Royal Jewels

[AGBF]

Date: 4/30/2009 8:08:14 PM
Author: Imdanny


If England passed such laws, it was because Henry VIII threw over the Catholic Church.

That is incorrect. First of all, there is no "if" about it. This isn't theory or opinion; this is history. The law was passed after one too many insurrections by the Jacobites on behalf of the Stuarts and Bonnie Prince Charlie.


AGBF

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/1/2009 4:51:44 AM
Author: AGBF

That is incorrect. First of all, there is no 'if' about it. This isn't theory or opinion; this is history. The law was passed after one too many insurrections by the Jacobites on behalf of the Stuarts and Bonnie Prince Charlie.

I have to make a correction to the above statement. The law was passed prior to Bonnie Prince Charlie's attempt to take the throne! The Act of Settlement was passed in 1701, quite soon after (the Stuart King) James II was bounced out during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Bonnie Prince Charlie, the grandson of James II, had yet to come onto the scene!

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

Date: 4/30/2009 8:08:14 PM
Author: Imdanny


If England passed such laws, it was because Henry VIII threw over the Catholic Church. 'A curtsy' is a mannerism of the upper class. If Diana did this, it was simply politeness on her part. I don't recall Diana, ever in her lifetime, being in need of correction in protocol.

Well, it is really too much to try to goad me into speaking ill of the dead! The Princess of Wales was a charming, lovely, young woman with a good heart who did a great deal of good. I do not think that stiff manners are of nearly as much importance as a good heart such as hers. When you go over the top like this and say that you do not recall her ever needing a correction in protocol, however, it is just too much!!! She was a human being, not a saint!!! I very well recall her turning over a silver bowl that she and Prince Charles had been given as a gift to see if it was sterling silver! But she learned!

AGBF

 

[Imdanny]

You criticized Diana for curtsying to the Pope, in rather strong language I might add. I simply gave you my opinion about what you said. And to clarify, by "protocol," I meant diplomatic protocol.

 

[Imdanny]

Hi everyone!

This is a picture I found from Showtime''s miniseries The Tudors.

Showtime''s site interestingly enough makes this correction:

"This coronet has the 8 strawberry leaves
and 8 pearls of an earl''s crown not a king''s crown"

I''ll take 2.

 

[Black Jade]

Grand Duchess Ella (wearing the emeralds in a previous post) would be Elizabeth Feodorovna of Russia, married to of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia, fifth son of Tsar Alexander II of Russia. She was Empress Alexandra''s sister (Alexandra the last Tsarina of Russia), a German princess and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. She was always very religious and when her husband was assassinated by a socialist, she forgave the assassin publicly. Then she opened a convent, after selling all her jewels, even her wedding ring and opened a hospital, a chapel, a pharmacy and an orphanage. She often visited Moscow’s worst slums and did all she could to help alleviate the suffering of the poor. However, this did not save her when the Bolsheviks came into power. I don''t know which was worse in their eyes, that she was royalty or that she was religious--they persecuted and murdered Christians (and a lot of other people too) and suppressed the Orthodox church and all other churches in Russian. Anyway, at the age of 54 she was arrested, beaten and thrown into a mine to die with other members of the royal family. When they were heard singing hymns down inside the mine after being thrown there, the Bolsheviks threw a grenade down after them. When they kept singing, firewood was put into the mine entrance and set alight. Her remains were later recovered and she is buried in Jerusalem and was canonized by the Orthodox church in 1981. She is also one of the ten 20th-century martyrs from across the world who are depicted in statues above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey.

Thought you all might enjoy knowing more about the person in the photograph. I can''t post photos well but there are a lot of photos of her on the web. She was, like her sister and her nieces (also murdered) very beautiful. However, I am more impressed with her beauty inside.

 

[Black Jade]

Another historical note: Empress Eugenie never wore that crown that was posted. Her husband, Louis Napoleon, did not dare have a coronation, the last King of France to have a coronation was Charles X.

 

[Black Jade]

I don''t know about any rules about not curtseying to the Pope, but I know that England does have laws against a Catholic being crowned as King or Queen, and also against the King or Queen marrying a Catholic, since the time of James II, whom the English felt was trying to make the country Catholic again. He was thrown out in the Glorious Revolution in favor of his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange in 1688 and then the Disestablishment bill was passed in 1701.


See this recent article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5985850.ece

Not going to give any opinions on any of this (though I have some) as that would be way way off topic and probably lead to discussion that more belongs in the Cafe or something as we are supposed to just be looking at pretty jewels here.

 

[Imdanny]

The scepter with the Cullinan I. I was lucky to see this IRL and it was memorable. I wish I could have had more time to look at it (you kind of have to keep walking) and I would like to have seen it up close.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/1/2009 10:44:41 PM
Author: Black Jade


I don't know about any rules about not curtseying to the Pope, but I know that England does have laws against a Catholic being crowned as King or Queen, and also against the King or Queen marrying a Catholic, since the time of James II, whom the English felt was trying to make the country Catholic again. He was thrown out in the Glorious Revolution in favor of his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange in 1688 and then the Disestablishment bill was passed in 1701.


See this recent article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5985850.ece

It was The Act of Settlement that was passed in 1701. (I had written about it and the Glorious Revolution just before you joined the thread.) It was the Disestablishment bill that was just defeated .

AGBF

 

[Imdanny]

Royal Jewels at Victoria and Albert Museum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7460400.stm

 

[jewelerman]

Date: 5/3/2009 1:13:23 AM
Author: Imdanny
Royal Jewels at Victoria and Albert Museum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7460400.stm

Thanks for posting this video!One of the museums I want to see most...The jewelry is superb!

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Date: 5/3/2009 1:13:23 AM
Author: Imdanny
Royal Jewels at Victoria and Albert Museum


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7460400.stm

WoW!!! That is something I''d really LOVE to see, but unfortunately it''s in London and unless I fly to London I won''t see it.
There are some spectacular jewels fit for a Queen - the rings, the bow brooches, some necklaces.
BTW are all the items from the collection of V&A? I''m asking because I saw The Mountbatten-Burma bandeau, that I think is still in the family.

Thans for sharing the video, Imdanny.

 

[Imdanny]

You''re welcome both! Bobby, that piece could have been on loan. Maybe that explains it.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Date: 5/5/2009 1:02:04 AM
Author: Imdanny
You''re welcome both! Bobby, that piece could have been on loan. Maybe that explains it.

Her is what is said about the owner on www.royal-magazin.de(a great site with a lot of useful information for us): In October 2004, the British government placed a temporary order banning its export and said the art deco piece, valued at $550,000, had recently changed hands and the new owner had applied for an export license. It declined to identify the present and previous owners.

In May 2008, it was announced that the tutti frutti bandeau and bracelet would be displayed in the newly redesigned and reopened William and Judith Bollinger Jewellery of the V&A Museum.

It may'' ve been sold in order to pay the death duties.
Are there any pictures of Edwina wearing the bandeau? Are thre any other tiars left in the Mountbatten Burma family?

 

[estelaris]

Today would have been Princess Margaret''s 49th wedding anniversary

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Both sisters - princesses Elizabeth and Margaret've been realy beautiful in their youth. I only regret that when Pss Margaret passed away I was a small child and still enjoyed playing with toys rather than reading about royals and their jewels. That is why in some way the late Pss seems stranage to me.

Here are princess Margaret's ruby and diamond chandelier earrings. The picture is from Christie's site.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Among the jewels from the sale was this ruby ring. The stones were from the collection of The Queen Mother and were presented to princess Margaret for the creation of the ring.

 

[Imdanny]

Bobby, Deb, everyone,

Do you think it's interesting that pieces with this kind of provenance come up for sale on the private market?

I can't help thinking (perhaps ignorantly) that a) the family would not need the money or that b) pieces like this might have historical value to the family.

So what's the point of selling them? These are some of the wealthiest people in the world. It just seems a little confusing to me.

Nice, pieces, Bobby! Thanks!

 

[shadowed_rain]

Death duties. From what I understand, a form of property tax and/or a tax on a person comes about once someone dies. Death duties are usually very, very expensive, which is why jewels are usually sold because they fetch a high price (especially if they''re royalty or of high birth). When Princess Margaret died, Linley decided to sell some of her jewels, which obviously brought some money in (Poltimore tiara, anyone?). He''s been criticized for doing so, but I suppose it''s understandable that he''d be caught between a rock and a hard place.

I hope that helped!

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Death duties = Inheritance tax. In the UK you don''t pay death uties for estates valued up to £312,000, and 40% on the rest of the value.
Although Diavid Linley and his sister, Lady Sarah Chato, sold a lot of jewels and furniture from their mother''s estate, they still own the Scroll and the Papirus tiaras, Turquase paprure, the Teck necklace - jewels that came from the royal family and probably have santimental value for the late Princess and her children.

 

[innerkitten]

How long is that exhibit on at the V&A? I think I''m going to be in London this fall.

 

[Imdanny]

I see. Thanks.

Re: V&A, I don''t know but you can contact them here:

http://www.vam.ac.uk/

 

[threepwood]

I love that ruby ring!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/9/2009 5:45:44 AM
Author: Imdanny

Bobby, Deb, everyone,

Do you think it's interesting that pieces with this kind of provenance come up for sale on the private market?

I can't help thinking (perhaps ignorantly) that a) the family would not need the money or that b) pieces like this might have historical value to the family.

So what's the point of selling them? These are some of the wealthiest people in the world. It just seems a little confusing to me.

Thank you for the special invitation to join the discussion, Danny. I took a look at an auction that Viscount Linley held at Christie's. If one goes to this website and then goes down to "Browse Catalogue" and clicks, he has a chance to pick "sale 7335" or "sale 7213". Each menu is a list of the Princess Margaret's jewelry and other personal belongings (like fans) that were auctioned off. Looking at what was sold, I am guessing that these were items that her children felt that they neither personally needed or wanted! Perhaps they kept items for which they had particular affection and will use the proceeds (or Viscount Linley will) to buy items which he personally prefers. I am sure that by middle class US standards the Armstrong-Joneses are quite wealthy, but I do not think that they are in the same league as the Queen or the Prince of Wales and I am sure that their financial resources do have some limits. The items in this particular sale, however, do not strike me as ones to which the family particularly want to hang on! They seem to be an odd lot of things that if put out on our front lawns in tag sales would not fetch a great deal of money because we do not have the right ancestors, but which are really, in themselves, not of spectacular quality.

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/6/2009 1:16:59 PM
Author: estelaris

Today would have been Princess Margaret''s 49th wedding anniversary

Ah! But what if she had married Group Captain Peter Townsend!?

AGBF

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 5/10/2009 10:00:35 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 5/9/2009 5:45:44 AM

Author: Imdanny


Bobby, Deb, everyone,


Do you think it's interesting that pieces with this kind of provenance come up for sale on the private market?


I can't help thinking (perhaps ignorantly) that a) the family would not need the money or that b) pieces like this might have historical value to the family.


So what's the point of selling them? These are some of the wealthiest people in the world. It just seems a little confusing to me.

Thank you for the special invitation to join the discussion, Danny.

Yes, I wanted to hear your opinion, and thank you for giving it to me. I never looked at it like that. You always have a special invitation to discuss anything you would like with me, Deb.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 5/2/2009 12:38:50 AM
Author: Imdanny
The scepter with the Cullinan I. I was lucky to see this IRL and it was memorable. I wish I could have had more time to look at it (you kind of have to keep walking) and I would like to have seen it up close.

I saw it too; it simply is amazing

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 4/29/2009 3:39:37 PM
Author: estelaris
Here is another of Princess Letizia. WOW!
she is beautiful!!!!!!!!

She is gorgeous!

 

[estelaris]

She would have definetely been a lot more happy in her life.