Royal Jewels

[LadyMaria]

*sigh* I am still in awe of what I have seen. Cameras were not allowed inside and there were security guards EVERYWHERE. I did get pictures of the outside and a bakery in Kansas City made a duplicate of the wedding cake that was allowed to be photographed. I spent 3 hours in the exhibit. I would have liked to backtrack and go through it again, but around noon the line to through the exhibit was really long and complicated by a group of senior citizens in wheelchairs. I did go back and look at the wedding dress again.

One observation: most people who went through the exhibit don't know much about royal families (example question: "I thought Anne was going to be Queen someday!" ) When I was explaining something to my cousin, other people overheard and came over to listen to me. I had about a dozen people following me at one point.

I have to leave in an hour for the airport, so I'll most more when I get back to Texas.

 

[JewelFreak]

You know, Ara Ann, I'll bet the Queen will have a word with her about skirt length. Not to mention on breezy days! OK, back to jewelry!

She will have to be brought into line. Just as children have to grow up. How sad! She is lovely as she is. Like a little girl in a tutu!

Yeah, Deb, but she is, what, 29 now? Little girl time is past. The issue is mainly driven by paparazzi -- a windy day blows a short skirt up, HRH's knickers & buns are on every front page in the world. Not the best dignified image of royalty. She is not a private citizen anymore, like it or not. Other beautiful princesses, such as those whose pics Bobby just provided (Thanks, Bobby, wonderful photos!), manage to be darn chic in sightly longer skirts. Just a few inches makes a big difference. I saw articles in British newspapers mentioning how short that skirt was.

Bobby -- I can't find anything on the Countess of Barcelona's turquoise jewels. Did you dig more up? Did find a lovely photo of her wearing the Fleur de Lys tiara -- must have been taken at QE's coronation; she said it was the only time she ever wore it. And another tiara.

 

[T L]

*sigh* I am still in awe of what I have seen. Cameras were not allowed inside and there were security guards EVERYWHERE. I did get pictures of the outside and a bakery in Kansas City made a duplicate of the wedding cake that was allowed to be photographed. I spent 3 hours in the exhibit. I would have liked to backtrack and go through it again, but around noon the line to through the exhibit was really long and complicated by a group of senior citizens in wheelchairs. I did go back and look at the wedding dress again.

One observation: most people who went through the exhibit don't know much about royal families (example question: "I thought Anne was going to be Queen someday!" ) When I was explaining something to my cousin, other people overheard and came over to listen to me. I had about a dozen people following me at one point.

I have to leave in an hour for the airport, so I'll most more when I get back to Texas.

LadyM
Were the earrings back? I know her sister borrowed them for the royal wedding recently. So, tell us about the dress, is it better in person? What were some of the highlights? How exciting, I'm so jealous!!

Is it kind of sad to be looking at these things that once adorned Diana. I would probably be melancholy, even in my excitement. I remember back in '97 that I was at a gem and jewelry show. On display was a dress that the owners of the show won in the auction that summer. I thought it was cool, but thought it was odd to see the dress of someone still alive. You can imagine how I felt the next day after thinking that and seeing that dress. The date I went to the jewelry show was August 30th, 1997.

 

[QueenShelly]

It sounds like so much fun.

 

[QueenShelly]

Well AGBF you don't seem to understand my question. Im not going to explain why I want to know about certain royal history. You have miss read and miss understood.
I'll be the bigger person and let it go

 

[QueenShelly]

Will Katherine wear any of Williams mothers jewels or are they just on display.

Also back in the day some women did not have ears pierced. Some of the earrings were huge (long). How did they keep them on?

 

[JewelFreak]

I don't know, Shelley -- screwbacks that hurt like crazy???

TL, agree -- I'd feel melancholy too, while enjoying seeing such sumptuous clothing up close -- never have had the pleasure. Weird coincidence about seeing the dress the day before.

Maria -- can't wait to hear more. A shame they didn't allow photos.

--- Laurie

 

[laurensmama]

Earings previously had a loop that went over the top of the ear and was hidden by the hair. A photo of one was previously posted on this thread (Bobby? I think around the time of CP Victoria's wedding). You should be able to flip back through and find it.

 

[laurensmama]

Could someone please post some info on the fleur de lis tiara worn by the Countess of Barcelona (or point me back to it if previously posted). Is it still with the family? What is the history, etc. Thanks

 

[AGBF]

Well AGBF you don't seem to understand my question. Im not going to explain why I want to know about certain royal history. You have miss read and miss understood.

If I have misread and misunderstood, that may not be entirely my fault. I have certainly made an attempt to engage in civil discourse with you. If you wish me to understand, you must speak back to me.

I'll be the bigger person and let it go

By mentioning it, I am not sure that you are, "letting it go". I am also not sure that, "letting it go" is the best way to handle the matter.

I have tried to behave with courtesy and respect towards you. If you cannot tolerate my holding a point of view that is different from yours, I really do not know what to do to change that. But if you want me to listen to what you say when you speak (write), I am perfectly capable of doing that.

AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[LadyMaria]

LadyM
Were the earrings back? I know her sister borrowed them for the royal wedding recently. So, tell us about the dress, is it better in person? What were some of the highlights? How exciting, I'm so jealous!!

No, the earrings were not back. There was plenty of other jewelry though!

I don't think I'm going to be able to describe my experience in one post so I'll make several installments. I did take notes the whole time, and I bought the book that goes with the exhibit.

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 1: Family Notes

Here is a picture of Lady Cynthia Spencer, the wife of the 7th Earl Spencer. I found the resemblance between her and Diana spooky! What is also interesting to note is that Lady Cynthia was the first Spencer woman to take charity work seriously. Not only does Diana resemble her physically, but also in charitable works.

There was a full family tree laid out and I learned something knew…Diana’s sisters are actually Lady Cynthia and Lady Elizabeth! They both go by their middle names (Cynthia Jane and Elizabeth Sarah).

Every year a Polish artist, Madam Pawlikowska, was hired to draw pictures of the family. Here is one of the chalk drawings of Diana.

Finally, Diana’s father, Earl Spencer, was not only a pretty good amateur photographer, he was an early scrapbooker! There were 3 albums that weren’t just photographs, but definitely what we would call scrapbooks today.

I love scrapbooking too…this trip is going to get a few pages in my current one!

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 2: The Princess Diaries

There was a datebook that Diana apparently used as a diary of sorts from August 1979. She had notes in there about babysitting Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, and writing a thank-you note to the Queen. Boy, does my calendar look boring compared to that!

Two passports were on display, one from her childhood and her last one. The childhood passport had a caption that said Earl Spencer liked to take their passport photos himself, after bathtime when the children were clean. The adult passport had a line for the “usual signature” of the holder. She simply signed it “Diana.” You know you’re someone when you only need to sign your first name as your “usual signature” on a passport!

There was also a cool book that Countess Spencer used to record important dinners at Althorp. It was open to a special dinner held in honor of the visiting Queen Margarethe of Denmark. The book had a place to record where everyone sat, what the dinner was, what flowers were in the centerpieces, and what wines were served.

The final tidbit here was a printed menu from a dinner for Princess Margaret’s birthday in November 1980. Diana sat next to Prince Charles and wore “a new dress and diamond and ruby earrings.”

And I have to say, Diana didn't have the neatest handwriting...some of it was hard to read!

 

[JewelFreak]

Laurensmama, it's probably on here somewhere, but here's the story. The Fleur de Lys tiara was made by the Spanish jeweler Ansorena. It is diamonds & platinum. King Alfonso XIII gave it to Queen Victoria Eugenia, who wore it for their wedding in 1906. Along with it were the Collar de Chatones & earrings. The fleur de lys is the heraldic emblem of the Bourbons, rulers of Spain.

Queen Victoria Eugenia (Ena), a granddaughter of Victoria of England, was born Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenburg, daughter of Princess Beatrice of the UK and Prince Henry of Battenburg.

The tiara is one of the Spanish RF's most loved pieces & is worn only by the Queen of Spain. (The Countess of Barcelona, never queen due to Franco's reign, only wore it once, as mentioned above.) I think it was Franco who gave it to Princess Sophia on her marriage to Juan Carlos -- right, anyone?

It has several hinges, allowing it to be worn closed or open.

--- Laurie

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 3: Tiaras

The first part of the exhibit was the Spencer tiara/crown that Diana never wore. The lighting on this one was far better than the wedding tiara and it made it look far more sparkly than the wedding tiara. What I found most interesting with this tiara was the backside. I’ve often wondered how one would “combine” two tiaras. What I saw amounted to a wire rectangle (very heavy gauge wire) on the velvet base. On both of the long sides of the rectangle there were wire spikes coming up. The Greek Key part of this tiara was on the lower long side of the rectangle and were attached to the spikes with would seem to be heavy-duty twist ties. The twist ties were then folded down so as not to be visible from the front. These spikes were not very tall. The same thing happened on the top part, with one wire spike coming up behind each of the fan shapes. This was what I most wanted to take a picture of…but no pictures were allowed and there was a security guard or two in every single room.

The wedding tiara was on the mannequin with the wedding dress, so it was much harder to see with it so high up. The lighting focused on the dress, not the tiara, so this tiara didn’t sparkle near as much as the other tiara. What I did note was that the velvet base on this tiara actually goes all the way around the head.

 

[JewelFreak]

Maria, I was writing while you were -- thanks for all the great info! Can't wait for the rest. I'll have to study all that. I think it's sweet that Diana was excited enough about "new diamond & ruby earrings" to record wearing them.

