Re: Duchess of Cambridge in Lotus Tiara Archived Message
Posted by Nellie  on December 4, 2013, 5:43 am, in reply to "Re: Duchess of Cambridge in Lotus Tiara"
Re the Durbar, Roberts says Queen Mary loaned it to Queen Elizabeth (ie the Queen Mother) and that the Queen has loaned it to the Duchess of Cornwall.
I recall that, well before the QD, the forerunner to the British Monarchy site made the ownership of the Durbar very clear.
From 2005, here are some Q&As two months apart, in 2005 in Royal Insight which read like an intentional correction of the record, to me.
Royal Insight Q&A Aug 2005 --
Q: Sender - MD, USA
I was recently reading a biography of Queen Mary (the present Queen's grandmother) and wondered, is the tiara that she wore to the Indian Durbar still in existence? I can't recall the present Queen ever wearing it?
A:
Queen Mary's Delhi Durbar crown is still in existence. It latterly belonged to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, but is now in the private collection of The Queen. The crown has been altered somewhat, as it no longer contains the Cullinan III and IV diamonds.
Then 2 months later -
Royal Insight Q&A Nov 2005 --
Q: Jenni - Northumberland
Could you please tell me more about the lovely tiara which The Duchess of Cornwall wore at the banquet for the King and Queen of Norway?
A:
The tiara worn by The Duchess of Cornwall to the banquet for the King and Queen of Norway is known as the Durbar Tiara as it was made for Queen Mary to wear to the Delhi Durbar in 1912, during her husband George V's reign as Emperor of India.
The tiara consists of a circlet of brilliant-cut diamonds mounted in gold and set in platinum, arranged as forget-me-nots and lyres.
In 1947, Queen Mary lent the tiara to Queen Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother) for an official visit to South Africa by the King and Queen. The tiara remained with Queen Elizabeth, before being passed on to the current Queen, though it has never been worn by Her Majesty.
The Queen loaned the tiara to The Duchess of Cornwall for the Norwegian banquet.
----------
I do think that a lot of what Roberts has written deals with possession as you put it (custody perhaps?) rather than ownership. Again, that does not matter greatly.
--Previous Message--
: Thanks Nellie,
: Quick question - can you please remind me
: how we know the Durbar was left by Queen
: Mary to Queen Elizabeth II? Have we seen it
: on Queen Mary after 1947 when the Queen
: Mother wore it in South Africa ? How do we
: know it wasn't considered a family piece and
: given for use to the QM, who may have held
: on to it, as she did with the Crown pieces
: she liked.
: I don't quite see how the Queen Mother would
: have kept pieces that Queen Mary had with
: her at her death and intended the current
: Queen have and use (irrespective of who
: actually owns them, ie Crown pieces or
: "family pieces").
: Finally, re the Teck pieces Stefan mentions
: further up - do you think Roberts may be
: wrong or is it just possession vs ownership
: you are alluding to?
: Many thanks
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: The last first. The Durbar tiara for one.
:
: As for items worn by Margaret, it probably
: amounted to where the best safes were, and
: how big they were.
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I thought about that as well, but aren't
: there
: several brooches that the Queen now wears,
: as well as her wedding tiara (which appeared
: only after the QM's death)? So she clearly
: went through her mother's collection and
: picked up a few things over and above the
: Crown pieces. I don't know if the
: "trove" ever left Clarence House
: or the Queen went to inspect them, but I
: agree they were probably soon back in the
: vaults there as soon as that issue was
: arranged.
:
: I think it's an interesting question re the
: pieces Princess Margaret was loaned by her
: mother and their whereabouts during Princess
: Margaret's life - were they at Clarence
: House and loaned to her on occasion or
: permanently on loan with Princess Margaret
: at Kensington Palace?
:
: Finally Nellie, what pieces do you mean when
: you refer to jewels left by Queen Mary to
: Queen Elizabeth II ? I thought those were
: given to the Queen immediately after Queen
: Mary's death. Thanks
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: I see things a bit differently.
:
: I suspect that jewels were simply never
: removed from Clarence house at all - except
: for those items we know are heirlooms of the
: crown (I like this expression that Roberts
: introduced) and which have been worn since
: by the Queen.
: Also except for some jewels inherited by the
: Queen from Queen Mary but which the Queen
: Mother kept holding or wearing.
:
: There could easily be some disputation as
: well over ownerships, and down the years.
: But there really is no need to air it all in
: public.
: That is how I see things.
:
: And as a footnote, I thought that Roberts
: handled the broad topic of inheritances
: ultra discreetly in The Queen's Diamonds.
: The texts move ever so defly between
: expressions.
|
|
