I like the fact that Hugh Roberts organizes his book The Queen's Diamonds by successive queens, but it is a little hard to trace the history of Queen Mary's tiaras. I wish he had grouped them together and described the many changes in one place.
Queen Mary's original 1893 wedding gift tiaras could also be worn as necklaces. This was true of the very similar gifts from the County of Surrey and Queen Victoria, and of the gifts from the Ladies of England and the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland. (Roberts says three tiaras were exhibited. Maybe that was because Queen Mary wore Queen Victoria's gift as a tiara at her wedding.)
Of these four wedding gifts, only the Girls tiara has survived, in slightly altered form, Queen Mary's urge to have new pieces made as she matured and reigns succeeded each other. This tiara was given to Princess Elizabeth at her wedding in 1947 and it has probably become her favorite tiara. No one seems to have been photographed wearing the Girls tiara as a necklace. Queen Mary did wear it once as a coronet.
The County of Surrey necklace/tiara provided the large diamonds later placed atop the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara in place of the upright pearls, and part of the diamonds for the honeysuckle tiara Queen Mary had made in 1914. She gave the honeysuckle tiara to the Duchess of Gloucester in 1935.
The diamonds from Queen Victoria's necklace/tiara gift became the Fringe tiara in 1919. Perhaps because of its history, this tiara was worn by Princess Elizabeth and Princess Anne for their weddings. The Queen has now inherited Queen Mary's Fringe tiara from her mother, to whom Queen Mary gave it, and has worn it once in recent years.
Part of the diamonds from the Ladies of England tiara became the Lover's Knot tiara in 1914, along with the upright pearls from the Girls tiara. Queen Mary evidently decided upright pearls were out of style, since she eventually had them removed from the Lover's Knot tiara also. The rest of the diamonds from the Ladies of England tiara were used in the honeysuckle tiara now worn by the Duchess of Gloucester.
The tiaras Queen Mary had made or acquired later were rigid and worn only as tiaras.
The Crescents tiara that she inherited from her mother in 1897 had been assembled for the Duchess of Teck from a collection of diamond roses and crescents. This tiara, like several heirloom pieces of jewelry, has survived in the Queen's collection. It was worn at least once by Queen Elizabeth and several times by Princess Margaret. Roberts says it is loaned now to the Duchess of Cornwall, but she has not worn it.
Another early tiara that was broken up was the Boucheron loop tiara, which was made in 1902 from stones given to Queen Mary, then Princess of Wales, by deBeers in 1901. It was worn for the Coronation of King Edward VII in 1902, along with the County of Surrey gift as a necklace. See Nellie's photo at
The loop tiara was broken up and the deBeers diamonds were used again in 1911 to make the Delhi Durbar tiara. This tiara has been used with the Cambridge emeralds and two of the Cullinan diamonds, but those have all been removed. Roberts remarks that the front of the Delhi Durbar tiara has been slightly altered, but doesn't describe the alterations. Obviously, some small diamonds were removed from the top, and the space on the front where a Cullinan was worn has been filled with other diamonds. Queen Eizabeth (later QM) and the Duchess of Cornwall have each worn the Delhi Durbar tiara once.
Queen Mary acquired the Vladimir loop tiara in 1921. The only change she made was to have the Cambridge emeralds fitted as alternates to the pearl drops. Like the Fringe tiara, this one has needed to be rebuilt, but its design was not changed. The Queen frequently wears the Vladimir tiara.
Other tiaras acquired by Queen Mary have gone to different parts of her family and are not covered in the Roberts book. This is true of the Kent sapphires and other Kent tiaras, some of the Gloucester tiaras, and some of the Harewood tiaras. During the early 20th century, Queen Victoria's tiaras were scattered among her descendants. A complete history of all of those tiaras would also be very nice to have.
I hope this summary will prove useful. Please feel free to correct it and add information as necessary!
Edit: I may be wrong about Princess Margaret wearing the Teck Crescents tiara, as well as the Teck hoops necklace which she did wear frequently and left to her son. If anyone sees a picture of her in the tiara, please post.
jinja
Delhi Durbar Tiara
Posted by gwynnan on May 31, 2012, 6:14 pm, in reply to "QD Queen Mary's Tiaras" 72.240.143.128
Besides the removal of the emeralds, the top row of connecting diamonds was removed.
Re: Delhi Durbar Tiara
Posted by jinja on May 31, 2012, 7:03 pm, in reply to "Delhi Durbar Tiara" 76.230.225.118
Yes, that was one of the changes, and not just to the front of the tiara. I'm not sure whether it is also a slightly different shape now. I wish Roberts had been more specific about the changes and when they were made. Thanks for the pictures.
jinja
Re: Delhi Durbar Tiara
Posted by Nellie on May 31, 2012, 7:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Delhi Durbar Tiara" 124.170.1.127
Thanks Jinja for your coverage. I too, had hoped for more details of changes made to the Delhi Durbar tiara.
--Previous Message-- : Yes, that was one of the changes, and not just : to the front of the tiara. I'm not sure : whether it is also a slightly different : shape now. I wish Roberts had been more : specific about the changes and when they : were made. Thanks for the pictures.
Thanks, Nellie, I did spend a few hours going back and forth between different texts, photos, and captions. I wanted to get a clear picture of the evolution of these tiaras.
I made a few corrections after I posted, but they were mostly matters of odd wording that I did not label as Edit. If content changes, I will so label any changes.
You may be right about Princess Margaret and the Teck tiara. Maybe she only wore the necklace, which remains with her son. I'll keep looking for pictures, as I seem to remember her wearing the tiara. No one has worn it much since Queen Mary's mother wore it herself. I wonder how comfortable it is.
I was sorry there was not a picture of Princess Anne wearing the Fringe tiara. Odd, since I believe Roberts included a picture of Diana in the Lover's Knot tiara. It seems as though these tiaras should be traced through the family in photos as well as text.
That's why I would like to see coverage of the Queen Mary tiaras which went into other branches of the family. Other jewels, too, for that matter. The Teck circles or hoops necklace is barely mentioned. It has been worn much more often than the tiara, though not by the Queen.
Thank you for posting more comparison photos of the Delhi Durbar tiara. My impression is that Roberts either was not terribly interested in the development of that tiara, or found nothing to report. You'd think there would be notes from Queen Mary and the jewelers. But he says her records end in 1939, and Queen Elizabeth wore the tiara in 1947. Judging by your photos, the top of the tiara was altered after that. So perhaps records are missing or sketchy.
Again, I point out that the subject of the book is the Queen's diamonds, so items never in her collection, or been and gone, are not within the scope of the book. We can be grateful that notes do give us some o/t details on occasion.
The Queen Mother and the Teck crescents - acknowledgements to Boffer who supplied the pic of the Queen Mother dining. She is wearing the Duchess of Teck's tiara.
From what Roberts says, I think the Teck crescents tiara can be dismantled. Probably it was cleaned before Queen Elizabeth took it to Canada, and put back together the opposite way. The added diamond rivieres had also been removed from the base, and the tiara no longer looked like a coronet. While it was at the jewelers, it must have been stretched out onto a wider base.
Yes, this book is about diamond jewels now in the Queen's collection. I'm just wishing for one that traces tiaras and major jewels like the Teck hoops necklace through the families.
The pendant/brooch worn by Princess Mary Adelaide in your third picture has a lovely history. The Queen wears it now and then.
Edit: We were typing at the same time. Yes, I think that is the Duchess of Cambridge brooch.
I looked at the photo and thought, "Gee, that looks like John Buchan." My favourite author ("John McNab," "The Dancing Floor" etc.). And then Jinja says "Canada," and of course, it's the Governor General. Thank you both for this tangential but special (to me!) picture.
The QD clearly indicates on page 122 that the diamond hoop necklace is in the collection of Viscount Linley.
--Previous Message-- : Obviously designated as "on loan". : If Viscount Linley had inherited the piece : free & clear he would have sold it!
Re: QD Queen Mary's Tiaras
Posted by Boffer on June 1, 2012, 5:38 am, in reply to "QD Queen Mary's Tiaras" 86.146.68.16
Jinjia; many thanks for this great overview. I must say that I agree with all your inferences and points. I myself an in the process of researching into more detail what is mentioned in Roberts and have been compiling some very detailed notes, from other Secondary and Primary sources.
For example:
Queen Mary’s Ladies of England Necklace/Tiara This jewel was a wedding gift to Queen Mary in 1893 from “650 Ladies of England”,[1] and was made in Hunt and Roskell.[2] It was described in The Times, as a “pearl and diamond ornament … made up of scrolls wrought in diamonds over fleur-de-lis in larger stones. From each group hangs a drop-pearl, that falling from the centre cluster being fully an inch in length”.[3] It was exhibited at the Imperial Institute among some of her other wedding gifts, as photographed in The Graphic.[4] It was designed to be worn both as a tiara,[5] as a necklace,[6] and as a bandeau to trim the corsage of a gown, as it was worn to the Devonshire House Ball in 1897;[7] and it could also be detached “so as to be converted into several smaller ornaments”.[8] It was featured in Volume I of Queen Mary’s Photographic jewellery inventory,[9] and Queen Mary also kept a record of all the 650 ladies who had subscribed to the gift in a special presentation volume.[10] Queen Mary wrote to Lady Elizabeth Biddulph in June 1893, asking her to “accept and convey to the ladies of England my grateful thanks for the very beautiful necklace”.[11] She also wrote a letter to Lady Eva Greville in July of that year, in which she described the tiara as one of her “most valued wedding gifts as a precious proof of your good will and affection”.[12] However, by 1913 the decision was taken to dismantle this tiara. “12 pearl drops” from this tiara,[13] and the majority of the diamonds were used to create ‘Queen Mary’s Lover’s Knot Tiara’.[14] With the remaining “33 brilliants and 3 rose diamonds” being used to create ‘Queen Mary’s Greek Tiara’.[15]
Notes [1] Bow Bells, 7 July 1893, p. 32 [2] Hugh Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, (London: Royal Collection Publications, 2012), p. 182 [3] The Times, 24 June 1893, p. 14 [4] The Graphic, 15 July 1893, p. 88 [5] Suzy Menkes, The Royal Jewels, (London: Grafton Books, 1985), p. 65 [6] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 146 (RCIN 2808111) [7] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 138 (RCIN 4926140) [8] The Times, 24 June 1893, p. 14 [9] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 113; RA QM/PRIV/CC93, pl. 5a, no. 4 [10] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 182; RA QM/PRIV/CC64 [11] The Times, 28 June 1893, p. 10 [12] The Times, 10 July 1893, p. 6 [13] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 182 [14] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 182; GA Garrard RL3, fol. 94, 23 January 1914 [15] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 164; GA Garrard RL3, fol. 95, 21 April 1914
Queen Mary's County of Surrey Necklace/Tiara This tiara was a wedding-gift to Queen Mary in 1893 from the County of Surrey, and was presented to her by the Earl of Lovelace, in his capacity as Lord-Lieutenant of the county. It was described in The Times as being a tiara “composed entirely of brilliants of large size and … convertible at will into a necklace”.[1] It was illustrated among her wedding gifts in the Illustrated London News,[2] and was exhibited at the Imperial Institute among the three tiaras that featured in the exhibition of the wedding-gifts TRHs had received; a photograph from this exhibition featured in The Graphic.[3] This tiara also features in Queen Mary’s photographic jewellery inventory.[4] This piece was photographed being worn as a necklace, along with ‘Queen Mary’s Boucheron Loop Tiara’,[5] by W & D Downey, to mark the visit of the then Prince and Princess of Wales to India between 1905 and 1906.[6] It was also photographed being worn as a tiara by Queen Mary with ‘Queen Mary’s Kapurthala Stomacher’.[7] It was dismantled in 1913, with the biggest “13 large brilliants” being used “furnish tops to [Queen Mary's] Girls of Great Britain [and Ireland] Tiara in place of pearls”, for the cost of £34.[8] The rest of the stones were used to create a new “Greek honeysuckle pattern Tiara”, ‘Queen Mary’s Greek Tiara’.[9]
Notes [1] The Times, 23 June 1893, p. 10 [2] Illustrated London News, 6 July 1893 [3] The Graphic, 15 July 1893, p. 88 [4]Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 139; RA QM/PRIV/CC93, pl. 5a, no. 1. [5] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 156 (RCIN 2808148); Geoffrey Munn, Tiaras: A History of Splendor, (London: Antique Collectors’ Club, 2001), p. 132. [6] Munn, Tiaras, p. 133 [7] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 194 (Note: This picture shows the tiara being worn in the base of the ‘Girls and Great Britain Tiara’). [8] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 136, GA Garrard RL3, fol. 95, 21 April 1914; RA JEWEL/GARRARD/QM, fol. 80, no. 2. [9] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 164; GA Garrard RL3, fol. 95, 21 April 1914
I am in the process of compiling notes as detailed and well referenced as these; on every jewel mentioned in the various publications of Royal Jewellery Scholarship. It is my new project.
--Previous Message-- : I like the fact that Hugh Roberts organizes : his book The Queen's Diamonds by successive : queens, but it is a little hard to trace the : history of Queen Mary's tiaras. I wish he : had grouped them together and described the : many changes in one place. : : Queen Mary's original 1893 wedding gift : tiaras could also be worn as necklaces. : This was true of the very similar gifts from : the County of Surrey and Queen Victoria, and : of the gifts from the Ladies of England and : the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland. : (Roberts says three tiaras were exhibited. : Maybe that was because Queen Mary wore Queen : Victoria's gift as a tiara at her wedding.) : : Of these four wedding gifts, only the Girls : tiara has survived, in slightly altered : form, Queen Mary's urge to have new pieces : made as she matured and reigns succeeded : each other. This tiara was given to : Princess Elizabeth at her wedding in 1947 : and it has probably become her favorite : tiara. No one seems to have been : photographed wearing the Girls tiara as a : necklace. Queen Mary did wear it once as a : coronet. : : The County of Surrey necklace/tiara provided : the large diamonds later placed atop the : Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara in : place of the upright pearls, and part of the : diamonds for the honeysuckle tiara Queen : Mary had made in 1914. She gave the : honeysuckle tiara to the Duchess of : Gloucester in 1935. : : The diamonds from Queen Victoria's : necklace/tiara gift became the Fringe tiara : in 1919. Perhaps because of its history, : this tiara was worn by Princess Elizabeth : and Princess Anne for their weddings. The : Queen has now inherited Queen Mary's Fringe : tiara from her mother, to whom Queen Mary : gave it, and has worn it once in recent : years. : : Part of the diamonds from the Ladies of : England tiara became the Lover's Knot tiara : in 1914, along with the upright pearls from : the Girls tiara. Queen Mary evidently : decided upright pearls were out of style, : since she eventually had them removed from : the Lover's Knot tiara also. The rest of : the diamonds from the Ladies of England : tiara were used in the honeysuckle tiara now : worn by the Duchess of Gloucester. : : The tiaras Queen Mary had made or acquired : later were rigid and worn only as tiaras. : : The Crescents tiara that she inherited from : her mother in 1897 had been assembled for : the Duchess of Teck from a collection of : diamond roses and crescents. This tiara, : like several heirloom pieces of jewelry, has : survived in the Queen's collection. It was : worn at least once by Queen Elizabeth and : several times by Princess Margaret. Roberts : says it is loaned now to the Duchess of : Cornwall, but she has not worn it. : : Another early tiara that was broken up was : the Boucheron loop tiara, which was made in : 1902 from stones given to Queen Mary, then : Princess of Wales, by deBeers in 1901. It : was worn for the Coronation of King Edward : VII in 1902, along with the County of Surrey : gift as a necklace. See Nellie's photo at : : : http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1338253778.html : : The loop tiara was broken up and the deBeers : diamonds were used again in 1911 to make the : Delhi Durbar tiara. This tiara has been : used with the Cambridge emeralds and two of : the Cullinan diamonds, but those have all : been removed. Roberts remarks that the : front of the Delhi Durbar tiara has been : slightly altered, but doesn't describe the : alterations. Obviously, some small diamonds : were removed from the top, and the space on : the front where a Cullinan was worn has been : filled with other diamonds. Queen Eizabeth : (later QM) and the Duchess of Cornwall have : each worn the Delhi Durbar tiara once. : : Queen Mary acquired the Vladimir loop tiara : in 1921. The only change she made was to : have the Cambridge emeralds fitted as : alternates to the pearl drops. Like the : Fringe tiara, this one has needed to be : rebuilt, but its design was not changed. : The Queen frequently wears the Vladimir : tiara. : : Other tiaras acquired by Queen Mary have : gone to different parts of her family and : are not covered in the Roberts book. This : is true of the Kent sapphires and other Kent : tiaras, some of the Gloucester tiaras, and : some of the Harewood tiaras. During the : early 20th century, Queen Victoria's tiaras : were scattered among her descendants. A : complete history of all of those tiaras : would also be very nice to have. : : I hope this summary will prove useful. : Please feel free to correct it and add : information as necessary! : : : :
Thank you, Boffer! I am going to print your notes and save them with my book. Your new project will provide a wonderful resource if you publish it.
jinja
The tiara looks pretty wide on Queen Elizabeth, maybe too wide for her. That could be the reason it hasn't been worn much.
This is the reverse of what I said about the Girls tiara in another thread. A tiara looped into a circle becomes a coronet, and vice versa. But the Crescents coronet does look larger than the Girls coronet.
Does Roberts say how many roses were used in the coronet? If it was four, one may have been removed for the tiara. Is there perhaps such a brooch?
jinja
I don't find a coronet idea at all useful for discussing the crescent tiara.
I just study all the pics of it I have. It is shorter now than when worn by the Duchess of Teck, when it looks like a complete circle.
--Previous Message-- : The tiara looks pretty wide on Queen : Elizabeth, maybe too wide for her. That : could be the reason it hasn't been worn : much. : : This is the reverse of what I said about the : Girls tiara in another thread. A tiara : looped into a circle becomes a coronet, and : vice versa. But the Crescents coronet does : look larger than the Girls coronet. : : Does Roberts say how many roses were used in : the coronet? If it was four, one may have : been removed for the tiara. Is there : perhaps such a brooch? :
A complete circle does not mean a coronet. EDIT: a lady's coronet sits right on top of the head. A circlet goes around the head, like a hatband does.
--Previous Message-- : I was calling the complete circle a coronet. : I do think it was a closed circle on the : Duchess and an open tiara on Queen : Elizabeth. :
The Duchess wore it around braids of hair. I would consider it atop her head, but I think it's a matter of opinion. Would you consider the head pieces of the little princesses at 1937 coronation to be coronets?
jinja
Consider? They were coronets!! The elements were their entitlements as princesses.
--Previous Message-- : The Duchess wore it around braids of hair. I : would consider it atop her head, but I think : it's a matter of opinion. Would you : consider the head pieces of the little : princesses at 1937 coronation to be : coronets? :
The Princesses were small children and their coronets were adapted accordingly and without caps. Princess Mary, for the previous coronation, was a teenager and able to successfully wear her coronet in the full style of a lady.
--Previous Message-- : : Consider? They were coronets!! : The elements were their entitlements as : princesses. : : : --Previous Message-- : The Duchess wore it around braids of hair. I : would consider it atop her head, but I think : it's a matter of opinion. Would you : consider the head pieces of the little : princesses at 1937 coronation to be : coronets? : : :
I may be wrong about Princess Margaret wearing the Teck Crescents tiara, as well as the Teck hoops necklace which she did wear frequently and left to her son. If anyone sees a picture of her in the tiara, please post.
No, I knew about that Margaret, and actually she looked best of anyone in the tiara. The necklaces were lovely with it, and she had the right hair style.
There seems to be some mystery about how the tiara and necklace got from that generation of the Tecks to Queen Elizabeth.
jinja
--Previous Message-- : Jinjia; many thanks for this great overview. I : must say that I agree with all your : inferences and points. I myself an in the : process of researching into more detail what : is mentioned in Roberts and have been : compiling some very detailed notes, from : other Secondary and Primary sources. : : For example: : : Queen Mary’s Ladies of England : Necklace/Tiara : This jewel was a wedding gift to Queen : Mary in 1893 from “650 Ladies of : England”,[1] and was made in Hunt and : Roskell.[2] It was described in The Times, : as a “pearl and diamond ornament … made up : of scrolls wrought in diamonds over : fleur-de-lis in larger stones. From each : group hangs a drop-pearl, that falling from : the centre cluster being fully an inch in : length”.[3] It was exhibited at the : Imperial Institute among some of her other : wedding gifts, as photographed in The : Graphic.[4] : It was designed to be worn both as a : tiara,[5] as a necklace,[6] and as a : bandeau to trim the corsage of a gown, as it : was worn to the Devonshire House Ball in : 1897;[7] and it could also be detached “so : as to be converted into several smaller : ornaments”.[8] It was featured in Volume I : of Queen Mary’s Photographic jewellery : inventory,[9] and Queen Mary also kept a : record of all the 650 ladies who had : subscribed to the gift in a special : presentation volume.[10] : Queen Mary wrote to Lady Elizabeth : Biddulph in June 1893, asking her to “accept : and convey to the ladies of England my : grateful thanks for the very beautiful : necklace”.[11] She also wrote a letter to : Lady Eva Greville in July of that year, in : which she described the tiara as one of her : “most valued wedding gifts as a precious : proof of your good will and affection”.[12] : However, by 1913 the decision was taken : to dismantle this tiara. “12 pearl drops” : from this tiara,[13] and the majority of : the diamonds were used to create ‘Queen : Mary’s Lover’s Knot Tiara’.[14] With the : remaining “33 brilliants and 3 rose : diamonds” being used to create ‘Queen Mary’s : Greek Tiara’.