Duchess of Cornwall Jewelry

[Ennyllorac]

No matter what she wears in jewellry she will never have class.

[wymanda]

Originally posted by ennyllorac@Jul 14th, 2004 - 7:49 pm
No matter what she wears in jewellry she will never have class.

In my opinion the lady has exhibited nothing but class. She doesn't talk about the Royal Family, she gets on with her charity work, she dresses well and is considered a loyal freind by those close to her. I wish some women I know had that much class.

[Eliza]

she may hve kept her mouth shut but she sure didn't keep her hands to herself!!!
how classy can a woman be if she went after someone else's husband...no matter how in love they claim to be.

[wymanda]

Originally posted by Eliza@Jul 17th, 2004 - 9:22 pm
she may hve kept her mouth shut but she sure didn't keep her hands to herself!!!
how classy can a woman be if she went after someone else's husband...no matter how in love they claim to be.

It takes two to tango and Charles didn't seem to be running very fast! :o :o

If he wasn't interested he only had to say "Camilla, I am with my wife now, you can remain my friend but that is all it will ever be".

[wymanda]

The Delhi Durbar

http://img71.photobucket.com/albums/v217/w...amilla_Scan.jpg

[kelly9480]

I seriously doubt she would be allowed to wear the Queen Mum's tiara. The Queen Mother would not have approved a divorced woman marrying the heir, and we all know how Charles worshipped her. Besides, anything other than a civil ceremony followed by a blessing would be tacky. She certainly can't do a long white gown -- she'd be laughed out of the church.

[wymanda]

They could, like Princess Anne, marry in Scotland. The Archbishop of Canterbury has already started to pave the way for them to marry in an English church.

Also, the Delhi Durbar tiara was only worn once by the Queen Mum. It is more identified with Queen Mary who would have seen Charles as doing his duty by finding a way to do the job and marry Camilla.

It will in no way affect the succession as CPB is too old to have more children and Charles reign as king will be a short one. He is in much the same position as Edward VII following Queen Victoria. Edward reigned for only 9 years before George V who was king for 26 years.

[Elspeth]

Also, the Delhi Durbar tiara was only worn once by the Queen Mum. It is more identified with Queen Mary who would have seen Charles as doing his duty by finding a way to do the job and marry Camilla.

Considering her lifelong attitude toward Wallis Simpson, I really doubt that. She'd probably have thought that he should do his duty and give her up, which is what she seemed to want her son to do. Rightly or wrongly, she didn't appear to put much stock in the notion of personal happiness.

I think there are other tiaras that are more appropriate than the Durbar one, because that one is associated with a coronation-type event; George V wore a special crown and this tiara was made because their actual crowns weren't allowed to leave the UK. Course, if Camilla becomes Queen rather than a morganatic consort of some type, wearing that tiara would be appropriate. I think it'd be rather bad public relations, though. There's got to be some tiaras in the royal collection with less of a regal history than that one.

[wymanda]

Yes but the Durbar tiara was associated with the "Empress of India" title which no longer exists. It hasn't been worn since the 1950's so there is no current history attached to it unlike some of the others in the Queen's collection. The Ruby tiara worn by the Queen Mum will be forever identifed with her, the Kokoshnik diamond has been worn regularly by the Queen as has the Girls of Great Britain. The ruby & the Fringe tiara (The queen wore at her wedding) are crown property and so when Camilla becomes Queen they will be hers to wear by right according to the guidelines set down by Queen Victoria. I think that the Teck Rose & Crescent will go to either William or Harry's wife.

[Elizajane]

Originally posted by wymanda@Jul 22nd, 2004 - 8:31 pm

It will in no way affect the succession as CPB is too old to have more children and Charles reign as king will be a short one. He is in much the same position as Edward VII following Queen Victoria. Edward reigned for only 9 years before George V who was king for 26 years.

In no way, Wymanda, does "that woman" deserve even a "flea collar" much less a a choker of pearls or a royal tiara, etc. I congratulate you in finding "something" about Camilla which you like, but I'll express my opinion, also: She played a great part in Diana's unhappiness. I simply cannot forget that ~ no matter how long Diana has been dead and no matter "how disturbed" others paint Diana as being, and no matter "this great love affair" between Camilla and Charles ... The Bible (Christian) continuously preaches "forgiveness", and, I myself, am still "working on" forgiving Camilla and Charles for what they did to Diana ~ who was part of Charles' own family .. which included Wills and Harry, however, I'm not there, yet. She (along with Charles) destroyed two families ~ her own and Charles' who should bare a great deal of responsibility. And, a comeback regarding Andrew Parker-Bowles "having something on the side" during his marriage to Camilla will not erase HER actions with Charles in mho.

Someone in a previous post (maybe you) said she had "class". I disagree vehemently. She should have withdrawn her interest in Charles when he got married. Full stop ... and, Charles should have spent more time in trying to improve his marriage instead of "running off to Camilla, crying for advice and comfort like a little boy". Little kids do stuff like that ~ not grownups, especially heirs to long - established thrones.

In my most recent "Royalty Monthly", the editorial states that either Charles and Camilla are making plans to marry soon OR that he wants to end the relationship. It goes on to say that their relationship was mostly based on the "thrill of secrecy" ~ but, now, that "secrecy" is gone. It also says that Charles is disturbed by the reaction of his own countrymen to the union of himself and his paramour .. and, that it's "weighing heavy" on his mind. It also states that it's weighing heavy on the Queen's mind. (I really feel sorry for the Queen in this situation. I really do. I respect both the Queen and Prince Philip enormously.)

Of course the Church of England is eager for the Prince of Wales to marry and stop living in sin. It doesn't look good, in the Church's eyes OR in the Lord's eyes for the heir to openly live with Camilla as both of them are "single" ~ supporting her financially (which includes endowing her with jewels), creating a place for her to live in Clarence House, paying for her designer outfits, etc. It just doesn't jive with "God's plan" and the Church of England is bending over backwards to pave the way for marriage. Would we expect them to not do this ~ turn a blind eye? Of course not.

My outlook on this is that IF they marry, I hope it's the shortest reign in England's history. She's the total opposite of who should represent England ~ even if she has to "sit behind" the throne, shrouded in a morganatic marriage, and never be seen. I certainly do not want to look at her. I don't care how much money Charles has spent on her ~ clothes, hair, capping teeth, providing her with several places to live, plus probably a great deal of "pocket money". It's my fervent wish never to see her standing beside Charles ~ never. If she does, my respect for the English throne will be diminished forever.

Elizajane

[Mia]

Please, concentrate on jewelry here or discuss of this matter somewhere else. Thank you. :) Though Wymandas thoughts about Camilla Parker Bowles were quite refreshing. One gets so black-and-white picture of certain persons when reading bad gossips in magazines, but I guess there must be more shades of grey in each of us and we can never no what the real truth is.

Anyway, to the point, I would be interested to know what kind of jewelry Alice Keppel had. People say that CPB can never wear them because of this and that, but these items would still considered as a valuable piece of history and very interesting. I've seen the tiara of mrs. Keppel, made of synthetic rubies, but what other jewelry there is. Does anybody know?

[Elspeth]

Yes but the Durbar tiara was associated with the "Empress of India" title which no longer exists. It hasn't been worn since the 1950's so there is no current history attached to it unlike some of the others in the Queen's collection.

This is a good point. Maybe that tiara should be put into the Jewel House at the Tower, along with George V's Crown of India, since it was made for the same purpose.

The Ruby tiara worn by the Queen Mum will be forever identifed with her,

Oh, I do hope not. It's a pretty tiara, and I hope that one day another queen will use it. It's part of the jewels that were listed by Queen Victoria as being left to the Crown to be worn by future queens. It'd be nice to see William's wife wearing it.

[Elizajane]

Originally posted by Mia@Jul 24th, 2004 - 1:23 pm
Please, concentrate on jewelry here or discuss of this matter somewhere else. Thank you. :) Though Wymandas thoughts about Camilla Parker Bowles were quite refreshing. One gets so black-and-white picture of certain persons when reading bad gossips in magazines, but I guess there must be more shades of grey in each of us and we can never no what the real truth is.

Anyway, to the point, I would be interested to know what kind of jewelry Alice Keppel had. People say that CPB can never wear them because of this and that, but these items would still considered as a valuable piece of history and very interesting. I've seen the tiara of mrs. Keppel, made of synthetic rubies, but what other jewelry there is. Does anybody know?

Sorry, Mia, that I strayed off the reservation. But, has anyone thought to look to "Sonja Cubitt", Alica Keppel's daughter, (maybe OR maybe NOT King Edward's daughter), as the owner of some of Alice's jewels? Was Rosalind Shand, (Camilla's mother and the daughter of Sonja Cubitt) the recipient of some of these jewels? It seems as though "jewels" are passed down from generation to generation. At least, it's that way in my family.

An earlier post revealed that regarding the Queen Mother's attitude, for the better part of her life, towards Wallis Simpson, it would seem unlikely that she would not tolerate "royal jewels" being given to "royal mistresses" especially HER royal jewels ~ no matter how close Charles was to his grandmother. To plop the Boucheron Lozenge Tiara on Camilla's head would be quite "an insult" to the QM's memory and I believe it would also enrage a lot of Brits ~ not counting those who hold England in high esteem. However, this is only my humble opinion.

Elizajane

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by Elspeth@Jul 24th, 2004 - 2:20 pm

This is a good point. Maybe that tiara should be put into the Jewel House at the Tower, along with George V's Crown of India, since it was made for the same purpose.

That would be an interesting idea since I doubt Queen Elizabeth II will ever wear the Dehli Durbar Tiara publicly, bit I might be wrong. Yet, to do this, unless The Queen just loans the tiara to the Tower, I think She would have to give it or rather leave it to the crown. At this point, since the death of the Queen Mother, it is Queen Elizabeth II's personal property.

[Elspeth]

Well, there's a history, going back to Queen Victoria, of queens leaving some items of jewellery to the Crown rather than as personal property. Among other things, Queen Victoria left the Indian tiara (the diamond and ruby tiara that the Queen Mother wore) to the Crown, as well as the diamond collet necklace that the Queen wore to her coronation and the two strings of pearls that Princess Elizabeth wore at her wedding. The George IV diadem, which is what the Queen's wearing on all the postage stamps, is another one that was left to the Crown by Queen Victoria, and it's only worn on State occasions. It shouldn't be hard to add the Delhi Durbar tiara to the jewels that are Crown property, if it hasn't already been done.

I'm not sure where the George IV diadem lives when it isn't being used, but the Delhi Durbar tiara could join it. Seems a pity for historic pieces like that to not be viewable by the public on a regular basis.

[wymanda]

If Queen Mary did not designate the Durbah as "To be worn by all future Queens" then it would have remained personal property and as such would have been left to the present Queen when her grandmother died.
This seems unlikely as the Queen Mum wore it in the 1940's & 50's but ceased to wear it after the death of Queen Mary. So perhaps it is crown property in which case I agree with you that these peices should be on show somewhere - perhaps the Queen's Gallery at Buckingham Palace?

[Elspeth]

Well, the George IV diadem was part of an exhibition at the Gallery to commemorate the Jubilee; I don't know if that exhibition is still going on. It's a shame it and some of the other pieces of royal jewellery with a lot of historical context aren't on permanent display somewhere.

[Josefine]

what jewllery does she have