--Previous Message-- : : This is what happened to the tiara when : owned by Mrs Rose Movius Palmer. Pic from : the LIFE archive. : : : : : "Without social history, economic history is barren and political history is intelligible" G.M. Trevelyan
She was an extremely wealthy American who liked diamond jewellery. I googled but did not quickly find a link to use here.
--Previous Message-- : Who was this lady? : : --Previous Message-- : : This is what happened to the tiara when : owned by Mrs Rose Movius Palmer. Pic from : the LIFE archive. : : : : : : :
She may have liked diamond jewelry, but to me, she ruined the tiara. --Previous Message-- : : She was an extremely wealthy American who : liked diamond jewellery. I googled but did : not quickly find a link to use here. : : : : : --Previous Message-- : Who was this lady? : : --Previous Message-- : : This is what happened to the tiara when : owned by Mrs Rose Movius Palmer. Pic from : the LIFE archive. : : : : : : : : :
I think the turquoises were an unfortunate choice. Diamonds or pearls would have been so much nicer. I wonder where the tiara is today.
--Previous Message-- : : She may have liked diamond jewelry, but to : me, she ruined the tiara. : --Previous Message-- : : She was an extremely wealthy American who : liked diamond jewellery. I googled but did : not quickly find a link to use here. : : : : : --Previous Message-- : Who was this lady? : : --Previous Message-- : : This is what happened to the tiara when : owned by Mrs Rose Movius Palmer. Pic from : the LIFE archive. : : : : : : : : : : :
The tiara was recently photographed on the wife of a Peer attending the State Opening of Parliament.
So it is back in the hands of the British Peerage, although no-one was able to identify the woman in question.
--Previous Message-- : : I think the turquoises were an unfortunate : choice. : Diamonds or pearls would have been so much : nicer. : I wonder where the tiara is today. : : : --Previous Message-- : : She may have liked diamond jewelry, but to : me, she ruined the tiara. : --Previous Message-- : : She was an extremely wealthy American who : liked diamond jewellery. I googled but did : not quickly find a link to use here. : : : : : --Previous Message-- : Who was this lady? : : --Previous Message-- : : This is what happened to the tiara when : owned by Mrs Rose Movius Palmer. Pic from : the LIFE archive. : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Oh yes, Boffer. I forgot that. Someone is sure to come up with the pic.
--Previous Message-- : The tiara was recently photographed on the : wife of a Peer attending the State Opening : of Parliament. : : So it is back in the hands of the British : Peerage, although no-one was able to : identify the woman in question. :
Mrs. Palmer belonged to the Potter Palmer family of Chicago, who owned the famous Palmer House Hotel. These were the best references I could find. Others listed her among donors to the Chicago Art Institute's textiles wing.
There is a gap in the story of the Arcot diamonds on the Famous Diamonds website:
- Given to Queen Charlotte - Willed by Queen Charlotte to her daughters, but usurped by George IV - To William IV and Queen Adelaide - Sold by the executors of Bridges
What happened between William IV/Queen Adelaide and the sale by the executors? Why didn't they go to Queen Victoria by inheritance, like the other Crown Jewels?
Some amazing photos,some i have not seen before.A magnificent tiara,one of the finest ever made,for stones and design,in my opinion up there with the worlds greatest tiaras.Thanks to everyone for all the pictures and information.
--Previous Message-- : There is a gap in the story of the Arcot : diamonds on the Famous Diamonds website: : : - Given to Queen Charlotte : - Willed by Queen Charlotte to her : daughters, but usurped by George IV : - To William IV and Queen Adelaide : - Sold by the executors of Bridges : : What happened between William IV/Queen : Adelaide and the sale by the executors? Why : didn't they go to Queen Victoria by : inheritance, like the other Crown Jewels? : : --Previous Message-- : : : --Previous Message-- : Lovely photo with one of Sotheby's female : staff wearing the Duchess of Westminster's : tiara, with Arcot diamonds, from 1959 : : : : http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/antiques-jewellery-tiaras-london/Memory/08629ec4-bd9f-44fc-99f8-a00b00db794b : : : : :
Source: George III & Queen Charlotte; Patronage Collecting and Court Taste, Edited by Jane Roberts, Essays by Christopher Lloyd and Jonathan Marsden, Royal Collection Publications, 2004
In 1767 the Nabob of Arcot “presented George III and Queen Charlotte with a gift of arms and jewels which included seven large diamonds, subsequently known as the Arcot diamonds. In her will Queen Charlotte specifically directed that they were to be sold and the money divided among her four younget surviving daughters. George IV disregarded his mother’s will and claimed the diamonds as his own personal property, apparently setting them into the new Imperial State Crown in 1821. After the coronation of William IV and Queen Adelaide in 1831 - when the diamonds were set in the Queen’s crown - the diamonds were sold to Rundells, who auctioned them at Willis’s Rooms, St James’s, on 20 July 1837. There they were purchased by the Emanuel Brothers, who sold them to the 1st Marquess of Westminster for £11,000. In 1930 the two largest stones were set in the Westminster tiara, .....”
EDITED much later Queen Victoria acceded to the throne on 20 June 1837
Queen Charlotte divided her jewels in three parts in her Will - 1. the hereditary jewels from the collection of George II (yes, 2) 2. the Arcots 3. her remaining jewels.
The Arcots were not the “Hanoverian jewels” which were the subject of the Hanoverian claim. They were gifts to George III and Charlotte and she had willed them to be sold. It seems, from reading Bury in particular on the Hanoverian Claim, that Queen Adelaide was scrupulous about handing over things to her late husband’s executors. Remember, at this point that Queen Victoria was an18 year old girl.
It seems that people decided to honour Charlotte’s expressed wish for the Arcots to be sold.
EDITED: for further comment -
It is still not clear if the Arcots were sold during the reign of William IV or after.
--Previous Message-- : : Source: George III & Queen Charlotte; : Patronage Collecting and Court Taste , : Edited by Jane Roberts, Essays by : Christopher Lloyd and Jonathan Marsden, : Royal Collection Publications, 2004 : : In 1767 the Nabob of Arcot “presented George : III and Queen Charlotte with a gift of arms : and jewels which included seven large : diamonds, subsequently known as the Arcot : diamonds. In her will Queen Charlotte : specifically directed that they were to be : sold and the money divided among her four : younget surviving daughters. George IV : disregarded his mother’s will and claimed : the diamonds as his own personal property, : apparently setting them into the new : Imperial State Crown in 1821. After the : coronation of William IV and Queen Adelaide : in 1831 - when the diamonds were set in the : Queen’s crown - the diamonds were sold to : Rundells, who auctioned them at Willis’s : Rooms, St James’s, on 20 July 1837. There : they were purchased by the Emanuel Brothers, : who sold them to the 1st Marquess of : Westminster for £11,000. In 1930 the two : largest stones were set in the Westminster : tiara, .....” :
Re: Further clarification
Posted by Boffer on May 9, 2012, 6:21 pm, in reply to "Further clarification" 31.52.154.109
Judging by the time frame, in that the diamonds were sold exactly a month after Queen Victoria's accession. It seems likely that she never had possession of them, and that William IV's Will must have expressly ordered that the Arcot diamonds, should be sold in compliance with his mother's wishes, instead of passing to Queen Victoria.
Thus I would say that Queen Victoria never wore, nor owned the Arcots; owing to the fact that it was only a month's delay from William IV's death to their sale.
They must have passed into the hands of lawyers who decided to sell them in compliance with Queen Charlotte's Will and/or William IV's.
--Previous Message-- : : This needs further clarification. : : Queen Charlotte divided her jewels in three : parts in her Will - : 1. the hereditary jewels from the collection : of George II (yes, 2) : 2. the Arcots : 3. her remaining jewels. : : The Arcots were not the “Hanoverian jewels” : which were the subject of the Hanoverian : claim. : They were gifts to George III and Charlotte : and she had willed them to be sold. It : seems, from reading Bury in particular on : the Hanoverian Claim, that Queen Adelaide : was scrupulous about handing over things to : her late husband’s executors. : Remember, at this point that Queen Victoria : was an18 year old girl. : : It seems that people decided to honour : Charlotte’s expressed wish for the Arcots to : be sold. : : EDITED: for further comment - : : It is still not clear if the Arcots were : sold during the reign of William IV or : after. : : : --Previous Message-- : : Source: George III & Queen Charlotte; : Patronage Collecting and Court Taste , : Edited by Jane Roberts, Essays by : Christopher Lloyd and Jonathan Marsden, : Royal Collection Publications, 2004 : : In 1767 the Nabob of Arcot “presented George : III and Queen Charlotte with a gift of arms : and jewels which included seven large : diamonds, subsequently known as the Arcot : diamonds. In her will Queen Charlotte : specifically directed that they were to be : sold and the money divided among her four : younget surviving daughters. George IV : disregarded his mother’s will and claimed : the diamonds as his own personal property, : apparently setting them into the new : Imperial State Crown in 1821. After the : coronation of William IV and Queen Adelaide : in 1831 - when the diamonds were set in the : Queen’s crown - the diamonds were sold to : Rundells, who auctioned them at Willis’s : Rooms, St James’s, on 20 July 1837. There : they were purchased by the Emanuel Brothers, : who sold them to the 1st Marquess of : Westminster for £11,000. In 1930 the two : largest stones were set in the Westminster : tiara, .....” : : : :
I agree that it is unlikely that Queen Victoria ever had the Arcots.
But I would think the decision to put them up for sale must have been taken during the reign of William IV, when it was well understood by the Royal Family and the Court that, on his death, the crowns would be divided and all property would need to be identified and divided too.
I would think it was William IV, encouraged by Queen Adelaide, who took the opportunity to resolve the fate of the Arcots in his Will, and honour Queen Charlotte's wishes. If so, then his executors would have sent the Arcots for sale.
Of course in all this we have not yet considered what the Will of George IV might have covered.
--Previous Message-- : Judging by the time frame, in that the : diamonds were sold exactly a month after : Queen Victoria's accession. It seems likely : that she never had possession of them, and : that William IV's Will must have expressly : ordered that the Arcot diamonds, should be : sold in compliance with his mother's wishes, : instead of passing to Queen Victoria. : : Thus I would say that Queen Victoria never : wore, nor owned the Arcots; owing to the : fact that it was only a month's delay from : William IV's death to their sale. : : They must have passed into the hands of : lawyers who decided to sell them in : compliance with Queen Charlotte's Will : and/or William IV's. :
