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
 
  #121  
Old 08-06-2005, 01:51 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Everyone talks about these rules, but the British have never had a case of a Princess Consort (and I don't think it was envisioned until Charles and Co. came up with the idea). What is to keep Charles from changing these rules?

I think he is going to do everything he can to shower Camilla with the objects he thinks she deserves. (And to heck with public disapproval.)
__________________

__________________
  #122  
Old 08-06-2005, 03:38 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,305
Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
Everyone talks about these rules, but the British have never had a case of a Princess Consort (and I don't think it was envisioned until Charles and Co. came up with the idea). What is to keep Charles from changing these rules?
There is no "rule" regarding Camilla's future title; it is an "intention" that she be known as Princess Consort. Of course this "intention" could change depending on future circumstances.

The "rules" regarding tiaras are more to do with tradition. However those pieces classed as "Crown" jewels are subject to restrictions; eg the Imperial State Crown cannot leave the UK, which is why George V had to have a new crown made for the Delhi Durbar. The George IV circlet is reserved for Kings and Queens, although there is nothing in law that says Camilla could not wear it as Princess Consort. So yes, some rules are made up as they go along, but then, institutions should always be flexible!
.
__________________

__________________
  #123  
Old 08-06-2005, 03:48 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
That's pretty much my point, Warren. It's an innovation to have someone called "Princess Consort". If they feel free enough to have a Princess Consort, why aren't they free enough to change tradition ("rules").

But I can understand the reasoning behind not letting the Imperial State Crown out of the country. They certainly wouldn't want to lose them in a plane crash or have them stolen.
__________________
  #124  
Old 08-07-2005, 05:08 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
Actually, Elspeth, Queen Mary could have taken her crown to India for the Durbah. The problem was with the Imperial State Crown which the King was forbidden from taking out of the country. The Imperial Crown of India was made for the king & QM had the Durbah Tiara made at the same time. I understand that it was payed for by "Some Ladies of India"
Those Ladies of India gave Queen Mary the spectacular emerald necklace that has been handed down to Her Majesty. From the dangling drops, Queen Mary had one of the Cullinan diamonds placed. Queen Mary had a whole parure made up around this emerald and diamond necklace. You don't see the tiara anymore that had the emerald spikes on top that she wore to the Delhi Durbar. I wonder in what part of the massive vault is it gathering dust??
__________________
  #125  
Old 08-07-2005, 07:58 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,305
Ladies of India Necklace

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Those Ladies of India gave Queen Mary the spectacular emerald necklace that has been handed down to Her Majesty. From the dangling drops, Queen Mary had one of the Cullinan diamonds placed.
And here is the necklace, with the Cullian VI as a drop.
(the other six diamonds between the diamond bands are of quite respectable size too!)
.
__________________
  #126  
Old 08-07-2005, 03:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Those Ladies of India gave Queen Mary the spectacular emerald necklace that has been handed down to Her Majesty. From the dangling drops, Queen Mary had one of the Cullinan diamonds placed. Queen Mary had a whole parure made up around this emerald and diamond necklace. You don't see the tiara anymore that had the emerald spikes on top that she wore to the Delhi Durbar. I wonder in what part of the massive vault is it gathering dust??
The emerald necklace was made using a gift of emeralds and diamonds from the Maharani of Paitala and other Indian ladies in addition to the Cullinan VI diamond purchased by Edward VII in 1908. The parure was presented to Queen Mary at the Delhi Durbar when she and King George V were crowned Emperor and Empress of India in 1911.
__________________
  #127  
Old 08-07-2005, 04:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
Everyone talks about these rules, but the British have never had a case of a Princess Consort (and I don't think it was envisioned until Charles and Co. came up with the idea). What is to keep Charles from changing these rules?

I think he is going to do everything he can to shower Camilla with the objects he thinks she deserves. (And to heck with public disapproval.)
If public opposition remained strong, preventing Camilla from being Queen Consort, it would require an Act of Parliament for her to be Princess Consort instead. Therefore, I doubt she will be waltzing down the aisle with a crown on her head at the State Opening of Parliament if she was HRH the Princess Consort. This would be ludicrious.
__________________
  #128  
Old 08-07-2005, 04:29 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
This whole situation has been ludicrous.
__________________
  #129  
Old 08-07-2005, 08:17 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
But I can understand the reasoning behind not letting the Imperial State Crown out of the country. They certainly wouldn't want to lose them in a plane crash or have them stolen.
Actually the law is much older than we would think. It came into being when Charles the 1st had his wife try to pawn some of the crown jewels in France to finance the Royalist cause in the civil war.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #130  
Old 08-07-2005, 08:36 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
This whole situation has been ludicrous.
You got that right Iowabelle!!
__________________
  #131  
Old 08-07-2005, 10:56 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
This whole situation has been ludicrous.



You got that right Iowabelle!!
The situation has only come about through people like yourselves who insist on living in the past! As I have said before, If you do not like Camilla then stay in the threads concering Diana and let the rest of us engage in constructive discussion about the matters in the present.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #132  
Old 08-07-2005, 11:05 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
The situation has only come about through people like yourselves who insist on living in the past! As I have said before, If you do not like Camilla then stay in the threads concering Diana and let the rest of us engage in constructive discussion about the matters in the present.
The situation would still be ludicrous even if we were not discussing it in the threads--it is naturally that way. There has never been anything like it in British Royal History. It goes beyond hating Camilla and loving Diana. Look at the whole picture. Some of it has to make you laugh, cry, or just be outraged.

Perhaps some of us are still coming to grips with "the present". Everyone moves at their own pace and for different reasons.

None of this is said with malice, it said to perhaps help people understand where I am coming from and maybe others.
__________________
  #133  
Old 08-08-2005, 12:37 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Wymanda, that's part of my point about it being ludicrous.

Camilla is here and she isn't going away. Charles isn't going to hide her away and I am sure that he wants her to have all the deference due to her as his wife (no matter what title is used to describe her).

As for the rules that apply to what jewelry she can wear, I can see that she might not be allowed to wear a crown if she isn't crowned queen. But for as for the tiaras used by other consorts, why shouldn't she be allowed to use them? (At least for Charles' lifetime.)

(And for what it's worth, I think Camilla has done a pretty good job so far. And Charles seems to have perked up since the marriage.)
__________________
  #134  
Old 08-08-2005, 01:09 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
As for the rules that apply to what jewelry she can wear, I can see that she might not be allowed to wear a crown if she isn't crowned queen. But for as for the tiaras used by other consorts, why shouldn't she be allowed to use them? (At least for Charles' lifetime.)
Well, it depends how much nitpicking is involved. Queen Victoria did leave some of her jewellery specifically to be worn by future queens, and at the moment according to Buckingham Palace Camilla isn't a future queen even if Charles is a future king. If Camilla shows up wearing any of those pieces, either before or after Charles's accession (assuming she really does become Princess Consort rather than Queen), you can be very sure that it'll be noticed and commented upon immediately.
__________________
  #135  
Old 08-09-2005, 12:22 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Well, it depends how much nitpicking is involved. Queen Victoria did leave some of her jewellery specifically to be worn by future queens, and at the moment according to Buckingham Palace Camilla isn't a future queen even if Charles is a future king. If Camilla shows up wearing any of those pieces, either before or after Charles's accession (assuming she really does become Princess Consort rather than Queen), you can be very sure that it'll be noticed and commented upon immediately.
Exactly. Why would they want to create a controversy and possibly diminish the monarchy with a provocative act like Camilla wearing a crown/tiara specified only for a Queen or Queen Consort?

There are so many other tiaras in the royal collection which could be reset into new pieces for Camilla. Charles is likely to futher acquire new pieces for her to wear as well. There's no sense rocking the boat over a tiara.
__________________
  #136  
Old 08-09-2005, 12:25 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Also, many of Queen Mary's jewels were supposedly designated in her will as to be worn by a Queen or Queen Consort only. The rest of her jewels were left to members of the royal family.
__________________
  #137  
Old 08-09-2005, 07:19 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,426
I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of the clause. Queen Victoria could not have envisaged that the wife of a King of England would not be Queen. Therefore the clause could be given the modern interpretation that the jewels were "to be worn by the consorts of all future kings by right of it" rather than the literal "by all future queens by right of it".
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #138  
Old 08-09-2005, 08:36 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of the clause. Queen Victoria could not have envisaged that the wife of a King of England would not be Queen. Therefore the clause could be given the modern interpretation that the jewels were "to be worn by the consorts of all future kings by right of it" rather than the literal "by all future queens by right of it".
This is possible. In all likelihood, it is very probable that Camilla will, in fact, be Queen Consort and the question will be moot anyway.
__________________
  #139  
Old 08-09-2005, 12:50 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
branchg brought up an interesting question by mentioning that other tiaras in the royal collection could be re-set to provide something "new" for Camilla.

What are the rules/traditions about taking an old piece and making it into something different? The Dutch seem to do this almost at will (but it would just about break my heart to destroy an old tiara or piece of jewelry).

Do we have any candidates that we could volunteer for the jeweler?
__________________
  #140  
Old 08-10-2005, 12:26 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
branchg brought up an interesting question by mentioning that other tiaras in the royal collection could be re-set to provide something "new" for Camilla.

What are the rules/traditions about taking an old piece and making it into something different? The Dutch seem to do this almost at will (but it would just about break my heart to destroy an old tiara or piece of jewelry).

Do we have any candidates that we could volunteer for the jeweler?
It's been done many times before, particularly during the reigns of William IV, Victoria and Edward VII. Queen Mary received so many gifts of jewels, stones and diamonds, in addition to her purchase of the Dowager Empress Marie's pieces and what she inherited from her mother, Princess Mary, it wasn't necessary for her to have pieces reset.

She had a real passion for jewels, so there's plenty left in the collection for resetting, particularly since the Queen has not worn more than a fraction of what she possesses.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, jewellery


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
Duchess of Cornwall Patronages Warren The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 398 07-08-2014 11:52 AM
Diana, Princess of Wales Jewellery 2 Warren Royal Jewels 439 07-04-2014 10:10 AM
Questions about future Queens, Dowagers and surviving spouses popsicle British Royals 310 06-13-2013 11:27 AM
Sarah, Duchess of York current events 15 - January 2011 - May 2011 Zonk Current Events Archive 927 06-01-2011 06:45 PM
Sarah, Duchess of York current events 14: October 2009 - December 2010 Zonk Current Events Archive 618 01-01-2011 09:32 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince joachim prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 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]