Kent Jewels


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Where can I find a photo of the necklace, Muriel? I don't remember what she wore.;)

You will find it in the wedding thread (Other things royal) for Freddie and Sophie
 
The necklace at her son's wedding was a seven strand pearl necklace with saphire and diamond clips at the sides which can also be detached and worn as brooches. I don't know the history of the pearls but the clips are from Cartier and were a gift from Prince George to Princess Marina. They date from around the mid-1930's.
 
Thanks for the great info angela! Art Deco clips from the 30's are just about my favorite thing! I love P Michael's! She has a very inventive way with her jewels that I just love!!!
 
The necklace at her son's wedding was a seven strand pearl necklace with saphire and diamond clips at the sides which can also be detached and worn as brooches. I don't know the history of the pearls but the clips are from Cartier and were a gift from Prince George to Princess Marina. They date from around the mid-1930's.

Angela - Many thanks for the information. The Cartier clips are lovely, and credit to M-C to convert them into such a wonderful necklace.
 
Thanks much, Angela!:flowers: Mystery solved. I have to say Princess Michael's goldsmiths have done an excellent job once again!;)
 
what can be found in the kent jewllery box if one list the items?

what jewlery has if there any conecction to Qeen mary or further back in the main line of the royal family
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't say that Princess M owns few jewels. On close examination her collection is quite considerable.
 
The Kents collectively once had a wonderful collection of jewels--they still have some great pieces, but with the auction of the jewels held in possession by the Duke of Kent, well, it diminished somewhat. The piece I most regret seeing sold was the diamond Romanov bow brooch-it was truly spectacular, the diamond Romanov girandols diamond earrings Duchess of Kent | Diamond Girandoles , and of course, the Cambridge Sapphires http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f20/kent-jewels-6043.html#post219340 I believe that Princess Alexandra has never sold any of the pieces she received--and her one tiara is interchangeable (the flower centers) with pearls, sapphires, and turquoises--it is a very well designed piece! Prince Michael of Kent, I am very happy to say, has not sold any of the pieces he received. I recall some speculation but he was very upset and shared that even if he wanted to sell them, he can't because they are part of a trust for his children. I have to say, I admire him for making it impossible to sell those treasured pieces. I'm sure that he was most upset about the loss of the bow brooch and the glorious earrings because of their Romanov connection.
I seem to remember reading that Marina owned three diamond rivieres---and that each child recieved one.
 
Yes for such minor members of the RF the Kent's have some of the most beautiful pieces, but as jbcode99 stated the most beautiful and historic pieces were unfortunately sold by the Dukes of Kent, which were the Girandole earrings (one of the most beautiful chandelier earrings of any royal family) and the bow brooch (Beautiful and also a Romanov piece). Which is kind of sad b/c they seemed to have gotten the most jewels out of Marinas 3 kids and Prince Michael & Princess Alexandra haven't sold any jewels! Such a shame to see the Cambridge sapphires go with such a close link to Queen Mary. :/
 
Thank you, jonc93 for mentioning that most avid collector of jewellery, HIH the Grand Duchess Vladimir (aka Maria Pavlovna, aka Aunt Miechen, nee Princess Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin). The woman had spectacular jewellery, a trove of which went to her daughter, HIH and HRH Grand Duchess Elena Vladmirovna/Princess Helen of Greece and Denmark), who was, of course the mother of HRH The Duchess of Kent, Princess Marina. Some of the jewellery of HIR Gr. D. Vladimir was of course sold post-war, one piece which ended up in the possession of Barbara Hutton - a convertible necklace/tiara of diamonds and emeralds significant because of the six-sided emerald center. But also some has somehow ended up in the possession of Joan Rivers, including HIH Gr. D Vladimir's easter egg necklace.
Is the bow brooch you are referring to the rather large flowing, curved one that HRH, the Duchess of Kent, Princess Marina wore frequently?
 
This may not be the place to mention this, but princess marina, duchess of kent was a spectacular looking woman!
 
^ Wasn't she? Naturally elegant, certainly a very delicate woman. The bow brooch and the earrings are magnificent. I think she's wearing the same earrings in my profile photo, it's not so clear though.;)
 
I was wondering if these earrings in the picture attached can be interchanged.. because it looks like they are amethyst here.. weren't they originally diamonds or sapphires? Anyone know anything about these, also did they previously belong to Princess Marina?

http://i13.tinypic.com/6gwcaqd.jpg
 
I think the lighting in the pic is weird, because they are sapphires, (along with the sapphire and pearl necklace) They do interchange with diamonds and they are super gorgeous! I love these earrings, I think they did belong to Princess Marina but I'm not sure!!!
 
england-11.jpg
kentfringe-3.jpg
kentfringe-5.jpg
kentfringe-1.jpg
marina.jpg


I like the Kent diamond fringe tiara. I think fringe tiara's in general, including the George III tiara which the Queen and Princess Anne both wore on their wedding days and which is practically identical to this one, are very beautiful. The Kent tiara is quite romantic as it seems to have been adopted as the family's wedding tiara. After Princess Marina was given it as a wedding present and wore it on her wedding day in 1934 her daughter Alexandra wore it to her wedding in 1963 and her daughter-in-law Princess Michael, it's present owner, wore it to her wedding reception in 1978. Although Lady Helen Windsor wore the tiara her mother the Duchess of Kent wore on her wedding day (which was a gift from the Duchess' parents) I believe that Princess Michael's daughter, Lady Gabriella Windsor, will choose this tiara when she marries.

