The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Jewels > Royal Jewels General Discussion

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 04-05-2011, 09:36 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I do hope that should Camilla choose to use QEQMs crown, they do replace the Kohinoor.
I think the Koh-i-Noor will stay in its place. It is traditionally worn by Queens' Consort.
__________________

__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-05-2011, 09:41 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda View Post
I think the Koh-i-Noor will stay in its place. It is traditionally worn by Queens' Consort.
"Traditionally", the Kohinoor should be in India, not in the crown of the Queen consort.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-05-2011, 10:29 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,982
Well, it was a spoil of war. Are you going to insist that the Russians return the Orlov?

The Curse:

"He who owns this diamond will own the world, but will also know all its misfortunes. Only God, or a woman, can wear it with impunity."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-05-2011, 10:36 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
"Traditionally", the Kohinoor should be in India, not in the crown of the Queen consort.
I looked up the history of the Kohinoor and dont see why the British souverain should not own it. It was stolen more then twice over till it was presented to the British crown, thus I don't see why India should own it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-05-2011, 11:30 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I looked up the history of the Kohinoor and dont see why the British souverain should not own it. It was stolen more then twice over till it was presented to the British crown, thus I don't see why India should own it.
If you dig a little deeper in history, you will find it was presented under duress, following years of subjugation and enforced rule by the British in vast parts of the Indian subcontinent. In that time, they forcibly appropriateed a number of items of value. To this day, the appropriation of the Kohinoor diamond remains an emotive issue in India.


Extract from Wikipedia:

The Governor-General in charge of the ratification for this treaty was Lord Dalhousie. More than anyone, Lord Dalhousie was responsible for the British acquiring the Koh-i-Noor, in which he continued to show great interest for the rest of his life. Dalhousie's work in India was primarily aimed at appropriation of Indian assets for the use of the British East India Company. His acquisition of the diamond, amongst many other things, was criticized even by some of his contemporaries in Britain. Although some suggested that the diamond should have been presented as a gift to the Queen, it is clear that Dalhousie felt strongly that the stone was a spoil of war, and treated it accordingly. Writing to his friend Sir George Cooper in August of 1849, he stated:
The Court [of the East India Company] you say, are ruffled by my having caused the Maharajah to cede to the Queen the Koh-i-noor; while the 'Daily News' and my Lord Ellenborough [Governor-General of India, 1841-44] are indignant because I did not confiscate everything to her Majesty... [My] motive was simply this: that it was more for the honour of the Queen that the Koh-i-noor should be surrendered directly from the hand of the conquered prince into the hands of the sovereign who was his conqueror, than it should be presented to her as a gift—which is always a favour—by any joint-stock company among her subjects. So the Court ought to feel.[8]Dalhousie arranged that the diamond should be presented by Maharaja Ranjit Singh's young successor, Duleep Singh, to Queen Victoria in 1850. Duleep Singh was the youngest son of Ranjit Singh and his fifth wife Maharani Jind Kaur. Duleep, aged 13, travelled to the United Kingdom to present the jewel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-05-2011, 11:42 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Well, it was a spoil of war. Are you going to insist that the Russians return the Orlov?

The Curse:

"He who owns this diamond will own the world, but will also know all its misfortunes. Only God, or a woman, can wear it with impunity."
It was certainly a spoil of subjugation, and unlawful appropriation.

I am not "insisting" that it be returned, I am merely suggesting that this remains an emotive issue in India to this day. An economically empowered and resurgent India, and a large and economically powerful UK population of Indian descent could make this a potentially divisive issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-05-2011, 12:10 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 30
I doubt the BRF would ever return it, or even have the legal right to return it, the Crown Jewels are the property of the state held in trust for the nation, and the Kohinoor is thus part of the crown regalia and would be treated as such.

I would be a decision of the government at the time I would think. In any case I think it is too tricky a topic for any to tackle, as its history is so mired in intrigue.

Surely the French should be lobbying the Smithsonian Institute in the US for the return of the Hope Diamond which used to be set in their coronation crown if that were the case.

I think it would be better if the consorts crown included the Cullinan III and IV instead of the Kohinoor and the Lahore Diamond (on the maltese cross at the apex of the archs).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-05-2011, 12:18 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
If you dig a little deeper in history, you will find it was presented under duress,
If negociating and signing a peace treaty to end a war is "duress", then you're right. As I read it, the last owner of the stone before it was given to Queen Victoria had acquired it through murky dealings. He then willed it to a temple but his successor accepted the term in the treaty that it should be given to the British queen.

Ever since then, there's peace around the diamond which has seen so much violence.

If you start giving back gems or other values because of things in the past which were "murky", you cant stop it. Who knows under how much pressure the maharanis of India were to present jewels at the Dehli Durbar of 1910. Should the tiara be given back because of that? And what about all the gems and valuables the Maharadschas were forced to give to the state of India? Will India give back these possessions?

If you start, there's no end to it. so its better to accept that history has its own laws and that sometimes you need to look to the future because the past has no beginning and never ends as yesterday was once the day after tomorrow...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-05-2011, 12:46 PM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,219
If returned, it would surely be the government of the day, and not the BRF.

If you read my previous posts on the topic, you will see that I am not suggesting that they be returned. My point remains that the Kohinoor diamond remains a very emotive point in India, and with people of Indian origin. Should the Kohinoor re-emerge (it really has not been used since 1951, which was only a few years after Indian independence in 1947), there is a very real chance that this become an issue in UK-India relations. The UK needs to maintain its strong trading links with rapidly expanding economies like India. The government of the day may well still refuse to return the diamond for all the good reasons made by other posters, but this situation can an easily be avoided by replacing the Kohinoor with other stones in QEQMs crown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
If negociating and signing a peace treaty to end a war is "duress", then you're right. ........... He then willed it to a temple but his successor accepted the term in the treaty that it should be given to the British queen.
This is really not the place to commence a lesson on Indian history, but that was not a peace treaty at all. The British subjugated a large part of the Indian subcontinent for several hundred years, till they were forced to leave in 1947 and Mountbatten hastily divided up the country.

The "successor" you refer to was 13 years old, hardly one who could make an informed decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Who knows under how much pressure the maharanis of India were to present jewels at the Dehli Durbar of 1910.
There is enough historical evidence to suggest that the princely states in India were certainly put under pressure to present jewels at the Durbar.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-05-2011, 07:58 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,258
Oh well, that stuffed my day. Here was I looking for photos of jewels Camilla might use as Consort and stumbled on an acrimonious squabble over who holds the moral high ground. When I need a moral argument on the sins of the past I'll stop by the appropriate thread/forum/library!

I'm shallow, I just came for the jewels!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04-06-2011, 03:28 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,425
For you Marg...

A photoshopped Delhi Durbar diadem with Cullinans III and IV.
No arguments about the South African provenance of the Cullinans please!
.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Delhi Durbar Tiara with Cullinans III & IV.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	56.0 KB
ID:	276698  
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-12-2011, 09:18 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,219
Lovely as the photoshop job is, I think I prefer the Delhi Durbar as it currnetly is, or with the Cambridge emeralds.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-12-2011, 10:29 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

Yes, I agree with Muriel and much prefer the present look or with the emeralds as originally worn.
Those huge stones look like they'd topple the whole thing forward and be very heavy on the head.

I wonder if today's ladies avoid tiaras now since they are headache producers?
In Queen Mary's day, she had masses of hair under her tiaras; not so uncomfortable...
What do you think?

