Distribution of Jewels in the British Royal Family

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

I don't see the logic in that though, myself.

Quite right! The idea of decimating the tiara stock in the vaults to give to girls that will have very little, if indeed any, chance to wear them leads inevitably to their being sold off! Lost forever to us, along with their history and their beauty. Regardless of their provenance, their fate will probably be destruction for the sum of their gems!

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

The Duchess of Cambridge is a different story and has probably been permanently loaned the use of the Teck Crescent Tiara. Catherine will have also inherited the use of jewellery having belonged to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. And in due course Catherine stands to use many more tiara's as Princess of Wales and Queen Consort.

Did I miss something? When has Catherine worn the Teck Crescent Tiara? I thought her only permanent loan was her wedding tiara, the Halo Scroll.

[jemagre]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

The Duchess of Cambridge is a different story and has probably been permanently loaned the use of the Teck Crescent Tiara. Catherine will have also inherited the use of jewellery having belonged to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. And in due course Catherine stands to use many more tiara's as Princess of Wales and Queen Consort.

Have not heard of this either. Also Diana had TWO sons not ONE. I am sure that Harry and by default his wife, will also be allowed to wear her pieces. The Queen will also probably give Harry's wife an old tiara because in the current economic times it would be seen as too controversial to spend money on that when there are so many in the family.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by MARG

Did I miss something? When has Catherine worn the Teck Crescent Tiara? I thought her only permanent loan was her wedding tiara, the Halo Scroll.

You missed nothing. Quite right, the Halo Scroll is what I meant.

Also Diana had TWO sons not ONE

Ah yes, the capitalisation of words as though to highlight for the "benefit" of others, what is otherwise a known fact.

I don't recall saying she had one son and I no where stated that Catherine stands to inherit all of Diana's jewellery.

[Warren]

Yes, most readers of these threads would be well-aware that Diana's personal jewellery was divided between her two sons. Therefore when a member posts, for example, "Catherine will have access to Diana's jewels", the statement doesn't require qualification or mention of Harry or his future wife.

[jemagre]

Originally Posted by Warren

Yes, most readers of these threads would be well-aware that Diana's personal jewellery was divided between her two sons. Therefore when a member posts, for example, "Catherine will have access to Diana's jewels", the statement doesn't require qualification or mention of Harry or his future wife.

I disagree hence the reason why I said it. Many times people only mention Kate. Until someone shows up wearing it I think is is safe to say they don't have it yet.

[Madame Royale]

Many times people only mention Kate

I should wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Catherine is William's wife and Henry, as of yet, doesn't have one.

Just a thought.

[Warren]

Post discussing the division of Diana's jewellery have been moved to the Diana, Princess of Wales Jewellery thread.

[IloveCP]

Here is a lot of info on personal property and giving aways tiaras:

The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Royal Splendor 101: Personal Property

http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/...ed-jewels.html

http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/...ily-jewel.html

[PrincessKaimi]

Fascinating article, ILoveCP. Sounds as if the public is often guessing as to who owns what, and has to watch what the royals do to see if collections are personal (sounds like most are). Interesting that Princess Grace's m-i-l didn't want to part with any jewels.

[Warren]

Discussion of the late Princess Charlotte of Monaco's jewels has been moved to the Grimaldi Family Jewels thread.

[AdmirerUS]

Artemisia - put aside the issue of taxes largely precluding "gifting" gems from the Crown Collection. I do have a question.

Can Elizabeth as Queen gift any of the royal collection excepting the crown jewels as she sees fit? Or can she dispose of them in any way she pleases? Are they hers to do with as she wishes? Or does the designation as part of the crown collection limit her (and Charles when he becomes King) in any way? They do belong to "the state," but what does that mean?

For example, should she have a need to raise money for the kind of royal residence renovations required after the fire at Windsor - could she have sold off bits of the collection? Could she sell pieces for cash, would they be subject to taxation and would that exemption extend if, for example, the cash were used to buy homes for Harry's hypothetical children? Or to put geothermal heat in all royal residences?

I ask purely out of curiosity.

In general, in addition to the tax avoidance issues, I do realize (despite the transparency legislation enacted in the 90s) that there is no way of knowing what all is in the royal collection. If things were broken up and sold or gifted, and were not some the obviously identifiable large gems, that this could be done quite easily. I don't think it is done, mind you, but I do wonder.

[Artemisia]

The Queen obviously can't touch the Crown Jewels, which includes a number of jewels left by previous Queens and Kings to be in the possession of the subsequent Monarchs only (for example, Queen Victoria left quite a few fabulous items of jewellery to be worn only by subsequent Queens, Regnant and Consort).

However, as far as Her Majesty's personal jewellery collection goes - and that compromises the bulk of the jewels possessed by the British Royal Family - she can pretty much do as she pleases. She can leave the jewels to any member of her family, can sell them or donate to museums - it's basically up to her.

That has happened before; Queen Victoria, Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra left a sizeable portion of their immense jewellery collections to their children other than the next Monarch.

