Jewels of the British Nobility 1: Ending Aug. 2023


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a nice and simple family heirloom tiara. Something for a mother to pass down to a daughter, granddaughter or daughter-in-law.
 
No shock that the tiara is actually 2 pieces that were made at different times. It is badly combined and you can tell meant to be two different pieces.

Not a huge fan of either half, but I like the bottom half better.

I see a photo with just the fringe. Wonder what bottom half would look like worn alone.
 
Now, here comes a surprise: Celia McCorquodale, Diana's niece, wore the Spencer tiara for her wedding!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...han-steal-Princess-Dianas-nieces-wedding.html

She really looked lovely, and I love seeing this beautiful tiara being worn again, not merely exhibited. And this will put an end to the myth that only Spencer ladies may wear this tiara. Like many other peers, Earl Spencer doesn't seem to mind lending the family tiara to close relatives, even if they bear another family name.
 
She is a Spencer defendant and has every right to wear the tiara. For God’s sake —- her mother is a Spencer.
 
Tilia C. said:
Now, here comes a surprise: Celia McCorquodale, Diana's niece, wore the Spencer tiara for her wedding!

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle steal the show at Princess Diana's niece's wedding | Daily Mail Online

She really looked lovely, and I love seeing this beautiful tiara being worn again, not merely exhibited. And this will put an end to the myth that only Spencer ladies may wear this tiara. Like many other peers, Earl Spencer doesn't seem to mind lending the family tiara to close relatives, even if they bear another family name.
Click to expand...


Nice to see this tiara worn again. Perhaps this was on purpose because of all the rumours that this tiara belongs to William and Harry so that Earl Spencer decided to loan his niece this tiara to show that it still belongs to him and not his nephews.


suztav said:
She is a Spencer defendant and has every right to wear the tiara. For God’s sake —- her mother is a Spencer.
Click to expand...
But it seems the have another tiara as her sister used a different tiara at hwer Wedding. And her her cousin (don't remebver the name, the daughter of lady Jane) also used a doffererent tiara when she married.
 
Last edited:
suztav said:
She is a Spencer defendant and has every right to wear the tiara. For God’s sake —- her mother is a Spencer.
Click to expand...


Even if we accepted that the mother is still a Spencer (as she was born one, although her last name is now McCorquodale), her daughter most definitely isn't. Similarly, as we discussed before in the Trooping the Colour forum, Zara Phillips or Zenouska Mowatt are not Windsors.
 
Last edited:
Stefan said:
Nice to see this tiara worn again. Perhaps this was on purpose because of all the rumours that this tiara belongs to William and Harry so that Earl Spencer decided to loan his niece this tiara to show that it still belongs to him and not his nephews.



But it seems the have another tiara as her sister used a different tiara at hwer Wedding. And her her cousin (don't remebver the name, the daughter of lady Jane) also used a doffererent tiara when she married.
Click to expand...
We never found out any information about the tiara that her sister Emily wore on her wedding. It is a bit strange, that she is the first of the Earl's niece to wear the Spencer tiara. So maybe the rumours about it in regard to Harry's wedding could indeed be one of the reasons behind her wearing it.


Alexandra Finnlay wore no tiara when she married their cousin Alexander Fellowes. Does anybody have a picture of Laura Fellowes wedding? I have never seen one.
 
I would like to think that we've evolved in our thinking and would consider the children of women just as much as members of their paternal family, as those of the sons. Really? Isn't this 2018?

That young woman is as much a Spencer genetically as is Lady Kitty even though she has a different last name.

For example, the female decendants of Queen Ingrid all wear the Khedive tiara at their weddings

Sheesh!

JMHO!
 
suztav said:
I would like to think that we've evolved in our thinking and would consider the children of women just as much as members of their paternal family, as those of the sons. Really? Isn't this 2018?

That young woman is as much a Spencer genetically as is Lady Kitty even though she has a different last name.

For example, the female decendants of Queen Ingrid all wear the Khedive tiara at their weddings

Sheesh!

JMHO!
Click to expand...

I have to agree there. Every child, royal or not, nobility or not, is ofcourse equally as much a part of the family of the mother as of the family of the father. What your name is doesn't matter at all. It's a part of your DNA.

And before this goes overboard, it was nice to see the Spencer Wedding diamond tiara again !!
 
Last edited:
Hans-Rickard said:
I have to agree there. Every child, royal or not, nobility or not, is ofcourse equally as much a part of the family of the mother as of the family of the father. What your name is doesn't at all. It's a part of your DNA.

And before this goes overboard, it was nice to see the Spencer Wedding diamond tiara again !!
Click to expand...



Thank You!
 
Mbruno said:
Even if we accepted that the mother is still a Spencer (as she was born one, although her last name is now McCorquodale), her daughter most definitely isn't. Similarly, as we discussed before in the Trooping the Colour forum, Zara Phillips or Zenouska Mowatt are not Windsors.
Click to expand...



As we see from this report, Celia McCorquodale as the granddaughter of the late Earl Spencer is still considered part of the Spencer Family and is able to wear one of the Family Tiaras.

Zara Tyndall and Zenouska Mowatt are most certainly members of the Royal Family, even though they have a different surname they are both granddaughter and great great granddaughter respectively of a British Sovereign. Zenouska Mowatt also happens to be a great granddaughter of the Earl of Airlie.
 
Its far too much when all worn together ,I read in one of the comments that it was sold off in 2009.
 
The necklace and brooch are beautifully done. :flowers:

The bracelet is hideous. The tiara would actually be lovely if the stones were all the smaller size stones. The larger stone is too big for the base.
 
Elly C said:
The forthcoming auction of the Anglesey tiara and a fascinating story surrounding the fifth Marquis.
This would make brilliant film.

Tiara and scandals: The 'Dancing Marquess' of Anglesey

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51651894
Click to expand...

One of the Marquess's employees stole £50,000 worth of his family jewels in 1901 which I don't think were ever recovered.

The diamond tiara is stunning.
 
Does the present Marchioness of Anglesey have any tiaras?
 
I got the impression that the one about to be auctioned was the only one still in the family but this is only conjecture on my part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Stefan
Jewels of the British Nobility 2: Aug. 2023 -
Replies
11
Views
1K
The Royal Watcher
T
Idriel
The British Nobility thread 1: Ending 2022
53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
448K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom