Um, which Queen? I assume your referring to EII? If so, I think the original poster was referring to now non-ruling houses and their former nobility. Non?Originally posted by sara1981@May 6th, 2004 - 3:24 pm
im sure about HM Queen have collection? like as brooches and tiaras because she very value! and her mother was also HM Queen Mother.
Sara Boyce
Ooooh, I liked the way you tied that in. Very good.Originally posted by Fireweaver@May 6th, 2004 - 3:32 pm
To tie Sara's post in with the orginal question, HM Queen Elizabeth II does have a large collection of the jewels from the former ruling house of Russia. Do any of the other Russian royals have many of the Romanov jewels?
You know what, I don't know. Leonide, her mother, also wore a small tiara at an American ball a few years ago, but it didn't 'look' like a Romanov jewel. The wedding tiara in question may have been handed down from Victoria Feodorovna, butn I somehow doubt it. I t could have been borrowed from the Prussians or purchased with Bagration-Kirby funds. (Leonide was born a Bagration, and her first husband was American millionare Sumner Moore Kirby)Originally posted by Fireweaver@May 6th, 2004 - 4:29 pm
Ahh, thanks Sean. I know I've seen a picture of Grand Duchess (I think that's her title) Maria with a tiara. Was it a Romanov one, or did it come from her husband's family?
I'm not sure as to what more I can tell you about the collection. I'm based my comments on what I've read and seen over the years. The collection certainy rivals, and indeed surpasses, that of many reigning houses. It is one of the collections with jewels of Russian provenance in the collection, going back to the marriage of Grand Duchess Olga Nicholaievna to King Charles of Wurttemberg.Originally posted by Fireweaver@May 6th, 2004 - 4:46 pm
Ahh okay, thanks.
Do you happen to know much about the Wuttenberg collection? I've seen the stuff at Danjel's site, and the stuff at Shrubbery's. Does the Royal Family still have the right to borrow the ones that are owned by the state, and now does one decide what are government owned jewels?
Yes, they do have a large collection. I refrained from adding them in as they weren't really a reigning family. But I guess they still qualify as noble or formerly noble.Originally posted by chanel@May 6th, 2004 - 7:10 pm
The Thurn-und-Taxis Princely family has a rather large collection, and at one time one of the most intreging around. Even after alot of them were auctioned by Gloria... When her son Albert marries one day, his future Princess will most defanitly have a nice collection of Royal Jewels to choose from and I hope that she chooses to wear them often.....![]()
Not really. I guess it depends on what you consider reigning. They were Princes of the Holy Roman Empire by virtue of being hereditary postmasters. The 4th Prince) purchased some territory in 1774, and became the Princely-Count of these territories. However, they were lost at the Peace of Luneville in 1801. The family (the senior line) was compensated with some ecclesiastical territory by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1803, but the family was mediatized in 1806.Fireweaver said:I thought they did, as they were Prince/Furst
You don't sound stupid! It's not an everyday term after all, and thus your is a very good question.Fireweaver said:I hate to sound stupid, but what does "Mediatized" mean? I've heard the term many times, but I honestly don't know what it means.Thanks