Distribution of Jewels in the British Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.

I doubt the Queen would countenance her daughter-in-law borrowing jewels. Especially after Diana borrowed a necklace from Collingwoods for some engagement photo's and it was subsequently offered with a bogus provenance stating that it was Spencer property being sold to pay for the wedding! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :ohmy: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Wymanda, I think the same thing for the exact same reason. There really is no reason for the Royal Family to have to borrow jewels when they have so many unused pieces languishing about in the vaults
 
i am honestly upset over the tiaras issue between diana and camilla. i think diana should have been able to use more tiaras. if not given to her at least barrow them. i am sure that the royal family has plenty of tiaras to go around. queen mary own many tiaras and wasnt as cheap with the jewels as her granddaughter is
 
Once again, Diana was quite prone to headaches and would only wear light-weight ones. The Spencer was very lightweight, and while the Lover's Knot is stunning and any girl would love to have it, it is quite heavy--and with those dangling pearls clanging around she was sure to get a headache. I feel certain that QEII offered pieces and they were declined.
Incidentally, with the exception of the Gloucester's, many of Queen Mary's gifts to her children have been sold for death duties--the Earl of Harewood sold just about everything, including a sapphire necklace of Queen Victoria's and a fringe necklace/tiara that was gift to the Princess Royal upon her marriage (The Duke of Westminster owns it now); the Kent's sold the historic Cambridge Sapphire tiara, which had been in Queen Mary's family for generations. The Queen does not want to see family pieces land upon the action table--I say Thank God for her "cheapness".
 
Am I mistaken in thinking that QEII overall style has changed dramatically since the death of her mother. She is wearing more flattering colours, even pastels and wonderfully whimsical hats which used the be the province of the Queen Mother.

Her style of jewelry has also changed. She seems to be wearing far more jewelry than she used to. Quite a lot of it came from her mother's "collection". Let's face it, she was hardly going to say "Mummy can I have the Jewels you wore as Consort back"?"

She has also become far more generous with "loaned" jewelry to the Princess Royal, Duchess of Wessex, and Camilla!

Every event seems to bring more and more "goodies" out of the vaults, e.g. the "Sunburst" brooch (last seen in 1937!) she wore at the last State Banquet.

Unfortunately we did not get enough really good photos of the other BRF ladies at that banquet, but I think we should be watching for a lot more "bling" (albeit tasteful) in the near future.
 
Last edited:
i am honestly upset over the tiaras issue between diana and camilla. i think diana should have been able to use more tiaras. if not given to her at least barrow them. i am sure that the royal family has plenty of tiaras to go around. queen mary own many tiaras and wasnt as cheap with the jewels as her granddaughter is
In addition to the points made by jcbcode99 above, here are a few more issues to consider. Firstly, Diana was very young when she became Princess of Wales. You don't often see young royals wearing very heavy jewellery. Secondly, "bling" was not really very "in" in the early 1980s - and as a result, Diana was unlikely to want to be seen in much jewellery. Thirdly, the economic environment in the early 1980s (the early days of the Thatcher era) was certainly not condusive to displaying much jewellery. Fourthly, from relatively early in the Wales marriage, it was clear there were very fundamental differences between the couple. In such an environment, it is highly unlikely that the Queen would give the PoW more jewellery. Had the relationship been on a more stable footing, I am sure in time more jewellery would have been made available to Diana.

I hate getting dragged into the Camilla vs Di thing, but whilst a lot has been reported about the large collection of jewellery that Camilla has, a lot of the bigger pieces (other than the tiaras) have been presents from middle eastern rulers and not from the Queen herself. The rubies (often referred to as the breastplate), the sapphires, the emeralds (not yet seen publicly), and possibly, one of the diamond necklaces are from the Saudi's. The only "big" pieces of jewellery (other than the tiaras) from the Queen that we have seen Camilla wear are the collet necklace worn on Camilla's 60th birthday (and again for the Fench banquet) and the Greville 5 strand necklace worn in Kampala for the CHOGM.

Also, it is important now for Camilla to be perceived very much a future Queen, because like it or not, the day when Charles succeeds to the throne is not that far away. There still remains a question as to Camilla's eventual title, so the last thing the BRF would want is to show that they do not fully support Camilla.
 
Last edited:
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.


Oh, well done I'm still laughing :wine:
 
In addition to the points made by jcbcode99 above, here are a few more issues to consider. Firstly, Diana was very young when she became Princess of Wales. You don't often see young royals wearing very heavy jewellery. Secondly, "bling" was not really very "in" in the early 1980s - and as a result, Diana was unlikely to want to be seen in much jewellery. Thirdly, the economic environment in the early 1980s (the early days of the Thatcher era) was certainly not condusive to displaying much jewellery. Fourthly, from relatively early in the Wales marriage, it was clear there were very fundamental differences between the couple. In such an environment, it is highly unlikely that the Queen would give the PoW more jewellery. Had the relationship been on a more stable footing, I am sure in time more jewellery would have been made available to Diana.

I hate getting dragged into the Camilla vs Di thing, but whilst a lot has been reported about the large collection of jewellery that Camilla has, a lot of the bigger pieces (other than the tiaras) have been presents from middle eastern rulers and not from the Queen herself. The rubies (often referred to as the breastplate), the sapphires, the emeralds (not yet seen publicly), and possibly, one of the diamond necklaces are from the Saudi's. The only "big" pieces of jewellery (other than the tiaras) from the Queen that we have seen Camilla wear are the collet necklace worn on Camilla's 60th birthday (and again for the Fench banquet) and the Greville 5 strand necklace worn in Kampala for the CHOGM.

Also, it is important now for Camilla to be perceived very much a future Queen, because like it or not, the day when Charles succeeds to the throne is not that far away. There still remains a question as to Camilla's eventual title, so the last thing the BRF would want is to show that they do not fully support Camilla.

Lovely post, Muriel, and all true, I might add.
Regarding the pieces which Camilla has worn, let's not forget the beautiful brooches and the engagement ring. Of course, they all hail from the Queen Mother, but still, that Leek brooch is amazing, the emerald drop earrings are stunning, that fantastic brooch she wore at ascot with the orange stone, and other beautiful pieces as well. And, as I said the engagement ring. What a stunner!
Camilla also had lovely, versitile pieces coming into the marriage--Diana only had a few simple pieces.

A new topic--regarding distribution--I've always been curious about the Kents distribution of jewels. It seems that Prince Michael got more substantial pieces than the Duke of Kent--of course, The Duke and his wife have sold off so many pieces I am happy that Prince Michael received as much as he did. Pity that Marina' bow brooch was sold.
 
Diana was very young and very attractive. She needed little to make her look royal. Her clothing designs did not call for big pieces of jewelry. She looked lovely. Camilla is far older and can carry off these larger pieces. Also, these are the QM pieces. They were not available before her death. I think the intention was that Charles would inherit them, but they would go through his mother to save on the inheritance taxes. Very clever. "Gifted" and not given, is an awful play on words. A gift is just that. Loaned would be a better word for "gifted", because that is all it is.
 
I doubt the Queen would countenance her daughter-in-law borrowing jewels. Especially after Diana borrowed a necklace from Collingwoods for some engagement photo's and it was subsequently offered with a bogus provenance stating that it was Spencer property being sold to pay for the wedding! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :ohmy: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


Actually Sophie did borrow a necklace for Mary's wedding day and i have also seen Fergie in the last few years wearing exactly the SAME necklace so unless the Queen as started to let Fergie have access to the vaults which i doubt then royals DO BORROW from major jewellers
 
I think PrincessofEurope was trying to say that Sophie borrowed the interlinked heart necklace and earrings since Sarah has also been spotted wearing the set. Meaning that they must have come from a commercial jeweler because Sarah would not be given access to royal jewels these days. At least that is my understanding:flowers: Sophie and/or Sarah may have purchased the same exact set, but its probably unlikely and they are most certainly not sharing each others jewel box.
 
