noldorlord
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 249
- City
- Melbourne
- Country
- Australia
I have to agree with GillW. This is not one of my favourites on the Duchess
Wonder how Camilla would look in a tiara if she pulled her hair back, and pinned it up (in a chignon, for example)?
Hmmm...
It could be fairly loose to still allow some volume to the top and sides of her 'do but still be flattering. I wonder if a Gibson Girl style would be flattering or a French twist? I remember some postings on one of the other jewelry pages showing some fabulous updos with tiaras. I like your chignon idea also.
Royals are requested to look the part if they want to be accepted. Plus the Queen is trying to establish Charles' claim as her successor as head of the Commonwealth which is not an automatic happening but he has to win a voting for it after the queen's death.
.
I wonder what they looked like "in real life"? Diamonds can often look 'heavy' when photographed, yet when seeing the real thing they can appear to be dancing with light. I've seen the Queen up close when she was wearing the Kokoshnik and dripping with diamonds, and the scintillation and flash as she moved was something to behold. Getting away from whether or not Camilla had a Greville overload, I think it would be a real treat to see these diamonds in action. It's a pity that we rarely hear a first-hand description of the effect from those who attend these functions.I wanted to add my 2cents worth on the Duchess' jewels at CHOGM. The one and only photo which I saw of her was, to my eyes, most unattractive.
I am confident that you will find, Jo, that the Head of the
British Commonwealth is always the British monarch. There is no election.
Getting away from whether or not Camilla had a Greville overload, I think it would be a real treat to see these diamonds in action. It's a pity that we rarely hear a first-hand description of the effect from those who attend these functions.
Are we sure these pieces came from Mrs. Greville? According to 'Queen's Jewel's' the diamond necklace(s) were a gift to QEQM from her husband and the tiara was made by Cartier from diamonds from an earlier tiara as well as loose diamonds given to the King and Queen on a visit to a South African diamond mine.
im sorry but i dont like to see camilla wearing an of the personal royal jewels. she broke up a family and she shouldnt get any brownie points for that. besides...she doesnt know how to wear them right...thats way to much sparkle for a country where there are actual starving children on the steps on the government building.sad
You just love those titles, jcbcode99..hehe...Though if I may add, the Queen Mother didn't entirely read the public as well as what she might have hoped. There was quite a number of people who did not appreciate such a display and thought it rather ostentacious (even for their Queen), especially considering they were walking amongst ruins which contained the bodies of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters and not a quid to be found in most pockets.Simply good manners? I think to Queen Elizabeth it was good manners. Her own rule of thumb, shall we say which I guess she thought would be appreciated by most. That was not the case.
Diana was very young when she married Prince Charles and was not particularly interested in jewels. She certainly received substantial gifts from The Queen with the Cambridge Lover's Knot and Cambridge emerald choker, both of which were personal bequests to The Queen from her grandmother. In the case of the tiara, The Queen actually was photographed early in her reign wearing it on state occasions, which was significant.Could anyone hazard a guess as to why Diana did not receive lots of jewels to wear as it seems Camilla has. After all Diana bore the heir to the throne. That alone should have entitled her to a necklace and a tiara or two, not from her own family, but as a gift from her husband as his rightful spouse and mother to his children.