion to Charles for decades, she has been steadfast and has taken a lot of heat. She is wearing important tiaras that belonged to the Queen Mother--well, actually, only the Boucheron belonged to the Queen Mother. Queen Mary loaned her the Delhi Durbar and QEQM only wore it the one time. I believe it belongs to the Queen as well.
I personally see no point in making these unnecessary comparisons between Diana and Camilla. It isn't nice and serves no point. We can all go on and on and on about it, we all have definate opinions, but at the end of the day it has nothing to do with us. I love seeing these jewels reappear and am happy that Charles has found happiness again (because I do think he and Diana were happy for several years until their personality differences did them in) and I think that Camilla wears those large pieces very well. I can't think of anyelse who could wear them as well--even HM The Queen can't pull those things off.
Talking about a different piece of jewellery, did everyone see this stunning necklace that the Queen lent to Camilla to wear for her last birthday party?
Here's an article (no picture) Camilla's birthday diamonds - Royal Watch

Picture, no story--it's a closeup http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_02/camillaPA2307_468x293.jpg

And YOWZA--are those huge diamonds.

and, a picture of Charles and Camilla--
http://blog.bidz.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/charles.jpg (LOVE the bracelet)

 

[PrincessofEurope]

maybe Camilla wears the Queen Mum's jewellery because it was given to Charles on her death. do we actually know for certain that the private pieces of the queen mum actually went back to the crown?

 

[jcbcode99]

I believe that all of QEQM's jewels went to the Queen and she lets Camilla wear them because Camilla is the next King's wife (we don't need to start the whole Queen Consort/Princess Consort discussion again)

 

[Stefan]

maybe Camilla wears the Queen Mum's jewellery because it was given to Charles on her death. do we actually know for certain that the private pieces of the queen mum actually went back to the crown?

It was statet at the time of the death of the Queenmother that all her posessions went to her only surviving daughter, the Queen, as the monarch is the only one who has not to pay inheritance taxes.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

I have often found it strange that after all these years The Princess Royal has been given so few jewels, and her tiaras are pathetic!

 

[Warren]

She can, and does, borrow jewels from her mother, and she has three tiaras that we know of (Meander, Aquamarine and Festoon).
How many tiaras does a working Princess need?

 

[RoyalProtocol]

She can, and does, borrow jewels from her mother, and she has three tiaras that we know of (Meander, Aquamarine and Festoon).
How many tiaras does a working Princess need?

Well she needs a few more, after all she is the Sovereign's daughter and she can look really well if she wants to, so another tiara, perhaps a bigger one wouldn't go a miss.

 

[Warren]

She wore a biggie two years ago, but it remains unidentified: Mystery Tiara.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

She wore a biggie two years ago, but it remains unidentified: Mystery Tiara.

I hadn't noticed that one before and I have to say its not bad, I quite like it , it suits her hair which is quite impressive.

 

[Sophus]

In Denmark the late Queen Ingrid left her finest jewels - the ruby and diamond parure - to her beloved grandson Frederik because she wanted the set to stey with the future queen. Could the same be the case with the Queenmother's jewels? She was very close to Charles and may have wanted his wife to wear her jewels - also to keep them in the hands of the future princess/queen consort...