Tiara history, traditions, protocols, metals and meanings


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

Thank you for your timely correction, a slip of the keyboard! It was sold to HM The Queen Mother by the Poltimore family. I think people like a little glitz in their life and would enjoy seeing HM The Queen wearing any of her magnificent tiaras at public evening receptions should it be appropriate.
 
I believe the Poltimore Tiara was auctioned off with the rest of Princess Margarets things by Lord Linley. I think it was bought by someone in Hong Kong, so I'm afraid the Royal Family won't be able to auction it off for charity:flowers:
 
Yes it was sold in the Christies auction.
I do not think it should have been sold.

I know it wasn't a family heirloom, but if it didn't suit either Serena or Sarah, could it not have been sold into the family? As well as the Queen Mary jewels that were sold.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately, the Queen has this very strict policy of not buying family jewels , since she considers that her branch of the family has many already. I ve seen the lot in Christies ' website and you are right they should keep their more historical pieces. When I saw that there was even auctioned a diamond pendant that belonged to Queen Mary I though that they could at least keep something like this which was not so expensive in the first place. Speaking of Queen Mary , I ve read that there are still many smaller pieces that belonged to her in the famous "vaults" that were never used befcause they were old fashioned. I just hope that the family will use them eventually and not let them be discovered again by archaiologists in the remote futute:D.
 
What vaults?? Can you enlighten Russo? She LOVES a good treasure hunt!! :D
 
Sure Russo! I ve read long ago in a magazine that inside those famous vaults where the Queen keeps her jewellery there are many small pieces that belonged to Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary but where never used by QEII because those from Queen Alexandra are mostly paste and Queen Mary's were outdated ( chokers etc) and not very wearable. If that's true I hope that someone will pity these poor diamonds who are collecting dust and use them in the near future.
 
Oh all royal families have vaults full of treasures Russo, shall we organise a treaure hunt? ;)

I know but she allowed the selling of the tiara that her sister wore on her wedding day and some jewels that were stunning that were worn by a woman that had a big impact on Elizabeths life, surely she should have made an exception.
 
I agree with Lumut, they should have been saved. Thanks Snow for the info. :flowers: I suppose if they TOLD us where these vaults were they'd have thieves crawling all over them. However! It DOES whet the appetite for a treasure hunt! :D
 
...there are many small pieces that belonged to Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary...
Let's leave off the "small pieces" and just state MANY pieces. There is a treasure trove of VERY serious jewellery securely stored in the vaults beneath Buckingham Palace which belonged to Queen Mary and more recently the Queen Mother. We get rare glimpses (the Delhi Durbar circlet, Princess Anne's mystery tiara from late 2005*) but most haven't seen the light of day for decades.

If there is one thing the Queen doesn't need it's more tiaras. It has been estimated elsewhere that she has upwards of thirty to choose from.

* see here
.
 
:previous:You always have the BEST pieces of juicy gossip Warren! :D
 
If they don't want to wear them, they could lend some of the pieces to me I don't mind if they are not "trendy". :whistling:

About the topic of the post, I'm sorry that the events for wearing a tiara has been reduced to very formal galas.
 
If they don't want to wear them, they could lend some of the pieces to me I don't mind if they are not "trendy". :whistling:

About the topic of the post, I'm sorry that the events for wearing a tiara has been reduced to very formal galas.
I agree with you 150%%%% would not mind to use one! aand what a pity only formal events!!!!!
 
Ostentatious or not my personal experience of Continental rather than British practice is that if you receive a private invitation, where it states gala, or half-gala, where the host/hostess are of princely status, male guests will wear white tie and tails with orders and decorations, females, if they have them, will attend with tiara - an attenuated one if the lady is unmarried. If the invitation states black tie or informal then no tiaras. The rule isn't arbritary. It is good manners to observe the hosts designation of gala or informal.
 
Let's leave off the "small pieces" and just state MANY pieces. There is a treasure trove of VERY serious jewellery securely stored in the vaults beneath Buckingham Palace which belonged to Queen Mary and more recently the Queen Mother. We get rare glimpses (the Delhi Durbar circlet, Princess Anne's mystery tiara from late 2005*) but most haven't seen the light of day for decades.

If there is one thing the Queen doesn't need it's more tiaras. It has been estimated elsewhere that she has upwards of thirty to choose from.

* see here
.
Sigh!!!...Why, if she has so many piece, did Sarah receive a newly bought tiara for her wedding? Why did Sophie get that strange wedding tiara and then a brand new aquamarine tiara? Why did she have to borrow a tiara for pre-wedding once?
Don't get me wrong, Sarahs tiara and the aquamarine tiara are really nice pieces. But I would have prefered HM to buy back some historc family piece rather than buying new tiaras without family connections. I don't really understand HM policy in this respect.
 
Maybe there was an economy drive at the palace and the new pieces were on "special offer" at Hatton Garden. Tiaras are often loaned to various members of the same family.
 
I was always wondering that most of the tiaras you can see which are on selling are gold with silver - so between 1850 and 1900 roughly.
Why are not much more platinum tiaras seen - as they have been fashionable beginning of last century till around 1930 - when tiaras seemed to be coming out of fashion.
Anybody some ideas?
 
:previous:
The Platinum Today website gives a short history of the use of platinum. While this metal had been used in jewellery-making for some time it wasn't until the Edwardian and Art Deco periods that jewellers such as Cartier and Tiffany developed the tradition.

The Gillett's Jewellers website has an excellent comparison between gold, silver, platinum etc called "What you need to know about jewellery metals". Platinum is (and has always been) very expensive, for example a platinum ring will be double the price of an 18 carat white gold ring.
 
Dear Warren, thanks a lort for your comment - maybe I was not clear enough with my question.
I know the history of platinum very well - as I am a special fan of this precious metal. My question was more like - why are no platinum tiaras on sale? There seems to be quite a lot of antique gold and silver tiaras on the market - so why no platinum. Have there been so much less platinum tiaras created - in comparison? Hope my question was more clear this time.
 
You partly gave the answer in your original post - platinum indeed became fashionable in a time period when tiaras became less fashionable. Today, platinum is considered to be attractive as well as valuable. Modern cut highly sparkling stones certainly make an interesting contrast to the metal, but platinum was not always considered to be esthetically appealing.
Back in the late 18th century and all through the early 20th centrury, the time when most tiaras were made, the stones held in them, especially diamonds, were rose cut or old mine cut. They did not have the brilliance of modern cut diamonds, and the dull surface of platinum would have done nothing to to bring out and enhance the stones' sparkle.
That's why in most antique tiaras, silver was used in the visible setting of stones for the effect of multiplying the stones' glitter, and gold was used in order to create a tiara's necessarily sturdy frame and structure.
 
!

A few points:

I disagree with Hereditary Thane's statement that tiaras are not worn on private occasions. I have read that Queen Mary dined each night in full evening gown, jewels, including tiara.

Some etiquitte of tiaras:

1. At least in the English-speaking cultures, unmarried girls aren't supposed to wear tiaras. Their youth is considered more than sufficient adornment. They don tiaras for the first time on their wedding day, to hold the veil. (Anyway, that's the guideline I followed.) Similarly, the old rules say that young girls and young unmarried women shouldn't wear elaborate jewelry at all. Again, superfluous when youth is such a rare, fine adornment. Married ladies have lost their bloom, I suppose, and therefore need help from the diamonds!

2. A related rule I grew up with was that one did not wear diamonds during daylight hours. Unfair competition with the sun, I suppose. Queen Elizabeth II wears diamonds in daylight hours frequently. So I suppose this is not a valid rule anymore. If anybody would know, she would. And she's certainly not the sort of person who breaks rules recklessly!:D

3. One needn't have a royal or noble title in order to wear a tiara. And it is perfectly okay to borrow a tiara if you haven't got one of your own, or if Lady Mary's tiara looks better with Mrs Kennedy's dress than Mrs K's own tiara, for example.

4. My friend Carol is adamant that one NEVER EVER wears a tiara in a hotel. EVER. But I've seen photographs of royal ladies in tiaras at events supposedly in hotels, so maybe this is a rule in the US only?
 
Platinum is a very, very heavy metal, and I would think that a platinum tiara would weigh far too much to be comfortable for anyone to wear. Also it's extremely expensive, though for royalty that probably wouldn't be a problem...but yes, weight---I own a very fine, thin platinum neckchain to wear small pendants on, and it weighs amazingly much more than gold chains that are far thicker and more ornate.
 
this thread may belong to the jewllery forum

i have heard one never wears a tiara in hotel, but is there not return dinners at state visit sometimes in a hotel?
 
The rule about not wearing a tiara in an hotel is possibly somewhat out of date. I remember being taught that since tiaras were only worn by members of the nobility who would never have need of such a mundane thing as an hotel anyone wearing a tiara in an hotel was obviously not really entitled to do so.
I think this so called rule is not valid any longer since as you point out many functions to which one might properly wear a tiara are nowadays held in hotels.
 
Another rule which is no longer observed is that unmarried women don't wear tiaras. Afaik both Princess Margaret and Princess Anne wore tiaras before their wedding. And if we don't see the York girls in tiaras is because there are no white ties galas that they attend. If the Queen would have a white tie dinner for her jubilee, both Bea and Eugenie, and maybe also Zara would don a tiara without being married. Alas, I can't prove this theory because of the lack of tiara events!
 
Last edited:
Oh there was that rubbish about how young girls shouldn't wear diamonds too. I think much of that isn't in force any longer as long as the tiaras or other jewelry is appropriate and not garish.
 
Tiaras or no Tiaras?

Hi, I hope I've put this in the right place.

I'm trying to help my son find out why at some royal weddings that he's seen on You Tube, like Crown Princess Victoria's and Crown Prince Frederik's, the female guests wear tiaras whereas at others they do not.

He's mostly curious to know if it is that the British Royal Family do not wear tiaras to weddings or if it's for another reason. We've looked online and I think it's to do with the dress code perhaps, but I'm hoping someone can answer him better than I.

Thanks
 
I think that when the wedding is a morning affair, with a luncheon following then no tiaras are worn, whereas when it is a noon affair and with an evening dinner tiaras are worn, I suppose it also follows what is tradition in that country. In the UK there will probably be a state banquet before the wedding which will be a tiara clad one, and the wedding not. In Denmark and Sweden the private celebrations b4 the wedding were of 2 types, state banquets with the heads of states and parliament and private celebrations, The private ones were dress, but no tiara, and the state banquets were tiara worn, each as they are accustemed, and of course the wedding was tiara and full regalia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you Auntie.

I knew there would be a protocol about it and I totally forgot about morning dress. So for ladies a morning wedding would mean a hat and an afternoon wedding would be when it could be a tiara.

Thanks
 
In most cases an afternoon Wedding means the dresscode is white tie. But not always. For example the Wedding of Edward and Sophie or Peter Phillips and Autumn where bot in the afternoon but the dresscode was not white tie.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom