Princess Eugenie: Wedding Tiara and Jewelry Suggestions and Musings

[padams2359]

I agree with the York tiara. I think that is the biggest reason Fergie hung onto it. She knew she wouldn’t have many occasions to wear it, but her daughters would need one.

[Pranter]

I don't think the York tiara would be inherited by either daughter solely but held equally by both of them for future use ..which will be almost never after they marry. If either of them has a daughter about the only time she'd use it would be at their own wedding.

LaRae

[Leopoldine]

It would be great if Eugenie was gifted a tiara by HM.

[Countessmeout]

I agree Pranter. I think the tiara will simply held by both daughters. And I don't rule out both using the same tiara for their wedding.

If she doesn't, I would love to see Eugenie in the Strathmore, or a bandeau style tiara. She has the look that it would suit her.

The Strathmore could likely be sent to the jeweler if it needs a bit of work. As I understand it hasn't been worn as it is 'out of style'. The bandeau style was not popular for the last decades, went out of style almost right after was made. But that time period is becoming popular again, and the right person can pull off that style. I think it would be great on Eugenie.

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

It would be great if Eugenie was gifted a tiara by HM.

It's highly unlikely she will 'gift' Eugenie a tiara, she wont have future need for one. Perhaps loan her one.

[O-H Anglophile]

I think it will be the tiara her mother wore.

[Pranter]

I don't understand why it wouldn't be worn by both girls as is often the case when a family has multiple girls that marry. They don't all get a new tiara. They wear the family tiara.

I fully expect both York girls to wear the York tiara.

LaRae

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Pranter

I don't understand why it wouldn't be worn by both girls as is often the case when a family has multiple girls that marry. They don't all get a new tiara. They wear the family tiara.

I fully expect both York girls to wear the York tiara.

LaRae

The comparison being drawn is with Anne's daughter and daughter in law who wore different tiaras. And Margaret's daughter and daughter in law as well. But both Anne and Margaret had more then 1 tiara to loan. But then again, as the grandchildren of the queen, Beatrice and Eugenie conceivably have access to more then one (just as much right to borrow from the queen as a bride of their cousins do).

[MARG]

I don't believe there is any doubt that Eugenie will wear her mother's wedding tiara. It belonged to Sarah and has not been seen since the separation and divorce of her parents.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uwPRYKjKS...s400/_ywt1.jpg

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X5eK9bi9M...+of+York+2.jpg

[W.Y.CII]

While I guess Eugenie (and also Beatrice in future) will wear the York tiara as I mentioned before, I also think it'll be great for them to use Q Mary's Fringe tiara to continue the tradition of British princess wearing it in their wedding day. The Strathmore Rose tiara, which was a gift to the Duchess of York, is a good choice too (if it's in a good condition). If her grandma plans to loan her something, I think it will be the Fringe or Strathmore Rose (but it also depends on what Meghan wear, if she is given these two (it's unlikely for the Fringe I believe) then of course we won't see it on the Yorks, they have no reason to repeat wedding tiara in same generation I guess?

[Lady Nimue]

I vote for the York Diamond Tiara. It would look lovely on Eugenie.

Scroll down to see the tiara, last picture. It's really a lovely tiara.
Princess Eugenie is engaged; my top tiara guess! | The Royal Couturier

[Princess Larisa]

Originally Posted by ldmemail

It was stated some time ago that the so-called Strathmore Rose Tiara is in too fragile a condition and too tarnished for use. So unfortunately I doubt that we shall ever see it again, after all it has been approximately 80 years since it was last seen in public and neither of the Queen Mother's two daughters wore it either.

This isn’t true. The Strathmore Rose Tiara was loaned to a museum for an exhibition in 2002 and it was in good condition.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/40/35/74/4...db1dc1d11e.jpg

http://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2014...ose-tiara.html

[ldmemail]

[QUOTE=Princess Larisa;2066634]This isn’t true. The Strathmore Rose Tiara was loaned to a museum for an exhibition in 2002 and it was in good condition.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/40/35/74/4...db1dc1d11e.jpg

[URL]http://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2014/10/saturday-sparkler-strathmore-rose-tiara.

[ldmemail]

[QUOTE=ldmemail;2066678]

Originally Posted by Princess Larisa

This isn’t true. The Strathmore Rose Tiara was loaned to a museum for an exhibition in 2002 and it was in good condition.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/40/35/74/4...db1dc1d11e.jpg

[URL]http://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2014/10/saturday-sparkler-strathmore-rose-tiara.

We don't know actually what it looks like. The picture you post is like one that appeared in Hello Magazine - I question the authenticity as the rose tiara is a delicate small piece and the one behind supposedly the Delhi Durbar Diadem is massive in real life, in this photograph the rose bandeau appears to be half the width. I'm not sure that it is that large. Also the exhibition you quote was in 2002 at the V&A (according to your link) this is now 16 years ago. I will be very surprised indeed if this beautiful little tiara appears again. Princess Margaret wore many pieces of jewellery with a rose theme (for obvious reasons) and yet she never wore this ! It's not coming out of the vaults any time soon !

[Countessmeout]

[QUOTE=ldmemail;2066680]

Originally Posted by ldmemail

We don't know actually what it looks like. The picture you post is like one that appeared in Hello Magazine - I question the authenticity as the rose tiara is a delicate small piece and the one behind supposedly the Delhi Durbar Diadem is massive in real life, in this photograph the rose bandeau appears to be half the width. I'm not sure that it is that large. Also the exhibition you quote was in 2002 at the V&A (according to your link) this is now 16 years ago. I will be very surprised indeed if this beautiful little tiara appears again. Princess Margaret wore many pieces of jewellery with a rose theme (for obvious reasons) and yet she never wore this ! It's not coming out of the vaults any time soon !

I don't understand what you are hinting at? That the tiara the museum had on display was a fake? Or a different tiara

16 years ago is not a long period of time. The halo tiara had not been seen in decades when Kate wore it. The jewels are kept in the best care possible, to ensure they don't rust or break. If it was in good condition for the exhibit in 2002, it would still be today.

The reality is the tiara was a bandeau style and it was out of style. Even the queen mother only wore it a few times. Margaret was all about fashion, and likely didn't find it stylish enough. She had her own tiaras to wear.

[Iluvbertie]

[QUOTE=ldmemail;2066680]

Originally Posted by ldmemail

We don't know actually what it looks like. The picture you post is like one that appeared in Hello Magazine - I question the authenticity as the rose tiara is a delicate small piece and the one behind supposedly the Delhi Durbar Diadem is massive in real life, in this photograph the rose bandeau appears to be half the width. I'm not sure that it is that large. Also the exhibition you quote was in 2002 at the V&A (according to your link) this is now 16 years ago. I will be very surprised indeed if this beautiful little tiara appears again. Princess Margaret wore many pieces of jewellery with a rose theme (for obvious reasons) and yet she never wore this ! It's not coming out of the vaults any time soon !

And what a lovely exhibition it was.

My favourite tiara from that exhibition was Princess Andrew's - and the note on the label made it clear that it was there with Prince Philip's permission.

That was the V&A's way of celebrating the Queen's Golden Jubilee (all the palaces etc did something special for that event).

I don't remember the Strathmore tiara so it didn't make much of an impression but there were so many to see it was hard to take them all in anyway.

They weren't all from the Queen but from a range of people - including Madonna's.

I hope whichever one Eugenie wears that it is chosen to go with the dress and her veil etc so that it isn't hidden or lost in her hair. It needs to complement the dress and not detract from it.

[ldmemail]

[QUOTE=Countessmeout;2066683]

Originally Posted by ldmemail

I don't understand what you are hinting at? That the tiara the museum had on display was a fake? Or a different tiara



16 years ago is not a long period of time. The halo tiara had not been seen in decades when Kate wore it. The jewels are kept in the best care possible, to ensure they don't rust or break. If it was in good condition for the exhibit in 2002, it would still be today.



The reality is the tiara was a bandeau style and it was out of style. Even the queen mother only wore it a few times. Margaret was all about fashion, and likely didn't find it stylish enough. She had her own tiaras to wear.

I'm not hinting.

The tiara has two frames so it may be worn as a bandeau or as a more conventional tiara. The Queen Mother wore it regularly and certainly more than a few times and then ceased to wear it in public completely from the 1930's.
Princess Margaret wore antique pieces regularly and she didn't wear because it wasn't offered to her - in my opinion.

The halo tiara is not made of silver and did not tarnish in the same way as the rose tiara.

[W.Y.CII]

There is nothing wrong about the size to me. While I agree that the proportion of that photo is a bit weird to me, the tiaras of another photo from other slightly different angle is completely fine. It's all about the placement, further then smaller, closer then bigger – the rules of perspective.

I won't say Strathmore Rose is a "delicate small piece". Actually I won't be surprised if Strathmore Rose is wider than Delhi Durbar, considering QM usually put Strathmore Rose across her forehead while Delhi Durbar always sat on top of her head, and Delhi Durbar is a circlet while Strathmore Rose isn't. And I don't think the museum or the RF would make a replica with different size, it's meaningless to do so.

I think being able to be exhibited doesn't mean it is in good condition for wearing. In exhibition almost everything is under control (light, temperature, humidity, contact with human body, etc.), while if it is worn there are so many uncontrollable factors that the tiara may not afford. So what I want to say is that we still don't know the actual condition of Strathmore Rose (of course I hope it's good enough for any royal brides wearing it).

[ldmemail]

Originally Posted by W.Y.CII

There is nothing wrong about the size to me. While I agree that the proportion of that photo is a bit weird to me, the tiaras of another photo from other slightly different angle is completely fine. It's all about the placement, further then smaller, closer then bigger – the rules of perspective.



I won't say Strathmore Rose is a "delicate small piece". Actually I won't be surprised if Strathmore Rose is wider than Delhi Durbar, considering QM usually put Strathmore Rose across her forehead while Delhi Durbar always sat on top of her head, and Delhi Durbar is a circlet while Strathmore Rose isn't. And I don't think the museum or the RF would make a replica with different size, it's meaningless to do so.



I think being able to be exhibited doesn't mean it is in good condition for wearing. In exhibition almost everything is under control (light, temperature, humidity, contact with human body, etc.), while if it is worn there are so many uncontrollable factors that the tiara may not afford. So what I want to say is that we still don't know the actual condition of Strathmore Rose (of course I hope it's good enough for any royal brides wearing it).

May I say you have expressed yourself so nicely !
I agree with you except to say that the Delhi Durbar Diadem is an absolute monster, and can be worn as a complete circlet or as a tiara. For example Queen Mary wore it as s circlet yet the Duchess of Cornwall wore it as a tiara. Incidentally before I go right off topic!!! I’m checking but I don’t believe the Strathmore Rose tiara was exhibited in 2002 at the V&A as the link suggested. I actually think that the photograph shows models of the original jewels and I recall the montage from Hello Magazine around the time we were all speculating not which tiara the then Kate Middleton was going to wear at her wedding !

[W.Y.CII]

Originally Posted by ldmemail

May I say you have expressed yourself so nicely !

Wow I'm happy to hear that!

Originally Posted by ldmemail

The tiara has two frames so it may be worn as a bandeau or as a more conventional tiara.

I don't know that. This is interesting because I never see Strathmore Rose's wrapped base (e.g. that white base) or even metal frame (e.g. that metal ring) in all photos I have seen. It makes me wonder is it broken/lost, or just hidden behind the tiara perfectly. If it is broken/lost then it may explain why we have seen it since 1930s. I guess 1930s was the end of the wearing-it-across-forehead trend, since then the ladies usually wore tiara on the top of head? If it doesn't have the frame/base it would be very uncomfortable and difficult to wear (can't sit on hair securely). So maybe the reason of Strathmore Rose being unseen is that no one wants to wear it because it's unwearable and uncomfortable rather than fragile. Just a thought and I stop here, I know I'm offtopic-ing I'm sorry.

[Lord_Royal]

I would be very surprised if Eugenie didn't wear the York Wedding Tiara. She and her sister are very close to their mother, and luckily for them it's a beautiful tiara of a timeless style that is versatile with most hairstyles and gowns.