The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Jewels

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 05-16-2011, 02:44 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
Sounds as if she was rather anxious about losing it; rings are sized so as to not fall off when properly fitted. Well, it couldn't have been a whole size too small, do you think? Maybe a quarter or half size, or else he wouldn't have gotten it on, would he?

Part of me wonders if it's not a bit of vanity too - we women like tiny rather than big. But as the ring is made of that special Welsh gold, I do wonder if they can resize it for her later. If it's too small now, when she's so thin, it seems it would be unwearable later in life. Knuckles have a way of growing (so do feet, I think) - just a little.
__________________

__________________
  #82  
Old 05-17-2011, 05:28 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,284
None of us know the specifics around the size of the ring relative to that of Catherine's fingers, but if it needs to be remade at a later date, so be it.
__________________

__________________
  #83  
Old 05-17-2011, 06:31 AM
monica17's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Little Baguio, Philippines
Posts: 820
Sorry, I don't understand the fuss on this at this point. We haven't seen anything fabulous yet, and will most likely be jewels on loan anyway...

If they come up with a fabulous (but modern and tasteful) parure (like true royal princesses wore before these royal houses became mixed with commoners) for Kate or even something like the Wittelsbach diamond as a personal gift, then I'd stand up and pay attention,.
__________________
Monica17

Kindness is the magic elixir of love - The Practice of Kindness
  #84  
Old 05-17-2011, 06:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Here's an interesting thought: we were talking at the Royal Windsor Horse Show at the weekend and several people there who I would describe as 'well informed' took the view that during the royal couple's visit to Canada, [since it is their first visit abroad as a married couple AND bearing in mind that their wedding is so recent],the Canadians might well mark the occasion by presenting Catherine with some jewellery....

Incidentally, I understand from the Times and the Daily Telegraph that Catherine's earrings [oak leaf and acorns] were a present from her parents and were based on the oak from the Middleton's newly created family crest; the male Middletons wore tie pins made by the same jeweller, and again featuring an oak motif. These pieces were all commissioned by the Middletons from Robinson Pelham. The price of the earrings alone was reportedly 16,000 but of course we have no way of knowing whether or not this is true.

And if I could help with a little background information, it is generally accepted that the Queen's 'private jewellery' [basically that set out in Lesley Field's book] is nevertheless to stay ' part of the permanently royal pool' and although the Queen is generous about 'lending from this jewellery pool', she nevertheless is very careful about giving it away. Certain pieces were passed to Diana, but nothing was ever given to Sarah. I myself was told during a visit to Kensington Palace [to see the state apartments, I might add, not as a guest!!] that 'The Queen had not wanted to give anything to Sarah that she might not get back'. I found this an odd remark at the time because at that time the Duke and Duchess of York were still together, and so I do not know whether this remark to me was actually meant either as 'a bit of a jest' i.e. a remark said playfully in passing or now, with hindsight, whether it was indicative of either forthcoming trouble in the Yorks' marriage or indeed Sarah's spending difficulties.

Alex
__________________
  #85  
Old 05-17-2011, 06:44 AM
monica17's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Little Baguio, Philippines
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post

Incidentally, I understand from the Times and the Daily Telegraph that Catherine's earrings [oak leaf and acorns] were a present from her parents and were based on the oak from the Middleton's newly created family crest; the male Middletons wore tie pins made by the same jeweller, and again featuring an oak motif. These pieces were all commissioned by the Middletons from Robinson Pelham. The price of the earrings alone was reportedly 16,000 but of course we have no way of knowing whether or not this is true.
I live in a third world country and I (personally) know some people who'd buy earrings at that price (16,000), just for "every day" wear and not for special occasions.

If Canada presents her jewels (c/o the taxpayers) on their upcoming trip, I doubt if it'd amount to much. Nothing shabby but nothing extremely fabulous (i.e. expensive) either. At any rate, does she get to keep them (become her personal possession)?
__________________
Monica17

Kindness is the magic elixir of love - The Practice of Kindness
  #86  
Old 05-18-2011, 12:26 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
People are willing to pay almost any price for something if they want it bad enough.

As for the idea that the Canadians might present her with jewels I wonder if they will given the current economic climate. Can you imagine the press wondering why the government spent money on that when it could have gone elsewhere. Personally I think the Queen has plenty of jewels to loan out.

As for the whole Fergie tiara deal....I think that the Queen has always had her favorites. Why else has Sophie got a tiara made up of historic pieces, a royal order and some other jewels were it not for being the Queen's favorite. I believe how the Queen loans out jewels says how she feels about people. Then again the Queen is not as generous loaning out her pieces when you compare her to other royal houses. So this could be all we see from Kate, in terms of jewels, for a long time. Then again William could always buy her something. He after all doesn't seem that generous. The ring came from his mother and the gold of her band came from the Queen so he needs to step up.
__________________
  #87  
Old 05-18-2011, 01:19 AM
monica17's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Little Baguio, Philippines
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
...Then again William could always buy her something. He after all doesn't seem that generous. The ring came from his mother and the gold of her band came from the Queen so he needs to step up.
I agree.

I'm sure the Queen has plenty of jewels. Unlike some royal families, the BRF did not, as a whole, had to sell jewels, etc. to survive hard times (the Napoleonic years for instance).

I don't expect Kate to have lots of (personal) eyecatching jewels unless they were (personal) gifts; she has nothing per se on her own (the Middletons might be quite wealthy but not RICH-RICH either and whatever they have are family assets, not Kate's alone). Her husband might be wealthy on his own but NOT that RICH-RICH at this point either.

Personally, however "glamorous" Kate's life might be to some people, it could never compare to the glamour of past royals, when their clothes were sewn with diamonds and pearls, their play things (dolls, rattles, rocking horses) also studded with diamonds and corals. Not to mention their parures! Empress Maria Theresa, for instance, showered her (married) daughters not only with (ridiculous amounts of) money but also jewels whenever they presented her another (longed for) grandchild. Not to mention the jewels they got as part of their dowry.
__________________
Monica17

Kindness is the magic elixir of love - The Practice of Kindness
  #88  
Old 05-18-2011, 03:07 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,272
I think a gift of Canadian diamonds would be nice as long as it wasn't something ostentatious. It would cost us taxpayers some coin; but then again, it would be fabulous publicity for our diamond industry!

BTW your story about why HM didn't loan jewels to Sarah, whether a throw-away humorous remark or said in all seriousness, says something about how Sarah is seen in those circles. Who knows? Once Sarah started spending during her marriage, HM might have had genuine concerns about her stewardship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
,the Canadians might well mark the occasion by presenting Catherine with some jewellery....
__________________
  #89  
Old 05-18-2011, 07:26 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
.

As for the whole Fergie tiara deal....I think that the Queen has always had her favorites. Why else has Sophie got a tiara made up of historic pieces, a royal order and some other jewels were it not for being the Queen's favorite. I believe how the Queen loans out jewels says how she feels about people. Then again the Queen is not as generous loaning out her pieces when you compare her to other royal houses. So this could be all we see from Kate, in terms of jewels, for a long time. Then again William could always buy her something. He after all doesn't seem that generous. The ring came from his mother and the gold of her band came from the Queen so he needs to step up.

I am quite sure that you are right about [non!] receipt of the Royal Family Order as being indicative of how the Queen feels about [female] family members: the only two members of the Royal Family who did not receive it are /were Princess Michael of Kent and Sarah [when eligible - i.e. during her marriage] [Catherine has not yet been so-honoured, either, but that is surely because she has only recently joined the BRF!] It is actually quite a snub to PMK, because although she undertakes very ,very few 'official royal engagements', she is nevertheless treated as part of the 'wider BRF' with invitations to State Banquets etc. Moreover, her own lady-in-waiting Lady Kitchener-Fellowes was honoured by the Queen [with an LVO if my memory serves me correctly, which it usually doesn't!!]. It must be quite a come-down to have your Lady in Waiting honoured by the Queen without having received any 'recognition' yourself!

With regard to the tiara issue etc that you mention vis-a-vis Sarah, I don't personally think that this was initially an indication of how HM viewed Sarah. Don't ask me for a source, as I am aware of this only 'from my mother's knee', but I understand that when any lady marries into the BRF, the Queen carries out her own 'informal assessment' of the lady's 'own jewellery stock' to see what she 'needs' in order to 'function' as a Royal. Basically, the Queen sees that the new Royal lady in question will have access to a tiara, [for state occasions etc] and suitably matching jewellery etc. Most Royal Brides of the 'previous generation' [ Duchess of Kent, Duchess of Gloucester, even PMK] all married family members with access to tiaras etc. Any deficiences are then 'made good by the Queen'

With regard to the newer generation of Royal Brides, there was never going to be a problem with Diana - for a start, not only had she access to the Spencer tiara but as the wife to the future heir of the throne, she was never going to be short of jewels [and this also applies to Camilla of course].

In Sarah's case, following her engagement to Prince Andrew, she immediately went to Garrard [the then-Crown Jeweller] and arranged to hire a tiara for the wedding. When the Queen heard about this loan, she immediately bought the tiara for Sarah and generously supplemented this with a necklace, bracelet and earrings etc to complement this [this was the set of jewellery part of which you may remember was then temporarily stolen from Sarah at JFK airport a few years ago]. I am quite sure that had Sarah not beaten a path to Garrard so quickly, the Queen would [at that stage of Sarah's Royal Career, when of course the newly-engaged Sarah was at the height of her popularity] have stepped in and 'permamantly' loaned her a tiara from the Royal Collection. Prince Andrew also bought his wife a significant amount of 'private' jewellery from Cartier and the like [at the time of meeting Andrew at Royal Ascot in 1985, from memory Sarah had only a Cartier Santos Watch [apparently a present from Paddy McNally] and a necklace with GB on it round her neck [from Major Ron]. Indeed, because so many of the pieces of jewellery which Diana was given by the Queen came from HM's own 'private jewel pool' with the implication that these were 'gifts-for-life' rather than 'outright ownership] the irony was that Sarah in theory did 'much better' because the pieces she was given were 'hers, not hers for life].

And fortunately for the Royal Jewellery collection, as Sarah's marriage in the event did end in divorce, the tiara issue turned out to be a 'happy accident', as Sarah did not acquire a 'Royal Piece'. Incidentally, off-topic but I will naughtily mention it here - when Sarah thinks she is poor, she forgets that her private jewellery collection is easily worth well over a 1m, on its 'contents' alone, without taking into account the increase of value because of its provenance [i.e. 'owned by the former Duchess of York']

Sophie did not of course 'rush to Garrard like Sarah had done' and thus other provision had to be made for her. I think it is fair to say though that in any event, Sophie's tiara was always 'surrounded' by a bit of mild controversy - I am no royal jewellery expert [unlike some of the clever people here] but I am aware that it was apparently 'put together from other royal pieces' and so, perish the thought, had Sophie's marriage foundered and a fight arisen over her jewels, the BRF would not have 'lost' very much from their heritage collection even if Sophie had 'retained the tiara'.

Hope some of this helps,

Alex
__________________
  #90  
Old 05-18-2011, 07:41 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post

BTW your story about why HM didn't loan jewels to Sarah, whether a throw-away humorous remark or said in all seriousness, says something about how Sarah is seen in those circles. Who knows? Once Sarah started spending during her marriage, HM might have had genuine concerns about her stewardship.
I certainly think you have a valid point here! Although what I am about to say is nothing more than conjecture and speculation on my part and at the end of the day I do 'prefer' solid facts, and I also don't like 'Sarah-bashing', I think that it must have become pretty apparent early on that Sarah was spending above her means. At that stage the Duke and Duchess of York's main source of 'income' was a Civil List payment, and contrary to what many of us believe, this is actually 'expenses for the performance of the recipients' Royal Duties, NOT 'general spending money' for 'private holidays and clothes', the sums for which have to be found from elsewhere i.e. the private means of the Royal. Civil List payments did have to be audited very thoroughly very regularly to see that no 'unauthorised' expenditure had been made out of it so 'money for an outfit to wear at an official engagement' would be allowed but a party frock for a night at Annabel's [i.e. private] would not. I would conjecture that the Queen would have soon been informed about 'unauthorised expenditure' as she would most likely have been the person to 'provide funds for the private stuff'. Don't forget that immediately following her engagement, Sarah received from the queen an allowance of 5000 a month [worth much more 25 years ago] according to The Times for her own privae expenditure....which I suspect did not last long in Sarah's hands.

With Catherine, I think that the Queen is going to feel much safer! Catherine and William have known each other for years and although I cannot give a reason why, I don't think Catherine seems to be an over-spender. Much of her Jewellery I am sure will come from what I call 'The Diana Collection', although I am sure for obvious reasons it won't appear either all-at-once or very quickly. When the new Royal Couple start to undertake a fuller programme of visits abroad [which may be some years off] I suppose it would be an excellent occasion for Catherine to be seen to be wearing a present from the countries concerned e.g. Middle East Crowned Heads were often very generous with Jewellery gifts to Diana and so where Catherine and William to visit the Emirates [say] the appropriate 'Diana' piece could well appear.
__________________
  #91  
Old 05-18-2011, 12:53 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 56
Interesting thoughts about her first jewelry gifts coming from 'The Diana Collection.' I really wish we knew more about what, specifically, PW and PH own/inherited and what went back to the Queen so we could speculate in a little more detail.

Regarding 'The Diana Collection,' I'd like to see some of those pieces broken up and mounted into other settings so they are not so traditionally "Diana" (I was never a fan of all those necklaces she wore as headbands) and can become more "Catherine" while still being a special gift that were once owned by PW's mother. I was reading somewhere (sorry, can't remember if it was here or somewhere else) that a Spencer jewelry tradition was to wear a multi-strand pearl choker and the article showed several pictures of Diana, her sisters and mother all wearing similar necklaces...I think it'd be nice for DoCa to get some of Diana's pearls as well...I know she's not a Spencer, per se, but would be nice continuity of the style being passed down to a daughter-in-law. And, I think pearls would be in keeping with DoCa's understated jewelry style...


Quote:
I think a gift of Canadian diamonds would be nice as long as it wasn't something ostentatious. It would cost us taxpayers some coin; but then again, it would be fabulous publicity for our diamond industry!
I think it would be GREAT publicity for Canadian diamonds, especially since, IMO, the market for conflict-free (aka non blood-diamonds) is growing.
__________________
  #92  
Old 05-18-2011, 01:24 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,023
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Diana's pearl choker?
__________________
  #93  
Old 05-18-2011, 01:42 PM
missMaryanne's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
I can't say for sure, but she doesn't strike me as a young lady who cares that much about jewelry at all.

I think we will only ever see the new Duchess of Cambridge in a tiara when she is absolutely required to wear one.
totally agree.

i think she doesn't like all that stuff, she has an innate good taste of fashion, and knows that "less is more".
__________________
"You're a wonderful person. I'm proud of being the partner of your life".-CP Haakon of Norway
  #94  
Old 05-18-2011, 02:11 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Diana's pearl choker?

I am sure that someone here better qualified than me can advise you, but the pearl choker that she often used to wear in the early days of her marriage was apparently a Spencer piece.

As to 'who got what', again, an expert here is better placed than me to advise, but I would guess [and it is a guess] that pieces given to Diana from the Queen went back to the Queen [if only to prevent them becoming assessable for Inheritance Tax [which was very heavy in the case of Diana because she died unexpectedly and there had been little if any 'tax planning' done for her] and the pieces that she acquired during her marriage [i.e. not from the Queen] would possibly have been divided up between William and Harry. I would assume that the division was pretty even, although I suppose William got Diana's engagement ring as he was the 'heir rather than the spare'.

A lot of the foregoing is conjecture and speculation on my part however, so treat cautiously, please.

There is one caveat to all this - certain pieces given as 'gifts' to Diana during he marriage - if they ranked as 'state gifts' e.g. presents from Crowned Heads given to Diana officially may well rank as 'State Pieces' rather than her personal property. I remember about 2 years ago, Camilla was suddenly spotted [by an eagle-eyed journalist] wearing some beautiful jewellery and it transpired that this had been given to her by a Middle East Crowned Head after an official visit, and BP was quick to announce that it was not to be treated as Camilla's 'personal property' but State Property.



Alex
__________________
  #95  
Old 05-18-2011, 04:36 PM
Tilia C.'s Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: O, Germany
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Gudgeon View Post
I think it would be GREAT publicity for Canadian diamonds, especially since, IMO, the market for conflict-free (aka non blood-diamonds) is growing.
Agreed, the publicity would be great, and the costs for such a piece of jewellery might be smaller than the costs for an advertisement page in a lifestyle mag.
May the Canadians keep the tradition of giving maple leave brooches. It would be lovely for the DoCa to have one of her own.
__________________
  #96  
Old 05-18-2011, 05:19 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,023
That would be a very nice gift. When the Queen visited Canada last year, I loved her maple leaf evening gown.

I wish Canadian diamonds were not so expensive.
__________________
  #97  
Old 05-19-2011, 02:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Nobody really knows who gets what jewels other than her "royal" rather than personal pieces went back to the queen. As for all the speculation that Willim gets the lot or most of it, Diana was very keen to treat her sons equally so I think she would have tried to leave some to Harry. Personally I think Kate needs to get some jewels that don't belong to Diana. Even a tribute to her is bit much at this point. She needs to try to create her own image.

As for Fergie I have heard many different stories about how she got the tiara so whatever you want to believe is your choice but I feel like the Queen has her favorites.
__________________
  #98  
Old 05-19-2011, 03:31 AM
auntie's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middlesex, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,503
Drop the conversations, I want to see the diamonds dripping!!!!
__________________
  #99  
Old 05-19-2011, 05:36 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: lichfield, United Kingdom
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Me too! I bet we see the 'baby gift' pearl necklace with the pave diamond heart soon.
I read (I think in the Suzy Menkes 'Royal Jewels' book) that Diana bought that necklace for herself from a small (!) legacy she received - but I could be remembering that wrongly...
__________________
  #100  
Old 05-19-2011, 06:27 AM
monica17's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Little Baguio, Philippines
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by auntie View Post
Drop the conversations, I want to see the diamonds dripping!!!!
The couple is NOT that wealthy at this point. Prince William has his inheritance from his mother, it is quite substantial but he's not RICH-RICH yet. And Kate has nothing in assets whatsover (except for her flat, but I'm unsure whether it's hers or her parents') to show yet. Therefore, I don't expect to see anything substantial in jewels except those on loan!
__________________

__________________
Monica17

Kindness is the magic elixir of love - The Practice of Kindness
Closed Thread


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
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Current Events Thread 2: 1 December 2011 - 1 April 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 887 04-03-2012 10:16 PM
Duchess of Cambridge current events 1: 29 April 2011- 31 January 2012 wbenson Current Events Archive 1025 02-01-2012 05:47 PM
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge current events 1: 29 April 2011- 30 November 2011 wbenson Current Events Archive 1081 12-01-2011 01:42 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia 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 03:25 PM.

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]