Royal Jewels
11059 posts • Page 2 of 369 • 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 300, ..., 366, 367, 368, 369
Click to view full-size image.
Related topics
|
|
|
|
by monarch64 » October 14th, 2007, 8:40 pm
LadyAmythyst, no possible way you''re in danger of wearing out your welcome here, especially when you''re posting royal jewels!
I agree, the Denmark ring is fugly...too much metal and too much overall going on with that ring, all three stones are competing with each other not to mention the setting itself. Blech. Come on royalty, you can do better! I love Princess Di''s and Fergie''s e-rings but I have to say their styles have been overdone here in the US and I am glad to see that halo''s are now harkening back to art deco and other periods and we are getting away from the ''80''s trend of just halo-ing center stones with prongs in lieu of bezels. |
|
|
|
|
Date: 10/12/2007 10:08:40 AM
Author: baby monster Date: 10/12/2007 5:15:12 AM Author: LadyAmythyst69 Well alrighty then! How about more of Crown Princess Mary of Denmark''s jewels. I think she has the best jewels of any of the crown princesses in Europe. Some super aquamarine and diamond earrings. LadyAmythyst, thanks for posting such eye candy. A quick question since I''m not versed in the royal traditions. When you say she ''has the best jewels,'' do you mean she actually owns them now that they were gifted to her or are they just a loaner for the time that she is a crown princess? I guess I mean both. Mary actually personally owns the ruby parure. She also has the best jewels to pick from in the royal collection. Many of the other crown princesses don''t have very much serious jewelry at all. To the point that their jewelry isn''t an accurate reflection of their status as crown princesses. You''ll see what I mean when I start posting some of the other women. Historically the Danish monarchy has been in a position to acquire or inherit many of the jewels which once belonged to the now defunct royal houses in Europe. They have close ties therough marriages and other historical quirks (for instance, the "Greek" royals actually come from a branch of the Danish Royal house and are not Greek at all!) to the Russian, German, English, and Greek Royals. Since the Russian, Greek and German monarchies have collapsed, the Danes and the Brits have come in for quite a windfall jewels wise. |
|
|
|
|
Also, I might add that Mary has little in the way of competition for the Danish Royal jewels. There are no daughters or Princesses of the royal blood within the immediate Danish Royal Family - so Mary doesn''t really have to share. Also, Frederik''s younger brother Joachim has been divorced from his first wife and is now engaged again. I highly doubt that his new wife to be Marie will be personally given any of the royal jewels. She will undoubtedly have to have a tiara but she will either have to buy a new made one or borrow from the royal collection. There will probably be one that is sort of set aside for Marie''s use but it will not be given to her. Royals are notoriously mean in terms of giving away their jewels. They have to be to keep the collection together don''t they? So if you want really great jewels you''ve got to marry the Crown Prince not one of the younger sons. And even then it appears that in some of the royal families (Norway, the Netherlands) the crown princesses will have to wait until they become Queens in order to get the really great stuff! Mary''s ownership of the ruby parure is a pretty unusual situation actually. |
|
|
|
|
And I will thritto that! Great to have your here LA! |
|
|
|
|
Quadritto!!! Many thanks ladyamythyst!!! |
|
|
|
|
Oh LadyAmythyst69! This is my favorite thread so far! It''s chock full of history and baubles! And ROYALS!
I do have to say that Royals don''t often go overboard on engagement ring (size) because they DO wear it everyday. It''s usually the provenance or quality fo the ring that is more outstanding than the showiness of it, which I truly appreciate. Quite a contrast from the size race in Hollywood. I would assume that Harry got to keep Diana''s ring, because William will be king one day, and the liklihood of using a shunned princess'' ring would be a bit much for a crowned royal in that position. He would likely get a new ring made. Likely diamond center, is my guess... But it''s always been that the engagement rings of royals are never as spectacular as their parures for special occasions are far more ornate. Because they are not worn as often and handed down. Their brooches and hair pieces always amaze me. In the Christie''s Geneva auction there are some stunning pieces from royals currently, that I would adore to own. One is a Chaumet choker that is so perfect, it''s just sad I won''t own it!  [see Lot 389]... The catalogue is not up yet, so I can''t post pictures, but I saw it in person and it melted my heart... Here in NY there will be an exhibit of Princess Grace of Monaco''s personal effects at Sotheby''s around October 25th. By far one of my favorite royal, or people for that matter. She was such an elegant beauty! It should prove a very impressive display I hope... |
"
|
|
|
|
I cannot get enough of Mary's jewelry. WOW this has just become on of my favorite threads. Any pics of older jewelry... by that I mean, pieces that may not exist anymore, but that did at one time and were owned by royalty where there are paintings with the gems shown? Like from the 1500 on?
I bet the Tsars had some extremely amazing stuff...  for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Victoria Lockwood also wore the Spencer Tiara on her wedding day. At that point it was a bit strange to see someone other than Diana wear the tiara although it belonged to the Spencer family and not to Diana personally. After Diana''s separation from Prince Charles, Diana''s brother Earl Spencer demanded the permanent return of the tiara giving as a reason that he thought Diana would no longer have occasion to wear tiaras. It was a rather ugly episode I think. To my knowledge Earl Spencer''s second wife didn''t wear the tiara when they married.
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the other Spencer Tiara''s. IMHO it is gawdawful ugly. You can see why it is never worn. It looks like two tiaras put together (which is quite possible). The Greek Key design was a very popular one for awhile. The Queen still owns and sometimes wears one but more often lends it to her daughter Princess Anne.
|
|
|
|
|
You guys wanted some more historical, old jewels so how about this?
The "other" Spencer Tiara - usually known as the honeysuckle tiara, has been remodeled quite a bit over time. Here it is on the left looking a bit better than it does at present. The middle is the wife of the 5th Earl Spencer wearing the tiara in 1885 and on the right is the wife of the 7th Earl (Princess Diana''s grandmother) wearing the tiara in 1953 at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. It hasn''t been seen in public since.
|
|
|
|
|
The third Spencer Tiara formerly belonged to Marie Antoinette. It is pictured here with the Sutherland necklace. (The Sutherlands are a branch of the Spencer family who are also associated with the Churchill''s and the Dukes of Marlborough. Thery''re all the same family.) The Sutherland necklace is comprised of 17 of the largest diamonds from a necklace that was owned by Marie Antoinette AND is the necklace that helped spark the French Revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah baby! That's why I'm talking about, keep'em coming if you've got them LadyA, this is one fabulous thread! (The second Spencer tiara is really ugly... it definitely looked better before it's present incarnation ). Any other pics of the Sutherland necklace? That necklace looks amazing. Ironic that it helped start a war in which the most famous cause of death, including the Queen's, was decapitation. |
ROYAL JEWELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!