Duchess of Cornwall Jewellery 1: Feb 2004 - Oct 2005

[iowabelle]

Everyone talks about these rules, but the British have never had a case of a Princess Consort (and I don't think it was envisioned until Charles and Co. came up with the idea). What is to keep Charles from changing these rules?

I think he is going to do everything he can to shower Camilla with the objects he thinks she deserves. (And to heck with public disapproval.)

 

[Warren]

Rules

Everyone talks about these rules, but the British have never had a case of a Princess Consort (and I don't think it was envisioned until Charles and Co. came up with the idea). What is to keep Charles from changing these rules?

There is no "rule" regarding Camilla's future title; it is an "intention" that she be known as Princess Consort. Of course this "intention" could change depending on future circumstances.

The "rules" regarding tiaras are more to do with tradition. However those pieces classed as "Crown" jewels are subject to restrictions; eg the Imperial State Crown cannot leave the UK, which is why George V had to have a new crown made for the Delhi Durbar. The George IV circlet is reserved for Kings and Queens, although there is nothing in law that says Camilla could not wear it as Princess Consort. So yes, some rules are made up as they go along, but then, institutions should always be flexible!
.

 

[iowabelle]

That's pretty much my point, Warren. It's an innovation to have someone called "Princess Consort". If they feel free enough to have a Princess Consort, why aren't they free enough to change tradition ("rules").

But I can understand the reasoning behind not letting the Imperial State Crown out of the country. They certainly wouldn't want to lose them in a plane crash or have them stolen.

 

[tiaraprin]

Actually, Elspeth, Queen Mary could have taken her crown to India for the Durbah. The problem was with the Imperial State Crown which the King was forbidden from taking out of the country. The Imperial Crown of India was made for the king & QM had the Durbah Tiara made at the same time. I understand that it was payed for by "Some Ladies of India"

Those Ladies of India gave Queen Mary the spectacular emerald necklace that has been handed down to Her Majesty. From the dangling drops, Queen Mary had one of the Cullinan diamonds placed. Queen Mary had a whole parure made up around this emerald and diamond necklace. You don't see the tiara anymore that had the emerald spikes on top that she wore to the Delhi Durbar. I wonder in what part of the massive vault is it gathering dust??

 

[Warren]

Ladies of India Necklace

Those Ladies of India gave Queen Mary the spectacular emerald necklace that has been handed down to Her Majesty. From the dangling drops, Queen Mary had one of the Cullinan diamonds placed.

And here is the necklace, with the Cullian VI as a drop.
(the other six diamonds between the diamond bands are of quite respectable size too!)
.

 

[branchg]

Those Ladies of India gave Queen Mary the spectacular emerald necklace that has been handed down to Her Majesty. From the dangling drops, Queen Mary had one of the Cullinan diamonds placed. Queen Mary had a whole parure made up around this emerald and diamond necklace. You don't see the tiara anymore that had the emerald spikes on top that she wore to the Delhi Durbar. I wonder in what part of the massive vault is it gathering dust??

The emerald necklace was made using a gift of emeralds and diamonds from the Maharani of Paitala and other Indian ladies in addition to the Cullinan VI diamond purchased by Edward VII in 1908. The parure was presented to Queen Mary at the Delhi Durbar when she and King George V were crowned Emperor and Empress of India in 1911.

 

[branchg]

Everyone talks about these rules, but the British have never had a case of a Princess Consort (and I don't think it was envisioned until Charles and Co. came up with the idea). What is to keep Charles from changing these rules?

I think he is going to do everything he can to shower Camilla with the objects he thinks she deserves. (And to heck with public disapproval.)

If public opposition remained strong, preventing Camilla from being Queen Consort, it would require an Act of Parliament for her to be Princess Consort instead. Therefore, I doubt she will be waltzing down the aisle with a crown on her head at the State Opening of Parliament if she was HRH the Princess Consort. This would be ludicrious.

 

[iowabelle]

This whole situation has been ludicrous.

 

[wymanda]

But I can understand the reasoning behind not letting the Imperial State Crown out of the country. They certainly wouldn't want to lose them in a plane crash or have them stolen.

Actually the law is much older than we would think. It came into being when Charles the 1st had his wife try to pawn some of the crown jewels in France to finance the Royalist cause in the civil war.

 

[tiaraprin]

This whole situation has been ludicrous.

You got that right Iowabelle!!

 

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by iowabelle
This whole situation has been ludicrous.



You got that right Iowabelle!!

The situation has only come about through people like yourselves who insist on living in the past! As I have said before, If you do not like Camilla then stay in the threads concering Diana and let the rest of us engage in constructive discussion about the matters in the present.

 

[tiaraprin]

The situation has only come about through people like yourselves who insist on living in the past! As I have said before, If you do not like Camilla then stay in the threads concering Diana and let the rest of us engage in constructive discussion about the matters in the present.

The situation would still be ludicrous even if we were not discussing it in the threads--it is naturally that way. There has never been anything like it in British Royal History. It goes beyond hating Camilla and loving Diana. Look at the whole picture. Some of it has to make you laugh, cry, or just be outraged.

Perhaps some of us are still coming to grips with "the present". Everyone moves at their own pace and for different reasons.

None of this is said with malice, it said to perhaps help people understand where I am coming from and maybe others.

 

[iowabelle]

Wymanda, that's part of my point about it being ludicrous.

Camilla is here and she isn't going away. Charles isn't going to hide her away and I am sure that he wants her to have all the deference due to her as his wife (no matter what title is used to describe her).

As for the rules that apply to what jewelry she can wear, I can see that she might not be allowed to wear a crown if she isn't crowned queen. But for as for the tiaras used by other consorts, why shouldn't she be allowed to use them? (At least for Charles' lifetime.)

(And for what it's worth, I think Camilla has done a pretty good job so far. And Charles seems to have perked up since the marriage.)

 

[Elspeth]

As for the rules that apply to what jewelry she can wear, I can see that she might not be allowed to wear a crown if she isn't crowned queen. But for as for the tiaras used by other consorts, why shouldn't she be allowed to use them? (At least for Charles' lifetime.)

Well, it depends how much nitpicking is involved. Queen Victoria did leave some of her jewellery specifically to be worn by future queens, and at the moment according to Buckingham Palace Camilla isn't a future queen even if Charles is a future king. If Camilla shows up wearing any of those pieces, either before or after Charles's accession (assuming she really does become Princess Consort rather than Queen), you can be very sure that it'll be noticed and commented upon immediately.

 

[branchg]

Well, it depends how much nitpicking is involved. Queen Victoria did leave some of her jewellery specifically to be worn by future queens, and at the moment according to Buckingham Palace Camilla isn't a future queen even if Charles is a future king. If Camilla shows up wearing any of those pieces, either before or after Charles's accession (assuming she really does become Princess Consort rather than Queen), you can be very sure that it'll be noticed and commented upon immediately.

Exactly. Why would they want to create a controversy and possibly diminish the monarchy with a provocative act like Camilla wearing a crown/tiara specified only for a Queen or Queen Consort?

There are so many other tiaras in the royal collection which could be reset into new pieces for Camilla. Charles is likely to futher acquire new pieces for her to wear as well. There's no sense rocking the boat over a tiara.

 

[branchg]

Also, many of Queen Mary's jewels were supposedly designated in her will as to be worn by a Queen or Queen Consort only. The rest of her jewels were left to members of the royal family.

 

[wymanda]

I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of the clause. Queen Victoria could not have envisaged that the wife of a King of England would not be Queen. Therefore the clause could be given the modern interpretation that the jewels were "to be worn by the consorts of all future kings by right of it" rather than the literal "by all future queens by right of it".

 

[branchg]

I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of the clause. Queen Victoria could not have envisaged that the wife of a King of England would not be Queen. Therefore the clause could be given the modern interpretation that the jewels were "to be worn by the consorts of all future kings by right of it" rather than the literal "by all future queens by right of it".

This is possible. In all likelihood, it is very probable that Camilla will, in fact, be Queen Consort and the question will be moot anyway.

 

[iowabelle]

branchg brought up an interesting question by mentioning that other tiaras in the royal collection could be re-set to provide something "new" for Camilla.

What are the rules/traditions about taking an old piece and making it into something different? The Dutch seem to do this almost at will (but it would just about break my heart to destroy an old tiara or piece of jewelry).

Do we have any candidates that we could volunteer for the jeweler?

 

[branchg]

branchg brought up an interesting question by mentioning that other tiaras in the royal collection could be re-set to provide something "new" for Camilla.

What are the rules/traditions about taking an old piece and making it into something different? The Dutch seem to do this almost at will (but it would just about break my heart to destroy an old tiara or piece of jewelry).

Do we have any candidates that we could volunteer for the jeweler?

It's been done many times before, particularly during the reigns of William IV, Victoria and Edward VII. Queen Mary received so many gifts of jewels, stones and diamonds, in addition to her purchase of the Dowager Empress Marie's pieces and what she inherited from her mother, Princess Mary, it wasn't necessary for her to have pieces reset.

She had a real passion for jewels, so there's plenty left in the collection for resetting, particularly since the Queen has not worn more than a fraction of what she possesses.

 

[tiaraprin]

I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of the clause. Queen Victoria could not have envisaged that the wife of a King of England would not be Queen. Therefore the clause could be given the modern interpretation that the jewels were "to be worn by the consorts of all future kings by right of it" rather than the literal "by all future queens by right of it".

I believe if Queen Victoria knew of the circumstances of this wedding, she would not want Camilla to wear these jewels, irrelevant of the fact of Diana-- whether you love her or hate her. Queen Victoria would never have countenanced this marriage in any way!

 

[Warren]

Check the vaults!

Do we have any candidates that we could volunteer for the jeweler?

Not every tiara is attractive or a work of art; there must be plenty of "ugly" tiaras languishing in those mysterious vaults beneath Buckingham Palace. Then there are the the myriad necklaces, bracelets, brooches, stomachers etc, plus boxes of loose stones which could be used to make anything they wanted.

And of course Charles could (if he hasn't already done so) buy or commission something brand new. I wonder what jewellery he presented Camilla with on the day of their marriage? Something significant, I imagine.
.

 

[tiaraprin]

Not every tiara is attractive or a work of art; there must be plenty of "ugly" tiaras languishing in those mysterious vaults beneath Buckingham Palace. Then there are the the myriad necklaces, bracelets, brooches, stomachers etc, plus boxes of loose stones which could be used to make anything they wanted.

And of course Charles could (if he hasn't already done so) buy or commission something brand new. I wonder what jewellery he presented Camilla with on the day of their marriage? Something significant, I imagine.
.

Oh Warren, you know Charles spares no expense where Camilla is concerned!!

It is true what you say--why don't they go down into those vaults and do something with the obsolete pieces?? Man what I would give to spend a day in the vault looking at all of that and being allowed to take just one piece with me!!!!!!

 

[Warren]

Lost in the vaults

Man what I would give to spend a day in the vault looking at all of that!

Just a day? It would probably take the best part of a week to inspect every item!

 

[tiaraprin]

A week would be nice too!!!

Just a day? It would probably take the best part of a week to inspect every item!

I didn't want to appear greedy Warren!! You can always make me laugh Warren!! Thanks!!!

 

[Sean.~]

Oh Warren, you know Charles spares no expense where Camilla is concerned!!

Maybe not, but I find still find her stuff incredibly ugly. Especially that diamond flower necklace and that g-d awful pearl chocker with that hideous blue and gold thing in the middle. And that single string of pearls she wears looks like something out of a vending machine or chinatown.

Money simply can not buy good taste.

 

[branchg]

Maybe not, but I find still find her stuff incredibly ugly. Especially that diamond flower necklace and that g-d awful pearl chocker with that hideous blue and gold thing in the middle. And that single string of pearls she wears looks like something out of a vending machine or chinatown.

Money simply can not buy good taste.

I thought the diamond flower and gold necklace looked pretty decent, although I don't care for the "snake style" diamond necklace Charles gave her a number of years ago. Camilla's pearls are an heirloom from her family.

 

[Josefine]

camilla has now worn a tiara for the first time

 

[james]

Yes, she wore the Dehli Durbar tiara after all.

 

[branchg]

Yes, she wore the Dehli Durbar tiara after all.

This diadem was created for Queen Mary for the Delhi Durbar in 1911 and had five of her mother's Cambridge emeralds on the top originally. She also had a parure created (three necklaces, a brooch and earrings) using her mother's emeralds, as well as the emeralds given to her by the Ladies of India for the Delhi Durbar in 1911. After the Durbar, Queen Mary had the emeralds removed and she wore the diadem as is. She left it to the Queen Mother after her death in 1953.

The Queen Mother wore it only once and then it disappeared. This diadem was then redesigned into a regular tiara by opening up the back and reshaping it so Camilla could wear it as such. It is clearly a gift from the Queen since this piece would have returned to her after the death of the Queen Mother.

It certainly sends the unmistakable message that Camilla will undoubtedly be Queen Consort, given the fact she has received a former crown of Queen Mary as her tiara.