Royal Ruby Jewellery


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Menarue said:
Very true but I suspect the stones used to make it were....:whistling:
Click to expand...

They weren't. The gems for her jewels were sourced by Cartier or Van Cleef & Arpel, or in certain cases, were already in the possession of The Duke as unset stones.

During his many tours of the Empire as Prince of Wales, Edward was given many fabulous gems from the vaults of the Raj princely rulers, some of which were later recut and set into jewels for Wallis.

The only "royal" piece of jewelry was the string of pearls from Cartier, set with a diamond clasp, given to The Duke by Queen Mary shortly before she died.
 
That was the official line taken but I am afraid I don´t believe a word of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Menarue said:
That was the official line taken but I am afraid I don´t believe a word of it.
Click to expand...

The Palace and Maitre Blum both confirmed after The Duke's death that none of the jewels owned by The Duchess were from the Royal Collection.

Queen Mary was the custodian of the royal jewels for over forty years and was known to be meticulous and comprehensive in keeping an inventory of the family jewels. The Duke's reign as King was brief and his mother would have known if any pieces or stones from the Collection went missing.

In the late 70's, Maitre Blum added that she had all of the receipts and records of The Duke's jewelry purchases at Cartier, Van Cleef, Boucheron, Harry Winston, etc. So, I think it's ridiculous to accuse him of this allegation.
 
I am not accusing anyone, and I am not saying that the stones he had came from the royal collection, excuse me that would be silly. But I still think that the stones had royal provenance. Where did the jewellery he gave Wallis come from that he gave her before the abdication? Edward spent a lot of time having old pieces taken apart and designing jewellery for Wallis. I am sure that Maitre Blum had the receipts and records for all jewellery purchases from Cartier and other jewellers, she was handling all their affairs. Mrs Belloc Lowndes saw her on evening and thought they must have been dress jewellery (false) and was astounded when she heard they were all real. At that time Wallis was still married to Ernest Simpson, in fact she was still married to him when Edward approached Baldwin about marrying her.
 
Exactly. While it was always confirmed that there were no Royal PIECES of jewelry in the Duchess of Windsor's possession apart from a pearl suite, it was very wisely never stated that there were no STONES with a Royal provenance included in the Duchess' collection - which would have been a lie.
Countless existing pieces were broken up and the stones used for new pieces. For the diamond, ruby, sapphire and emerald Flamingo Brooch, four bracelets and one necklace owned by the Duke were broken up by Cartier in 1940. For the Duchess' gold lattice necklace with rubies and emeralds, Cartier broke up two brooches, one ring and two pairs of earrings to re-set them in 1945.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Boris, that was exactly what I meant.
 
The Duke possessed a number of old pieces he was given as gifts from the princely rulers in the Raj or purchased himself. Like his brother, Prince George, he had a keen eye for jewelry and helped design many of the pieces he gave The Duchess.

Queen Mary was in control of the royal collection of jewels and unset stones, which she was very careful to disperse partially before George V died. She knew there was trouble brewing with Edward and had no intention of allowing him to give Wallis any royal jewels or stones once he was King.
 
Queen Mary gave her son her own double row natural pearl necklace with pearl drop pendant, matching earrings and ring as a parting gift, certain that it would end up on the Duchess of Windsor.
This being a piece which Queen Mary herself had worn even in official photographs, I doubt that it can be declared categorically that the Duke would never have owned and later re-set stones with a Royal provenance.
I am wondering what makes you insist so vehemently, branchg. It wouldn't be a crime after all.
Another sixteen different pieces broken up by Cartier in 1946 to make a large bird brooch... and every single one of them has to be a gift from the Indian tour? It's not very probable.
 
You would be surprised to find out how much the British fleeced from the Indian princes and state, and forced them to give the to the Royals as presents. A lot of the jewellery present at the Delhi Durbar of 1911 were certainly not willing presents. Similarly, the ownership of the Koh-i-noor diamond, which is set in the Queen Mothers crown remais an emotive issue in India to this day!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely true, Muriel - and I am not surprised as I happen to know that. I also feel slightly uncomfortable about these jewels being constantly referred strictly as 'gifts' - as if each and every one of them would have been given freely and gladly, which is far from the truth.
I am merely pointing out that there's no reason to believe that all pieces broken up for the Duchess of Windsor date back to the Prince of Wales' Indian tour in 1921. Also, Indian jewelry would contain very few diamonds or colored stones cut in the Western way, which is how they appear in the Duchess's jewels. The Cartier ledgers speak of breaking up and re-setting, not of re-cutting. (For example a carved Indian emerald into a cabochon). Those are stones which had already been cut and set in the European fashion.
 
Fair point!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I happen to know as I heard it from the Duke of Windsor´s sometime host´s daughter that when he left after a stay he remarked that it was customary for him (the Duke) to pick a gift as a souvenir. He did pick a gift after some thought and went away with something very valuable. The daughter can´t remember her what it was but her father had to smile and hand it over but he was angry about it. I doubt if it was jewellery though, probably some ornament. I agree that some of these so-called gifts were very reluctantly parted with by their original owners.
I read somewhere that the so-called mogul emerald was intended as her engagement ring but that she had another one later on.
Going back to Queen Mary not giving jewellery that would end up being worn by Wallis, if I remember rightly it was very late in the romance that Queen Mary found out about her and that he was considering marriage. There would be no reason for her not to let her son, who was the future king, have some royal jewellery if he asked for it. I am not talking about crown possessions of course but jewellery that had belonged to members of the royal family.
Camilla´s engagement ring was a favourite ring of the Queen Mother who left it to Prince Charles. Thank goodness that wasn´t broken up to make something more modern.
 
It is customary for members of the royal family to receive very valuable pieces of jewelry in the course of a state visit, opening a new ship, etc. These items become their private property to dispose as they wish, unless they choose to accept it on behalf of the Crown.

The Queen Mother left her jewels to The Queen to avoid estate duty. She certainly did not leave them to Prince Charles, however, The Queen has given many pieces to Camilla for her use.
 
Her engagement ring?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Possibly. She might have let it be known that certain pieces were really intended to go to Charles to dispose of as he wished, but she still, legally, left her estate to the Queen to avoid estate tax. I suppose it's possible that she gave Charles the diamond ring before her death, to be used as Camilla's engagement ring, but that doesn't really match the stories about how Charles and Camilla couldn't marry till after her death because she didn't approve.
 
I agree with you. I doubt it was given to Charles as an engagement ring for Camilla. But, the Queen Mother adored Charles and could have ear marked certain pieces to go to him, through his mother to avoid taxes. What he did with them would be his business.
 
COUNTESS said:
I agree with you. I doubt it was given to Charles as an engagement ring for Camilla. But, the Queen Mother adored Charles and could have ear marked certain pieces to go to him, through his mother to avoid taxes. What he did with them would be his business.
Click to expand...

That´s what I think happened.
 
COUNTESS said:
I agree with you. I doubt it was given to Charles as an engagement ring for Camilla. But, the Queen Mother adored Charles and could have ear marked certain pieces to go to him, through his mother to avoid taxes. What he did with them would be his business.
Click to expand...

Given The Queen Mother's well-known feelings about Charles marrying Camilla, I highly doubt she left The Queen personal instructions to give him any of her jewels after her death.

More likely, she simply left everything to her surviving daughter with no thought of what The Queen would choose to do afterward.
 
branchg said:
Given The Queen Mother's well-known feelings about Charles marrying Camilla, I highly doubt she left The Queen personal instructions to give him any of her jewels after her death.

More likely, she simply left everything to her surviving daughter with no thought of what The Queen would choose to do afterward.
Click to expand...

At the time the Queen mother died she had no idea that Prince Charles even intended to marry Camilla. She was his mistress at that time and it came as a surprise to most people when he announced that he was going to marry her. The Queen mother died in 2002 and it was only in 2005 that Prince Charles astounded the world by becoming engaged.
When the Queen mother left him her ring it would be with the intention that it would be for his future wife, but I doubt she would have ever dreamt that this wife would be Camilla.
 
Now that July is coming around and with rubies being the birthstone, I would imagine this is a timely topic.

The only ruby ring I recall in the British royal family was given by then-Prince Andrew to his intended, Sarah Ferguson. She still wears it. What are opinions on that piece? I thought it looked very, very similar to Diana's engagement ring with a ruby substitute. Anyone else?
 
Elspeth said:
I suppose it's possible that she gave Charles the diamond ring before her death, to be used as Camilla's engagement ring, but that doesn't really match the stories about how Charles and Camilla couldn't marry till after her death because she didn't approve.
Click to expand...
How credible is the evidence about the Queen Mother's antipathy/hatred? :ermm: I seem to remember hearing that the Queen herself bearly tolerated Camilla and all but boycotted the marriage etc. and yet the Delhi Durbar and Bucheron would seem to give the lie to that! :whistling:
 
Perhaps, but Camilla is the legal wife of the heir to the throne and as such probably has the right to some royal jewelleryalthough I don´t think that the lending of a royal tiara is a sign that all is sweetness and love.
Actually I thought it strange Camilla appearing with a tiara twice the size of the Queen´s. It is a gorgeous tiara but outshining the Queen doesn´t seem to be very polite but she did look good in it. Incidentally I think anyone would look good in that tiara.
 
Menarue said:
Perhaps, but Camilla is the legal wife of the heir to the throne and as such probably has the right to some royal jewellery . . . .
Click to expand...
The Deli Durbar is far more than just "some royal jewelery", it has history and it stands for something. It was designed for a Queen and our Queen is nothing if not astute. She might have lent her any substantial tiara in the collection. Heaven knows there are more than enough and yet she chose the Durbar, and if that didn't get the message through, she underscored it with the Bucheron which is inextricably iconically linked to her own mother.

For me, well I am dying to see Camilla in some really fabulous rubies. I am sure the much lauded "Vaults" can run to that!

Ps. The ghastly red thing gifted to her doesn't count!
 
Let's leave the discussion of British Royal Family's opinion of Camilla to the British Royals area. Let's get back to Royal Ruby Jewellery.
 
What is the ghastly red thing? I haven´t seen anything red on Camilla yet.
Rubies? Any photo to post?
 
The "ghastly red thing"? It has to be the 'ruby breastplate' necklace, a Saudi-Arabian gift if I remember correctly:
IBL Bildbyrå | 0435 44 07 65
Ghastly is the right word. Add 'tacky'. This thing might have looked just right in a ridiculously overproduced ‘Cleopatra’ silent movie ca. 1923, but not on any Royal, ever. These days, it strikes me as too ‘Noveau riche’ looking even compared to other pieces of certain Arab Royal families known for their dislike of subtlety in jewelry design.
At least the Duchess had the good sense to wear a simple dress with it, but it still rests like a gaudy millstone on her, errhhh, décolleté.
Leaving this jewelry mine in the vaults for a polite ten years in order to break it up afterwards and design something decent with the beautiful stones is the only sensible solution here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sun Lion
Danish and Swedish Royal Jewels, “The Royal Jewels, Episode 1”.
Replies
5
Views
1K
Sun Lion
Sun Lion
A
Princess Beatrice and Eugenie jewels
2 3
Replies
61
Views
5K
MARG
MARG
Marengo
Princess Caroline Jewellery 2, Oct 2023 -
Replies
4
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Marengo
Jewels for sale: Worthy additions to royal collections, Part 2
Replies
7
Views
1K
muriel
muriel
Tilia C.
Crown Princess Marie-Chantal Jewels 2: 2023 -
Replies
1
Views
1K
doro
doro

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom