How Much is Too Much??

[Toledo]

I agree that certain royal ladies can pull off the "maxed-out bling" look to perfection. I've seen Queen Margrethe do it, as well as QEII. Farah Pahlavi also seemed to be able to wear a quantity of jewels without appearing overdone and vulgar. I guess it's true that some ladies were just absolutely born to wear jewels (Queen Mary, Alexandra, Dowager Empress Marie, just to mention a few from history) and others should probably stick to one or two pieces at most. Nothing worse than seeing someone being worn by the jewels, instead of the other way around.

Having a long neck helps a lot!
Margrethe has one and so does Letizia, Rania, Victoria and Magdelene, Caroline, Mary of Denmark, Mathilde etc.

And of all the crowned ladies, for me seems Farah is the one who best pulls off emptying the royal drawer chest on her head and neck. She has a perfectly shaped face and every tiara she wears makes her even more spectacular because neither the gems nor Empress Farah get the attention, they share it evenly. Smack the same tiara on, let's say, the beauty-impaired-but-botox-enhanced Duchess of Alba and you simply don't get the same results.

 

[Toledo]

Times have changed. More was the standard during the turn of the last century and beyond but today it is deemed as vulgar and excessive. The royality of the past were untouchable and unapproachable. They hid their emotions behind a iron mask and ramrod posture. No one could compete with them. The "impression" was that they had this endless pot of money (for the majority I think that was true) and could and would flaunt their wealth. It wasn't just a fashion statement.

I don't think that rings true since the royals of today don't lead the lives of yesteryear. Today's royals mix more amongst everyday people whether it be to sway public opinion or for charitable events, etc. Hell, you can even shake their hands.

Times have changed and so have fashion; it is a never ending evolution. Too much is excessive but jmo.

Call me old fashioned but I like the royal bling blings (=flashy jewels), the royal families are the representatives of the nation, both people and resources. If they host a gala with foreign dignataries I want them to show off medals, gems, the whole thing.

With Empress Farah the only thing missing was tying an oil pipe line to the back of the tiara to show off her country's power. And if she can pull that off then more power to her.

 

[Esmeralda]

I hope the younger royal ladies continue the tradition. It'll be sad if the only females wearing gorgeous jewels are the Oscar presenters!

 

[Toledo]

You make a good point there, Esmeralda. We like to see the Hollywood stars on the Red Carpet walking toward an award ceremony with half a bank of jewels around their necks. As if the movie aristocracy has replaced the real Royals on acceptable displays of wealth.

Also Esmeralda, welcome to the Royal Forums!

 

[ysbel]

Talking about Crown Princess Mary, she has been one of the younger royals who can really pull off a regal look with a lot of jewels.

I was glad to see her wearing Queen Ingrid's full ruby set right after she married. I think the one thing keeping it from looking over the top is that the size of the stones are not that large but the overall effect is still quite opulent. The added specialness of the set is that a movie star would look ridiculous walking down the red carpet with this ensemble. Its made for royalty. Actually I think the opulence makes her look more fragile rather than overwhelmed.

The lines between royalty and the rest of us are becoming so blurred that the jewels play an important role in setting royalty apart. The history of the pieces and the grandeur highlights a combination that only royalty has - the history with a particular country and the wealth.

 

[Warren]

Cullinan Diamonds, again

Here is another (cropped) Corbis pic showing Queen Mary and the four largest Cullinan Diamonds, I to IV. "Granny's Chips" (III and IV) are hanging from the necklace.

Queen Mary: Cullinans I to IV

 

[Toledo]

Mary looks like out of an illustrated fairy tale on that picture. Not only can she carry well the jewels without making the whole effect look too busy, but those big eyes of her do get the attention to focus on the person more than the surroundings. Makes me think of that expression the eyes are the mirror of the soul. How can anyone be mean to this lovely person is just beyond me.

In the next picture, I have to say is one of the first ones I've seen of Queen Mary, also on the eyes, looking almost relaxed! I remember my DVD, The Lost Prince, the banquet scene, were one prince ask his brother what is so strange about their mom (Queen Mary) that night and the other one responds 'she is smiling'.
On the jewels, Queen Mary like those stones big. It looks like the dress is also encrusted with gems.

 

[ysbel]

Wow this really shows the size of "Granny's chips" Warren. This looks like a coronation-type pic with the crown and the ermine mantle. Its been said that Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra had the perfect shoulders and bosom for displaying fine jewels.

How many carats are we looking at? I've seen women wear other stones that size but never diamonds.

 

[ysbel]

Hey Toledo, I agree with you about Mary's eyes. She's always had a very striking and unusual look that gets attention with or without a lot of gems.

 

[Toledo]

Well, Ysabel, one of my friends from work says that if you can see the white all over the eyes that means they are either crazy (the so called 'crazy eyes look') or they have a thyroid condition

In the case of Princess Mary is neither, she just have big expressive and dramatic eyes.

 

[HRH Kerry]

Call me old fashioned but I like the royal bling blings (=flashy jewels), the royal families are the representatives of the nation, both people and resources. If they host a gala with foreign dignataries I want them to show off medals, gems, the whole thing.

With Empress Farah the only thing missing was tying an oil pipe line to the back of the tiara to show off her country's power. And if she can pull that off then more power to her.

I just can't see it. What I do like though, that was tastefully done, is CP Mary's look in ysbel's pictured post above. Her jewels aren't the size of saucers and draped all over her person. That was a "Gilded Age".

Maybe you guys will change my opinion with more pics like that of CP Mary.

 

[lizz70]

I know that strictly speaking it isn't bling, but on the subject of how much is too much?........when royal women wear stuff around their necks but......

I kinda went off Queen Rania when I saw her receiving the scholarships for Jordanian students in Athens with FUR!!!!!!! around her neck. I don't know what type it was but it was a long fur scarf

Any fur is too much fur

 

[Elspeth]

I wonder what the stone is in the front of the circlet in post 36. If that's the base of her crown, it's probably the Koh-i-noor.

 

[olivia_windsor]

because they are live in the Roayl Family ,,they must wear more and more

 

[HRH Kerry]

I've read all of the post in this thread and I'm still unsure what "granny chips" are. Can someone please spell this out for me? Thanks in advance.
Kerry

 

[pollyemma]

I've read all of the post in this thread and I'm still unsure what "granny chips" are. Can someone please spell this out for me? Thanks in advance.
Kerry

I was just wondering the same thing. they appear to be the 2 huge diamonds hanging from her necklace but why are they called 'granny chips' Also, isnt there a ring in the cullinan set? does anyone have any photos of it$?

thanks!

 

[Marengo]

Granny's chips are the diamonds Cullinan I, Cullinan II, Cullinan III and Cullinan IV. As Queen Mary, the grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II, wore them frequently they are known on the royal jewels MB and here (among some posters) with a less respectfull name: Granny's Chips.

 

[ysbel]

The Cullinan diamond was a 3,106 carat diamond discovered in South Africa in 1905.

It was sold to the local government who presented it to King Edward VIII for his 66th birthday. Some birthday present. The nine larger stones are the property of the British Crown and/or Her Majesty the Queen. They are as follows:

Cullinan I (Star of Africa): 530.20 carats - resides in the Royal Scepter of State

Cullinan II: 317.40 carat cushion-cut - resides in the Imperial State Crown

Cullinan III: 94.40 carat pear-cut - originally in Queen Mary's crown or sometimes worn with Cullinan IV as a pendant brooch

Cullinan IV: 63.50 carat cushion-cut - originally set in Queen Mary's crown but can be worn with Cullinan III as a pendant brooch

Cullinan V: 18.80 carat triangular pear-cut - originally set in Queen Mary's brooch but later placed in her crown as a replacement for the Koh-i-noor after the Koh-i-noor was reset in Queen Mother Elizabeth's crown

Cullinan VI: 11.50 carat marquise-cut - originally presented to Queen Alexandra, now worn by Queen Elizabeth as a drop on a necklace.

Cullinan VII: 8.80 carat marquise-cut - set in a pendant with the Cullinan VIII as center

Cullinan VIII: 6.80 carat cushion-cut - set in the center of the pendant with the Cullinan VII

Cullinan IX: 4.39 carat pear-cut - set in a ring for Queen Mary but is sometimes worn by Queen Elizabeth

This interesting site has wonderful pictures of the diamonds and one picture of all the uncut stones.

The Cullinan Diamonds

 

[ysbel]

Granny's chips are the diamonds Cullinan I, Cullinan II, Cullinan III and Cullinan IV. As Queen Mary, the grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II, wore them frequently they are known on the royal jewels MB and here (among some posters) with a less respectfull name: Granny's Chips.

The Cullinan I is a bit too big to be called a chip - 530 carats! After seeing the description of the diamonds I wonder if Granny's chips aren't III, IV, V, and VIII.

 

[HRH Kerry]

The Cullinan diamond was a 3,106 carat diamond discovered in South Africa in 1905.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! None of these are chips in my book. Thanks Ysbel.

 

[Elspeth]

I thought the brooch made up of Cullinans III and IV were what the Queen called Granny's chips because Cullinans I and II spend most of their time in their official capacity in the Crown Jewels.

 

[ysbel]

You're welcome, kerry. Aren't the pics of the uncut diamonds amazing?

Interesting point, Elspeth. I somehow can't imagine the Queen calling the Tower of London and saying, I want you to take I and II out of the scepter and crown cuz I'm wearing them to a banquet tonight.

I do think though one of the Queen Mary pics that Warren posted has all four diamonds. I'm not sure when I and II were placed in the Royal Jewels. Maybe Warren knows?

 

[Elspeth]

Well, I'm sure Queen Mary would have been able to take I and II if she'd needed them; I'm not sure when the Crown Jewels went on display, so it may not have mattered if she'd been borrowing the diamonds (or they could have used replicas for the duration). The Imperial State Crown was made for George VI if I remember right; I don't know if George V's one contained Cullinan II.

I'd still like to know if she's also wearing the Koh-i-Noor in that photo. It'd take Cullinans I through IV to make her headgear seem boring by comparison!

And, yes, that photo does show her wearing all four of them. Among rather a lot of other things!

 

[Marengo]

The Cullinan I is a bit too big to be called a chip - 530 carats! After seeing the description of the diamonds I wonder if Granny's chips aren't III, IV, V, and VIII.

I never knew there were that many cullinan diamonds in the first place, so you are most probably right on this one as well! Is there a thread where all the different Cullinans can be seen?

 

[Elspeth]

The link in ysbel's post 48 will get you to pictures of most of them. I think they're all in Leslie Fields' book about the Queen's jewels if you can get hold of a copy.

 

[Elspeth]

There's a photo here but I don't know if it's the actual diamonds or replicas, and they aren't set:

http://www.seilnacht.com/Minerale/1Cullin.htm

These are just the numbered ones; there were over 100 smaller cut diamonds from the original stone by the time they'd finished with it.

These are the two brooches, one with Cullinan V and one with Cullinans VII and VIII. Apparently Queen Mary wore them together as a stomacher.

http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen/queens-casket.htm

This is the necklace with Cullinan VI as one of the pendants:

http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen/queens-trove.htm

This is the Granny's Chips brooch made of Cullinans III and IV, and the ring made from Cullinan IX, and I think Cullinan I (the Greater Star of Africa) is the one at the top right:

http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/queen/queens-treasure.htm

Cullinan I is set in the Sceptre with the Cross, which is part of the Crown Jewels and is the one at the front of this picture:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/english.site/royal/crown%20jewels.htm

Cullinan II is set in the front of the Imperial State Crown, as shown in the link in ysbel's post and also here:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page306.asp

 

[pinklady1991]

"Too much" all depends on the dress, the occasion, and the wearer. A formal portrait may call for a few more accessories than someone would wear to a state event or charity gala.

I love the old photos earlier in this thread...from a distance the amount of jewels seem to fit the cut of the dress, its fabrics, the "overdone" look that was part of the Victorian era. That look simply wouldn't work too well today with simpler fashion lines.

 

[Toledo]

The left over cuts from the Cullinan are still around made into tiny gems? I dod not know either there were so many cuts out of that stone. Come to think of it, I only remember the Star of India as the jewel associated with the crown.

 

[gogm]

Queens Mary & Alexandra

All of those jewels made those royal ladies look gorgeous. They went with the lavish dress and the corseted figure. The fabrics of the dresses in post 6 are phenomenal, especially Mary's glittering gown. The fabric of Alexandra's gown was opulent, but soft and feminine. These were rich and powerful women. That was the statement they wanted to make and they succeeded.

CP Mary's picture shows a woman can still pull it off today. Modern styles with simple cuts, fabrics, and lines mean we won't see another Mary or Alexandra for a while, but CP Mary looked great. For combining beauty and opulence in a more modern setting, take a look at pictures of Queen Elizabeth II or her gorgeous sister Margaret in the 50s and 60s.

(Source is probably the Opera Gloves site.)

I believe an aristocrat said if royals wore their finery and jewels more often, there would be fewer republics today.

For overdone, check the Brunei threads!

 

[auntie]

I think the Royal House of Norway has inherited more of Alexandra's soft features than the Windsors. Maud, Queen of Norway, Alexandra's daughter, looked very much like her. You can really tell it in King Harald, Princess Ragnhild, and Princess Astrid but even Martha-Louise and Haakon have some of the delicate features.

In the House of Windsor, only Prince Michael seems to have inherited the softer features.

Yes he definitly looks like his grandad King George V, who was a man of very handsome features, which he obviously inherited from his mother, rather than his father! A shame that Queen Mary's features were obviously more dominant than King George's, as he was the better looking of the two, and the effect is obvious up untill this generation of royals!