the royal forums

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Other Things Royal > Royal Jewels





Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-25-2004, 12:21 AM
emsaeva's Avatar
emsaeva emsaeva is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 24
Default British Royal Jewels of the Past

< ed - broken link >

Do you think Her Majesty would let me borrow the Kokoshink Tiara?

Last edited by Warren; 05-24-2007 at 10:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-27-2004, 09:01 PM
A.C.C. A.C.C. is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 410
Default

When the current Duchess of Gloucester, Duchess of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent die, what will happen to their very historic tiaras? Personally, I think they should be given to whoever is monarch at the time so that they have a chance to be worn because the children of these women probably won't have the chance to wear tiaras as often as the people who will be the main members of the royal family at that point. If you don't know what will happen to those jewels, what do you think will or should happen to them?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-05-2004, 10:34 PM
Fireweaver Fireweaver is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 793
Default

Apparently the Queen Mum had some debts that needed paying off. She had a lot of valuable items, but not a lot of actual cash.
Here's the description of the parure, from the Royal Jewels of the World Website

By Tradition from the Collection of a European Royal Family

An Attractive Amethyst And Diamond Parure
19th Century

comprising: a Tiara, circa 1815, of Empire style,
the tapered band with cushioned-shaped amethysts
bordered by similarly shaped diamonds, later
fittings and several repairs; a Necklace, circa 1815,
designed as a row of ten oval amethysts graduated
in size from the front and each bordered by cushion-
shaped diamonds and connected by diamond quatrefoil
motifs, the front supporting detachable pear-shaped
amethyst drops, four of which are briolette, all the
clusters are detachable; a pair of Earrings of
similar design, early 19th Century; and a Ring,
last quarter of the 19th Century, slightly imperfect.

$75,000 - $125,000 USD / 115,000 - 190,000 SF

http://royal-jewels3.tripod.com/auction/amethyst.html
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-06-2004, 12:31 AM
gogm's Avatar
gogm gogm is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 201
Default

There was a picture of Queen Alexandra in a heavily ornamented dress. Renaissance revival balls were very popular then. It was a chance for the aristocracy to dress even more lavishly than they normally did (!). I wouldn't be surprised if she wore it at the Devonshire House costume ball in 1897. The Victoria and Albert has photos from Lafayette Studios of many socialites of the era at this party (as well as photos for her husband's coronation, debuts, openings of Parliament, etc. that are often breathtaking), including her husband, but none linking her to this party. It's at:

http://www.lafayette.150m.com/dhblist.html
__________________
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Samuel Johnson - April 7, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-08-2004, 07:49 AM
wymanda's Avatar
wymanda wymanda is offline
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,115
Default

Queen Mary

http://lafayette.150m.com/mar9034b.html
__________________
60th Birthday of HRH Charles, The Prince of Wales on November 14th 2008

Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-08-2004, 11:38 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
tiaraprin tiaraprin is offline
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,867
Default

I have a couple of questions about Diana's jewelry that I have not been able to answer--maybe someone on here knows the answers I seek.

Where did Diana get the ameythyst 2 row choker with the diamond/amethyst center and the matching earrings?

Where did the beautiful long drop aquamarine and diamond earrings she wore come from. She famously wore these earrings in Cannes in 1987 with her "Grace Kelly" look.

Just before Diana died, she wore a stupendous diamond and pearl necklace with an ice blue dress. I cannot find where that came from too.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-08-2004, 11:53 PM
kelly9480 kelly9480 is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 856
Default

The Kent and Gloucester jewels will either remain with the Kents and Gloucesters or will be sold. When the Kents sold a historic tiara, EIIR didn't bother buying it. There is no history of giving the jewels back to the main line when there are descendants who could inherit them.

The Harewood jewels remained with the Harewoods or were auctioned at several sales. None went back to the Windsors.
__________________
Kelly D

Last edited by Warren; 05-24-2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason: fixed quote
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-08-2004, 11:58 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
tiaraprin tiaraprin is offline
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,867
Default

really Kelly?? I would have imagined that Her Majesty would have wanted them back considering the connection to Queen Mary and to pass them to a new generation of royal princesses.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-09-2004, 12:16 AM
kelly9480 kelly9480 is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 856
Default

She was reported to have said they had too much jewellery already.

The tiara shape was rather old-fashioned and probably wouldn't have been worn often anyways because the rest of the parure stayed with the Kents.
__________________
Kelly D

Last edited by Warren; 05-24-2007 at 10:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-09-2004, 08:53 AM
Poppy Poppy is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 378
Default

When the jewels are given to a member of the royal family, it's given. If the Queen liked them, she would need to approach this person and try to negotiate a price^^ Dont think there is anyone who would "donate" their jewels (properties) other than the most common reason which is "for charity"^^

I think we should stand at the owners' point of view. These days, junior members aren't very rich and they view their jewels they inherited from their ancestors a very important part of their wealth.

Last edited by Warren; 08-05-2008 at 02:39 AM. Reason: merge
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-09-2004, 11:34 AM
kelly9480 kelly9480 is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 856
Default

It doesn't matter whether we think the jewels should go back to the main line; they don't agree with us. And since the Windsors refuse to create a family foundation, like in some countries, jewels are going to keep leaving the family.

They see their jewels as part of their wealth and heritage, and also a way to meet death duties, because they don't have a lot of cash at hand, and don't have really spectacular artwork they can donate in lieu of cash. They have their homes, their jewels, some minor artworks that probably aren't going to cover the death duties, and stock options.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-09-2004, 02:08 PM
Elspeth's Avatar
Elspeth Elspeth is offline
Administrator
Articles Editor in Chief
Book Club Advisor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United Kingdom
Posts: 14,160
Default

There are going to be major death duties to pay when the Duke of Gloucester dies since he still owns Barnwell as well as all that jewellery. Since his daughters and daughter in law aren't living the sorts of lives where major jewellery is essential, it's likely that tiaras and other pieces of jewellery will be used to pay the estate tax, as happened with Princess Mary, rather than selling Barnwell. I assume the same situation, although to probably a lesser extent, applies to the Kents.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-10-2004, 08:30 AM
Poppy Poppy is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 378
Default

What are death duties??? Sounds like "death" is even taxed in UK. Maybe it's there to help to create more balance between the rich and the ordinaries, but I really dont like the sight of seeing people die and their family gets alot less wealthy.

The jewels of the minor royals are not part of the British Crown Jewels. I really think if the senior royalties wants to own them, they should pay the price. UK is a capitalist country.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-10-2004, 11:27 AM
kelly9480 kelly9480 is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 856
Default

Death duties are taxes paid on a deceased person's estate. People can place their belongings in trusts, and pass ownership to someone else before their deaths to try to get around them
__________________
Kelly D

Last edited by Warren; 05-24-2007 at 10:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-10-2004, 07:14 PM
Elspeth's Avatar
Elspeth Elspeth is offline
Administrator
Articles Editor in Chief
Book Club Advisor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United Kingdom
Posts: 14,160
Default

Death duties are the same as estate tax. In the UK I think about a quarter of a million pounds is exempt, and then tax is due on the balance of the estate at a rate of something like 40%.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-11-2004, 03:33 AM
Poppy Poppy is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 378
Default

Does this mean, alot of wealthy people gets a lot less wealthy by those taxes?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:45 AM
kelly9480 kelly9480 is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 856
Default

Most wealthy people put their belongings in trusts to avoid death duties. They also pass things on before they die. They end up paying death duties, but it doesn't put a significant dent in their family wealth because of the loopholes they make use of.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-16-2004, 10:42 PM
wymanda's Avatar
wymanda wymanda is offline
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,115
Default

Some time ago we discussed the Turkish necklace which Queen Victoria wore at her wedding and the christening of her eldest child. The piece passed out of the royal family when QV left it to her son the Duke of Connaught. Is it possible that this piece, pictured in the link below, passed to either Lady Patricia Ramsay (born Princess Patricia of Connaught) or to the Swedish royals through Princess Margaret of Connaught who was mother to Denmark's Queen Ingrid. If so and if Ingrid inherited it we may see Mary wear this emotive jewel.

http://www.jewelrybyrhonda.com/queen_victoria5.jpg
__________________
60th Birthday of HRH Charles, The Prince of Wales on November 14th 2008

Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-17-2004, 03:54 AM
kelly9480 kelly9480 is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 856
Default

If the Swedes/Danes had inherited it, we would have seen it by now, simply because between all of Crown Princess Margaret's collection was worn, dismantled or sold. Ingrid inherited the majority of her mother's jewels and she was never seen with this necklace. It may have gone to Patricia, but from her, who knows where it may be.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-18-2004, 04:01 AM
kelly9480 kelly9480 is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 856
Default

I thought that one EIIR is wearing was a gift from someone. It may have been a bequest from LPR. Are there any photos of her wearing it before LPR died in the 1970s?
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
Reply