Duchess of Cornwall Jewels 8: January 2016 - - Page 6

Duc_et_Pair · #**101** 02-05-2017, 11:54 AM

The British themselves make a difference too. When Antony Armstrong-Jones died, in many media could be read that he was "the first real commoner in the royal family", while Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Queen Elizabeth, the Queen-Mother) or Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott (Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester), etc. technically were commoners as well, but everyone will understand the subtle difference...

Rudolph · #**102** 02-05-2017, 12:11 PM

^^^ It's why the term is best avoided. Prince Harry is a 'commoner' under the old rules, but intuitively just doesn't make sense to many people.

Countessmeout · #**103** 02-05-2017, 01:13 PM

We're not talking legalities here.

Diana may not have a peerage but she was not a simple Miss. She was lady Dians, the daughter if an earl. It is expected a very old peered family would have a tiara and jewels. Just like the peerage doesn't belong to Diana, neither dud the tiara. It belonged to the countess spencer. It was simply loaned to her.

Camilla was just Miss Camilla Shand. Her parents didn't hold a peerage. No estate or huge jewelry trove.

Yes some brides bring tiaras, but they usually have their own aristocratic blood. Camilla has some minor far back, but not who the tiara comes from. So I stand by my, it's rare for a commoner bride to bring a tiara into a marriage.

COUNTESS · #**104** 02-05-2017, 07:31 PM

And I stand by mine, unless you know who purchased that tiara, it may have come from King Edward VII, himself. He showered Mrs. Keppel with lots of baubles. No where does it say she purchased it herself or her grandfather picked it up somewhere. Do you know its providence.

COUNTESS · #**105** 02-05-2017, 07:32 PM

provenance, sorry.

Osipi · #**106** 02-05-2017, 07:57 PM

As stated in the article, Sonia (pictured on the right in the photograph above) was married to the Hon. Roland Cubitt -- hence the name of this diamond floral tiara. Sonia was Alice Keppel's daughter.

Saturday Sparkler: The Cubitt Tiara | The Court Jeweller

Daenerys Targaryen · #**107** 02-05-2017, 07:59 PM

Yes, and rumored to be the King's daughter, which also might be where the tiara came from.

sthreats · #**108** 02-05-2017, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

We're not talking legalities here.

Diana may not have a peerage but she was not a simple Miss. She was lady Dians, the daughter if an earl. It is expected a very old peered family would have a tiara and jewels. Just like the peerage doesn't belong to Diana, neither dud the tiara. It belonged to the countess spencer. It was simply loaned to her.

Camilla was just Miss Camilla Shand. Her parents didn't hold a peerage. No estate or huge jewelry trove.

Yes some brides bring tiaras, but they usually have their own aristocratic blood. Camilla has some minor far back, but not who the tiara comes from. So I stand by my, it's rare for a commoner bride to bring a tiara into a marriage.

How is Camilla's aristocratic blood far back. Her maternal grandfather was the Baron Ashcombe. The Cubitt family was very very rich so I'm sure they had tiaras and jewels

MARG · #**109** 02-06-2017, 04:33 AM

Diana and her sisters, daughters of an earl, did not rate their own tiaras. That's just the way it was and I am sure that when she wore one of the family tiara's at her wedding nobody in her family or the royal family could possibly have imagined how that Spencer tiara would come to personify all that was romance about Diana.

However, it must be noted that whilst Camilla has a tiara, she comes from old money but no family pile or title to maintain. "Camilla's" tiara, whilst it has provenance, is not necessarily hers. In point of fact, we don't know whether she owns it or borrows it from her family. We just know where it came from, not who owns it.

Osipi · #**110** 02-06-2017, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG

Diana and her sisters, daughters of an earl, did not rate their own tiaras. That's just the way it was and I am sure that when she wore one of the family tiara's at her wedding nobody in her family or the royal family could possibly have imagined how that Spencer tiara would come to personify all that was romance about Diana.

However, it must be noted that whilst Camilla has a tiara, she comes from old money but no family pile or title to maintain. "Camilla's" tiara, whilst it has provenance, is not necessarily hers. In point of fact, we don't know whether she owns it or borrows it from her family. We just know where it came from, not who owns it.

