Re: Duchess of Cambridge in Lotus Tiara Archived Message
Posted by Nellie  on December 4, 2013, 5:48 am, in reply to "Re: Duchess of Cambridge in Lotus Tiara"
I cannot agree that that is proof of ownership. No reputable auction house would accept that alone.
Of course the Strathmore was the Queen Mother's.
--Previous Message--
: Alex G, I think that the Queen Mother at some
: point lent three of her tiaras to an
: exhibition: the Strathmore rose, the Teck
: crescent and the Delhi Durbar. So it must
: have belonged to her.
:
: --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.
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I agree with you Alex, it seems that the
: vast
: majority of the Queen Mother's jewels was
: put at the disposal of Prince Charles's
: family.
: I'm really surprised to see the Lotus tiara,
: and I'm happy to see it returned to the
: royal vaults, so we can have occasions to
: see it in use again. It really suits the
: duchess of Cambridge. What a nice surprise
: we had tonight!
:
: --Previous Message--
: Thank you jinja, interesting to realise that
: Princess Margaret may not have owned that
: many pieces after all.
: I suspect that the Queen Mother's jewels
: were, in their vast majority, put at the
: disposal of Prince Charles and his
: "House". The Crown pieces, such as
: the Oriental Circlet and the ruby necklace
: would have reverted to the Queen as they
: were long due to do so and we know she chose
: a few sentimental pieces as well. I think
: the rest was left to Charles for his wife
: and future daughters in law to use. It would
: be wonderful to see the Duchess in the
: turquoise tiara or the Teck necklace one day
: soon, wouldn't it?
:
: --Previous Message--
: None of the tiaras Princess Margaret wore,
: except the Poltimore, were sold at auction.
: I think it is likely that the lotus tiara
: never belonged to Princess Margaret, but was
: always the property of the Queen Mother,
: until the Queen inherited it. There is the
: odd picture of one of the Queen Mother's
: employees with the tiara askew on his head.
: I think we have surmised that it had just
: been retrieved from the vaults, very likely
: at the last minute if the Poltimore tiara
: broke, for Serena Stanhope's wedding. The
: family tiaras Margaret wore may all have
: been loans from her mother. The lotus tiara
: was originally the Queen Mother's private
: property (starting when she was Duchess of
: York), and therefore it is not part of the
: jewels reserved for the monarch. It stands
: to reason that, like the Duchess of
: Cambridge's wedding tiara, these tiaras are
: available for her to wear.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
|
|
