Tiaras and Jewels for Prince Harry's Future Wife

[Pranter]

It's pretty crazy to think about....the Queen could easily reign another 10 years given the longevity of the females in that family. Charles would be around 80 ...William in his early 40's. Charles could go 20 years as King ...William would be in his 60's and George in his 30's. If William is as long lived and reigns 40 years ...George is in his 70's before he is crowned. Now this is all based on how long lived the Windsor's seem to be..


LaRae

 

[Skippyboo]

Especially with Harry being a smoker and William isn't.

 

[jacqui24]

Just throwing this into the mix. There will be three future events where Harry's wife will definitely need a tiara and those events will be coronations. Charles, William and George's coronations most likely will happen during Harry's marriage. If they have a daughter and she is of age, she also will need a tiara for George's coronation.
:

Depending on timing of things, Harry's daughter could need a tiara for William's coronation. If they get married and have a child within the next two years, the young lady would be 18+ by the time Charles is the Queen's age right now.

And this conversation just got morbid talking about death order of people in their early to mid thirties. You just never know. My grandpa smoked and drank his whole life, and he lived until 93. The other grandpa didn't smoke or drink and died in his 50s.

 

[Skippyboo]

No more different than talking about tiaras for people that don't exist yet like Harry's daughter.

 

[Osipi]

One thing we do know for sure is that the "Firm" and the monarchy and the BRF are not ones to leave things to chance and handle things when they happen to occur but plan ahead. Its just the way they do things.

 

[Somebody]

Probably at some point Harry and his wife will represent the monarch abroad. There aren't that many tiara events however wherever they go - other than visits to other royals or things like CHOGM - and Harry isn't high enough on the totem pole to represent the monarch at that.

A lot would depend on how much longer the Queen lives along with Charles. If William is King in the next 10 years then Harry would represent the monarch at tiara type events more often than if it is 30+ years by which time it would be George and Charlotte in those roles.

That's what I was thinking as well. That it will depend a lot on the timing. At some point it might be more logical for Charlotte or younger sibling to take over the European royalty events from Edward and Sophie instead of Harry and wife. I don't expect George to take on this role as William never had the role either.

There is not going to be royal weddings on European continent for several years since every one is basically already married or young kids. Royal funerals/coronations is basically handled by the heir apparent so that will be William in Charles's reign. The Queen doesn't do much overseas travel anymore. We don't know if Charles will do something similar when he is King. Initially King Charles will want to visit the various overseas realms himself as King plus he will want to call upon his various royal counterparts in person. The same thing with King William. So I don't see a large need for Harry to represent the monarch overseas other than the various normal tours based on the requests of the Foreign office which aren't going to be Tiara events.

There are many other European royal events than weddings to attend. Edward and Sophie also attend birthday celebrations and anniversaries of a monarch's reign. Especially, in Scandinavia those typically include a tiara event.

 

[miss whirley]

No more different than talking about tiaras for people that don't exist yet like Harry's daughter.

True. Instead of worrying about people who don't even exist one could ask what Beatrice and Eugenie will do at the coronations, Sarah only has one tiara. So one of them will need to borrow a tiara from the collection, too. There's always a wider net of consideration at play.

 

[Abbigail]

The thread is about Prince Harry's future wife, so it kinda makes sense to mention future children as well. Beatrice and Eugenie? Not so much.

 

[jacqui24]

No more different than talking about tiaras for people that don't exist yet like Harry's daughter.

Morbid is an unhealthy interest in unpleasant things, like death and disease. I don't think Harry's future children should be compared to either one?

 

[Countessmeout]

No more different than talking about tiaras for people that don't exist yet like Harry's daughter.

I know some people don't like the idea Harry marrying Meghan but morbid? You really would call the thought of him having children with her to be disturbing? Morbid certainly wouldn't be the word I'd use for describing future children.

This thread is about jewelry for his future wife and family. That includes future kids.

I think the issue much if not most people would have with a tiara is why? There is no need for a new one. It isn't like there isn't a whole vault of them. There is no need for tiaras to be reserved for the use of one person alone. If the time comes when Harry has a daughter who needs a tiara to wear, one can easily be loaned from the vaults as well.

As for events on the continent, if Edward and Sophie stop going, it is very possible William and Kate will go. There is nothing saying the heir and his wife cant attend. In reality, most monarchies that is who they send. Charles used to attend such events in the past.

But the reality is George and Charlotte are not likely going to be attending such events for 25-30 years. They are most likely to be allowed to live a similar path as their father, not rushed into full time royal duties. It is quite possible Harry and his wife will be serving in this capacity, after Edward and Sophie step down from doing so.

If they do get Meghan a tiara I hope it isn't new. I would love them to purchase one from the auctions where we see some beautiful historic tiaras go up for sale. Or create a new one from one of the necklaces or other pieces in the royal vaults. I often find new ones quite tacky.

 

[Mirabel]

If they do get Meghan a tiara I hope it isn't new. I would love them to purchase one from the auctions where we see some beautiful historic tiaras go up for sale. Or create a new one from one of the necklaces or other pieces in the royal vaults. I often find new ones quite tacky.