It was stated in the article posted that "Rosalind (Shand, Camilla's mother) died in 1994, and she left the tiara to her elder daughter, Camilla." I would take that to mean that Camilla owns that tiara and most likely will pass it on to her daughter, Laura, who also wore it on her wedding day.

muriel · #**111** 02-06-2017, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

It was stated in the article posted that "Rosalind (Shand, Camilla's mother) died in 1994, and she left the tiara to her elder daughter, Camilla." I would take that to mean that Camilla owns that tiara and most likely will pass it on to her daughter, Laura, who also wore it on her wedding day.

It's unlikely the writer actually knew who owns the tiara. No doubt Camilla is the one with most opportunity to wear it. Also, I can't see the point in speculation as to which of her children Camilla chooses to leave the tiara to.

Duc_et_Pair · #**112** 02-06-2017, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

And I stand by mine, unless you know who purchased that tiara, it may have come from King Edward VII, himself. He showered Mrs. Keppel with lots of baubles. No where does it say she purchased it herself or her grandfather picked it up somewhere. Do you know its providence.

Mrs Keppel indicates a simple commoner, but Alice herself was the daughter of the 4th Baron Edmonstone and was born at their estate, Duntreath Castle at pittoresque Loch Lomond (picture).

Her husband, the Hon. George Keppel, indicates a commoner, but he was the son of the 7th Earl of Albemarle. The (Van) Keppels are 15th C nobles from the Netherlands. The original Van Keppel castle is still there, in the place named Keppel and is still in private ownership of Van Keppel-ancestors: front view.

So technically a commoner or not, Camilla's parents and grandparents were not "from the street" so to say.

**Tilia C.** · #**113** 02-06-2017, 02:09 PM

It's a nice change to see the Shand tiara from time to time. The endless repetitions of the honeycomb are a bit boring. It is a pity that her daughter-in-law did not wear it at her wedding. Only her daughter Laura did.

Daenerys Targaryen · #**114** 02-06-2017, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Mrs Keppel indicates a simple commoner, but Alice herself was the daughter of the 4th Baron Edmonstone and was born at their estate, Duntreath Castle at pittoresque Loch Lomond (picture).

Her husband, the Hon. George Keppel, indicates a commoner, but he was the son of the 7th Earl of Albemarle. The (Van) Keppels are 15th C nobles from the Netherlands. The original Van Keppel castle is still there, in the place named Keppel and is still in private ownership of Van Keppel-ancestors: front view.

So technically a commoner or not, Camilla's parents and grandparents were not "from the street" so to say.

If George Keppel was the son of an Earl he would have been Lord George Keppel, just as Diana Spencer was Lady Diana

Noble Consort Ming · #**115** 02-06-2017, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen

If George Keppel was the son of an Earl he would have been Lord George Keppel, just as Diana Spencer was Lady Diana

Younger sons of earls are Hon.

**Stefan** · #**116** 02-06-2017, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daenerys Targaryen

If George Keppel was the son of an Earl he would have been Lord George Keppel, just as Diana Spencer was Lady Diana

No. For some strange reason all daughters of an Earl are Lady ... but by sons only the oldest ist Lord ..., and the other are Honourable. ...

Spheno · #**117** 02-06-2017, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

No. For some strange reason all daughters of an Earl are Lady ... but by sons only the oldest ist Lord ..., and the other are Honourable. ...

Only eldest son is a heir. All daughters are co-heiresses.

**Stefan** · #**118** 02-06-2017, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno

Only eldest son is a heir. All daughters are co-heiresses.

B ut there is no difference made with the children of a Duke. They are all Lord/Lady.

Spheno · #**119** 02-06-2017, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

B ut there is no difference made with the children of a Duke. They are all Lord/Lady.

and the children of a Marquess

Mbruno · #**120** 02-06-2017, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

No. For some strange reason all daughters of an Earl are Lady ... but by sons only the oldest ist Lord ..., and the other are Honourable. ...

Only the sons of a duke or a marquess are Lord [...]. The eldest son of an earl uses, however, one of his father's subsidiary titles as a matter of courtesy (normally, that is a viscount title). Diana's brother was the Viscount Althorp for example.