Royal Jewels

[T L]

I know she's not a royal, but does anyone know what jewels Carole Middleton is wearing in this picture? They look like aquas, but not sure.

I think this is it. Robinson Pelham designed Catherine's earrings and Pippa's earrings/necklace. This necklace and chandelier earrings are on his site. Sure looks like the ones Mrs. Middleton is wearing. They are blue topaz.

Thanks Lady M, you are awesome. I hope they're not blue topaz though.

I hate to disappoint you TL...the Pelham site said they are blue topaz, that wasn't just my guess. Were you wishing for aquamarine? Or blue tourmaline?

Yes, as a colored stone collector, I was hoping for a better choice in a blue stone, so yes, aqua or tourmaline would have been preferable. I mean, I know the Queen owns aquas, but can you imagine her wearing blue topaz?

 

[jewelerman]

i have a question.I see a photo in this thread of Kate waving to the crowd and she has her Vail down, so im assuming she is on the way into the building.My question...was she wearing her engagement ring through out the ceremony on her right hand because i was looking for it the whole time and didn't see it.am i just blind?

 

[QueenShelly]

So who out ranks whom?
Catherine or Camilla

Camilla outranks Catherine.

Well that blew my hopes out the window

 

[JewelFreak]

Don't know where Catherine had her e-ring during the ceremony, but you generally don't have it on because the wedding ring has to go above it, closer to the heart. She did wear it, I noticed, when they left the Abbey. Maybe her mother held onto it for her during the ceremony -- probably she put it on when they went in back to sign the register.

Yes, Camilla outranks Catherine because Charles outranks William.

--- Laurie

 

[Imdanny]

I was sad & unimpressed when the Princess Royal was panned on just as the couple were going in to sign the registrar, Anne's husband said something to her & in return to her husband made an odd smirk & said, 'rags to riches'..

I am generally a kind and loving person, but like a lioness who defends her cubs, I can be a truly vicious enemy if I see someone whom I perceive as a threat attacking someone whom I perceive as gentle and needing my defense. The Princess Royal got in my way. I hope I am not going to go off the deep end and have to be removed from this thread by Ella! So far I think I am within bounds. This picture was already posted by someone else in a thread in Hangout. It shows their Royal Highnesses the Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice of York. I just thought that if The Princess Royal wants to put the House of Windsor in order she might leave The Duchess of Cambridge to her own devices and bend her mind to what she can do for her blood relatives, who seem to be in need of more tutelage than the former Miss Middleton!

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

Deb, a lioness who defends her cubs?! The Princess Royal got in your way?! LOL! You're a riot!

 

[Ara Ann]

Longtime lurker of this thread, coming out to ask a question.

Will The Duchess of Cambridge now receive her own tiara from the Queen? Or do you think she will continue to borrow tiaras as needed? Just curious because several previous Royal brides have received a tiara as a gift, (Sophie and Fergie) but they wore theirs on their wedding day.

Just wondering if there was any talk of Catherine receiving one of her own at some point in the future...and if so, curious as to what it would look like!

Thank you!

 

[T L]

Longtime lurker of this thread, coming out to ask a question.

Will The Duchess of Cambridge now receive her own tiara from the Queen? Or do you think she will continue to borrow tiaras as needed? Just curious because several previous Royal brides have received a tiara as a gift, (Sophie and Fergie) but they wore theirs on their wedding day.

Just wondering if there was any talk of Catherine receiving one of her own at some point in the future...and if so, curious as to what it would look like!

Thank you!

The difference is that Sophie and Fergie were marrying the Queen's own children, and William is the Queen's grandchild, so I suspect that's why she let her borrow it, but I could be wrong.

 

[NSEB1958]

Before I disappear back into lurkerdom! The Tiara that Catherine wore was PERFECT for her in every way! She (or the Queen) made an excellent choice! I was hoping for the Strathmore Rose but...... I hope Catherine will continue to wear it as often as possible. And I must say her choice in Dresses for her wedding day were absolutely fabulous. And i am so glad William got to add his choices into the service and day also. Most brides forget to include the groom in wedding plans!. Now back to my regularly scheduled Lurking!

 

[T L]

I am excited to see Catherine on her first evening event, but I suspect, unlike Diana, the jewelry will be very minimal. I suspect Catherine does not like wearing lots of large opulent royals jewels. I thought her earrings were so pretty, yet minimalistic.

