Windsor Jewels Pt 7

The thing is that if Charles dies before Camilla, she would more than likely keep the jewels on catagory 3 or 4.

The particular gift I was thinking of was that stunning diamond and ruby $1m necklace Camilla showed up wearing in 2007.  At the time, Clarence House said it was a "gift received during an official trip to the middle east", but at the same time they refused to reveal the benefactor on the grounds that the gift was private and the donor had an expectation of privacy.  The clear implication was that the donor intended the gift to be non-official, and Clarence House also viewed it that way.

But not long afterward, it was "clarified" by Clarence House that the necklace was an official gift.  At the same time the press reported that if the gift had been "private", it would have been subject to $175k in taxes.  So, I don't know if the "clarification" arose because Charles' accountants sounded the alarm over taxes, or because BP insisted that the gift fell under the category of "official" due to the 2003 Gift Rules.

According to the rules published on the Monarchy Website, the royal gift guidelines instituted in 2003 says gifts are defined as official when received during an official engagement or duty or in connection with the official role or duties of a Member of The Royal Family. These include gifts: (a) presented to Members of The Royal Family by host organisers or official participants in connection with any official UK engagement or duty; (b) given by host authorities to a Member of The Royal Family on an official or working visit overseas. This covers those given by the government concerned, as well as any official body, public authority or host organisation/individual related to the Royal programme; (c) sent by businesses and by individuals not personally known to the Member of The Royal Family; and (d) given by individuals not personally known to the Member of The Royal Family during "walkabouts" and other similar occasions.

Gifts are classed as personal when they are (a) given by people whom the Member of The Royal Family knows privately and not during or in connection with an official engagement or duty; (b) given by public bodies, businesses or private individuals with whom the Member of The Royal Family has an established relationship, such as Warrant Holders, on the occasion of a marriage, birth, birthday or other notable personal occasion (including Christmas), and where the value of the gift is less than £150 (if a gift is given where there is no established relationship, other than on a notable personal occasion or is over £150 in value, the gift should be classified as official); (c) prizes won as a result of personal activity; or (d) given on other occasions, for example by staff, where there is no connection to official duties.

If I read this correctly, technically the necklace given by a Saudi prince should have been private, since the giver was an individual who knows Charles and Camilla personally, was NOT the host of an official engagement, and was NOT part of their official programme during the trip.  Suggests to me that the reason for the clarification was taxes.

And Eric - if Charles died before Camilla, the ownership of jewels in category #3 and #4 would depend on either the terms of the wills of the Queen / Queen Mother (if they set any restrictions), or on Charles' will.  In any case, I'm sure Camilla would be allowed to retain use of some or most of those jewels for the rest of her life, but legal ownership would likely never pass to her.  

These rules quoted seem highly specious and I am sure if an elected official tried to substantiate a private gift on those parameters, there would be a scandal.  I would hardly think that the Saudi Royal family and the British Royal families are close personal friends (as opposed to peers who have si.milar capacites and roles in their respective countries

I suppose that would be true.  On the other hand, the intent of the gift rules were not to prevent the royal family from ever being able to accept personal gifts.  Rather, they were written to clarify who owns what, to deal with any tax implications, and to ensure that gift disposal doesn't cause other problems (example, if the President of Russia gifted Charles a set of china as an official gift, and it were later discovered Charles gave it to his chauffeur who then sold it on eBay, Russia could take offense).

It is not so much Charles or the Queen that seems to be a problem.  Andrew and Sarah are more of a worry.

Well...I think the Queen Mother stuff may end up in Camilla's lap, although I don't think she could leave them to her own children. A lifetime usage most probably.

Does anyone know of the provenance of the pearl neacklace and earrings H.M. is wearing for the state banquet at Windsor in honour of H.H. the Emir of Qatar?

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/10/emir-of-qatar-is-eyeing-christies.html

R.I.

Does anyone know of the provenance of the pearl neacklace and earrings H.M. is wearing for the state banquet at Windsor in honour of H.H. the Emir of Qatar?

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/10/emir-of-qatar-is-eyeing-christies.html

R.I.

it was a gift to HM by the Emir of Qatar during her 1979 state visit to the gulf country. it consists of 6 rows of pearls with different sizes diamond plaques, and matching earrings.

Did anyone noticed the fabulous snake necklace of Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser? WOWsie!

A reminder of the the fashions of the glamorous 30's of Mrs. Simpson, Olga & Marina of Greece and Edwina Montbatten. 

Has anyone ever seen a photo of this tiara?




 

The photo of Duchess of Connaught is from 1896 year, the coronation of Nicholas II in Moscow. I've looked through all my files and pictures on the Connaughts (and their relatives) and couldn't find any more photo of that tiara.

 My guess it's of Indian origin (the Connaught were living in India for some years as we know).

So, experts, what do you say? ))) Have I missed anything or the tiara is indeed a mystery?

Very interesting combination...there is very little information available about it,if any:

http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/connaught/connaught-wedding-stars.htm

If someone knows more,please post,as I wonder what happened to this tiara after her death...

I think the tiara was sold as neither her daughters or daughter-in-law was ever seen wearing it.

I think the tiara was sold as neither her daughters or daughter-in-law was ever seen wearing it.

An update from the other royal board,posted by JohnAF...

From biography of the Duke of Connaught,about the coronation of Nicholas II:

"Queen Victoria was determined her daughter-in-law should not be lost without trace amidst the unparalleled splendour of the Russian Court & so lent her a collection of her own jewels. The Connaughts wondered if they had to insure them, the value being £30,000.
On the day of the coronation the Duchess wore a necklace of diamonds & Queen Victoria's large stars in the form of a tiara."

So,the stars were Queen Victoria's,but still unknown whereabouts..

Thank you Marc! So, the tiara is of British origin.