--Previous Message-- : Perhaps you misunderstood me - I certainly did : not mean to be dogmatic here (and I believe : the same goes for Tamara) about a rule which : would declare historic pieces to be : untouchable and that they should by no means : be altered by a new wearer. : Jewelry collections have always evolved, : been added to and their pieces altered : according to taste and fashions, so that's a : historic habit in itself. : : IMHO, current alterations of historic pieces : are not necessarily 'sad' at all if they are : executed with respect for the original : character of the jewel itself (like the new : base of Princess Marie's flower tiara), : especiallly if they're not permanent (like : the Bernadotte amethyst tiara, which remains : convertible into the original necklace), and : in general if they can be considered an : improvement esthetically. : : In the case of the ruby tiara (only about 60 : years old in its former version), I just do : not see that any of the points above apply, : and that's why I find the changes so : unfortunate - regarding this particular : example, not in general. : : : : : --Previous Message-- : Princess Mary wore the ruby Tiara Queen : Ingrid gave to her Grandson Frederic. The : Queen never wore it and was happy to see : this tiara again. Crown Princess Mary change : the tiara and I agree totally with Tamara : and Boris It is sad to change historical : jewels. : : She owns one tiara , the one she received as : wedding present and again she added a row of : pearls. : : I visited Rosenberg Castle and saw the State : jewels and Wow.. : I hope the future Queen will never change : them. May She ? : : :