Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: B5218 on March 12, 2006, 12:49:45 AM

Title: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 12, 2006, 12:49:45 AM
But would we refuse to accept delivery if it appeared on our doorstep?

I never liked this one !  All the horizontal lines make it too wide looking.  Maybe the fact that the QM had a round face contributes to my perception of the piece.   I admit that it looks better on the DoC
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Qmum00small.jpg)

I will refrain from adding my #2, being sure that someone will mention it sooner or later.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 12, 2006, 02:17:07 AM
I think it looked better on Cookie than Camilla though...Maybe I am biased too... :(
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 12, 2006, 03:57:14 AM
I think it looks nice! :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: etonexile on March 12, 2006, 04:19:34 AM
Tedders would wear it to the shops...but he is dead glam that ted.... ::)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 12, 2006, 06:46:29 AM
All the floral brooches need to be broken up and reset.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 12, 2006, 06:54:39 AM
The ever popular 2 or 3 strands of pearls.  Mind you, I would kill for 3 strands of real pearls.  But BORING.

I recall picking up a copy each of Majesty and Royalty Magazine.  In every daytime picture of the Queen, she was wearing 3 strands of pearls and those earnings which are a single pearl with a small diamond.  I think they came from Queen Mary.
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/pearls-2strand.jpg)
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/pearls-3strand.jpg)
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/thoseearrings.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 12, 2006, 07:03:14 AM
Yes...But I think the Duchess of Winsor's three strand plus pearl pendent (also rumoured to be from Queen Mary) was far more elegant (and stylish).  ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 12, 2006, 10:16:17 AM
HM has several of these 3 strand pearl necklaces,the first being a present from her grandfather George V. Why should she change her style at this stage of her life? After all she is in the suburbs of 80 !!!!. Like her mother and her grandmother she has a style that suits her life and may be boring or have nothing to do with the vagaries of fashion but has become iconic to her... :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 12, 2006, 10:41:44 AM
Not to count the Georgian pearls passed down from Queen Caroline of Aspach (wife of King George II).
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 12, 2006, 10:42:09 AM
I know I will be bashed around for this, but I really don't like the Meander tiara.  I can't put my finger on it, but something just doesn't seem quite right about it.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/meander.jpg)

And I really wouldn't accept delivery if FedEx showed up at my door with a package from Gatcombe Park.  

Alright, abuse me.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 12, 2006, 10:51:18 AM
Abuse you !!! Abuse you !!! Abuse you !!!

I will take it from Fed-Ex as well a lot of us here from you thank you !  >:(

Sorry I went overboard with the abuse...but this "is" still one of my favourites of all time... ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 12, 2006, 10:58:02 AM
Just the aforementioned Burmese Ruby, modern sapphire tiara and the Brazilian aquamarine tiara. I'd gladly except delivery though as the gems themselves are gorgeous and then just have them reset. Same with the Williamson jonquil brooch.

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/jewels/jonquil2.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 12, 2006, 11:00:08 AM
No apologies necessary on the abuse.  I realize that many people love this piece, and I am fully prepared to be bludgeoned with an emerald and diamond-encrusted blunt object.    

At least you'll have one less person to battle when that delivery comes to your door!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 12, 2006, 11:00:40 AM
I am thinking that if anyone would accept it as they are (Like Camilla Cornwall). To take appart the stones is almost sound like cheating... :(
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 12, 2006, 11:01:31 AM
Cheating? There were no rules set down in the original post.  :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 12, 2006, 11:03:09 AM
No...what we are saying that who will want to take the piece. I guess nobody will refuse the brilliant stones on their doorstep right ?  :P
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 12, 2006, 01:39:56 PM
Number one on my list--the horrible spikey thingy in aquamarines--lovely stones--terrible design!!  Number 2 the Royal fireworks tiara--the Burmese ruby tiara :P :P
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 12, 2006, 01:41:23 PM
While I'm venting--number three the modern sapphire tiara--another spikey thingy :P :P :P
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 12, 2006, 05:04:10 PM
Same 3 on my list Nelly--I don't get the feeling they're popular with many.  :P
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 12, 2006, 08:05:43 PM
Please forward all unwanted Fed-EX deliveries to Tampa, Florida!!!  If I do not like the piece, I will do as QM, old diamond and emeradls drawers, did: I will break it up and re-set.   ;D ;D ;D

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 12, 2006, 09:37:29 PM
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Wessex.jpg)

Any takers on the Wessex Wedding Wonder ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Grace on March 13, 2006, 12:54:44 AM
Quote
The ever popular 2 or 3 strands of pearls.  Mind you, I would kill for 3 strands of real pearls.  But BORING.

I recall picking up a copy each of Majesty and Royalty Magazine.  In every daytime picture of the Queen, she was wearing 3 strands of pearls and those earnings which are a single pearl with a small diamond.  I think they came from Queen Mary.
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/pearls-2strand.jpg)
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/pearls-3strand.jpg)
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/thoseearrings.jpg)


But what other of her jewellery can she wear for daytime engagements?

I am sure she would meet with disapproval (and not to mention the security risk) if she popped off to visit the local hospital wreathed in emeralds/rubies/sapphires the size of matchboxes...

After all, she is not TampaBay... ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 13, 2006, 03:34:56 AM
I will take the stones from the Wessex tiara... ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 13, 2006, 08:47:18 AM
Quote
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Wessex.jpg)

Any takers on the Wessex Wedding Wonder ?


Oy vey...what a disaster!  I can't believe I had managed to forget about that one.  Bad.  Bad.  Bad.  I just don't understand that tiara at all; I get the feeling that the current piece is not in its original form, that somewhere along the way it was altered...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 13, 2006, 10:19:48 AM
A disaster if you ask me...Still the stones are okay !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 13, 2006, 10:50:10 AM
Quote

Oy vey...what a disaster!  I can't believe I had managed to forget about that one.  Bad.  Bad.  Bad.  I just don't understand that tiara at all; I get the feeling that the current piece is not in its original form, that somewhere along the way it was altered...

At the time of the wedding it was said it was altered from a diadem in the Queens personal collection. All I can say is Whoever the designer was he obviously had a grudge against poor Sophie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 13, 2006, 11:05:36 AM
lol.  So true, poor naïve Sophie.  ;D  She never saw it coming.

But is it possible this tiara consists of the remnants of the Nizam of Hyderabad piece?  (After the removal of at least one of the flower motifs and whatever stones that may have been used for the Burmese ruby tiara.)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 13, 2006, 12:25:22 PM
Quote
lol.  So true, poor naïve Sophie.  ;D  She never saw it coming.

But is it possible this tiara consists of the remnants of the Nizam of Hyderabad piece?  (After the removal of at least one of the flower motifs and whatever stones that may have been used for the Burmese ruby tiara.)


You might be right emeraldeyes--& whoever did the modifying of these remnants is the culprit responsible for the spikey thingy #1 and #2 and the Royal Fireworks tiara ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: LenelorMiksi on March 13, 2006, 12:29:15 PM
Hmmm, I can't decide if I dislike Sophie's tiara.  But I will cast my vote in for the Unfortunate Three: Burmese Ruby, Modern Sapphire, and the Aquamarine tiaras.  I like the Honeycomb tiara, not as much as some.  I think those three should be traded for some of the pieces that are no longer in the family, or belong to people we never get to see.  OR, we could draft a petition humbly asking HM to have the three redesigned, and thoughtfully suggest jewelers we approve of.  I'm certain the effort and care would be much appreciated.
;D
Oh yeah, and thanks to you people, Camilla's hair annoys me every time I see a picture of her and I never took notice of her hair before I read the Windsor Jewels threads.  But that's alright since I enjoy salivating over the jewels and reading all the comments.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 13, 2006, 12:35:14 PM
Now, now--Camilla just watched too many episodes of Charlies' Angels in her youth ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 13, 2006, 12:46:37 PM
Quote
Now, now--Camilla just watched too many episodes of Charlies' Angels in her youth ;D ;D ;D

Think Camilla looks better now than Farah Fawcett does.Of course Farah no longer has her 6 million dollar man...while Camilla got her 12 million a year man !!!!!(and that's pounds sterling too)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 13, 2006, 12:48:41 PM
the operative word is--now--the style is straight from the 1970s--
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: boffer on March 14, 2006, 12:53:01 PM
I have never been a fan of the Kent Festoon tiara, i think it is just too points and zig-zaggy' i think it would look better if the pearls were replaced with diamonds.
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/efba371b.jpg)
Also these necklaces, whether worn individually or together are just too bulky in my opinion and although it was the style i think the diamonds could be put to better use, nether the less ... serious bling
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/93a54762.jpg)
Also this tiara although the design is totally original it just doesnt make my jaw drop like other pieces do, just abit un-inspirational (and slightly wonky).
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/7ba384cf.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 14, 2006, 01:02:43 PM
I used to really like the Kent tiara, but I now agree with you boffer.  The pearls just stick out like sore thumbs to me.  It's like the piece is yelling "HEY, THERE ARE SOME NICE PEARLS IN THE FAMILY."

And the humongous five strand diamond necklace, well that's just unbelievable.  Although it's massive and probably difficult to wear for a number of reasons, I actually like it a lot.  I would accept delivery from FedEx.
Somehow, it's rather Art Deco looking to me and I have a pale green satin bias-cut dress that I think would be just the ticket...

The papyrus tiara is just alright for me.  Serena Linley wore that for her wedding didn't she?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 14, 2006, 01:09:33 PM
Quote
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/93a54762.jpg)


I think this is a wonderful peice and really suited the Queen Mother!!!  :) I would love to see the present Queen wear all 5 rows of it!!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 14, 2006, 02:15:02 PM
Would love to have been there when the jewel box arrived from Clarence House !!!Must have been rather like when the bolsheviks found the Youssoupoff hoard in 1925.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 14, 2006, 02:21:26 PM
lol, yes i bet!!!! They must have blown away by it. I wonder what Queen Mary thought.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 14, 2006, 04:47:40 PM
Then there is this one.  Not seen, thankfully, in 100 years.
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/loopy.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 14, 2006, 04:52:28 PM
I don't think QM liked it that much either. She didn't really wear it after she came into some other tiaras.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Frederika on March 14, 2006, 05:05:37 PM
That one Sara Fergason wears sometimes is pretty aufull.

and also not a windsor piece but the Swedish Nepoleonic cut steel tiara is horrible.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Booklady on March 14, 2006, 07:45:25 PM
I have the feeling there are several gaudy necklaces and tiaras that the Queen has never worn, and NO, I have never liked Sophie's excuse for a wedding tiara.  It was obviously something either broken down or put together from other parts, but it's a shame she wasn't loaned something more impressive for her big day.  The Windsors could have done much better!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 14, 2006, 08:28:12 PM
Actually, some of the Swedish pieces make QEii's Brazilian piece look good.

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Sweden2.jpg)
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Sweden3.jpg)

Personally, I am not keen on the Russian Fringe tiara.  But it is spectacular on QM and QEii.  I always wondered, however, what was wrong with it when this picture was taken.  The pieces look loose.
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/RF2.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 14, 2006, 08:52:22 PM
The Russian Fringes are my favourite styles in a tiara. Clean lines, regal looking and breath taking (when all the diamonds shine at the same time).  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 14, 2006, 08:54:40 PM
I wonder if the 5 strand Grenville diamond necklaces had gone to the Queen or to Charles. Since they are not Royal jewels but private jewels of the Queen Mother, Camilla could have got them through Charles (like the Grenville diamond engagement ring).  ???
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 14, 2006, 09:12:30 PM
Goodness--that first Swedish tiara is busy!!  I can't go so far as to say that it makes spickey thingy look good, but it does give it a run for its money as far as poor design goes ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 14, 2006, 09:16:32 PM
But the Swedish sapphire parure was lovely.  ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 14, 2006, 09:19:25 PM
Quote
I have the feeling there are several gaudy necklaces and tiaras that the Queen has never worn, and NO, I have never liked Sophie's excuse for a wedding tiara.  It was obviously something either broken down or put together from other parts, but it's a shame she wasn't loaned something more impressive for her big day.  The Windsors could have done much better!


Maybe the frightful tiara was an attempt at making that horrendous necklace that Edward 'designed' look better.

And I really like the Swedish 9-prong, especially the way Silvia sometimes wears it with additional diamonds wound through her hair.  Now that's a woman who has a hairdresser who understands the type of updo necessary for a tiara.  
The Napoleonic cut-steel piece is very different, and although I realize it is not to everyone's taste, it has begun to grow on me.  I think it takes a certain type of self-assured individual to wear it successfully- one who doesn't really need the glitzed-out glam bling to make her look royal.  
If we're talking about ugly Swedish tiaras, I just have to say the four and six-button tiaras in the collection make my stomach turn dreadfully.   There's just nothing nice I can say about them.  Yuck.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 14, 2006, 09:31:58 PM
Roger the button tiaras !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 14, 2006, 10:30:46 PM
Ohhhhhh--Pics please :o :o :o
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Booklady on March 15, 2006, 05:14:11 AM
I can't help but think that the Russian tiara (seen on Alex here) has been dismantled and put back together.  The obvious spaces seen here are not evident today.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 15, 2006, 05:40:59 AM
Quote
the operative word is--now--the style is straight from the 1970s--


Many people still wear different variations of 1970's hair and it looks good on them.  The problem with Camilla's hair style is that it does not look good now nor did it look good on her back then when she was younger.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 15, 2006, 05:47:10 AM
Quote
Then there is this one.  Not seen, thankfully, in 100 years.
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/loopy.jpg)


Thank God!  Talk about something that needs to be broke up!

AS far as the guady five strand art deco diamond necklace goes---I Love it!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 15, 2006, 06:48:26 AM
Swedish Button Tiara ... I think there are more than one.  Looks OK on Princess Lillian but really bad on CP Victoria and P Madeleine; so bad I never bothered to capture a picture other than this.  Maybe you can look in the Scandanavian Section.

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/lillian.jpg)

I also can't understand why they wear so many of them with the sub-frame showing as in this pic of CPV.  I guess it is a hairdresser thing.  I should have such problems !

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/cpv.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 15, 2006, 12:53:55 PM
Re: the Button tiara--yiiiiiikes :P :P :P
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 15, 2006, 12:55:00 PM
Quote

Many people still wear different variations of 1970's hair and it looks good on them.  The problem with Camilla's hair style is that it does not look good now nor did it look good on her back then when she was younger.

TampaBay

As I said--she watched too many Charlies Angels eps way back then. . . ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 15, 2006, 01:09:53 PM
Swedish lollipop tiaras- I will refuse delivery.  

But I would probably accept the amethyst one...

As for the Boucheron (?) loop tiara of Queen Mary, thanks, but no thanks!  Marge Simpson might like it though!




Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 15, 2006, 01:34:38 PM
Quote
Then there is this one.  Not seen, thankfully, in 100 years.
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/loopy.jpg)

This tiara was dismantled long ago by QM to create other jewelry...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 15, 2006, 01:39:51 PM
Thank goodness that ghastly tiara has been dismantled--thank you llandre!!  Now I don't have to live in dread of Camilla showing up with it ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 15, 2006, 01:39:56 PM
Quote
I wonder if the 5 strand Grenville diamond necklaces had gone to the Queen or to Charles. Since they are not Royal jewels but private jewels of the Queen Mother, Camilla could have got them through Charles (like the Grenville diamond engagement ring).  ???

The QM's ring which was used as an engagement ring has Nothing to do with Mrs GREVILLE. It was originally a gift in the 1920's from her husband the future Geo VI.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 15, 2006, 01:49:03 PM
Quote
Thank goodness that ghastly tiara has been dismantled--thank you llandre!!  Now I don't have to live in dread of Camilla showing up with it ;D

It's better than what she wore on her head to her wedding. Was it straw or something? ::)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 15, 2006, 01:53:25 PM
ummmmmm-yesss--it did look like she'd been rolling in the hay ;D ;D ;D head dress wise, that is--I liked her dress though--
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Frederika on March 16, 2006, 02:30:43 PM
yes the button tiaras someone has got some explaining to do about them. i like the swedish 9 spike tiara. the worst jewel ever award has to go to the norwegen emerald tiara disgusting! ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 16, 2006, 02:47:11 PM
Quote
yes the button tiaras someone has got some explaining to do about them. i like the swedish 9 spike tiara. the worst jewel ever award has to go to the norwegen emerald tiara disgusting! ;D

The button tiara's were made at the behest of Bernadotte with the diamond buttons he had worn in less sober days at the great Napoleons court.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 16, 2006, 04:44:27 PM
Don't blame the Norwegians for the tiara.  It came into the family (I think) when Princess Martha of Sweden married Olav

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Norway1.jpg)

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Norway2.jpg)

I would be interested if anyone has a link on this.

Maybe the person who designed our favorite Brazilian aquamarine thing is a descendant of the person who made this one!

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 16, 2006, 06:15:59 PM
The emerald tiara might be better if that large square one in the centre was removed, otherwise I really don't mind that one.  I would sign for it!

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 16, 2006, 08:46:40 PM
Yes...It will look better without the square plank ! That could be removed to make a choker or a bracelet.  ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 16, 2006, 08:51:21 PM
Quote
Thank goodness that ghastly tiara has been dismantled--thank you llandre!!  Now I don't have to live in dread of Camilla showing up with it ;D


It was not a fave of QM to say the least.  :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 16, 2006, 08:53:01 PM
Quote
Don't blame the Norwegians for the tiara.  It came into the family (I think) when Princess Martha of Sweden married Olav


Yes, it came from Sweden with Princess Louise (later Queen Louise of Denmark aka Aunt Swan) to her daughter Ingeborg (who brought it back to Sweden) then to Martha and Sonia. So all the Scandinavian monarchies have been contaminated by it. :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 16, 2006, 08:54:05 PM
Quote
The emerald tiara might be better if that large square one in the centre was removed, otherwise I really don't mind that one.  I would sign for it!


Yeah, but look at your name 'emeraldeyes'. Would you really turn any emerald away?  ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 16, 2006, 08:55:04 PM
Not all opf them are bad ! A few pretty ones atre still in Danemark !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 16, 2006, 09:01:30 PM
Two I don't care much for. Not enough bling.  ;)

Princess Mary's honeysuckle tiara

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/jewels/auctmarytiara.jpg)
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/jewels/harewood-0101.jpg)

Mountbatten star tiara

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/jewels/Mountbatten20star.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 16, 2006, 09:59:42 PM
http://royal-jewels.blogspot.com/

Try this one.  There is a closeup of the Scandanavian emeralds.  Be sure to scroll all the way down.  A lot of the settings makes our "favorites" look good !

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Booklady on March 17, 2006, 05:38:33 AM
The Honeysuckle Tiara reminds me of Sophie's wedding tiara--just like pieces put together.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Frederika on March 17, 2006, 07:01:02 AM
oh god that star tiara is terrible. but a lot of star jewelry looks bad now.

a really bad one i rembered is that large tiara queen sofia of spain has that has the bourbon family thing on it.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 17, 2006, 09:53:42 AM
Quote
Yeah, but look at your name 'emeraldeyes'. Would you really turn any emerald away?  ;)



Oh, you've got me figured out!  I thought I was hiding it so well...But I would definitely turn away Wallis' emerald, ruby and gold bib necklace.  Never cared for it at all.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 17, 2006, 11:10:48 AM
Yes, I don't like that one either. I actually didn't care for many of Wallis's pieces--too modern for me. I'll have to go back and find some pictures of some of those--they'd be perfect here.  :)

For EE in honor St Patrick's Day (from Sotheby's via the GREMB)

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/jewels/4LF45-smaller-AM0993-77-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 17, 2006, 11:27:56 AM
Aww, thanks!  I'll wear it on my lapel when I go down to my local Irish pub to hoist my glass of green Guinness!  

I like a lot of Wallis' stuff, I must say, but those bib necklaces...I just don't get them.  There was a turquoise and amethyst one too I think.  I'll try to get some pics up here today or tomorrow...

In the meantime, bottoms up!   ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Tdora on March 17, 2006, 03:43:26 PM
QM's (I believe) emerald choker worn by Diana as (gulp) that headband.
Oy. Wales! Noooooo!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 17, 2006, 03:49:26 PM
Agreed!!  I like the chocker, but as a headband!??! ??? ???
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 17, 2006, 05:10:58 PM
Oh, definitely. I still shudder when I look back on those pictures. Even Diana couldn't carry off some things. Similarly, there were several nice tiaras in their day that fell into the unattractive category when paired with more modern hairdos--especially transitioning some Victorian/Edwardian ones into the roaring 20s. They'd practically fall down the ladies's faces due to the much shorter hair or a woman would have to wear a fake hair piece to fill it out.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 17, 2006, 07:44:19 PM
Yes...I like the Queen Mum's scroll tiara. I wonder who has it now ? It would be a nice piece for Camilla. Classic, good taste and not like the twin towers we have seen...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: LenelorMiksi on March 18, 2006, 09:11:49 AM
Oh, I loved the 1920s and 30s wear-your-tiara-on-your-forehead-look!  I prefer more natural looking hairstyles and Queen Astrid wore her jewelry that way and she always SHONE.
Whoever put the fringe tiara on Alix that day maybe was blind or nearsighted because usually it looks wonderful, but not when appearing as crooked teeth.  I don't mind the Norwegian emerald tiara, but the huge emerald on top could stand to find another placement.
Oh- and the words button and tiara should never, ever describe ONE OBJECT!!!  
Camilla did have precedent for her wheaty hair hat thing; Marina's bridesmaids wore something similar.  
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 18, 2006, 10:36:09 AM
Maybe a wheat tiara for Camilla ?  ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 18, 2006, 12:45:23 PM
But weren't Astrid's modern tiaras meant for her hairstyle? I was thinking more of the ones that were created for the thick hair of earlier deades and just slid down the forehead of the shorter bobs. Dreadful--but then it's all subjective, isn't it?  :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 18, 2006, 01:42:50 PM
Okay, so here is the amethyst and turquoise bib, which actually upon closer observation is not all that bad...

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/bib1.jpg)

But here's the emerald, ruby and gold bib, which to my eyes just looks like parsley and ketchup drips.
As always, other opinions are welcome!

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/bib2.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Tdora on March 18, 2006, 02:17:49 PM
EII's brooches. Each and every one of them.

The parsley-and-ketchup necklace above. Grue.

Just about every single peice of costume jewellery ever sported by Fergie. At least Diana had generally more restrained taste.

(oooh. This is fun).

Not-Windsor I know, but nominate AF's tiresome rings. Mostly for the sheer annoyance they caused.

Definitely- not-a-Windsor but, IMO, one of the worst pieces I have ever seen was sported by that 'poor little insignificant princess' Dona (Kaiserin Auguste Viktoria) in a pre-marriage photo in 1881. Oh if only I still had a scanner! I bet GrandDuchesssElla or someone knows and has the pic and (I hope) can show the hideous piece of jet and the associated neckine that looks like it was run up on a piece of barbed wire..?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 18, 2006, 02:43:58 PM
With a description like that tdora, I can hardly wait!

In the meantime, here's another ruby tiara that just doesn't quite work.  Wasn't this a gift to Grand Duchess Marie (?) when she married one of QV's sons?

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/RUBYANDDIAMONDTIARADoE.jpg)


And while I'm at it, the otherwise lovely CP Victoria of Sweden wearing the, ahem, amazing 4 button tiara.  (How can she looks so happy while wearing that frightful thing? ???)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/victoria4buttontiara.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 18, 2006, 02:51:02 PM
items illustrated in #84 and #86- :o :o :-X :-X :o :o

words otherwise fail me in a family=friendly forum
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 18, 2006, 02:55:00 PM
Seems like such a waste of perfectly good stones doesn't it?  
It's just not fair!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Tdora on March 18, 2006, 02:58:04 PM
Right then, I'm off to Hohenzollern to find that evil piece of jet wot I told you about.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 18, 2006, 03:09:06 PM
Quote
Definitely- not-a-Windsor but, IMO, one of the worst pieces I have ever seen was sported by that 'poor little insignificant princess' Dona (Kaiserin Auguste Viktoria) in a pre-marriage photo in 1881. Oh if only I still had a scanner! I bet GrandDuchesssElla or someone knows and has the pic and (I hope) can show the hideous piece of jet and the associated neckine that looks like it was run up on a piece of barbed wire..?


Is this the one?

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/germany/4160881220Ua.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 18, 2006, 03:10:28 PM
Quote
With a description like that tdora, I can hardly wait!

In the meantime, here's another ruby tiara that just doesn't quite work.  Wasn't this a gift to Grand Duchess Marie (?) when she married one of QV's sons?

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/RUBYANDDIAMONDTIARADoE.jpg)



Yes, this was a gift to Marie from her father AII. Considering we always here about her fabulous jewels that put the British royal women to shame, it's just appalling that this is one of the few images of them we have.  :P
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 18, 2006, 03:12:32 PM
Quote
Okay, so here is the amethyst and turquoise bib, which actually upon closer observation is not all that bad...


But here's the emerald, ruby and gold bib, which to my eyes just looks like parsley and ketchup drips.
As always, other opinions are welcome!


Yes, the amethyst one isn't bad--I don't care for turquoises much though. the 'parsley and ketchup dribs' description for the 2nd is perfect!  :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Tdora on March 18, 2006, 03:19:23 PM
Action: Wanders back in disconsolately. 'Its not happening...'
Raises eyes.
granduchessella. Yes! That's it. I got the photo from which that sketch is taken. Mayve its the whole neckline arrangement, but first time I ever saw this I thought, I thought...o.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: LenelorMiksi on March 18, 2006, 10:17:55 PM
Maybe Marie Coburg's tiara looked better on?  I seem to recall a picture with her wearing that ruby castle and not feeling abhorred- not that the photos always show clearly the jewelry a poor royalty puts so much effort into donning.
I'm not sure about the made-for-chopped-hair tiaras, meaning I don't know if I could tell the difference between an old one or not.  Admittedly, the honeysuckle tiara looks droopy on Mary's forehead.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 18, 2006, 11:01:08 PM
There's a picture of Mary wearing the honeysuckle tiara in Famous Jewelry Collectors that shows at one time it had a row of diamonds around the base.  It looked better that way, but even so, nicht gut.  

GDella and Tdora, thanks for the effort in finding that pic - looks pretty brutal.  Did Dona have generally bad taste in all matters of dress and ornamentation?  

LenelorMiski - 'ruby castle', as Martyn used to say, 'killing'. ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 18, 2006, 11:51:49 PM
Close as my tired brain could find regarding Marie Coburg's tiara

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/germany/img576a1.jpg)

This tiara, probably the least attractive one she owned, suitably went to her least attractive daughter, Sandra.

It later went to her DIL, Margarita (Alice Battenberg & Andrew's daughter). It was sold at auction in 1989.

It was made of fine Burmese rubies but we've all seen what EII has done with fine Burmese rubies.  ::)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 18, 2006, 11:53:01 PM
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/loopy.jpg)

You can sleep better tonight knowing that this one will probably NOT come back to haunt us.  Re-reading L Field's book I find that the gems from a tiara which sounds like the loopy thing were from De Beers, given in 1901.  The piece wasn't seen after 1910.  QME  used these diamonds along with others in the collection to make that other one that I don't like. (see page 33 of the 1987 hardback edition).  

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Qmum00small.jpg)

It has been interesting reading the book again as many of the items mentioned were not illustrated but are available on this or other sites. Also, the photos now on-line are much clearer than in the book.

Ahh technology ...

I wonder though, as she describes The Duchess of York's wedding tiara as being borrowed from a friend of the Ferguson family (see page 36).  Is that right ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 19, 2006, 02:54:22 AM
Quote
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/loopy.jpg)

You can sleep better tonight knowing that this one will probably NOT come back to haunt us.  Re-reading L Field's book I find that the gems from a tiara which sounds like the loopy thing were from De Beers, given in 1901.  The piece wasn't seen after 1910.  QME  used these diamonds along with others in the collection to make that other one that I don't like. (see page 33 of the 1987 hardback edition).  

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Qmum00small.jpg)

It has been interesting reading the book again as many of the items mentioned were not illustrated but are available on this or other sites. Also, the photos now on-line are much clearer than in the book.

Ahh technology ...

I wonder though, as she describes The Duchess of York's wedding tiara as being borrowed from a friend of the Ferguson family (see page 36).  Is that right ?

The tiara illustrated had NOTHING to do with Queen Mary.It was made in The early 1920's for the Hon Mrs Ronald Greville by Boucheron.She left it with many other fabled gems to the QMother who had it slightly altered in 1953 by Cartier with the addition of 5 Diamonds along the the top row. Sarah Fergusons tiara was a gift from  QEII (with a modern parure of diamonds)and  is presumably still owned by the Duchess.                                                                            Leslie Fields book is sadly full of errors.Most notably the jewels attributed to the Dowager Empress and allegedly given to various members of the royal family by Queen Mary. MOST of the gems came to mary from other sources......          
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Grace on March 19, 2006, 03:24:40 AM
Quote

This tiara, probably the least attractive one she owned, suitably went to her least attractive daughter, Sandra.


:o Do only the attractive daughters deserve to be handed down lovely jewellery?  :o
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 19, 2006, 06:32:30 AM
Thanks for the comments regarding the Field book.  I thought that the comment regard Sarah's wedding tiara was wrong.

Maybe the looper will come back to haunt us yet !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: etonexile on March 19, 2006, 07:12:34 AM
Quote
With a description like that tdora, I can hardly wait!

In the meantime, here's another ruby tiara that just doesn't quite work.  Wasn't this a gift to Grand Duchess Marie (?) when she married one of QV's sons?

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/RUBYANDDIAMONDTIARADoE.jpg)


And while I'm at it, the otherwise lovely CP Victoria of Sweden wearing the, ahem, amazing 4 button tiara.  (How can she looks so happy while wearing that frightful thing? ???)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/victoria4buttontiara.jpg)


I've always felt sorry for CP Victoria...I wonder if she isn't dealing with some strange "guilt" thingy in the family...taking her brother's place in the succession,one perhaps she doesn't especially want,due to some PC notion of the Swedish parliament....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2006, 08:03:03 AM
I haven't seen a photo of Sandra of Hohenlohe-Langenburg wearing her mother's ruby tiara, although I heard there are quite a few of her daughter-in-law Princess Margarita havring wore it.  :(
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 19, 2006, 08:45:18 AM
Of course not--it was a sarcastic comment.  ::) Sandra inherited the whole parure I believe which includes the absolutely gorgeous ruby & diamond necklace Marie wore to NII's coronation.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 19, 2006, 08:48:35 AM
Here are 2 pages that deal with the Bolin tiara--one has a nice color photo of it

http://www.royal-magazin.de/german/hohenlohe/ruby-tiara-bolin.htm

http://www.royal-magazin.de/german/hohenlohe/hohenlohe.htm
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2006, 09:10:49 AM
Yes...that is the page that I saw Princess Margarita wore the ruby parure set...but none of Sandra ?  ???
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 19, 2006, 09:55:30 AM
Were there many events to wear it to in the years after she inherited it?  :-/ She probably would've worn it to Missy's coronation if she'd attended.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: boffer on March 19, 2006, 01:05:44 PM
I have never liked the Duchess of Kents small Aquamarine, it is very uninspirational and i would prefere the imposing Brazilian Aquamarine. It is just very similar to a button tiara.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 19, 2006, 01:39:16 PM
Quote
I have never liked the Duchess of Kents small Aquamarine, it is very uninspirational and i would prefere the imposing Brazilian Aquamarine. It is just very similar to a button tiara.

The Duchess of Kent's tiara had originally a blue gullioche enamel surround.It was altered after it came into the Duchesses possession.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 19, 2006, 02:24:14 PM
Is this the one?

http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/aquamarine-kent.htm
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Frederika on March 19, 2006, 02:27:05 PM
camilla wore that honeycomb thing at the Brazilian presidents visit this last week the queen wore everybodys favourate Brazilian aquamarine tiara.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 19, 2006, 04:26:43 PM
Quote
I have never liked the Duchess of Kents small Aquamarine, it is very uninspirational and i would prefere the imposing Brazilian Aquamarine. It is just very similar to a button tiara.


It's funny--on the Windsor Jewels site (the latest one) I'd posted the link that B5218 did, to the Kent aquamarine tiara, because I liked it better than the Brazilian one.  :) Of recent aquamarine tiaras, I like the one that Sophie wore not too long ago--the one that started speculation about whether it was part of Princess Alice of Greece's aquamarine set or not. Speaking of which, Alice's aquamarine tiara (a gift from her aunt Ella) was lovely.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 19, 2006, 05:21:16 PM
Quote
camilla wore that honeycomb thing at the Brazilian presidents visit this last week the queen wore everybodys favourate Brazilian aquamarine tiara.

That must have been a sight :o :o :o
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 19, 2006, 05:24:32 PM
Quote

It's funny--on the Windsor Jewels site (the latest one) I'd posted the link that B5218 did, to the Kent aquamarine tiara, because I liked it better than the Brazilian one.  :) Of recent aquamarine tiaras, I like the one that Sophie wore not too long ago--the one that started speculation about whether it was part of Princess Alice of Greece's aquamarine set or not. Speaking of which, Alice's aquamarine tiara (a gift from her aunt Ella) was lovely.

Yes--Sophie's tiara is the nicest of the aquamarine tiaras I've seen lately IMHO.  Is Alice's tiara the one Princess Anne wears earlier on this thread?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2006, 06:20:56 PM
I don't think so... :(
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 19, 2006, 06:49:49 PM
No, Princess Anne wear's Princess Alice's Greek Key tiara. Alice had an aquamarine one that has apparently been dismantled.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 19, 2006, 07:00:55 PM
I just wandered over this thread; the pic isn't here, so I suppose it is on the Windsor Jewels#4 thread.  Anyway, it is definately aquamarines & definately on Anne.  Come to think of it, I think it came to her from the Queen Mum and is too nice to appear here anyway ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 21, 2006, 09:40:19 AM
I like the Greek Key tiara better !  >:(
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: LenelorMiksi on March 21, 2006, 11:00:34 AM
The Greek Key Tiara is really nice.  I think a great part of the misfit of the problematic tiaras is that they are too complicated in design, whereas the Greek Key is simplistic.  Marie Coburg's ruby tiara was definitely a misfire, even with a super-updo.  The Kent aquamarine tiara I don't like; the flower design looks very '60s to me.  Are there any pictures of Camilla in the honeycomb or am I missing something?
 CP Victoria is too cute to wear that nasty button tiara.  I like her necklace in that picture, though.
 BTW I was thinking about starting a thread on Favorite Royal Jewelry, but I don't know if it would be redundant as we already have the Windsor Jewels threads and this one, too.  ???
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 21, 2006, 11:12:01 AM
Maybe one of least known jewelry or lost jewelry would be a nice addition... ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: LenelorMiksi on March 21, 2006, 11:12:40 AM
Ha ha, I just found the pic of Camilla in the honeycomb tiara on the Windsor Jewels 4 thread.   ::)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 21, 2006, 11:15:19 AM
Yes but Queen Mary looks better in it...No doubt !  ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Grantj on March 21, 2006, 12:01:52 PM
I know that this isn't Windsor Jewelry but Sweden's Princess Lillian has a necklace that converts into a tiara that looks like a Halo gone wrong.   It's like it's been trampled by a stampeed of princesses making their way to the good stuff!  I don't have a picture I'm afraid but if you've seen it once, you won't forget it!

Grantj
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: lancashireladandre on March 21, 2006, 01:32:23 PM
Quote
Yes--Sophie's tiara is the nicest of the aquamarine tiaras I've seen lately IMHO.  Is Alice's tiara the one Princess Anne wears earlier on this thread?

Princess Anne's aquamarine tiara was bought from Cartier in 1937 by George VI (for £835).He gave it to his wife who in turn gave it to Anne in 1973 as a wedding gift.It has been shortened but not too noticeably.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 21, 2006, 04:33:27 PM
GrantJ  ..  Is the one in the first photo the one which you referrence?



http://www.mag-nolia.tmfweb.nl/Sweden/Lilian/lilian.htm

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 21, 2006, 05:32:02 PM
That seems to be it--I don't really dislike it though. In the first photo you can clearly see Daisy Connaught's necklace. I didn't realize in the later photo shown of Daisy she was actually wearing it though! I was looking for one and I actually have this postcard--I just never noticed it.  :) I wish I could get a frontal look though. The scarab design was based on the fact that Daisy & Gustav Adolf had become engaged in Egypt. Appropriate too that the Khedive of Egypt tiara (a wedding gift from the Khedive) was one of her favorites.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 21, 2006, 07:53:34 PM
The Cartier Egypt tiara is another of my favourites.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 21, 2006, 10:16:43 PM
Isn't that the same tiara?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 22, 2006, 10:33:19 AM
Yes !  ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Grantj on March 22, 2006, 11:35:19 AM
Quote
GrantJ  ..  Is the one in the first photo the one which you referrence?



http://www.mag-nolia.tmfweb.nl/Sweden/Lilian/lilian.htm


Thanks for posting that B5218, it is indeed the one I was referring to.  I think that it is hideous, quite possibly the worst tiara I've seen.  Although, it does make a nice necklace.  It's likely that it is the frame on which the necklace sits that I don't like, maybe if that was changed in some way it would look better.

Grantj
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 23, 2006, 12:44:47 AM
It is not the worst piece that I have ever seen... ;)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 23, 2006, 11:06:57 AM
Oh yes, there are far worse Swedish tiaras...buttons anyone??  ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 23, 2006, 11:11:19 AM
Yes, they've been scathingly commented on (with photographic evidence).  :)

Seems a lot of modern (1970s to the present) tiaras and jewels come in for the most criticism.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: boffer on March 25, 2006, 01:16:03 PM
If only Her Majesty had looked at this picture before she had the Brazilian Aquamarines remodeled, although i do actually like the originality of the design and its imposing size, i think something more like this would both look better and suit Her Majest better, this design frames large stones unlike Her Majesty's which makes then stand out like a sore thumb.
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/135837fa.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 27, 2006, 09:35:39 PM
Okay, not a Windsor jewel, but I saw this today and thought of this thread immediatly.

(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/margaritamarkovna/Romanov%20Photos/other%20european%20royals/margrethepoppies.jpg)

Margrethe and her Poppies, supposedly a "tiara". Psh, right. She looks like a cartoon of Mother Earth for a children's TV show.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Laura Mabee on March 27, 2006, 09:39:41 PM
Oh my Goodness Ritka!
It looks like something from the Aliens movie set  ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 27, 2006, 09:49:36 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/margaritamarkovna/Romanov%20Photos/english%20royalty/opals.gif)

Almost forgot the opals given to QEII thankfully never worn. I hope she's using them as paperweights in an office no one ever goes to except to dust.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on March 27, 2006, 10:33:52 PM
Quote
Okay, not a Windsor jewel, but I saw this today and thought of this thread immediatly.

(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/margaritamarkovna/Romanov%20Photos/other%20european%20royals/margrethepoppies.jpg)

Margrethe and her Poppies, supposedly a "tiara". Psh, right. She looks like a cartoon of Mother Earth for a children's TV show.

Thank you--I had been trying to find a picture of that for a few days now for just this thread! It's truly one of the most heinous pieces of jewelry I've ever seen.  :P Didn't she have a hand in designing it?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 27, 2006, 10:40:18 PM
I sure hope not! It looks like she planted flowers in her hair!

I read that you can use less or more poppies. Maybe with the right hairdo, tied up but at the nape of her neck, with ONE on top of it, it might work, but even then..
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 28, 2006, 05:23:31 AM
The opal necklace and earrings would look good on the York Princesses.  It really is just a casual funky fine jewelry necklace.  Jeans or cords and and a cotton shirt with a collar would set this opal parure off.  I would wear it.  

I agree, on QEII it would look hideous as she does not do casual clothes well.  QEII looks best going to the ball or mucking out the barn.

TampaBay  
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 28, 2006, 12:04:06 PM
Re:  Margrethe's poppies...  Ritka,this is going to horrify you but,  maybe that is the 'less' version!   :o

I know you all will think I am beyond insane, but I actually like them.  Not with the earrings and the necklace however, but I would accept that delivery from FedEx.   :)  At least I won't have to fight anyone for that package!  :P

As far as QEII's opals, well, I think that part of the problem is the picture.  I don't think it's lit very well and the background colour doesn't complement them at all.  I would like to see a better picture that would also give a sense of the size of the pieces too.  Although the necklace in particular is indisputably large, it may not be as gargantuan as it seems without something else in the picture for reference. :-/
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: boffer on March 28, 2006, 12:13:29 PM
I like the opals, even though they are a tad on the large side; this makes it hard to carry them off. But they are very retro and this is back in fashion at the moment. I agree that they would not look good on the queen because of her age. but if one of the younger generation was to wear them. i think they would only go well if they were paired with an extremely plain and retro cut dress.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 28, 2006, 12:23:02 PM
[size=12]Oooh, I have an idea, how about the opals as a wedding present to Ms Middleton?  A set like that might be right up her alley!  (you know, if and when the question gets popped)[/size]
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 28, 2006, 12:31:06 PM
Quote
Quote
Okay, not a Windsor jewel, but I saw this today and thought of this thread immediatly.

(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/margaritamarkovna/Romanov%20Photos/other%20european%20royals/margrethepoppies.jpg)

Margrethe and her Poppies, supposedly a "tiara". Psh, right. She looks like a cartoon of Mother Earth for a children's TV show.

Thank you--I had been trying to find a picture of that for a few days now for just this thread! It's truly one of the most heinous pieces of jewelry I've ever seen.  :P Didn't she have a hand in designing it?
Goodness--it looks like she's all ready to head off for San Francisco circa 1967!! :o
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 28, 2006, 12:57:01 PM
Quote
Re:  Margrethe's poppies...  Ritka,this is going to horrify you but,  maybe that is the 'less' version!   :o
*dies* I think any more and she'll have all manner of bees and butterflies landing on her head.

Quote
I know you all will think I am beyond insane, but I actually like them.  Not with the earrings and the necklace however, but I would accept that delivery from FedEx.   :)  At least I won't have to fight anyone for that package!  :P
No, as a matter of fact we'd hand it right over to you on a silver platter.

Quote
As far as QEII's opals, well, I think that part of the problem is the picture.  I don't think it's lit very well and the background colour doesn't complement them at all.  I would like to see a better picture that would also give a sense of the size of the pieces too.  Although the necklace in particular is indisputably large, it may not be as gargantuan as it seems without something else in the picture for reference. :-/
I do agree with above posts that it might look nice with jeans and a simple shirt of the right color. But still...I think opals only look good in a very delicate setting, and not huge.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 28, 2006, 02:31:33 PM
Quote
*dies* I think any more and she'll have all manner of bees and butterflies landing on her head.

OMG, that's probably the next modern 'tiara' she'll commission!   ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: boffer on March 28, 2006, 02:52:51 PM
I have never liked this bracelet, to me it has always been too busy the ideas of the design are hard to pick up on.
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/dedef347.jpg)
I guess we will see if this picture does it any justice though when buckingham palace opens in summer, personnally i cannot wait!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 28, 2006, 07:13:45 PM
Quote
Quote
*dies* I think any more and she'll have all manner of bees and butterflies landing on her head.

OMG, that's probably the next modern 'tiara' she'll commission!   ;D
I can see it, all manner of jeweled insects crawling out of the flowers on her head. ::)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 30, 2006, 06:30:17 AM
Someone needs to start a poll on the ugliest piece of Royal Jewelry.  I vote for the Sweedish button Tiara that should only be worn as a neclace!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 30, 2006, 08:08:55 AM
Nah, I'm voting for the Poppy Tiara. The Swedish button ones I don't mind, I don't adore them but I don't hate them like everyone else does.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 30, 2006, 09:35:59 AM
#1 ugly--the horrid spikey thingy--QEII's aquamarine tiara
#2 ugly--the hippy thingy--the poppy flowers in her hair--can't call that a tiara
#3 ugly--those buttons from Sweden

 :-X :-X :-X

what wastes of precious metals and jewels [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Frederika on March 30, 2006, 03:08:31 PM
oh i love these  ::)

1      Norwegen emerald tiara that is the most hidious thing ive ever seen

2      Swedish button tiara

3      Luxembourg saphire braclet tiara

4      Paker bowles family tiara

5      Spanish fleur de lys tiara
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 30, 2006, 06:47:53 PM
Quote
Nah, I'm voting for the Poppy Tiara. The Swedish button ones I don't mind, I don't adore them but I don't hate them like everyone else does.

What is the Poppy Tiara?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 30, 2006, 07:50:35 PM
Tampabay--take a look at message #134 of this thread--if you can call that thing a tiara [smiley=shocked.gif] [smiley=shocked.gif]
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 30, 2006, 09:15:24 PM
I may not call it a tiara, but I do call it 'should be mine'  ;D ;)  I just can't explain why I like it!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: nelly on March 30, 2006, 10:07:32 PM
Quote
I may not call it a tiara, but I do call it 'should be mine'  ;D ;)  I just can't explain why I like it!

Be my guest [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]  If it ever shows up on your doorstep, you can keep it--and the earrings, too!!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Grand Duchess Kimbo on March 31, 2006, 12:26:34 AM
I've seen those poppies before. Mistake in every way IMO. The Swedish buttons aren't all that great either. The aquamarine tiara is the big daddy of them IMO. :o
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on March 31, 2006, 04:39:39 AM
Quote
Tampabay--take a look at message #134 of this thread--if you can call that thing a tiara [smiley=shocked.gif] [smiley=shocked.gif]


IT is awful!  Looks like a jeweled hair net!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on March 31, 2006, 07:22:48 AM
I am not savvey in computer speak.  What does IMO mean?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on March 31, 2006, 10:55:25 AM
IMO = In my opinion,  a variation is IMHO = In my humble opinion.

I'll never forget the day when I finally deciphered ROFLMAO (rolling on floor laughing my @$$ off)...a real watershed  :P
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: boffer on April 01, 2006, 03:29:38 PM
Although i dont think it could be classed as a Windsor Jewel any longer, and it would be interesting if anyone was to tell me more of its history. But the Princess Mary, Princess Royals large diamond tiara is just too big and bulky for me, although i like big but this has no real designe and is just a waste of many diamonds.
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/Jewels-PrincessMarysTiara.jpg)
Saying that however i think it looked better when HRH placed her large sapphire brooch as the centre piece, it have the tiara more focus i think.
(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/PrincessMary-PrincessRoyal.jpg)(http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e367/Bofferding/PrincessMary-ViscountessLascelles.jpg)
Was this piece sold along with many others after her death?
I cannot imagine the Harewoods wanting to keep such a large piece, when it would have very little use.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: LenelorMiksi on April 01, 2006, 09:40:44 PM
I like Mary's tiara on, but upclose the centerpiece looks off.  Ha ha, and I actually like the abhorred poppies!  The opal set looks too large, but they need to be seen on.  I'm sure the colors would be better with a different background.  I love opals so I would definitely accept them FedEx, too big or no.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: emeraldeyes on April 03, 2006, 09:06:01 AM
On Mary, Princess Royal, that tiara looks like a very grand nurse's hat.  
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: PAVLOV on June 01, 2011, 08:28:50 AM
The Aquamarine tiara is the ugliest, they look like boiled sweets. I cannot understand why anyone would wear anything so awful. The whole thing should be broken up and  used for something else. The only problem being that the stones are such an odd shape.

Second ugliest. The ruby tiara. Gross. Rubies dont suit the Queen. looks like something out of a Bollywood movie, and very fake looking as well.

The poppy tiara is a nightmare, but I think that in the days of "beehive" hairdos, it probably looked ok if she stuck them around a very big hairdo. A bit like decorating a Christmas tree. Did she have this tiara in the sixties ? If not it certainly looks very strange on an old lady today.
Why doesn't someone tell Queen M that she looks silly wearing it ?

 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 01, 2011, 11:00:24 AM
Princess Marys tiara above, does anyone know where it came from? Perhaps a wedding present from her parents? I think it looks a bit old fashioned for the 1920's particularly....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Marc on June 03, 2011, 08:12:09 AM
Yes,it is...her father gave her that tiara with a matching necklace which belonged to Queen Victoria.He first saw his daughter wearing the parrure at a ball in Chesterfield House.

George V than wrote in his diary:"Dear Mary looked charming and wore my sapphires."
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CountessKate on June 03, 2011, 01:33:05 PM
I've always loathed the sapphire tiara (http://goldenagedregina.blogspot.com/2011/03/george-vi-sapphire-suite-tiara.html), and couldn't work out why it was so hideous, until I found out it had been made from a necklace previously owned by Princess Louise of Belgium.  It does not look as if it was intended to be convertible and looks like a necklace stuck on the Queen's head - moreover it is much more fussy than the sapphire necklace and earrings it is intended to complement although the sapphires themselves and their immediate settings are good matches.  Given that it wasn't a known piece until the Queen bought it she could have had it completely remodelled although the success rate of her commissioned tiaras hasn't been spectacular.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 03, 2011, 04:19:51 PM
I couldn't agree more CountessKate.  That tiara is so......I don't know..... awful is the only word that comes to mind.  It does still look like a necklace standing upside down.  Actually, I think if it were reverted back to being a necklace, it's actually quite beautiful.

I don't believe I've often seen the Queen wearing this tiara - a bit surprising given that she commissioned it.  Or am I mistaken - does she wear it often?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 04, 2011, 01:24:45 AM
Sorry if this has been discussed else where but whatever happened to Queen Alexandras  Rundell tiara. Thank you :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CountessKate on June 04, 2011, 05:52:17 AM
I couldn't agree more CountessKate.  That tiara is so......I don't know..... awful is the only word that comes to mind.  It does still look like a necklace standing upside down.  Actually, I think if it were reverted back to being a necklace, it's actually quite beautiful.

I don't believe I've often seen the Queen wearing this tiara - a bit surprising given that she commissioned it.  Or am I mistaken - does she wear it often?

I'm not much of a royal watcher, CHRISinUSA, but certainly the pictures showing her wearing the tiara seem to have been taken several decades ago.  In fact I don't think blue is her preferred colour in any case - she doesn't seem to have worn the sapphire parure very much, anyway.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CountessKate on June 04, 2011, 05:56:38 AM
Sorry if this has been discussed else where but whatever happened to Queen Alexandras  Rundell tiara. Thank you :)

I gather it has not been worn since Queen Alexandra's time and the general feeling was that it had been broken up and dispersed in some way, until Queen Mary's Delhi Durbar tiara emerged for Camilla; so now there is speculation that this tiara, too, is sitting untouched in the vaults waiting for a comeback.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 13, 2011, 06:35:33 PM
I couldn't agree more CountessKate.  That tiara is so......I don't know..... awful is the only word that comes to mind.  It does still look like a necklace standing upside down.  Actually, I think if it were reverted back to being a necklace, it's actually quite beautiful.

I don't believe I've often seen the Queen wearing this tiara - a bit surprising given that she commissioned it.  Or am I mistaken - does she wear it often?

I'm not much of a royal watcher, CHRISinUSA, but certainly the pictures showing her wearing the tiara seem to have been taken several decades ago.  In fact I don't think blue is her preferred colour in any case - she doesn't seem to have worn the sapphire parure very much, anyway.



HM wore the tiara and suite several times, this ine here is only a couple of years ago with the much awful (for me) arab gift.


I think it was bourght, because no sapphire tiara was there.
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/Insight_nov05_gallery_dip1_large.jpg)




Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 14, 2011, 01:27:36 PM
The problem is that wore would fit the Rundell tiara ? I don't think it would look good on Kate. Anyway did she receive a diamond tiara on her marriage from the Queen ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 14, 2011, 02:17:30 PM
Well yes, of course she has either already been given, or will soon be given, a tiara.  As the wife of the second in line, she has to wear one at state banquets and similar occasions along with all the other royal ladies.  Since she didn't bring one into the marriage, and since her grandmother-in-law just happens to have a sizable stash of them lying around, the real question is:  which one(s) will she be given?  

Sadly for us, the palace doesn't send out press releases on such personal matters, so we shall have to wait until the Duchess' first appearance at a state function to see which one has been dusted off and given to her.  Others here on the forum have disagreed with me previously, but I think the Lover's Knot tiara would be perfect.  The Queen has not worn it since she gave it to Diana in 1981, and obviously it will never grace the head of Camilla.  Frankly, the only woman for whom it would be appropriate is the wife of Diana's beloved son.  If not Kate, who else?  Should it sit unused in a vault for the next 50 years just because it was worn by the late Princess?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 14, 2011, 03:10:31 PM
I agree. I think the one she wore at the wedding would be perfect for her and her long hair (Princess Anne wore it during her youth). Diana had short her so the Lovers-knot tiara may not work for her. Another good one would be the Duchess of Teck star tiara (Princess Margaret also wore that, although she was not given that). Also want to be clear, royal jewels from the present Queen are usually loans (life time) and not gifts (could be sold) like those given to Queen Mary's daughters-in-laws. The Queen is less generous in jewels than her grandmother in this regard. In this spirit, the Delhi-Der-bar tiara given to Camilla & Lovers knot given to Diana are only loans. Most likely Kate would be given a tiara to wear for her lifetime. That situation will only change the day William become King. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 14, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
Quite so.  I do wonder the reason for the present Queen's less generous jewel-giving (in comparison to Queen Mary).  It's easy to just assume that HM is a bit more stingy, but I suspect there are other reasons at play.  ERII has to consider possible royal divorces (which QM didn't really have to concern herself with).  Also, the royal family's former exemptions from most tax / gifting laws seems to have dried up during the present reign, so perhaps loans allow them to avoid the taxman.  Yet another possibility is that the royal family has consciously adopted this practice to ensure that the collections are not scattered to the wind, but rather handed down intact for future generations.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 14, 2011, 04:22:51 PM
Well yes, of course she has either already been given, or will soon be given, a tiara.  As the wife of the second in line, she has to wear one at state banquets and similar occasions along with all the other royal ladies.  Since she didn't bring one into the marriage, and since her grandmother-in-law just happens to have a sizable stash of them lying around, the real question is:  which one(s) will she be given?  

Sadly for us, the palace doesn't send out press releases on such personal matters, so we shall have to wait until the Duchess' first appearance at a state function to see which one has been dusted off and given to her.  Others here on the forum have disagreed with me previously, but I think the Lover's Knot tiara would be perfect.  The Queen has not worn it since she gave it to Diana in 1981, and obviously it will never grace the head of Camilla.  Frankly, the only woman for whom it would be appropriate is the wife of Diana's beloved son.  If not Kate, who else?  Should it sit unused in a vault for the next 50 years just because it was worn by the late Princess?
I suppose the scoll tiara from the wed. will be her "loan".
think of her youth and that william is 2nd not 1st.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: RoyalWatcher on June 14, 2011, 05:49:37 PM
I'm with CHRISinUSA about the Lover's Knot tiara. It would look so stunning on Kate, and I bet William would love it too. He is rather sentimental as we have learned over the past six months. 

Needless to say, if you haven't already noticed, it is my absolute favorite tiara of all the royal tiaras.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 15, 2011, 07:26:41 AM
I agree with you. The last collection that went to the wind was those of her sister Princess Margaret. I was shocked that a diamond necklace that belong to Queen Mary was allowed to be sold. Usually, the Royals will buy them back. Both Queen Victoria and Queen Mary bought jewels from their relatives or from their heirs. The small collection that was given to Fergie & Sophie Wessex is a bit surprising as both brides wore tiaras that were not from the Royal Collection. Camilla have a nice collection of jewels herself plus the ones given to her from her husband (some of them heirlooms from Mrs. Keppel (her great grandmother) bought back for sentimental reasons). I don't think Harry, Beatrice or Eugenie could count much on granny giving them a royal heirloom...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 15, 2011, 08:11:08 AM
I admit I have a hard time keeping track of Camilla's jewels.  I haven't seen a comprehensive list anywhere and some of the pieces look similar to each other (at least to my untrained eye).  But it does seem that she has quite a sizable collection - her own jewels, pieces from the Queen Mother's collection, and items either purchased for her by Charles or given as gifts from foreign royals.  Anybody have a list or know of a website that lists them out by chance?

I imagine the slew of royal divorces in the 80s / 90s made it plain to the Queen that giving large collections to her in-laws is no longer a good idea.  I agree that Sophie Wessex' collection seems surprisingly small given her rank, but come to think of it, the Princess Royal's trove doesn't seem that large either.

Both Beatrice and Eugenie are eventually going to attend the occasional state banquet or State Opening of Parliament, and since they are HRH, they are probably going to need a tiara.  It'll be interesting to see if Sarah gives one of them hers (I can't imagine she'll ever need to wear it again).  But even so, I'm sure there are some modest tiaras in the vaults that would suffice.  If not, it would be easy enough to commission a new one for the York girls.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 15, 2011, 08:52:10 AM
As far as I know. Camilla has a nice aquamarine and pearl choker that she worn before she married Prince Charles. He also gave her a diamond snake necklace that she wore with her Versace gown. Prince Charles also gave her a sizable emerald necklace together with a Prince of Wales diamond clip with an emerald drop (once belonged to Princess Diana). During their courtship, Prince Charles gave Camilla a few pieces of jewelery that King Edward VII gave Mrs. Keppel as a romantic sentiment. All those she could sell or leave to her own son or daughter when she dies. After her marriage, apart from the Queen Mother digs (her huge engagement ring & the five strand diamond necklace left to the Queen Mother by Mrs. Greville), Camilla is given use of the Delhi Dubar tiara to use for formal occasions. So Camilla is set up in terms of jewelery.

The Princess Royal has three tiaras. One was bought for her and used in her coming of age photograph. Another was Princess Alice Greek Key tiara that the Queen never wore, and a new one. Apart from that Anne has a few pearl chokers and diamond necklaces, so although she was not as decked off as her grand aunt Princess Mary, but she wasn't shabby in terms of jewels either.

Sophie Wessex is a bit problematic, her only tiara is one of honeysuckle motief that she wore at her wedding. Increasingly, she also wore her diamomd & aquamarine necklace as a head piece. Not too shabby for a "countess" though.

Sarah's wedding tiara was bought for her (the one she wore on her wedding day) and now is sold. So there is no way that Beatrice or Eugenie could wear that for her wedding. It has to come to granny for one. I think she might buy one for them than to give her one from Queen Mary's collection.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: RoyalWatcher on June 15, 2011, 09:42:52 AM
Really, Eric...Sarah's wedding tiara was sold? I thought for sure she would hold on to it (with loads of pressure from Andrew) as an heirloom for her daughters regardless of financial troubles. It was a beautiful piece. Wow, nothing shocks me about that woman any longer. Sad, just sad.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 15, 2011, 10:17:12 AM
Yes. Sarah was given that as part of her wedding present, but she was deep in debt so she had to sell that among other things. The only chance that it is still in the family is that if the buyer was in fact Prince Andrew or the Queen (both unlikely). It is noticeable that after her divorce that she wore little jewelry, but sold herself as a member of the Royal Family to the Americans. No I wasn't shocked, she was given very little to begin with.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on June 15, 2011, 01:44:20 PM
I would be interested to know where the story that Sarah York sold her tiara comes from.
ALSO....and this has been discussed on many forums...Camilla does NOT wear or own any jewel worn by Diana...she has a very similar brooch but it is not the same....BOTH belonged originally to Queen Alexandra from the time of her marriage.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 15, 2011, 03:14:08 PM
A source close to the Duchess indicated that it had been sold to pay up her debts. As she was a "divorced" member of the Royal Family, it make perfect sense. If you look at the pictures, Sarah herself did not wear in often even before her divorce, so it may not have any sentimental value for her. Sarah was not the only member to sell her jewelry, Katherine, Duchess of Kent also sold part of the fabulous sapphire collection that was inherited from Princess Marina (who was given to her by Queen Mary).