Does anyone know what earrings Diana wore to her wedding? I was watching old wedding footage, and her hair covered them.

 

[Ara Ann]

Longtime lurker of this thread, coming out to ask a question.

Will The Duchess of Cambridge now receive her own tiara from the Queen? Or do you think she will continue to borrow tiaras as needed? Just curious because several previous Royal brides have received a tiara as a gift, (Sophie and Fergie) but they wore theirs on their wedding day.

Just wondering if there was any talk of Catherine receiving one of her own at some point in the future...and if so, curious as to what it would look like!

Thank you!

The difference is that Sophie and Fergie were marrying the Queen's own children, and William is the Queen's grandchild, so I suspect that's why she let her borrow it, but I could be wrong.

Yes, that makes perfect sense, thanks for your reply TL! But I'd still like to see Catherine with her own tiara someday! Her taste in jewelry is quite understated though, so perhaps she won't ask for her own tiara, or expect one. And once she is Queen, well, then she'll have LOTS to choose from!

 

[jean95404]

Engagement ring

As Catherine went into the church her engagement ring was on her right hand. It is my best guess that she changed it over to her left hand when they went back to sign the marriage documents in the room behind the alter because it was on her left hand when they returned to the main church.

 

[LadyMaria]

So who out ranks whom?
Catherine or Camilla

It depends on if they are with their spouses. A non-blood royal takes the rank of her husband. If the husband is not present, then she does not take his rank. So, if Charles and Camilla and Catherine and William are all together, then Camilla outranks Catherine.

If Catherine is with William and Camilla is present but Charles is NOT, then Catherine outranks Camilla.

If Camilla is with Charles and Catherine is present but William is NOT, then Camilla outranks Catherline.

 

[JewelFreak]

If Catherine is with William and Camilla is present but Charles is NOT, then Catherine outranks Camilla.

If Camilla is with Charles and Catherine is present but William is NOT, then Camilla outranks Catherline.

So, in other words, you ain't nuthin' widout yo' man? Yikes.

 

[LadyMaria]

Longtime lurker of this thread, coming out to ask a question.

Will The Duchess of Cambridge now receive her own tiara from the Queen? Or do you think she will continue to borrow tiaras as needed? Just curious because several previous Royal brides have received a tiara as a gift, (Sophie and Fergie) but they wore theirs on their wedding day.

Just wondering if there was any talk of Catherine receiving one of her own at some point in the future...and if so, curious as to what it would look like!

Thank you!

The difference is that Sophie and Fergie were marrying the Queen's own children, and William is the Queen's grandchild, so I suspect that's why she let her borrow it, but I could be wrong.

I think given the low-key lifestyle that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wish to lead for these first couple of years, there won't be many tiara events for them at first. But, my personal inference is that if Catherine needs a tiara, she will probably borrow the Scroll. Here are the two observations that make me think this:

1. Catherine's earrings were designed to mimic some of the motifs of the scroll tiara. Why go through the trouble of designing earrings to match the tiara if you never wear the tiara again?

2. The Scroll hasn't been worn in 20 years before the wedding. Who else would be wearing it?

Also, keep in mind that Diana was given the Cambridge Lover's Knot the night before her wedding to Charles. She didn't wear it for the first time until November 1981 at the opening of parliament. If there was any tiara gift, we may not see it for a while.

 

[T L]

So who out ranks whom?
Catherine or Camilla

It depends on if they are with their spouses. A non-blood royal takes the rank of her husband. If the husband is not present, then she does not take his rank. So, if Charles and Camilla and Catherine and William are all together, then Camilla outranks Catherine.

If Catherine is with William and Camilla is present but Charles is NOT, then Catherine outranks Camilla.

If Camilla is with Charles and Catherine is present but William is NOT, then Camilla outranks Catherline.

I believe you're correct, but after the Queen Mother's husband's death, didn't she still outrank everyone, except the Queen? Was that because she was the Queen-consort of a King and/or the mother of the Queen?

 

[JewelFreak]

Makes good sense, Maria. The Scroll Tiara is also understated, like Kate's general taste.

On the subject of precedence, I found this, which contradicts the earlier statement, citing Debrett's, & clarifies it. Very interesting, in fact, that HM changed it at the time Charles married Camilla. Since the Queen ain't no dummy, I am sure Camilla was considered -- whether the change was specifically related to her or not, embarrassing her didn't seem to matter to HM.

There are tables of precedence for men and women in England and Wales (the Scottish equivalents are slightly different) http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/hierarchies/table-of-precedence-ladies.aspx As can be seen from the table for women, Prince Charles’s wife no longer ranks directly after the Queen. When the revised order of precedence was issued after the wedding of Charles and Camilla, it had been changed so that princesses of the blood royal (Princess Anne, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and Princess Alexandra) came ahead of the Duchess of Cornwall and other royal ladies who had married into the family. It was explained that this had been done to reflect Camilla’s desire to be known as Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales. Of course certain people interpreted the change as evidence that the Queen disapproved of Camilla and had publicly humiliated her with a right royal demotion. Others have interpreted the change as applying only to private royal events since at state occasions royal wives still appear to have precedence along with their husbands.

A recent article in the Daily Mail has taken this revised order of precedence and used it to claim that (a) there are some occasions - apparently to do with the presence or absence of their husbands - when Kate will actually outrank Camilla and (b) therefore Camilla will have to curtsey to Kate. In fact, royal ladies don’t go around curtseying to each other. They do curtsey to the Queen (and in past years the Queen Mother), but Camilla and Kate won’t be in the business of curtseying to each other until one of them is the consort of the king. Kate will outrank Camilla in the order of precedence only if William becomes king in Camilla’s lifetime. Otherwise Camilla, as the wife of the heir apparent, outranks Kate regardless of whether one or the other husband happens to be in the room.

 

[Ara Ann]

Longtime lurker of this thread, coming out to ask a question.

Will The Duchess of Cambridge now receive her own tiara from the Queen? Or do you think she will continue to borrow tiaras as needed? Just curious because several previous Royal brides have received a tiara as a gift, (Sophie and Fergie) but they wore theirs on their wedding day.

Just wondering if there was any talk of Catherine receiving one of her own at some point in the future...and if so, curious as to what it would look like!

Thank you!

The difference is that Sophie and Fergie were marrying the Queen's own children, and William is the Queen's grandchild, so I suspect that's why she let her borrow it, but I could be wrong.

I think given the low-key lifestyle that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wish to lead for these first couple of years, there won't be many tiara events for them at first. But, my personal inference is that if Catherine needs a tiara, she will probably borrow the Scroll. Here are the two observations that make me think this:

1. Catherine's earrings were designed to mimic some of the motifs of the scroll tiara. Why go through the trouble of designing earrings to match the tiara if you never wear the tiara again?

2. The Scroll hasn't been worn in 20 years before the wedding. Who else would be wearing it?

Also, keep in mind that Diana was given the Cambridge Lover's Knot the night before her wedding to Charles. She didn't wear it for the first time until November 1981 at the opening of parliament. If there was any tiara gift, we may not see it for a while.

Good points Lady Maria!

And I agree, the scroll tiara suits Catherine perfectly, it is elegant and understated, but still a beautiful piece and it looks lovely on her!

 

[Fly Girl]

Longtime lurker of this thread, coming out to ask a question.

Will The Duchess of Cambridge now receive her own tiara from the Queen? Or do you think she will continue to borrow tiaras as needed? Just curious because several previous Royal brides have received a tiara as a gift, (Sophie and Fergie) but they wore theirs on their wedding day.

Just wondering if there was any talk of Catherine receiving one of her own at some point in the future...and if so, curious as to what it would look like!

Thank you!

The difference is that Sophie and Fergie were marrying the Queen's own children, and William is the Queen's grandchild, so I suspect that's why she let her borrow it, but I could be wrong.

Yes, that makes perfect sense, thanks for your reply TL! But I'd still like to see Catherine with her own tiara someday! Her taste in jewelry is quite understated though, so perhaps she won't ask for her own tiara, or expect one. And once she is Queen, well, then she'll have LOTS to choose from!

You need to consider whether the tiara will stay within the royal family when it is given to a bride. I think that is why Sarah was given a new tiara as a wedding gift, and not one already owned by the royals. Even if she were still married to the Duke of York, eventually her tiara will be passed along and would no longer be owned the royal family. I expect that as a future Queen of England, the new duchess will be given historically important jewelry to wear. I expect that the Scroll/Halo tiara is hers to use for the foreseeable future, and it doesn't really matter if we call it a loan from the Queen, or hers to wear during her lifetime. It will be remaining with the royal family in any case.

 

[AGBF]

So who out ranks whom?
Catherine or Camilla

It depends on if they are with their spouses. A non-blood royal takes the rank of her husband. If the husband is not present, then she does not take his rank. So, if Charles and Camilla and Catherine and William are all together, then Camilla outranks Catherine.

If Catherine is with William and Camilla is present but Charles is NOT, then Catherine outranks Camilla.

If Camilla is with Charles and Catherine is present but William is NOT, then Camilla outranks Catherline.

LadyMaria-I appreciate your experise in this area, but there has to be more to it and I would like to get to the bottom of it! Perhaps you can help me. Neither Camilla nor Catherine loses her rank entirely simply because her spouse is not present. As you know, simply having royal status-the HRH-places them above most other women in the Order of Precedence. In fact, the Order of Precedence is explicit in who outranks whom (and it is, to my eyes, very odd). So one cannot really say that if if the husband is not present, then she does not take his rank. There have to be some rules that place these women above others even when their spouses are not present, but I'll be darned if I have any idea what they are!!!

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[T L]

Longtime lurker of this thread, coming out to ask a question.

Will The Duchess of Cambridge now receive her own tiara from the Queen? Or do you think she will continue to borrow tiaras as needed? Just curious because several previous Royal brides have received a tiara as a gift, (Sophie and Fergie) but they wore theirs on their wedding day.

Just wondering if there was any talk of Catherine receiving one of her own at some point in the future...and if so, curious as to what it would look like!

Thank you!

The difference is that Sophie and Fergie were marrying the Queen's own children, and William is the Queen's grandchild, so I suspect that's why she let her borrow it, but I could be wrong.

Yes, that makes perfect sense, thanks for your reply TL! But I'd still like to see Catherine with her own tiara someday! Her taste in jewelry is quite understated though, so perhaps she won't ask for her own tiara, or expect one. And once she is Queen, well, then she'll have LOTS to choose from!

You need to consider whether the tiara will stay within the royal family when it is given to a bride. I think that is why Sarah was given a new tiara as a wedding gift, and not one already owned by the royals. Even if she were still married to the Duke of York, eventually her tiara will be passed along and would no longer be owned the royal family. I expect that as a future Queen of England, the new duchess will be given historically important jewelry to wear. I expect that the Scroll/Halo tiara is hers to use for the foreseeable future, and it doesn't really matter if we call it a loan from the Queen, or hers to wear during her lifetime. It will be remaining with the royal family in any case.

The question is, now that Fergie is no longer married to Andrew or an HRH, does she still have the tiara? I don't think tiaras, or any jewelry owned by the royal house, are ever truly "given away" by the Queen, are they? I think they're more like on lifetime loan (as long as you're married/widowed in the family). Once you die, the tiara would return back to the reigning monarch. That's my guess. In fact, when Diana died, didn't the Queen call French representatives at the hospital to request that all royal jewels be returned back to her?

 

[T L]

While looking at royal jewels last night, I came upon this bracelet that Prince Phillip designed for the Queen on their fifth wedding anniversary. It reminds me a great deal of 15th and 16th century chains. I thought it was beautiful, and I had no idea he had a talent for jewelry design.

"The Queen's 5th Wedding Anniversary Bracelet
This bracelet was made by Boucheron, designed by Prince Phillip and given to Queen Elizabeth to celebrate their 5th wedding anniversary. The links are gold shaped on interlocked E's and P's. The centre medallion is Prince Philip's naval badge set in diamonds. There are 2 sapphire baguette crosses, a ruby cross, and 2 ruby and diamond studded flowers with fluted petals."

It was funny, but I saw a video where the Queen was making small talk with a person painting her portrait. He asked her about her favorite pieces of jewelry, and she said, "I don't wear jewelry unless I have to." How sad, can you imagine if Liz Taylor had access to the royal jewels???

 

[LadyMaria]

So who out ranks whom?
Catherine or Camilla

It depends on if they are with their spouses. A non-blood royal takes the rank of her husband. If the husband is not present, then she does not take his rank. So, if Charles and Camilla and Catherine and William are all together, then Camilla outranks Catherine.

If Catherine is with William and Camilla is present but Charles is NOT, then Catherine outranks Camilla.

If Camilla is with Charles and Catherine is present but William is NOT, then Camilla outranks Catherline.

LadyMaria-I appreciate your experise in this area, but there has to be more to it and I would like to get to the bottom of it! Perhaps you can help me. Neither Camilla nor Catherine loses her rank entirely simply because her spouse is not present. As you know, simply having royal status-the HRH-places them above most other women in the Order of Precedence. In fact, the Order of Precedence is explicit in who outranks whom (and it is, to my eyes, very odd). So one cannot really say that if if the husband is not present, then she does not take his rank. There have to be some rules that place these women above others even when their spouses are not present, but I'll be darned if I have any idea what they are!!!

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

This whole Order of Precedence issue came up with the marriage of Camilla and Charles. Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra didn't feel they should have to curtsy to Camilla since she is a non-blood royal (not to mention Camilla wasn't very popular at the time). Prince Andrew is very particular of the status of his daughters and seems to want every royal priviledge extended to them including having people curtsy to them (oh, and police protection as they go bar hopping and wearing crazy hats). I never remember hearing about this fuss when Charles and Diana married, but Diana was at least a member of the aristrocracy so maybe it didn't sting Princess Anne or Princess Alexandra as much, and Beatrice and Eugenie weren't even born. The idea is to put women born into royalty ahead of those who weren't whenever possible.

Here are the two resources that I used, and these came out shortly after the engagement...it really does boil down to if they are with their man or not:


http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20395222_20445965,00.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1334261/Kate-Middleton-Will-Camilla-curtsey-wife-future-king.html

 

[LadyMaria]

The question is, now that Fergie is no longer married to Andrew or an HRH, does she still have the tiara? I don't think tiaras, or any jewelry owned by the royal house, are ever truly "given away" by the Queen, are they? I think they're more like on lifetime loan (as long as you're married/widowed in the family). Once you die, the tiara would return back to the reigning monarch. That's my guess. In fact, when Diana died, didn't the Queen call French representatives at the hospital to request that all royal jewels be returned back to her?

I do remember reading somewhere that Fergie still has the tiara. It was an article with an interview with either Beatrice's boyfriend or Eugenie's boyfriend, saying how either Beatrice or Eugenie took him into their mother's bedroom and showed him the tiara.

It was purchased for her and was not part of the "Crown Jewelry" so it was a gift to her and to keep. If a jewel is the part of the Crown Jewelry (ie property of the crown) then it is returned to the royal family in the event of divorce or death. For example, the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara was a gift to Diana, but it is part of the Crown Jewelry. After her death, it was returned to the Queen.

 

[T L]

I found an interesting tidbit. Diana's ring wasn't the only piece of Diana's jewelry at the wedding of William and Kate. Evidently, her sister, Lady Sarah, wore the earrings that Diana wore to her wedding to Prince Charles.

http://www.jamesallen.com/news/cele...princess-diana-diamond-earrings-04-20-11.html

 

[laurensmama]

Can anyone post a better picture of the necklace worn by the Duchess of Brabant (sp) during the wedding festivities? Is it a tiara that converts to a necklace, if yes can you post it both ways and provide additional information? thanks

 

[LadyMaria]

I am excited to see Catherine on her first evening event, but I suspect, unlike Diana, the jewelry will be very minimal. I suspect Catherine does not like wearing lots of large opulent royals jewels. I thought her earrings were so pretty, yet minimalistic.

Does anyone know what earrings Diana wore to her wedding? I was watching old wedding footage, and her hair covered them.

The earrings were part of Diana's "something borrowed" from her mother, Frances Shand Kydd. Diana also wore these earrings at her first post engagement appearance with the strapless black taffeta dress that created such a stir. They are usually part of the Diana exhibit (which is currently in Kansas City) but were returned to England so that Diana's sister, Lady Sara Mccorquodale, could wear them to William's wedding.

 

[LadyMaria]

Believe it or not, there was another royal event. Pope John Paul II was beatified today, and some royalty was present including Crown Princess Letizia of Spain and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. I am not Catholic, but I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong) that all ladies must wear black veils, but a woman who is a queen/grand duchess wears white veils.

Princess Leitizia has a simple pair of diamond earrings, and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg is wearing pearls.

 

[AGBF]

I am not Catholic, but I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong) that all ladies must wear black veils, but a woman who is a queen/grand duchess wears white veils.

The Duchess of Cornwall wore a black mantilla (lace veil) when she met the pope recently. I never saw a photo of anyone in white before, so that is new to me.

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[Imdanny]

So who out ranks whom?
Catherine or Camilla

It depends on if they are with their spouses. A non-blood royal takes the rank of her husband. If the husband is not present, then she does not take his rank. So, if Charles and Camilla and Catherine and William are all together, then Camilla outranks Catherine.

If Catherine is with William and Camilla is present but Charles is NOT, then Catherine outranks Camilla.

If Camilla is with Charles and Catherine is present but William is NOT, then Camilla outranks Catherline.

What a bunch of silliness. Is it that who outranks whom at what moment is going to matter when someone has to run for a fire extinguisher? It was truly the elitism and to be honest the downright snottiness of the people who just had to go around telling everyone (this isn't a criticism of you, LadyMaria!; but it is a criticism of the system) about how Diana wasn't "a princess in her own right" at all, ever, never, and so, we were supposed to believe (and I didn't for one second) that she wasn't really equal to her own husband, ever, ever, ever. Really, who needs that kind of carp. It's a pretty sexist, archaic, and useless system if women can't ever be equal to their own husbands. I'm sorry but I find the whole concept of "Diana was never really a princess" and "Diana was a royal and then wasn't, but was still a member of the royal family!" really offensive.

 

[Imdanny]

Makes good sense, Maria. The Scroll Tiara is also understated, like Kate's general taste.

On the subject of precedence, I found this, which contradicts the earlier statement, citing Debrett's, & clarifies it. Very interesting, in fact, that HM changed it at the time Charles married Camilla. Since the Queen ain't no dummy, I am sure Camilla was considered -- whether the change was specifically related to her or not, embarrassing her didn't seem to matter to HM.

There are tables of precedence for men and women in England and Wales (the Scottish equivalents are slightly different) http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/hierarchies/table-of-precedence-ladies.aspx As can be seen from the table for women, Prince Charles’s wife no longer ranks directly after the Queen. When the revised order of precedence was issued after the wedding of Charles and Camilla, it had been changed so that princesses of the blood royal (Princess Anne, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and Princess Alexandra) came ahead of the Duchess of Cornwall and other royal ladies who had married into the family. It was explained that this had been done to reflect Camilla’s desire to be known as Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales. Of course certain people interpreted the change as evidence that the Queen disapproved of Camilla and had publicly humiliated her with a right royal demotion. Others have interpreted the change as applying only to private royal events since at state occasions royal wives still appear to have precedence along with their husbands.

A recent article in the Daily Mail has taken this revised order of precedence and used it to claim that (a) there are some occasions - apparently to do with the presence or absence of their husbands - when Kate will actually outrank Camilla and (b) therefore Camilla will have to curtsey to Kate. In fact, royal ladies don’t go around curtseying to each other. They do curtsey to the Queen (and in past years the Queen Mother), but Camilla and Kate won’t be in the business of curtseying to each other until one of them is the consort of the king. Kate will outrank Camilla in the order of precedence only if William becomes king in Camilla’s lifetime. Otherwise Camilla, as the wife of the heir apparent, outranks Kate regardless of whether one or the other husband happens to be in the room.

Yes, absolutely true. Charles' wife, i.e. Diana was second in precedence among women to the Queen, not the Queen Mother. But I think this just goes to my point about the whole thing being silly. I understand that they have to have an order of precedence for diplomacy and for events, that kind of thing (we even have that in the US), but the fact that it can be changed at the whim of HM is pretty telling that there's not very much substance behind it. And it's hard to keep up with, if one walks into a room, if one isn't in the room, this, that, and the other! I'm sorry but who really cares- the public is never going to esteem Camilla very high on its list, no matter what the Queen does or doesn't do for her benefit or to her detriment. I think the public has its own "order of precedence" and I bet Catherine far outranks Camilla in the affection of the public. Well, at least they won't have to be bowing down to each other. That would truly be obnoxious.