Kent Jewels

[Stefan]

Here is a picture of the Aqua tiara:

https://www.tiara-mania.com/2014/10/kent-aquamarine-tiara.html

...and I have to correct myself. The tiara was sold , which means only 1 tiara left in the main Kent branch????

I thinnk it is not sure if the aquamrine tiara was ever owned by the Duke and Duchess of Kent. The Duchess has only worn it a few times.Lady Ncholas has also been seen wearing a convertd sapphire necklace as tiara but it could be from her own Family.

 

[Stefan]

Duchess of Kent wearing the sapphire tiara made from the necklace of the Cambridge Sapphire Parure

I don't like it as a tiara at all. It's very button-y.

And a horrible visible frame.

 

[maria-olivia]

Only the vey rich Prince and Pincess Michael were able to keep their tiaras : the Fringe and the Festoon tiara ...

 

[sophie25]

I don't think it's a money issue it's just that who in the family will ever need these tiaras now? I agree that one day most of the Gloucester collection will also go up for sale and that will no doubt raise a small fortune with the number of pieces they have. The Gloucester kids don't need these jewels either although it would be nice if items that had belonged to Queen Mary returned to the main line of the BRF. Don't know if the Queen (or Charles) would be willing to pay for them though.

 

[muriel]

The Duchess of Kent has a frail health and is for decades battling a chronic fatigue. She is 86 years old and has already withdrawn largely from royal duties for more than 20 years.

Often royal jewels are sold to overcome succession taxes and for division of properties between heirs. The Duke and his two siblings had to pay taxes after their mother's passing. The Duke and Duchess themselves have four children and eleven grandchildren. There you go: who gets what?

Selling royal jewels are often a way to pay for the inheritance taxes due. That said and independent of the need to finance the inheritance tax payable, none of the Kent and Gloucester children will have a use for most of these jewels, so it is only natural they cash in their inheritance.

 

[muriel]

Only the vey rich Prince and Pincess Michael were able to keep their tiaras : the Fringe and the Festoon tiara ...

I am not sure that Prince and Princess Michael are substantially wealthier than the Duke and Duchess of Kent. It may just be a question of priorities.

 

[muriel]

I don't think it's a money issue it's just that who in the family will ever need these tiaras now? I agree that one day most of the Gloucester collection will also go up for sale and that will no doubt raise a small fortune with the number of pieces they have.

I agree with you. These jewels are just not of much use to the children of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. I think it is only a question of time before quite a lot of the Gloucester jewellery collection comes up for sale, though I suspect that it be after the death of the current Duke and Duchess.

The Gloucester kids don't need these jewels either although it would be nice if items that had belonged to Queen Mary returned to the main line of the BRF. Don't know if the Queen (or Charles) would be willing to pay for them though.

> I think it will come down to whether the main line feel they need to augment their existing jewellery collection, or they are happy let the jewels be sold. My own view is that the jewels will not be bought back by the Queen, Charles or William as they have a pretty large collection themselves.

> There is also the question of value. A large, public auction of royal jewels previously used by Queen Mary will generate international interest, and potentially, quite high prices. The main line of the BRF do not need to pay these prices, and they may not want to stop their cousins from cashing out either.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I doubt the Kents will need so many tiaras in the future at most we might only see the remaining ones being used as Wedding tiaras.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The Duchess of Kent has a frail health and is for decades battling a chronic fatigue. She is 86 years old and has already withdrawn largely from royal duties for more than 20 years.

Often royal jewels are sold to overcome succession taxes and for division of properties between heirs. The Duke and his two siblings had to pay taxes after their mother's passing. The Duke and Duchess themselves have four children and eleven grandchildren. There you go: who gets what?

Three children-George, Helen & Nicholas, and 10 grandchildren.

But yes, inheritance taxes are the reason so much jewelry is sold off, especially when it is not useful.

 

[pkl]

Why should the main line buy back Kent or Gloucester jewels? They don’t need more jewels. Just like the emerald necklace the queen showed off at the banquet in desember. Never seen before. And they have a lot more. So probably most of the Kent jewels will disappear when the old branch of the family has died and also the Gloucester collection. Impressive that the Gloucester line have kept almost all of their jewels and the Kent branch have not... So I think there will be a big auction when time comes. In a 20 years time maybe? Who knows. PS: the inheritance tax of UK is insane... In Norway we don’t have such tax...

 

[tommy100]

The Queen (or more likely Charles IMO) may buy back one or two pieces but its highly unlikely IMO and almost certainly unlikely with the Kent jewels as anything significant seems to have left already. If you include the tiaras the Queen has lent out to others there is that many, plus other jewels, I can't see them adding to it for lack of anything unless there is a piece or two they are especially fond of or has special meaning.

 

[Mbruno]

Why should the main line buy back Kent or Gloucester jewels? They don’t need m jewels. Just like the emerald necklace the queen showed off at the banquet in desember. Never seen before. And they have a lot more. So probably most of the Kent jewels will disappear when the old branch of the family has died and also the Gloucester collection. Impressive that the Gloucester line have kept almost all of their jewels and the Kent branch have not... So I think there will be a big auction when time comes. In a 20 years time maybe? Who knows. PS: the inheritance tax of UK is insane... In Norway we don’t have such tax...

There is no such thing as “ too many jewels” in my opinion. If the Kent or Gloucester descendants need to sell historic pieces, e,g. jewels that were often worn by Queen Mary, I think it makes sense for Charles or William to buy them back. After all, they can afford it .

 

[theroyalfly]

Why should the main line buy back Kent or Gloucester jewels? They don’t need more jewels. Just like the emerald necklace the queen showed off at the banquet in desember. Never seen before. And they have a lot more. So probably most of the Kent jewels will disappear when the old branch of the family has died and also the Gloucester collection. Impressive that the Gloucester line have kept almost all of their jewels and the Kent branch have not... So I think there will be a big auction when time comes. In a 20 years time maybe? Who knows. PS: the inheritance tax of UK is insane... In Norway we don’t have such tax...

I don't think there's a need to highlight this. Princess Marina was forced to sell Kent's jewels and paintings as a single mother with 3 children.

There's nothing wrong with the main line buying back either Kent or Gloucester jewels. Most of these jewels have sentimental value after all. Other royal families have done it too.

 

[muriel]

If the Kent or Gloucester descendants need to sell historic pieces, e,g. jewels that were often worn by Queen Mary, I think it makes sense for Charles or William to buy them back. After all, they can afford it .

The main line may well be able to afford to buy back any jewellery that any other family member propose to sell, but would they want to buy back at the high prices that auctions can sometimes fetch?

Also, a lot of the jewels Queen Mary gave to her younger children had been bought by her to pass on, perhaps wearing the a few times before handing them on. To that extent, query if the main line consider them to be of significant historic importance?

 

[Mbruno]

The main line may well be able to afford to buy back any jewellery that any other family member propose to sell, but would they want to buy back at the high prices that auctions can sometimes fetch?

Also, a lot of the jewels Queen Mary gave to her younger children had been bought by her to pass on, perhaps wearing the a few times before handing them on. To that extent, query if the main line consider them to be of significant historic importance?

The King could reach an agreement with his relatives to buy back the items at a fair price without the need to put them on auction. King Carl Gustaf of Sweden and King Juan Carlos of Spain are known to have struck similar deals in the past.

I agree with you, however, that only items of historic significance should be bought back. It is up to the family to decide what they want to keep in the main line or not.

 

[countess felicitas]

Why should the main line buy back Kent or Gloucester jewels? They don’t need more jewels. Just like the emerald necklace the queen showed off at the banquet in desember. Never seen before. And they have a lot more. So probably most of the Kent jewels will disappear when the old branch of the family has died and also the Gloucester collection. Impressive that the Gloucester line have kept almost all of their jewels and the Kent branch have not... So I think there will be a big auction when time comes. In a 20 years time maybe? Who knows. PS: the inheritance tax of UK is insane... In Norway we don’t have such tax...

I think the Gloucesters were able to hang on to their jewelry since their mother came from a very wealthy british noble family, whereas the Kents did not have such access to money, as Pr Marina came from an exiled royal family.

 

[muriel]

The King could reach an agreement with his relatives to buy back the items at a fair price without the need to put them on auction. King Carl Gustaf of Sweden and King Juan Carlos of Spain are known to have struck similar deals in the past.

If required, of course such agreements between the monarch of the day and the vendors could be reached. In the case of Juan Carlos and to a much lesser extent Carl Gustaf, the jewel purchases were also about replenishing "jewellery stocks" within the main line that had diminished during exile in the case of Spain, or being given away to non-mail line siblings in the case of Sweden.

 

[muriel]

I think the Gloucesters were able to hang on to their jewelry since their mother came from a very wealthy british noble family, whereas the Kents did not have such access to money, as Pr Marina came from an exiled royal family.

A few factors at play, IMO:

> Marina, as a widow, had limited financial means for most of her life, and gradually sold items of value through her lifetime.

> She also had 3 children, so the collection was split, though it largely went to her two sons. The current Duke sold quite a lot of the jewellery over time, whist Prince Michael has been able to hold onto quite a lot.

> The Gloucester's have always been better placed financially throughout. I do not know whether this was through prudent financial management or inheritance from both George V and the family of Princess Alice. The family still own Barnwell, their estate in Northamptonshire, though I understand the Manor house is leased out. The Kent family seat at Coppins was sold in the 1970s.

> In the case of the Gloucesters, the current Duke is the only surviving child of his generation, following the death of his brother in the early 1970s. This allowed the entire collection of Princess Alice to stay together so far.

 

[pkl]

I still think that WHY will the Kent or specially the Gloucester pieces get back to the main line? They don’t use that much jewels anylonger and they have so much they don’t use for reasons unknown, and there are few events like before. And it seems the Queen have quit giving jewels, just lending out to members of the royal family. So my opinion is that when the current Kent and Gloucester seniors are dead, most will be sold. Also the royal house has to slim down even more in the future, then the branches do not need jewels for galas etc..

 

[wyevale]

I think the Gloucester's and both [Male Line] Kents will keep a single Tiara for Weddings and Coronation purposes, with the remainder being sold, once the Current Title Holder dies..

The reality is, the heirs will need to pay 'Death Duties' on the estates they inherit..

The Kent's have nothing 'historic' remaining that is worth the BRF purchasing, and neither [really] do the Gloucester's - although Princess Marie-Louise's 'Indian' Tiara is a remarkably piece, its not so 'pertinent to Royal History' that it's worthy of bringing back into the Royal Collection. Cartier might buy it for its archive ?

If buying back Historic items were 'policy' then Prince Albert's fabulous Sapphire and Emerald Tiara's [designed for Queen Victoria] wouldn't be in the V & A Museum now...where they will languish unworn [for eternity]...

 

[maria-olivia]

I am sure the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester know what to do .
The Duke of Kent is old and I am sure he does not want his Children paying as he had to do.

 

[tommy100]

Indeed, we’ve seen plenty of historic items go under the hammer to make it seems clear it is not a priority for HM or Charles. To be honest even if they were to buy some jewels from the Kent (or Gloucester’s) I suspect it would be something very sentimental left by “Granny” probably a brooch or necklace IMO over a tiara.

In the future I can certainly see them only keeping one relatively simple tiara for use but not a whole lot of big tiaras. The cartier tiara from the Gloucesters is the only one I would be sad to see disappear for ever (for practical reasons I can see them keeping the Iveagh tiara) The only one I could see any interest potentially in from HM or Charles is the Gloucester’s honeysuckle tiara. The Kents seem to have got rid of the big ones already

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Both the Gloucester and Kent collections do not really have a royal history, like the British State Diadem of King George IV, the Swedish Camée Parure dating back to Joséphine de Beauharnais or the Dutch House Diamonds even dating all the way back to the 17th C.

The Indian tiara came from Princess Marie-Luise von Schleswig-Holstein, godmother of the current Duke. Today's Duchess of Gloucester is "only" the second wearer.

The Diamond and Emerald Bandeau was "only" worn by the previous and the current Duchess of Gloucester.

The Diamond collier/diadem was "only" worn by the previous and current Duchess of Gloucester.

Three diadems have a provenance to Queen Mary as the only wearer in the core royal family: the Iveagh, the Honeysuckle and the Turquoise diadems. We can say these indeed once have graced the head of a Queen, but it is all a bit limited in terms of a "must keep". We will see what will happen in the future, when the Gloucesters and the Kents move more and more into the periphery of the royal family.

 

[Mbruno]

A few factors at play, IMO:

> Marina, as a widow, had limited financial means for most of her life, and gradually sold items of value through her lifetime.

> She also had 3 children, so the collection was split, though it largely went to her two sons. The current Duke sold quite a lot of the jewellery over time, whist Prince Michael has been able to hold onto quite a lot.

> The Gloucester's have always been better placed financially throughout. I do not know whether this was through prudent financial management or inheritance from both George V and the family of Princess Alice. The family still own Barnwell, their estate in Northamptonshire, though I understand the Manor house is leased out. The Kent family seat at Coppins was sold in the 1970s.

> In the case of the Gloucesters, the current Duke is the only surviving child of his generation, following the death of his brother in the early 1970s. This allowed the entire collection of Princess Alice to stay together so far.

Wasn’t Princess Alice’s father one of the largest landowners in the United Kingdom ? I suppose most of his inheritance went to his eldest living son , but did Princess Alice inherit items from her family’s extensive art collection ( one of largest private collections in the UK also ) ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Wasn’t Princess Alice’s father one of the largest landowners in the United Kingdom ? I suppose most of his inheritance went to his eldest living son , but did Princess Alice inherit items from her family’s extensive art collection ( one of largest private collections in the UK also ) ?

According some sources the Duke of Gloucester is worth some 20-25 million but this includes their real estate and lands, their jewelry, their movables. So more the rich in assets, "poor" in cash type. Even the late Duchess of Alba, credited to be Spain's richest aristocrat, had to sell items when she was short in cash.

 

[wyevale]

^ The Buccleuch assest' are all safely tied up in Trusts, for their preservation from punitive Death Duties, and extravagant Dukes...

 

[An Ard Ri]

The beautiful Pearls of the Duchess of Kent I don't think we shall ever see HRH wearing her beautiful jewels again.

https://images.app.goo.gl/7B3VurmuyEYgbD6G6

 

[pkl]

Why did she retire from royal duties?

Do the Kent family share the jewels? Is that why the Princess Michael also wear some of the Duchess' jewels?

 

[Marc23]

The beautiful Pearls of the Duchess of Kent I don't think we shall ever see HRH wearing her beautiful jewels again.

https://images.app.goo.gl/7B3VurmuyEYgbD6G6

Maybe there is a chance to see her one more time wearing tiara and pearls, at the next coronation, assuming she is still alive at that time, which I hope.

 

[sophie25]

Why did she retire from royal duties?

Do the Kent family share the jewels? Is that why the Princess Michael also wear some of the Duchess' jewels?

No, they don't share jewels, each branch of the Kent family has their own and don't share with each other. Princess Michael dosn't wear jewels belonging to the Duchess or Princess Alexandra.