Catherine Middleton's Wedding Tiara: Suggestions and Musings


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

What Tiara will Catherine wear on her Wedding Day?

  • The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara

    Votes: 8 4.8%
  • The Cambridge Lover's Knot Tiara

    Votes: 19 11.5%
  • The Queen Mother's Scroll Tiara

    Votes: 9 5.5%
  • The Strathmore Rose Tiara

    Votes: 51 30.9%
  • The Spencer Tiara

    Votes: 7 4.2%
  • The Fringe Tiara (aka George III Fringe Tiara)

    Votes: 11 6.7%
  • The Rundell Diamond Tiara

    Votes: 7 4.2%
  • Something that has been hidden in the Vaults!

    Votes: 33 20.0%
  • The Middletons will buy her a new one

    Votes: 9 5.5%
  • Nothing. She will either wear a jewelry clip or flowers in her hair.

    Votes: 9 5.5%
  • None of the Above

    Votes: 2 1.2%

  • Total voters
    165
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
...I love a lot of Princess Anne's tiara's. I wish those would go back to the crown. I also wish the Portmore didn't have to be sold. How beautiful.
I agree with everything you said. I love Anne's greek key the best of her tiaras. Also, it is to bad the Poltimore was sold to a japanese businessman. It probably won't be seen again for decades. I would have liked for the Queen to have purchased it and stored it for future use.... perhaps when Catherine becomes Queen or even PoW, it could be brought back out in public. *sigh* I can dream can't I? :flowers:

Oh, and here's hopeing for a brand new tiara.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the queens who preceded her back to Victoria kept the jewelry collection together until it was time to distribute after their deaths, AND since both Victoria and Mary made distributions privately and to the Crown collection, I suspect that QE II will do the same.

Victoria only designated the Indian Circlet and the George IV Diadem as belonging to the Crown to be worn in right of it. The rest of her tiaras were left to her daughters, daughter-in-laws, and grandaughters.

The rest of the royal collection belongs to The Sovereign as their personal property and passes to the next Sovereign automatically. While some of the pieces undoubtedly have been designated as "belonging to the Crown to be worn in right of it" by Queen Mary, they remain the property of HM and she is free to distribute them any way she chooses.
 
...I am certainly convinced that there is no accident in the Queen's preferences in the loans/gifts she makes, but that there is a concept/tradition that she follows.
I agree with you about the Queen and her jewels. I think that it is interesting to point out that Sophie got a reworked older piece that allegedly belonged to Queen Victoria when she got married. She also got a new tiara just a few years back so I think she might get some nice jewels from the Queen as she is reportedly her favorite daughter in-law. Fergie got a brand new tiara when she married Prince Andrew, so it has nothing to do with the royal pecking order. Camilla on the other hand seems to get a lot of the Queen Mother's pieces. Maybe that was the plan all along for Charles' wife.

As for Kate I really don't know. My guess would be the Fringe tiara but reports are now suggesting that she will go with the Strathmore tiara. They are tabloid reports, so make of that what you will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: I am hoping for the newly refurbished, bright, shining and beautifully original and delicate "Strathmore", with it's nod to history and immediate connection to the royal family, it seems a significant "starter" whereas the fringe is something still worn as a necklace and would leave Kate tiara-less after the wedding.
 
:previous: I am hoping for the newly refurbished, bright, shining and beautifully original and delicate "Strathmore", with it's nod to history and immediate connection to the royal family, it seems a significant "starter" whereas the fringe is something still worn as a necklace and would leave Kate tiara-less after the wedding.

I think the Strathmore could certainly be very suitable for Catherine to wear at the wedding.

I am not sure when was the last time the fringe tiara was used by a member of the BRF as a necklace, so in the event that Catherine got the fringe, I really do not expect to see her being left without a tiara becuase it was being used elsewhere as a necklace.
 
I think it was not Queen Mary's fringe tiara who was used as neckalce as there are quiet a few fringe tiaras and necklaces in the Family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about the Teck Circle Necklace? HM The Queen Mother wore it as a tiara so there is obviously a frame for it. It would make a lovely versatile piece for Catherine and has no recent associations. I think Princess Margaret wore it last but never as a tiara.
 
Perhaps it's just my perception, but the teck tiara always stikes me as being rather short. When a lady is as tall as Kate, proportionately I would prefer a tallish tiara.
 
The Teck Diamond Necklace was given to Princess Margaret by her mother and presumbly remains with Lady Sarah or Viscount Linley as it was not included in the auction of her jewels after her death.
 
Perhaps it's just my perception, but the teck tiara always stikes me as being rather short. When a lady is as tall as Kate, proportionately I would prefer a tallish tiara.

You make a good point about tiaras and the person's height. That is the main reason why I don't think the Strathmore would work. Kate is a tall person but the tiara is so small that it would look odd on her and if she were to wear her hair down it would get lost in it. That is why if she is to borrow a tiara I picked the fringe.
 
The Teck Diamond Necklace was given to Princess Margaret by her mother and presumbly remains with Lady Sarah or Viscount Linley as it was not included in the auction of her jewels after her death.

As a piece with considerable royal history I would think that this piece was returned to vaults when Princess Margaret died. It has considerable royal provenance having come from Queen Mary's mother so, if it had been Princess Margaret's property, Linley would have sold it!! He's a mercenary sort IMO and anything that would bring in money went under the hammer.
 
I have to agree with you. I think the Teck circle necklace tiara is somewhere in the Queen's vaults. If anything, I think it was loaned to Margaret to wear. I believe it is owned by the Queen. And your right about Viscount Linley, if he owned it, he probably would have sold it. I think the same of the Papyrus (lotus flower) tiara too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...so, if it had been Princess Margaret's property, Linley would have sold it!!
Unless of course the necklace was left to his sister.
The reality is that we just don't know what was inherited by Princess Margaret's children and what was on loan and subsequently returned to the Queen.
 
do you think she is a "bling bling" girl, will we se more real stones them fake?
 
Perhaps as a very modern princess, she will decide not to wear any tiara
 
Although the Rundell is a bit large, it would work with the right gown. There would have to be a "balance" but I've not yet figured out what that balance would be. It is a beautiful tiara.

Originally Posted by jcbcode99
Two, QEII has not, with the exception of those hideous aquamarines, broken up or redone a piece dramatically. She did have her sapphire necklace shortened and pendant created from the link that was removed--but I find it most difficult to believe she would dismantle a wedding gift when she is always very courteous about wearing pieces given to her by countries. She still wears the necklace and obviously loves the brooches but I find it hard to believe she would dismantle the tiara and keep the necklace. Also, without the stones from the brooches, how many diamonds would she really get from the piece? I think she would have considered it impractical to break up a set of jewelry that was a gift--she would think it rude.

The Nazim is still in existance, sort of. It was broken up and the parts used to create the Burmese ruby one in 1973.
 
Last edited:
The Nazim is still in existance, sort of. It was broken up and the parts used to create the Burmese ruby one in 1973.

We've debated this numerous times. It was Lesley Field who wrote that it had been broken up. Geoffrey Munn hinted that it still existed. Munn had, apparently, unlimited access to the collection for the "Tiara's, A History of Splendour" exhibition and his resulting book (our bible).
 
i am hoping she get a new tiara, something similar to what sarah ferguson had. i really loved her tiara and i thought it was perfect for a younger looking face.
 
I walked through Burlington Arcade in London yesterday, and there were at least 2 inrteresting tiaras in the shop wondows of the jewellers that could be suitable for Catherne.
 
:previous: See that's a problem with residing in Australia, muriel. There are no tiara's in our arcade windows ;):D
 
:previous: See that's a problem with residing in Australia, muriel. There are no tiara's in our arcade windows ;):D

Oh well, but you do have other benefits of being in Aus. :)
 
We've debated this numerous times. It was Lesley Field who wrote that it had been broken up. Geoffrey Munn hinted that it still existed. Munn had, apparently, unlimited access to the collection for the "Tiara's, A History of Splendour" exhibition and his resulting book (our bible).

Yes, it's my bible too, for photographic representation. Why would Munn hint that it still existed...either it does or it does not.
 
As a piece with considerable royal history I would think that this piece was returned to vaults when Princess Margaret died. It has considerable royal provenance having come from Queen Mary's mother so, if it had been Princess Margaret's property, Linley would have sold it!! He's a mercenary sort IMO and anything that would bring in money went under the hammer.

The Duke of Kent sold many of Queen Mary's Cambridge sapphire pieces, which also came from The Duchess of Teck and were given to Princess Marina as a wedding gift. After she died, some of her jewels were sold off to pay death duties.
 
Yes, it's my bible too, for photographic representation. Why would Munn hint that it still existed...either it does or it does not.

It was not a piece that was featured in the exhibition and is not of great historical significance in the jewellery sense. However, as an official gift I've always thought it unlike HM to break it up. She is not addicted to jewels like her grandmother who continually had pieces modified or broken up to make new. Queen Mary loved her jewels, Our Queen sees them as tools for the job! :eek:
 
Further musings about Catherine's tiara issue

Several commoners married into the inner circle of the BRF in the 20th Century. (Excluding the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Windsor.)

Two wore family tiaras: Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to the Duke of York wore the Strathmore; Lady Diana Spencer to the Prince of Wales wore the Spencer.

Autumn Kelly wore a tiara borrowed from the Princess Royal.

A tiara was made for The Countess of Wessex by the BRF which she wore at her wedding.

Sarah Ferguson was married with flowers in her hair and then a tiara (gift of the BRF) was placed in her hair before she recessed out of the Abbey to signify the transition from commoner to royalty. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Would they do this for Catherine? Flowers in; tiara out? Can't imagine that they would, but why was that procedure followed for Sarah?

Perhaps the Middleton family will buy her a tiara?

Any thoughts???
 
from what someone posted earlier on here, Sarah decided to do the flowers in tiara out thing. I actually really liked that.

I do hope the Middleton's buy her one. It's not like they can't afford it. If not then the Queen or Prince Charles should.

As I have said before, almost anything except the Cambridge Lover's Knot will do.... She can wear that later.......
 
fI do hope the Middleton's buy her one. It's not like they can't afford it. If not then the Queen or Prince Charles should.
Why the Queen or Charles? Why not William himself? He can certainly afford to do so.
 
I also liked "flowers in," "tiara out." I always thought of it as a salute to her family of "commoners." That is the unlikely reason, but it was humble of her to acknowledge her status before marriage.
 
The flowers on the head thing is something that was not out of place in the 80's, in today's times you would look like a weirdo wearing flowers, I mean at Prince Nikolaos wedding 14 year old Maria Olympia was a bridesmaid and wore flowers and a lot of people thought it was weird. Also Sarah had a well known fascination with Queen Victoria, who whore flowers in her hair, could be her homage to one of her heroes...
 
I respectfully disagree. Flowers in the hair are timeless and many brides wear them. It doesn't have to be a wreath (Sarah's wasn't) it could be a simple bloom or floral hair clips. I am surprised you would say that. Brides have been wearing flowers in their hair for centuries. :flowers: see, even this smiley has a flower :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom