Royal Jewels

[Feeshalori]

All this discussion of tiaras and jewels has given me the impetus to go watch the final season of The Tudors on DVD. So I'm off now to feast my eyes on court jewels and luxurious gowns.

Patricia

 

[alexander1917]

HM with the ear brooches in the hair

 

[alexander1917]

HM with St. Edward's crown (high of 30,5cm)

 

[LadyMaria]

Here is a sample of a picture from the Prince Michael book. This is a close-up of the Danish Order of the Elephant combined with the Order of the Mailed Arm (the latter is no longer used).

Thanks for the photo. It's first time I hear about this order "the Mailed Arm". What's it country of origin and when did it stopped being used?

Thanks in advance,
Bobby

According to the caption, the Order of the Mailed Arm was created by King Christian IV (so that would put this order around late 1500's). It was only given to those who distinguished themselves in the war with Sweden. I have not been able to find a lot about this order, and as far as I can tell it wasn't bestowed on anyone beyond the mid -1600's.

 

[LadyMaria]

MJ, St. Edward's Crown is only used at the actual moment of crowning. Since then the monarchy would normally wear the Imperial State Crown only.

I've always known it was only used at the crowning (not worn at the opening of Parliment), but I always wondered why that is not the crown worn for pictures and portraits of the coronation? But, if that crown is such a behemoth and uncomfortable then I can easily see why she (or any other monarch) would opt for the Imperial State Crown.

I see Alexander has also posted a pic of QEII with the St. Edwards....it looks just as unwieldy in that picture!

 

[alexander1917]

I think the Edward crown is so heavy because as sovereign you might feel the power and responsibility of the position...

some photos from the coronation exists. but no "official" picture. HM wished also some no filming and no close-up for the religious aspect. it's not a movie.

a further pic is this. which is said is no photo construction

 

[jean95404]

I think the Portland tiara would be a great addition for just about any lucky gal. However, with the clear message that the RF and the Middleton's are keeping the challenging economic times in mind, it's doubtful that this will be purchased for Catherine. That being said, surely there are pieces that have been sitting aside in the vault awaiting a new head to rest on. Perhaps there are bits and pieces that can be re-purposed. Don't we all have bits and pieces of diamonds, sapphires and rubies in our jewelry boxes at the ready to make a new creation?

 

[Imdanny]

I think the Portland tiara would be a great addition for just about any lucky gal. However, with the clear message that the RF and the Middleton's are keeping the challenging economic times in mind, it's doubtful that this will be purchased for Catherine. That being said, surely there are pieces that have been sitting aside in the vault awaiting a new head to rest on. Perhaps there are bits and pieces that can be re-purposed. Don't we all have bits and pieces of diamonds, sapphires and rubies in our jewelry boxes at the ready to make a new creation?

Agree 100%. From what I read the government is the UK is instituting so called "austerity" measures and a lot of people are going to be suffering because of it, so while I agree that these pieces would look nice on Catherine, and particularly given her engagement ring is a sapphire, I think it would be a PR disaster. There have got to be many other pieces that can be given and/or loaned, and imho this would be the thing to do.

 

[Imdanny]

I just got the Prince Michael of Greece book...it is on royal jewels.
...
If you want pretty pictures, the Munn book is the best. And yes, I find its information reliable. If you want history, either one is great.

Thank you for the comment, MJ. Someday when I visit Londodn maybe I'll buy Munn's book (or ask a friend to buy it for me sooner).
I'm so sorry that won't be able to buy the sapphire tiara, but, hey! - you'll have more opportunities to show people your new truck than your new tiara (which you hardly need as you have 1/2 dozen already)

You should, Bobby. You should visit the Crown Jewels. You should see them and some of the large Cullinan diamonds yourself. It's unforgettable. There's no question in my mind that you would enjoy it.

 

[JewelFreak]

It's interesting that the Queen Mum could, as you say, wear large jewels beautifully, and she was a small woman. By contrast, Camilla is fairly tall & also wears large pieces but not at all as attractively. She would look better in smaller jewels, imho.

