Royal Jewels

[Josefine]

one more.

 

[Principessa]

Thank you, Josephine, for the detailed photo of the Princes Victoria's long pearl earrings.In my post last week it was unclear what the construction of the jewels actually looked like. Also what other materials were used. Looks like marquesites (spell.?)to me. What do you think? Anyone?
I like that it is not a stiff construction as that is, what it looks like in my post. Would like to see it in the lights of chandeliers...
maybe with the cut steel tiara?
Liza

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Bobby,please, would you help me with this.
I just went on the top of this page and revisited your post from January 24th. and realized, that in the portrait of Queen Marie-Amelie
of France, I am looking at the tiara attached to a hat! I wonder how common it was in those days, and if there are any more available
examples?
Thank you very much!
Liza

I don't think it was that common. At least I couldn't find another photo of a tiara being worn that way. And honestly this may not be a hat, but a velvet kokoshnik or the artist's imagination. The tiara doesn't seem flexible at all to me. Of course the ostrich feathers were common for court dresses (almost a must) till the 1930s (in Britain at least).

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

silvia last week

Thanks for the photo. The Queen wore the complete parure for the first time since the 2004 royal wedding in Denmark.

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Why does Princess Mathilde wear so much costume jewelry (other than personal preference)? Do the Belgiums have less than other royal houses? Surely she must have some nice pieces. Just wondering. Thanks.

Hi Laurensmama!

Mathilde certanly lacks real jewels. Actually the Belgian royal family doesn't have a large collection to start with, yet they're not that bad off. And yes, HRH does have some nice jewels (I love her necklace and tiara).
But I have also noticed that she tries to match her jewels with her clothes (for non-gala events) and sometimes/often that means wearing costume jewellery.
Also I'm surprised that the Duchess doesn't have a jewel as simple as diamond studs...

Bobby

 

[jean95404]

The necklace is a piece of jewelry had has many erroneous statements attached to it. Marie Antoinette was presented the necklace as a possibility to buy. She felt it was too expensive and turned away from it.

A con artist who called herself Jeanne de Saint-Rémy de Valois conceived a plan to use the necklace to gain wealth and possibly power and royal patronage. A descendant of an illegitimate son of Henry II of France, Jeanne de Valois had married an officer of the gendarmes, the soi-disant comte de la Motte, and was living on a small pension which the King had granted her.
In March 1784 she became the mistress of the Cardinal de Rohan, a former French ambassador to the court of Vienna.[2] The Cardinal was regarded with displeasure by Queen Marie Antoinette for having spread rumors about the Queen's behavior to her formidable mother, the Austrian empress Maria Theresa. The Queen had also learned of a letter in which the Cardinal spoke of Maria Theresa in a way that Marie Antoinette found offensive.
At the time, the Cardinal was attempting to regain the favour of the Queen in order to fulfill his quest to become one of the King's ministers. Jeanne de la Motte, having entered court by means of a lover named Rétaux de Villette, persuaded Rohan that she had been received by the Queen and enjoyed her royal favour. Upon hearing of this connection, Rohan resolved to use the "comtesse" to regain the Queen's goodwill. Jeanne began to assure the Cardinal that she was making efforts on his behalf.

This was the beginning of an alleged correspondence between Rohan and the Queen, the adventuress duly returning replies to Rohan's notes, which she affirmed had come from the Queen. The tone of the letters became very warm, and the Cardinal, convinced that Marie Antoinette was in love with him, became ardently enamoured of her. He begged Jeanne to obtain a secret night-time interview for him with the Queen, and such a meeting was arranged in August 1784. In a grove in the garden of the Palace of Versailles, the Cardinal met with a lady whom he believed to be the Queen herself. This woman was in fact a prostitute, Nicole Leguay d'Oliva, who had been hired by Jeanne because of her resemblance to the Queen. Rohan offered d'Oliva a rose, and, in her role as the Queen, she promised him that she would forget their past disagreements.
Jeanne de la Motte took advantage of the Cardinal's belief in her by borrowing large sums of money from him, telling him that they were for the Queen’s charity work. Enriched by these, Jeanne was able to make her way into respectable society. Because she quite openly boasted about her relationship with the Queen, many assumed the relationship between the two was genuine.

The jewellers Boehmer and Bassenge resolved to use Jeanne de Valois to sell their necklace. She at first refused their commission, but then changed her mind and accepted it.

