 |
|
06-20-2017, 03:44 PM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: ., Croatia
Posts: 1,663
|
|
__________________
__________________
|
07-01-2017, 06:02 PM
|
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: ., Croatia
Posts: 1,663
|
|
__________________
__________________
|
07-12-2017, 02:49 PM
|
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: ., Croatia
Posts: 1,663
|
|
|
__________________
|
07-12-2017, 03:54 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,165
|
|
|
Some serious earrings on this evening!
__________________
|
07-12-2017, 03:55 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 8,297
|
|
|
I want to like them...but I don't like them.
LaRae
__________________
|
07-12-2017, 04:00 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,095
|
|
These earrings are insane. Cams brought some unseen bling for once.
edit : they seem more delicate than i thought.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...9887765866.jpg
__________________
|
07-12-2017, 11:37 PM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 7,440
|
|
 You're right Nico, for all their size they are very delicate and the Mighty Bouch crushes it and the clasp on the pearls dusts of the bits.
Sad really, they look like very nice earrings but the mix of old and new diamonds is rarely, if ever, successful.
On another note, why on earth are we not seeing more tiara wear? The Delhi Durbar would have been magnificent on this occasion and I hear she has another, which we have never seen her wear. Her family one is lovely but cannot compete with the tiaras on display last night.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
|
07-13-2017, 09:10 PM
|
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: ., Croatia
Posts: 1,663
|
|
|
__________________
|
07-13-2017, 11:53 PM
|
|
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,160
|
|
|
Camilla is the Queen of Chockers :) I love it ! Especially as none of the other British Royal ladies seems to be very fond of chockers.
And the Greville Boucheron Tiara is really lovely and gives her perfect sparkle. But she has worn it to almost every high profile event. I know she has used her family tiara to some occassions recently too but i would love to see her wear a new Royal tiara soon. If she really has access to the Teck Crescent Tiara i would love to se her wear it. I would also love to see her in the Oriental Circlet Tiara. No one else seems to want to wear it and Cam would look lovely in it so i hope QEII will lend it to her :)
__________________
|
07-16-2017, 08:36 PM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 7,440
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
Camilla has received pieces that belonged to QEQM, should those pieces go to her children of a previous marriage, or should they go to William or Harry. I think those pieces should stay with the royal family. Pieces bought for her could go either way, although, I think those should stay also. Pieces that she brought into the marriage, should go to her children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter
I don't believe those were given to Camilla to 'keep'...I believe she understands on her death they go back to the BRF...those pieces that were from the QM.
Her private jewelry bought for her by Charles are hers to dispose of as she wishes.
LaRae
|
|
The jewels from HM I should imagine are, like the Lovers knot Tiara, "gifts" but in the nature of a life time loan returned to the family vault upon her death.
That would include the Bucheron and Teck Crescent tiaras and the Dehli Durbar tiara which I suspect was a one-time loan anyway. Also the Greville two and three strand diamond necklaces and the single diamond collet necklace.
All the "gifts" from other countries go into the Royal Vault (state) and she gets to leave her formidable collection of pearl chokers and matching earrings, diamond, turquoise and amethyst demi-parures, her engagement ring, family tiara and any other private family gifts to whomever she wishes.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
|
07-17-2017, 04:53 AM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 626
|
|
|
The chocked thing could be a smart move on her part. QE2 was never interested in them, and I'm sure QM stock pile is still in the vault.
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 05:33 AM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,058
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
The chocked thing could be a smart move on her part. QE2 was never interested in them, and I'm sure QM stock pile is still in the vault.
|
It was my understanding that all the chokers of the Duchess are her personal property and not from the royal collection.
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 07:54 AM
|
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,171
|
|
|
Yes indeed, they are her personal property, either inherited of gifts from her Prince.
As such they will not be joining 'the Royal Collection'.
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 08:21 AM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,453
|
|
|
Just remember that there is a choice with her personal jewelry. She can leave it to family and friends, subject to tax. Or she can give it to the royal trust, which is an untaxed move. Or do some of each, as I think she will.
Doubtless many family and friends will receive bequests - but wisely so as to not tax the income of recipients. I've always thought Camilla to be practical in these kinds of things.
