I have a bit of new speculation to pass on! Obviously, it is speculation only, but I thought that I would post it here:
On Saturday, I went racing at Ascot. This was of course NOT Royal Ascot, and not even King George Day [often known as 'Diamond Day', when there is usually a good royal presence, this year being Harry!] but just a 'Summer Family Fun Day' event whilst the Shergar Cup was held. In other words, an ordinary race meeting where no Royals were present.
However, although the day was very 'democratic' in nature, a number of 'Royal Ascot' 'regulars' who were racing fans were there, and I was delighted to bump into an aquaintance who has her 'ear to the ground' about Royal matters, having attended various royal events.
It is her considered view that although Harry and William allegedly have been given Diana's personal jewellery, Harry has apparently got 'the lion's share' based on what several forum members have astutely already observed here - namely that Catherine is going to be Queen in due course and will therefore eventually get to wear ['inherit' is the wrong word to be strictly accurate because we are talking about Crown property] a breathtaking array of Royal jewels. Indeed, there are a good number of pieces that we never see because the Queen has got so much to wear. The idea of making sure that 'the spare' gets a goodly amount of inheritance is of course not a new concept; as my friend pointed out on Saturday, although Royal wills are of course private, it is apparently an open secret that the Queen Mother left a generous legacy to Harry [as well as bequests to other 'minor royals' but apparently nothing very much to William, NOT because she loved her great grandson any the less but simply because she was thinking practically.]
Apparently there is also a reluctance for the Queen now to pass on many pieces of jewellery [i.e. as Gifts ] in the short term - although she is prepared to be generous about LOANING things instead - and that my friend believes that both William and Harry will have been counselled to consider excercising similar 'cautious thinking' with regard to the most important of Diana's pieces. [i.e. not giving much outright initially to their brides.] Apparently this caution dates right back to the early days of the marriage of Sarah Ferguson - the Queen reputedly did not want to give Sarah any Royal pieces 'in case there was difficulty in getting them back'. I had indeed heard this comment reported before, but until Saturday, it appears that I had ENTIRELY MISUNDERSTOOD it: I had thought that the reference to 'getting it back' referred to the divorce of Andrew and Sarah, but in fact it turns out I was completely wrong, and I could have worked it out for myself if I had thought it through carefully. Read on!:-
The REAL reason for the Queen making the statement was apparently NOTHING to do with the divorce between Andrew and Sarah because - as I should have worked out - at the time the Queen made the statement, Sarah and Andrew were happily married. Apparently, the 'not getting it back' statement by the Queen was made because at that time [1986] behind the scenes the marriage of DIANA and Charles was causing GREAT concern behind closed BP doors, and Diana had of course been given several VERY IMPORTANT Royal pieces by the Queen on her marriage, and although to the British Public the idea of a ROYAL divorce of Charles and Diana would have seemed impossible [back in 1986 I had heard rumours of Diana and Charles' alleged marital unhappiness and indeed several of the papers had beeen hinting this, sometimes quite strongly, too, in the case of some of the tabloids, but the idea of the heir to the throne divorcing would have been impossible for me to contemplate.............] The reason why I failed to equate the statement with Charles and Diana was of course that although the Queen made it in 1986, it was not reported in the media until some years later, by which time Andrew and Sarah were undergoing their own marital difficulties and I thought that the Queen had been referring to Sarah's marital split....
In other words, The Queen however, although no doubt desperately hoping that all would be well with the marriage of Andrew and Sarah, was nevertheless taking precautions to safeguard the possibility of marital discord and possible ownership disputes of historic royal pieces. And as events showed, the Queen was very wise to be thinking of ' ALL OPTIONS' in relation to Andrew and Sarah's marriage!!
The point therefore is that although back in 1986 there was no disharmony between Andrew and Sarah, Sarah nevertheless was the first Royal Bride to be given no ROYAL jewels [keen Royal watchers here will presumably remember over the years that up to and including the marriage of Diana and Charles, over the previous decades brides marrying into the BRF had received some quite significant Royal jewels....]
Whilst I am sure we are all agreed that Catherine seems the perfect bride for William, the amount of Royal Divorces since the 1970's might well make the Queen think long and hard about things.... Incidentally, this might well mean that the Queen might herself give Catherine some good personal pieces and indeed my friend thinks that the Queen and Duke of Edinbugh might ALREADY have given Catherine some valuable jewellery for a wedding present. After all, HM did give Sarah a lovely diamond suite on her wedding... [not that Catherine has had much need to wear any wedding present gift jewellery that she might have received....]
Lastly, my friend thinks that one VERY important piece of jewellery that Catherine might well receive before too long is the gift of the Royal Family Order. Whilst the trend is for Catherine to be doing minimal engagements at the moment, my friend points out that as next year is Diamond Jubilee Year, there are bound to be white tie banquets at which Catherine will be appearing, and it is apparently inconceivable that she would be the only royal lady appearing at such State events WITHOUT the Royal Family Odrer. So, Catherine's Royal Family Order, here we come!
Could I close by saying that this is just the speculation of my friend, but she is well connected and I would not be surprised if she was right.
Hope some of this is of interest
Alex
PS, we also spoke about Sarah Duchess of York , but that more properly belongs on another thread. A.