On January 21, 1785, Jeanne told the Cardinal that Marie Antoinette wanted to buy the necklace, but, not wishing to purchase such an expensive item publicly during a time of need, the Queen wanted the Cardinal to act as a secret intermediary. A little while later, Rohan came to negotiate the purchase of the famous necklace for the sum of 2,000,000 livres, to be paid in installments. He claimed to have the Queen's authorization for the purchase, and showed the jewellers the conditions of the bargain approved in the Queen's handwriting. Rohan took the necklace to Jeanne's house, where a man, whom Rohan believed to be a valet of the Queen, came to fetch it. Jeanne de la Motte's husband secretly took the necklace to London, where it was broken up in order to sell the large individual diamonds separately.

When the time came to pay, Jeanne de la Motte presented the Cardinal's notes, but these were insufficient, and Boehmer complained to the Queen, who told him that she had never received or ordered the necklace. She had the story of the negotiations repeated for her. Then followed a coup de théâtre. On August 15, 1785, Assumption Day, when the whole court was awaiting the King and Queen in order to go to the chapel, the Cardinal de Rohan, who was to officiate, was taken before the King, the Queen, the Minister of the Court Breteuil and the Keeper of the Seals Miromesnil to explain himself. Rohan produced a letter signed "Marie Antoinette de France", on reading which the King became furious that Rohan, a prince étranger, could have let himself be fooled, since royalty do not use surnames. Rohan was arrested and taken to the Bastille, where he destroyed the correspondence he had thought had been with the Queen. In addition, Jeanne was not arrested until three days later, after having destroyed her papers.
The police set to work to find all her accomplices, and arrested the prostitute Nicole Leguay d'Oliva and Rétaux de Villette, who confessed that he had written the letters given to Rohan in the queen's name, and had imitated her signature on the conditions of the bargain. The famous charlatan Cagliostro was also arrested, although it is doubtful whether he had any part in the affair.
The Cardinal de Rohan accepted the Parlement de Paris as judges. A sensational trial resulted (May 31, 1786) in the acquittal of the Cardinal

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Thank you for this most interesting story of Marie Antoinette's diamond necklace.
Here's what I can to add: La Comtesse de la Motte escaped from prison and took refuge in London, where she sold the 22 diamonds she had taken from the necklace. The diamonds were later set in a riveiere, which is currently part of a the Duke of Marlborough's* collection. The necklace is commonly known as the Sunderland necklace. La Comtesse eventually died in London in 1791, although there are rumours the she lived under a false identity in Odessa, under the protection of the Russian Tzar.

*the Dukes of Marlborough are related to the Earls Spencer and to the former British PM Sir Winston (Spencer-)Churchill.

Here's the Sunderland necklace:

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Bobby,please, would you help me with this.
I just went on the top of this page and revisited your post from January 24th. and realized, that in the portrait of Queen Marie-Amelie
of France, I am looking at the tiara attached to a hat! I wonder how common it was in those days, and if there are any more available
examples?
Thank you very much!
Liza

I don't think it was that common. At least I couldn't find another photo of a tiara being worn that way. And honestly this may not be a hat, but a velvet kokoshnik or the artist's imagination. The tiara doesn't seem flexible at all to me. Of course the ostrich feathers were common for court dresses (almost a must) till the 1930s (in Britain at least).

Bobby

I don't know if that counts, but here's a portrait of The Princess Augusta Sophia, second daughter of George III, wearing what looks like a tiara upside down and a turban. Any guesses what jewels HRH's wearing and what happened with them?

 

[LadyMaria]

Let the countdown begin...1 week from Saturday I will be at the Diana exhibit!

I promise to take tons of pictures for everyone!!

 

[LadyMaria]

Here's a tasty little photobook I found. I recognize most of these, but some were new to me. I tried to download some pics but the website doesn't support a Mac...

http://news.webshots.com/album/541586021ENDKya

Enjoy!

 

[Feeshalori]

Here's a tasty little photobook I found. I recognize most of these, but some were new to me. I tried to download some pics but the website doesn't support a Mac...

http://news.webshots.com/album/541586021ENDKya

Enjoy!

This is a nice link, LadyMaria. I wonder if the "Queen Mary" tiara on the first page is still in the British royal vaults; that is, if it is referring to Queen Mary of England. Has that been worn recently? Wouldn't that be a lovely consideration for Catherine to wear on her wedding day?

Patricia

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Here's a tasty little photobook I found. I recognize most of these, but some were new to me. I tried to download some pics but the website doesn't support a Mac...

http://news.webshots.com/album/541586021ENDKya

Enjoy!

Nice link, Lady Maria, thanks. Although I've seen them before, it was nice to browse once again.
The site is not snubbing you because you're using a Mac. You can't see the full size of the image or download it if you're not a friend (on-line) of the uploader. It was possible in the past, but now it is not.

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

This is a nice link, LadyMaria. I wonder if the "Queen Mary" tiara on the first page is still in the British royal vaults; that is, if it is referring to Queen Mary of England. Has that been worn recently? Wouldn't that be a lovely consideration for Catherine to wear on her wedding day?

Patricia

Patricia, if there's one tiara in HM The Queen 's collection that is worn more often than any other, that's the Girls of GB&I. Elizabeth II wore it for the last time in Canada last July.
In my opinion, this is one of the unlikeliest choices for a tiara Catherine might wear, while still Princess William of Wales.

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Let the countdown begin...1 week from Saturday I will be at the Diana exhibit!

I promise to take tons of pictures for everyone!!

Maria, do you know which Spencer jewels you're going to see? I think the diamond earrings, the double tiara and the wedding dress are part of the exhibition, right?

Bobby

 

[laurensmama]

Bobby,

If you look at the link again, the are two tiaras listed under Queen Mary (one is the Ireland & Great Britain one) and the other one just refers to Queen Mary. Perhaps the second one is the one that was referred to in the previous post. If so what do you know about it? Thanks

 

[LadyMaria]

Here's a tasty little photobook I found. I recognize most of these, but some were new to me. I tried to download some pics but the website doesn't support a Mac...

http://news.webshots.com/album/541586021ENDKya

Enjoy!

Nice link, Lady Maria, thanks. Although I've seen them before, it was nice to browse once again.
The site is not snubbing you because you're using a Mac. You can't see the full size of the image or download it if you're not a friend (on-line) of the uploader. It was possible in the past, but now it is not.

Bobby

It does say specifically that their downloading doesn't support a Mac. Poor lost souls...

I've had 3 Mac computers over the past 20 years. I can count on one hand the number of times it's crashed. My PC at school though....it's crashed more times than that just this year!!

 

[LadyMaria]

This is a nice link, LadyMaria. I wonder if the "Queen Mary" tiara on the first page is still in the British royal vaults; that is, if it is referring to Queen Mary of England. Has that been worn recently? Wouldn't that be a lovely consideration for Catherine to wear on her wedding day?

Patricia

Patricia, if there's one tiara in HM The Queen 's collection that is worn more often than any other, that's the Girls of GB&I. Elizabeth II wore it for the last time in Canada last July.
In my opinion, this is one of the unlikeliest choices for a tiara Catherine might wear, while still Princess William of Wales.

Bobby

Agreed. QEII loves that tiara. At the People magazine site where they have a spot for people to vote on which tiara Catherine should wear, this tiara is getting the most votes (compared to the Dehli Durbar, the Teck Crescents, and the Strathmore Rose). Obviously most of the people who are voting are not informed on their royal jewels or they would know that the Girls and the Durbar have no chance of showing up on the wedding day.

And you know what...with all the talk of how William and Catherine are trying to keep costs down and have a low-key wedding, I'm starting to get a teensy bit worried there may be no tiara at all!

 

[LadyMaria]

Let the countdown begin...1 week from Saturday I will be at the Diana exhibit!

I promise to take tons of pictures for everyone!!

Maria, do you know which Spencer jewels you're going to see? I think the diamond earrings, the double tiara and the wedding dress are part of the exhibition, right?

Bobby

The wedding dress for sure! My mom has been sending me newspapers with anything about the exhibit, and there's a cool shot of the dressing being unloaded. When the exhibit was set up even the expert at Althorp was thrilled with how the dress is being displayed...there is enough room at the Grand Rapids Art Museum to have the entire train stretched out...all 25 feet of it! They made a small stairstep and put a red carpet down it to try and make it look like it was going up the steps of St. Paul's Catherdral. At Althrop they have have to wrap the train around the dress.

There are also her shoes, and the dress worn by her cheif bridesmaid, Lady Sara Chatto (nee Armstrong-Jones), daughter of Princess Margaret.

I am also certain the ugly Spencer tiara (is that what you mean buy the double tiara Bobby? The one that looks like two tiaras put together) is also part of the exhibit. I've seen pictures of that too.

As for the Spencer tiara, if it's not the real one it's a good replica. The manniquein the dress is on has a head, and there is a tiara and the veil on it. The newspaper picture wasn't clear enough for me to tell if it was the real thing. I will study the close-up pictures of it in the Munn Tiara Bible before I go.

My mom talked to a friend who has seen it, and she said there is a spot in the exhibit that explains why the ring is not there. The engagement of William and Catherine has certianly helped generate publicity for this exhibit! But, I don't know that the ring was ever part of the exhibit. Harry picked the ring out as his personal memento of his mother (William chose her Cartier watch), and I don't see William and Harry agreeing to let what they picked out go on exhibit by their uncle.

Here's a link that shows parts of the exhibit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-cWqBd0AIk

 

[Feeshalori]

Bobby,

If you look at the link again, the are two tiaras listed under Queen Mary (one is the Ireland & Great Britain one) and the other one just refers to Queen Mary. Perhaps the second one is the one that was referred to in the previous post. If so what do you know about it? Thanks

Thank you, Laurensmama, the second one identified as simply Queen Mary's tiara is the one to which I was referring. I knew that the first tiara was the GGBI which, of course, the Queen would never allow anyone to use, certainly not in her lifetime. Looking at the second photo again, I realize that it must be the GGBI with the removable band included (as mentioned), giving it a taller appearance. It had just looked very different, resulting in my thinking it was a different tiara. See what a little modification can do? So my vote for Catherine is still the Strathmore Rose tiara because of its delicacy and historical significance. I think it's worth whatever the cost to refurbish it and give it the light of day.

 

[alexander1917]

the GoGBaI tiara had a dedetchable base. in the list of Princess Elizabeth wedding presents (1947) the 2 parts were listened. later (1969) the two parts were pernamently attached.


HM during the 1950's
Queen Mary with the tiara without the base (right corner)
younger Queen Mary wearing only the base

 

[loriken214]

the GoGBaI tiara had a dedetchable base. in the list of Princess Elizabeth wedding presents (1947) the 2 parts were listened. later (1969) the two parts were pernamently attached.


HM during the 1950's
Queen Mary with the tiara without the base (right corner)
younger Queen Mary wearing only the base

Hi Alexander!

What book are these photos from?

Lori

 

[loriken214]

Is QEII wearing a corset in the last photo or was that her natural size? She was tiny back then!

Lori

 

[JewelFreak]

Diana never wore the awkward "double" Spencer tiara, did she? Don't recall any photos.

I vote for the Strathmore Rose tiara for Kate too. I do hope it's not a non-tiara wedding; think a lot of people would be disappointed.

Do you suppose Kate will ever appear in the huge sapphire & pearl choker Diana wore so often? She'd look very nice in it.

--- Laurie

 

[Cordata]

Bobby,

If you look at the link again, the are two tiaras listed under Queen Mary (one is the Ireland & Great Britain one) and the other one just refers to Queen Mary. Perhaps the second one is the one that was referred to in the previous post. If so what do you know about it? Thanks

Thank you, Laurensmama, the second one identified as simply Queen Mary's tiara is the one to which I was referring. I knew that the first tiara was the GGBI which, of course, the Queen would never allow anyone to use, certainly not in her lifetime. Looking at the second photo again, I realize that it must be the GGBI with the removable band included (as mentioned), giving it a taller appearance. It had just looked very different, resulting in my thinking it was a different tiara. See what a little modification can do? So my vote for Catherine is still the Strathmore Rose tiara because of its delicacy and historical significance. I think it's worth whatever the cost to refurbish it and give it the light of day.

The second tiara looks somewow odd and clumsy and I believe that it is just a copy of the GGBI tiara. It just doesn't have the same grace and elegance of the real GGBI.

 

[Feeshalori]

Yes, it did say that it was a replica but because it looked so different I supposed therein lay my mistake in thinking that it was a different tiara. Doesn't have the luster, glow and elegance of the original tiara. So the first photo is of the original GGBI tiara and the second photo is one of a replica with the detachable base, one can safely?? say.

Patricia

 

[laurensmama]

Please refresh my memory,I thought there are three spencer tiaras, the one diana always wore, one owned my marie antoinette and another one. could someone post pictures with a history or refer back to it in this string, if already discussed. thanks

 

[Princejohnny25]

Ah, Bobby! I had no idea a photo of the sunderland necklace existed. Thanks so much for that! Do you if a photo exists of the tiara that goes along with it. I've only every seen the black and white (sketch?) of it and it looks very pretty. Didn't it belong to Marie Antoinette too?

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Lauransmama & Prince Johnny, your question will be answered on the tiara thread.

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

I think it's still 31 January in the Netherlands, so I'm not too late for this post...

I want to wish HM Queen Beatrix a most happy birthday and many more to come! I hope she had a wonderful day with her children and grandchildren.

Bobby

 

[QueenShelly]

Were do u guys gets your books on these subjects