Sarah, Duchess Of York Jewellery

[glassary]

Originally Posted by branchg

Sarah's tiara was borrowed from Garrard's for her wedding day and was purchased by The Queen as a gift. She retained it after the divorce as her personal property.

Can't remember where I read it but I recall that it was said that Sarah didn't know if she was going to be loaned a BRF tiara so she pushed ahead with borrowing one from Garrards. IIRC it noted that Garrards contacted the RF to alert them of this and the Queen purchased the loaner tiara.
The story went that the Queen did this so it would not appear she didn't want to loan one to Sarah. (Which she probably would have if Sarah had not jumped the gun and the loan tiara was publicized).
Does anyone recall this story? And of course is there any truth to it?

[Diarist]

Could I try and help with this - I think also that one of my posts on this forum might be in the back of your mind.

Sarah of course needed a tiara. The Fergusons did not have a family tiara. Garrard, as Crown Jeweller was an obvious source to borrow one. And yes, apparently the Queen was alerted to the position, whereupon she went ahead and purchased it.

I stated on another thread that the reason for this was actually told to me some time ago, although at that time I misunderstood it:-

Traditionally, one would have expected in the normal course of events, that the Queen would have given Sarah a Tiara from her own private collection. But the story that I heard was that the Queen did not want to go down that route 'as she did not want to give Sarah anything that she might not get back'. This seemed a strange story at the time, because it seemed to indicate that the Queen was already having doubts about Sarah's suitability. But in fact, what I had been told I had actually misunderstood. What I was told should have been placed in context, which I did not do. The reason was not so much that the Queen was having doubts about Sarah per se, but that behind the scenes, Diana's marriage was falling apart in 1986 [although of course this was being denied by BP at the time]. Thus, it was not so much that the Queen was having doubts about Sarah back in 1986, but that her advisors were anxious to protect the Queen's property because of what was happening with Diana. At first glance, therefore, it appears that Sarah was being penalised because of Diana, but in fact, a few years down the line, when Sarah's own marriage did fall apart, HM's action in buying a tiara from Garrard seems jolly sensible.

[Warren]

Which means that the unofficial "tiara policy" had changed, or that by 1999 HM was more confident of Sophie and Edward's long-term chances. Sophie's wedding tiara was made from elements of royal provenance, Queen Victoria no less.

[Lord_Royal]

Originally Posted by Diarist

...Sarah of course needed a tiara. The Fergusons did not have a family tiara. Garrard, as Crown Jeweller was an obvious source to borrow one. And yes, apparently the Queen was alerted to the position, whereupon she went ahead and purchased it.

Yes, I have heard a very similar narrative regarding the Garrard York Tiara and it makes sense.
I have always been under the impression that The Queen quite enjoyed Sarah and approved of the marriage. She certainly looked happy at their wedding, which cannot be said for her temperament at the wedding of Charles and Diana.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by soCal girl

Sarah, Duchess of York's jewelry!

From DPA:

^gorgeous fringe necklace :)

:)

Thats a beautiful necklace, but Sarah's skin doesn't really flatter the beauty of the necklace.
As for Sarah's wedding tiara, I have never heard that it had a name before today. I wish it belonged to the BRF so we could see it again.

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by Warren

Which means that the unofficial "tiara policy" had changed, or that by 1999 HM was more confident of Sophie and Edward's long-term chances. Sophie's wedding tiara was made from elements of royal provenance, Queen Victoria no less.

As I understand the position, Warren, nothing has in fact changed because Sophie's 'created' tiara was very much in the line with the policy of not handing over tiaras from the Queen's royal collection: apart from the fact that the 'created tiara' was not one of the Queen's tiaras, I understood that it was made clear that it was a loan to Sophie. The fact that she has retained the tiara I think reflects the fact that [unlike Catherine] Sophie is a 'performing royal' and therefore does occasionally need a tiara.

As of course was the Halo Tiara that was lent to Catherine for her wedding. Whilst of course it is settled fact that for the forseeable future, William and Catherine are not going to be performing many royal duties, it is clearly also the case that over the years Catherine is going to be appearing at White tie Functions for which a tiara will be necessary. So, theoretically, the wedding would have been an ideal time to 'hand over' a tiara to Catherine. After all, even though the Princess of Wales had access to the Spencer Family Tiara, the Queen nevertheless soon began handing over to her pieces of Royal Family Jewellery, which she would need over the forthcoming years as she progressed in her 'career' as a wife married to the heir to the throne. But the Queen has chosen not to go down this route - in other words, in my humble opinion, this is because of the Queen's caution in these matters.

Just my opinion of course

Alex

[Diarist]

Can someone shed any light on Sarah's necklace [pictured above] - i.e. its provenance and what it is made from?

Thank you

Alex

[branchg]

Sarah's necklace in that picture was probably worn on behalf of a jeweler participating in a charity event. Similar to Oscar night, where movie stars borrow significant jewels to wear for the event.

I don't think The Queen was too worried about the royal jewels in Diana's possession. If she was that concerned, she could have insisted they be returned to her when Diana and Charles formally separated. They were personal pieces created by Queen Mary for her private collection and did not belong to the Crown.

[Lord_Royal]

The wedding diamonds make yet ANOTHER appearance, looks like she's sprung them out of the vault!

http://i55.tinypic.com/so4azd.jpg

[tlklhm]

The Chinese lady in white is Michelle Ong, a jewelry designer from Carnet Hong Kong.

http://michelleong.com/

[jonc93]

Maybe Sarah wanted to impress her so she wore the best diamonds she has.

[Lord_Royal]

Maybe, I just like that Sarah's wearing them and enjoying them. Those diamonds were never worn in public for more than a decade, what's the use of them if but not to wear and enjoy them?

I love the set, modern, but classic. You'd never guess the set is from 1986.

[countess felicitas]

ist there any bigger picture available, where you can see the necklace in detail?

[Duchessmary]

I wonder if she's ever thought about wearing her engagement ring on her right hand, or maybe having it reset? That's a gorgeous piece.

[Lord_Royal]

Originally Posted by Duchessmary

I wonder if she's ever thought about wearing her engagement ring on her right hand, or maybe having it reset? That's a gorgeous piece.

She wore the engagement ring on her left hand for SO many years after their separation, I'm betting she only stopped wearing it circa 2001 or later. She should wear that too, it's a beautiful ring.

[IloveCP]

Her wedding tiara is very stunning.I wonder if Beatrice and Eugunie will wear at their weddings.

[IloveCP]

Her engagement ring is stunning! The ruby is gorgeous!

[Artemisia]

Sarah's ring is indeed very beautiful.
I like the fact her engagement ring differs from that of most other royal brides; if I'm not mistaken, Sara's was the only ruby ring.

[IloveCP]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

Sarah's ring is indeed very beautiful.
I like the fact her engagement ring differs from that of most other royal brides; if I'm not mistaken, Sara's was the only ruby ring.

Actually,there are a lot of royal ladies who have a ruby engagement ring.Mathilde,Mary,Mette Marit and I am sure many others!

[Baroness of Books]

While I like Sarah's ring and think it's very pretty, I see it more as a cocktail ring and not as an engagement ring. It's probably the circle of diamonds around the ruby that gives it that look, rather than diamond baguettes set on the sides.