I agree, the historic ones are nicer.

I still think Charles, who has reps at all the major auction houses, may gift one to Meghan for her exclusive use.

I read recently that he has been quietly buying up pieces of jewelry that Edward VII gave Alice Keppel (Camilla's ancestress) in order to add them to Camilla's collection (much enlarged over the last 12 years).

It would not surprise me if he finds an exquisite tiara and earmarks it for Meghan.

 

[MARG]

I think with the economy and such HM has loosened the hold of her personal collection. I am not saying we are going to see Catherine wearing the GGB or the kokoshnik or Harry's wife wearing the Vladimir, Catherine but we have already seen her wear three different less significant tiaras and Sophie has also been spotted with other jewels on loan.

When we saw the Halo Scroll we all thought that was going to be Catherine's go-to tiara, however, that has proven an incorrect assumption. So, perhaps we will see Meghan wear the Halo Scroll for her wedding as it the precedent has been set. But, in my dreams, I would love to see her wear the Fringe Tiara for her wedding but I think it is more likely to turn up on Beatrice and Eugenie for their weddings because that seems a perfect tiara for a wedding.

 

[Pranter]

I would think Beatrice and Eugenie will wear Sarah's tiara. It's going to go down to them anyway.

I like the Scroll Tiara but I would like to see Meghan wear something different at her wedding, assuming they marry.


LaRae

 

[JennahPc]

Unless a Tiara is purchased for her [as one was for the Duchess of York], her Tiara won't be passed down. The BRF now loans its historic tiara's to its female members, and [on their death, or divorce] these heirlooms return to the Royal collection, [specifically to he Monarch], thus avoiding taxation, when the entire collection is inherited by the next occupant of the Throne.

If the Countess of Wessex who married the son of a reigning monarch was not able to borrow one of the more substantial tiaras from the Royal Vaults, why do you think that a divorced woman who is marrying a Royal member who is 5th in line to the throne would have access to these gems? Keep in mind that the Duchess of Cornwall who married the son of the reigning monarch who is second in line to the throne and was also a divorcee wore a hat to her civil ceremony and a dipped feather headpiece to the religious blessing.

 

[Countessmeout]

If the Countess of Wessex who married the son of a reigning monarch was not able to borrow one of the more substantial tiaras from the Royal Vaults, why do you think that a divorced woman who is marrying a Royal member who is 5th in line to the throne would have access to these gems? Keep in mind that the Duchess of Cornwall who married the son of the reigning monarch who is second in line to the throne and was also a divorcee wore a hat to her civil ceremony and a dipped feather headpiece to the religious blessing.

Camilla and Charles did not have a huge wedding, and it was a second wedding for both. Her wearing a tiara to the wedding would have looked bizarre to say the least. It was nothing to do with her being a divorcee. If she wanted to wear a tiara she could very well have worn her family one but chose to wear none. And since her wedding she has worn numerous pieces.

Harry is only 5th??? When Edward married he was 7th in line for the throne. He was the third son of the queen. And at the time there was little plan for Sophie or Edward to be working royals. Since that changed, since they became working royals, she has been given access to a family tiara, the five aquamarine tiara.

Harry may be a grandson right now, but he is the second son of the future king. And until George is an adult and taking on full time royal duties, that makes him a very high position as senior royal. He will be performing major royal duties for many decades to come as will his wife.

The royals are also very more conscious about finances and the situation. Buying a brand new tiara when they have entire vaults, would not be a smart choice at this time. Now if they crafted one from say one of the necklaces, or at the very least bought one from auction, the cost would be explainable.

 

[JennahPc]

Camilla and Charles did not have a huge wedding, and it was a second wedding for both. Her wearing a tiara to the wedding would have looked bizarre to say the least. It was nothing to do with her being a divorcee. If she wanted to wear a tiara she could very well have worn her family one but chose to wear none. And since her wedding she has worn numerous pieces.



Harry is only 5th??? When Edward married he was 7th in line for the throne. He was the third son of the queen. And at the time there was little plan for Sophie or Edward to be working royals. Since that changed, since they became working royals, she has been given access to a family tiara, the five aquamarine tiara.



Harry may be a grandson right now, but he is the second son of the future king. And until George is an adult and taking on full time royal duties, that makes him a very high position as senior royal. He will be performing major royal duties for many decades to come as will his wife.



The royals are also very more conscious about finances and the situation. Buying a brand new tiara when they have entire vaults, would not be a smart choice at this time. Now if they crafted one from say one of the necklaces, or at the very least bought one from auction, the cost would be explainable.

Despite all of that, I doubt we will be seeing Ms Markle in any of HM's iconic tiaras on her potential wedding day. It would be lovely to see something brought out of the vaults.

 

[Pranter]

I'm hoping we see one of the tiaras come out of the vault that haven't been seen for ages. Who knows what all is in there!


LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

Despite all of that, I doubt we will be seeing Ms Markle in any of HM's iconic tiaras on her potential wedding day. It would be lovely to see something brought out of the vaults.

Nobody said one of the queen's 'iconic' tiaras. She doesn't even lend those to Camilla. We are simply talking pieces from the vaults. Certainly no one is suggesting Meghan wear a tiara personally worn by the queen now.

 

[Missjersey]

Do you think Meghan would wear a tiara walking in, I don’t but probably, walking out. Wondering which tiara. Maybe spencer?

 

[Countessmeout]

Do you think Meghan would wear a tiara walking in, I don’t but probably, walking out. Wondering which tiara. Maybe spencer?

When would she put the tiara on? It takes time to place a tiara, pin/secure. Going to leave the guests waiting while she goes off with a hairdresser to place the tiara? If she wears a tiara she will wear it from the start.

And no on the Spencer tiara (actually there are 2). She isn't a Spencer. The Spencer tiaras are worn by the Countess Spencer, or by the daughters of the earl. Meghan is not and wont be either of these. Diana was allowed to continue to wear it after her wedding, but she was always the earl's daughter, even after marriage.

She will be loaned one of the tiaras from the vault, or less likely, have one made like Sophie's was.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Do you think Meghan would wear a tiara walking in, I don’t but probably, walking out. Wondering which tiara. Maybe spencer?

She won't wear the Spencer tiara--the current Earl of Spencer (Diana's brother owns it.)

 

[Somebody]

Do you think Meghan would wear a tiara walking in, I don’t but probably, walking out. Wondering which tiara. Maybe spencer?

I don't see a reason why she wouldn't. Unless tiaras go completely out of fashion in the next few months and flowers are the new trend

 

[JR76]

Do you think Meghan would wear a tiara walking in, I don’t but probably, walking out.

When would she put the tiara on? It takes time to place a tiara, pin/secure. Going to leave the guests waiting while she goes off with a hairdresser to place the tiara? If she wears a tiara she will wear it from the start.

Although I think it's unlikely for Meghan, Sarah Ferguson did seem to be wearing flowers on her head during her wedding to Andrew. It was discovered after the ceremony that she'd hidden her tiara under the flowers.

 

[Osipi]

I like how Sarah did it. From commoner to princess symbolized. It may be that when Harry marries, his bride will decide not to wear a tiara at all and go with a single flower in her hair. Especially if its know that she's been married before. The symbolism of the veil is kind of unnecessary. Just a thought but anything can happen.

 

[Somebody]

I like how Sarah did it. From commoner to princess symbolized. It may be that when Harry marries, his bride will decide not to wear a tiara at all and go with a single flower in her hair. Especially if its know that she's been married before. The symbolism of the veil is kind of unnecessary. Just a thought but anything can happen.

She could wear a tiara without the veil being put backwards during the ceremony 9or even without the veil itself, although that seems less likely.

The flowr thing seems rather from the 80's. Princess Astrid didn't even wear a tiare, while she was a born princess.

 

[Countessmeout]

Sorry don't see Meghan wearing a flower in her hair. The wedding is a welcome into the family. Its her entrance into the life as a royal. And though they rarely wear them now, tiaras are seen as a symbol of that. I don't see Meghan breaking a very long tradition of brides wearing tiaras, and not wearing one. Perhaps a smaller one, but a tiara yes.

 

[LauraS3514]

Do you think Meghan would wear a tiara walking in, I don’t but probably, walking out.

She may do what Sarah did - on the way in, the tiara was covered by flowers which were then removed when they signed the registers in the back, out of sight of the congregation. Sarah's tiara was quite difficult to see behind the flowers - on TV at least. It was somewhat easier in still photos after the wedding.

 

[Osipi]

I don't see Harry marrying anywhere where it would be troublesome for his grandparents to attend. We have to remember too that even though Harry's extended family live pretty centralized to attending a wedding in or around London, with the past experience of royal weddings taking not long after an engagement, most of the working royals have their engagement books filled in six months to a year beforehand sometimes. I think a centralized venue would be practical for everyone and work if they have engagements to do the day before or the day after the wedding. The British "Firm" doesn't cancel things easily. Just one observation.

This is just my guesstimation but when it comes to the overall picture of Harry's wedding, we're not going to see it diverting too much from the basics of what makes up a royal wedding. However, there will be elements to it that make it unique to Harry and his bride. A case in point is that it would be similar to how they used the "Tay Bridge" plans for the Queen Mother's funeral yet adapted it to be personal for Diana, Princess of Wales' funeral.

If things are tried and true and work well, why fix it? Planning a royal wedding in a short amount of time is much, much easier if you have a working model to go by.

 

[Countessmeout]

She may do what Sarah did - on the way in, the tiara was covered by flowers which were then removed when they signed the registers in the back, out of sight of the congregation. Sarah's tiara was quite difficult to see behind the flowers - on TV at least. It was somewhat easier in still photos after the wedding.

It was possible because floral wreaths on your head were fashionable in the 80s. Not so much in 2000's. I cant remotely picture a bride wearing a huge wreath like Sarah did, today, and looking remotely fashionable.

 

[Missjersey]

I agree Countessmeout-no wreath on the head!