And I also think some of her own iconic pieces, if not anyone's choice, will go to the royal collection. At some point, Camilla will be as fondly represented in royal exhibits as other past royals. And her personal jewelry choices will be a part of that tale.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
|
07-17-2017, 10:15 AM
|
 |
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: -, United States
Posts: 9,845
|
|
|
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 12:52 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Posts: 325
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS
Just remember that there is a choice with her personal jewelry. She can leave it to family and friends, subject to tax. Or she can give it to the royal trust, which is an untaxed move. Or do some of each, as I think she will.
Doubtless many family and friends will receive bequests - but wisely so as to not tax the income of recipients. I've always thought Camilla to be practical in these kinds of things.
And I also think some of her own iconic pieces, if not anyone's choice, will go to the royal collection. At some point, Camilla will be as fondly represented in royal exhibits as other past royals. And her personal jewelry choices will be a part of that tale.
|
This is such an interesting topic for discussion- I've been contemplating the Greville Jewels that Camilla has been wearing - they actually have more of a connection her than the Queen Mother, as the original owner the Hon. Dame Margaret Greville was in fact godmother to Sonia Cubitt, Camilla's grandmother, who inherited Mrs Greville's cultured pearls !
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 01:38 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 4,078
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS
Just remember that there is a choice with her personal jewelry. She can leave it to family and friends, subject to tax. Or she can give it to the royal trust, which is an untaxed move. Or do some of each, as I think she will.
Doubtless many family and friends will receive bequests - but wisely so as to not tax the income of recipients. I've always thought Camilla to be practical in these kinds of things.
|
I don't believe Camilla had much jewelry when she married Charles.
He gave her most of what she has.
I remember reading that he had scouts in the major auction houses because he wanted to find some nice pieces for her.
(If that is the case, it seems like they should stay in the RF, rather than be bequeathed to other people). Although if they were a gift, that might change things.
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 02:49 PM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 3,313
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel
I don't believe Camilla had much jewelry when she married Charles.
He gave her most of what she has.
I remember reading that he had scouts in the major auction houses because he wanted to find some nice pieces for her.
(If that is the case, it seems like they should stay in the RF, rather than be bequeathed to other people). Although if they were a gift, that might change things.
|
My opinion is that , when something is given to someone as a personal gift, then it belongs to the person who received it and he/she is free to sell it or leave it to whoever he/she wants. A case in point is Sarah's wedding tiara, which was given to her and, therefore, she didn't have to return it to the Queen after she divorced Andrew.
My personal position , on the other hand, which isn't always the case in the real world, is that royal jewelry, especially grand tiaras that were used by former queen consorts or reigning queens, should stay mostly in the main line of the family, either by being inherited by the next king or queen, or, as I prefer it, by being placed in a family trust/foundation as the Bernadottes and the Orange-Nassaus have done. None of Charles' gifts to Camilla fall into the latter category though IMHO.
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 08:12 PM
|
|
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 626
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair
It was my understanding that all the chokers of the Duchess are her personal property and not from the royal collection.
|
Oh yes, those are hers. Everyone compares a person to the one who wore the jewels before. As in Diana's ring on DoC. OM's chokers have not seen the light of day in 70 years. No one wears them. I think it would be great for Camilla to start wearing them as consort. She is also taller then QE, so the stomachers would probable look really good on a dress with something higher on the neck.
__________________
|
07-17-2017, 10:24 PM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 7,440
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel
I don't believe Camilla had much jewelry when she married Charles.
He gave her most of what she has.
I remember reading that he had scouts in the major auction houses because he wanted to find some nice pieces for her.
(If that is the case, it seems like they should stay in the RF, rather than be bequeathed to other people). Although if they were a gift, that might change things.
|
The floral tiara, the turquoise demi-parure, the diamond snake necklace, aquamarine and diamond suite, the diamond demi-parure, the aquamarine and pearl choker, amethyst and pearl choker, small diamond and pearl choker, garnet and pearl choker, a single strand of pearls and her everyday pearl earrings, and of course, her engagement ring.
I am sure that is not her entire collection pre-wedding, I've missed the brooches and modern bits and bobs. Not an insignificant collection to bring to her marriage.
__________________
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cruisers Sailing Forum
Rigid Inflatable Boats
Performance Boat Forum
Trawler Boating Forums
Maxum Owners Club