I think PrincessofEurope was trying to say that Sophie borrowed the interlinked heart necklace and earrings since Sarah has also been spotted wearing the set. Meaning that they must have come from a commercial jeweler because Sarah would not be given access to royal jewels these days. At least that is my understanding:flowers: Sophie and/or Sarah may have purchased the same exact set, but its probably unlikely and they are most certainly not sharing each others jewel box.


thanks kimebear for explaing that better as that was exactly the point i was trying to say
 
PrincessofEurope--my apologies! Of course, looking back with 20/20 vision I perfectly see that is what you were saying.
I could not remember which necklace you were talking about so I went through the Countess of Wessex's Jewels thread and found this interesting post by Ayvee showing the necklace on both HRH Sophie, The Countess of Wessex and also on Sarah, Duchess of York . I personally think it looks better on Sophie. Also, apparently Garrad offered some sort of press release about the piece being borrowed.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/643420-post114.html

All of this leads me to my next question--
what exactly has Sophie received from the Queen, as compared to what the other daughters-in-law received. Diana received an historic tiara, Sarah was purchased a very lovely tiara, and Sophie got that thing she wore on her wedding. I don't hate it, but it lacks a certain symmetry and is really quite pathetic compared to the Sarah's and Diana's.
Diana also received the emerald choker. Sarah received a diamond cluster flower necklace with matching earrings and bracelet. What did Sophie receive? Does anyone have a list?
 
I think that the tiara's each lady has worn is based a lot on their preference of maybe not wanting to wear heavier based tiaras. Look at QEII herself; we all know she has tons of tiara in the vault but there are 3 tiaras that she wears the majority of the time, and a few others she wears every now and then. Is she being unfair to herself? Of course not! And I don't think any of the Princesses would complain about "only" having a few of these equisite tiaras to wear. Think about all the other magnificent jewels they get to wear too.
 
i couldn't agree more..Diana only had 2 tiaras, and poor Sarah and Sophie with one bloody tiara
that true!
when Diana got married into Royal Family that why she wores 2 tiara one for her family tiara as Spencer tiara and Queen Mary tiara from HM Queen when she wores Spencer tiara on her wedding day in 1981.
that why Diana was kept her 2 tiara than Sarah,Duchess of York and Sophie,Countess of Wessex because both not have 2 them!
Diana was popular Princess you know that! she would kept tiara til she got divorces or death.
Sara Boyce
Even the Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael each have several different tiaras!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even the Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael each have several different tiaras!
That is because Queen Mary, in all her wisdom, made sure that each of her children had historic sets of jewelry:
Mary, The PRincess Royal had QV's sapphire tiara, sapphire necklace, etc...--all sold with the excpeption of the tiara
The Kents had the Cambridge sapphires--the original tiara has been sold as well and the necklace modified to create--horrors!--a button type tiara. There is a small diamond and pearl tiara given to the family by Queen Mary. The fringe worn by Princess Michael was the wedding gift to Marina from the City of London, and I'm not sure what the history is behind the pearl and diamond piece.
The Gloucester's are in a unique position of never having had to split the jewels up! The current duke was actually the younger son but his brother-heir to the Dukedom--died. I believe that they may have been the only children of Princess Alice and consequently all those jewels remain the family.--Queen Mary gave them the turquoises, the honeysuckle motif (with detachable center that also has an emerald and kunzite too--so three tiaras in one), and the Ivegh Tiara (which Mary received as a wedding gift)--there is also the sapphire, diamond, and pearl tiara which was left to the Gloucester's by Princess Mary-Louise, and also an emerald tiara (not sure of its history)--
Queen Mary was a very generous Mother-in-Law and wanted to be able to pass pieces on. Unfortunantly, the Kents and the Lascalles (Princess Mary's family) have sold many pieces for death duties and such. Perhaps QEII has seen too many family pieces pass to want to give away full sets of jewels? I don't really blame her. And, it was a different time then. More jewelry because more was expected.
 
Last edited:
i would image that when the current Duchess of Glouchester dies (hopefully not for many years as she is one the hardest working and one of my personal favourites) that the family who have no need for so many tiaras will sell them to pay for death duties. also to note that at the two weddings of the earl of ulster and also lady davina neither bride choose to wear a family tiara i presume the tiara that the countess of ulster wore was not real diamonds and either brought or borrowed for the occassion
 
i presume the tiara that the countess of ulster wore was not real diamonds and either brought or borrowed for the occassion
My understanding is that the Countess of Ulster wore the rarely seen 6th and un-named diamond tiara belonging to the Duchess. The provenance is most likely Queen Mary.
 
It seems to me that the discreet but remarkable changes to HM's wardrobe & jewels has a lot to do with her younger & more modern dresser, who is doing a great job of advising the Queen these days. Whilst there are some pieces of jewellery that were the Queen Mother's & she no doubt enjoys wearing them, I do think that it is probably her dresser who is making some of the suggestions ..."Why not try this one for a change, Ma'am...?"
:whistling:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you in relation to the clothes. HM is certainly dressed in a more flattering and contemperory manner, and I am sure a lot of credit for that goes to ger dressers.

In relation to her choice of jewellery, I suspect (clearly conjecture here!) that HM has probably spent some time in recent years going through the royal jewellery collection for the following reasons: a) incorporating the Queen Mothers jewellery b) sorting out and identifying items that can be made available to Camilla c) probably thinking about what might be appropriate for the grand children as they come of age, and d) as she goes through the royal vaults, clearly aware of her own mortality, having a go at some long forgotten jewels.

Also, when you host the French, you can't not look your best!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding is that the Countess of Ulster wore the rarely seen 6th and un-named diamond tiara belonging to the Duchess. The provenance is most likely Queen Mary.

thanks Warren for that info im sorry about my ignorance that i presumed it wasnt a real tiara

you dont have any closer images of the countess of ulster wearing it?
has the current or previous duchess worn it out in public if so are there any images/
I would image that if she wore it on her wedding day then it could have been a wedding present and might not have to be included in any incurred death duties and hopefully coudl remain a glouchester family tiara for xan and future generations
 
i am honestly upset over the tiaras issue between diana and camilla. i think diana should have been able to use more tiaras. if not given to her at least barrow them. i am sure that the royal family has plenty of tiaras to go around. queen mary own many tiaras and wasnt as cheap with the jewels as her granddaughter is

Perhaps the late Diana didn't like any of the other tiaras.
 
In addition to the points made by jcbcode99 above, here are a few more issues to consider. Firstly, Diana was very young when she became Princess of Wales. You don't often see young royals wearing very heavy jewellery.

Exactly, Muriel. IMO it takes someone of a certain stature and girth to pull off such large pieces. Camilla has had the same rather big hairstyle for many years and possibly could have pulled off those in her youth. But now, she is past the middle-aged spread and now has the softer, rounder large-busted features of a mature woman that can serve as a base to balance out the huge bling on top. Also, many of the grander pieces were created during a time when the hairstyles were substantially bigger and would balance out the size of the tiara. None of Diana's hairstyles could have looked appropriate with the larger pieces.

The Grand Duchess of Luxembourg is a perfect case study. She defiinitely has the girth but lacks the height to appropriately wear the large Russian piece she chose for the Swedish wedding. She has never looked good in it and the only time she didn't look bad was when her hairstyle was arranged to be more full - wider than the tiara itself. When she first wore it for the state visit to he Netherlands, she was thinner and wore her hair down in a "flip" hairstyle and tucked behind her ears. She was thinner, the hair was slim. It didn't work. And at the Swedish wedding it was just a disaster! The hairstyle made her face look very fat. With her hair pulled back so tight, her face became as wide as the tiara and it looked like one big huge block on top of her shoulder, because she doesn't really have a prominent neck right now.

Perhaps the late Diana didn't like any of the other tiaras.

That's a really good point, KittyAtlanta. Maybe none of the pieces offered were to her liking, and she had the Spencer family tiara at her disposal, so why wear something that would be uncomfortable, ugly, or look out of proportion with her hairstyle?
 
Perhaps the late Diana didn't like any of the other tiaras.

I have read countless times that Diana (like Queen Beatrix) was prone to horrible headaches and that wearing the Lover's Knot was horrible. I can believe it--it's gorgous, but it looks heavy and then you have all those swinging pearls- she looked lovely in it (when she had hair that was a little longer than her usual hairstyles) but vastly preferred the Spencer tiara.
Now, she did attempt to do something "different" with sapphire bracelet that she mounted on velvet and wore on her forehead--and also Queen Mary's Cambridge emerald choker, worn on her forehead as well. Both were equally horrible. Diana's Tiaras (last two on the page)--
BUT, I think that had she taken the emerald choker and had it placed on a small tiara frame it would have made a lovely lightweight and succesful small tiara.
 
I agree; the emerald choker would have made a nice small tiara, if it had been placed on a frame. Diana's hairstyle wouldn't have allowed her to use it as, say the Princesses of Sweden wear their diamond bandeau.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone who says Diana would of loved to wear more tiaras but the queen didn't let her is wrong. Think about this, the Spencers own 3 tiaras so If Diana REALLY wanted to wear another tiara she had access to two more.
 
Everyone who says Diana would of loved to wear more tiaras but the queen didn't let her is wrong. Think about this, the Spencers own 3 tiaras so If Diana REALLY wanted to wear another tiara she had access to two more.

I do think that QEII is a little, well, stingy with tiaras. Look at what Sophie received--after Diana received the Cambridge Lover's Knot, and Fergie's was purchased for her (and it is really lovely), Sophie got that thing. Now, it is made up of elements of Queen Victoria's Regal Circlet, so it has a truly royal heritage, but it is somewhat of a disappointment and a shame because those elements had such potential for being created into something attractive. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KMZsVauhWU4/TCHkXhGX5hI/AAAAAAAAA5M/Bu03CntPQe4/s1600/sophie2.jpg

The other two are more attractive, but by no means are they impressive. The large aquamarine tiara is interesting, and the other one, the flower one, is nice, too. But, seriously--knowing what is in that vault and seeing Sophie wearing such insubstantial and unimportant pieces is most disappointing.

The Spencers have several tiaras that I know of--
1. Spencer Tiara:The Spencer Tiara | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

2. Spencer Honeysuckle Tiara: http://princessdianabookboutique.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/spencer-honeysuckle-tiara.jpg which should really be taken apart and two tiaras created

4. Marie Antionette tiara: http://coloreddiamond.info/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2804.0;attach=20466;image

5. Tortoiseshell mourning tiara with amethyst stones seen in Munn's book.
 
Well she has two tiaras she owns Which is a lot more than she'll ever need! I think I agree with HM's way of thinking: her Daughter in laws can leave the family at any time so don't give them anything I wouldn't want to lose. She learned her lesson with Diana, and I'm glad she didn't give much to Fergie b/c it would of all been lost. If hm is queen and uses about 4 tiaras normally then her Daughter in laws don't need more.

About the Spencer Mourning tiara, I've never heard or seen of it before...
 
It seems to me that the discreet but remarkable changes to HM's wardrobe & jewels has a lot to do with her younger & more modern dresser, who is doing a great job of advising the Queen these days. Whilst there are some pieces of jewellery that were the Queen Mother's & she no doubt enjoys wearing them, I do think that it is probably her dresser who is making some of the suggestions ..."Why not try this one for a change, Ma'am...?"
:whistling:

from Hello Canada
....,with her dresser, Angela Kelly, bringing many of her favourite pieces along....that she lays out three sets each morning, from which the Queen selects her favourite....."
 
Back
Top Bottom