I've seen photos of QEQM fishing in her pearls, glad you brought that up. It says a lot about her & is adorable. She always reminded me of my grandmother (everyone else too), who, before every dinner, even when we ate in a rush at the breakfast table, changed into a fresh dress & put on earrings & "pearls." Same generation.

Long ago I read that QE said St. Edward's crown is so heavy it gave her a headache to wear it very long. Maybe that's one reason she didn't want to sit for portraits in it.

Okay, so we all pile into LadyMaria's truck & head for the RF jewel vaults. Somebody's got to invite Queen Mary when the moment comes; I think she'll be delighted, especially with our charming company.

Alexander, good luck re-creating your archives. That is a horrid catastrophe, have been through it.

--- Laurie

 

[prince.of.preslav]

You should, Bobby. You should visit the Crown Jewels. You should see them and some of the large Cullinan diamonds yourself. It's unforgettable. There's no question in my mind that you would enjoy it.

Hi Danny!

Visiting London is on my to do list. But I'll have to wait a bit till that day comes. I hope I'll be able to go to London in 2012 for the Jubilee. Jewel House, BP & KP and Madame Tussauds are in the list of places to visit.

Regards,
Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

It's interesting that the Queen Mum could, as you say, wear large jewels beautifully, and she was a small woman.

I think the same applies to her younger daughter The Princess Margaret.

I've seen photos of QEQM fishing in her pearls, glad you brought that up.

Can somebody post a photo, please. I'm pretty sure I had at least one, but can't find it (them) anywhere.

She always reminded me of my grandmother (everyone else too), who, before every dinner, even when we ate in a rush at the breakfast table, changed into a fresh dress & put on earrings & "pearls." Same generation.

That's very nice. I doubt many people would bother changing, yet alone putting on some jewels, before dinner these days. And IMO it speaks volumes about your granmother's attitude towards dinner. A bit like Queen Mary wearing tiaras at dinner.

Long ago I read that QE said St. Edward's crown is so heavy it gave her a headache to wear it very long. Maybe that's one reason she didn't want to sit for portraits in it.

That's understandable. The Imperial State Crown weights more than twice less than St. Edward's. That's why Queen Victoria and King Edward VII chose to be crowned with the Imperial SC, rather than St. Edward's.
Here's what the Monarchy's site tells us about the two crowns: "The principal piece of the Regalia is St Edward’s Crown, with which the new Sovereign is actually crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury during the coronation ceremony. This is made of gold and decorated with precious and semi-precious stones, including sapphires, tourmalines, amethysts, topazes and citrines, and weighs a substantial 2.23kg. It was last used to crown Queen Elizabeth II on 2 June 1953.

The most famous of the crowns is the Imperial State Crown. This was re-made for the coronation of The Queen’s father, King George VI, in 1937 and is set with over 3,000 gems. The stones were all transferred from the old Imperial Crown, which had been re-made on a number of occasions since the 17th century, most recently for Queen Victoria in 1838. This crown incorporates many famous gemstones, including the diamond known as the Second Star of Africa (the second largest stone cut from the celebrated Cullinan Diamond), the Black Prince’s Ruby, the Stuart Sapphire, St Edward’s Sapphire and Queen Elizabeth’s Pearls. The Sovereign traditionally wears the Imperial State Crown at the conclusion of the coronation service, when leaving Westminster Abbey. It is also worn for the State Opening of Parliament."

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

According to the caption, the Order of the Mailed Arm was created by King Christian IV (so that would put this order around late 1500's). It was only given to those who distinguished themselves in the war with Sweden. I have not been able to find a lot about this order, and as far as I can tell it wasn't bestowed on anyone beyond the mid -1600's.

Thank you very much, Maria!

Bobby

 

[JewelFreak]

Here are 2 pics of the QM fishing in pearls, Bobby. In the first one, you can see her pearl earrings. Also I found this adorable story about the day:

Eighty-two-year-old Arthur Scaife of Wanaka remembers vividly the day he met the Queen Mother - she was wearing pearls and thigh-length gumboots.

It was 1966 and he owned Glendhu Station, a high-country beef and sheep run near Wanaka.

The Queen Mother had come to go fishing. Mr Scaife and his family had been invited to a picnic with her.

"She was just a lovely lady," he recalled yesterday. "I've got a large photograph of her with her fishing rod in her hand, floppy old hat on, a farm-type sort of jacket and thigh gumboots.

"But on top of all that she had a pearl necklace, which would probably have been the most expensive pearl necklace in the world at the time."

Later that day, after the Scaife family had returned home, the Queen Mother dropped by their house unexpectedly. But not for the "comfort stop" for which the family had assiduously scrubbed the toilet.

She stopped by, a lady-in-waiting said, because she loved to see how people lived. She asked about the running of a high-country farm and how the mustering teams were organised.

The police had given the family two minutes' warning that she was on her way. The Queen Mother had been told the visit to the Scaife household had been cancelled but she had said, "No, I want to go and see these people."

Mr Scaife recalled: "Kate, my wife, said to her, 'Ma'am, our two daughters are very keen on horses and riding,' and she said, 'I've got a daughter who's mad on horses, too.' And that was the Queen she was talking about."

The Queen Mother drank two rather large gin and tonics, said Mr Scaife, and loved talking. "Especially after she had her first gin and tonic, she was very relaxed."

She left lipstick on her crystal glass, which the Scaife family kept in a china cabinet for 25 years, until it was accidentally broken.

--- Laurie

 

[Feeshalori]

I love those pictures of the Queen Mum fishing while wearing her pearls. Certainly, no well-turned-out lady should appear anywhere without the requisite pearl accessories, even while engaging in sports!

And certainly in this time of austerity, I do agree that HM should come up with an historical royal tiara for Kate from the vaults rather than purchasing one. I did mention before that I'd like to see the money go toward restoration of the Strathmore Rose tiara that belonged to the QM as a possibility. But I'm sure the Middletons will give something to Kate as a wedding gift, and as her parents they might feel they'd like to indulge in a special gift since their daughter is not just getting married, but joining the Royal Family as wife of the future heir to the throne. I wonder what they'll come up with?

Patricia

 

[JewelFreak]

From what I've read, Patricia, Kate's parents are very comfortable but not in the stratum of Big Jewels. Maybe they'll leave that to the RF, who are eminently qualified, & give them something else. What a conundrum, having your daughter marry the (#2) heir to the throne if you are just a regular Joe, can you imagine? A set of china? They'll get gold-crusted dishes. A car? Buck House has a stable of them. A house? They can choose from several palaces. Honeymoon? Every knockout country house in the entire UK is open to them. And what do you tell all the aunts, uncles, cousins & schoolmates who ask what they need....."Uh....not much!" Yikes!

--- Laurie

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Here are 2 pics of the QM fishing in pearls, Bobby. In the first one, you can see her pearl earrings. Also I found this adorable story about the day:
--- Laurie

You rule, Laurie! Thank you very much for the lovely photos and the entertaining story!

Wonder why Mr Scaife thought HM wore the most expensive pearls in the word? Just because she was a Queen?

Anyway, I found one of the photos that you posted without the watermark - http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/1/f/f/4/Royal_Angler_42d4.jpg?adImageId=10644067&imageId=1631755

Once again thanks!
Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

From what I've read, Patricia, Kate's parents are very comfortable but not in the stratum of Big Jewels. Maybe they'll leave that to the RF, who are eminently qualified, & give them something else. What a conundrum, having your daughter marry the (#2) heir to the throne if you are just a regular Joe, can you imagine? A set of china? They'll get gold-crusted dishes. A car? Buck House has a stable of them. A house? They can choose from several palaces. Honeymoon? Every knockout country house in the entire UK is open to them. And what do you tell all the aunts, uncles, cousins & schoolmates who ask what they need....."Uh....not much!" Yikes!

--- Laurie

The Countess of Strathmore gave The Duke of York a miniature portrait of Lady Elizabeth (QEQM) in a jeweled frame; the bride got the diamond rose bandeau from her father. Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott's mother, The Duchess of Buccleuch, gave her daughter a pair of diamond cluster earrings when she married the Duke of Gloucester, her father (who died shortly before the wedding) - a string of pearls.
Both families were/are filthy rich and yet gave small (but santimental) presents to their daughters. All the lavish jewels came from the Royal Family. I can see this happening for William and Catherine's wedding. I have no clue what other members of Catherine's family will give. If they are rich enough maybe some gem set jewels? Whatever it is, I'm sure the couple will be happy.

Bobby

 

[Feeshalori]

Well, they say everything is relative and the Middletons certainly can't outdo the royals insofar as lavish gifts are concerned although Kate's parents are wealthy. Perhaps gift-giving will be something on the scale as the examples Bobby gave. As far as the other relations are concerned, I'll bet they're wishing there was a wedding gift registry to make life simpler, although it's true that Will and Kate are definitely not in the position where they'll need a toaster or blender (or even a castle or two), as you pointed out, Laurie!! The main thing is that their marriage is successful and happy.

As far as the Portland tiara, I'll certainly accept it gladly as a gift and wear it on the wedding day when it's my birthday as well. That's my idea of heaven and double cause for celebration all rolled up in one!

Patricia

 

[Imdanny]

From what I've read, Patricia, Kate's parents are very comfortable but not in the stratum of Big Jewels. Maybe they'll leave that to the RF, who are eminently qualified, & give them something else. What a conundrum, having your daughter marry the (#2) heir to the throne if you are just a regular Joe, can you imagine? A set of china? They'll get gold-crusted dishes. A car? Buck House has a stable of them. A house? They can choose from several palaces. Honeymoon? Every knockout country house in the entire UK is open to them. And what do you tell all the aunts, uncles, cousins & schoolmates who ask what they need....."Uh....not much!" Yikes!

--- Laurie

Hi Laurie, everyone,

I wonder how often a (future) Prince of Wales has married a middle class fiance? It certainly wasn't the case with Charles. I don't care either way. I'm just curious how often or if it's ever been done before.

Edited to add, yes, I know her parents are successful, she's well educated, etc. I mean middle class not in terms of her parents' income level. I mean more in the sense of her family's background. And again, I'm not trying to sound snotty or anything. I'm genuinely curious about this.

 

[JewelFreak]

Under English law there really is no provision for morganatic marriages of royalty. It was originally a Germanic law, providing that if a man (royal or noble) married a commoner, the wife and offspring could not inherit his titles or estates, including of course, the throne. English law didn't have to confront the issue until Edward VIII. During the negotiations before his wedding to Wallis, he proposed a morganatic marriage whereby any children would not be in line to the throne, but that was rejected. (The problem with her was exacerbated by the fact that she'd been divorced twice at a time when divorce was not allowed by the Anglican church. Plus, she was awwwful!) When Edward abdicated the law needed to be rewritten to provide for George VI's accession; there was nothing pertaining to succession after abdication.

In 1785 the future George IV, PoW at the time, married his mistress, Maria Fitzherbert, who was a commoner. Since the marriage had not been approved by George III and the privy council, it was declared null & void. George later married Princess Caroline of Brunswick (whom he hated & eventually divorced). Had the marriage been "legal," i.e., approved by king & council, George would have had to forfeit his right to the throne under the Royal Marriages Act of 1701. (Same one applied in the case of Edward VIII.)

There is also Prince Charles, of course -- Camilla's from a wealthy but middle class family.

Neil may know more, he's sharp on this stuff.

--- Laurie

 

[Imdanny]

Wow, great answer, Laurie!

Something else I'm curious about: can a Prince of Wales, future head of the Anglican Church, marry in the Church if he (as Charles was) is divorced?

What are the laws/ history applying to this?

Thanks!

 

[JewelFreak]

There have been several synods considering this question, Danny. In 2002 the Synod decided that divorce & remarriage w/in the church when the former spouse was still living would be permitted. But it's not automatic. They issued documents with some "searching questions" for the prospective bride & groom to answer and to help the priest decide whether or not to bless the marriage -- each decision is left up to individual clerics, though parishioners or priest can refer to the appropriate Bishop if they wish. One of the main points seems to be the Church's duty not to condone adultery by legitimizing it -- so they like to see a span of time between divorce & remarriage. Britain & the Anglican Church have become so liberal in the last decade or two that the interpretation of that is probably not too strict nowadays. Charlies is one example, don't you think? There was quite a wait from divorce & remarriage in his case, but no way they could deny the adultery part -- it ceased to be an issue for Charles when Diana died, but Andrew Parker-Bowles is still around (& has remarried, himself).

One of the odd things about the priest's position previous to this Synod was that clerics had the authority under civil law to marry anybody they wished to, but not religious permission if there was an ex-partner still alive & kicking. That inconsistency was removed in 2002.

--- Laurie

 

[neil31uk]

Under English law there really is no provision for morganatic marriages of royalty. It was originally a Germanic law, providing that if a man (royal or noble) married a commoner, the wife and offspring could not inherit his titles or estates, including of course, the throne. English law didn't have to confront the issue until Edward VIII. During the negotiations before his wedding to Wallis, he proposed a morganatic marriage whereby any children would not be in line to the throne, but that was rejected. (The problem with her was exacerbated by the fact that she'd been divorced twice at a time when divorce was not allowed by the Anglican church. Plus, she was awwwful!) When Edward abdicated the law needed to be rewritten to provide for George VI's accession; there was nothing pertaining to succession after abdication.

In 1785 the future George IV, PoW at the time, married his mistress, Maria Fitzherbert, who was a commoner. Since the marriage had not been approved by George III and the privy council, it was declared null & void. George later married Princess Caroline of Brunswick (whom he hated & eventually divorced). Had the marriage been "legal," i.e., approved by king & council, George would have had to forfeit his right to the throne under the Royal Marriages Act of 1701. (Same one applied in the case of Edward VIII.)

There is also Prince Charles, of course -- Camilla's from a wealthy but middle class family.

Neil may know more, he's sharp on this stuff.

--- Laurie

Hi All,

English and Welsh Law (I say that as English and Scottish Law actually differ in many areas) does not and has never accommodated the principle of a morganatic marriage, indeed there is a proud tradition of Royals since the reign of George V (after the name change etc in 1917) marrying commoners. In English Law a commoner is defined as anyone who DOES NOT hold a peerage and this applies to the children of a peer (but it is applied to a peer's wife). So on that basis we have had several marriages to commoners - Prince Albert (later George VI) to Lady Elizabeth - he title of "Lady" was a courtesy title as the daughter of an Earl and so did not carry any actual higher status in law. the Same was true of Lady Diana as she was before marriage. Then we have Captain Mark Phillips, Commander Tim Lawrence, Mr Anthony Armstrong-Jones, Miss Sarah Ferguson, The Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott (daughter of a Duke, but legally a commoner). They all married into the RF and NONE were subject to discrimination in terms of their status etc. In many ways, Kate Middleton is very like Sofie Rhys-Jones (now Countess of Wessex) as she had a middle class up bringing.

All Marriages are subject to the Queen's approval, no matter if the bride/groom is royal or nobel or a commoner. As pointed out, the Duchess of Windsor was considered unsuitable due to two divorces and Princess Margaret wanted to marry a commoner - Group Captain Peter Townsend - but the establishment was against it as he was also divorced = it was all a bit like Edward and Wallis and it was very fresh in the memory. At the time the Queen was advised by her then private secretary that Margaret would forfeit her title, style, place in the succession if she married him. BUT a documentary broadcast in the UK last year stated that there was NO legal basis for this and she would have been ok. It was all moral objections from the establishment at the time, nothing more. Essentially in the UK a man is allowed to marry who he wants and she will automatically share her husbands status UNLESS there is a specific order not to, and this is simply not done. Camila is legally Princess of Wales but chooses to be called Duchess of Cornwall. Marie-Christine is not liked by the Queen but she share's her husband's status and style. The only time there has been a deliberate act by the King to deprive anyone of this was when George VI styled his brother HRH The Duke of Windsor but Wallis was denied the HRH. But she still had her Husband's title as there was no legal mechanism nor president for denying it to her.

English Law is very much a matter of its legal unless there is an Act of Parliament that says something is not legal. There is no written constitution and the Sovereign has a lot of latitude by the use of Orders in Council and Letters Patent, to change things, as George V showed in 1917, as George VI did in 1947.

Another example, for an abdication to actually take effect it must have a special Act of Parliament voted though that is specific for that individual abdication, this was done in 1936 in each country of the Empire on the same day, except Ireland did it the day after so Edward was still King of Ireland for another day (Ireland then chose to become a Republic). I think for Prince Charles to legally renounce his succession rights there would need to be an Act to make is legally binding.

 

[JewelFreak]

I read that recently, Neil -- that there isn't any existing mechanism for Charles to renounce his right to the throne. It would take an act of Parliament.

When George VI married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon she was called a commoner -- I remember asking my mother about that when I was a kid & learning that stuff in school, confused me because her father was an earl. Your explanation is clearer than my mother's was! Danny asked, however, about heirs to the throne marrying middle-class-type folks who had no title & lived a...what?...bourgeois life.

I've always wondered if Princess Margaret would have had a happier, more settled life if she had been allowed to marry Capt. Townsend. Read that it was emotionally very very difficult for Elizabeth to say no to her on that marriage. The Windsor saga was too fresh at that time, I'm sure; it was a shattering thing for the populace, I guess. Elizabeth was fairly new on the throne during Margaret's crisis & I've seen opinions written much later by people who were in the gov't at the time that had she had more experience & assurance, she could have allowed it & everything been ok. She has always done what she thought best for the country. Sad story, really.

Also read what you mentioned about Wallis -- that the King couldn't legally deprive her of the HRH -- her husband was HRH so she was, period. (Almost refers back to morganatic marriages in a way.) He insisted people call her that regardless of George's decree anyhow. A little more iffy in Diana's case since she was no longer the wife of an HRH, but there being no precedent for a PoW to get divorced, I guess they could make it up as they went along.

--- Laurie

P.S. Didn't know that about Ireland, what a cool little fact!

 

[JewelFreak]

The Countess of Strathmore gave The Duke of York a miniature portrait of Lady Elizabeth (QEQM) in a jeweled frame; the bride got the diamond rose bandeau from her father. Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott's mother, The Duchess of Buccleuch, gave her daughter a pair of diamond cluster earrings when she married the Duke of Gloucester, her father (who died shortly before the wedding) - a string of pearls.
Both families were/are filthy rich and yet gave small (but santimental) presents to their daughters. All the lavish jewels came from the Royal Family. I can see this happening for William and Catherine's wedding. I have no clue what other members of Catherine's family will give. If they are rich enough maybe some gem set jewels? Whatever it is, I'm sure the couple will be happy.

Bobby

That's interesting stuff, Bobby -- glad you contributed it. Relatively, those are family-style gifts & nice. I guess the fancy stuff comes from the RF, foreign potentates & gov'ts, and of yore, groups such as the Girls of Great Britain (don't expect that part to happen now).

In English Law a commoner is defined as anyone who DOES NOT hold a peerage and this applies to the children of a peer (but it is applied to a peer's wife).

So, Neil, this would mean that almost ANY wife of a peer is a commoner, no? Women don't inherit titles in English law (except by special dispensation like that of Countess Mountbatten of Burma), so even a duke's daughter would be a "commoner?" Princesses, what? Do you know about Scottish laws of title inheritance? In my history-book roaming over the years I think I've encountered quite a few Scots females inheriting family titles -- I don't know if lands, etc., were allowed to go with them or not, or if my impression is even correct.

--- Laurie

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Neil & Laurie, isn't The Prince of Wales still a widower in the eyes in the Church? He and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles couldn't be married religiously as The Duchess' former husband is still living, but there was a Service of Thanksgiving at the Abbey, right.
On another note, can not the Church of Engalnd dissolve a marriage in the way the Roman Catholic Church can?

A little more iffy in Diana's case since she was no longer the wife of an HRH, but there being no precedent for a PoW to get divorced, I guess they could make it up as they went along.

--- Laurie

Lady Diana was treated the same way any ex-wife of a peer - she was allowed to add her former title after her given name, yet she couldn't use the The and the style that went with the title (in her case HRH). I've always thought that her divorce wasn't handled in the best way possible. As the mother of a future (presumable) monarch, they could grant her the style The Rt. Hon., or even allow her to keep her former status. That would, naturally, cease upon remarriage.
But that's another matter!

Bobby

 

[neil31uk]

Neil & Laurie, isn't The Prince of Wales still a widower in the eyes in the Church? He and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles couldn't be married religiously as The Duchess' former husband is still living, but there was a Service of Thanksgiving at the Abbey, right.
On another note, can not the Church of Engalnd dissolve a marriage in the way the Roman Catholic Church can?

A little more iffy in Diana's case since she was no longer the wife of an HRH, but there being no precedent for a PoW to get divorced, I guess they could make it up as they went along.

--- Laurie

Lady Diana was treated the same way any ex-wife of a peer - she was allowed to add her former title after her given name, yet she couldn't use the The and the style that went with the title (in her case HRH). I've always thought that her divorce wasn't handled in the best way possible. As the mother of a future (presumable) monarch, they could grant her the style The Rt. Hon., or even allow her to keep her former status. That would, naturally, cease upon remarriage.
But that's another matter!

Bobby

In Denmark they seemed to find a good solution, granted Princess Alexandra wasn't married to the heir to the throne, but he was one below at the time. She was taken from HRH to HH Princess Alexandra and also made a countess. When she remarried she lost the HH Princess, but retained the Countess. Maybe with Diana they should have made her an H Princess Diana, Marchioness of Pembroke (for example) but that would also have required her to have been made a princess in her own right.

As for the Church of England side of it, I have no idea, I am not religious myself and I keep away from such matters. All I can think of is that the only law is that Charles NOT be catholic and not married to a catholic, I don't know of any other legal requirements. But just to clarify Charles and Camila had a blessing in St George's Chapel, Windsor.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Thank you for the reply, Neil

The former Princess Alexandra came to mind. That's, IMO, the way a divroce (royal or not) should be handled. What they did to her titles was also very wise. And what's even more important is that the two families (the royals and Alexandra's) seem to be on very good terms.

Anyway, lets get back to royal jewels... well, not entirely...

Here's a very interesting article about The late Queen Mother I found yesterday. The photos are interesting to see, and I'm sure new to most. Do you think HM's wearing the leek brooch from the ladies of North Wales in the pic with Jimmy Carter?

The article came in connection to the Queen Mum's official biography - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-kissed-U-S-president-And-lived-day-last.html

Bobby

 

[Imdanny]

Why would Jimmy Carter be kissing the Queen Mother on the lips? How strange.

I have to say since it was part of the this article it's hard to know what to make of the Queen Mother's lack of concern about money. I mean I don't have an opinion on that. She just didn't seem to care about money at all. Interesting.