Duchess of Cornwall Jewels 8: January 2016 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not wild about the design of that tiara, though the stones are quite nice. I dont like the way the center portion sticks way up by itself.
 
I'm almost positive the emeralds and rubies are official gifts from Saudis. They are Camilla's to use but officially belong to the Crown.

The same for the jewels given to Sophie Wessex by Bahrain.
 
The commoner bride's grandmother was King Edward VII's mistress. Lots of perks. Diana was a commoner, although, an aristocrat, she had her own tiara, too.
 
Diana was an aristocrat, while not Royal, certainly not in the commoner ranks. She didn't have her own tiara. The spencer tiara belongs to the wife of earl spencer. Or the daughters of the earl can borrow it.

Camilla may come from the gentry, but she is a commoner. She has some aristocratic blood but far back and minor.
 
Anyone who is not The Queen or the holder of a substantive peerage is a commoner.

Nobility does not extend to the wife or children of a peer. As posh as Diana was, she was still a commoner by the British definition
 
Rudolph said:
Anyone who is not The Queen or the holder of a substantive peerage is a commoner.

Nobility does not extend to the wife or children of a peer. As posh as Diana was, she was still a commoner by the British definition
Click to expand...

The British definition means that the twin brother of a Peer, born 10 minutes later, from exactly the same parents, having the same DNA, is a "commoner", is most remarkable.

In most continental systems of nobility Diana would have been seen as a "Hochgeboren" (Highborn) and this prestigious noble lady.
 
I always understood that Diana was Noble...not a commoner.


LaRae
 
'Commoner' comes from the ability to vote in elections for, and sit in, the House of Commons.

It's not a pejorative. Prior to 1999, hereditary peers had been constitutionally disqualified from being electors to, or members of, the House of Commons.

Hereditary peers had always sat in the House of Lords.

The term doesn't mean as much today as hereditary peers can also now sit in the Commons.
 
Last edited:
Pranter said:
I always understood that Diana was Noble...not a commoner.


LaRae
Click to expand...

For me Diana is every inch a noble, but in the British system anyone who is no Peer, is a commoner, it seems. Look at the Queen's 4th Prime Minister, Sir Alexander Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home. He had to give up his peerage to be able to sit in the House of Commons (what is in a name...).

Upon giving up his peerage, Sir Alec, son of the 13th Earl of Home and of Lady Lilian Lambton (daughter of the 4th Earl of Durham) suddenly became a "commoner" in British eyes while he was of course very well rooted in British aristocracy.
 
Last edited:
Ah so it's a legal thing too not just a designator....duh, should of realized that.


LaRae
 
The British themselves make a difference too. When Antony Armstrong-Jones died, in many media could be read that he was "the first real commoner in the royal family", while Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Queen Elizabeth, the Queen-Mother) or Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott (Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester), etc. technically were commoners as well, but everyone will understand the subtle difference...
 
Last edited:
^^^ It's why the term is best avoided. Prince Harry is a 'commoner' under the old rules, but intuitively just doesn't make sense to many people.
 
We're not talking legalities here.

Diana may not have a peerage but she was not a simple Miss. She was lady Dians, the daughter if an earl. It is expected a very old peered family would have a tiara and jewels. Just like the peerage doesn't belong to Diana, neither dud the tiara. It belonged to the countess spencer. It was simply loaned to her.

Camilla was just Miss Camilla Shand. Her parents didn't hold a peerage. No estate or huge jewelry trove.

Yes some brides bring tiaras, but they usually have their own aristocratic blood. Camilla has some minor far back, but not who the tiara comes from. So I stand by my, it's rare for a commoner bride to bring a tiara into a marriage.
 
And I stand by mine, unless you know who purchased that tiara, it may have come from King Edward VII, himself. He showered Mrs. Keppel with lots of baubles. No where does it say she purchased it herself or her grandfather picked it up somewhere. Do you know its providence.
 
Yes, and rumored to be the King's daughter, which also might be where the tiara came from.
 
Countessmeout said:
We're not talking legalities here.



Diana may not have a peerage but she was not a simple Miss. She was lady Dians, the daughter if an earl. It is expected a very old peered family would have a tiara and jewels. Just like the peerage doesn't belong to Diana, neither dud the tiara. It belonged to the countess spencer. It was simply loaned to her.



Camilla was just Miss Camilla Shand. Her parents didn't hold a peerage. No estate or huge jewelry trove.



Yes some brides bring tiaras, but they usually have their own aristocratic blood. Camilla has some minor far back, but not who the tiara comes from. So I stand by my, it's rare for a commoner bride to bring a tiara into a marriage.
Click to expand...


How is Camilla's aristocratic blood far back. Her maternal grandfather was the Baron Ashcombe. The Cubitt family was very very rich so I'm sure they had tiaras and jewels
 
:previous: Diana and her sisters, daughters of an earl, did not rate their own tiaras. That's just the way it was and I am sure that when she wore one of the family tiara's at her wedding nobody in her family or the royal family could possibly have imagined how that Spencer tiara would come to personify all that was romance about Diana.

However, it must be noted that whilst Camilla has a tiara, she comes from old money but no family pile or title to maintain. "Camilla's" tiara, whilst it has provenance, is not necessarily hers. In point of fact, we don't know whether she owns it or borrows it from her family. We just know where it came from, not who owns it.
 
MARG said:
:previous: Diana and her sisters, daughters of an earl, did not rate their own tiaras. That's just the way it was and I am sure that when she wore one of the family tiara's at her wedding nobody in her family or the royal family could possibly have imagined how that Spencer tiara would come to personify all that was romance about Diana.

However, it must be noted that whilst Camilla has a tiara, she comes from old money but no family pile or title to maintain. "Camilla's" tiara, whilst it has provenance, is not necessarily hers. In point of fact, we don't know whether she owns it or borrows it from her family. We just know where it came from, not who owns it.
Click to expand...

It was stated in the article posted that "Rosalind (Shand, Camilla's mother) died in 1994, and she left the tiara to her elder daughter, Camilla." I would take that to mean that Camilla owns that tiara and most likely will pass it on to her daughter, Laura, who also wore it on her wedding day.
 
Osipi said:
It was stated in the article posted that "Rosalind (Shand, Camilla's mother) died in 1994, and she left the tiara to her elder daughter, Camilla." I would take that to mean that Camilla owns that tiara and most likely will pass it on to her daughter, Laura, who also wore it on her wedding day.
Click to expand...

It's unlikely the writer actually knew who owns the tiara. No doubt Camilla is the one with most opportunity to wear it. Also, I can't see the point in speculation as to which of her children Camilla chooses to leave the tiara to.
 
COUNTESS said:
And I stand by mine, unless you know who purchased that tiara, it may have come from King Edward VII, himself. He showered Mrs. Keppel with lots of baubles. No where does it say she purchased it herself or her grandfather picked it up somewhere. Do you know its providence.
Click to expand...

Mrs Keppel indicates a simple commoner, but Alice herself was the daughter of the 4th Baron Edmonstone and was born at their estate, Duntreath Castle at pittoresque Loch Lomond (picture).

Her husband, the Hon. George Keppel, indicates a commoner, but he was the son of the 7th Earl of Albemarle. The (Van) Keppels are 15th C nobles from the Netherlands. The original Van Keppel castle is still there, in the place named Keppel and is still in private ownership of Van Keppel-ancestors: front view.

So technically a commoner or not, Camilla's parents and grandparents were not "from the street" so to say.
 
Last edited:
It's a nice change to see the Shand tiara from time to time. The endless repetitions of the honeycomb are a bit boring. It is a pity that her daughter-in-law did not wear it at her wedding. Only her daughter Laura did.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Mrs Keppel indicates a simple commoner, but Alice herself was the daughter of the 4th Baron Edmonstone and was born at their estate, Duntreath Castle at pittoresque Loch Lomond (picture).

Her husband, the Hon. George Keppel, indicates a commoner, but he was the son of the 7th Earl of Albemarle. The (Van) Keppels are 15th C nobles from the Netherlands. The original Van Keppel castle is still there, in the place named Keppel and is still in private ownership of Van Keppel-ancestors: front view.

So technically a commoner or not, Camilla's parents and grandparents were not "from the street" so to say.
Click to expand...

If George Keppel was the son of an Earl he would have been Lord George Keppel, just as Diana Spencer was Lady Diana
 
Daenerys Targaryen said:
If George Keppel was the son of an Earl he would have been Lord George Keppel, just as Diana Spencer was Lady Diana
Click to expand...

No. For some strange reason all daughters of an Earl are Lady ... but by sons only the oldest ist Lord ..., and the other are Honourable. ...
 
Stefan said:
No. For some strange reason all daughters of an Earl are Lady ... but by sons only the oldest ist Lord ..., and the other are Honourable. ...
Click to expand...

Only eldest son is a heir. All daughters are co-heiresses.
 
Spheno said:
Only eldest son is a heir. All daughters are co-heiresses.
Click to expand...

B ut there is no difference made with the children of a Duke. They are all Lord/Lady.
 
Stefan said:
No. For some strange reason all daughters of an Earl are Lady ... but by sons only the oldest ist Lord ..., and the other are Honourable. ...
Click to expand...

Only the sons of a duke or a marquess are Lord [...]. The eldest son of an earl uses, however, one of his father's subsidiary titles as a matter of courtesy (normally, that is a viscount title). Diana's brother was the Viscount Althorp for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Jordanian Royal Jewels 2: Jan 2024 -
Replies
0
Views
600
Marengo
Marengo
Marengo
Queen Camilla Jewels 2: February 2024 -
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
muriel
muriel
Tilia C.
Queen Silvia Jewels 4: Jun 2023 -
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Stefan
Jewels of the British Nobility 2: Aug. 2023 -
Replies
9
Views
1K
The Royal Watcher
T
Stefan
Crown Princess Victoria Jewels 4: Jun 2023 -
2 3
Replies
85
Views
7K
Opals
O

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom