Duchess of Cornwall Jewellery 7: September 2011- December 2015

[ldmemail]

Yes, the Royal ripoff. They don't have to pay taxes on this stuff, others do and then they underhandedly pass the jewelry to others. So, the DOC has these pieces and Charles pays nary a cent. Very cleaver.

There is nothing underhanded about it! Personal property is personal property and HM is our Queen and head of state! The deal was negotiated and passed through Parliament and quite frankly is very sensible and the business only of their Majesties the Queen and the late Queen Mother. Furthermore it makes terrific sense to continue to use jewellery already in their possession rather than buy more!

 

[branchg]

It definitely is not the first sovereign-to-sovereign transfer of jewels. All of the jewels in the Crown Collection are passed to each successive Sovereign the same way as they are the personal property of the Crown and do not belong to the State.

Queen Mary also left a sizable bequest of jewels she inherited during her long reign as Consort to the present Queen in her will. These jewels also passed tax-free, even though many pieces were probably designated as belonging to the Crown to be worn in right of it.

 

[branchg]

So, the DOC has these pieces and Charles pays nary a cent. Very cleaver.

There's nothing sinister about it. Camilla is expected to become Queen Consort and her mother-in-law is allowing her to wear them. They belong to The Queen as her personal property and will be inherited tax-free by Charles when he becomes King.

 

[COUNTESS]

You are all correct, that is how they are passed. But it is pathetic to think that those who can afford the most get to keep and spend the least. So, while people in th UK who live on narrow pensions, and those who have little have paid their full share, these people get to walk away with the grab bag. Sorry, I find it inequitible. I think it is the antithesis to real Christianity.

 

[HRHHermione]

You are all correct, that is how they are passed. But it is pathetic to think that those who can afford the most get to keep and spend the least. So, while people in th UK who live on narrow pensions, and those who have little have paid their full share, these people get to walk away with the grab bag. Sorry, I find it inequitible. I think it is the antithesis to real Christianity.

I agree with you in almost every instance that tax loopholes for the wealthy are unfair and that they should pay the highest rates of anyone, but not in this case. A head of state preserving the crown estate for another head of state, and on down the line is not a bad thing, plus sovereigns serve and work their entire lives.

 

[COUNTESS]

They don't labor like many. They go to conferences, cut ribbons, do charity work, their livelihoods do not depend on this. They are given much, for very little. They travel and don't make arrangements, nor wait in line for anything, nor pack a bag or unpack it. They have no idea what a "real" person, who, really works has to do, to make a living. They didn't even earn the position as some ultra-weathly people have. The crown estate, includes any bauble that they get their hands on.

 

[MARG]

When you feel that strongly about something one can only wonder why your torture yourself on this and other royal threads as we blithely drool over really lovely sparkly things . . . like Camilla's engagement ring or her latest diamond and pearl choker?

 

[Daria_S]

When you feel that strongly about something one can only wonder why your torture yourself on this and other royal threads as we blithely drool over really lovely sparkly things . . . like Camilla's engagement ring or her latest diamond and pearl choker?

Well put! I love Camila's jewels, and I couldn't care less if they're not taxed. They're lovely eye-candy, and the woman wears them like no one else (not too many could pull off 'big' jewels).

 

[Warren]

Of course, if an incoming Monarch auctioned off some of the personal possessions of their predecessor in order to raise the substantial sum required to pay death duties, the usual suspects would loudly and gleefully proclaim how unseemly, tacky, tasteless and demeaning the monarch and the monarchy had become.

Imagine if Charles, the new King, announced his intention to flog off a few of the treasures that had belonged to and been identified with his late, esteemed and revered mother, the longest-reigning monarch in British history. Just so he could scrape up the cash to pay his tax bill.
Sure to go down a treat, eh?

The current arrangement whereby the estate of the late Sovereign passes directly to their successor is simpler than the family foundation entity that's used by some Royal Houses and many private citizens to prevent disposal and dispersal of the family collections though mishandling or taxation. Private property, yes, but for the Windsor dynasty the significant pieces and valuable objet are largely inalienable and therefore close enough to being defacto State treasures. In turn they too will be passed, together with the Crown itself, to the next Sovereign.