As you said, no one (at least, no one that would be inclined to share the information) can actually point out the number of jewels in Her Majesty's personal collection. It is well possible that the Queen has in fact sold some of the jewels and/or gems in her collection (the ones she no longer had need or want for) over the yeas, but done so discreetly, from "anonymous seller".

[Duke-of-Earl]

"Queen Victoria, Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra left a sizeable portion of their immense jewellery collections to their children other than the next Monarch" ---

Most of the jewellery was subsequently sold to pay death taxes though, if I'm not mistaken. I know the Kents sold pretty much everything they were gifted.

I can't see HM giving away much of her private collections because of this very reason. Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie and others have no use for fancy jewellery, so if I were advising the Queen, I would keep it all for Charles and then William.

[Artemisia]

Oh, I quite agree with you. Quite aside from auctions, taxes on inheritance in Britain are monstrously high so leaving anything (jewellery, works of art, antiques and similar) to anyone but Charles would be just foolhardy.

I have no doubts the Queen has made provisions for all her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren but they probably involve complex trust funds (assets locked in trust funds will not be taxed). It is also possible the Queen will give (or has already given) some minor jewels or pieces of art to her other family members, or will ask Prince Charles to do so (gifts made during lifetime are also exempt from taxes up to a certain sum or in certain circumstances such as wedding ones).

The Queen Mother left all of her entire estate estimated at £50 million to her daughter for that very reason, although she also made sure children and grandchildren other than the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are well provided for by means of the aforementioned trust funds.


All in all, the Queen will almost certainly leave everything to the next Monarch - Charles. Not only to avoid paying 40% in taxes (and that's just the inheritance one) but also to keep the collection intact.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Duchessmary

It would be nice, but I don't see it happening until Catherine becomes Princess of Wales. Charles inherited an enormous amount of the QM's jewels, and he has gifted a lot of it to Camilla.

Charles did not inherit anything from The Queen Mother as all of her property, including her jewels, were left to The Queen in a sovereign-to-sovereign transfer to avoid estate duty. Of course, once he is King, he will inherit the entire collection of royal jewels as the new Sovereign.

The Queen has granted Camilla the use of many of her mother's jewels, the majority of which was inherited from the Greville bequest or gifted by Queen Mary. The royal jewels her mother used as Consort were returned as these were left to the Crown by Queen Victoria to be worn in right of it.

[camelot23ca]

I'm currently reading the recently published collection of The Queen Mother's letters, ("Counting One's Blessings"), and there's a letter dated June 1944 that she wrote to then Princess Elizabeth with instructions as to what should be done with her things in case she, (Queen Elizabeth), was, as she puts it, "done in" by the Germans. She writes, "I think that I have left all my own things to be divided between you and Margaret, but I am sure you will give her anything suitable later on - such as Mrs. Greville's pearls, as you will have the Crown ones." And then goes on to suggest a couple of people, (including Queen Mary), she thought would be helpful if the princess ran into trouble.

Just a small tidbit of information, and obviously the exact planned distribution of the jewellery would have changed by the time The Queen Mother died decades later, but IMO it does give a hint of her mindset in terms of how things would be given.

[branchg]

Queen Alexandra died without a will. Her jewels were divided up by George V and Queen Mary, who gave some pieces to Princesses Victoria and Louise, but the majority were for the royal collection as they were either wedding gifts from Queen Victoria and Edward VII, or from civic bodies honouring her as Princess of Wales.

Queen Mary accumulated an enormous amount of jewels over her long life and many of these were said to be designated in her Will as belonging to the Crown to be worn in right of it. She also left a large amount of jewels to The Queen as personal bequests and these pieces are her personal property.

So, the majority of the collection is actually tied to the Crown to be worn in right of it. The current Queen is likely to designate many more pieces she received from various governments and states as also belonging to the Crown in her Will.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

Can Elizabeth as Queen gift any of the royal collection excepting the crown jewels as she sees fit?...

These assets you mention are vested in the Crown in trust for the nation. The Sovereign is merely a custodian and trustee of these treasures and they can never be sold or leveraged in any way.

The Queen's personal property consists of her jewels, her art, Balmoral, Sandringham and her investment portfolio. The Duchy of Lancaster also belongs to The Sovereign and provides much of her income.

[andrew]

Queen Alexandra had left some instructions regarding her jewels, that is how the Rundell tiara ended up with Princess Victoria although it was a wedding gift from Bertie.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by branchg

...the majority of the collection is actually tied to the Crown to be worn in right of it.

That depends on which collection you are referring to. What is known as "the Crown Collection" by its very nature can't be sold, disposed of or dispersed, while the Queen's private collection (comprising the vast majority of her jewels) is hers to do with as she pleases. That being said, and the difference between the two being fairly clear-cut, the term "Crown Collection" has become more ambiguous in recent years. The waters are somewhat muddied as to what is legally owned by the Queen personally as opposed to what belongs to the Crown due to the courtiers at BP having at times used the designator of "Crown Collection" interchangeably in relation to specific pieces. Maybe this "confusion" has been quite deliberate.