The Princess of Wales Jewels 2: January 2025 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Marengo

Administrator
Site Team
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
28,255
City
Amsterdam
Country
Netherlands
1737466136560.png
Arms of The Princess of Wales

Welcome to the Princess of Wales Jewels Thread, Part 2

Commencing January 21st, 2021

The previous thread can be found here


Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules



· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.

· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article

text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.

· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.

· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.

· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive

will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.



***
 
Today the Princess wore a most amazing necklace of 5 strings of graduated pearls at the Holocaust Memorial service.

It has been suggested that these pearls belonged to QE2.


 
Last edited:
She looks great in this pearl necklace and should wear them much more often.
Apparently they are from the late QE2 but i can't remember if we have we ever seen here in a 5 row pearl necklace
 
The necklace is a five strand faux-pearl necklace from Susan Caplan who describes it as:- "Pure drama. Rhodium plated 5 row pearl strand necklace. Features luminous faux pearls in graduating sizes. Closes with embellished Swarovski crystal clasp, weighted extension chain and hook."


 
Why would she buy faux pearls? Doesn’t she and the family own many pearl necklaces?
 
That’s quite something if an imitation necklace was originally considered the Queen’s just because Catherine wore it.

This one looks very nice on her; with her height and long neck she can carry off many, many strands.
 
The pearls are made by a Jewish company, very appropriate for this event.
Maybe she didn’t buy them, maybe a gift, wearing priceless jewels is not always appropriate for an occasion.
A pearl necklace that she already owned is appropriate too. It’s weird and a bit performative for a solemn occasion. Influenced consumerism blending with a remembrance of atrocities is a little weird.
 
A pearl necklace that she already owned is appropriate too. It’s weird and a bit performative for a solemn occasion. Influenced consumerism blending with a remembrance of atrocities is a little weird
Do we know if it was purchased especially for this , she maybe already owned this one.
It is a simple pearl necklace , which suited her outfit and the occasion.
 
If she does own the this faux one before she received the QEII's one, it's a petty that she never wear it before cause it looks so elegant on her. But also I don't think it looks well with such neckline, they're overlapping. Maybe a turtleneck or a larger neckline?
 
A bit disappointing that she wears fake pearls, when there are so many real ones in the Vaults.
Yes that's true the Windsors have the best Royal Jewel collection bar far and such a collection of pearls.
However it was highlighted above that the pearls are made by a Jewish company and as such I personally have no issue whether they are faux or not and deem them very appropriate for this event.
 
That’s quite something if an imitation necklace was originally considered the Queen’s just because Catherine wore it.
The confusion was caused by a journalist working for the Telegraph tweeting that the pearls previously belonged to QE2. This was picked up by a well known jewellery blog and stated as such. By the time the Telegraph journalist checked with KP and updated her tweet, the story was out and had been picked up by many.
 
A pearl necklace that she already owned is appropriate too. It’s weird and a bit performative for a solemn occasion. Influenced consumerism blending with a remembrance of atrocities is a little weird.
Why would it be performative to wear pearls owned by a Jewish brand for this occasion when it is usual for royal ladies from everywhere to wear pieces of clothing or jewelry that are a nod or have a connection to the event they're attending?
 
However it was highlighted above that the pearls are made by a Jewish company and as such I personally have no issue whether they are faux or not and deem them very appropriate for this event.
They are not “made by a Jewish company”. It’s a vintage 1980’s costume necklace the company owner Ms. Caplan sourced (and presumably has access to a few more because it is listed as “out of stock” on the website and not simply “sold”).
 
They are not “made by a Jewish company”. It’s a vintage 1980’s costume necklace the company owner Ms. Caplan sourced (and presumably has access to a few more because it is listed as “out of stock” on the website and not simply “sold”).
I think we can appreciate the sentiment behind why the Princess was wearing this necklace, whether it was made by a Jewish Company or not. I think it was typically a very thoughtful idea to do so.
 
I think we can appreciate the sentiment behind why the Princess was wearing this necklace, whether it was made by a Jewish Company or not. I think it was typically a very thoughtful idea to do so.
The fact remains that there is a distinct and real difference between “made by a Jewish company” and vintage item from a “Jewish-owned brand”, as the owner’s own post said. Not sure why people are repeating the former, especially when clarification was given.
 
..... It’s a vintage 1980’s costume necklace the company owner Ms. Caplan sourced (and presumably has access to a few more because it is listed as “out of stock” on the website and not simply “sold”).
The "out of stock" made me wonder if Catherine borrowed the necklace rather than buy it, given that it's a vintage piece. It's rare for a vintage clothing retailer to have more than one piece of a design, but I'm not sure if that's the same for a vintage jewelry company.
 
In a other board , necklace from Susan Kaplan 275 euros.. Sad for the pearl lovers.
 
Why would it be performative to wear pearls owned by a Jewish brand for this occasion when it is usual for royal ladies from everywhere to wear pieces of clothing or jewelry that are a nod or have a connection to the event they're attending?
Because it’s like selling jewelry at a funeral. To my knowledge, the other royal ladies do not bring attention to brands at memorial events and if they do, those items have been in their closets for years. We have never seen her wear these pearls before. It’s also because the event is not about her and it should not be about a necklace either or the company that sells it.
 
I cannot believe the fuss about a string of pearls . I was the person who said made rather than sold by. Please accept my deepest apology it was maybe coincidence that the company was Jewish owned. Have we learned nothing in the past year with regards comments and criticism of a young woman. Pearls or diamonds are appropriate for funeral or remembrance she maybe didn’t want to go over the top with the Queens pearls . Maybe thought she would keep it low key, not on here it isn’t.
 
Because it’s like selling jewelry at a funeral. To my knowledge, the other royal ladies do not bring attention to brands at memorial events and if they do, those items have been in their closets for years. We have never seen her wear these pearls before. It’s also because the event is not about her and it should not be about a necklace either or the company that sells it.
Outside of here, and some jewelry observers, all people saw was that Catherine was wearing a nice string of pearls. Entirely appropriate in looks, color and size, no brand name attached, no logos anywhere so she's hardly made it about herself or about the necklace. If some people caught on that there's some Jewish connection, nice, but other than that, there's really been no fuss and the attention has been on the couple's interaction with those joining the event, luckily. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as we know, the seller has been the one to claim that the pearls are from her line, and as always, there hasn't been any press release from KP as to what brands Catherine's wearing. Why would wearing new jewelry be a huge deal versus wearing new clothing in such an event? I'm sure some fashion blogs out there have identified the brands of the clothes she wore, would that have been Catherine drawing attention to these brands or would that be like her selling clothes at a funeral?
 
But for the pearls, everything she wore last noght was repeat. The trousers are are Roland Mouret, the coat is Catherine Walker, and for the rest I forgot.
 
I don't have an issue with her buying or borrowing other necklaces. Let's be honest the BRF - like many RFs - have plenty of jewels to never really need to buy anything new but still they do. Its no different to me to Catherine buying all those Kiki McDonough earrings even though she would probably always have been able to borrow earrings with plenty of punch instead.

Likewise, the late Queen clearly had more than one of each thing - hence why both Catherine and Anne both seem to have possession -or at least use of - different pearl necklaces from her.
 
They are not “made by a Jewish company”. It’s a vintage 1980’s costume necklace the company owner Ms. Caplan sourced (and presumably has access to a few more because it is listed as “out of stock” on the website and not simply “sold”).
They're copies made of an original necklace.

Regarding the religion of Ms Caplan it's obvious from her comments on social media how touched she is that the necklace was worn for the remembrance ceremony so the symbolism seems to have been noticed.
 
Back
Top Bottom