Duchess of Cornwall Jewellery 3: Nov 2005 - Feb 2007

[Prince of Chota]

I had always heard that the Loop Tiara was not seen after the date of the Durbar in Delhi, and this is the reason why many speculate that it was taken apart and the stones used to create the Durbar Tiara. Either way, whoever speculated about Camilla receiving the Durbar Tiara was square on. (I believe they were also correct about the Boucheron Honeycomb Tiara--as it appears that Camilla is receiving those tiaras that had previously belonged to the Queen Mother. Does anyone have any information about the whereabouts of the tiaras that belonged to the Queen Mother when she was Duchess of York? I believe I have seen a recent picture of the Palmetto tiara, although I do not know who owns it. Is there anyone with information about other old tiaras formerly in the hands of the Queen Mother?

 

[Prince of Chota]

Not true. It was widely reported after The Queen Mother's death that all of her jewels and private possessions were left to The Queen. Whatever jewels of The Queen Mother we see now on Camilla are gifts (or loans) from The Queen.

As much as I am sure that most of the larger pieces (including tiaras) were left to the Queen, I have a hard time believing that absolutely everything went that way. There are the state jewels, yes, which have to go, but there are also private jewels which could easily have been set aside for the wives of various members of the family. Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) was well-known for her prodigious collection of jewellery, and I think it seems a bit illogical to believe that it all went to one place. In any case, the jewels worn by Camilla are far more likely to be actual gifts than simply loans (I speak specifically of pieces such as earrings and brooches). However, even tiaras that are loaned to Camilla will not likely be seen on anyone else anytime to soon, as there are plenty of jewels to go around and these have been, in a way, set aside for Camilla's use.

 

[Elspeth]

It was reported at the time of the Queen Mother's death that she'd left her estate to the Queen in a tax-free sovereign-to-sovereign transfer, so it's quite possible that all her major jewellery, whether it had historical significance or not, was left to the Queen, who has been loaning it or gifting it to family members.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,710692,00.html

 

[HRHAmy]

Camilla's Earrings

I have a question for all the jewelry savvy people out there, are there duplicates out there of the Duchess of Cornwall's wedding earrings?

Here is lady Tamara Grosvenor wearing the earrings at her wedding:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=54159&d=1099754622

And here is the Duchess of Cornwall wearing them at her wedding:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=122966&d=1113066514

Who owns these earrings? Or does the Queen lend them out?

 

[hornsen]

Shocking! But if the Queen would lend them out, why did Laura wear it on her wedding? And I think, I saw it on Camilla before wedding. There must be more copies of them. Unbelievable...

 

[Saragli]

Arent the Grovsner family and Camillas family connected somehow. Maybe there was a more than a pair of those earings and they were passed down throught the generations.

 

[soCal girl]

Here are lovely necklace and earrings Camilla wore at a recent official event (From GettyImages, Tim Graham): http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=251961&d=1151329369
^pretty amythest stone admist the pearls

 

[anhnbui]

Duchess Camilla looks marvellous and so elegant, wearing her newly acquired pieces of jewelry that was once worn by the Queen Mother.

 

[anhnbui]

Hey Hornsen,
The earrings that Camilla wore on her wedding was not a loan from the Queen. They are hers and so she lent them to her daughter Laura.

 

[SofiaM]

Another brooch from the Queen Mother

A friend of mine bought a piece from a jewelry designer, Rachel Jeffrey, and while checking her website, I came across another link between the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay. This link would be elusive, since the Queen Mother never wore this brooch, at least in public.

This designer was commissioned by The Salmon and Trout Association, of which the Queen Mother was a patron, to design a brooch for HM Queen Mother on the occasion of her 100th birthday. The design was based on the fly created by David Fynsong and inspired by the Queen Mother's long association with salmon fishing on the Aberdeenshire Dee. In the the boxed presentation case, a hand tied example of this fly by David Fynsong accompanies the brooch.

From the designers website:
"The brooch is made of solid 18 carat gold. Influenced by the name of the fly, Rachel placed a blue grey pearl at the top to represent the head of the fly. Representing the body the central lattice work is encrusted with tiny sapphires, emeralds and rubies. The shoulders of the wings are set with yellow and white diamonds and a diamond rondel encircles the base pearl. The tail of the fly has been interpreted in 18 carat gold and resembles an inverted crown."
The brooch (1st attachment), and the corresponding sketch by the artist (2nd attachment), both © Rachel Jeffrey, which I re-hosted, to be found in the link posted at the end.

Also from the designer's website:
"The Pearl of the Dee brooch has now been passed on to a new owner in the Royal Family. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall can be seen wearing it in the official engagement photograph of her and Prince Charles taken outside Birkhall in Scotland in February 2005. The photograph can also be seen on the Royal Mail 68 pence stamp, commemorating the Royal Wedding."

Actually I am not totally convinced it is the same brooch, it looks different, but you can see it in the 3rd attachment, photo © Carolyn Robb/Corbis.

Camilla, Duchess of Rothesay also wore this brooch during Prince Charles and Camilla honeymoon, for the opening of the Monaltrie Park children playground in Ballater, Scotland, on the 14th April 2005.

The curious annedocte on this occasion is that the Duchess wore it upside down, as you can tell by the photos in the 4th and 5th attachments, both © Tim Graham/Corbis.

I guess the Prince of Wales just spotted it in the last one...

The link to the designers website:
http://www.racheljeffrey.co.uk/index.htm

 

[Warren]

Camilla's Salmon & Trout Association Brooch

Thank you Sofia. Excellent research!

 

[MARG]

Does anyone know where the emerald drop earrings worn by the Duchess of Cornwell came from? They are goreous and not unlike the emeralds hung in QEII tiara.

 

[qui mal y pense]

According to the princess diana jewels thread part 2, they were a gift to princess alexandra (queen Alexandra)- the QM gave the set to Diana and I guess as the wife of the POW Camilla is entitled to wear the set as well- a bit weird- can't they find other emeralds?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

According to the princess diana jewels thread part 2, they were a gift to princess alexandra (queen Alexandra)- the QM gave the set to Diana and I guess as the wife of the POW Camilla is entitled to wear the set as well- a bit weird- can't they find other emeralds?

Hm, I think you must distinguish between personal gifts or gifts as part of a marriage package: if the queen gave the set to Diana personally, they would have been hers and later inherited by William and Harry. If they were a gift to "HRH The Princess of Wales", then they belong to Charles' wife, whoever that is - and it was The Princess of Wales who wore them on an official function.

Why is this weird? Because they belonged to a Princess of Wales who died and are now worn by her successor? (Guess you guess that I mean the late Alexandra - formerly Princess of Wales and then queen...)

 

[BeatrixFan]

These emeralds could well still belong to the Queen and she has made them a gift to Camilla or she may have loaned them. We just don't know. But should the Queen not wear her mother's tiaras because they are associated with her mother? Come on now. Let's just be happy that these family heirlooms are being worn and enjoyed, not shoved in a fusty old museum case.

 

[Boris]

As a matter of fact, this 'Feathers Of Wales' brooch/pendant with its detachable emerald drop was an engagement gift from the Queen Mother to Princess Diana, according to Suzy Menkes' book. The Queen Mother inherited it although she never was Princess Of Wales - so it did NOT automatically go to any 'Princess Of Wales' around.
Princess Diana never wore it as a brooch, but frequently as a necklace pendant all through her years as Princess Of Wales.
It's not that weird that the present wife of the Prince Of Wales wears the jewel. Certainly Princess Diana had to return some jewelry after the divorce. But it's a matter of taste. Bad taste in this case, IMHO. The pool of jewelry is certainly big enough here, there might be other emerald pieces to go with those nice earrings, so why does the 2nd wife have to wear any jewelry that was given as an engagement gift to the 1st wife?
Bad choice, I'd say - not too smart and not too classy.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well there we are - it wasn't Diana's or the Queen Mother's. It belonged to someone else. More likely, it was on loan to Diana. Camilla looks stunning in emeralds so why shouldn't she wear them?

 

[milla Ca]

The brooch is a family heirloom, not made for Diana.
Now Camilla is the right person to wear it, and it looks stunning!
Sorry, but it seams to me, that you can make a problem with everything, if you want....

 

[Jo of Palatine]

They could even have been given to princess Margaret, then sold by her son and bought by Paris Hilton as a worst case scenario... Come on - it's the Prince of Wales's feathers and his princess is wearing them. And there definately is no other princess of Wales around, I'd say.

 

[Warren]

Queen Alexandra's Prince of Wales Feathers Diamond & Cabachon drop-Emerald Brooch

I think we need to keep in mind and have an understanding of the nature of Royal heirloom jewels: they are meant to be passed along and passed down. They don't bear the name of an exclusive holder, and they don't have a sticker attached saying "not to be worn again".

The same applies to the heirloom jewels of the Spencer family. The Spencer tiara is the piece of serious jewellery most closely associated with Diana. No one would seriously suggest that the current or a future Countess Spencer shouldn't be allowed to wear the tiara because of the association.

In the case of the Queen Alexandra Prince of Wales Feathers Brooch I doubt that anyone would see it as carrying a "Diana" tag as for example the Lovers' Knot tiara possibly does.

.............................

To get this brooch included into the Royal Jewels record here's a close-up pic from the Charles and Camilla current events thread.
Pic courtesy of BeatrixFan (scanned from Majesty Magazine).

 

[MARG]

To get this brooch included into the Royal Jewels record here's a close-up pic from the Charles and Camilla current events thread.
Pic courtesy of BeatrixFan (scanned from Majesty Magazine).

But what about the gorgeous drop earrings that Camilla wore with it?

 

[branchg]

Certainly Princess Diana had to return some jewelry after the divorce. But it's a matter of taste. Bad taste in this case, IMHO. The pool of jewelry is certainly big enough here, there might be other emerald pieces to go with those nice earrings, so why does the 2nd wife have to wear any jewelry that was given as an engagement gift to the 1st wife?
Bad choice, I'd say - not too smart and not too classy.

None of Camilla's jewelry was worn by Diana. Her jewels are all pieces given to her by The Queen from her mother's collection or purchased over the years as gifts from Prince Charles. She also has quite a few family pieces from her mother.

All of Diana's jewels, including any gifts she received as Princess of Wales from The Queen and The Queen Mother, were retained by her after the divorce as part of her settlement agreement. She agreed never to lend or sell any pieces received from the royal family and these were left to William for his future wife.

The rest of her jewels were gifts from the Saudis or Gulf emirates and these belong to William and Harry as part of their inheritance.

 

[Skydragon]

But it's a matter of taste. Bad taste in this case, IMHO. The pool of jewelry is certainly big enough here, there might be other emerald pieces to go with those nice earrings, so why does the 2nd wife have to wear any jewelry that was given as an engagement gift to the 1st wife?
Bad choice, I'd say - not too smart and not too classy.

If you can spare the time have a look here post 116, you will see that they are not the same piece at all.

 

[Hereditary Mapmaker]

I think we need to keep in mind and have an understanding of the nature of Royal heirloom jewels: they are meant to be passed along and passed down. They don't bear the name of an exclusive holder, and they don't have a sticker attached saying "not to be worn again".

Perhaps part of the problem for a lot of forum members is that they are not only associating particular pieces of jewelry with particular women (i.e. Diana) but that they also associate it with the "fairy tale" aspect of royalty.

When we speak of "heirlooms" and passing them down to the next generation(s), I don't think most people factor in divorce. I believe they view the larger picture as a singular line of parent to child, not step-parent to half-sister or 2nd daughter-in-law.

Case in point: Princess Lillian de Rethy. She wasn't accepted by the Belgian people, therefore, they couldn't accept her wearing certain pieces associated with the Queen Astrid fairy tale.

And most of the "important" pieces that are more well-known by a name association to a particular person (Grand Duchess Vladimir's Tiara, for example) are connected to a person who may not have been very happy or fulfilled as a princess/woman, but who stayed married and part of the fairy tale.

Mapper

 

[Lady Jean]

Thank you Skydragon for acknowledging my post. I hope it is helpful.
I'll add, in agreement with other posters, that whether or not Camilla wore the same Prince of Wales feathers piece as Diana (actually I think they might be the same), it was not "Diana's," but a Windsor family heirloom.

 

[Warren]

I know it's on the previous page, but to help members make up their own minds Skydragon has posted side-by-side pics of the jewel/s in question, here.

 

[MARG]

I know it's on the previous page, but to help members make up their own minds Skydragon has posted side-by-side pics of the jewel/s in question, here.

I personally think they are different. However, they are the coat-ot-Arms of the Prince of Wales, ego they are to be worn by his wife.

 

[iowabelle]

The top piece on one doesn't appear on the other, so I think these are 2 separate brooches as well.

 

[sirhon11234]

I agree as I said in the princess of wales' jewellery therad Camilla is not dumb to wear any of Diana's jewels.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

The jewelry we love to drool over is one of the most consistent symbols of the continuity of royalty. In other words, Diana, Camilla, Elizabeth, whoever, are merely stewards of the jewelry. None of them really owns any of these lovely baubles. The "owners" are just passing through time, the jewelry is what really lasts in a lot of ways.

In other words, the P o W brooch, or any other piece worn by Diana, was no more Diana's than Camilla's.

I say fair game to whoever is eligible to wear it. One thing's for sure -- I'm certainly not!