British Crown Jewels - Page 6

Grandduchess24 · #**101** 04-01-2012, 10:23 PM

I agree both shouldn't be worn these days, they officially belong in the royal vault and should only serve for significance purposes. where are they anyways?

tanababa · #**102** 05-12-2012, 01:11 PM

Hello,
I am doing a self research regarding the Sword of State.
I came accross two swords:

1. British Museum - Sword of State
which seems to be from about AD 1460-70.

2.
Ceremonial Swords - The British Monarchy
which was made in 1678.

I have a few questions rgarding the Sword of State :
* Who and why made the current Sword?
* Is that the sword that is used also for knighting?
* Where can I find more information?

Thank you,
Tamir

padams2359 · #**103** 06-01-2012, 11:17 AM

As unfortunate as it may be, Queen Elizabeth has a very sad event on the horizon. She will probable out live Prince Phillip. At the advancing age of 90, the end will come sooner rather than later. Continuity being very important to the queen, I feel that it would be most appropriate for her to wear the small Queen Victoria diamond crown for the events surrounding this lose. I believe this is something she should have worn with her black veil at the loss of her mother as well.

Jacknch · #**104** 06-01-2012, 11:43 AM

Queen Victoria's Small Diamond Crown was made for her several years after Prince Albert's death and was first worn when she opened parliament following her years out of the public eye. It was not directly used for the purpose of mourning, rather for the purpose of practicality. Queen Victoria found that the Imperial State Crown was too heavy to wear and could not easily be worn with her veil. The small state crown on the other hand was appropriate for her status as queen and empress and was easily worn with her veil.
Whilst continuity is important to the Queen, the wearing of the small crown ended with Queen Mary and has since never been worn and so it would not be appropriate for the Queen to wear it for mourning. Indeed, the Queen did not wear a black mourning veil when her mother died and I am not sure whether she would wear one if she outlives Prince Philip.

Thena · #**105** 06-01-2012, 02:13 PM

After Victoria's death, Queen Alexandra used to wear the small diamond crown combined with a tiara. Queen Mary also wore it as well, but I believe she chose not to wear it any longer after her husband's death. So this is not a crown that is particular used for mourning.

Edited to remove my question about veils, as I see it was covered in a previous post.

Mirabel · #**106** 06-01-2012, 02:45 PM

I think it's a pity that the small crown isn't being worn; it's lovely and shouldn't just sit in the tower.

Alexey 1904 · #**107** 06-01-2012, 02:49 PM

Dear Thena: Check post #2 for answer to you inquiry.

NGalitzine · #**108** 06-01-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I think it's a pity that the small crown isn't being worn; it's lovely and shouldn't just sit in the tower.

LOL, well it is not as if there are a lot of events for the Queen to wear a crown other than the State Opening of Parliament during which she wears the Imperial State Crown. Tiara events are few and far between in the UK but wearing a crown on a regular basis doesn't happen.

csw · #**109** 06-01-2012, 03:25 PM

Some nice photos of it here if you scroll down

Queen Victoria’s Small Crown *** 1871 « The Anglophile

EIIR · #**110** 06-01-2012, 03:54 PM

I am the founding (and so far only) member of the 'Dismantle Queen Victoria's Small Crown Club'. I think the chances of it ever being worn again in its current form are almost zero, so I hope the gorgeous diamonds aren't left behind a glass case forever. A nice new tiara or necklace wouldn't be a bad legacy for Queen Victoria's little crown.

Mirabel · #**111** 06-02-2012, 09:57 AM

Well, perhaps you are right; that would indeed be more practical.

Thena · #**112** 06-06-2012, 07:10 PM

Yet another call for the the Queen to return the Koh-i-Noor to India.

Quote:

…with your empire withered, your monarchy impotent and your nation listing in a European sea roiled by social and financial crises, maybe it’s time to check your hubris and pass on that king of diamonds. I don’t particularly care where it ends up in India — it probably should be affixed to the pommel of Sachin Tendulkar's bat — as long as it no longer remains in your possession.

The last Indian owner of the diamond, Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab, left the Koh-i-Noor to a Hindi temple in Orissa. However, the British administrators who took charge of Punjab when it joined the British Empire did not execute this part of the will. Instead, the Treaty of Lahore stipulated that the Singh's young successor hand over the Koh-i-Noor to the crown. It currently sits in the late Queen Mother's crown.

Personally, I'm not yet convinced that the diamond should be turned over to India. However, I believe the Queen (and Camilla, Kate, and other future queens) should not wear the diamond as long as the controversy continues.

NGalitzine · #**113** 06-06-2012, 07:54 PM

I don`t think we much care what someone in India says about the diamond. It pretty much falls into the same category as the Elgin Marbles which are not going back to Greece anytime soon.
If every owner and museum had to return items just because someone in their country of origin wanted them back museums and private collections around the world would be emptied.

ldmemail · #**114** 10-13-2012, 09:25 AM

There is no controversy, the diamond is here to stay and is perfectly at home in the Consort's crown which is where it should and shall stay!
The benefits to all of the countries formerly part of the empire outweigh absolutely any so called disadvantage!
It is truly time for the whining to cease regarding this subject.

AnnEliza · #**115** 12-09-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csw

Some nice photos of it here if you scroll down

Queen Victoria’s Small Crown *** 1871 « The Anglophile

Responding to a rather old post, but thank you for those photos. I didn't realize the crown was quite that small. I don't think it would suit the present Queen.

padams2359 · #**116** 12-09-2012, 08:38 PM

I feel she should wear it the one really significant time she need to wear a veil, but I am not going to go into that reason.

cmbruno · #**117** 12-10-2012, 08:15 AM

Is there any legal difference between the "Crown Jewels" and the jewels left by previous queens to be "used only by future queens"? For instance, if Great Britain should ever become a republic or decide to choose another sovereign that doesn't belong to QEII line, the ex-sovereign would not be able to get near the Crown Jewels anymore but his/her personal collection would be his/hers to keep. What about the "jewls left to be used by future queens?

ldmemail · #**118** 12-16-2012, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbruno

Is there any legal difference between the "Crown Jewels" and the jewels left by previous queens to be "used only by future queens"? For instance, if Great Britain should ever become a republic or decide to choose another sovereign that doesn't belong to QEII line, the ex-sovereign would not be able to get near the Crown Jewels anymore but his/her personal collection would be his/hers to keep. What about the "jewls left to be used by future queens?

Interesting question! In actuality only the Crown Jewels - ie the Crowns and other regalia in the Tower of London could not be touched. The crown jewellery and the jewels left for use by future Queens would go with the Windsors. There does not appear to be any legislation regarding jewellery other than the Crown Jewels. Incidentally both Queen Mary's crown, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's crown and the Imperial crown of India were the personal property of it's wearers, so in theory are not the property of the nation. However I do wonder if there would be any differentiation in the end.

Artemisia · #**119** 12-16-2012, 07:12 AM

I have to disagree with you. In my view, everything that was left to the Crown (jewellery, works of Art, and so on) is now part of the Crown and cannot be considered the private property of the Monarch.

Warren · #**120** 12-16-2012, 07:46 AM

Suzy Menkes in her preface to "The Royal Jewels" writes:

"The conundrum at the heart of "The Royal Jewels" is this: which is the jewellery 'belonging to the Crown and to be worn by all future queens in right of it' and what is personal and private property?

Most of Queen Mary's collection she herself designated as personal, and willed to the Queen...

The Crown Jewels in the Tower of London and the Crown Jewellery - the pieces given by successive monarchs to the Crown - are the responsibility of the Lord Chamberlain...

The first thing I asked for when I undertook this book was a list of the Crown Jewellery from both the Lord Chamberlain's office and from the Crown Jeweller. It is the last thing I found out, after three years' research, after working in the royal arcvhives at Windsor and from studying research papers lodged at the Goldsmith's Hall by a previous jewellery historian a quarter of a century ago.

The trickle and stream and torrent and flood of presents that have been given to the Queen during her [60]-year reign is a subject that is totally taboo. If any of these gifts has been made over to the Crown, I have not been able to find out who holds this information.

The Queen's personal and favourite jewellery is under the eye and key of her dresser and companion-servant of [67] years, Bobo MacDonald [since 2002, Angela Kelly]. But probably only Her Majesty comprehends the vastness of the royal jewel collection and its uncharted shores."
.