Jewellery Disputes and Thefts

[auntie]

Lets start a forum about disputes/fights over royal Jewels. For instance, if I was a princess and my brother the Crown Prince, I would be upset that my brothers wife gets my moms jewels and not me, same goes for a new Queen with the dowager etc.

I know there was a dispute with Queen Victoria and the house of Hanover regarding the Jewels belonging to the house of Hanover, ending with Queen Victoria giving back most of the Jewels, Please post pics

[branchg]

Actually, Queen Victoria ended up keeping most of the Hanoverian jewels she inherited from William IV. In 1857, she returned Queen Charlotte's diamond wedding crown, diamond stomacher and diamond necklace and cross to her German cousins in full settlement of the dispute.

The jewels in question were left to the Duke of Cumberland by his father, George II. The Duke then sold them to his nephew, George III, in 1761. George III gave them to Queen Charlotte as a wedding gift and she left them to the House of Hanover after her death in 1818.

Because of the Salic Law passed in the German principalities and kingdoms, Victoria could not succeed to the throne of Hanover as a woman. Her uncle, Ernst-Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, demanded half of William IV's jewel collection, as the new King of Hanover and a son of Queen Charlotte. Victoria probably owed him the jewels, but refused to cooperate for many years.

[tatare]

i agree with you, its a very good point

[branchg]

Originally Posted by auntie

For instance, if I was a princess and my brother the Crown Prince, I would be upset that my brothers wife gets my moms jewels and not me, same goes for a new Queen with the dowager etc.

It certainly is understandable to feel that way, but royal life is governed by tradition. Most royal houses do not have a tremendous collection of jewels and that is why the tradition is the eldest son (or daughter if she will succeed) inherits all of the family's jewels (and usually most of the money and property as well).

This ensures these assets remain in the family with each successive sovereign or head of the house. Most of the British peers do the same.

[RubyPrincess168]

Originally Posted by branchg

It certainly is understandable to feel that way, but royal life is governed by tradition. Most royal houses do not have a tremendous collection of jewels and that is why the tradition is the eldest son (or daughter if she will succeed) inherits all of the family's jewels (and usually most of the money and property as well).

This ensures these assets remain in the family with each successive sovereign or head of the house. Most of the British peers do the same.

I remember reading in an article about Princess Marina of Kent's jewelry that she left it to her sons according to Greek tradition because the sons have wives to support, but her daughter has a husband to support her. Still, doesn't seem fair though.

[Marengo]

Didn't Olga of Yougoslavia (nee Greece and Denmark) accuse Queen Frederica of Greece (nee Hannover) of 'stealing' her mothers, Grand Duchess Elena Wladimirovna's, fabulous ruby parure (originally owned by Queen Olga of Greece).

The house of Orleans had several court cases in the late 90-ties when the old count of Paris sold the two sapphire tiara's (to finance his mistress?). I believe some of his children went to court to prevent this.

[elizahawthorne]

P Diana and E Spencer had a dispute over the Spencer Tiara....he asked for it be returned so his wife could wear it.

Eliza

[Little_star]

I can recall reading an article several eyars ago, in which an Indian prince (or his escendants) was planning on suing Queen Elizabeth II for some of the British Crown Jewels, basically saying that they had been forcibly removed from India.

Unfortunately as it was such a long time ago ( at least 3 or 4) years I cannot remember any of the details. I don't know if ay other members would be able to assist.

[lashinka2002]

Originally Posted by Little_star

I can recall reading an article several eyars ago, in which an Indian prince (or his escendants) was planning on suing Queen Elizabeth II for some of the British Crown Jewels, basically saying that they had been forcibly removed from India.

Unfortunately as it was such a long time ago ( at least 3 or 4) years I cannot remember any of the details. I don't know if ay other members would be able to assist.

Do you think the Indian prince would win?

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Little_star

I can recall reading an article several eyars ago, in which an Indian prince (or his escendants) was planning on suing Queen Elizabeth II for some of the British Crown Jewels, basically saying that they had been forcibly removed from India.

It would be very difficult for this Indian Prince or his descendants to succeed in suing the British Royal Family. The British Royal Family will prove that the jewels in question were actually presents from the family of this Prince to the British monarch.

[candygirl_68]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

It would be very difficult for this Indian Prince or his descendants to succeed in suing the British Royal Family. The British Royal Family will prove that the jewels in question were actually presents from the family of this Prince to the British monarch.

i might be difficult, but IMO the jewels belong back to India...

[MARG]

Originally Posted by candygirl_68

i might be difficult, but IMO the jewels belong back to India...

Why? They were gifts of no "official" significance to India.

[Cissan]

There was an argument between the Swedish king and his uncle Prince Sigvard regarding a ruby tiara that Sigvard felt belonged to him.

[Marengo]

Originally Posted by Cissan

There was an argument between the Swedish king and his uncle Prince Sigvard regarding a ruby tiara that Sigvard felt belonged to him.

true, what was it again? did CG buy this jewel from his uncle or just borrowed/'rented' it?

[rop81]

Originally Posted by Cissan

There was an argument between the Swedish king and his uncle Prince Sigvard regarding a ruby tiara that Sigvard felt belonged to him.

This might be the reason why the tiara is not in use, as far as I have been able to see Silvia has only worn it once, at Joaciam & Alexandras wedding, wich I think is a shame beacuse it´s such a lovely piece...

[tiaraprin]

In Leslie Field's book, She asserted that The Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga claimed they never got their full share of the proceeds from the sale of their mother's jewels after her death in 1928. Ms. Field also stated that the response to this has been that King George V took the money and put them into bank funds for his two cousins for what they were entitled to.

[Little_star]

"Do you think the Indian prince would win?"

I have no idea! To be honest I'm not sure if the case ever even came to court. I imagien the British would turn around and say that the jewels were theirs as they ruled India, therefore they could take them out of the country if they so wished.

[Elspeth]

I've split out the digression about Diana's jewels and how everybody feels about them and merged those posts into the Diana jewellery thread, which is here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ead.php?t=4490

Let's get this thread back on topic, please.

Elspeth

Royal Jewels moderator

[Thomas Parkman]

One of course remeber that these are not just people in an ordinary situation. If the normal rules of inheritance were to apply soon the throne would probably loose a substantial part of the jewels to be placed at the use of the reigning monarch as head of state. Most countries except possibly czarist Russia or some of the Indian princelinigs were never in a postition to buy say a half dozen or so tiaras during the lifetime of one ruler. Hence the rules of inheritance. My complaint about the Britist RF is that they do not have a foundation to keept the jewels in the royal family, thus the recent obsenity of the sale of the Paltimore tiara of Princess Margaret. I repeat that these are not people in an ordiary or usual situation. Cheers.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Thomas Parkman

One of course remeber that these are not just people in an ordinary situation. If the normal rules of inheritance were to apply soon the throne would probably loose a substantial part of the jewels to be placed at the use of the reigning monarch as head of state. Most countries except possibly czarist Russia or some of the Indian princelinigs were never in a postition to buy say a half dozen or so tiaras during the lifetime of one ruler. Hence the rules of inheritance. My complaint about the Britist RF is that they do not have a foundation to keept the jewels in the royal family, thus the recent obsenity of the sale of the Paltimore tiara of Princess Margaret. I repeat that these are not people in an ordiary or usual situation. Cheers.

Thomas, I completely agree with you--but I have to confess I'm not nearly as upset about the loss of the Poltimore as I am over the loss of one of Queen Mary's rivieres (I spelt it wrong--big diamond necklace) from the Princess Margaret auction. HORRIBLE to see something of Queen Mary's go like that.