I'm not sure I understand -- I thought this tiara belonged to the Kents. Why is it listed on other websites and even wiki as being part of Queen Elizabeth's treasure? Even on wiki it is wrongly identified as Princess Marina's mother's Romanov tiara while it explains that it's the Kent tiara presented by the Lord Mayor and the people of London. Neither of these are correct am I right as both tiaras were passed down to the family, not Queen Elizabeth, correct?? Does anyone have a source to verify this as it needs to be changed on wiki and other sites.
 
I think the lighting in the pic is weird, because they are sapphires, (along with the sapphire and pearl necklace) They do interchange with diamonds and they are super gorgeous! I love these earrings, I think they did belong to Princess Marina but I'm not sure!!!

They can also be interchanged with emeralds. http://oi55.tinypic.com/b6qxxd.jpg And yes, the earrings belonged to Marina.
 
You're most welcome, rubies! :) Strangely the emeralds are rarely seen. Maybe somewhere there are some rubies, too? :rolleyes:
 
Very glamorous photos! I loved the earrings with the emeralds!! :wub: Dierna23, keep us posted, in case you discover them with rubies as well. Ok? ;) :flowers:
 
The Duchess of Kent had a diamond bandeau for her wedding, to secure her long veil. I think her daughter, Lady Helen Windsor, had a different one for when she got married 31 years later.
 
Lady Helen Windsor, now Lady Helen Taylor, wore the Kent Fringe Tiara on her wedding day. I'm not exactly sure what tiara the Duchess of Kent, nee Katherine Worsley, wore. Here's a picture of it.
 
Lady Helen Windsor, now Lady Helen Taylor, wore the Kent Fringe Tiara on her wedding day. I'm not exactly sure what tiara the Duchess of Kent, nee Katherine Worsley, wore. Here's a picture of it.

I cannot remember which book stated that it was diamonds of unknown provenance. It is a cute little thing, though. Wonder if she still has it.
 
I cannot remember which book stated that it was diamonds of unknown provenance. It is a cute little thing, though. Wonder if she still has it.

I, believe, I read that her parents bought it for her. I could be wrong.
 
I am a fairly new member and have not previously seen this thread, but have now had an opportunity to read through it.

If I can help with a little background, I would reiterate the point made by others that no 'Royal' jewels are ever in danger of being sold; the pieces being disposed of are pieces that belonged to members of the Royal Family.

In my humble opinion, the real problem nowadays for members of the Royal Family is a combination of inheritance tax, lack of money [this is relative of course!!! - and also related to inheritance tax, come to that] coupled with the fact that there are relatively few occasions to wear grand jewellery nowadays, which means that you are in effect keeping something that you only get to wear (say) once a year if that, and so also have the bother of having to keep it stored somewhere safely.

Don't forget that in the days when there was a more formal structure to the Royal Family, Regular Courts were held several times each Season [full jewels required, and an opportunity to 'vary the tiara' by wearing a differnent one each time], and then there were frequent 'white tie' balls given by the Aristocracy in the ballrooms in their grand houses and finally the Debutante Balls at which fond parents would attend with their offspring.

With hindsight, Princess Marina, Queen Mary and the like could have saved their heirs a lot of trouble by seeking out the monarch and 'using him or her' to in effect hold their grand jewels in trust. No inheritance tax would be paid in this way - the tiara or necklace etc that passed to the monarch would be treated as inheritance tax free, and the King / Queen could then 'lend out' the particular piece to its 'intended inheritor' if you see what I mean. The problem is that nobody could have forseen the rise of the rates of inheritance tax coupled with the relative 'lack of money' that would affect subsequent members of the Royal Family.

With regard to Princess Michael, the rumours have persisted for years that she has had the many of the pieces inherited re-set with paste, not even CZ. I don't know - and have no way of knowing whether these rumours are true. What is true is that at one stage Prince and Prince Michael's lifestyle [athough relatively modest for 'Royals' was nevertheless quite expensive to finance]. Although Prince Michael was not 'poor' by many of our own standards, as a younger son of a younger son, his own inheritance was modest by royal standards. The PMKs had a country house to run, they had a racehorse or two, they had a lifestyle that although quite modest by other Royal standards nevertheless was quite costly. Princess Michaell herself had no money of her own and it must be expensive dressing to the level that she does with no real financial 'help' to pay for her dressmaker's bills - the couple have no Civil list [or equivalent, since the Queen mostly refunds Civil list payments] and so when they turn out at engagements, they have nothing to finance their appearances with other than their own money....

The rumour that they had had various jewels re-set with paste can be traced back to remarks by their former private secretary, the 'talkative' John Barratt, who used to recount a story about one of the 'diamonds' falling out of PMK's tiara just as she was about to leave for a function, with someone then treading on it in the confusion, only for it to fracture like the glass it really was. John Barratt also recalled how he was forced to take suitcases full of silver cutlery to sell secretly in Switzerland, and how some of the furniture the Kents sold was actually the property of the Queen, as she had let the Kents furnish their London home with furniture from the royal stores.

How can we know whether this is all true or not? The answer is that we cannot. However, it is true that the Kents had to sell their beloved Gloucestershire home a few years ago, because they apparently needed the money to meet the new rent [stated to be £120,000 a year] on their Kensington Palace home- previously the rent was much more modest, and indeed it was paid for by the Queen when it initially initially revalued, but this stopped when Prince Michael was 65 [he does not count as a 'working Royal']. In my own view, the PMks would have every justification for replacing at least the occasional diamond with paste!

Hope this may help,

Diarist
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom