Re'- Whats in a Name
Posted by wymanda on June 2, 2012, 6:43 am, in reply to "Re: "ownership" again"
OK, perhaps Royal Collection was the wrong identity. Probably more correct would be something along the line of "Windsor Family Collection" or "Queen Mary inheritance Collection" |
: OK. It is your view.
: But I see most of these jewels as private
: and personal property of each royal.
: I feel sure the hoop diamond necklace was
: the private property of Princess Margaret.
: [The majority of the jewels in the QD are
: the private property of the private person
: who happens to also have a very public life
: as the Queen.]
: I do believe that we place far too much
: royal connection emphasis on jewels as
: though it inhibits members of that family to
: give away their own property as they wish.
: We might feel distress at some dispersals
: but we have to live with that.
: I don't believe the Royal Collection holds
: very many former private jewels anyway - I
: mean jewellery we have seen worn over the
: last 5 to 6 reigns.
: Things get lent to the Royal Collection for
: And each "heirloom of the crown"
: as Roberts called some items, is not in the
: Royal Collection either.
: "Heirloom of the crown" is a third
: If we as private people had the wide world
: poring over our private poperty to the same
: extent we would be appalled.
: --Previous Message--
: My comment meant to imply that, unless
: protected by a "must be returned"
: ruling, Viscount Linley would have sold the
: piece. He sold a lot of things with serious
: provenance, like the collet necklace. I
: would say that he has been allowed to retain
: it for use of his family but it remains the
: property of the royal collection. This would
: also protect it if his marriage was to
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓|