The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Jewels General Discussion (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f132/)
-   -   Which royal family has the best collection of jewels? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f132/which-royal-family-has-the-best-collection-of-jewels-11107.html)

kcc 05-06-2004 01:20 PM

Which royal family has the best collection of jewels?
 
hi. what noble or non-reigning families have the best jewel collections. i thought i asked this question before but cant find the thread.anyguesses and oppinions ?

Jackswife 05-06-2004 03:03 PM

This may not be exactly the answer you're looking for but the late Baron Thyssen had a serious jewelry collection, which he accumulated over the course of his five :shock: marriages! I think the Bornemisza family was Hungarian in origin, and not really royal, but the Baron was known to lavish jewels on his wives. I'm guessing his widow Tita got most of the swag when he passed away, but for sure there were some excellent, beautiful pieces in the bunch. A very interesting question. :heart:

DDD 05-06-2004 03:19 PM

More information, those 5 marriages are very funny :P

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...ssen-Bornemisza

Sean.~ 05-06-2004 04:22 PM

The former royal houses of India (there are 545 of them) have huge collections. For instance, members of the erstwhile princely state of Baroda (a former '21 gun salute state) are embroiled in a publicized and complicated inheritence battle. The Baroda estate is worth millions, and the jewellery collection alone is estimated at 100s of millions (dollars, not rupees). There was an article a while back. If anyone is interested I can post snippets or PM it to you.

The Maharajas of Gwalior, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Kashmir, Mysore, to name a few, all have huge collections.


If we're talking about former *ruling* European royal houses, I would guess and say that Wurtemberg and Bavaria have two of the largest intact collections.

sara1981 05-06-2004 04:24 PM

im sure about HM Queen have collection? like as brooches and tiaras because she very value! and her mother was also HM Queen Mother.

Sara Boyce

Sean.~ 05-06-2004 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sara1981@May 6th, 2004 - 3:24 pm
im sure about HM Queen have collection? like as brooches and tiaras because she very value! and her mother was also HM Queen Mother.

Sara Boyce

Um, which Queen? I assume your referring to EII? If so, I think the original poster was referring to now non-ruling houses and their former nobility. Non?

Fireweaver 05-06-2004 04:32 PM

To tie Sara's post in with the orginal question, HM Queen Elizabeth II does have a large collection of the jewels from the former ruling house of Russia. Do any of the other Russian royals have many of the Romanov jewels?

Sean.~ 05-06-2004 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireweaver@May 6th, 2004 - 3:32 pm
To tie Sara's post in with the orginal question, HM Queen Elizabeth II does have a large collection of the jewels from the former ruling house of Russia. Do any of the other Russian royals have many of the Romanov jewels?
Ooooh, I liked the way you tied that in. Very good.

Anyway, technically, there are only three members of the former Imperial house alive today. The rest are morganout descendants of the Romanovs. None of them have any substantial Romanov jewels. Rather than being in the hands of today's Romanovs, most of the jewels that did make it out of Russia were sold and/or can be found amongst the collections of Europes royal houses (through inheritance and/or purchase).

Fireweaver 05-06-2004 05:29 PM

Ahh, thanks Sean. I know I've seen a picture of Grand Duchess (I think that's her title) Maria with a tiara. Was it a Romanov one, or did it come from her husband's family?

Sean.~ 05-06-2004 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireweaver@May 6th, 2004 - 4:29 pm
Ahh, thanks Sean. I know I've seen a picture of Grand Duchess (I think that's her title) Maria with a tiara. Was it a Romanov one, or did it come from her husband's family?
You know what, I don't know. Leonide, her mother, also wore a small tiara at an American ball a few years ago, but it didn't 'look' like a Romanov jewel. The wedding tiara in question may have been handed down from Victoria Feodorovna, butn I somehow doubt it. I t could have been borrowed from the Prussians or purchased with Bagration-Kirby funds. (Leonide was born a Bagration, and her first husband was American millionare Sumner Moore Kirby)

Fireweaver 05-06-2004 05:46 PM

Ahh okay, thanks.
Do you happen to know much about the Wuttenberg collection? I've seen the stuff at Danjel's site, and the stuff at Shrubbery's. Does the Royal Family still have the right to borrow the ones that are owned by the state, and now does one decide what are government owned jewels?

Sean.~ 05-06-2004 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireweaver@May 6th, 2004 - 4:46 pm
Ahh okay, thanks.
Do you happen to know much about the Wuttenberg collection? I've seen the stuff at Danjel's site, and the stuff at Shrubbery's. Does the Royal Family still have the right to borrow the ones that are owned by the state, and now does one decide what are government owned jewels?

I'm not sure as to what more I can tell you about the collection. I'm based my comments on what I've read and seen over the years. The collection certainy rivals, and indeed surpasses, that of many reigning houses. It is one of the collections with jewels of Russian provenance in the collection, going back to the marriage of Grand Duchess Olga Nicholaievna to King Charles of Wurttemberg.

Anyway, since the family didn't have to 'flee', it was able to hold on to its jewel collection. I guess state jewels and personal jewels were differentiated by whose fudns were used to pay for the jewels at the time of purchase/order.

And yes, to the best of my knowledge the family can borrow jewels. Although I'm not sure when they last did (if ever).

USCtrojan 05-06-2004 08:10 PM

The Thurn-und-Taxis Princely family has a rather large collection, and at one time one of the most intreging around. Even after alot of them were auctioned by Gloria... When her son Albert marries one day, his future Princess will most defanitly have a nice collection of Royal Jewels to choose from and I hope that she chooses to wear them often..... :)

Sean.~ 05-06-2004 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chanel@May 6th, 2004 - 7:10 pm
The Thurn-und-Taxis Princely family has a rather large collection, and at one time one of the most intreging around. Even after alot of them were auctioned by Gloria... When her son Albert marries one day, his future Princess will most defanitly have a nice collection of Royal Jewels to choose from and I hope that she chooses to wear them often..... :)
Yes, they do have a large collection. I refrained from adding them in as they weren't really a reigning family. But I guess they still qualify as noble or formerly noble.

Fireweaver 05-06-2004 08:59 PM

I thought they did, as they were Prince/Furst

Sean.~ 05-06-2004 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fireweaver
I thought they did, as they were Prince/Furst

Not really. I guess it depends on what you consider reigning. They were Princes of the Holy Roman Empire by virtue of being hereditary postmasters. The 4th Prince) purchased some territory in 1774, and became the Princely-Count of these territories. However, they were lost at the Peace of Luneville in 1801. The family (the senior line) was compensated with some ecclesiastical territory by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1803, but the family was mediatized in 1806.

reynard 05-08-2004 06:53 PM

I hate to sound stupid, but what does "Mediatized" mean? I've heard the term many times, but I honestly don't know what it means.

Thanks

Sean.~ 05-08-2004 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fireweaver
I hate to sound stupid, but what does "Mediatized" mean? I've heard the term many times, but I honestly don't know what it means.Thanks

You don't sound stupid! It's not an everyday term after all, and thus your is a very good question.

Mediatized stems from the word "media", which means "between". To put it simply, it referred to the downgrading of a feudal ruler so that he was no longer the direct vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor, and that there was now someone "between" them. Thus the relationship between the feudal ruler and the Emperor was no longer im-*mediate*.

Rather, by being mediatized a prince/noblemen now owed allegience to another, more senior Prince (Duke, Grand Duke, King, etc.) who, in turn was the vassal (technically) of the Emperor. This was referred to as being mediatized.

I hope that's clear enough?

reynard 05-10-2004 08:48 AM

Yes, that helps a lot as I had NO idea what the term meant.

Thanks!!! :rolleyes:

constance 01-28-2006 06:35 AM

in recent times, and based from the photos in the other threads, the royal house of brunei has one EXTREMELY VAST collection :D


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises