Author Topic: Windsor Jewels Pt 7  (Read 212557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #390 on: August 03, 2012, 01:30:20 PM »
Yes the only time Kate wore a tiara. That is very unusual since most married royal ladies do own or have the use of at least one tiara. When VMH lost her jewels in Russia, Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll gave her niece her own star diamond and pearl tiara. It was later passed down to Edwina Mountbatten. I think the Queen will give her granddaughters some jewels when they marry. I doubt it would be the Royal collection. When Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson, she was given a small tiara (not from the Queen's collection) to wear on her wedding day and the only one she wore throughout her wedded life. I heard she later sold it. The same thing happened when Prince Edward married Sophie Rhys Jones, she was given a palmette style tiara to wear on her wedding day, one I think bought and not from the Royal Collection. She was given another new style Aquamarine tiara made from some loose stones owned by the late Princess Andrew of Greece. Princess Anne got 2 tiaras, one of garland style with a necklace and the famous Greek one once owned by her Greek grandmother. Only Diana and later Camilla got to wear Royal pieces that came from the huge collection amassed by Queen Mary.

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13040
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #391 on: August 03, 2012, 01:40:15 PM »
I hope so. I would hate to see Camilla getting everything, while other members remain jewel-less. Poor Kate had yet failed to appear with a tiara on. I do wonder why ?

Well, she did wear on to her wedding.  I would MUCH prefer Camilla to get everything with a clause that ALL should go to the Royal Collection after her demise.  I dread the thought of historic pieces ending up on the heads of the tawdry York princesses.



Well, the current situation seems to favor de-emphasizing the lesser members of the royal family (ie Beatrice & Eugenie and Edward not taking royal titles for his children), I think what jewelry they'll inherit will be personal bequests from Elizabeth II to her grandchildren rather than a Queen to working members of the family. Back when Queen Mary handed out jewelry to her daughters-in-law, they were expected to perform many public duties and Elizabeth's cousins have continued that. I don't think we'll see the same out of Charles's siblings (save maybe Anne) and William's cousins when they inherit.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline CHRISinUSA

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #392 on: August 03, 2012, 03:08:08 PM »
I hope so. I would hate to see Camilla getting everything, while other members remain jewel-less. Poor Kate had yet failed to appear with a tiara on. I do wonder why ?

Well, she did wear on to her wedding.  I would MUCH prefer Camilla to get everything with a clause that ALL should go to the Royal Collection after her demise.  I dread the thought of historic pieces ending up on the heads of the tawdry York princesses.

There are really 3 categories of jewels:  (1)  Crown owned, (2) Queen owned, and (3) owned by other royals privately.  The first category cannot be left to anyone - those are always owned by the nation and held by the Sovereign in trust.  The Queen could leave jewels from her own trove to any of her heirs, but she probably won't because of the tax bill (see below).  Only the last category (private jewels owned by Camilla, Anne, Sophie, etc.) are really free to be left to heirs.

About taxes - unlike in previous reigns, today except for bequests from one monarch to his/her successor, all other inheritances are taxed (at 40%).  If the Queen leaves her private jewels only to Charles, there is no tax bill.  But if she left (just for example) the Lover's Knot tiara to Anne or one of the York princesses, there would be a huge tax bill due.  But HM could just leave the tiara to Charles, and ask him to make it available to somebody for their lifetime (while he retains legal ownership). 

Aside from having to pay the tax, the other reason I don't think major jewels will be left to anyone other than Charles is that the item in question would have to be valued for tax calculation / probate purposes.  That means we, the public, get to know what the jewel was actually worth.

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #393 on: August 03, 2012, 04:36:04 PM »
But I think they could be given jewels when they marry. In the Princess Margaret auction, I discovered that Queen Mary gave her quite a few diamond diamond necklaces and brooches. That would save her from a tax bill.

Offline CHRISinUSA

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #394 on: August 06, 2012, 07:32:05 AM »
You might be right. I'm no expert in the British tax system but I believe wedding and other gifts are exempt, only up to a certain value.  Britain also has that rule where you can give someone gifts without paying inheritance tax, only as long as the giver survives 7 years after the gift.  But we can't really look to past precedence (Queen Mary to Margaret, for example), because tax exemptions the royal family used to enjoy changed in the 1980s. 

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #395 on: August 06, 2012, 08:37:14 AM »
Indeed. But the Queen did gave some jewels to Diana when she married Charles. I felt Kate was cheated out of a tiara at least. I like her looks, but without a tiara, she looks like a film star (like Carla Bruni or Angelina Jolie). She needs that royal dignity that a tiara can give.

Offline CHRISinUSA

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #396 on: August 07, 2012, 07:37:57 AM »
I also definitely can't wait to see Kate in full royal garb (gown, tiara, etc.).  But I still believe this is not an oversight or slight, this seems to be a conscious decision by the palace to take things slow with the Cambridges. 

In the present reign, court protocol has been that tiaras and orders are typically only worn at evening events,  where dress code calls for white tie (occasionally black tie if its a state occasion, or even more occasionally for a late afternoon state event, such as a continental royal weddings).  This basically means a state banquet, large diplomatic reception, or other similar events.  William and Kate have not yet attended any of these, so there has been no appropriate opportunity for her to wear  a tiara.  The real question is - why haven't they attended such an event yet? 

It's possible they are waiting until William ends his military career and begins full time royal duties (giving the couple the chance to adjust slowly to their future roles).  Or it's possible they've chosen to wait until next year so as not to overshadow the Queen in her Diamond Jubilee year, or the Olympics for that matter.  (We all know full well that if Kate showed up at a banquet in the Lover's Knot Tiara, the media would talk of nothing else for weeks or months!!)  Or maybe this is part of the new strategy to slim down the royal family.  It sure appears that one of the palace's goals this year is to firmly place Charles and Camilla front and center behind the Queen, to underscore their positions as the next monarch and consort.   Probably a bit of all.

Whatever the reason(s), we'll just have to wait a while to see the future queen in her full glory.  Patience, it will come.

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #397 on: August 07, 2012, 01:05:48 PM »
I agree 100 % Can't wait to see Kate as a full fledged royal with tiara and gown. She is beautiful, stylish and approachable, but she need to be a princess.

I agree Kate had not attended a state dinner yet, but she did official travels aboard to Canada and United States. Both Diana & Fergie did wear their tiaras during these trips. Think they are doing trips again soon. As a "royal" ambassadors, they need to look like the part (the youthful part is okay as well as down to earth approaches). I often feel that Kate was touted more as a celerity and film star than a dignified member of the British Royal Family. 

Offline CHRISinUSA

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #398 on: August 07, 2012, 03:27:41 PM »
At the risk of repeating myself, we are talking about rules of protocol and state.  Today, tiaras are worn ONLY for the most formal of state occasions (white tie level)

The Prince of Wales is heir to the throne, and the Duke of York is the 2nd son of the reigning monarch.  So when they visited Canada early in their marriages, their itineraries were much more traditional and formal, including an official royal / state banquet hosted by the Governor General at Rideau Hall.  Those were white tie level events, and were the ONLY ones in Canada at which Diana or Sarah wore a tiara / jewels.

William and Kate's Canadian trip was  "official", but a step or two below in formality (probably akin to what a visit from Anne or Edward would entail). There were no formal state occasions.  Even the official receptions were afternoon garden receptions, and both official dinners were outdoor BBQs. 

Like it or not, it is crystal clear that the Canadian / US visit was designed be informal and natural, not formal or showy.


Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #399 on: August 07, 2012, 07:22:29 PM »
Well...But even the Countess of Wessex did appear in a tiara. She was much down the pecking order than The Duchess of Cambridge. It would be very interesting to see when inevitably that they will have to appear formally in some function that merits one. By that time it would be painfully clear the absence of such a "tool of the trade". I am very "old school" in my ideas about royalty. Queen Mary when Duchess of York wore nice jewels (she was in the same position as Kate is today, the wife of the son of the heir to the throne).

Offline Martyn

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7022
  • Martyn's Chips
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #400 on: August 08, 2012, 10:56:42 AM »
Yes, that's true, but we are living in a different era and times are very different.

The Queen pulls out all the stops on gala occasions and we have been fortunate enough to see all these heirloom pieces on display over the years.  One thing that she is not in favour of though is ostentatious display, and as Chris rightly says, only jewels appropriate to the occasion or time of day are ever worn.  Kate may not be that in to jewellery, and if she is, her personal taste may be for small understated pieces - as yet we don't know.

It's interesting that Camilla has been wearing items that are from the collection of the late Queen Mother but they do seem to be pieces that either originated from Mrs Greville's collection (that gaudy 5 strand necklace, the Boucheron tiara) or pieces that haven't seen the light of day for years (May's Delhi Durbar tiara).  This last jewel is on display at BP at the moment and is quite a hefty piece - broad and inflexible, due to the fact that it is more like a crown than a tiara.  It is still minus a central ornament for the top gallery of the diadem and as a result looks odd.  This jewel originally sported the Cambridge emerald drops and is capable of taking Cullinan 3 and 4 as its central ornaments, but now looks a bit butchered and out of style.....
'For a galant spirit there can never be defeat'....Wallis Windsor

'The important things is not what they think of me, but what I think of them.'......QV

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #401 on: August 08, 2012, 11:24:38 AM »
The Queen may decide to redesign new jewels using stone from old out of date pieces for younger members of the family. Sophie Wessex's aquamarine tiara may be used as a precedence or the buy it from outside route. Both the Duchess of York and Princess Margaret's wedding tiaras were bought.

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13040
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #402 on: August 08, 2012, 02:30:14 PM »
Yes, but Sophie Wessex attended many of the kinds of events Chris is referring to--the type where a tiara was necessary. She stepped into the post-Diana, post-Fergie era when there was no one else, save for Anne, to step into the breach. I imagine, as Kate gets her sea legs over the coming years, the Wessexes will recede into the background.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #403 on: August 08, 2012, 06:08:28 PM »
Not sure about that yet. There are still many royal events that need a royal to attend. That will keep Princesses Anne, Alexandra and Sophie Wessex busy. I hope Kate step into the role soon. I hate it when people compare her to some model, movie star or rock chick whose existence is to just "make appearances". People like Princesses Anne and the late Diana more than make up for the money spent on them with their meaningful global charity work.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6648
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Windsor Jewels Pt 7
« Reply #404 on: August 08, 2012, 07:26:33 PM »
I agree with GDElla,  The Wessex family were almost obscure at the Jubilee.  They show up when needed, but now, the attention is on Kate. I think she is closest to reach the popularity and glamour of Diana.
 Also, the royals do not necessarily pay for those trappings. The come from the  collection or  gifts [like weddings] And, Chris is correct, there are strict rules about when and where to to put on the baubbles.. We raeely see much odf Dianna's fabulous collection, and i  wonder why, May be now,it is sentiment  or just stll too early ? Many of her's came from Arab Sheiks. Those that are jewel hungry just have to wait for the occaisions..
 Very few "meaingful charity works" do much good and  do not require  " the dress up' A tiraa and a AIDS event in Burundi? or a  Horsey event in the afternoon.  Why bother ? It costs a lot of money to haul this stuff around [ask Fergie] The "Royal vists" overseas are normally businness promotions. Pure and simple. {Andrew espciallty is an example of that]
 This is 2012 and people  do not play this game like in the past. Queen Mary and  her generation are gone.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 07:43:53 PM by Robert_Hall »
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.