Tiaras and Jewels Camilla might use as Queen / Princess Consort

[iowabelle]

I don't think it makes sense to "crown" someone Princess Consort. And I can't imagine that Parliament would deny her the right to be queen consort, since there's no precedent for that (whenever it's been mooted it's always been at the suggestion of the King, hasn't it -- like George IV and Caroline).

This "Princess Consort" idea seems to have been created by Charles, but it seems to me that if she remains a Princess she doesn't participate in the coronation in the same way that the Queen Mother did. And if she's not consecrated as Queen, that might limit the pieces she's entitled to wear.

Just a few random thoughts. Personally, I think she ought to get the lot if Charles becomes king.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

How legally binding is this decree by Queen Victoria about the jewels that are reserved for use by future Queens? I mean, say Camilla shows up wearing the Oriental Circlet tiara while she's still Duchess of Cornwall - is someone going to haul her off to jail if she ends up being Princess Consort rather than Queen?

Well Elspeth, considering the whole 'dont sit in that chair, Queen Victoria sat in it last' tradition that the BRF has, I would be surprised if they completely flouted the wishes/decrees of 'Granny'. But there is a surfeit of Royal Jewels without that stipulation. Would it really be a hardship for C to bypass those and honor Queen V and Queen M's wishes when they left them to their descendants?

[Warren]

I think we're extrapolating the meaning of "reserved for future Queens" from the expression "left to the Crown". According to Suzy Menkes [Appendix A of 'The Royal Jewels'] there are two main categories:

• Jewels left to the Crown by Queen Victoria
• Indian Jewels given to the Crown by Queen Mary in 1912 and 1926;
and two lesser categories:
• Jewellery sent to Windsor Castle by Queen Mary 1910 [17 rings]
• Ring sent to the Tower by Queen Mary and added to the Regalia 1919

As far as I understand, leaving a piece to the Crown just means it can't be disposed of and in effect passes from Sovereign to Sovereign. Who the Sovereign allows to wear a particular piece I would imagine is entirely up to him or her.

[wymanda]

That makes sense Warren. The Queen Mother continued to wear the Oriental Ruby tiara & Queen Alexandras' wedding necklace until the end of her life. After Alexandras death in 1925 Queen Mary ensured that all jewels received by her mother in law as wedding presents were added to those items left to the crown by Queen Victoria.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by wymanda

The Queen Mother continued to wear the Oriental Ruby tiara & Queen Alexandras' wedding necklace until the end of her life. After Alexandras death in 1925 Queen Mary ensured that all jewels received by her mother in law as wedding presents were added to those items left to the crown by Queen Victoria.

Which is the tradition for Queen Consorts. After Queen Victoria's death, Queen Alexandra wore the pieces designated by her mother-in-law as belonging to the Crown to be worn in right of it. After her husband died, she passed these jewels on to Queen Mary, who in turn passed them on to Queen Elizabeth when George VI became King.

Queen Mary designated many of Alexandra's jewels as well as her own in her will as belonging to the Crown to be worn in right of it. The Queen also received various pieces before her grandmother's death as personal gifts (i.e. the Girls of Ireland tiara, the Cambridge tiara and emerald parure) along with others left to her in Queen Mary's will. These are hers to do as she pleases or leave to other members of the royal family if she wishes.

It is an informal system, but I doubt Charles would do anything different once he becomes King. Camilla already has plenty of jewels, including most of The Queen Mother's private collection, for her use, so it's not like she doesn't have anything to wear.

[muriel]

..... but Ithinkthe imprtant point that Warren had made is that the jewels belong tothe crown, and it is for the monrach to decide who gets to use them. So irrespective of whether Camilla holds the title of Princess Consort or not and even in the highly unlikely event that Parliament passed specific legislation to ensure she is not Queen, it will be for Charles, as King, to decide what she can and can't wear. So bring on Queen Victoria's ruby necklace and the Oriental Circlet for Camilla!!!

[scooter]

I will look it up, but I am have read in various books that while some jewels were left to the crown, there were others specifically designated as 'for use by the Queen' which is not the same thing. I will dig up the quotes later in the week. ETA: From Leslie Field 'The Queen's Jewels' Warren, re: Queen Victoria's Jewels in her will: "However her (Queen Victoria) will included a schedule of jewels that were to be considered 'as belonging to the Crown and to be worn by all future Queens in right of it.'" (my bold). So we are not extrapolating. If Camilla is Princess Consort, not Queen, she does not have any right to wear those jewels so stipulated by Queen Victoria.

[Elspeth]

Mind you, it says "ALL future Queens." I wonder what would happen to a Queen who decided she didn't want to wear one of those pieces. "But you have to, ma'am; Queen Victoria's will said "ALL future Queens," not "SOME future Queens.""

But then again, if they were left to the Crown but Camilla wore them as Princess Consort, what exactly would happen to her? "Off with her head!"?

[iowabelle]

I guess we really won't know the answer to this until it happens. But once again I don't really see Charles telling Camilla to put something away, she's not entitled to wear it.

But I think it might be interesting to see what pieces take Camilla's fancy. The Queen doesn't seem very interested in taking chances and expanding the number of items she wears.

[Duchess Ravenna]

Originally Posted by Thomas Parkman

the Bagration spinel tiara, whose design is simply magnificent beyong words. I have never cared very much for spinels, which to me have always seemed to be rather second rate or watered down rubies.

I agree completely about the design of this glorious parure. (BTW, how do you pronounce "Bagration"? Ba-GRAY-shun? Ba-GRA-tee-on? Help!)

Must disagree with you on spinels, though. Ruby spinels can be as gorgeous and pricey as rubies themselves, and indeed are known as mother-of-ruby, since both stones frequently occur in the same gem sands deposits. The Timor ruby is really a spinel ruby.

I myself am fortunate enough to possess (as a gift from my husband) a ruby spinel of almost 20 carats, set in a ring: the stone is surrounded by two rows of diamonds, on the order of Diana's sapphire. It's deep, dark and glowing red, with a million sparkles from its Portuguese cushion cut, and is known in the family as the Red Rock.

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by Duchess Ravenna

I myself am fortunate enough to possess (as a gift from my husband) a ruby spinel of almost 20 carats, set in a ring: the stone is surrounded by two rows of diamonds, on the order of Diana's sapphire. It's deep, dark and glowing red, with a million sparkles from its Portuguese cushion cut, and is known in the family as the Red Rock.

In Australia we also have a "Red Rock". Its known as Ayres Rock or Uluru. It sounds as though it is about the same size. lol

[Duchess Ravenna]

Originally Posted by wymanda

In Australia we also have a "Red Rock". Its known as Ayres Rock or Uluru. It sounds as though it is about the same size. lol

Ha! I've seen pictures, wymanda, and you're probably right! But Uluru is sacred and magical...

[scooter]

There were also some jewels passed on 'through the crown' to the then PoW and later Edward VII, and still later Duke of WIndsor for use by 'his wife' (supposed but not specified as the Queen) which were gifted to the then Wallis Simpson, later known as Duchess of Windsor. I do believe that the stipulation of use by 'future Queens in the right of it' is what prevented these peices from going the way of the famous emeralds to Wallis as opposed to those designated as for use by 'the wife'. Look. I am prepared to accept Charles' word that Camilla will not be crowned Queen, as stated during the controversial lead up to the marriage. If so, she's not Queen. If she's not Queen, then certain jewels would be inappropriate/excluded from Camilla. It's not as though there are not Zillions of Euros worth of jewels for C to bedeck herself in. Lots to choose from.

[Duchess Ravenna]

Good job Wallis didn't get those emeralds, or any other Crown Jewels, though I do think she should have been given the HRH. It wasn't a Diana/Sarah situation, after all...

I really didn't like Wallis's taste in jewels. Except the humongous emerald engagement ring, she didn't have anything much else I'd care to wear.

Camilla, on the other hand, seems to have a very good eye for jewels that look good on her and jewels that are beautiful in themselves. I must admit, I say shamefacedly, that I do rather like that giant ruby and diamond bib necklace...and the big aquamarine and pearl choker is fabulous...

But you're right, she won't have to worry about being seen with a bare neck anytime soon.

[jcbcode99]

I have to say, Wallis certainly did have her own style, and that emerald engagement ring wasn't anything to sneeze at. Recently, a pearl necklace of hers which originally belonged to Queen Mary was auctioned off:
Ruby Parure
I find the clasp amazing.

I did like Wallis' tutti-frutti pieces; and a couple others. Generally, her items are not to my own personal taste, but she wore them well, they never seemed to wear her; not unlike her Mother-in-Law!

[MARG]

I recently watched a documentary about the young Princess Margaret and I am sure that in several of the gala/evening pics she was wearing the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara without drops. Anyone else seen this?

If that was the case then we may see Camilla wearing it at some time in the near future.

I don't see it being disrespectful to the Queen as she, ever the pragmatist, has worn those signature jewels her mother wore for years and gave others to Camilla for her use.

That being the case, we could see her also wearing the Girls!

I think it all comes down to what "fits"! What looks good and feels good.

[jcbcode99]

I completely agree about "the Girls"; that is a piece closely identified with the royal family; Queen Mary wore it often, QEII wears it all the time--I'd like to see Camilla wearing it as well. She has worn two quite large pieces--the durbar and the honeycomb; she needs something a bit lighter I think.

[Thomas Parkman]

You, know, dear Members, I used to not think highly of the Burmese ruby tiara of the Queen, but after seeing her in it with that stunning ruby necklace and all , well the thing just clicked and I have radically changed my opinon of it. In the right setting it is simply magnificent beyond words. Go and prostrate yourselves before those pictures of the QEII at the banquet for President Sarkozy and it will be time well spent.

As for this nonsense about Princess Consort and it. It is ridiculous. Camilla will be queen and that is the long and short of it. People should just get over it. After all Henry VIII was divorced and widowed (how convenient just to whack off your no longer beloved wife's head) and nobody complained about Princess Consort then. Cheers. Thomas Parkman

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Thomas Parkman

You, know, dear Members, I used to not think highly of the Burmese ruby tiara of the Queen,

Thomas! You, a philistine? I am beside myself! What can I say? Not think highly!!! Have you not been keeping up with your daily dose of chocolate?

Originally Posted by Thomas Parkman

. . . . but after seeing her in it with that stunning ruby necklace and all , well the thing just clicked and I have radically changed my opinon of it.

There now. Don't yolu feel a whole lot better having confessed your sin and begged forgiveness.

Originally Posted by Thomas Parkman

. . . In the right setting it is simply magnificent beyond words. Go and prostrate yourselves before those pictures of the QEII at the banquet for President Sarkozy and it will be time well spent.

Amen Brother!!

But just between you and me, I like the Burmese Ruby Tiara with the Swag Necklace even better. It seems to harmonise.

As for the "nonsense"? Again I say Amen!

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Thomas Parkman

You, know, dear Members, I used to not think highly of the Burmese ruby tiara of the Queen, but after seeing her in it with that stunning ruby necklace and all , well the thing just clicked and I have radically changed my opinon of it. In the right setting it is simply magnificent beyond words. Go and prostrate yourselves before those pictures of the QEII at the banquet for President Sarkozy and it will be time well spent.

As for this nonsense about Princess Consort and it. It is ridiculous. Camilla will be queen and that is the long and short of it. People should just get over it. After all Henry VIII was divorced and widowed (how convenient just to whack off your no longer beloved wife's head) and nobody complained about Princess Consort then. Cheers. Thomas Parkman

Re Burmese ruby tiara: I am not a huge fan of it in its current form, but I think with a few light alterations I think it can be substantially improved. The basic shape and layout is fine. In my view, the key problem with it is that it has quite large clusters of small rubies, and I have always felt that small rubies by themselves are tricky stones. When interspersed liberally with diamonds, they look much better. My suggestion here is that if some of the rubies in the small ruby clusters were replaced with diamonds, the whole tiara would look much better.

Imagine Camilla at a state occassion, in one of her stunning gowns, with the updated Burmese ruby tiara, and the Saudi ruby breastplate. Needless to say, I await your reactions!