Royal Jewels

[neil31uk]

It's all very confusing with the titles, as there seems to be no consistency in the application -e'g Princess Alice being allowed to be called that, and Edward being made an Earl when he could have been a Marquis and still been below a Duke so he could inherit his father's title. I have to remind myself that he is still a prince as well as an earl!

Just for clarification, the five levels of peerage int he UK are:
Duke
Marquis
Earl
Viscount
Baron

After Baron there is a Baronet, think of it as a hereditary knighthood as the recipients are called "Sir X". However, Baronets are NOT peers, they do not have a seat in the House of Lords.

Life peers are all Barons/Baroness' and have a seat in the House of Lords.

A Royal Duke is merely a Duke whom is also HRH (or HH in the days of Queen Victoria, eg HH the Duke of Cambridge, an ancestor or Queen Mary), often these are princes in to begin with, but the DoE was HRH the Duke of Edinburgh for 10 years before he was made a Prince of the UK.

There is a common misconception (I know no one on here has it) in the general population that a woman that marries a prince is a princess with her own name, but as discussed here, that is not the case normally. Apart from Princess Anne, the last women to be made Princesses in their own right were the two granddaughters of Edward VII by his daughter the Princess Royal. He made them Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland with the style of HH. Their father was an Earl that Queen Victoria made a Duke. They had no brothers and the Queen allowed the title to be passed on to the daughters whom were both Duchess at some point in their lives. Even though one was HH Princess X, Duchess of Fife in her own right, when she married her cousin HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught, she took his title as HRH Princess X of Connaught - such were the times!

 

[neil31uk]

......
[/quote]

Kate's jewels - yes, I did notice them. The dark stones look like they might be cab sapphires. She also wore them at the wedding of Lady Rose Gilman (nee Windsor). I assume the jewels of the late Diana were divided by her two sons. The engagement and wedding presents probably went to William.

Bobby[/quote]

Yes, they were tasteful and just right. I suspect that to begin with she should wear smaller jewels and work up to the big stuff as she get older. And I suspect she will pull off coloured stones better than most.

 

[westjenn]

Nice pic thanks for the link! Does anyone else think that the ring looks much smaller on Kate's hand than it did on Diana's? Wonder if Diana's hands were just smaller?? Love that we get to look it again!

 

[prince.of.preslav]

......

Kate's jewels - yes, I did notice them. The dark stones look like they might be cab sapphires. She also wore them at the wedding of Lady Rose Gilman (nee Windsor). I assume the jewels of the late Diana were divided by her two sons. The engagement and wedding presents probably went to William.

Bobby

Yes, they were tasteful and just right. I suspect that to begin with she should wear smaller jewels and work up to the big stuff as she get older. And I suspect she will pull off coloured stones better than most.

I agree with you - wear fewer jewels in the beggining and then when she's comfortable and sure in her role as Princess wear sth larger.
On anither note, I'd love if the Queen gives Catherine (or has already given her) a nice three row pearl necklace. A bit like saying welcome to the family. I do hope to see a diamond tiara (preferably one we've not seen in a long time) against her dark hair. With a nice updo, in contrast to what we've seen so far.

 

[JewelFreak]

Dear Laurie,

You either don't remember what the Palace said ot they had it wrong back then. The Prince of Wales has never held the title and style HRH Prince Charles of Wales as he never was the son of a Prince of Wales,

It was Anne that turned down any title for her husband upon their wedding.
What I've read about Edward's title is that he was created an Earl, because he'd one day inherit the Dukedom of Edinburgh (or be created such). The lowest hereditary peerage is that of a Baron.

Bobby

Bobby, I didn't make myself clear, I guess. When Charles & Diana's engagement was new, questions arose from newspapers, etc., as to what to call her once they were married. In articles they refer to Charles as simply "Prince Charles." Diana, the Palace announced, not being a royal princess, should be called by the papers et al., "Princess Charles." This didn't go over well with the public & the Palace soon said (much paraphrased here), "In official writings she will be HRH The Princess of Wales. We have no position on what anybody else calls her." I know Charles was never Prince Charles of Wales. But William is -- my point was that it's not likely to be any more popular to style Kate as Princess William of Wales. A dukedom for William should solve that, maybe. But if he's Prince William in news reports, etc., she will probably end up Princess Kate or Catherine informally.

I could be wrong about Edward's not wanting a title -- at the time of his marriage he was working hard to establish a profession outside the royal family & I think I remember his not being enthusiastic about a dukedom & finally accepted an earldom. The Edinburgh dukedom was mentioned a little later as a possibility in time, if I recall correctly. I definitely remember something similar, though from opposite motives, about the Earl of Snowden. The Queen was not nuts about his marriage to Margaret & reluctant to give him a title -- possibly because he was the first true commoner to marry into the family, or because she didn't like him, don't know -- and eventually settled on an earldom as the lowest noble rank whose children would still be styled "Lord or Lady xxxx." A viscount's children are "The Honourable...."

Is there a Baron in English titles? Or is it Baronet? I think there is only Baronet, correct me if I'm wrong.

From The British Aristocracy by Mark Bence-Jones & Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd: "..in the British Isles, the 'aristocracy' and the 'nobility' do not necessarily mean the same thing. The word nobility is now usually taken to denote only one small part of the aristrocracy, the peerage; there is that wholly fictitious dvision of the aristocracy into 'nobility' and 'gentry.' Dukes and lords are seen as one class, aristocratic commoners as another. Baronets occupy an uncomfortable no-man's-land in between; and while in theory they should be classed with the mere gentry, in practice they are regarded as a sort of appendage to the nobility....."

--- Laurie

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Apart from Princess Anne, the last women to be made Princesses in their own right were the two granddaughters of Edward VII by his daughter the Princess Royal. He made them Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland with the style of HH. Their father was an Earl that Queen Victoria made a Duke. They had no brothers and the Queen allowed the title to be passed on to the daughters whom were both Duchess at some point in their lives. Even though one was HH Princess X, Duchess of Fife in her own right, when she married her cousin HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught, she took his title as HRH Princess X of Connaught - such were the times!

Neil, do you know what King Edward VII's reasons to elevate the daughters of The Princess Royal were? I've always found this strange. At that time there were quite a few Princes and Princesses to fulfill royal duties. Or did he want to make them more eligible candidates for royal marriages?


Thanks in advance,
Bobby

 

[neil31uk]

Dear Laurie,

You either don't remember what the Palace said ot they had it wrong back then. The Prince of Wales has never held the title and style HRH Prince Charles of Wales as he never was the son of a Prince of Wales,

It was Anne that turned down any title for her husband upon their wedding.
What I've read about Edward's title is that he was created an Earl, because he'd one day inherit the Dukedom of Edinburgh (or be created such). The lowest hereditary peerage is that of a Baron.

Bobby

Bobby, I didn't make myself clear, I guess. When Charles & Diana's engagement was new, questions arose from newspapers, etc., as to what to call her once they were married. In articles they refer to Charles as simply "Prince Charles." Diana, the Palace announced, not being a royal princess, should be called by the papers et al., "Princess Charles." This didn't go over well with the public & the Palace soon said (much paraphrased here), "In official writings she will be HRH The Princess of Wales. We have no position on what anybody else calls her." I know Charles was never Prince Charles of Wales. But William is -- my point was that it's not likely to be any more popular to style Kate as Princess William of Wales. A dukedom for William should solve that, maybe. But if he's Prince William in news reports, etc., she will probably end up Princess Kate or Catherine informally.

I could be wrong about Edward's not wanting a title -- at the time of his marriage he was working hard to establish a profession outside the royal family & I think I remember his not being enthusiastic about a dukedom & finally accepted an earldom. The Edinburgh dukedom was mentioned a little later as a possibility in time, if I recall correctly. I definitely remember something similar, though from opposite motives, about the Earl of Snowden. The Queen was not nuts about his marriage to Margaret & reluctant to give him a title -- possibly because he was the first true commoner to marry into the family, or because she didn't like him, don't know -- and eventually settled on an earldom as the lowest noble rank whose children would still be styled "Lord or Lady xxxx." A viscount's children are "The Honourable...."

Is there a Baron in English titles? Or is it Baronet? I think there is only Baronet, correct me if I'm wrong.

From The British Aristocracy by Mark Bence-Jones & Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd: "..in the British Isles, the 'aristocracy' and the 'nobility' do not necessarily mean the same thing. The word nobility is now usually taken to denote only one small part of the aristrocracy, the peerage; there is that wholly fictitious dvision of the aristocracy into 'nobility' and 'gentry.' Dukes and lords are seen as one class, aristocratic commoners as another. Baronets occupy an uncomfortable no-man's-land in between; and while in theory they should be classed with the mere gentry, in practice they are regarded as a sort of appendage to the nobility....."

--- Laurie

Hi Laurie,

A couple of points, an Earl's children are Lady X for the girls, Lord X for the eldest son who gets a courtesy title (one of the Earls other, lesser titles) and any other sons are called "Honourable". For example, Princess Alexandra of Kent's late husband was the second or third son of an Earl and so was The Honourable Angus Ogalvy.

UK Peerage has Barons, as I wrote i an earlier post, they are the lowest peer in the UK and it is the only rank of peerage for a "Life-peer". They are above a Baronet and below a Viscount. They are often called "Lord X" rather than "Baron X", but this is for everyday speak, officially they are still Baron X. They have a coronet of a plain gold band with 6 balls or "pearls" as they are know, on top.

 

[neil31uk]

Apart from Princess Anne, the last women to be made Princesses in their own right were the two granddaughters of Edward VII by his daughter the Princess Royal. He made them Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland with the style of HH. Their father was an Earl that Queen Victoria made a Duke. They had no brothers and the Queen allowed the title to be passed on to the daughters whom were both Duchess at some point in their lives. Even though one was HH Princess X, Duchess of Fife in her own right, when she married her cousin HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught, she took his title as HRH Princess X of Connaught - such were the times!

Neil, do you know what King Edward VII's reasons to elevate the daughters of The Princess Royal were? I've always found this strange. At that time there were quite a few Princes and Princesses to fulfill royal duties. Or did he want to make them more eligible candidates for royal marriages?


Thanks in advance,
Bobby

I have never read anything that explains it. Possibly it was because they were the only grandchildren he had that did not hold the title of prince/princess, as his daughter Maud married a prince and became queen of Norway and so her children were princes. His other daughter did not marry, I wonder if her children would have been elevated if she had married a non-prince? As the daughters of a Duke they would otherwise have been Lady X. I am slightly surprised that in some respects he didn't style the Duke of Fife to an HRH at the same time.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Bobby, I didn't make myself clear, I guess. When Charles & Diana's engagement was new, questions arose from newspapers, etc., as to what to call her once they were married. In articles they refer to Charles as simply "Prince Charles." Diana, the Palace announced, not being a royal princess, should be called by the papers et al., "Princess Charles." This didn't go over well with the public & the Palace soon said (much paraphrased here), "In official writings she will be HRH The Princess of Wales. We have no position on what anybody else calls her." I know Charles was never Prince Charles of Wales. But William is -- my point was that it's not likely to be any more popular to style Kate as Princess William of Wales. A dukedom for William should solve that, maybe. But if he's Prince William in news reports, etc., she will probably end up Princess Kate or Catherine informally.

I could be wrong about Edward's not wanting a title -- at the time of his marriage he was working hard to establish a profession outside the royal family & I think I remember his not being enthusiastic about a dukedom & finally accepted an earldom. The Edinburgh dukedom was mentioned a little later as a possibility in time, if I recall correctly. I definitely remember something similar, though from opposite motives, about the Earl of Snowden. The Queen was not nuts about his marriage to Margaret & reluctant to give him a title -- possibly because he was the first true commoner to marry into the family, or because she didn't like him, don't know -- and eventually settled on an earldom as the lowest noble rank whose children would still be styled "Lord or Lady xxxx." A viscount's children are "The Honourable...."

Is there a Baron in English titles? Or is it Baronet? I think there is only Baronet, correct me if I'm wrong.

From The British Aristocracy by Mark Bence-Jones & Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd: "..in the British Isles, the 'aristocracy' and the 'nobility' do not necessarily mean the same thing. The word nobility is now usually taken to denote only one small part of the aristrocracy, the peerage; there is that wholly fictitious dvision of the aristocracy into 'nobility' and 'gentry.' Dukes and lords are seen as one class, aristocratic commoners as another. Baronets occupy an uncomfortable no-man's-land in between; and while in theory they should be classed with the mere gentry, in practice they are regarded as a sort of appendage to the nobility....."

--- Laurie

Ok! You made yourself a bit more clear now, but the Palace's response still doesn't make sence to me. No one doubted that once Princess Alexandra of Denmark married she should be styled HRH The Princess of Wales, not HRH The Princess Edward. Or that Saphie Rhys-Jones should be HRH The Css of Wesses, regardless of her work at the time, for that matter.
Lady Diana was entitled to the title and style HRH The Princess of Wales from the first second of her marriage to HRH The Prince of Wales. As I said The Palace must've been wrong and misinformed back then. Enough for that!

As for the Wessex - I wouldn't like to comment. At the time of the wedding I wasn't into royals, nor I've read much about the subject after I became interested.

Yes, in Britain there are Barons. Quite a lot of them actually. And there are Baronets (Bt) - hereditary knights, as Neil already kindly explained.

Bobby

 

[SereneSolange]

And let's hope she has a better marriage that previous Queen Catherines (Catherine of Aragon, Cathreine Howard, and Catherine Parr).

Ack, you're so right!

 

[JewelFreak]

No one doubted that once Princess Alexandra of Denmark married she should be styled HRH The Princess of Wales, not HRH The Princess Edward. Or that Saphie Rhys-Jones should be HRH The Css of Wesses, regardless of her work at the time, for that matter.
Lady Diana was entitled to the title and style HRH The Princess of Wales from the first second of her marriage to HRH The Prince of Wales.

Just to clarify quickly, not worth a lot of time. The paper barons asked the Palace about this sort of thing: "Prince Charles's offer to take on architectural planning role ..." (from an article in today's Guardian to show what I mean). "Prince Charles" is not a formal, legitimate title. His actual title is HRH The Prince of Wales (plus all the other gook following). But for the sake of convenience, hereditary princes & princesses are usually referred to in speech & media as Prince Whatever-their-name-is: Prince Edward, Prince John, Princess Victoria.

"What," the press wanted to know, "in writing thus about Charles's wife, should they call her?" The Palace responded correctly at first: "You should call her Princess Charles, because she is not a hereditary Princess in her own right." Nawww, said the public, that sounds icky. So the Palace tactfully bowed out of the debate: "HRH The Princess of Wales is how we style her in all official publications. When writing about her in your articles, if you don't want to use that formal title every time you mention her, whatever you choose is up to you."

You are right, Princess Alexandra was HRH The Princess of Wales. But she was also entitled to be called Princess Alexandra because she was a hereditary princess of Denmark. Had she not been, the proper way to refer to her more briefly would have been "Princess Edward," though I doubt anybody would have done so. It is the same logic used for Princess Michael, who is a princess only because she married a prince. If she married him nowadays, when we are less formal, she would probably be called Princess Marie Christine, which isn't officially correct, same as with Princess Diana. Anyway, the whole debate lasted about a week & then disappeared.

Neil, thanks for the info on Barons vs Baronets. Don't know how that escaped me. Neat to know about the coronets too.

--- Laurie

 

[prince.of.preslav]

I have never read anything that explains it. Possibly it was because they were the only grandchildren he had that did not hold the title of prince/princess, as his daughter Maud married a prince and became queen of Norway and so her children were princes. His other daughter did not marry, I wonder if her children would have been elevated if she had married a non-prince? As the daughters of a Duke they would otherwise have been Lady X. I am slightly surprised that in some respects he didn't style the Duke of Fife to an HRH at the same time.

Thanks! Thats's the only logical explanation it seems. And it sounds a bit like the children of Prince Valdemar of Denmark, Queen Alexandra's youngest brother. The children were christened as HRH Prince (name) of Denmark, rather than the ussual HH for the children of younger sons of Danish monarchs and thie descendants, by their grandfather Christian IX.
BTW, both Princesses Alexandra and Maud were born as plain Ladies. They were created Princesses in 1905.
The 9th Duke of Argyll, husband of QV's daughter Louise, also didn't get and HRH. It would've been interesting to know what titles their children were going to have. Saddly, they didn't have that blessing.

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Thanks Laurie! With a bit more clarification I finally understood! So the Palace told the papers it was right to call Diana either Princess Charles or The Princess of Wales. And if they didn't like that form of style, they could chose how to style her (and eventually they chose Princess Diana and Lady Di).

Everybody would've called Alexandra Princess Edward because these were the times.

Bobby

 

[neil31uk]

There are some rather fabulous pieces that belong to the Duke of Portland going on sale at Christies next month. I wonder if the RF or Prince William is looking at the catalogue for gifts for Kate? http://www.christies.com/eCatalogues/index.aspx?id=E63A1B9A262F638285257650002F3839

The Sapphire pieces might suit her, although the purple sapphire brooch would be very Kate and a couple of lovely diamond necklaces, especially one with a "s" shaped motif.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

And there are some thrulie marvelous HQ photos on pages 15 and 16 of this Spanish board - http://dinastias.forogeneral.es/forum/tiaras-de-la-aristocracia-inglesa-t274-224.html

I think that the "S" fringe necklace would make a nice gift for Catherine, but wouldn't it be great if they buy her the tiara to complement the late Diana's sapphires and pearls? And I'm completely taken by the emerald bow brooch and the three grape brooches (which quite remind me of the Feuilles de groseille parure from the French Crown Jewels)

Bobby

 

[Feeshalori]

Hello to all -

I have been a major follower of this wonderful forum for months now and have been absolutely thrilled by all the gorgeous royal bling and incredible knowledge of the forum members. Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton impelled me to finally join in on all the fun, and I'd like to kick off my initial input by asking if anyone else has observed that the e-ring looks like it's been re-set in platinum/white gold. This wonderful closeup definitely looks like a different metal other than the yellow gold that Princess Diana's original ring was made in. Perhaps Catherine preferred a different setting to set off the jewels better, or maybe modified it for other reasons.

Thanks to all for your lively discussions!

Welcome to Pricescope, Feeshalori! I hope you'll have a grat time here and contribute to our discussions.

As already pointed out the ring is the same. Maybe only the size has been changed to fit Miss Middleton's finger.

Warm regards,
Bobby

Thank you so much for your welcome, Bobby -

I don't know how much I'll be contributing to these discussions since everyone really knows their stuff and I'm still a novice (as evidenced by my faux paux with the e-ring), but an expert in admiring these wonderful royal jewels. So I'm going to hang out and try not to embarrass myself too much here. But I've heard so much about the Strathmore Rose tiara (hope I got the name right), and it would be wonderful if it got resurrected from the vaults and restored since I heard it's in fragile condition. Maybe the Queen can give Kate a "new" tiara by refurbishing this historical one and giving it the light of day. I'm sure the Queen Mum would love that! I'd also love to see the Rundell tiara brought out as well. Just my thoughts....

 

[JewelFreak]

Welcome, Feeshalori! Don't worry about embarrassing yourself -- the rest of us do it all the time (except Bobby). Well, maybe it's only me....

The sapphire jewelry is superb! Oh, groan. Wouldn't that tiara look nice on kate? I also love the emerald & diamond bow brooch. It would break my heart to sell that, especially w/its history.

--- Laurie

 

[Imdanny]

Hi everyone, there were some posts early or toward the middle of this thread about the size of Diana's sapphire (and about how it was reset for her).

I'd be grateful if anyone knows off hand where to find them.

I'm particularly interested in knowing the size of the stone.

I know it's not 18 cts. It's more like 8 cts, but whatever it is, I think I remember someone made some posts where they showed this.

Thanks.

Hi Danny!

The discussion starts on page 59 with a very long post by former poster Jenna. The next pages also have some photos and info (mussings). Here's the link https://www.pricescope.com/forum/jewelry-pieces/royal-jewels-t73838-1740.html

What I find intriguing is that yesterday Clarence House said the ring had an 18 carat sapphire, something the stone isn't... IMO it's about three times smaller.

Enjoy,
Bobby

You're a prince. Thank you.

 

[Fly Girl]

The sapphire jewelry is superb! Oh, groan. Wouldn't that tiara look nice on kate? I also love the emerald & diamond bow brooch. It would break my heart to sell that, especially w/its history.

--- Laurie

For those who haven't opened the catalog, here is the sapphire tiara.

 

[Fly Girl]

The antique emerald and diamond bow brooch.

 

[Fly Girl]

The stunning purple sapphire brooch.

 

[neil31uk]

Given that the RF has a wonderful history of making gifts of jewels from their own collections to a new bride joining the family, i wonder if the Queen might do this for Kate? Queen Mary did this many times for her daughter and daughter -in-laws and granddaughters. If so, I would like to see her the Diamond necklace and bracelet that were a gift from the South African Government in 1947. I am not sure I have seen it out in recent years (please let me know if it has). I think it's simple and yet very elegant design matched with the stunning diamonds in it would suit a new Princess Catherine/Duchess of Cambridge very well.

Not sure on a tiara, alot of her majesties are quite big, but the Strathmore Rose tiara would be lovely. As for pearls, a three row necklace may not suit Kate so well, I would like to see her in a single strand first.

 

[neil31uk]

Also, other pieces that the Queen seldom wears that might suit Kate:

 

[neil31uk]

And how about some of these pieces that might suit Kate?

 

[JewelFreak]

Doesn't the Queen still wear the chandelier earrings occasionally? Haven't seen the 1947 diamonds in almost forever either, Neil. They would look perfect on Kate. Not sure about the ruby bracelet -- it's kind of a hunk of a piece & she wears small jewelry, though as you guys mentioned, that may change as she has more choice & becomes more mature. It will be fun to watch how her tastes change, as it was with Diana. It's a chance to live vicariously seeing a pretty princess wear gorgeous jewels. ***green with envy***

--- Laurie

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Neil and Laurie, the last time The Queen wore the Charnalier earrings was this year in Canada. She wore "her best diamonds" (the South Africa gift) at the State Banquet in honour of the President of SA, Mr Jacob Zuma, in the spring. The York rose and the all-diamond wedding present bracelets are also worn occasionally. The ruby necklace and the sapphire bracelet haven't been worn in years. AFAIK, HM hasn't woren the Art Deco gem-set brooch.
I know Queen Mary gave a full parure to each of her daughters-in-law as a wedding present and some ofthese jewels were wedding presents to her, but I'm not sure if the current Queen is the kind of person who'd part with parts of her collection (wedding presents in particular) just like that. So far only very few jewels she has given to family members (namely the Lover's Knot and the Meander tiaras and a turquoise and pearl necklace). But still Catherine might get one of the modern fringe necklaces or a riviere. And why not one of Queen Mary or QEQM's small tiaras?

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

You're a prince. Thank you.

You're moost welcome Danny! For me it was interesting to see some of my (clumsy) earily posts.

Welcome, Feeshalori! Don't worry about embarrassing yourself -- the rest of us do it all the time (except Bobby).
...
--- Laurie

Laurie, it's nice to hear/read that you have such a high opinion on my attempts to help, but I have also been embarrased here at times.
Namely by Alexander, who seems to know a lot of dates and facts about royals and jewels. And also when a theoty of mine has been ruined by someone with more knowledge.

Regards,
Bobby

 

[neil31uk]

good point, HMQEII may not want to part with somethings, especially if she has worn them recently, but I I can't help thinking that she will make some sort of gift. Maybe she will be advised that some of the Portland jewels above are worth a purchase. I must say, I am rather taken with that ruby ring, it is magnificent!

 

[JewelFreak]

What has happened to the Lover's Knot tiara? Would William have kept that as he did Diana's ring after she died? Kate would look stunning in it, though talk about reminders of Diana!

--- Laurie

 

[neil31uk]

What has happened to the Lover's Knot tiara? Would William have kept that as he did Diana's ring after she died? Kate would look stunning in it, though talk about reminders of Diana!

--- Laurie

I think the Queen has it, I think it was only a loan to Diana.

What do we know about Queen Mary's small tiaras? I know very little.

Oh, and what about QEQM's Scroll Tiara that Princess Margaret wore at the coronation?