Must have been a terrific time! Want to hear much more!

--- Laurie

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 4: Jewels of the 5th Countess Spencer

The 5th Countess Spencer was Charlotte. The Spencers were close with the royal family even then. This bracelet with diamond shamrocks was a present to Charlotte from Queen Alexandra.

Remember when Diana wore the Cambridge emerald choker as a headband? When I saw this diamond bracelet, I thought it would have looked stunning as a headband. This is another piece that belonged to the 5th Countess Spencer.

 

[AGBF]

Thank you for your postings, LadyMaria. They are really fascinating. I found the notation Lady Diana made about the new dress and the ruby and diamond earrings sad, because she so clearly seemed to have a crush on Prince Charles. One can just imagine her as a young girl excited about a new dress, new earrings, and the chance to sit next to her fairy-tale hero! It is just so sad!

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 5: Especially for TourmalineLover

The 5th Countess must have had a fondness for pink tourmaline. She had a ring and brooch. I was very surprised at how scratched up both stones were. Granted, they were purchased in the mid-1800’s, and tourmaline is only a 7 on the hardness scale, but I was still surprised. The 5th Earl Spencer purchased both of these pieces, and according to the book the jeweler was called “Hennell.” This is not a jeweler I’ve heard of before. A quick search said that Hennell was a “jeweler for the gentry through the first half of the twentieth century.”

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 6: Even More Jewels

The necklace with the 3 pearl drops and 2 diamond elements is WAY bigger than you expect. The diameter of the necklace is easily 12-15 inches (30-40 cm). You can easily see the earring hooks on the diamond elements. I would have though the connections would be better disguised. The pearls are not as well matched in shape and size and picture looks, and they are quite scratched up.

I loved these two brooches. I think they would make great hair ornaments too!

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 7: The Wedding Dress

It was amazing! When the dress is on display at Althrop, they don’t have room to stretch out the train to it’s full 25 feet. Here are the two different ways that the dress is displayed. I’m glad I got to see it in all of its full glory!

The first thought that struck me was how simple the dress was. I know this dress is always described as being classic 1980’s and over the top, but in person it really isn’t. The only part I would still describe as over sized are the sleeves and the length of the train. If I had seen this before William and Catherine’s wedding, I might have looked at it differently. I really think there was less lace in this dress as Catherine’s. Catherine’s dress had the lace on the bodice, sleeves, and all around the bottom and train of the dress. The skirt of Diana’s dress was just the plain silk. The only lace was in the sleeves, the collar, on the train, and there was some on the bodice but not as much as Catherine’s.

One detail I noticed on the train was that there was lace all the way around the hem, and then two narrow strips down the train. It was almost like the train was divided into thirds. One thing that I wanted to see but couldn’t, was how the train attaches to the dress. I’ve read parts about when Diana “unhooked” her train before the balcony appearance, so I know it comes off. I think about the little hook closures that were on my wedding dress to bustle the train up, and I just have a hard time thinking those little hooks, even a dozen of them, would be strong enough to bear the weight of the train.

The veil was equally astounding. I thought the edges were rolled like I’ve seen on other veils, but it almost looked like someone handstitched cotton lace thread around the entire edge. The other thing I never noticed before was that the veil had individual sequins randomly placed on it for the entire 25 feet. The tiara was on top with the veil, and I really wish that they would put a copy of the tiara on the mannequin, then display the real tiara to where we could see the detail better. As I mentioned earlier, they had better lighting on the Greek key combination tiara than they did the wedding tiara.

They also had the shoes, which were painted with gold on the soles, and an item that was not used that day: a silk parasol. It was made in case of rain. The silk and lace in the parasol matched the dress.

Lesson to be learned here: make an umbrella to match your wedding dress, then it won’t rain and you won’t use it. If Diana hadn’t had the parasol made, it would have poured!

 

[QueenShelly]

is the screw back earring considered a clip on?
Also I notice like with Queen Mary the tiara always setting on the head. but others wore it around the head. Is it because of the weight of the diamonds our other stones, or was it the style.
Is all tiaras made to be worn as neckles and tiaras?

 

[laurensmama]

The screw back ear ring is not considered a clip on. Perhaps the picture of the loops on the ear rings could be reposted. All tiaras do NOT convert into necklaces, etc.

 

[Imdanny]

Maria, I just in awe of your contributions to this thread. Thanks! I *wish* I could have that book. Sigh.

 

[JewelFreak]

What fabulous stuff, Maria! I envy you. Thanks so much for sharing it all.

I'm in LOVE with the shamrock bracelet, wow! I'd wear it every day if it were mine. Good idea for the 2 brooches too -- hair ornaments. Especially the sapphire one would be gorgeous.

And those shoes are exquisite!

--- Laurie

 

[JewelFreak]

Here is a video of the unpacking of the dress for the exhibit. You can clearly see the 2 lace runners on the train that you described, Maria. It looks like there are ties to attach the train to the dress, but I don't know how they work. Doesn't look like they go around the waist -- you would've noticed that, Maria. There'd have to be hooks too. Odd that there's nothing I can find about how it attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN8ODiAXY64

I did find this, interesting:

The bottom of the hemline has weights in it to keep it down....the train has weights in it to make it travel across the floor correctly.....it took all those little girls just to deal with the mass and weight of that train....and Diana was dragging that train behind her so that the back of her dress where it was attached also had to be reinforced (more weight) so that the dress did not tear at the attachment point.

It also said the dress & train weighed about 30 lbs. & Diana was exhausted at end of the day from dealing with it, even tho she took the train off at Buckingham Palace after the wedding.

--- Laurie

 

[T L]

LadyMaria,
Thank you so much for your in depth posts about the exhibit. I got goosebumps reading them!!

 

[LadyMaria]

Here is a video of the unpacking of the dress for the exhibit. You can clearly see the 2 lace runners on the train that you described, Maria. It looks like there are ties to attach the train to the dress, but I don't know how they work. Doesn't look like they go around the waist -- you would've noticed that, Maria. There'd have to be hooks too. Odd that there's nothing I can find about how it attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN8ODiAXY64

I did find this, interesting:

The bottom of the hemline has weights in it to keep it down....the train has weights in it to make it travel across the floor correctly.....it took all those little girls just to deal with the mass and weight of that train....and Diana was dragging that train behind her so that the back of her dress where it was attached also had to be reinforced (more weight) so that the dress did not tear at the attachment point.

It also said the dress & train weighed about 30 lbs. & Diana was exhausted at end of the day from dealing with it, even tho she took the train off at Buckingham Palace after the wedding.

--- Laurie

I've seen this video too, and those ties are what have always confused me. I could not see any point on the dress where those ties went on the dress. I am absolutely certain they did not go around the front.

I'm glad everyone is enjoying my "diary" of sorts....I'm only about half way through my notes!

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 8: The Bridesmaid Dress Mistake

Being a devoted follower of all things royal, I tend to pay attention to the small details. It is this obsessive trait of mine that lead me to conclude that there was a mistake on the label for the bridesmaid dress.

First, the bridesmaids that Diana had were Clementine Hambro, Catherine Cameron (they were the two youngest ones), India Hicks, Sarah Jane Gaslee (they were the middle-teenage ones), and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (the oldest). The only bridesmaid who wore a full-length dress was Lady Sarah.

In the exhibit that I saw, there was only one bridesmaid dress on display. The label said it was the dress worn by Miss Clementine Hambro. When I first looked at the dress, I thought it looked too big to be worn by a six year old.

Looking the picture from the Althorp exhibit, there are two bridesmaids’ dresses. According to the book, they are the dresses worn by Clementine Hambro and India Hicks.

Now, look more closely at the bridesmaids’ dresses from the Althorp exhibit…the smaller of the two dresses does NOT have the ruffle around the collar. So, the non-ruffle collar dress was Clementine Hambro’s while the dress with the ruffle was India Hicks’.

This picture was not from the exhibit I saw (this is from Grand Rapids) but the dress has the ruffle on the collar. So, I conclude that the label was wrong. The bridesmaid dress I saw was not Clementine Hambro’s but rather India Hicks’.

Since this was the last weekend of the show, I didn’t bother to point this out to anyone.

I do wish with the bridesmaid dress they had a silk replica of the floral headpieces they wore. On those same lines, I wish they had a silk replica of Diana’s bouquet too.

 

[LadyMaria]

Chapter 9: Other Dresses

There were quite a few other dresses on display as well. There was one that she never wore in public, which is this purple dress designed by Versace. Diana ordered this dress in 1996, so it is possible she planned to wear it later. This dress is not to be confused with another purple Versace that Diana wore on a trip to Chicago in 1996. That dress did not have the ruffle at the bottom.

The other one that made me look was this black dress by Jacques Azagury. This was the dress that Diana wore for her last public engagement, her 36th birthday on July 1, 1997. Truth be told, it wasn’t the dress that got my attention, but the jewels she wore with it. Look at this picture from the event…it’s the Cambridge emerald choker and the emerald earrings Charles gave her as a wedding present! I didn’t think Diana wore any of the royal jewels after the divorce. She certainly never wore the Cambridge Lover’s Knot tiara.

The last item I’ll mention was the “Hepburn-esque” bows. Note on the black dress, the straps have litte bows that go up and down. My next post (I reached the limit for attachements) a picture of the short blue dress she wore to a performace of Swan Lake in June 1997. It also has the Hepburn-esque bows on it. Both dresses are by Jacques Azagury and he is quoted in the book as saying that these bows “soften the dress.”