The Duchess of Gloucester Jewellery


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A.C.C.

Nobility
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Messages
386
Welcome to

The Duchess of Gloucester Jewellery thread

:star: :star: :star:
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some more of The Duchess:
 

Attachments

  • AADS003896.jpg
    AADS003896.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 1,669
  • AADS003905.jpg
    AADS003905.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 2,483
  • AADS003906.jpg
    AADS003906.jpg
    40.5 KB · Views: 3,709
  • AADS003910.jpg
    AADS003910.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 7,247
And some more here:
 

Attachments

  • 0000348499-001.jpg
    0000348499-001.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 1,938
  • 0000225670-022.jpg
    0000225670-022.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 4,234
  • 0000383677-008.jpg
    0000383677-008.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 2,401
  • 0000322026-007.jpg
    0000322026-007.jpg
    65.7 KB · Views: 8,998
Ok, a very nice viwe from the tiara with the emerald.
 

Attachments

  • maxima%20groot.jpg
    maxima%20groot.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 11,154
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/verenasroyaltiaras/AliceGlo.html

AliceGlo.jpg
 
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.
 
wymanda said:
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.
 
I think it is kind of nice when jewels are sold off by royal families, it means commoners get a chance at owning history.
 
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 said:
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!
 
Last edited:
foiegrass said:
she only has three tiaras right?
I think six tiaras have been counted.
 
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
 
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 :D 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.
 
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.
 
Chris922 said:
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! :)
 
Last edited:
soCal girl said:
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.
 
Chris922 said:
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.

Give me those diamonds any time and I'll wear them.

Of course, I'd be horribly overdressed 99% of the time! I think it looks better as a brooch than as a necklace though. I think it was originally worn by Queen Alexandra so if so its one of the few pieces of her jewelry that I've seen on the current royals.

If the kunzite is that purply pink carbochon, then I think that is a very attractive set.

The duchess manages to stay very attractive and understated.
 
Oh, I don't know. If you've got it, flaunt it. Now if we could just put that into Latin it would be the motto for sure of the fabulous Queen Mary. Now there was a queen. You should go and look at some pictures of her. She would have merely put more re-enforcement into her ample bodice and hung the thing somewhere. Cheers. Thomas Parkman
PS. I have just got to quit slobbering, but right now I just can't help myself.
 
I think the thing that makes this piece a bit unworkable is the use of it as a pendant on a shorter diamond chain. It looks awkward when worn like this and I wish she would just wear it as a brooch in the middle of her bodice. It certainly is lovely though but I find the diamond necklaces so close to it a distraction.
 
Diamonds, my dear, are NEVER a distraction. While it may be dated and not to the current taste it is certainly an eye-catching contraption. By all means wear it as a brooch ie a stomacher-and have the two strands of diamonds as a necklance. I myself am a firm proponent of stomachers. It gives you someplace else to hang more diamonds, emeralds, sapphires, rubies, pearls, amethysts and the gold kitchen sink if your support bodice is sturdy enougn to suport them without your clothes falling off. The sailors in the royal navy dubbed the much bedecked and much beloved bosom of the noble Queen Mary (she did after all have six children) Cartier's counter. She did have her dresses re-enforced to be able to support all the jewels.

In any case, in this day and age women are going around practically a la Cretienne, (ie like the Cretans, or rather Minoans) and much worse. Go look at some of the pictures and statues of women and goddesses from ancient Knossos and you will see what I mean. But they were elegant. Tf that were to happen here 90% of the male population, who are such vulnerable creatures, given their fixation with the female bosom, would die of exhaustion from over stimulation or possibly disappointment. So a well placed and dignified stomacher is just the order of the day say I. And the glorious D of G fits the bill to perfection. Perhaps the noble Warren could dig up some examples of stomachers from his vast storehouse or storebarn of goodies and start a thread???? Cheeers. Thomas Parkman
 
I certainly didn't mean to suggest she should remove any of her diamond necklaces!!!!!I would never condone or encourage that:D . I'd just like to see the pendant/brooch detached and set a little lower so it looks more balanced. It's so huge and beautiful.
 
Could it be that the Duchess is selling her beautiful diamond cross necklace? I
certainly hope not.

From Sotheby's auction site: You may need to register with Sotheby's online to view. Its lot 349 (last page) of the Fine Jewellery auction taking place in London on Oct. 6th.

http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159261495https://delivery.i-dealprospectus.com/?id=;8>6?/;4978

Here she is wearing it from getty images

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState%7c0%7c0%7c-1%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c3%7c%7cduchess+of+gloucester%3b+jewellery%7c2233391784121335%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=3&tag=5

Sorry for the unsophicated attachments. I am woefully inept at this stuff.

 
Green Glitter!

Some very serious cabochon emeralds worn by the Duchess of Gloucester to the Queen's 80th birthday dinner at the Ritz Hotel, London, December 2006.
Necklace, earrings, ring, bracelets (x 2!), stomacher...

Pic originally posted by Avalon in the Queen & Duke current events thread pt 14: Gloucester Emeralds

(not to be confused with her other diamond & emerald parure of tiara, necklace...)
 
WOW!:ohmy: That is one awesome set of emeralds ! Very reminiscent of a set Queen Anne-Marie has, and like A-M, the Duchess has the class and elegance to wear them with style. Fantastic!:flowers:
 
Well, good people, it only goes to prove that you can never, or hardly every, go wrong with emeralds. The Queen Rania black gold emerald thingie aside of course. The D of G looks just fabulous and is a wonderful personality to boot. A jewel wearing jewels if you will. Yes, I know I am starting to slobber and drool again so I shall desist. But you must admit the good woman does have a fabulous collection of goodies indeed and the panache to wear them. A source in immense delight and gladness. Cheers
 
Warren said:
I think six tiaras have been counted.

I have only seen the Duchess of Gloucester wearing three! With one of them, she changes the gem, sometimes a large emerald and another times, a large pink gem, I suppose a pink diamond?
I think she does not at all like the Turquoise parure. I don't blame her if so. I do not like Turquoise gems at all. I have only seen her wearing that once, but forgive me because I am not as avid a jewel watcher as so many of you! :)
 
I just counted four tiaras for the Duchess of Gloucester....
I missing two at least? :cry: I will go and do some more hunting. I love this duchess. She is so pretty and classy, and deliciously understated. And 60 years old! She honestly does not look a day over 50. She looks like my mom's age, and my mom is just under 50, and a very young just under 50; most people think my mom is like 40, so this duchess is doing well!
 
Back
Top Bottom