Duchess of Cornwall Jewelry - Page 7

**Warren** · #**121** 08-06-2005, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It's possible that... she might wear it rather than the George IV circlet for events like the State Opening of Parliament. I really doubt that, with its history, it'll be available to her during the Queen's reign.

I can picture the headline now: "Camilla Wears Crown of Indian Empress!"

Followed by "What would Queen Mary think?"
:)

wymanda · #**122** 08-06-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

it's just that it was made for the Durbar in place of the coronation crown, which couldn't be taken out of the UK, which means that it's a more "official" piece than most of the other tiaras.

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"

branchg · #**123** 08-06-2005, 12:28 PM

Usually a Queen Consort wears the circlet created for their Crown to the State Opening of Parliament, although technically they are entitled to wear the George IV State Diadem as well. If Camilla becomes Princess Consort, rather than Queen Consort, I doubt she will wear anything but her own tiara to the State Opening.

A.C.C. · #**124** 08-06-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Usually a Queen Consort wears the circlet created for their Crown to the State Opening of Parliament, although technically they are entitled to wear the George IV State Diadem as well. If Camilla becomes Princess Consort, rather than Queen Consort, I doubt she will wear anything but her own tiara to the State Opening.

And the Dehli Durbar Tiara would classify as one of her (many) tiaras since she would have access to The Queen's current collection. I agree that if she is only Princess Consort she will not wear the George IV Diadem and she would of course not wear the circlet of a crown becuase she wouldn't have a crown.

iowabelle · #**125** 08-06-2005, 02:51 PM

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.)

**Warren** · #**126** 08-06-2005, 04:38 PM

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!
.

iowabelle · #**127** 08-06-2005, 04:48 PM

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.

tiaraprin · #**128** 08-07-2005, 06:08 AM

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??

**Warren** · #**129** 08-07-2005, 08:58 AM

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!)
.

branchg · #**130** 08-07-2005, 04:12 PM

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.

branchg · #**131** 08-07-2005, 05:19 PM

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.

iowabelle · #**132** 08-07-2005, 05:29 PM

This whole situation has been ludicrous.

wymanda · #**133** 08-07-2005, 09:17 PM

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.

tiaraprin · #**134** 08-07-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle

This whole situation has been ludicrous.

You got that right Iowabelle!!

wymanda · #**135** 08-07-2005, 11:56 PM

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.

tiaraprin · #**136** 08-08-2005, 12:05 AM

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.

iowabelle · #**137** 08-08-2005, 01:37 PM

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.)

**Elspeth** · #**138** 08-08-2005, 02:09 PM

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.

branchg · #**139** 08-09-2005, 01:22 AM

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