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-12-2011, 11:08 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,219
My prmary objection is that the Cullinans are disproportionately large relevative to the delicate and intricate style of the rest of the tiara.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
I wonder if today's ladies avoid tiaras now since they are headache producers?
I think the reason the BRF ladies limit the times they wear tiaras is that they do not want to draw attention to themselves and their wealth relative to the ordinary people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 07-11-2011, 09:07 AM
Daisiesforever's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 609
Camilla

Camilla should not be allowed to wear any tiaras or royal jewels for that matter. She is not a princess nor is she of noble birth. Her convenient marriage to Charles has resulted in her receiving the title of Dutchess. However, this does not mean that she is now entitled to parade around with jewels from the Winsor vault as if she is any form of important royalty. These jewels were worn with grace and dignity by highly respected royals of the past. Camilla most certainly does not fall into this catagory, especially taking her background into account. It sickened me when I saw her wearing Diana's "loversknot" tiara. Most inappropriate indeed. She ought to be ashamed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 07-11-2011, 09:12 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,272
Daisesforever....welcome to TRF.

This isn't the place to debate Camila's worthiness to be a member of the BRF. The fact is SHE is a member of the BRF and the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc. .....basically the next Queen Consort of England.

And Camilla has NEVER wore the Lover's Knot Tiara. The Fact is that particular tiara did not belong to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. It actually belongs to the Queen and she can dispense to whomever she wishes.

Again, welcome to TRF.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 07-11-2011, 09:41 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisiesforever View Post
Camilla should not be allowed to wear any tiaras or royal jewels for that matter. She is not a princess nor is she of noble birth. Her convenient marriage to Charles has resulted in her receiving the title of Dutchess. However, this does not mean that she is now entitled to parade around with jewels from the Winsor vault as if she is any form of important royalty. These jewels were worn with grace and dignity by highly respected royals of the past. Camilla most certainly does not fall into this catagory, especially taking her background into account. It sickened me when I saw her wearing Diana's "loversknot" tiara. Most inappropriate indeed. She ought to be ashamed.
Do you actually believe the above, or was this post just to attract some attendtion?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 07-12-2011, 06:41 AM
Daisiesforever's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 609
Camilla Royal or Not

Hello Zonk

Thank you for your welcome, I have always enjoyed this site : - )

Camilla has been photographed in the "Loversknot" tiara, which was given to the late Princess Diana as a wedding present by the Queen. Agreed the Queen can dispense these jewels to anyone whom she wishes. However, the mark of appropriateness and respect needs to be considered here, which your friend Camilla has obviously chosen to neglect.

Stepping out in our late Queen Mum’s Boucheron tiara and owning a £500,000 ring and £2,500 brooch, which also used to belong to her, is a disgrace. Can Camilla even be compared with the Queen Mum? This should never have been allowed.

Being a good royal is not about all the jewels one can wear, it is truly about serving the people and preserving the legacy of the Winsor house. Look at the mark in history left by Queen Mary, the Queen Mum and our current beloved Queen Elizabeth. Humble, noble, gracious and of course well loved by the people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 07-12-2011, 06:45 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
DaisiesForever, I share your abhorrance at the thought of Camilla "taking over".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 07-12-2011, 06:57 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisiesforever View Post
Camilla has been photographed in the "Loversknot" tiara, which was given to the late Princess Diana as a wedding present by the Queen. Agreed the Queen can dispense these jewels to anyone whom she wishes. However, the mark of appropriateness and respect needs to be considered here, which your friend Camilla has obviously chosen to neglect.
If the Duchess of Cornwall has been photographed wearing the Lover's Knot, then everyone who reads this section would have been aware of it. Do you have a link to this alleged photo?

(first post from a long-time lurker, by the way)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, jewellery, tiaras


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photoshopping Royal Tiaras and Jewels 2 Warren Royal Jewels General Discussion 951 02-08-2013 11:10 PM
Photoshopping Royal Tiaras and Jewels 1 (to Feb 2007) Julia Royal Jewels General Discussion 374 02-08-2007 02:49 AM




Popular Tags
abdication birth brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]