If the Calvinists and Cromwellians find the glitter of the Windsor diamonds and Fabergé curios too blinding, I'd suggest either not gazing into the light with such intensity, or wearing sunglasses. The downside to that for some may be reduced opportunity to take the stage playing the strident, occasionally sneering but ever-negative critic and try-hard provocateur in republican guise. On a website devoted to all things royal no less, with a membership largely comprising people who, as a rule, don't seek the spotlight, don't applaud attention-seekers, and who come here simply to share and enjoy that which is their common interest.

 

[COUNTESS]

Sorry, what a very interesting apology for greed. All the goodies that they have gotten, Saudi families whose relatives have caused major difficulties on 9/11, Lady Greville, and any piece of wealth that somehow they came into. Yes, "The Crown Jewels" and antiquity should be preserved, but the other stuff is just what I said greed. It is, amazing, that some think they are sacrosanct, as they have seen themselves. Many nations are in great finanacial distress these days, Britain being one of them, yet all this opulent wealth is lionized. Sorry, being American, I know greed. I am, also, lucky enough to be able to say I am in the top 10%, but my father taught me that what you have and what you get carries a responsibility. You must give back and Jesus taught what you have is not important, it is what you give to others. While, the queen, recultantly agreed to pay taxes after the Windsor fire, how do you think this family was able to amass the fortune that they have, without any debt to the public, while the public was footing the bill. I could care less, if England has a queen or a chicken representing them, I, just want a fair share for the public. That ruby necklace that adorns the neck of the DOC will be passed to someone else, without a tax, without a thought at the greed. Frankly, call me a Republican (here I am a Democrat), but I find it disgusting.

 

[HRHHermione]

A Republican in England is one who favors an end to the Monarchy and is not the same thing as a Republican in the United States. And I believe the point was that while you're entitled to your beliefs, this may not be the most appropriate forum to air them.

 

[Warren]

... Jesus taught what you have is not important, it is what you give to others.... I just want a fair share for the public...

Playing the Jesus card and the selfless altruist in the same breath has as much credibility as your earlier confused statement, and I quote: "The crown estate includes any bauble that they get their hands on." Whatever that means and whoever "they" are.

 

[muriel]

I actually think there are a few different ideas that seem to getting mixed.

Firstly, is the issue of a sovereign to sovereign tax free transfer. Is this really worth debating? Most of us in the UK do not find it objectionable, if we so felt, we would be pushing our MPs to chnage the arrangement.

Secondly, did QEQM intend for Camilla to use some of her jewels and delibrately leave them to HM to avoid tax. Highly debatable, but I do not think QEQM was willing to consider Camilla as Queen.

Thirdly, do the BRF have more wealth than those living on a council estate in South London or in the North East of the country? Yes, emphatically so. Thats life. Cause for redistribution: not really. We are not a socialist state. We accept differences in economic status.

 

[MARG]

. . . Secondly, did QEQM intend for Camilla to use some of her jewels and deliberately leave them to HM to avoid tax. Highly debatable, but I do not think QEQM was willing to consider Camilla as Queen . . .

I think our lovely Queen is known for her sensitivity to her family. Her respect regarding the Windsors during her mother's lifetime, her loving support of her lovely but unlucky sister, being there for Charles, Anne and Andrew when their marriages failed. All of these situations were not easy for a woman of her time and certainly her position.

Over the years she has bent over backward to honour her parents and somehow I think that if, as some would have us believe, QEQM did not approve of her grandson's choice, the family jewels Camilla now wears would be anything but those most closely associated with her. It would be too obvious and public a mark of disrespect and, we know, they were a very, very close mother and daughter.

Conversely, I think the fact that from her engagement ring onward Camilla's "family" jewels hark to the QM is very significant.

 

[muriel]

IMO, the question of whether or not QEQM approved of Camilla or not is a moot point; she was certainly not happy about the difficult position her beloved eldest grand son found himself in. That said, her love for Charles, and the fact that he was the heir to the throne would mean that QEQM would be quite content with her jewels being part of the suite of jewels available to Charles and his descendants.

 

[branchg]

I would look at the issue as being one where the jewels belong to the private property of The Sovereign, but are inextricably tied to the monarchy and the Crown. So, in a sense, these pieces are held in trust and pass to the next monarch tax-free to preserve them.

