Duchess of Cambridge Jewellery 2: December 2011 - December 2015

[EIIR]

I think the austerity argument is valid. The BRF do not want to be seen to be flaunting their inherited wealth at a time like this, which is very tough in the UK. Where the jewels came from is irrelevant really, in fact the idea of having at your disposal millions of pounds' worth of jewellery that you did nothing to earn yourself would probably go down even worse than wearing something you bought personally.

I just get the feeling, too, that the British royal ladies just can't be bothered with all the hassle of picking jewellery, having the Queen sign off on it, matching it to outfits, transporting it on numerous flights with all the risks that go with it, then getting your tiara hair figured out, which is just too much of a faff whilst on an overseas tour in a challenging climate without a dresser to help you. I can see why she'd go for some simpler, more straightforward pieces tbh.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I think the austerity argument is valid.

You're right but IMO, it will always be 'austere times' for some people and the people of Britain appear to complain about this sort of thing more so than other countries with royal families.

For me it is a shame because so much of the pageantry of the monarchy, involves the wearing of jewels and tiaras haha.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes that's true but I thought there might have been a nod to her hosts by wearing something significant such as a previous gift to the Queen from these countries.

If these countries gave gifts to The Queen, they were gifts to Her Majesty not to Catherine. To see Catherine wearing them when she's not even the wife of the heir wouldn't be right for me.

Why when there are so many wonderful jewels in the various royal collections do we so rarely see them? I don't think the austerity argument is valid as the jewels are already there, and it is what people want to see. Perhaps in some cases it's the cost of altering them to suit today's style.
Costume jewellery is fine but not for all occasions.

The austerity argument in always valid whilst Queen Elizabeth is Queen. Please remember that the tone of the engagements and dinners attended by William and Catherine on this tour were dictated by their hosts. If Catherine turned up to a dinner wearing a strapless dress, wedges and the lovers knot tiara she'd look a bit out of place.

EIIR made the most valid point as to not wearing big jewellery, the weather. I struggled to wear a necklace in Malaysia let alone some massive earrings and a tiara.

 

[AdmirerUS]

You're right but IMO, it will always be 'austere times' for some people and the people of Britain appear to complain about this sort of thing more so than other countries with royal families.

For me it is a shame because so much of the pageantry of the monarchy, involves the wearing of jewels and tiaras haha.

I think the public is fine with the heritage jewelry on the older royals. It shows a nod to tradition without additional expenditure.

New gems poke at the austerity issue. That or they imply someone is beholden for an outrageous gift from a oil or jewel rich nation outside the Commonwealth. We are not amused by either.

And some of the new jewels are a visual train wreck with an honor sash or next to a Royal Family Order. Maybe if Queen Elizabeth II upgrades her Order to the Warhol version she just purchased... But back to my point.

Even when you look at recent jewelry gifts to the queen for the jubilee, there is a notable decrease in splendor of the various brooches of late.

One other issue might be out there. At least in the states, bling has become almost de rigueur for weddings, proms, sweet 16s, etc. Everyone is wearing tiaras and parure suites - paste of course. But for a royal look it means there is a lot less special about the look of a tiara event. It makes it somehow more playing dress up than regal.

We Americans spoil everything.

 

[Lumutqueen]

We Americans spoil everything.

They haven't spoiled anything m'dear Royals are the only ones who can do tiaras, jewels and parues properly. A sweet 16 with a push in tiara, just doesn't do it for me.

 

[DCVO]

I think the austerity definitely factored into it. But also, consider that the jewels Kate borrowed for the Canadian tour were gifts from Canada to HM. If Tuvalu had given HM a brooch of course we would have seen it on Kate. But to dig out random pieces unrelated to the destination countries would be more hassle than payoff - like previously mentioned, getting the pieces signed off and packed for travel, and then once they're here, without the whole "oh, what a lovely gesture" thing, it's just shinys with a bunch of paperwork.

And in austerity, we may love shinys, but the press love to hate shinys.

 

[Kit]

According to rumours Harry also inherited pieces of Diana's jewelry. In fact the brothers both inherited so we can safely assume we will see Diana's jewels again on Kate and her future sister-in-law in the years to come.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think the austerity definitely factored into it. But also, consider that the jewels Kate borrowed for the Canadian tour were gifts from Canada to HM. .

Actually the diamond Maple Leaf brooch Catherine borrowed was not a gift from Canada. GVI had it made as a gift for his wife.

 

[Bine221]

I´d like to know, who inherited Diana´s favourite pearl necklace with the large sapphire. Due to the engagement ring and the earrings worn by Kate today already I assumed, this wen to William/Kate as well. Courious to see, when we will see that one the first time again.
Bye Bine

 

[Spheno]

November 20,2010 :
PRINCE William could face a £28,000 tax bill after giving fiancee Kate Middleton the ring he inherited from his mother Princess Diana.

