wymanda
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,557
- City
- Perth
- Country
- Australia
A clear show of HM regard for her daughter in law.
Sensational!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sensational!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure she isn't, Her Late Majesty being a most polite, gracious and understanding woman. Camilla is the Princess of Wales and had to wear a tiara. Queen Mary wouldn't have had it any other way. Any more nasty jibes at Camilla based on the premise that she isn't Diana Spencer?Queen Mary is rolling over in her grave!!
I hardly think so!!!!tiaraprin said:Her Majesty let her wear Queen Mary's Delhi Durbar tiara?? Queen Mary is rolling over in her grave!!
As you must learn to live with the fact that Diana is not going anywhere in the memory and hearts of many. She is also the mother of the Future King.wymanda said:I hardly think so!!!!
The over dramatisation from the Diana Brigade really is tiresome. Camilla is HRH now (edited by warren)
Raia said:the tiara isn't hers it was only loaned to her for the evening once the evening is over it goes back to the queen it wasnt given as a gift to her to keep or anything it is now back in the hands of the Queen, i also dont think its right for her to be wearing a bigger tiara then both the queens.
Raia said:the tiara isn't hers it was only loaned to her for the evening once the evening is over it goes back to the queen it wasnt given as a gift to her to keep or anything it is now back in the hands of the Queen, i also dont think its right for her to be wearing a bigger tiara then both the queens.
tiaraprin said:Queen Mary would never have supported a divorce and her great-grandson marrying his mistress. If she was so hard on her son Edward VIII, what would make her any different towards Camilla?
RaiaRaia said:heres some prove for those who dont believe me.
I think have have proven my point the tiara was loaned to Camilla, There's all your proof seeing as none of you believed me
branchg said:Very true, but I think we can all agree that we live in a world where people do get divorced, including members of the royal family. Times have changed and Queen Mary certainly would have understood changing things to ensure the monarchy would survive.
Regardless of how much people miss the late Princess, Camilla is the wife of the Prince of Wales and a Royal Highness. She will be his consort (and likely Queen) and there is nothing wrong with her having a tiara appropriate to her rank and role. The Queen obviously agreed since the piece belongs to her personal collection.
tiaraprin said:This goes beyond Diana. This goes to the heart of the monarchy. This woman is wearing a very historical piece of jewelry that in my opinion should not have been gifted to her in light of how she arrived to where she is today. I believe Queen Mary would agree.
Warren said:Raia
Please don't be upset. I think the problem is that people have different interpretations of the word "gifted" in this context.
The Delhi Durbar tiara is a very serious piece of jewellery and will be passed to the next Monarch for his wife's use. In the meantime, Queen Elizabeth has allowed it to be remodelled for Camilla. The Queen will retain legal ownership of the tiara while she is alive, but only Camilla will wear it.
In that sense it has been "gifted" to Camilla, but of course it remains the Queen's personal property. Perhaps the situation could be better expressed by saying that the tiara is "on permanent loan" to Camilla.
Warren
branchg said:In contrast, the Russian Headpiece tiara, the Girls of Britian and Ireland tiara, the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara all were left to the Crown to be worn by future Queens in right of it. Each successive Queen Regina or Consort may wear the pieces, but they must remain with the Sovereign's collection, rather than a personal item which can be left or lent to someone.
Elspeth said:I didn't think Queen Mary left any major pieces in that way. When did those three tiaras get added to the list?
auntie said:Warren, does this mean that after the Queen passes away, the Tiaras/Jewels she permanently loaned to other members of the royal house stay with them (princess Anne, Countess of Wessex, Duchess of York etc.) or go back to the current monarch and consort?!
branchg said:That's not true. The diadem hadn't been worn since 1947 and it was styled as a crown for Queen Mary's Durbar presentation as Empress of India. Obviously, it was sized and altered to fit Camilla as a tiara and is for her exclusive use.
It is a gift from the Queen to a future Consort, similar to Diana receiving the Lover's Knot Tiara before her wedding, as a symbol of their future role. Once Charles ascends the throne, the entire royal collection will be at Camilla's disposal to wear.
Obviously, no one ever expected a divorce to enter the royal picture for a Prince of Wales. Despite this development, Diana was allowed to retain Queen Mary's jewels for her lifetime use after the divorce. After her death, the tiara and emerald choker returned to the Queen.
iowabelle said:Wymanda, that's part of my point about it being ludicrous.
Camilla is here and she isn't going away. Charles isn't going to hide her away and I am sure that he wants her to have all the deference due to her as his wife (no matter what title is used to describe her).
As for the rules that apply to what jewelry she can wear, I can see that she might not be allowed to wear a crown if she isn't crowned queen. But for as for the tiaras used by other consorts, why shouldn't she be allowed to use them? (At least for Charles' lifetime.)
(And for what it's worth, I think Camilla has done a pretty good job so far. And Charles seems to have perked up since the marriage.)