That piece had been confirmed to be the same. The fact that Princess Diana never wore it after her divorce indicated it was return to Prince Charles as part of the divorce settlement. The Duchess of Cornwall have every right to wear that emblem as she is currently the wife of the Prince of Wales. In actuality, Camilla is by right the Princess of Wales, but chose to use the lesser title to avoid confusion and resentment.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on June 15, 2011, 03:44:33 PM
"A source close to whoever" how the press use that old chestnut to cover their truths,half truths and fantasies!
I will not argue but till I see proper proof I will not beliebe anything and I suspect one day in the future Beatrice or Eugenie will wear the tiara on their wedding day!
As for Camilla the brooch matter was settled as NOT being the same some time ago and I adhere to that evidence.Camilla is certainly not Liliane de Rethy she has no need of her predecessors gems.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 15, 2011, 03:59:51 PM
Eric, I'm afraid you are mistaken about the Prince of Wales diamond clip with an emerald drop.  AshDean is correct - there are 2 of those broaches - one was given to Diana, and the other to Camilla.  The first one was made and given to Queen Alexandra when she was Princess of Wales. When Alexandra became Queen and her daughter-in-law Mary of Teck became Princess of Wales, Alexandra had an identical copy made of her brooch to give to Mary. 

For her wedding, Diana was given a sapphire and diamond suite of jewelry from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.  It included a solid chain of brilliant cut diamonds set in gold.  Its large sapphire pendant is detachable and the Princess also wore that chain with the diamond Prince of Wales Feathers' Pendant which the Queen Mother had given to her just after her engagement was announced.  That pendant was the one given as a wedding gift to Princess Alexandra of Denmark from the Ladies of Bristol in 1863. 

Camilla was given the copy which was made for Mary of Teck.


Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 15, 2011, 04:04:05 PM
Eric, I'm afraid you are mistaken


Nothing new there then! lol  ;) :D :D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 16, 2011, 10:14:27 AM
I don't think there is a need to differentiate this. Princess Diana was dead for years by the time Camilla started to wear that particular Prince of Wales clip. So there is no time lap in between. If you remember Princess Diana;s jewels were returned to the Royal Collection after her death. Only her sapphire engagement ring (now owed by the Duchess of Cambridge) and her watch were retained by her sons as keepsakes of their mother. I don't think Charles need to get another identical POW clip to Camilla. Also I never saw QM wore that as Princess of Wales in her photos, whereas if you look at Suzy Menkes 's book, the original POW clip with emerald drop came with the original suite of jewels that included the pearl suite (the necklace favorite of the Queen Mother) and a tiara. This is my understanding of it, and I could not see why it should upset people to see that.

This is a discussion and not a shouting match on who believe what. On prove wise, I would pretty much love to see a photo of Queen Mary wearing that POW clip while Princess of Wales to prove a twin does exist. As Sarah Ferguson said on her show "Finding Sarah" (thanks to Oprah !), she is broke and without Andrew's help, she would have been on the streets. Why would she hung on to a tiara at this stage ? It doesn't make sense. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 16, 2011, 10:48:42 AM
You don't think there is a need to differentiate this?  Of course there is!  You made an incorrect statement of fact - that Charles gave Camilla a piece of jewelry that had been previously owned by Diana.  And when AshDean challenged your claim, you defended it as having been a confirmed fact.  Except that it is NOT a confirmed fact, you were mistaken. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 16, 2011, 11:05:39 AM
Lets get reasonable. Do you have proof that there is a copy of it made ? If so any proof that it was that instead of the one Diana once wore that was given to Camilla ? If you say I am mistaken you must give proof not hearsay. I have suggested a photo of Queen Mary actually wearing the pow brooch when she was Princess of Wales, but you did not seem to come up to the challenge. What I am saying is that since Diana is dead already and jewelry return to him (do remember it was given to Diana by Charles), so he could give it to Camilla. Even if there is a twin to that brooch (which may or may not have exist subject to proof), does he need to take back the original and give Camilla the copy ? This in the point I do not understand.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on June 16, 2011, 12:21:00 PM
Eric, there are dozens of forums, websites and articles covering this very topic - and with the exception of the Daily Mail, ALL of them state that there are 2 broaches as I pointed out.  Here are just 2 links that I found over the past 2 minutes - if you are so inclined, feel free to browse the web for 10 minutes and you will without doubt find all the necessary and sufficient proof.

http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/Jewellery+of+Today%27s+British+Royalty
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f20/diana-princess-of-wales-jewellery-1-a-30-12.html

I didn't respond to your comment about Queen Mary wearing one of the clips in a picture, because that has no relevance to this conversation.  

As to your last point - of course I personally agree with you that Charles technically has the right to give Camilla the original, or the copy, or whatever he wants.  But neither Charles nor Camilla is dumb enough to have her wearing a piece of Diana's jewelry.  Regardless of whether or not it would be appropriate or not, it is never going to happen because some people would flip out.  And neither Camilla nor Charles is a fool - neither of them would do that.

I'm done with this conversation.  You were mistaken, and it would be nice if you simply said "sorry, my mistake" and moved on.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 16, 2011, 12:46:13 PM
I read the website you sent and listed Leslie Field as saying that there are two identical brooches, but if they are the same, it does not matter which one Camilla wore (even if it was the same one once graced by Diana). As you say "I personally agree with you that Charles technically has the right to give Camilla the original, the copy or whatever he wants." That is the point I am saying that even if it is the copy, people will spot it since it was once worn by Princess Diana before. I think Prince Charles wanted to make a point by giving Camilla to wear this pin (her actual title of Princess of Wales, even though she only used the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall). It is also interesting that Diana did not wear the piece or any of her pow emblem jewelry (she had a gold pow gold necklace too) once the marriage went down the drain. Even though technically owned by the Queen, I think Charles curated this piece (his title emblem) and felt protective of his symbol. He once try to bid for Wallis's pow clip but lost to Elisabeth Taylor. I wonder if he will bid again for Camilla ?

I am done with this conversation and since there is so solid proof (a photo of both pins) of a copy, I don't think my reasoning is not entirely without merit. So I will agree to disagree. Peace.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on June 16, 2011, 03:00:03 PM
Princess Diana;s jewels were returned to the Royal collection after her death. Only her sapphire engagement ring (now owed by the Duchess of Cambridge) and her watch were retained by her sons as keepsakes of their mother.
Baloney..Total tosh!...With the exception of a couple of historic items all Dianas jewels were inherited by her sons! Not just 2 items!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 16, 2011, 04:51:40 PM
Ashdean is quite correct. This has been well documented several times  not only in post-mortem bios but many newspaper articles.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Vecchiolarry on June 16, 2011, 09:33:07 PM
Hi,

I always defer & refer to Ashdean in the matter of jewelry...
Ashdean knows the who's who and what's what of all those lovely stones!!

Larry
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 17, 2011, 08:48:37 AM
Princess Diana;s jewels were returned to the Royal collection after her death. Only her sapphire engagement ring (now owed by the Duchess of Cambridge) and her watch were retained by her sons as keepsakes of their mother.
Baloney..Total tosh!...With the exception of a couple of historic items all Dianas jewels were inherited by her sons! Not just 2 items!

I read in the papers a similar article. but I think it was meant that the ring and watch were at her sons side, the other items (returned or inherit) in a vault or a safe or similar safe place.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 19, 2011, 11:32:56 AM
Thanks Alexander1917 for clearing that up. The Queen takes her role as curator of the royal jewels very seriously. The bit about the watch and ring is true as they were keepsakes of their mother, the others belong to the Royal Collection either they were on loan to Diana (Lovers-Knot Tiara, Queen Mary Art-Deco emerald necklace, Queen Mother sapphire brooch..etc) from the Queen or official jewels (like the Saudi sapphires etc). Of course I think the lesser private jewels like the Lady Diana golden D necklace or her pearl choker (all hers before her marriage) is not on the list.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 19, 2011, 11:38:45 AM
Princess Diana;s jewels were returned to the Royal collection after her death. Only her sapphire engagement ring (now owed by the Duchess of Cambridge) and her watch were retained by her sons as keepsakes of their mother.
Baloney..Total tosh!...With the exception of a couple of historic items all Dianas jewels were inherited by her sons! Not just 2 items!

I read in the papers a similar article. but I think it was meant that the ring and watch were at her sons side, the other items (returned or inherit) in a vault or a safe or similar safe place.

That's by-the-by, the point is not where these items are stored but rather what items Diana left to her sons.

Eric you know nothing, ashdean is the expert.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 19, 2011, 11:47:49 AM
I know enough to make such a statement. Love to see Ashdean correct that !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on June 19, 2011, 11:59:12 AM
I know enough to make such a statement. Love to see Ashdean correct that !
Everyone knows Eric that YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!
Indeed its very surprising that the discussion groups didnt collapse during your long (rather enjoyable for us) absence.
YOU play your games imagine all you want and mix it with the facts in a cocktail shaker..
I AM  NOT being drawn in !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 19, 2011, 12:15:14 PM
Glad to know you are still very civil, nice and polite as always. Thanks for welcoming me back after my long absence.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on June 19, 2011, 12:29:32 PM
Glad to know you are still very civil, nice and polite as always. Thanks for welcoming me back after my long absence.
Eric YOU ALWAYS bring out the best in all of us!
SUBJECT CLOSED.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 19, 2011, 01:02:25 PM
I am honored to be the one.  :)

Best Wishes.

Back to discussion. I read the pearl choker Princess Diana once wore actually belonged to the Queen ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 19, 2011, 05:38:01 PM
I am honored to be the one.  :)

Best Wishes.

Back to discussion. I read the pearl choker Princess Diana once wore actually belonged to the Queen ?

this was a loan choker from HM
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/PressAssocphoto.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 19, 2011, 05:40:39 PM
Princess Diana;s jewels were returned to the Royal collection after her death. Only her sapphire engagement ring (now owed by the Duchess of Cambridge) and her watch were retained by her sons as keepsakes of their mother.
Baloney..Total tosh!...With the exception of a couple of historic items all Dianas jewels were inherited by her sons! Not just 2 items!

I read in the papers a similar article. but I think it was meant that the ring and watch were at her sons side, the other items (returned or inherit) in a vault or a safe or similar safe place.

That's by-the-by, the point is not where these items are stored but rather what items Diana left to her sons.

Eric you know nothing, ashdean is the expert.

I said it only, because it was mentioned here. and may it was a misunderstanding. but the main point is that you guys could now continue your own "very friendly" discuss.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 20, 2011, 06:41:27 AM
****Confused****

The main point here is historical accuracy. Nothing less.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on June 20, 2011, 03:17:45 PM
Well maybe I don't hate this one but it is certainly a strange piece.

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/Arabdhowcrop.jpg)

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/arabdhow001.jpg)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 20, 2011, 03:27:47 PM
Never seen that before! Thanks for posting, what is the provenance? Not particularly elegant....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Dasha on June 20, 2011, 09:46:06 PM
I am honored to be the one.  :)

Best Wishes.

Back to discussion. I read the pearl choker Princess Diana once wore actually belonged to the Queen ?

this was a loan choker from HM
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/PressAssocphoto.jpg)

Maybe this has been covered (I didn't read all 14 pages of this thread and I apologize), but the chocker that Diana is wearing in the photograph looks like the one the Duchess of Cornwall wore for Trooping the Colour this year.  I may be wrong, so please, feel free to correct me.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 21, 2011, 05:39:09 AM
No the one the Duchess wore was completely different.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002615/Kate-Middleton-Duchess-Cambridge-interested-youngsters-Trooping-Colour.html

I just don't believe the Duchess would ever even consider wearing a jewel that Diana had worn previously. Besides being  public relations disaster she would have more tact than that!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on June 21, 2011, 06:59:35 AM
According to Time Magazine Monday, Mar. 12, 1979, on a trip to 6 of the Gulf States, "Bahrain gave her a solid gold palm tree, 18 inches high, that was hung with pearls representing dates, as well as a gold brooch in the shape of a sailing ship, studded with diamonds and rubies."  It is described elsewhere as an "Arab Dhow".

I have seen a photo of the palm tree but I don't think I copied it.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948431,00.html#ixzz1PuWP03Rk
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 21, 2011, 09:48:40 AM
I agree that that choker belonged to Camilla and not the one lent to Diana by the Queen. Actually Camilla already had an aquamarine choker, which she used to wear often while married to Andrew Parker Bowles. This one is pink topaz I believe.

That is not the only one, Diana wore a gold palm tree brooch that was also a gulf state gift. It is in the Suzy Menkens book.

As for the pow brooch, again it is the emblem of the Prince of Wales, therefore Charles naturally would like his wife to wear it. Wearing that also is to remind people that even though Camilla is styled "Duchess of Cornwall", she IS in actuality the Princess of Wales (wife of the Prince of Wales).
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Dasha on June 21, 2011, 11:26:00 AM
Thank you for the replies.  Very informative indeed.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Lindelle on June 22, 2011, 01:35:39 AM
Yes thanks. :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on June 22, 2011, 07:36:20 AM
No the one the Duchess wore was completely different.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002615/Kate-Middleton-Duchess-Cambridge-interested-youngsters-Trooping-Colour.html

I just don't believe the Duchess would ever even consider wearing a jewel that Diana had worn previously. Besides being  public relations disaster she would have more tact than that!
The choker which Camilla wore was originally bought as a brooch with matching pendent earrings at auction by Prince Charles.The 5 row pearl choker was added soon after.
The aquamarine in the centre of Camilla's other choker was presumably the brooch given to her maternal grandmother Sonia Keppel at the time of her marriage and mentioned by Sonia in her memoirs.Camilla has 2 more slightly longer pearl necklaces with elegant clasps....one a diamond target style cluster the other a oval "garnet" and diamond.
I do not think Camilla as any need to wear anything of Diana's....Charles seems to have been much more generous to her with gifts....many gems from the late Queen Mothers hoarde are available and there seems to have been some generous gifts presumably from the Gulf states.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 23, 2011, 12:43:47 PM
I agree that Camilla do not have to wear any of Diana's jewels at all. However the disputed pow brooch came from Prince Charles and an heirloom from Queen Alexandra. The pow emblem is one that refers to Charles and so if he gave that to Camilla to wear, it shouldn't raise any eyebrows. The situation between Charles & Diana grew so bad that Diana chose not to wear her husband's emblem for a long time before the couple were divorced. If you see when the last picture taken of Diana wearing it to Camilla wore it, I think it was over a decade or more at least ! I found it quite frustrating that that people thought of that piece of jewelry as "Diana"'s, but it wasn't. I would not be surprised if that specific piece was in fact in the inventory to be returned after the divorce !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CountessKate on June 23, 2011, 03:01:11 PM
I agree that Camilla do not have to wear any of Diana's jewels at all. However the disputed pow brooch came from Prince Charles and an heirloom from Queen Alexandra. The pow emblem is one that refers to Charles and so if he gave that to Camilla to wear, it shouldn't raise any eyebrows. The situation between Charles & Diana grew so bad that Diana chose not to wear her husband's emblem for a long time before the couple were divorced. If you see when the last picture taken of Diana wearing it to Camilla wore it, I think it was over a decade or more at least ! I found it quite frustrating that that people thought of that piece of jewelry as "Diana"'s, but it wasn't. I would not be surprised if that specific piece was in fact in the inventory to be returned after the divorce !

I am not exactly sure what is being said in Eric's post, but just to clarify, there is alleged to be two identical brooches featuring the feathers of the Prince of Wales rather than one.  As explained on various websites including: http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/Jewellery+of+Today's+British+Royalty, and http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f20/diana-princess-of-wales-jewellery-2-a-13888-4.html (no. 76), information from Leslie Field suggested that the first brooch was a gift to Queen Alexandra when she was Princess of Wales; when she became queen and her daughter-in-law Mary became Princess of Wales, Alexandra had an identical copy made of her brooch and gave it to Mary.  Alexandra's brooch was given to Diana and Mary's to Camilla.  Hence, no tasteless handing out of jewellery worn by Diana to Camilla, but Camilla still wears her chap's logo, as it were.  The first website suggests that both brooches are owned by the Queen and hence not Charles' to give (at the moment, anyway). 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 23, 2011, 03:09:17 PM
Thank you for clarifying Countesskate!!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 25, 2011, 01:30:55 PM
I totally agree with you that it is "alleged" that two existed. Since we do not know exactly who gave who to who ? So It is still "possible" that only one brooch is used by both ladies. It maybe that the Queen gave the brooch to Diana and later got it back through her death. As Camilla was de facto Princess of Wales, it is possible that it was given to her to wear. It would be interesting to say that the Queen took the one from Diana and gave the exact copy to Camilla. I am not saying that it is impossible, but whether it is likely. People will always cry blood if they see anything , a right or privilege that was once due to Diana, that was given to Camilla. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Michael HR on June 26, 2011, 06:19:46 AM
Great thread by the way
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CountessKate on June 26, 2011, 09:34:51 AM
I totally agree with you that it is "alleged" that two existed. Since we do not know exactly who gave who to who ? So It is still "possible" that only one brooch is used by both ladies. It maybe that the Queen gave the brooch to Diana and later got it back through her death. As Camilla was de facto Princess of Wales, it is possible that it was given to her to wear. It would be interesting to say that the Queen took the one from Diana and gave the exact copy to Camilla. I am not saying that it is impossible, but whether it is likely. People will always cry blood if they see anything , a right or privilege that was once due to Diana, that was given to Camilla. 

It is possible that this was some elaborate story leaked to Leslie Field (who is cited as the source of this information) to justify what could otherwise be perceived as a monumental lapse of taste.  Given that Camilla has her own Prince of Wales feathers brooch of a quite different appearance, it seems strange to me that they would risk her wearing a piece of jewellery Diana wore just because it has a PoW association.  As Camilla has never been seen in any jewels linked to Diana, behaving in extremely good form in that respect, it looks very odd for her to start doing so now, unless sources can point to the existence of a second item. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 26, 2011, 11:19:45 AM
I agree with you completely CountessKate. There are two different pow brooches and Camilla wore both of them, as the wife of the Prince, she has the right and perhaps duty to wear them whoever might think differently. Also since both women are/were wives of the Prince of Wales, the wearing of this should not have been a problem at all. Also somebody suggested that it was the Queen who gave both women the brooches to wear, I could not think HM would see why Camilla should not wear her husband's emblem because Diana wore it twice publicly ? It is not like Camilla is wearing Diana's Spencer Tiara or something. In fact after Diana's death, most of her Royal Jewelry were returned to the Royal collections. Also it would be a much stronger case if we see Princess Mary, The Princess of Wales wore that brooch in a photograph. As we know Alexandra was very protective of her own jewelry, it would be unthinkable that she would give May any of her own wedding present (the pow brooch was part of that), given to her by her husband, Bertie (King Edward VII). So a photo would solve the mystery without a doubt.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: carl fraley on August 04, 2011, 02:12:28 PM
IMO ... I'm just saying , I agree from what I've read Suzy Menkes book and Queen's Jewels: The Personal Collection of Elizabeth by Leslie Field, and if you read that most likely there are 2 in existense.
1.) Queen Alexandra by Georgiana Batiscombe &
2.) Queen MAry by James Pope Hennessy

HM Queen Alexandra had the hardest time relinquishing her former title of Princess of Wales after almost 40 years (38 years) and after becoming Queen in 1901 would never address Princess May (Queen Mary) when writing her a letter or note as The Princess of Wales (the correct term for the Wife of a Prince of Wales).  There was even (almost minor problem) because Alix wouldn't hand over some of the crown jewels (for the Queen Consort), specifically Queen Victoria's lovely little diamond crown. (hennesy pg 423).

http://www.hauteliving.com/2011/05/buckingham-palace-to-display-200-years-of-royal-diamonds/queen-victorias-small-diamond-crown/

so I agree, I do not see HM Queen Alexandra handing over her own to Queen Mary, Alix didn't even have a will, she died intestate.  King George V in letters to Q.M.  has been quoted as saying that his mother for all of her qualitites was one of the most selfish people who knew and he was devoted to his mother.

AS to the earlier comment about HRH the Duchess of Cornwall wearing the POW feathers,  Legally no matter if it had been the same piece, HRH is The Princess of Wales.   NO legislation has been passed to change it, and since HM is the Font of Honour, I don't see where the palace or Clarence House should even ever broach the subject again. King George VI said himself that the title PRincess of Wales was reserved for the wife of the Prince of Wales when someone brought up naming HM, THe queen princess of wales before her accession.    IMO there shouldn't be anymore enroachment on the Royal Perogative.
as stated by a former british attorney general , a wife derives her status automatically at marriage, as did HM the Queen Mother

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2003/january30/edward_duke.htm
 HRH has shown nothing but tact, discretion, modesty, support,  and if you look at the pictures of HRH The PRince of Wales 20 years ago vs. now he's a different person.  I have never seen him smiling , or laughing so much.  anyhow, i was bored and i'm just saying :)


Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 04, 2011, 03:16:35 PM
quite
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 06, 2011, 11:29:22 AM
I agree. Even if it had been the same one, I do not see any reason why Camilla could not wear it ? She is the wife of the Prince of Wales and de facto Princess of Wales and have every right to wear that piece of jewelery. Actually I was quite surprise by the uproar on this subject. Diana had died and time to move on. Even though I am not a fan of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, but she does have the law on her side. If the Princes William & Harry did not object, why should we ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Thomas_Hesse on August 07, 2011, 12:50:46 PM
Actually Camilla is wearing a piece previously belonging to Diana - it is the diamond feather crest pendant which the late Princess used to wear as a pendant with a emerald drop. It was transformed into a brooch for the Duchess.

By the way: Catherine was recently given Diana's pair of Saudi sapphire earings. She had them slightly altered and wore them on a recent official occasion! How nice to see them again after such a long time in storage
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 08, 2011, 08:03:49 AM
Thanks Thomas for the information.

I think it is about time for her to get decked up. Apart from her wedding, she did NOT wore a tiara on any of her recent tours ! A tiara and a title is what separates Kate Middleton from Carla Bruni, Michelle Obama and Angelina Jolie.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 09, 2011, 08:25:29 AM
Times have certainly changed.  A century ago royal, aristocratic and wealthy ladies who owned a tiara wore them on various occasions from the opera to formal dinner parties - but generally only at the most formal evening events.  Yet that was a different era - when the aristocracy spent a great deal of their time at those types of formal functions - and when most guests at those events would have been of comparable wealth and rank, and probably owned one or more tiaras.

Today, most guests at formal events (even court events) are more diverse  - they are not all aristocratic or wealthy, and most do not own a tiara.  And probably for that reason, the British royal family now usually only wear tiaras on state occasions (a state banquet or similar), or to continental European royal weddings (where tiaras seem to be worn a bit more liberally).  .

And Kate hasn't yet attended a state banquet or other highly formal event where tiaras were appropriate.  Even her formal dinners on her recent tours were not state events - because William and Kate are not heads of state.  I suspect we won't see her appear in a tiara until her first state banquet at Buckingham Palace or Windsor, or unless she and William begin replacing Edward and Sophie as the Queen's standard representative at foreign royal weddings.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 09, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
I think I remember Diana used to wear her tiara early in her marriage to concerts, so just because she is not in a state visit or banquet does not mean she could look like a film star. Do remember there is a difference between a celebrity and a member of the a reigning royal family. May of Teck & Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon both wore tiaras or bandeaus when they appear at night. Edward VII was strict about the "tiara rule", where no lady could appear to dinner without wearing one. Both Sarah York & Sophie Wessex appeared in tiaras in evening gowns. My opinion is that the royals are carrying this "common like us" thing too far. Ultimately they will complain when the actors looked too poor amid the rundown props of royalty. Remember it does not need to spent a lot of money to achieve a stunning look, and all that spectacular jewelry is gathering dust in the Royal vault...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 10, 2011, 08:25:07 AM
You and I appear to be similar in that we happen to enjoy seeing all the royal jewels on display and wish it happened more often.  But there are bigger issues for the royals to consider.  Their overriding practice has always been the same as the Golden Rule of hospitality - to do whatever you can to make one's guests as comfortable as possible.  In the past it was NOT only the royals wearing those jewels - it was also virtually everyone they hosted and interacted with.  Society overall - not just the royals - dictates appropriate wardrobe and rules for jewelry (then and now).

You mentioned Edward VII, Mary of Teck and the Queen Mother - and those are great examples of my point.  Back then, society and aristocracy were one in the same - and fiercely hierarchical - so wearing a tiara was  - in their small, restricted world - appropriate.  Back then, a lady dining with royals present would almost always be royal, aristocratic, or the wife / daughter of a senior diplomat, senior military officer, member of Parliament or Government.  That same small circle would have been the only people generally attending a reception, party, or other formal evening event where a senior royal was present.  Even going to the opera - nearly everyone on the box floor where the royals mingled would have been aristocrats or close similar societal rank.

Today's monarchy embraces the opposite view - inclusion, not exclusion - therefore their wardrobes and jewelry must reflect that (unfortunately for us).  Today, the typical lady dining with Elizabeth II - is more likely to be a commoner, of modest or moderate financial means, does not own a tiara, and some might even feel ridiculous wearing one.  Not to mention, we are in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression; while I personally would not hold it against the royals for wearing a tiara to any old event, there is now a large share of people struggling to put food on the table who may grow quite angry seeing pictures of Kate decked out in $100,000 worth of jewels every time she appeared in public.

The royal family are excellent at adapting to the world around them.  Clearly over the past 2-3 decades they have been gradually limiting their big jewels to only the most formal occasions - which today seems to be state banquets and similar events. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 10, 2011, 09:09:38 AM
I agree that Kate shouldn't deck out with rich jewelry on a regular basis, especially with the common people at their midst. But Kate has not even ONCE appeared in a tiara since she was married and that was made to understand that it was "on loan" only.  We do not even know if she was ever given one ? The late Princess of Wales knows clothes and jewelry sent out a message of royalty. She wore jeans to Bosnia and Versece to Paris. If people expects her to come as a princess, she never disappoints by appearing as one with tiara and ball gown. It is very jarring to me to see HRH The Duchess of Cambridge being compared to Angelina Jolie or Carla Bruni. I don't think The Queen Mother in her youth being compare d to the likes Clara Bow or Jean Harlow. There is a danger in downplaying the royal status too much. Prince William had never really desired the throne as much as his father does, so maybe that is his way of saying I don't care.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: OctoberLily on August 10, 2011, 01:12:52 PM
Bravo Chris!  So very, very well said.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 10, 2011, 01:17:49 PM
Diana never wore a tiara unless the dress code called for it.  She always followed protocol in that regard - and protocol says tiaras may be worn whenever the dress code also calls for orders / honors. That's almost always the case for white tie (which British state banquets are), although it may also be the case for black tie (if the host chooses).  Examples: when Charles and Diana visited Germany in 1987, the evening was black tie but called for honors, and Diana wore a tiara.  But when they visited President Reagan in 1985, honors were not called for and Diana did not wear a tiara (the night she danced with Travolta at the White House).  

If there is no host (such as the theater), than I suppose it is left up to the lady herself to decide.  Diana did choose to wear a tiara to the opera for special performances, but other times wore a bandeau or other unusual jewelry arrangement.

Looking back to Edward and Mary's time, white tie and honors events were common among the ruling classes for everything from a palace banquet to the theater to private dinners in one's home.  Today, they are pretty much limited to state banquets.  And the reason we haven't seen Kate in a tiara yet is because she hasn't attended such an event yet.  But she will - and we'll be waiting!

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 10, 2011, 05:03:25 PM
Well I hope so. We did not know what jewels Kate actually receive from the Queen. In the old days, the wedding presents are often laid out (even in the Depression !), but not so anymore. I think the Queen has always been careful about giving royal jewels to her family (Princess Anne excluded). I think if she believes in winning back the public to the Crown, appropriate grandeur in the appreciate moment is so important. I hate to find a HRH no better treated in the press than Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 11, 2011, 07:46:36 AM
Of course not - but comparing the Duchess of Cambridge to Paris Hilton has more to do with the overzealous media trying to fill 24 hour news cycles, and very little do do with tiaras or jewels. Kate could show up at every engagement in a ball gown, the George IV Diadem and Queen Victoria's diamond earrings, and the less reputable press may still compare her to Ms. Hilton.

I personally haven't seen such comparisons drawn, but then I usually avoid news sources that would be tempted to do so.  But in any event, if it is happening it is probably because there is little else to report on at the moment.  William and Kate have not yet launched their "public lives" in the traditional royal sense of the phrase.  After their initial "get to know them" tour of Canada, they get to enjoy - for the time being - a private and free life courtesy of his military role.  And since they aren't currently leading royal duties / lives yet, perhaps in in an odd sort of way they are being viewed as no more than celebrities. 

Once they take up full time royal duties, that will change.  But I still wouldn't bet on the same degree of deference that was afforded to Charles and Diana in the 80s.  I suspect those days are gone forever.

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 11, 2011, 09:14:15 AM
I think it has to do on how you behave. I don't think you can mistake Grace Kelly for Marilyn Monroe (both were actresses), one has class and acted lady like, the other is more sex goddess. It was Grace's lady like behavior that made Monaco respectable again. I totally agree with you that it is Kate's lack of a role that put her in the column of celebrity. Diana was ushered into the walkabouts almost immediately and became patron of charities. As a member of family without a role (other than wife is really past century), she is vulnerable to attacks soon of not being "useful". I agree that a tiara & ball gown will not make her respectable, but royalty without it is like a man without clothes...naked and vulnerable. Like Diana, Kate will have to gain the love and support of the people by her service to the public. Kate is much more educated than Diana, so she could do even more.

Back to jewelry, I was right to predict that the Queen Mother scroll tiara is the best choice for her. Glad the Queen thought so too. I wonder if she would give it to her to wear full time, as it really suited her long hair. A single stand of diamonds from Queen Mary's collection would suit Kate too...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 11, 2011, 10:35:52 AM
Agreed - it does suit her.  I wouldn't be surprised if that scroll tiara appears on Kate's head again.  It hadn't been worn for so long.  Plus, frankly after it having been Kate's wedding tiara, I doubt anyone else will wear it for decades to come.

And British royal ladies don't swap jewels as they do in Sweden, for example.  I've seen the same jewels on Queen Silvia and both her daughters at different events in the same year.  The Windsors seem to prefer to give jewel items to an individual for exclusive lifetime use.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 11, 2011, 11:21:57 AM
Yes. The trend for royals these days is long hair and small tiaras. The Crown Princess of Spain loves to wear the small diamond tiara that used to belong to Viktoria Luise, Duchess of Brunswick (grandmother of Queen Sofia of Spain) & Princess Marie of Denmark also wore a small diamond tiara. When you are young and glowing, you do not need too much jewelry to set it off. Love to see Kate wear that piece for her lifetime as she is too young for the more heavy pieces. I read that the Queen already lent her a long dangling diamond earrings for her trip abroad. I wonder who wore that piece before apart from the Queen...?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on August 11, 2011, 03:20:49 PM
As this thread appears to have envolved to be more of a discussion about the Windsor Jewels in general, is it possible it could be merged with the thread 'Windsor Jewels' ? There is some marvellous information on this other thread and it would be a pity for it to be lost/overlooked. There was even some speculation about what jewels would be brought out for the forthcoming diamond jubilee.

R.I.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 11, 2011, 03:36:43 PM
Good idea EoD.  Moderators, take note please.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Vecchiolarry on August 11, 2011, 11:04:48 PM
Hi,

Is there anything coming up in the last months of this year for Catherine to attend that would require a tiara?  The Court is now at Balmoral and "on vacation" and I don't know if the Cambridges are there or still in North Wales.
William and Catherine did do a marvellously successful tour of Canada & LA;  and that may be their only big outing for the time being.

If there is/are any state dinner(s) after September, then maybe we'll see them there!!

I agree that the Diamond Jubilee should be full of lots of jeweled events.
A concert at Royal Albert Hall - - or is the London Paladium still in existance;  one never hears about it anymore??

Larry
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 14, 2011, 11:36:16 AM
Yes. I think the diamond jubilee should be the time when pomp & circumstance together with royal splendor (jewels & gowns with uniform with orders) comes out in troves. Looking forward to what Kate wore. They should also do a royal portrait or photograph together. I read Kate was given Diana's sapphires. It would be nice if she wore it as a set like a demi-parure.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 07, 2011, 11:29:17 AM
Love this thread!  Shame that it seems to have digressed from listing jewels that are in dubious taste.  It's interesting that quite a few pieces that members have listed seem to be from the Queen's collection, and I can't really disagree with those mentioned.

Certainly her taste in brooches is often questionable (notably that hideous ship thing - never seen that before, must have been a gift from Philip!).  We know that the Queen isn't really into jewellery in the way that her grandmother was, despite being the owner of one of the major collections so perhaps it's not too surprising that the new jewels that she has commissioned are amongst the ones that members seem to like the least.

A few years ago some of the jewels were displayed at BP alongside some of the Queen's dresses.  The monstrously ugly aquamarine parure was part of the display; just as ugly close up as it is in photos.  The Burmese ruby tiara is almost as ugly.  These tiaras are perhaps at a disadvantage when compared to some of the cracking heirloom pieces that are part of the collection such as the Vladimir tiara, the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara, the Regal Circlet of George IV, the Cambridge Lovers' Knot tiara and Alix's Russian fringe (the spikes of which are usually completely flush when the Queen wears it, so no idea why there are gaps in it in the photo of Alix wearing it), to name but a few.

I agree as well about that hideous bracelet that Philip gave to the Queen - ugly in the extreme and you need a microscope to see the stones in it!

I would be quite happy to see the back of the ubiquitous two and three row pearl necklaces......so boring.

I must disagree about the Mountbatten star tiara - I think that it looked great on Edwina.  Stars always look good on the head (as Sissi so memorably demonstrated).  I'm pretty sure that I once read that Pcss Louise gave Victoria Milford Haven a star tiara to replace the jewellery that was left behind in Russia and subsequently lost - could this be the same tiara?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 07, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
Yes. the star tiara with diamond and pearls came from Princess Louise to VMH. Yet I did not see VMH wore that after she got it, and Edwina was the first one to wear it.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 07, 2011, 11:35:42 AM
Completely forgot to add that the Wessex tiara is perhaps the worst ever!

Someone suggested that it had been re-assembled from existing jewellery.  I wonder why they bothered.  It looks more like its been assembled from left-over parts of an old Airfix kit (showing my age now!)......

Considering that the Windsor collection is so big, is that seriously the best that they could do for her?!  Paltry effort.....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 07, 2011, 01:57:24 PM
Oh Martyn, I so agree about the Wessex tiara. It's so anemic looking almost as if it were a work in progress and really it just being a skeleton tiara before it was grabbed from the jeweler and given to Sophie. It just doesn't make sense. Queen Mary ensured that all of her daughters-in-law were taken care of with at least one decent tiara if not an entire set of jewelry. I cannot believe that another hasn't been offered to Sophie?!?! Or, that her existing one isn't augmented in a significant way. Princess Anne seems to be set. Prince Andrew doesn't have a bride so HM doesn't need to worry about him. As for Camilla, she obviously has access to quite a few of the QM's former standbys. So what gives? Perhaps Sophie just doesn't want a more ornate tiara. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 07, 2011, 03:10:07 PM
I assume that by "Wessex Tiara" everyone is referring to the wedding tiara?  I completely agree that is hideous.  But Sophie has worn two other tiaras recently that are more attractive - a diamond "button" looking one (worn to the most recent Danish royal wedding), and another that can be either a necklace or tiara and features a huge aquamarine at its center (worn at Prince Albert of Monaco's enthronement).  I assume those were "gifts / or life loans, if you will" from the Queen?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 08, 2011, 05:08:28 AM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/SMROD/Royalty%202/Jewels/Jewels%202/sophie2.jpg)

A really good view of the offending jewel.  It's such an odd piece - the design doesn't flow and the elements don't connect at all. It really does look like it has been thrown together from leftover pieces.

It's never a winner when you can see the base of the frame and there is even a hairpin protruding!

Terrible photo of her.  She looks like she got ready in five minutes.......
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 08, 2011, 05:17:46 AM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/SMROD/Royalty%202/Jewels/Jewels%202/SophieWessex.jpg)

I don't recognise this piece.  Nice though, certainly the best piece of jewellery that she has worn.  Also looks good as a necklace.

I think that there has been some discussion elsewhere that this might have been part of a parure of aquamarines and diamonds that had belonged to Alice Battenberg, possibly remodelled.........

I must add that the pearl jewellery that she wore with the execrable wedding tiara on her wedding day was similarly uninspiring........
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 08, 2011, 07:14:32 AM
Wow, those large and clear pictures are truly revealing - both positively and negatively LOL.  Even to my novice eye and my lack of jewel knowledge, the first one (wedding tiara) is clearly "assembled" from separate pieces - and not in a well-executed manner.  Simply awful.  I'd advise Edward that perhaps an upcoming birthday or anniversary would provide an excellent excuse to redesign this piece for her.

And I hadn't noticed it before that second picture, but the pale acquamarine suits the Countess' eye color very well.  Plus the design seems both classic and modern at the same time - especially when paired with the off-center necklace and earrings.  A winner in my book!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on September 08, 2011, 07:45:52 AM
About 2 years ago someone from the Royal Jewels of the World Message Board concluded that the Wessex wedding tiara was made up of sections from Queen Victoria's Regal Circlet from 1858.  Included were photos of the storage box which had indentations that match the pieces of the the tiara.  A board member photoshopped the existing sections assembled in a different way.   The result was an improvement.  Perhaps someone kept of copy.  The RJWMB does not have archiving.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 08, 2011, 08:43:11 AM
It is a fact that the present Queen is not a generous jewelry giver as her grandmother Queen Mary.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 08, 2011, 10:55:14 AM
Wow, those large and clear pictures are truly revealing - both positively and negatively LOL.  Even to my novice eye and my lack of jewel knowledge, the first one (wedding tiara) is clearly "assembled" from separate pieces - and not in a well-executed manner.  Simply awful.  I'd advise Edward that perhaps an upcoming birthday or anniversary would provide an excellent excuse to redesign this piece for her.

True.  It looks amateurish.  It's a horrible piece.  But perhaps Sophie is so far down the royal food chain, that this was all that was on offer....?

And I hadn't noticed it before that second picture, but the pale acquamarine suits the Countess' eye color very well.  Plus the design seems both classic and modern at the same time - especially when paired with the off-center necklace and earrings.  A winner in my book!

This tiara is lovely, and you are right Chris, aquamarines are good for the Countess' colouring.  I would be surprised if this had been bought specially for her and the Windsors' capacity for bring forth long unseen jewels is well known.  It looks early 20thC to me.......
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 08, 2011, 11:03:45 AM
I read that Sophie's aquamarines came from the legacy of Princess Andrew of Greece (taken from her aquamarine parure). I think the gems from that tiara and necklace had been broken off. Maybe that will come in handy for the jewels of Princesses Eugenie, Beatrice and the future Princess Louise of Edinburgh (daughter of Sophie).
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 08, 2011, 11:08:19 AM
About 2 years ago someone from the Royal Jewels of the World Message Board concluded that the Wessex wedding tiara was made up of sections from Queen Victoria's Regal Circlet from 1858.  Included were photos of the storage box which had indentations that match the pieces of the the tiara.  A board member photoshopped the existing sections assembled in a different way.   The result was an improvement.  Perhaps someone kept of copy.  The RJWMB does not have archiving.

That's an interesting idea.  I've never seen an image of QV wearing the Regal Circlet that included these pieces.  The frame for the original circlet, in silver and gold, is still preserved in the Museum of London, minus its stones.  I know that the crosses and fleur-de-lys of the circlet were detachable and according to Geoffrey Munn, the honeysuckle motifs were preserved in their original form - thus these must be the motifs that make up Sophie's wedding tiara.  A poor attempt at recycling.......
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 08, 2011, 11:32:42 AM
I have just read that Christies is putting up Elizabeth Taylor's jewelry collection for auction this December. THAT has a lot of royal provenance. Included will be a brooch from Wallis'   collection. She over paid for it, according to the article "because they were friends {? news to me} and the money went to AIDS research, dear to Ms Taylor's heart.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 08, 2011, 11:44:42 AM
Elizabeth Taylor outbid Prince Charles for the POW brooch, I wonder if he would bid it for Camilla this time ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 08, 2011, 05:14:32 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/SMROD/Royalty%202/Jewels/Jewels%202/SophieWessex.jpg)

I don't recognise this piece.  Nice though, certainly the best piece of jewellery that she has worn.  Also looks good as a necklace.

I think that there has been some discussion elsewhere that this might have been part of a parure of aquamarines and diamonds that had belonged to Alice Battenberg, possibly remodelled.........

I must add that the pearl jewellery that she wore with the execrable wedding tiara on her wedding day was similarly uninspiring........

Silly me. I forgot she had this one. It is a marvelous piece of jewelry. Nice to learn about the provenance of the aquamarines as well. I still HATE her wedding tiara and cringe whenever she wears it. Knowing how much HM loves Sophie, I'm sure she's tired to give her others, but perhaps Sophie is like Kate and prefers not to wear big ornate pieces of jewelry. Who knows?!?!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 08, 2011, 05:18:37 PM
Elizabeth Taylor outbid Prince Charles for the POW brooch, I wonder if he would bid it for Camilla this time ?

I wonder if history will repeat itself again, but instead of Elizabeth out bidding the PoW, it may just be Madonna. It is a beautiful piece and I'd love it for myself, but alas I don't wear broaches so I think I will let this one go! Bwahahahahaha ! ! !
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 08, 2011, 09:52:13 PM
That could be. A nice tie-in with her new Windsor movie. :-)
Title: Boring
Post by: B5218 on September 09, 2011, 05:55:27 AM
Is there ever a time when The Queen doesn't wear her daytime formula of a pearl necklace and earrings?  I have seen pictures of her dressed informally, wearing wellies, jacket, headscarf, tweeds and twinset, and pearls.   The most drastic look she wears in the daytime is to wear a brooch on the right side due to the construction of the coat collar. 
Title: Hideous ship thing
Post by: B5218 on September 09, 2011, 06:09:08 AM
From Martyn - (notably that hideous ship thing - never seen that before, must have been a gift from Philip!).  

Are you referring to the Dhow - see reply # 207?  This was a gift from a middle eastern country.  Or is there another hideous ship thing that I have missed?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 09, 2011, 07:56:16 AM
Elizabeth Taylor outbid Prince Charles for the POW brooch, I wonder if he would bid it for Camilla this time ?

According to news reports I read this week, two items in Ms. Taylor's collection were won at auction whilst bidding against members of royal families.  First is the 16th century La Peregrina, one of the largest most symmetrically perfect pear-shaped pearls in the world, once owned by Spanish kings. When it came up at auction in New York, Burton bought it for $37,000, apparently beating out a member of the Spanish Royal family.  A ruby and diamond necklace was later made by Cartier from which the pearl was suspended; and that design was inspired by the Velazquez portraits of Queen Margarita and Queen Isabel wearing the pearl as a necklace.  It is estimated to fetch $2 million to $3 million.

And of course, the the Prince of Wales plume-shaped diamond broach.  Designed in 1935, the brooch was sold to Elizabeth Taylor, who said that she often admired the diamond plume brooch when Wallis wore it, and bought it mainly for sentimental reasons.  The BBC reported that Ms. Taylor paid $566,000 for it.  There wasn't any mention in either source about Elizabeth outbidding Charles - but perhaps that was reported elsewhere?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 09, 2011, 08:10:52 AM
I think the Queen should buy the pearl, only a queen could wear it. Elizabeth Taylor was a movie queen. Camilla would love the POW cllip...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on September 09, 2011, 11:02:42 AM
The BBC reported that Ms. Taylor paid $566,000 for it.  There wasn't any mention in either source about Elizabeth outbidding Charles - but perhaps that was reported elsewhere?

Maybe the stories are becoming confused, I recall reading that Diana wanted the panther brooch but Prince Charles was outbid.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 09, 2011, 11:41:57 AM
I don't think so, since Princess Michael got a pair of panther earrings from Wallis. Diana wanted her own style, it is more likely Charles bid for the POW feather's brooch. He is POW too...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 09, 2011, 03:31:00 PM
It is the Wales feather brooch  going on the table. I would have thought the Fl amigo was more  ET's style, but, whatever. In my eye, ET was  a class act, Wallis was  pure BLING,  no matter how much the stuff cost,  she wore it like  a backwoods  housewife, IMO.
  Personally, I do not care for the Windsors in the least. They were freeloading RICH  users.  Getting a penny out them for charity was like  taking a pound of flesh., it seems, from  reading.
 A very close friend of mine, a well known author, knew  the Duchess rather well and  even he did did not care much for her. She was always a gracious hostess, as he told me,  but there was also some underlying motive in he What was in it for her, as he put it. I suppose that is common in many people, celebrities or otherwise, but it is not classy.
 And, if Wallis did have  facial surgery, she should have sued the surgeon.  Which I would not put past her..
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 09, 2011, 03:54:31 PM
I guess both Wallis and Elizabeth (Queen Mum) were not easy people to get along with. They were both Divas in their own way.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: carl fraley on September 10, 2011, 07:18:10 AM
i want to see Queen Alexandra Diamond Wedding Parure The Rundell Diamond Parure............ It hasn't been worn since Queen Alix Died.  And IMO I think it would be ok for THE duchess of Cambridge to wear the CAmbridbe Lovers Tiara,   EVEN better, they need to get Queen VICtoria's Sapphire and Diamond Tiara back into the Royal family is classic/not too gawdy, designed by HRH the prince consort, and it would match HRH the duchess's ring.  that's the perfect solution.... just get it back.. The Earl of Harewood should donate it back lol afterall since HM was sooo generous with her consent and his marrital difficulties lol
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 10, 2011, 07:56:18 AM
I read Kate's family gave her a tiara for wedding present, so it might be out soon in view.
Title: Re: Hideous ship thing
Post by: Martyn on September 13, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
From Martyn - (notably that hideous ship thing - never seen that before, must have been a gift from Philip!).  

Are you referring to the Dhow - see reply # 207?  This was a gift from a middle eastern country.  Or is there another hideous ship thing that I have missed?

It was a brooch on a previous post........utterly hideous.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 13, 2011, 11:28:24 AM
i want to see Queen Alexandra Diamond Wedding Parure The Rundell Diamond Parure............ It hasn't been worn since Queen Alix Died.  And IMO I think it would be ok for THE duchess of Cambridge to wear the CAmbridbe Lovers Tiara,   EVEN better, they need to get Queen VICtoria's Sapphire and Diamond Tiara back into the Royal family is classic/not too gawdy, designed by HRH the prince consort, and it would match HRH the duchess's ring.  that's the perfect solution.... just get it back.. The Earl of Harewood should donate it back lol afterall since HM was sooo generous with her consent and his marrital difficulties lol


If the Rundell parure hasn't been seen since Alix died, chances are it doesn't exist any more.  But you never know - pieces from the collection that haven't been seen for decades reappear, as if by magic......

And it would be apt for the Dss of Cambridge to wear the Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara and I think that it would look as good on her as it did on the Pcss of Wales.

As for QV's sapphire and diamond tiara, that really is a beautiful jewel.  Small but beautifully made, the tiara is hinged so that it folds up.  I'm not sure that it is still in the possession of the Harewood family - it was recently......

I've thought of another really hideous piece of royal jewellery. This one is in the Royal Collection.  QV's stags teeth necklace, made by Garrards circa 1860 of stags teeth set in gold, inscribed in enamel on the clasp 'All shot by Albert' from stags shot at Windsor and in the environs of Balmoral.  The setting, in gold,  is in the style of Castellani, which is just about its only redeeming feature - the idea of it as a a piece of jewellery is utterly repugnant.......

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 13, 2011, 02:51:22 PM
We shall see if she was given any of these jewels which I doubt...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 13, 2011, 07:15:22 PM
If the Rundell parure hasn't been seen since Alix died, chances are it doesn't exist any more.  But you never know - pieces from the collection that haven't been seen for decades reappear, as if by magic......

And it would be apt for the Dss of Cambridge to wear the Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara and I think that it would look as good on her as it did on the Pcss of Wales.

As for QV's sapphire and diamond tiara, that really is a beautiful jewel.  Small but beautifully made, the tiara is hinged so that it folds up.  I'm not sure that it is still in the possession of the Harewood family - it was recently......

I've thought of another really hideous piece of royal jewellery. This one is in the Royal Collection.  QV's stags teeth necklace, made by Garrards circa 1860 of stags teeth set in gold, inscribed in enamel on the clasp 'All shot by Albert' from stags shot at Windsor and in the environs of Balmoral.  The setting, in gold,  is in the style of Castellani, which is just about its only redeeming feature - the idea of it as a a piece of jewellery is utterly repugnant.......

Oh my goodness, Martyn, I couldn't agree with you more about the stags tooth necklace. I saw it last year at the Queen's Gallery (Victoria & Albert: In Love) and was so revolted at the sight of it. At first I thought it was her children's baby teeth, but upon reading the description of the necklace sure enough they were stag's teeth. It has to be the most bizarre and the most macabre creation I have ever seen.
Title: Teeth
Post by: B5218 on September 13, 2011, 09:33:37 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257493/The-stag-tooth-necklace-Prince-Albert-gave-Queen-Victoria--blasting-animals-death.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257493/The-stag-tooth-necklace-Prince-Albert-gave-Queen-Victoria--blasting-animals-death.html)

Be prepared to be shocked.  
Title: Re: Teeth
Post by: Alexander1917 on September 14, 2011, 04:43:07 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257493/The-stag-tooth-necklace-Prince-Albert-gave-Queen-Victoria--blasting-animals-death.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257493/The-stag-tooth-necklace-Prince-Albert-gave-Queen-Victoria--blasting-animals-death.html)

Be prepared to be shocked.  

I think thats not so shocking as you all think. I remember / and know I it still exists homeshoping catalouges and in the jewellery part you can find such jewels set with teeth of animals. I think it's a traditional thing from the mountain - forrest areas in Germany - may also in other countries.

it's called "grandel" here f. e. modern pieces http://www.antikschmuck.de/grandlschmuck.html
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 14, 2011, 05:53:45 PM
Does not shock me, I knew a guy who had a  ring & brooch made from his mother's dentures. Did not know the German origin, however.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 14, 2011, 06:34:39 PM
Not my favourite type of jewelry.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 15, 2011, 03:55:22 AM
The tooth fairy must have had a part-time job as a jeweller!  Victorian tastes and sensibilities seem very alien to us now, but I can see how the jewellery comprising baby teeth must have had value for QV and Albert.  When one thinks of the profusion of hair bracelets and lockets containing the hair of loved ones that one can still buy in the antiques world, I suppose that these jewelled mementos must be the top of the range for that market.....

The stags head jewellery is gross.  And as for it being somehow an expression of Albert's machismo.......
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 15, 2011, 10:36:15 AM
I don't mind shell jewelry though. The Duchess of Windsor had a few of those and gave a pair of shell earrings to Princess Michael of Kent. Lady Ella could wear them.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 15, 2011, 01:06:17 PM
I don't mind shell jewelry though. The Duchess of Windsor had a few of those and gave a pair of shell earrings to Princess Michael of Kent. Lady Ella could wear them.
The earrings that Princess Michael received from the Duchess of Windsors collection were panthers!. They were later offered for sale but did not reach their reserve.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 16, 2011, 04:19:34 AM
I don't mind shell jewelry though. The Duchess of Windsor had a few of those and gave a pair of shell earrings to Princess Michael of Kent. Lady Ella could wear them.
The earrings that Princess Michael received from the Duchess of Windsors collection were panthers!. They were later offered for sale but did not reach their reserve.

It must take up so much of your time correcting Eric's mistakes.....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on September 16, 2011, 07:54:14 AM
I'll vouch for that! Thank goodness for ashdeans presence!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 16, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
In Suzy Menkens book "Royal Jewels" she listed the earrings as panthers earrings and a pair of shell earclips. That fact was also listed somewhere else too. I think it would be more helpful for people to concentrate on finding the truth and to zoom in on others mistakes.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 17, 2011, 11:47:28 AM
In Suzy Menkens book "Royal Jewels" she listed the earrings as panthers earrings and a pair of shell earclips. That fact was also listed somewhere else too. I think it would be more helpful for people to concentrate on finding the truth and to zoom in on others mistakes.
Suzy Menkes books is sadly full of mistakes....the Duchess of Windsors famous emerald and amythest necklaces are caption as ruby ones etc etc....
It would be more helpful if posters checked their facts rather than posting for postings sake.
SUBJECT CLOSED.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 18, 2011, 01:31:59 PM
NO ! SUBJECT NOT CLOSED.

Anyone who saw the catalogue for the sale of the Jewelry of the Duchess of Windsor would noticed that she tend to favor ear clips with seashells encrusted with jewels in her later years and owned quite a few pairs of them. It is quite possible that she could have given Princess Micheal of Kent a pair of those along with the pair of panther earrings. I think those who doubted should look at the Sotheby's Catalogue or the book with all those jewelry who got sold. Saying a subject is closed does not make it so.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 18, 2011, 01:45:08 PM
Any auction catalogue  is a list of things  put up for sale, NOT given away previously. That is a simple fact. I am with Ashdean on this.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 18, 2011, 02:10:40 PM
That tells us you how uniformed you are. The catalogue proves that she got them, and Suzy said she had given them to Princess Michael. I found no reason to doubt her.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on September 18, 2011, 02:20:48 PM
That tells us you how uniformed you are.

Says she....

One only has to look at your posts on the Duke & Duchess of Windsors to see that.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 18, 2011, 02:30:45 PM
Look at the facts not me.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 18, 2011, 02:35:31 PM
I have both the catalogue and the Menkes books. [filled with errors]
 Informed ?   Who is always correcting your posts, Eric ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 18, 2011, 04:34:17 PM
Thankyou Eddie and Robert...but I dont think Mr Lowe is worth wasting yr breath on...he is beyond reasoning with and like all meglomaniacs is best left in his own little bubble with his delusions and fantasies. The sad thing is...those who dont realise this fact may take up his postings blindly as factual!.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 18, 2011, 04:44:54 PM
I agree, Ashdean. I do not even know why I bother with him. Not worth the time.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Vecchiolarry on September 19, 2011, 12:18:29 AM
Hi,

Hilarious!!! - - I know Robert and I have never seen him in a uniform;  so I guess he really is not uniformed...
I have never met Ashdean, but I don't think he is uniformed either!!!
However, I do know that they are both quite well "informed" on several points and subjects......

Eric - I have long suspected from your many mistakes in spelling and grammar that you press 'send' just to elevate your posting totals...  Pitiful....
A whole lot of your entries are just "Blather" and "Drivel".....
Please check your entry before you hastily post and run up more numbers than the rest of us...
Is there an "Extreme Emperor" label or tag to be gotten with 10,000 posts?  Are you trying for that?

Larry
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 19, 2011, 07:53:41 AM
In Suzy Menkens book "Royal Jewels" she listed the earrings as panthers earrings and a pair of shell earclips. That fact was also listed somewhere else too. I think it would be more helpful for people to concentrate on finding the truth and to zoom in on others mistakes.
Suzy Menkes books is sadly full of mistakes....the Duchess of Windsors famous emerald and amythest necklaces are caption as ruby ones etc etc....
It would be more helpful if posters checked their facts rather than posting for postings sake.
SUBJECT CLOSED.

Absolutely.  The Menkes book was great when it first came out (in the 80's!!!!), but its gossipy style and factual errors really make it a bit of a quagmire for those who are either uninformed or not in uniform!  Apologies for the terrible joke.....
Ashdean and Robert both have oceans of knowledge on this subject, so it really is prudent to heed what they write.  I have never known Ashdean to post anything that he did not know to be the case...enough said.

Anyone suggest any more dodgy Windsor jewels?  It's been very diverting thus far....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 19, 2011, 07:57:15 AM
I must concur with Robert, Ashdean, Larry and I suspect many others regarding Mr Lowe. I do not often post, but when I do, I hope it is informed and interesting to other members. It has long been apparent to me that Mr Lowe is often incorrect in his assertions, has a lamentable command of written English and 90% of the time just posts to increase his posting total. No doubt as is usual, Mr Lowe will ignore our observations regarding his posts and return to the thread when it's back on topic and the dust has settled. However may we return to the Windsor Jewels? - a fascinating subject, and one I greatly enjoy.

R.I.
Title: Now for something completely different
Post by: B5218 on September 19, 2011, 04:14:34 PM
The really big opal necklace and earrings found in the Royal Collection.

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/microsites/queenandcommonwealth/MicroObject.asp?row=95&themeid=944&item=95

I think the Queen wore it once but I don't have any photos of it.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 19, 2011, 04:44:43 PM
I love opals.  And this is truly beautiful.  And, thank you for the link, when I have the time, I will go through all the gifts ! IMO, it would look wonderful on the Ducjhess of Cambridge..   And with her hair even on Fergie it would look fabulous.  Of course, that is out of the question at this point.
 I would hazzard a quess it is only brought out at Commomwealth events. Especially where Australia is involved.
 Ashdean would know more than I on this.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 20, 2011, 04:17:28 AM
I love opals.  And this is truly beautiful.  And, thank you for the link, when I have the time, I will go through all the gifts ! IMO, it would look wonderful on the Ducjhess of Cambridge..   And with her hair even on Fergie it would look fabulous.  Of course, that is out of the question at this point.
 I would hazzard a quess it is only brought out at Commomwealth events. Especially where Australia is involved.
 Ashdean would know more than I on this.
I'm afraid that I know very little about this necklace but have read that the Queen has only worn it about 3 times in public.
I certainly agree that opals would have suited Fergie.The Empress Elizabeth of Austria's opal and diamond diadem which she wore on her state entry to Vienna were much commented on as  setting off her twany hair and enhancing her unsurpassable beauty....
The Duchess of Cambridge wore the maple leaf brooch  in Canada....no doubt a visit to Australia will be in the offing so hopefully Robert yr wish will come true and in a symbolic gesture that greates of diplomatst the Queen will loan her the opals.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 20, 2011, 05:10:25 AM
I noticed the brooch in Canada, but did not realise that it was from the Royal Collection. A lovely gesture in any case. That is what these  jewels are for, in one way of looking at it-  goodwill PR.  It works ! As these are state gifts, not really personal, they remain in the royal  collection and  not be dispersed. Let's face it, HM the Queen does not NEED anything, they are really gifts to the nation. In that respect, I do not see them as excessive  bling. No matter what the future of the monarchy is,  the collection, all of it, remains national patrimony.
 One of my favourites in the jewels is the Brazillian parure. Rarely worn now, it seems, and no one in the family as it is, seems suited to it. I thought it might be trotted out  with Camilla, but have not seen  that yet.  That horrid tiara display was more than anyone wanted on  the poor woman. I have the impression even she was uncomfortable wearing it.
 The jewelry received from some Arab nations was  OTT and it must have puzzled the recipients as to what to do with it. IMO Diana was creative with  hers.  But, what does one do with a solid gold, jewel encrusted camel ?  Can't wear it and as it is a state gift, can't melt the thing down to usefulness.  Last I saw it was on the Britannia. Might still be  for all I know.  In her museum berth in Edinburgh.
 The topic is  the stuff we love to hate, but the stuff we love must not be overlooked.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 20, 2011, 08:08:08 AM
I must own that I'm not a fan of opals and I'm not sure that necklace is very successful stylistically.  The central stone is simply huge.....but as Ashdean suggests, the Duchess of Cambridge might wear be able to carry off wearing this parure of jewellery?

There is a school of thought that holds them to be unlucky; I seem to recall that this possibly was one of the reasons why Alix replaced the opals in the Oriental Circlet with rubies?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CountessKate on September 20, 2011, 08:18:07 AM
There is a school of thought that holds them to be unlucky; I seem to recall that this possibly was one of the reasons why Alix replaced the opals in the Oriental Circlet with rubies?

They can be considered unlucky unless they are your birthstone (October).
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 20, 2011, 08:36:31 AM
There is a school of thought that holds them to be unlucky; I seem to recall that this possibly was one of the reasons why Alix replaced the opals in the Oriental Circlet with rubies?

They can be considered unlucky unless they are your birthstone (October).

And they are the size of a paving stone, set in a necklace!  Thanks for that CountessKate......I seem to recall that the Empress Eugenie also felt that opals were unlucky......
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 20, 2011, 10:06:02 AM
There is a school of thought that holds them to be unlucky; I seem to recall that this possibly was one of the reasons why Alix replaced the opals in the Oriental Circlet with rubies?

They can be considered unlucky unless they are your birthstone (October).

And they are the size of a paving stone, set in a necklace!  Thanks for that CountessKate......I seem to recall that the Empress Eugenie also felt that opals were unlucky......
Luck and superstition are what you make up in your own mind.
I think Eugenie did indeed think opals unlucky but then her favourite gem seems to have been emeralds (which of course did enhance her twany beauty)and till the end of her life she kept a black pearl necklace which some consider unlucky.
I had an old aunt who considered a superb ruby she was given unlucky "a drop of blood" she would mutter!
As we say in Lancashire "There is nowt as funny as folk"
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Vecchiolarry on September 20, 2011, 10:28:47 AM
Hi,

The opals:
I do like the earrings;  I think they are quite pretty.  But, that necklace is too much.
I think the large opal would work better as a brooch on a sturdy jacket....

The Brazilian Aquamarines:
I really like this set and they are spectacular at a State Banquet.
I do hope they come out at the Diamond Jubilee - let's hope the Brazilians make a visit to her Majesty next year!!

Larry
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 20, 2011, 10:51:07 AM
Luck and superstition are what you make up in your own mind.
I think Eugenie did indeed think opals unlucky but then her favourite gem seems to have been emeralds (which of course did enhance her twany beauty)and till the end of her life she kept a black pearl necklace which some consider unlucky.
I had an old aunt who considered a superb ruby she was given unlucky "a drop of blood" she would mutter!
As we say in Lancashire "There is nowt as funny as folk"

Entirely true.  I recently got it into my head that an emerald ring, of which I had previously been inordinately fond, was somehow unlucky as I usually had a bad day whenever I wore it.  Utter stupidity of course.

I've never heard that about black pearls, Ashdean!  As you say, its all a lot of nonsense - luck and superstition....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 20, 2011, 11:36:48 AM
I wore a black opal ring for years and never thought it unlucky.  [not my birthday month].  As opals have a water element, I think, they need a little special care which I did not give it.  Sadly, the thing fell apart and clouded on me so, it went  to the wayside. I am sure the Queen's opals get more attention than what I gave mine.
 I had not heard about black pearls either, sounds like  an Elizabeth Taylor scent. I have seen some, however, at the V&A.  They were really "black" though, more of an ash gray in my eyes. If I recall correctly, they were part of Queen Victoria's mourning jewelry.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 20, 2011, 12:25:26 PM
I think Elizabeth T did have a scent by that name!.

The Empress Eugenies black pearls were left to Princess Clementine (youngest daughter of the dreadful King Leopold of the Belgians)wife of the Bonaparte pretender.
The grandest string of black pearls belonged to the Austrian crown and were often worn by the Empress Elizabeth after her sons death ( a omen for her own tragic end the superstious might say!)...no doubt they were among the gems stolen from the Imperial family in exile.
The famous Youssoupoff black pearls are mentioned on their thread while Barbara Hutton and Nina Dyer owned superb necklaces.
My own mother owns a very modest cultured strand which when worn with several strands of white/natural pearls looks very attractive.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 20, 2011, 03:11:39 PM
I meant I had not heard of black pearls being bad luck.  The ones I saw at the V&A were ash gray, as I said,  so I do not really recall seeing REAL black pearls, or is that the colour naturally ? I have seen dyed pearls, in all colours,  but I think them gaudy and tasteless.
 In the news recently,  a report of the theft of a "gold plated" necklace from the Titanic.  Some tabloid press, I forget which,  hinted that it was linked to the  British Royal family.  This, of course is ludicrous. That ship sank in 1912 and the owner was a first class American passenger [survived]. I think that would be quite a stretch.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: feodorovna on September 21, 2011, 02:50:53 AM
A huge THANKYOU to the person responsible for posting the picture of those sumptuous opals. Jewellery is my passion and opals very high on my favourites list. QV always gave them as wedding gifts to the many females in her family, but sadly, they seem to have gone out of favour now. I think Princess Michael of Kent could wear them very well. I'm very sad to learn that the Suzy Menkeze book is flawed but thrilled that there are some of you with vast knowledge of Royal jewellery. I was lucky enough to see the Wallis Simpson pieces that Sotheby was re-auctioning-beautiful, ugly, exquisite, vulgar- I considered putting in a bid for the panther bracelet but realized, just in time, that Butler and Wilson do the same thing!!!! and anyway, I'm nowhere near sinuous enough to wear her bling-being niether rich or thin!!!-but I would have killed for the pearls, IMO the most truly beautiful of all the pieces and I believe to have been left  her by Queen Mary, who had the good taste NOT to wear multiplicities of discordant coloured gems in one piece. IMHO, of course!!!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 21, 2011, 02:59:38 PM
Wallis's jewels revealed her own good taste. With her clothes in hard colors like black or grey, the multicolored pieces worked.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Kitt on September 22, 2011, 06:49:12 AM
I have a lovely opal that my mother gave me when I graduated. It is not my birthstone. She said,(I can not give any scientific references for this) that opals became unlucky, because during the plague, victims who wore these stones developed such high temperatures that the stones burst, and then the person died. My late father cut opals and created several beautiful firery gems. I do love them.
All the best, Kitt
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 23, 2011, 07:12:22 AM
I wonder what Alexandra did with the opals she took from the pieces given to her by her mother-in-law. Were they sold or left to Toria ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on September 23, 2011, 10:36:30 AM
i absolute hate this necklace

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9688/ve003038.jpg

Tho the brooch looks awesome

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/2315/royalweddingpreweddingd.jpg

And i also hate this set

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m190/laurentparis5e/MC10101.jpg
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: B5218 on September 23, 2011, 11:31:40 AM
I agree with you, Carolath.   But like so many of the pieces shown here, if FedEx delivered them to my front door, I would NOT return them to the sender.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 23, 2011, 11:36:03 AM
I agree with you, Carolath.   But like so many of the pieces shown here, if FedEx delivered them to my front door, I would NOT return them to the sender.

What, let greed triumph over good taste??!!  ::)

Shame on you!  I suspect that we would all be guilty of that!  :)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on September 23, 2011, 12:44:25 PM
WE ALL!!  my fellows!. We can always dismount and use the gems to do something prettier ;D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 24, 2011, 01:14:22 PM
Well, boys & girls, I checked out the Christies auction catalogue which will contain  her  royalty connected jewels.  $300.00 for 5 volumes ! I will order it simply because I collect books and think it a good investment as well as a beautiful  set. But, if that is just the catalogue price, we can get a hint at what the sale prices are going to be.
 I think the Windsor catalogues cost about a third of that. The jewels  were in 1987, the al Fayed collection in 1997. so inflation does have some influence.
 I try to keep "uniformed" after all.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 27, 2011, 07:47:51 AM
I have a general jewelry question so I shall wrap it in a "jewelry we hate" tone to stay on topic in this thread.  Looking at the Queen's cousins, it always seemed to me that Birgette Glouchester had the best jewels, followed by Pss Michael of Kent, and lastly Katherine Kent.  Is that accurate to our more jewelry educated posters here?

I can understand that as the wife of her 3rd son Alice Glouchester would have been given better pieces from QM than the Kents.  And that with only one surviving son, his wife ended up with her whole collection.  Marina Kent (wife of the 4th son) had to divide her jewels between two sons - but I've always thought that Princess Michael of Kent got the better pieces.  Birgette has that heavy Indian style tiara that looks like its valuable but certainly not attractive.  And she has those turquoise pieces that I dislike.  But Pss Michael has a diamond fringe and another diamond tiara I believe, both of which are quite attractive.

As to Katherine Kent, maybe it's really that she so rarely wears jewelry anymore that I've forgotten what she actually has in her collection?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: feodorovna on September 27, 2011, 09:10:26 AM
IMO Pss Michael of Kent was born to wear jewellery. She has on her side, the good looks, height, colouring  and carriage to wear it with aplomb. When it comes to displaying pearls, there is no one to touch her. I believe she could make the ugliest pieces appear beautiful.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 27, 2011, 12:22:39 PM
Birgette has that heavy Indian style tiara that looks like its valuable but certainly not attractive. 

Do you mean Marie Louise's Cartier tiara?  I love that piece - the workmanship exquisite and the design is inspired........
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 27, 2011, 12:31:26 PM
:~)  Yes I do, thank you Martyn.  I agree that has amazing workmanship and design, although it is quite "bulky" so a lady requires the proper stature and hairstyle to pull that off successfully.  It's weight also makes it seem old-fashioned to me, and not in a good, classic kind of way like Kate's wedding Cartier tiara.  Visually, I put Marie Louise's piece in the same category as the Durbar and Boucharon tiaras that Camilla favors.

http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad129/ShannonRose_Tiaras/Tiaras/PrincessMarieLouisesIndianTiara.jpg (http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad129/ShannonRose_Tiaras/Tiaras/PrincessMarieLouisesIndianTiara.jpg)

Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 27, 2011, 12:43:22 PM
There is a lovely photo in Geoffrey Munn's book which depicts the Dss of Gloucester holding the tiara over the head of her infant daughter Lady Rose Windsor.  This gives a really good idea of the scale of the piece.

I don't think that it is on quite the same scale as the Delhi Durbar, but you are right, Chris, to suggest that it was designed for an era that required a certain amount of hair to make it work.

The way in which the the sapphires have been cut is very clever and the design is obviously in the Indian taste; I suspect that its true impact would be appreciated if we were able to see it in the flesh so to speak....

I'm not a fan of the Delhi Durbar tiara - it worked on May and her hair pieces, but I've never been convinced that it works on anyone else.  I don't like the Boucheron tiara either - that really is like a 'fender'.........
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 27, 2011, 04:25:29 PM
I believe the Boucheron tiara was much better in its original form before HMQEtQM had it altered. In the original form it was pure art-deco.

R.I.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 28, 2011, 04:58:31 AM
I have a general jewelry question so I shall wrap it in a "jewelry we hate" tone to stay on topic in this thread.  Looking at the Queen's cousins, it always seemed to me that Birgette Glouchester had the best jewels, followed by Pss Michael of Kent, and lastly Katherine Kent.  Is that accurate to our more jewelry educated posters here?

I can understand that as the wife of her 3rd son Alice Glouchester would have been given better pieces from QM than the Kents.  And that with only one surviving son, his wife ended up with her whole collection. 
Alice Gloucester did not receive better items than Marina....indeed Marina received the single grandest parure that belonged to Queen Mary (who was also Marina's godmother)the famed Cambridge sapphires as well as pearls that had come from Mary Adelaide of Teck and a string of large diamonds from George V.
The Gloucesters ended up with far more because (as you rightly say) it was not divided 3 ways and nothing of any great significance was sold (as was after Marinas death).
Also Henry Gloucester seems to have inherited a number of items of jewelry from his godmother Fredrika of Hanover (daughter of the last King) and his son Richard inherited at least the very beautiful Cartier tiara from his godmother Marie Louise.
Queen Mary seems to have been very fair dividing gems...putting together matched suites and making sure each of her sons would have historic gems for their own family line...
George Duke of Kent of course did inherit jewels in 1939 from his great aunt Louise Duchess of Argyll.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 28, 2011, 05:28:30 AM
[quote author=CHRISinUSA link=topic=6534.msg495247#msg495247 date=131712767

As to Katherine Kent, maybe it's really that she so rarely wears jewelry anymore that I've forgotten what she actually has in her collection?
[/quote]
As Katherine Kent is no longer seen at grand occasions scince her withdrawal from public life it is not know what still remains in the Kent vault.
Since the sale of the Cambridge sapphire tiara another tiara was assembled from the fire principal clusters of the necklace of the parure which the Duchess wore with the original dog collar and earrings...wether these are still in the Duchess's possession as are the diamond bandeau with pearl topped spikes (that Lady Helen wore on her wedding day) or the aquamarine,diamond and pearl tiara the Duchess bought is sadly not known.
We do know that the enormous diamond drop earrings so often worn by Princess Marina including at the 1938 and 1952 coronations were sold in quite recent years.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 28, 2011, 07:44:41 AM
I cannot understand why the Windsors do not adopt the practice used by some of the continental monarchs of putting their jewels into a family foundation or trust controlled by the reigning monarch, rather than bequeathing pieces to individuals.  It just seems to me that a trust or foundation would allow the monarch to loan out pieces for lifetime, but ensure those pieces returned for the next generation rather than be sold or otherwise disbursed.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 28, 2011, 08:17:31 AM
It's always such a pleasure to read Ashdean's posts on the subject of jewellery - so precise and accurate.......I am also glad to read that he, like me, appreciates Marie Louise's Cartier tiara!

The re-created Cambridge sapphire tiara is a poor shadow of the one that was sold.  The clusters from the necklace are fine enough in themselves (and the colour of the sapphires is lovely), but they don't really add up to much as a tiara, imo......the whole original parure was very lovely.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 28, 2011, 09:12:11 AM
Sadly much of the Kent jewels were sold.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 28, 2011, 11:21:38 AM
It's always such a pleasure to read Ashdean's posts on the subject of jewellery - so precise and accurate.......I am also glad to read that he, like me, appreciates Marie Louise's Cartier tiara!

The re-created Cambridge sapphire tiara is a poor shadow of the one that was sold.  The clusters from the necklace are fine enough in themselves (and the colour of the sapphires is lovely), but they don't really add up to much as a tiara, imo......the whole original parure was very lovely.
Thankyou Martyn
I am very much a fan of Marie Louises tiara though I did not know any details of it till Geoffery Munn( who I have met on several occassions at Wartski exhibitions and is a very charming person)s marvellous book and the 2002 exhibition.
The new tiara is indeed a very poor substitute for the original one despite the beauty of the clusters...the Kents would have been better to sell the v grand necklace and keep the tiara!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 28, 2011, 11:58:30 AM
I heard that the Kents have been selling their stuff since a while ago. Pretty sure much of the jewelery is gone.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 29, 2011, 11:44:59 AM
It's always such a pleasure to read Ashdean's posts on the subject of jewellery - so precise and accurate.......I am also glad to read that he, like me, appreciates Marie Louise's Cartier tiara!

The re-created Cambridge sapphire tiara is a poor shadow of the one that was sold.  The clusters from the necklace are fine enough in themselves (and the colour of the sapphires is lovely), but they don't really add up to much as a tiara, imo......the whole original parure was very lovely.
Thankyou Martyn
I am very much a fan of Marie Louises tiara though I did not know any details of it till Geoffery Munn( who I have met on several occassions at Wartski exhibitions and is a very charming person)s marvellous book and the 2002 exhibition.
The new tiara is indeed a very poor substitute for the original one despite the beauty of the clusters...the Kents would have been better to sell the v grand necklace and keep the tiara!


I quite agree.  Geoffrey really is the most remarkable man.  His knowledge is really impressive, as is his kindness and his willingness to share that knowledge with anyone who has an interest in jewellery.  I'm really glad that you share my admiration for the Cartier tiara, as your endorsement is always backed by knowledge and taste......

I agree as well that they should have kept the tiara and parted with the necklace; I wonder what May would have thought of the sale of this jewel, as the family provenance of this particular parure must have meant something significant to her....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on September 29, 2011, 12:16:49 PM
I suppose  QM would have been saddened and yet philisopical...probably she would have tried to  buy it back as she did with so many wonderful Royal heirlooms...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on September 30, 2011, 11:23:51 AM
More than likely!  She assembled some amazing jewellery for her children and their spouses, as well as enhancing the Royal Collection considerably.

Another one of her purchases was Sophie Torby's sapphire and diamond stomacher, which she bought for the Princess Royal - another jewel of which I am not inordinately fond. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 01, 2011, 12:05:35 PM
Another one of her purchases was Sophie Torby's sapphire and diamond stomacher, which she bought for the Princess Royal - another jewel of which I am not inordinately fond.  
Actually I think it was originally a (obviously rather clumsy) necklace but Mary,Princess Royal wore it as a corsage fringe.....I would think George V and Mary bought the jewel from the cash strapped Michael and Countess Sophie to help them after the revolution....it seems that they loaned them £10k in the very early days after the revolution but refused the offer of the Countesses gems (estimated at £40k) as surety.The  Countess later left QM a magnificent ruby brooch as a memento.It was later worn on rare occasions by QEQM.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 05, 2011, 07:13:02 AM
It seems like King George & Queen Mary were very generous with the Torbys. It is remarkable that Queen Mary could have refused the jewels knowing how much she loved historical gems.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 05, 2011, 07:42:16 AM
Another one of her purchases was Sophie Toby's sapphire and diamond stomacher, which she bought for the Princess Royal - another jewel of which I am not inordinately fond.  
Actually I think it was originally a (obviously rather clumsy) necklace but Mary,Princess Royal wore it as a corsage fringe.....I would think George V and Mary bought the jewel from the cash strapped Michael and Countess Sophie to help them after the revolution....it seems that they loaned them £10k in the very early days after the revolution but refused the offer of the Countesses gems (estimated at £40k) as surety.The  Countess later left QM a magnificent ruby brooch as a memento.It was later worn on rare occasions by QEQM.

Fascinating! Thank you ashdean,  I love tit bits like that! With all the brooches on offer QEQM seemed to favour the one which, correct me if I am wrong, was a gift to Queen Victoria from her houseold in 1897. I have seen her wearing it in so many photos. It is a lovely brooch, I wonder if there are any photos of Queen Victoria wearing it.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 05, 2011, 11:24:39 AM
What happen to the other Tory jewels ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on October 07, 2011, 08:11:40 AM
What happen to the other Tory jewels ?

All dead, except Thatcher (barely hanging on in there), Mayor and of course the current incumbent Cameron.

R.I.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 07, 2011, 11:09:05 AM
What happen to the other Tory jewels ?

All dead, except Thatcher (barely hanging on in there), Mayor and of course the current incumbent Cameron.

R.I.
 Subtle humor,  "R. I.", subtle humor!  "What a difference a "b" makes...........24 little hours....."  ( But parenthetically, perhaps "MaJor"? )   Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 07, 2011, 12:09:56 PM
Sorry I mean the Torby's jewels. I think it was divided between Zia & Nada.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 07, 2011, 12:10:51 PM
What happen to the other Tory jewels ?

All dead, except Thatcher (barely hanging on in there), Mayor and of course the current incumbent Cameron.

R.I.
LOL Very funny Emperor!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 07, 2011, 12:13:57 PM
Sorry I mean the Torby's jewels. I think it was divided between Zia & Nada.
"It".....They were divided several ways but Zia and Nada did receive significant shares ..
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 07, 2011, 12:16:52 PM
Did the RF bought any of them ? I read they were magnificent.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 07, 2011, 01:06:52 PM
Another one of her purchases was Sophie Torby's sapphire and diamond stomacher, which she bought for the Princess Royal - another jewel of which I am not inordinately fond.  
Actually I think it was originally a (obviously rather clumsy) necklace but Mary,Princess Royal wore it as a corsage fringe.....I would think George V and Mary bought the jewel from the cash strapped Michael and Countess Sophie to help them after the revolution....it seems that they loaned them £10k in the very early days after the revolution but refused the offer of the Countesses gems (estimated at £40k) as surety.The  Countess later left QM a magnificent ruby brooch as a memento.It was later worn on rare occasions by QEQM.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/SMROD/PcssMary.jpg)

That's really interesting Ashdean.  I hadn't realised that it might have been possible to wear this jewel as a necklace, but perhaps this photo gives an idea that it might be possible?  It's quite a hefty piece and it looks totally wrong on the dress that Pcss Mary is wearing in this photo - it also makes QV's sapphire and diamond necklace look postively insignificant by comparison. 'Famous Jewelry Collectors' labels it alternately a 'devant de corsage' and a necklace, but I do think that the design of this piece is as you suggest - quite clumsy.  It is a shame that there is no colour image of this piece, as the chances are that the sapphires were quite fine?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 07, 2011, 01:19:13 PM
Thanks for the info. I think Princess Mary's descendent's sold the jewels already.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Janet Ashton on October 09, 2011, 04:39:56 PM
What happen to the other Tory jewels ?

All dead, except Thatcher (barely hanging on in there), Mayor and of course the current incumbent Cameron.

R.I.

Thatcher sold the family jewels (copyright: a true Tory jewel, Harold Macmillan). What's left is the clinker. :-D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 10, 2011, 07:34:21 AM
Thatcher never wore a tiara unlike Nancy Astor. 
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 10, 2011, 07:40:14 AM
Thatcher never wore a tiara unlike Nancy Astor. 
Lady Thatcher lived in a different Era to Nancy Astor....she was not (at that time a peeress) and she did not own 5 tiaras like Lady A
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 12, 2011, 07:26:37 AM
Thanks for the info. I think Princess Mary's descendent's sold the jewels already.

That has been discussed before - comprehensively.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 12, 2011, 07:30:18 AM
Thatcher never wore a tiara unlike Nancy Astor. 
Lady Thatcher lived in a different Era to Nancy Astor....she was not (at that time a peeress) and she did not own 5 tiaras like Lady A

I think that brooches were Lady Thatcher's thing, weren't they Ashdean?  I seem to recall that there was a theft of her jewellery and that she seemed to have a lot of gem-set brooches?

Nancy Astor's principal tiara was a huge ugly thing, primarily designed as a recepticle for the Sancy.....another of my least favourite jewels (the tiara, not the Sancy!)
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 12, 2011, 01:02:39 PM
Thatcher never wore a tiara unlike Nancy Astor. 
Lady Thatcher lived in a different Era to Nancy Astor....she was not (at that time a peeress) and she did not own 5 tiaras like Lady A

I think that brooches were Lady Thatcher's thing, weren't they Ashdean?  I seem to recall that there was a theft of her jewellery and that she seemed to have a lot of gem-set brooches?

Nancy Astor's principal tiara was a huge ugly thing, primarily designed as a recepticle for the Sancy.....another of my least favourite jewels (the tiara, not the Sancy!)
Brooches were indeed Lady T's signature gem apart from pearls.Lady M develped a great & very individual style style during her premiership.
The Sancy tiara was indeed a cumbersome ugly ornament but I think it was not originally designed for the great Sancy but was later adapted to hold it...However I need to check to be sure...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on October 12, 2011, 02:16:41 PM

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/SMROD/PcssMary.jpg)

That's really interesting Ashdean.  I hadn't realised that it might have been possible to wear this jewel as a necklace, but perhaps this photo gives an idea that it might be possible? 


Dudes,

 I wear the stomacher as a necklace "Rachel Zoe" style...jeans, killer white T-Shirt, leather jacket and 6-inch YSL TirbToo hooker heels! LOL!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Grace on October 12, 2011, 07:11:10 PM
Show us a photo, dudette!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 13, 2011, 09:09:40 AM
Any photo of Countess Torby wearing this corsage ?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on October 13, 2011, 09:55:45 AM

Show us a photo, dudette!




Tell me where I can get a cheap costume copy of that stomacher and I will! LOL!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 13, 2011, 11:56:00 AM

Show us a photo, dudette!




Tell me where I can get a cheap costume copy of that stomacher and I will! LOL!

TampaBay

It's not likely to be cheap! Seriously there are some companies making replica pieces of historic jewels, but they are not cheap.....

However I too am intrigued to see how you would style this rather lumpy jewel, Tampa!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 13, 2011, 02:40:09 PM
Goes well with evening gowns...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 15, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Well not all evening gowns. 

As I've said previously elsewhere, stomachers like these require a firm foundation on which to rest.  It is a documented fact that Queen Mary had her bodices reinforced with buckram to give a solid base for jewels of this type to rest on and display well, not to mention bear the weight of these substantial pieces of jewellery.

The above photo of Princess Mary shows just how much of an anachronism stomachers had become in the 20's, and how fashions of that era were really not suited for this type of jewellery, being too fluid and unstructured......
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 15, 2011, 10:42:09 AM
Thatcher never wore a tiara unlike Nancy Astor. 
Lady Thatcher lived in a different Era to Nancy Astor....she was not (at that time a peeress) and she did not own 5 tiaras like Lady A

I think that brooches were Lady Thatcher's thing, weren't they Ashdean?  I seem to recall that there was a theft of her jewellery and that she seemed to have a lot of gem-set brooches?


Nancy Astor's principal tiara was a huge ugly thing, primarily designed as a recepticle for the Sancy.....another of my least favourite jewels (the tiara, not the Sancy!)
Brooches were indeed Lady T's signature gem apart from pearls.Lady M develped a great & very individual style style during her premiership.
The Sancy tiara was indeed a cumbersome ugly ornament but I think it was not originally designed for the great Sancy but was later adapted to hold it...However I need to check to be sure...
The central element of the tiara was adapted in 1913 to hold the Sancy.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 15, 2011, 10:47:25 AM
Thank you Ashdean, that's really interesting.  I hope that one day my knowledge of jewellery is as extensive as yours! (I live in hope!)

So this rather ugly 'fender' existed before the Sancy was bought to add to its glory?  The design of this tiara really is quite ugly.....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 15, 2011, 02:08:20 PM
I think it does suit Nancy Astor though.
Title: The Mechanics of Wearing Earrings or Windsor Jewels I Would Love to Love
Post by: B5218 on October 16, 2011, 09:53:33 AM
In Queen Mary's wedding photos, Mary has normal earlobs.  Photos taken in old age show the lobs to be stretched out.  Whether this is an age-related occurance or a result of years of wearing heavy earrings, I don't know.  Pictures of Queen Elizabeth II do not show such a big difference.

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/earrings001.jpg)  (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/earrings002.jpg) (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/earrings003.jpg)

I recall that QEII didn't have her ears pierced until she was grown and receiving earrings as gifts.  I have pierced ears and can only imagine the weight of some of the larger sets that have been worn.   I love earrings but can't wear heavy ones.  

Are there some types of alternate support structure to the earrings so that the whole weight of earring does not pull on the ear lob?
Title: Re: The Mechanics of Wearing Earrings or Windsor Jewels I Would Love to Love
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 16, 2011, 11:16:54 AM
In Queen Mary's wedding photos, Mary has normal earlobs.  Photos taken in old age show the lobs to be stretched out.  Whether this is an age-related occurance or a result of years of wearing heavy earrings, I don't know.  Pictures of Queen Elizabeth II do not show such a big difference.

(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/earrings001.jpg)  (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/earrings002.jpg) (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/B5218/earrings003.jpg)

I recall that QEII didn't have her ears pierced until she was grown and receiving earrings as gifts.  I have pierced ears and can only imagine the weight of some of the larger sets that have been worn.   I love earrings but can't wear heavy ones.  

Are there some types of alternate support structure to the earrings so that the whole weight of earring does not pull on the ear lob?

 This topic (of dealing with the heaviness) was discussed sometime ago on "The Glittering Royal Events Message Board." Someone remarked that an additional "support" consisting of a thin gold/silver/platinum wire "hook" would/could be attached to the reverse of the heavy earrings and hooked-over BEHIND the ear and over the frontal top, so that the end of the hook was hidden in the hair, becoming practically invisible to the person facing the wearer. Thus the earring was supported not only by the earlobe, but the entire structure of the ear itself.
  As to whether Queen Mary ever utilized this adaptation, I cannot say.     Regards, AP.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: feodorovna on October 16, 2011, 11:22:18 AM
There is an earring which has a loop of precious metal at the back through which the post fits thus preventing pull on the lobe. The wedding earrings worn by wives of Russian Tsars were ruby fruits with emerald leaves which were so heavy that it necessitated them being looped over the ear to prevent them tearing the lobe, which happened to an elderly friend when she constantly wore heavy earrings.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 16, 2011, 01:19:50 PM
I think it unlikely those earrings could stretch the ear lobes. The comparison in the two Queen Mary photos just shows age related changes IMO. Sadly skin loses its elasticity as we age!    :(

Perhaps if a person was wearing extremely heavy earrings day in day out for a number of years it's possible, I believe I have seen it in some African cultures...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 16, 2011, 01:32:36 PM
I don't think Queen Mary liked long earrings, although there must be some in store. The present Queen likes drop earrings of both diamonds & pearls.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 16, 2011, 01:35:39 PM
I don't think Queen Mary liked long earrings, although there must be some in store. The present Queen likes drop earrings of both diamonds & pearls.
The present Queen wears pendent earrings in every precious stone!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 16, 2011, 02:14:18 PM
Yes, but she prefers pearls and diamonds that goes with her diamond and pearl tiaras. I don't think the Queen has a pair of Topaz or opal pendant earrings.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 16, 2011, 04:26:32 PM
Yes, but she prefers pearls and diamonds that goes with her diamond and pearl tiaras. I don't think the Queen has a pair of Topaz or opal pendant earrings.
Really Eric...you would be better to stop and think OR CHECK before innanely rambling on.....only  relatively few posts ago on this very thread you were commenting on the Queens diamond and OPAL necklace and PENDENT earrings!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 17, 2011, 08:43:24 AM
I don't recall posting that. Maybe you should check it out. I try to avoid writing things like "in every precious stone". It builds you up to fail since the Queen does not have pendent earrings in every precious stone. For example I don't believe she has topaz or opal pendant earrings.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 17, 2011, 09:22:04 AM
I don't recall posting that. Maybe you should check it out. I try to avoid writing things like "in every precious stone". It builds you up to fail since the Queen does not have pendent earrings in every precious stone. For example I don't believe she has topaz or opal pendant earrings.
POST 297  on this thread...then follow the link proves that the Queen has opal pendent earrings as I told you earlier.
Think carefully,take a few deep breaths and then post yr reply.Indeed it might be a good tactic for all yr posts...it would irritate less members and  make you seem more stable.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 17, 2011, 11:14:25 AM
Thanks for the advice. I usually say I don't think but not that she definitely has. My knowledge is not infallible and I know it. But I do know something and like to put it forward as a topic for discussion only. If I make a mistake, I will admit it and move on (thanking people for the correction in the process).
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 17, 2011, 11:18:37 AM
Yes, but she prefers pearls and diamonds that goes with her diamond and pearl tiaras. I don't think the Queen has a pair of Topaz or opal pendant earrings.

How do you know what she prefers?  I can't think of an instance when she has discussed her jewellery publicly, let alone expressed a preference for stones.

Do enlighten us.....
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 17, 2011, 11:21:38 AM
Eric, please try and listen to ashdean. He is the resident expert and we are grateful to him for sharing his vast knowledge on the subject. He doesn't need your nonsense.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to thank ashdean, who is ever educating me!!! & for gratefully sharing all his knowledge and hope he won't be put off from doing so by irritating individuals.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 17, 2011, 11:28:58 AM
Well said!  Totally in agreement with those sentiments........
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 17, 2011, 12:18:10 PM
The fact is all is speculation apart from what the Queen wore in public. So a statement that she has "earrings in all precious stones" is too general. One of my royalty mentors (who is a respected royalty writer) told me always to question. I am not saying that I am perfect (never said I was) but I prefer to question in a discussion than to accept things as face value.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on October 17, 2011, 12:21:09 PM
I don't recall posting that. Maybe you should check it out. I try to avoid writing things like "in every precious stone". It builds you up to fail since the Queen does not have pendent earrings in every precious stone. For example I don't believe she has topaz or opal pendant earrings.

I had taken it to mean precious stones as in ruby, emerald, sapphire and diamond--which she does have. Are topazes, for instance, considered 'precious stones'? I thought outside of the 'big 4', the other stones were considered semi-precious?
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 17, 2011, 01:21:52 PM
The fact is all is speculation apart from what the Queen wore in public. So a statement that she has "earrings in all precious stones" is too general. One of my royalty mentors (who is a respected royalty writer) told me always to question. I am not saying that I am perfect (never said I was) but I prefer to question in a discussion than to accept things as face value.
You said the Queen does not opal pendent earrings...The Royal site proves she does....forget the wether she has worn them in public etc etc....just accept for once yr falliable like the rest of us and think before you post!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Martyn on October 17, 2011, 01:54:50 PM
I don't recall posting that. Maybe you should check it out. I try to avoid writing things like "in every precious stone". It builds you up to fail since the Queen does not have pendent earrings in every precious stone. For example I don't believe she has topaz or opal pendant earrings.

I had taken it to mean precious stones as in ruby, emerald, sapphire and diamond--which she does have. Are topazes, for instance, considered 'precious stones'? I thought outside of the 'big 4', the other stones were considered semi-precious?

That's a good point, GDElla.  I also have been under the impression that the 'big 4', as you put it, fall into the category of 'precious'.  All others are generally referred to as semiprecious, regardless of their quality or value.

And Eric, I am sure that you are within your rights to question.  However when faced with irrefutable fact from knowledgeable members, have the good grace to accept their learned opinions and avoid relentless questioning of what nearly all of us accept as detailed and well researched information!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Vecchiolarry on October 18, 2011, 06:17:24 PM
Hi,

A fun remembrance about topaz's:
In the movie "Gigi", Leslie Caron guesses 'a topaz' for one of Aunt Alicia's rings....
Isabel Jeans, who portrays AA in the film, screams out, "A topaz in my jewellery, certainly NOT;  don't be ridiculous!!"...
As a joke, my grandmother sent a topaz ring to Ursula Jeans, Isabel's sister by mistake, hoping to have a laugh;  and some years later, we met Ursula at a London party and she remarked to my surprised grandmother, "Oh, you're the crazy American woman who sent me a topaz ring!!!".....

Larry
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 18, 2011, 08:50:04 PM
I think even ashdean is not disputing the fact that the Queen does not seem to have a pair of Topaz pendent earrings. So the claim of "the present Queen has pendent earrings of every precious stone" is not supported by fact. Despite she might have opal earrings. That is the point I am trying to make : avoid making sweeping statements, because we all do not have access to the Queen's jewel box. To accept something just because somebody said it does not make the absolutely truth.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Vecchiolarry on October 18, 2011, 09:52:32 PM
Hi,

Well Eric, I guess it's up to you to go and beat on the Palace doors and demand to see The Queen's treasure room!!
Then, you can personally count each and every jewel she owns and report back to us - say in 8 months time - as to just whether she has any topazs...

In the meantime, we can all get on with important information about the topic;  and hopefully be rid of you for awhile!!!
Get on your bike now  - hitch a ride on an Atlantic whale going to Britain - and ride over to Buck House.  I'll phone The Queen and tell her your coming!!!!!!  Ha, ha, ha!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 19, 2011, 07:47:23 AM
It is good to see that there is someone who can see this as it is. A storm in a tea cup. Perhaps we are all taking this too seriously.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: aor on October 19, 2011, 07:59:39 AM
avoid making sweeping statements

that is rich coming from you!! I do not post often and I am not an 'expert' on anything, but I do enjoy reading posts from the true experts on the subject and I do not count you among those. I am here to read and learn and it seems you get yourself in the same predicament on a lot of subjects. There is enough clutter on this board, you do not need to add to it.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: TampaBay on October 19, 2011, 09:27:10 AM
A very wise reporter once said that when you respond to something a stupid person said in public you do the stupid little fellow a favor becuase you give him a chance to restate the original utterance and provide a respone just in case the the general public forgot the stupid comment in the first place. 

The best thing to do is just ignore the stupid little fellow in the first place. 

There are many stupid little fellows on this blog.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 19, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
I don't think anybody here is little or stupid. As everybody has a voice, it is the individual who chose to either ignore or respond to  a point. We can only say what we think or the best of our own knowledge (as I try to do). I think anybody for sharing their knowledge & opinion of subjects WITHOUT belittle anybody who dare to challenge an established point. We won't have our country if we did not challenge the status quo from Britain. The only we could hope to treat each other fairly and on a factual basis. If we do not know a fact, just be free to say "I don't know". I sincerely hope it can continue the discussion without nastiness towards ANYONE, even to those who felt passionate about the subject discussed.

Anyway, I don't know how many pair of earrings the present Queen owns. I guess only the late "Bobo" will know for sure...
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: ashdean on October 19, 2011, 01:04:12 PM
Hi,

Well Eric, I guess it's up to you to go and beat on the Palace doors and demand to see The Queen's treasure room!!
Then, you can personally count each and every jewel she owns and report back to us - say in 8 months time - as to just whether she has any topazs...

In the meantime, we can all get on with important information about the topic;  and hopefully be rid of you for awhile!!!
Get on your bike now  - hitch a ride on an Atlantic whale going to Britain - and ride over to Buck House.  I'll phone The Queen and tell her your coming!!!!!!  Ha, ha, ha!!!

Larry
The Queen has decamped to Australia!
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 19, 2011, 02:31:18 PM
Great !  :D
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on October 19, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
I think even ashdean is not disputing the fact that the Queen does not seem to have a pair of Topaz pendent earrings. So the claim of "the present Queen has pendent earrings of every precious stone" is not supported by fact. Despite she might have opal earrings. That is the point I am trying to make : avoid making sweeping statements, because we all do not have access to the Queen's jewel box. To accept something just because somebody said it does not make the absolutely truth.

Except that topazes aren't really precious stones, are they? Going by the general consensus, precious stones would be diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds. I believe the Queen does have pendant earrings in those stones. If ashdean was going by that standard he would be correct. Topazes and the like are considered semi-precious, are they not? If stones such as these are considered precious, I will have to go back and re-evaluate my own collection!  :)

There was some debate on another forum as to whether she wore a pair of pink topaz earrings sometime back. I didn't follow it closely enough to know what the consensus was on that.

Please let's refrain from personal attacks. Debate, even heated debate, is fine but let us avoid the name-calling, please.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 19, 2011, 03:55:25 PM
I usually did not started name calling, but give as good as I take. If you follow the thread somewhere name calling began to appear against me.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: grandduchessella on October 20, 2011, 10:29:49 AM
I usually did not started name calling, but give as good as I take. If you follow the thread somewhere name calling began to appear against me.

ANYONE participating in the name-calling is in violation of Forum rules whether they started it or are continuing it.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 20, 2011, 02:59:37 PM
The only pieces that I don't like was the Sophie Wessex tiara and the big Durbar tiara that Camilla wore (looking too much like a Miss World Crown), as I think only Queen Mary could get away with wearing it.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 30, 2011, 12:46:45 PM
HM wore the Aquamarine parure on her final evening in Australia. I may be in the minority, but I loathe this parure and wouldn't mind seeing it being broken up. It's just too bulky. The tiara with its central rectangular aquamarine is just ugly in my opinion. The bracelet is probably the only item in this set that I kind of like.
Title: Re: Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate
Post by: CountessKate on October 31, 2011, 03:08:11 AM
HM wore the Aquamarine parure on her final evening in Australia. I may be in the minority, but I loathe this parure and wouldn't mind seeing it being broken up. It's just too bulky. The tiara with its central rectangular aquamarine is just ugly in my opinion. The bracelet is probably the only item in this set that I kind of like.

I absolutely agree, and I'm not much of a fan of the bracelet, either.  Though my mother said, when we saw them on display, that she'd take the lot.