Tax experts warned yesterday that he had fallen into the same trap as his father Prince Charles, who gave the late Queen Mother’s engagement ring to Camilla in 2005.
Diana’s ring has increased in value so much that the capital gains tax bill for passing on a family heirloom could come to as much as its original 1981 price tag of £28,000.
Mike Truman, editor of Taxation Magazine, said: “It’s something that people aren’t generally aware of but it’s a transaction that gives rise to capital gains tax consequences. A number of items which have been sold since Diana’s death have fetched far more than their estimates. That suggests that the ring has increased in value significantly.
“It’s a bit ghoulish but there is a capital gains liability on the difference between its current value and its probate value when it was inherited.
“If it is was worth about £150,000 for probate and about £250,000 now, Prince William could be facing a £28,000 capital gains tax bill, which would be payable in January 2012.”
William could only avoid the 28 per cent tax by making the gift conditional so it must be returned if the marriage were to be called off.
Diana ring and a £28,000 tax bill? | UK News | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express-

 

[AdmirerUS]

We now understand while all the tiaras, necklaces, etc. are loans form the Queen (the crown) and not gifts to Camilla, Sophie, et al.

 

[muriel]

We now understand while all the tiaras, necklaces, etc. are loans form the Queen (the crown) and not gifts to Camilla, Sophie, et al.

It is not because of any purported tax calculation, but essentially to keep the royal collection intact across generations.

 

[MARG]

Why should she be remembered for jewels that aren't hers? Of all the things to be remembered for, jewels aren't high on the list.

Perhaps not. But this is a jewellery thread and many, many past royals have been rembered for their style as well as their substance.

 

[COESpiral]

Dman, I agree with padams2359. Catherine is young, she has a very elegant neck but now is not the time to wear jewels. She must prove she deserve them

I'm sorry, but what does this mean? She has to prove she deserves them? In what way? She's the wife of the grandson of the Queen and will one day be Queen Consort herself. What else does she have to do to "deserve" to wear jewelry?

 

[Spheno]

It is not because of any purported tax calculation, but essentially to keep the royal collection intact across generations.

Queen Alexandra and queen Mary divided their jewels between children.

 

[RoyalMess]

Queen Alexandra and queen Mary divided their jewels between children.

Yes, and look how many important, historical pieces have left the family because of it.

 

[IloveCP]

I wonder when Catherine will wear the Polar Bear brooch. I find it very pretty!

 

[martina]

It´s realy pretty brooch. I would like see it on her.

 

[muriel]

I wonder when Catherine will wear the Polar Bear brooch. I find it very pretty!

I suspect it will be at a Canada related event, or when she goes back to Canada.

 

[AnnEliza]

It´s realy pretty brooch. I would like see it on her.

It is very very pretty.

 

[muriel]

The Queen's Diamond Jubilee: the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Malaysia - Telegraph

Just querying whether any of you think that Catherine is wearing her wedding earrings in the picture above from Malaysia. This was the day that the story about the topless pictures had broken.

 

[annaelfka]

Catherine hasn't worn her wedding earrings in public since wedding. Those are new earrings, first worn at that tour, you can view them in my album. I haven't been able to ID those so far.
Kate's UFO jewelry | Facebook

 

[PrincessofEurope]

How Kate Middleton's £48 fake pearls transformed a family's fortunes | Mail Online

Absoultely love this company and the jewellery they make - and Kate's earrings are beautiful. Sophie Wessex is a fan as well - she wears quite a few pieces from the collections

 

[annaelfka]

That is my regret, that they cut Sophie from this article. I am huge fan of hers, and she has exact same earrings...

 

[PrincessofEurope]

I know and i think Sophie was wearing them before Kate (although the first time Kate wore them was actually at the B Palace wedding dress exhibtion with the Queen in July 2010). I guess Sophie juss doesnt sell stories - but it is lovely to see this small business doing so well as a result

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Its not that Sophie doesn't sell stories but the whole gist of the article is about the 'Kate Effect' and the phenomenon of jewellery and articles of clothing selling out almost instantly after Kate is spotted wearing them.
Like I posted in another thread, there just isn't any equivalent 'Sophie Effect'

 

[annaelfka]

I agree BUT Daily Mail knew about Sophie, but dropped this part, they were going to mention me, anyway... It's the press that creates the Kate-effect, if they would cover Kate as poorely as Sophie, who would be aware of her?
I think they are using her the same as they did with Diana.

As for those earrings, I first saw them at Kate to the exhibit you mention, but it was 2011, not 2010. At Sophie in February/March 2012 during West Indies tour. But again, Sophie is so poorely covered that she might wore them sooner.

 

[Duchessmary]

I still wish that Kate would wear some of her late mother-in-law's pearl earrings. They would look knock out.

 

[annaelfka]

I finally managed to do great close ups of Catherine UFO jewellery from Diamond Jubilee Lunch that was back in April 2012.
Her brooch is in fact oak leaf with 3 acorns made of pearls. I would say it is bespoke piece symbolizing her coat of arms, 3 pearls (Kate, Pippa, James??), not sure. But I'm sure it was made for her.
Kate's UFO jewelry | Facebook

and earrings:
Kate's UFO jewelry | Facebook
She wore them only twice in 2010 and then on 2012.

 

[Osipi]

Her brooch is in fact oak leaf with 3 acorns made of pearls. I would say it is bespoke piece symbolizing her coat of arms, 3 pearls (Kate, Pippa, James??), not sure. But I'm sure it was made for her.
Kate's UFO jewelry | Facebook

If I remember right, around the period of the wedding when the Middleton coat of arms came to be know, it was stated that the acorns indeed stand for the Middleton's three children. I would wager its a bespoke piece too as it so closely resembles the Middleton's coat of arms.