Some of the jewels are undoubtedly private property and would remain treated as such if the monarchy ended. But many other pieces would remain with the nation.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Does anyone know if the Duchess of Cornwall wears the same watch (mostly) for everyday or if she has several that are similar. Many days she wears no watch, but she seems to prefer a leather strap version when she does.

All the snaps I have gone through show a rectangular faced watch with a brown or black leather strap. Is this one watch with straps swapped out or several watched with different straps? I love this watch!

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/14...74nBCHCdxICBdjV9vLbcE8CT23StnXNSY6jqruBSgiw==

 

[Artemisia]

The watch worn by the Duchess of Cornwall is a Cartier one: I've attached a larger picture of it (as worn by the Duchess). My mother has Cartier watches very similar to that one. I just checked hers: it's Cartier Santos 18K rose gold leather strap one. The crystal is a sapphire crystal.
Additional, replaceable straps can be ordered with the watch (separately) but I couldn't say whether Camilla has done so.

Apart from the Cartier, the Duchess also frequently wars a white metal watch (silver or white gold?), especially with lighter-toned outfits.

Cropped from larger image and constitutes less than 20% of the original.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Thanks as always for knowing almost everything about all things royal. I do love that watch! And she seems to prefer elongated watch faces.

 

[Nico]

A new and interesting amethyst necklace for Camilla tonight :

Image Upper.com - Free Image Hosting - View Image( thanks to Artemisia)

The heart shaped stone is quite something, wonder if there's a special meaning behind it (a gift from her prince ?).

 

[Artemisia]

I certainly haven't seen the amethyst necklace Camilla wore tonight.
The earrings - yes, but not the necklace.

 

[dbarn67]

That's a big amethyst! I'm not a fan of cutesy jewels (and I loathe hearts) but it's good to see new jewels.

 

[ldmemail]

The Queen Mother received a heart shaped amethyst pendant necklace from Queen Alexandra when she married the then Duke of York. Could this be it???

 

[Artemisia]

That's actually very, very probable. According to Leslie Field:

The Queen owns another amethyst necklace in addition to the Kent demi-parure, but appears to have no special affection for the stone, as she has worn the Kent suite only twice in public and the second necklace never. The necklace was a wedding gift from Queen Alexandra to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in 1923 and was given to the Queen after her marriage. Shortened and redesigned since 1923, the necklace now consists of three rows of small pearls interspersed with eight large oval amethysts, each surrounded by brilliant-cut diamonds. Hanging from the front largest cluster is a heart-shaped amethyst pendant surrounded by brilliants, and from the four side clusters hang oval amethyst drops surrounded by brilliants.

- Three rows of small pearls? Check.
- Large oval amethysts? Check (although we can see only 4 of them).
- Heart shaped amethyst pendant surrounded by diamonds? Check.
- Amethyst drops? Missing (probably removed).

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Love seeing new jewels, so I can't complain. Heart shaped isn't my favourite though.

 

[IloveCP]

That amethyst necklace is absolutely gorgeous!

 

[Artemisia]

I absolutely adore amethysts, so even though heart-shaped pendants aren't my cup of tea, the necklace in general most definitely is.
Two close-ups of the necklace are attached to the post. Hopefully, we'll have even better pictures later on.

Cropped from larger images and constitute less than 20% of the originals.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Confirmed it belonged to the QM?

 

[Artemisia]

Nope. However, the description of the Queen Mother's necklace matches this one pretty accurately.
Plus, Camilla is known to wear a lot of the late Queen Mother's jewellery, so it definitely wouldn't surprise me.

Since an official confirmation is highly unlikely to take place, I'm going to consider this necklace to be the Queen Mother's until proven otherwise.

 

[MARG]

I believe you are right. Let's face it, how many . . .

. . . necklaces consisting of three rows of small pearls interspersed with eight large oval amethysts, each surrounded by brilliant-cut diamonds. Hanging from the front largest cluster is a heart-shaped amethyst pendant surrounded by brilliants . . .

. . . do we think there are in the BRF vaults? In the world? Possibly a few but in the possession of a member of the British Royal Family? Well I guess a good statistician could give us the odds.