Queen Victoria Coronet Could Go Overseas Without UK Buyer: August 2016


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A shame that matching necklace and bracelet have been sold off.


LaRae
True. But they have way less royal history and is not as big of a loss as this would be. Aristrocrats need to sell their jewels to keep afloat.
 
Did Princess Mary The Countess of Harewood or one of her sons sell the coronet to a dealer in London?
 
I'm telling you, Queen Mary would snatch that coronet up so fast it would make the sellers head spin. She would probably break it up or expand it, but she would get it. If I was a member of the family and, could afford to get it, I would.

That coronet, however beautiful, is really petite. Almost a big bracelet. 6 million is a staggering amount and the Harewoods probably prefer the cash above a jewel collecting dust in the cassette.
 
Last edited:
I'm also of the opinion that it should definitely remain in UK in a collection as it is very much a part of British history. How many pieces out there were designed by Prince Albert for his bride? The coronet is on par with Queen Elizabeth's wedding bracelet that was designed and made for HM by the DoE and contains diamonds that were part of his mother's collection.

It was probably passed down by Queen Mary because, like Elizabeth's bracelet, it was a personal piece of jewelry. I'm sure that when the time comes, HM's wedding bracelet will somehow be guaranteed to remain within the family and never be sold off.

I wouldn't be so sure. The British royal collection is vast. The number of events for which grand jewels are required become less and lesser frequent. Additions to the collections make little sense. I can imagine that Queen Elizabeth II leaves her own bracelet to her only daughter, The Princess Royal. Why not? The only royal history it has is the current owner.
 
Last edited:
Did Princess Mary The Countess of Harewood or one of her sons sell the coronet to a dealer in London?

It was seen in the 2000's so probably the coronet has been offered for sale after the death of the 7th Earl of Harewood in 2011. The Earl had four sons: the current 8th Earl (David Lascelles) and his brothers James, Jeremy and Mark Lascelles. I can imagine the family selling heirlooms to make a fair distribution between the four sons of the late Earl and to pay death duties.
 
Even the puissant rich Duchess of Alba, or the Fürstin von Thurn und Taxis, or the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg had to sell jewels to free cash. A newspaper like the DM loves to add a prize tag on a family "he is worth 500 million" but they never add that it is in estates, artworks, jewels, investments, not on the bank account. As the Duchess of Alba once said: "I can not go to the supermarket with a Rembrandt under my arm".
 
Queen Victoria coronet could go overseas without UK buyer

I wouldn't be so sure. The British royal collection is vast. The number of events for which grand jewels are required become less and lesser frequent. Additions to the collections make little sense. I can imagine that Queen Elizabeth II leaves her own bracelet to her only daughter, The Princess Royal. Why not? The only royal history it has is the current owner.


And if she leaves the bracelet to Anne, it will probably be sold after Anne dies by her kids which is what happened with this tiara. The easiest way to keep the jewelry is it to go from monarch to monarch which is tax free.Then various members can borrow when needed.

We saw Kate wearing the diamond bracelet (the first other then the Queen) at the Chinese State Dinner. If the Queen wanted to give the bracelet to some one like Anne or York girls not in the direct line to be monarch, she would need to already have done it. She can give it as a gift but she needs to live 7 years after giving it for the receiver to avoid the taxes on it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
With so much of QV's jewelry left to the crown, I'm surprised that this piece was QM's to give away.
 
Just because Kate has worn it doesn't mean that The Queen hasn't already given it to someone else. She may have asked that particular family member to lend it to Kate for the evening. It happens within families.

I don't think that the BRF will be all that interested in one piece of jewellery that isn't connected to them directly any more and hasn't been for nearly a century - since it was given to Princess Mary as a wedding gift years before the Queen herself was born.

Someone in the UK may buy it - for their own personal collection or for some other reason.

Most of the royal jewels are never seen - so if the BRF did buy this it would probably go into the vaults and never be seen again.

If Andrew had the money I could see him buying it for Beatrice or Eugenie but then they would face the same problem in a few generations when the girls descendants have to pay death duties.
 
With so much of QV's jewelry left to the crown, I'm surprised that this piece was QM's to give away.

Only the Coronation Necklace, the Coronation Earrings, the Bow Brooches and Prince Albert's Sapphire Brooch are left "to the Crown" (with that I mean Queen Elizabeth II). With so many children and grandchildren it is clear Queen Victoria was not so caring about the direct line. Maybe because she knew her Heirs on the throne will always have sufficient means to puchase jewels, something the junior descendants lack.
 
I think the Queen has learned a lesson from family members. I believe everything we see on family members are lifetime loans and not gifts.

It makes no sense whatsoever to gift jewels, only to have the children or grandchildren sell it for death duties.

Keep it all with the monarch, and pass it down to the next king or queen.
 
Last edited:
The bracelet Catherine wore is The Queen's. She's not giving it away.

It would be nice if the British royals bought the coronet. If I had the money, I would buy it and return it to the monarchy.
 
The bracelet Catherine wore is The Queen's. She's not giving it away.

It would be nice if the British royals bought the coronet. If I had the money, I would buy it and return it to the monarchy.

It can cause an unpleasant precedent: the Queen feeling pressed to buy jewels from the Kents, the Gloucesters, the Yorks, etc. because she did so to the Harewoods. She also did not buy jewels from her uncle the Duke of Windsor or her sister the Princess Margaret.

The British royal family has a gigantic amount of jewels. The Duchess of Cornwall has received lavish jewelry gifts. The Queen likewise. That seems the norm: get it all for free.
 
Not familiar with how trusts and wills work in the U.K.

Here in the U.S. there is a way to put things in trusts in order to avoid all the taxes/probate courts etc. Is that not done in the U.K.?

Just wondering if there was a way for this royal/noble families to not be forced into selling these heirlooms...?


LaRae
 
There is a great article on the orderofsplendor blog about jewels held in trust to avoid being sold off The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Royal Splendor 101: Family Jewel Foundations

It surprises me that the BRF doesn't seem to use a trust to protect its jewels to prevent them from being sold off, that being said most of the important ones are now owned by the Queen who can pass them on to the next sovereign without tax being paid so in someway the current situation protects the most important jewels already, this is why we see so many 'loans' rather than gifts from the Queen.
Hopefully the jewels owned by other members of the royal family are protected in someway or another.
 
There is a great article on the orderofsplendor blog about jewels held in trust to avoid being sold off The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor: Royal Splendor 101: Family Jewel Foundations

It surprises me that the BRF doesn't seem to use a trust to protect its jewels to prevent them from being sold off, that being said most of the important ones are now owned by the Queen who can pass them on to the next sovereign without tax being paid so in someway the current situation protects the most important jewels already, this is why we see so many 'loans' rather than gifts from the Queen.
Hopefully the jewels owned by other members of the royal family are protected in someway or another.
BRF has:
1. Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom (this group includes crowns, etc.)
2. jewels, left by Queen Victoria and Queen Alexandra to the Crown (this group includes many tiaras, necklaces, brooches, etc.)
3. The Royal Collection (all jewels received as official gifts by the Royal Family during last 20 years )
4. private jewels

There is no need to put all jewels in one trust
 
The bracelet Catherine wore is The Queen's. She's not giving it away.

It would be nice if the British royals bought the coronet. If I had the money, I would buy it and return it to the monarchy.

Obviously the BRF don't think this piece is all that important or they would have probably bought it from the Harewood's.

It was a personal gift to her daughter by Queen Mary who would have known that it would not be protected by the sovereign to sovereign tax free arrangements and knew about death duties as they had come into being while her husband was Prince of Wales. She still decided to give it permanently to her daughter.

If it was returned to the monarchy it would probably end up in a vault somewhere never to be seen, or even broken up to create new pieces for someone - which is where the Queen's bracelet came from along with her engagement ring.
 
There also are plenty of tiaras in house already including the oriental circlet designed by Albert for Victoria.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The problem with historic pieces with a huge price tag is that if "the royal family" buys them, they look as if they are taking food/medical/defense/etc care away from others - because everyone believes it comes out of public funding.
Were I a years gone royal, I'd have put it all in the crown ownership and loaned it. But years ago, no one had any idea (or much idea) that people would hate the idea of royals buying back tiaras. Sad for us, practical for the BRF.



QUOTE=Iluvbertie;1920280]Obviously the BRF don't think this piece is all that important or they would have probably bought it from the Harewood's.

It was a personal gift to her daughter by Queen Mary who would have known that it would not be protected by the sovereign to sovereign tax free arrangements and knew about death duties as they had come into being while her husband was Prince of Wales. She still decided to give it permanently to her daughter.

If it was returned to the monarchy it would probably end up in a vault somewhere never to be seen, or even broken up to create new pieces for someone - which is where the Queen's bracelet came from along with her engagement ring.[/QUOTE]
 
:previous:
if the queen tried to buy it a lot will start saying for instance if the queen are able to buy a royal heirloom for 6 millions then why wouldn't she pay for renovating the palace she lives in
 
I think the queen buying it would be a pr nightmare. Doesn't matter what we think. I think the Carnarvons and the Cavendishes have figured out how to get around the death taxes issue. If not, the houses would be completely bare by now. Isn't the death taxes compounded by 140% over two generations? That is a lot of cash to generate in order to keep your bric a brac, no matter how fine it is. You still have to eat, and fix the roof.
 
Only the Coronation Necklace, the Coronation Earrings, the Bow Brooches and Prince Albert's Sapphire Brooch are left "to the Crown" (with that I mean Queen Elizabeth II). With so many children and grandchildren it is clear Queen Victoria was not so caring about the direct line. Maybe because she knew her Heirs on the throne will always have sufficient means to puchase jewels, something the junior descendants lack.
Also, the Crown Rubies and Oriental Circlet most often worn by The Queen Mother are Crown property as is the Amethyst demi-parure from Queen Victoria's mother. "To the Crown" is as close to a jewel foundation as the BRF has at the moment: these jewels are not personal property and must be worn only by Queens and Queens Consort. They cannot be sold.
 
Oh for an anonymous, twenty-first centrury Ms/Mr/Mrs Greville with a yen to see it stay in the UK in a safe in the royal collection, to be seen at suitable occasions so that plebs like me can sigh!
 
Queen Victoria coronet could go overseas without UK buyer

I think the queen buying it would be a pr nightmare. Doesn't matter what we think. I think the Carnarvons and the Cavendishes have figured out how to get around the death taxes issue. If not, the houses would be completely bare by now. Isn't the death taxes compounded by 140% over two generations? That is a lot of cash to generate in order to keep your bric a brac, no matter how fine it is. You still have to eat, and fix the roof.


You can use a trust to avoid the inheritance tax but peers with large houses have to keep the income flowing to maintain them by paying visitors, rental cottages, corporate events, weddings etc. The popularity of Downton Abbey drove tourists to Highclere Castle which allowed the Earl of Carnarvon to make needed repairs.

The Queen is limited on ways she can fundraise which the nobility don't have. I agree spending 5 million on a tiara instead of fixing the roof or replacing heating system would be a pr disaster.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
The problem with historic pieces with a huge price tag is that if "the royal family" buys them, they look as if they are taking food/medical/defense/etc care away from others - because everyone believes it comes out of public funding.
Were I a years gone royal, I'd have put it all in the crown ownership and loaned it. But years ago, no one had any idea (or much idea) that people would hate the idea of royals buying back tiaras. Sad for us, practical for the BRF.



QUOTE=Iluvbertie;1920280]Obviously the BRF don't think this piece is all that important or they would have probably bought it from the Harewood's.

It was a personal gift to her daughter by Queen Mary who would have known that it would not be protected by the sovereign to sovereign tax free arrangements and knew about death duties as they had come into being while her husband was Prince of Wales. She still decided to give it permanently to her daughter.

If it was returned to the monarchy it would probably end up in a vault somewhere never to be seen, or even broken up to create new pieces for someone - which is where the Queen's bracelet came from along with her engagement ring.
[/QUOTE]

George V owned the coronet, not his wife. She could not give the coronet to Mary
 
Did Princess Mary The Countess of Harewood or one of her sons sell the coronet to a dealer in London?

The Princess Royal died in 1965. After her death, most of her jewels were sold (including the Harewood Scroll Tiara.)
The coronet remained with the family until 2011 when the earl died.
 
There are certain parts of the story that just don't ring true. There is no doubt in my mind that the dealer is Wartski (which bought the coronet after the late earl's death in 2011.) This could get delayed until next June. I think the foreign buyer is a stooge - to get Attention for this coronet and have it bought or a huge amount of money. Wartski has 2 royal appointment. See my post from earlier today Royal Musings: The last time Queen Victoria's Coronet was worn -- so what's the story
 
Queen Mary did not give the gift. George V owned the jewels


I believe George V and Queen Mary jointly have it to their daughter. It might have been something that George V inherited or was given to him (or given to his wife), but was likely viewed as "theirs" owing to the fact that they were married.
 
Back
Top Bottom