[15] : : Notes : [1] Bow Bells , 7 July 1893, p. 32 : [2] Hugh Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, : (London: Royal Collection Publications, : 2012), p. 182 : [3] The Times, 24 June 1893, p. 14 : [4] The Graphic , 15 July 1893, p. 88 : [5] Suzy Menkes, The Royal Jewels, (London: : Grafton Books, 1985), p. 65 : [6] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 146 : (RCIN 2808111) : [7] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 138 : (RCIN 4926140) : [8] The Times , 24 June 1893, p. 14 : [9] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 113; : RA QM/PRIV/CC93, pl. 5a, no. 4 : [10] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 182; : RA QM/PRIV/CC64 : [11] The Times , 28 June 1893, p. 10 : [12] The Times , 10 July 1893, p. 6 : [13] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 182 : [14] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 182; : GA Garrard RL3, fol. 94, 23 January 1914 : [15] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 164; : GA Garrard RL3, fol. 95, 21 April 1914 : : Queen Mary's County of Surrey : Necklace/Tiara : This tiara was a wedding-gift to Queen : Mary in 1893 from the County of Surrey, and : was presented to her by the Earl of : Lovelace, in his capacity as Lord-Lieutenant : of the county. It was described in The Times : as being a tiara “composed entirely of : brilliants of large size and … convertible : at will into a necklace”.[1] : It was illustrated among her wedding : gifts in the Illustrated London News,[2] : and was exhibited at the Imperial Institute : among the three tiaras that featured in the : exhibition of the wedding-gifts TRHs had : received; a photograph from this exhibition : featured in The Graphic.[3] This tiara also : features in Queen Mary’s photographic : jewellery inventory.[4] : This piece was photographed being worn as : a necklace, along with ‘Queen Mary’s : Boucheron Loop Tiara’,[5] by W & D : Downey, to mark the visit of the then Prince : and Princess of Wales to India between 1905 : and 1906.[6] It was also photographed being : worn as a tiara by Queen Mary with ‘Queen : Mary’s Kapurthala Stomacher’.[7] : It was dismantled in 1913, with the : biggest “13 large brilliants” being used : “furnish tops to [Queen Mary's] Girls of : Great Britain [and Ireland] Tiara in place : of pearls”, for the cost of £34.[8] : The rest of the stones were used to : create a new “Greek honeysuckle pattern : Tiara”, ‘Queen Mary’s Greek Tiara’.[9] : : Notes : [1] The Times , 23 June 1893, p. 10 : [2] Illustrated London News , 6 July 1893 : [3] The Graphic , 15 July 1893, p. 88 : [4]Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 139; RA : QM/PRIV/CC93, pl. 5a, no. 1. : [5] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 156 : (RCIN 2808148); Geoffrey Munn, Tiaras: A : History of Splendor, (London: Antique : Collectors’ Club, 2001), p. 132. : [6] Munn, Tiaras, p. 133 : [7] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 194 : (Note: This picture shows the tiara being : worn in the base of the ‘Girls and Great : Britain Tiara’). : [8] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 136, : GA Garrard RL3, fol. 95, 21 April 1914; : RA JEWEL/GARRARD/QM, fol. 80, no. 2. : [9] Roberts, The Queen’s Diamonds, p. 164; : GA Garrard RL3, fol. 95, 21 April 1914 : : I am in the process of compiling notes as : detailed and well referenced as these; on : every jewel mentioned in the various : publications of Royal Jewellery Scholarship. : It is my new project. : : : --Previous Message-- : I like the fact that Hugh Roberts organizes : his book The Queen's Diamonds by successive : queens, but it is a little hard to trace the : history of Queen Mary's tiaras. I wish he : had grouped them together and described the : many changes in one place. : : Queen Mary's original 1893 wedding gift : tiaras could also be worn as necklaces. : This was true of the very similar gifts from : the County of Surrey and Queen Victoria, and : of the gifts from the Ladies of England and : the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland. : (Roberts says three tiaras were exhibited. : Maybe that was because Queen Mary wore Queen : Victoria's gift as a tiara at her wedding.) : : Of these four wedding gifts, only the Girls : tiara has survived, in slightly altered : form, Queen Mary's urge to have new pieces : made as she matured and reigns succeeded : each other. This tiara was given to : Princess Elizabeth at her wedding in 1947 : and it has probably become her favorite : tiara. No one seems to have been : photographed wearing the Girls tiara as a : necklace. Queen Mary did wear it once as a : coronet. : : The County of Surrey necklace/tiara provided : the large diamonds later placed atop the : Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara in : place of the upright pearls, and part of the : diamonds for the honeysuckle tiara Queen : Mary had made in 1914. She gave the : honeysuckle tiara to the Duchess of : Gloucester in 1935. : : The diamonds from Queen Victoria's : necklace/tiara gift became the Fringe tiara : in 1919. Perhaps because of its history, : this tiara was worn by Princess Elizabeth : and Princess Anne for their weddings. The : Queen has now inherited Queen Mary's Fringe : tiara from her mother, to whom Queen Mary : gave it, and has worn it once in recent : years. : : Part of the diamonds from the Ladies of : England tiara became the Lover's Knot tiara : in 1914, along with the upright pearls from : the Girls tiara. Queen Mary evidently : decided upright pearls were out of style, : since she eventually had them removed from : the Lover's Knot tiara also. The rest of : the diamonds from the Ladies of England : tiara were used in the honeysuckle tiara now : worn by the Duchess of Gloucester. : : The tiaras Queen Mary had made or acquired : later were rigid and worn only as tiaras. : : The Crescents tiara that she inherited from : her mother in 1897 had been assembled for : the Duchess of Teck from a collection of : diamond roses and crescents. This tiara, : like several heirloom pieces of jewelry, has : survived in the Queen's collection. It was : worn at least once by Queen Elizabeth and : several times by Princess Margaret. Roberts : says it is loaned now to the Duchess of : Cornwall, but she has not worn it. : : Another early tiara that was broken up was : the Boucheron loop tiara, which was made in : 1902 from stones given to Queen Mary, then : Princess of Wales, by deBeers in 1901. It : was worn for the Coronation of King Edward : VII in 1902, along with the County of Surrey : gift as a necklace. See Nellie's photo at : : : : http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1338253778.html : : The loop tiara was broken up and the deBeers : diamonds were used again in 1911 to make the : Delhi Durbar tiara. This tiara has been : used with the Cambridge emeralds and two of : the Cullinan diamonds, but those have all : been removed. Roberts remarks that the : front of the Delhi Durbar tiara has been : slightly altered, but doesn't describe the : alterations. Obviously, some small diamonds : were removed from the top, and the space on : the front where a Cullinan was worn has been : filled with other diamonds. Queen Eizabeth : (later QM) and the Duchess of Cornwall have : each worn the Delhi Durbar tiara once. : : Queen Mary acquired the Vladimir loop tiara : in 1921. The only change she made was to : have the Cambridge emeralds fitted as : alternates to the pearl drops. Like the : Fringe tiara, this one has needed to be : rebuilt, but its design was not changed. : The Queen frequently wears the Vladimir : tiara. : : Other tiaras acquired by Queen Mary have : gone to different parts of her family and : are not covered in the Roberts book. This : is true of the Kent sapphires and other Kent : tiaras, some of the Gloucester tiaras, and : some of the Harewood tiaras. During the : early 20th century, Queen Victoria's tiaras : were scattered among her descendants. A : complete history of all of those tiaras : would also be very nice to have. : : I hope this summary will prove useful. : Please feel free to correct it and add : information as necessary! : : : : : :
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 founder.
--Previous Message-- : : The QD clearly indicates on page 122 that : the diamond hoop necklace is in the : collection of Viscount Linley. : : : --Previous Message-- : Obviously designated as "on loan". : If Viscount Linley had inherited the piece : free & clear he would have sold it! : :
I read James Pope's biography on Queen Mary and I like the Duchess of Teck. How did the Tecks aquire such fine pieces of jewels while still strapped for cash all the time? Are there any books written about Queen Alexandra?
--Previous Message-- : From what Roberts says, I think the Teck : crescents tiara can be dismantled. Probably : it was cleaned before Queen Elizabeth took : it to Canada, and put back together the : opposite way. The added diamond rivieres : had also been removed from the base, and the : tiara no longer looked like a coronet. : While it was at the jewelers, it must have : been stretched out onto a wider base. : : Yes, this book is about diamond jewels now : in the Queen's collection. I'm just wishing : for one that traces tiaras and major jewels : like the Teck hoops necklace through the : families. : : The pendant/brooch worn by Princess Mary : Adelaide in your third picture has a lovely : history. The Queen wears it now and then. : : Edit: We were typing at the same time. Yes, : I think that is the Duchess of Cambridge : brooch. : :
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 exhibitions.
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 category.
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 : founder.
--Previous Message-- : I would think that anything he didn't sell has : some kind of protection. He's proved himself : to be a mercenary sort! : : --Previous Message-- : Do you suspect that the palmette tiara is : also : protected? : : :
Queen Alexandra by Georgina Battiscombe Queen Alexandra by W R H Trowbridge Queen Alexandra by Sir George Arthur Queen Alexandra: the Nation’s Pride by Mrs C N Williamson The Life of Queen Alexandra by Sarah A Tooley Unpredictable Queen: The Intimate Life of Queen Alexandra by E E P Tisdall
--Previous Message-- : I read James Pope's biography on Queen Mary : and I like the Duchess of Teck. How did the : Tecks aquire such fine pieces of jewels : while still strapped for cash all the time? : Are there any books written about Queen : Alexandra?
Re'- Whats in a Name
Posted by wymanda on June 2, 2012, 6:43 am, in reply to "Re: "ownership" again" 203.206.71.193
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"
--Previous Message-- : : 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 : exhibitions. : : 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 : category. : : 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 : founder. : :
Re: Re'- Whats in a Name
Posted by Nellie on June 2, 2012, 6:59 am, in reply to "Re'- Whats in a Name" 124.170.1.127
To the best of my knowedge there are no such things.
As I understand it, Linley is the outright owner of the hoop diamond necklace, to do with as he wishes. And I assume some items worn by Lady Sarah are her private property also, to do with as she wishes also.
--Previous Message-- : 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" :
I suspect that Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto retained enough jewelry for normal personal use and for an occasion such as a coronation. They each have a tiara, he has the necklace, and she has some nice pearl pieces.
jinja
Unfortunately Nellie I can't afford to buy it. I've got it on order from the library.
I did not think there was anything official in the "names" I suggested but thought it might be a way to indicate where these pieces came from and that, just maybe, HM might have put some protection on these pieces. We all know that Linley sold almost all of his Mothers possessions and, even after death duties, made a sizeable profit for himself & his sister. He even had his father against the sale of some items.
--Previous Message-- : : Wymanda - have you seen the QD book? : : The line of inheritance is in there in many : many cases. : :
Ah! The library. Good move. I hope they are ordering it and that you are top of their list for borrowing it.
--Previous Message-- : Unfortunately Nellie I can't afford to buy it. : I've got it on order from the library. : : I did not think there was anything official : in the "names" I suggested but : thought it might be a way to indicate where : these pieces came from and that, just maybe, : HM might have put some protection on these : pieces. : We all know that Linley sold almost all of : his Mothers possessions and, even after : death duties, made a sizeable profit for : himself & his sister. He even had his : father against the sale of some items. : : --Previous Message-- : : Wymanda - have you seen the QD book? : : The line of inheritance is in there in many : many cases.
Lord Linley sold part of his inheritance. He and his sister did keep several of Princess Margaret's jewels though. The Lotustiara, the turquoise parure, the Snowdown tiara and the Teck circle tiara/necklace all remain with them. Im guessing that Lady Sarah has the Snowdown tiara as it was her wedding tiara and she's been seen wearing parts of it as brooches. Considering that lady Linley wore the Lotus tiara for her wedding it's likely that piece has been inherited by Lord Linley and still is his. That leaves the Teck circle tiara/necklace and the turquoise parure. Neither Lady Sarah nor Lady Linley have been seen in them so who owns what is unknown. Considering Lord Linley sold the Poltimore tiara and the diamond necklace of his mother im guessing the turquoise parure is with lady Sarah and the Teck necklace/tiara could be with either of the late Princess' children.
--Previous Message-- : Unfortunately Nellie I can't afford to buy it. : I've got it on order from the library. : : I did not think there was anything official : in the "names" I suggested but : thought it might be a way to indicate where : these pieces came from and that, just maybe, : HM might have put some protection on these : pieces. : We all know that Linley sold almost all of : his Mothers possessions and, even after : death duties, made a sizeable profit for : himself & his sister. He even had his : father against the sale of some items. : : --Previous Message-- : : Wymanda - have you seen the QD book? : : The line of inheritance is in there in many : many cases. : : : : :
Hugh Roberts, on page 122 in The Queen's Diamonds, refers to a hoop diamond necklace, now in the collection of Viscount Linkey, in the section on what we knew before as the Teck crescents tiara.
--Previous Message-- : Lord Linley sold part of his inheritance. He : and his sister did keep several of Princess : Margaret's jewels though. The Lotustiara, : the turquoise parure, the Snowdown tiara and : the Teck circle tiara/necklace all remain : with them. Im guessing that Lady Sarah has : the Snowdown tiara as it was her wedding : tiara and she's been seen wearing parts of : it as brooches. Considering that lady Linley : wore the Lotus tiara for her wedding it's : likely that piece has been inherited by Lord : Linley and still is his. That leaves the : Teck circle tiara/necklace and the turquoise : parure. Neither Lady Sarah nor Lady Linley : have been seen in them so who owns what is : unknown. Considering Lord Linley sold the : Poltimore tiara and the diamond necklace of : his mother im guessing the turquoise parure : is with lady Sarah and the Teck : necklace/tiara could be with either of the : late Princess' children. :
