The Duchess of Gloucester Jewellery

A.C.C. · #1 12-08-2004, 12:22 AM

The Duchess of Gloucester's jewels she wore to the Guildhall Banquet in honor of the state visit to the UK by the Pres. and First Lady of South Korea, December 2, 2004

Another picture of HRH at the banquet

HMQueenElizabethII · #2 01-07-2005, 10:43 AM

Some more of The Duchess:

HMQueenElizabethII · #3 01-07-2005, 10:48 AM

And some more here:

micas · #4 01-11-2005, 08:47 PM

Ok, a very nice viwe from the tiara with the emerald.

tiaraprin · #5 08-20-2005, 09:50 PM

Birgitte's late mother-in-law, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Is that diamond riviere necklace that she is wearing from Queen Mary?

http://www.angelfire.com/de3/verenas.../AliceGlo.html

wymanda · #6 08-20-2005, 11:21 PM

I just wish that HM would make some sort of Windsor Family Foundation to stop these wonderful jewels (and those owned by the Kents) being sold or moving away from the royal family in coming generations. I mean, the Countess of Ulster is a working doctor who, I would think, would have little use for these jewels and as they will undertake no royal duties the jewels are obviously at a high risk of being sold. The same is the case with the Countess of St Andrews and, of course, Freddy Windsor will inherit all his mothers things for his wife who will not even have a title other than Lady.......Windsor.

tiaraprin · #7 08-21-2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda

I just wish that HM would make some sort of Windsor Family Foundation to stop these wonderful jewels (and those owned by the Kents) being sold or moving away from the royal family in coming generations. I mean, the Countess of Ulster is a working doctor who, I would think, would have little use for these jewels and as they will undertake no royal duties the jewels are obviously at a high risk of being sold. The same is the case with the Countess of St Andrews and, of course, Freddy Windsor will inherit all his mothers things for his wife who will not even have a title other than Lady.......Windsor.

I do agree with you, but each child has to have some piece of their heritage. They are still family and will probably attend private events where the Jewels and Tiaras come out. I believe each Royal Duchess and Princess Michael should bequeath certain things back to the crown, and give the others to their respective children.

qui mal y pense · #8 12-27-2005, 03:17 PM

I think it is kind of nice when jewels are sold off by royal families, it means commoners get a chance at owning history.

Jackswife · #9 12-27-2005, 04:23 PM

I tend to agree with you, qui mal y pense. If the jewels don't suit the inheritor, why not sell them to someone who will wear them? Not all royals care for wearing gems, no matter what their historic or dynastic importance, so if Mrs. Regular Person can afford them, and can wear them with style, I see nothing wrong with that. About the Gloucester children themselves, they seem very low-maintenance and down-to-earth, and were they to wear jewels, it would be at a private or family event rather than a public one.

foiegrass · #10 06-27-2006, 12:25 AM

she only has three tiaras right?

auntie · #11 06-28-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foiegrass

she only has three tiaras right?

Only? she has more jewells than each of the Crown Princesses in Europe!

her collection is private and doesn't return to the state like the Crown princesses!

**Warren** · #12 06-28-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foiegrass

she only has three tiaras right?

I think six tiaras have been counted.

HRH Mims · #13 06-28-2006, 12:38 PM

http://www.mag-nolia.tmfweb.nl/Unite...Gloucester.htm
on this webpage are her tiaras.

Thomas Parkman · #14 06-28-2006, 06:23 PM

For once, good people, I am almost speechless, indeed breathless. I am so grateful to all of you for making these photos and information available. The lady is not only drop dead gorgeous, she has brains to boot. She speaks a mere five languages of which the last she learned is English. Richard, the D of G was nobody's fool when he fell in love and married her.

As for the jewels, well. I am drooling with delight. I have long wanted to see a picture of somebody wearing Princess Louise' Cartier Indian tiara. It was made in the Indian, not the Russian style by the way, at least according to the Prophet in the Bible. (ie. G. Munn in Tiaras, a history of splendor)
It is all I had thought it would be, just spellbinding. Further the Turquoise tiara has caused me to revise my dislike of that particular gem, it can only be called strikingly beautiful.

As for the honeysuckle tiara I can only say I stick to my original opinion of it. While the diamond thinge in the center is fine-the thing is truly something beyond words- the kunzite (now what on earth is that???) and the emerald really are misplaced. I wish they had just left the original sapphire in place and left well enough alone but it is a magnificent goodie indeed. As for the rest of her jewelry, I can only ask where is her bank vault and how do you break in? The police would find me in the morning sitting in front of all these luscious goodies stunned into a babbling and in a rapture of delight. They would cart me off to a home, but no matter, I would be HAPPY. Cheers. Thomas Parkman

soCal girl · #15 06-28-2006, 06:33 PM

I really enjoyed your post, Thomas! I think the Duchess's necklace collection is truly impressive. Since I'm guessing most of the jewels are her own she must have one, large and very impressive vault. The honeysuckle tiara, IMO, is better left alone. I agree, Thomas, that the emerald is out of place. I wasn't sure what a kunzite was so I looked it up

and the dictionary.com definition is: a pinkish lilac crystal form of the mineral spodumene that is used as a gemstone. I think the kunzite looks better than the emerald though.

Chris922 · #16 06-28-2006, 06:42 PM

Yikes! What is that gigantic diamond brooch-on-a-chain thing she's wearing in several of those pictures? I've never seen that before. I think it certainly could be sold (if anyone would be interested in buying it) without too many family members bemoaning its loss. They'd probably be grateful to see it leave the family jewel box.

soCal girl · #17 06-28-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris922

Yikes! What is that gigantic diamond brooch-on-a-chain thing she's wearing in several of those pictures? I've never seen that before. I think it certainly could be sold (if anyone would be interested in buying it) without too many family members bemoaning its loss. They'd probably be grateful to see it leave the family jewel box.

Are you talking about this?: http://www.imgster.com/ims/pic.php?u=274QBivf&i=2965

I think it's actually a majestic piece of jewely. It looks quite heavy though. It has some neat historical value to it. Princess Alice received it from TM King George V and Queen Mary. So I hope she doesn't get rid of it! :)

Chris922 · #18 06-29-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soCal girl

Are you talking about this?: http://www.imgster.com/ims/pic.php?u=274QBivf&i=2965

I think it's actually a majestic piece of jewely. It looks quite heavy though. It has some neat historical value to it. Princess Alice received it from TM King George V and Queen Mary. So I hope she doesn't get rid of it! :)

Yes, that's it. I think it's...how do I say this...not attractive. Majestic, yes. But completely unwearable...for a woman, anyway. The history associated with many of the pieces of jewelry must be fascinating, however.