Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 91   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: British Royal News II  (Read 175557 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeDe
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 5832

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 33121





Ignore
« Reply #1125 on: December 14, 2019, 03:14:21 AM »





QE in some delicious emeralds (haven't seen the Vlad for a while, and this is my favorite way she wears it)


I'm digging good old Vlad but her necklace is a bit much.  Looks like she took the Greville Emerald (http://queensjewelvault.b...lle-emerald-necklace.html) and slapped some of the spare Cambridge Emeralds on.  Adding the Cambridge Emeralds has taken the necklace from  Drool to  Blink...at least for me.  But of course jewelry design has never been her forte.

I think you're right about the necklace, and it's great pity she's meddled with it. It originally had a larger pendant emerald surrounded by diamonds. This monstrosity makes me think she is clearly losing her marbles.

I said back in October I would love to see this set - it has matching earrings -  come out of the vault, but not like this. This is the necklace in better days:



Article 1 of the Regency Act of 2020.

Thatís a travesty!

The additional stones on the necklace are too much and make it look cheap.

Often wearing less is more. Queen E is not her grandmother, who could carry these things off.

I don't think Elizabeth has butchered the Greville necklace the Queen Mother loved.  I think she's wearing the Ladies of India necklace - the one that usually has a big drop emerald and the Cullinan diamond separately dangling from the sides of the centre stone.   But instead of the big diamond she's added more huge dangling emeralds.   ETA:  This is the one I'm talking about

Thatís a great pickup! I think youíre right, and I hope you are.


bigger photo

Logged

PeDe
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 5832

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 33121





Ignore
« Reply #1126 on: December 14, 2019, 03:18:21 AM »

some other Emerald pieces




Logged

karma chamelion

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 700

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2550


Salvia microphylla 'Hot Lips'




Ignore
« Reply #1127 on: December 14, 2019, 04:08:15 AM »

Sincerely, one of my first thoughts when I saw the necklace she was wearing was 'it's awfully nice of her Maj to treat PeDe to some new emeralds to Drool over'
Logged
anastasia beaverhausen

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1167

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4493





Ignore
« Reply #1128 on: December 14, 2019, 04:00:02 PM »

Sincerely, one of my first thoughts when I saw the necklace she was wearing was 'it's awfully nice of her Maj to treat PeDe to some new emeralds to Drool over'

One of my first thoughts is that she has a metric !@#$-ton of beautiful jewelry that is never loaned out and kept moldering in a vault. Why be so stingy?
Logged
HolgerDanske
Banned
Banned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 11

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 64





Ignore
« Reply #1129 on: December 14, 2019, 04:04:41 PM »

So, my question is, do the wearers own the jewels or do they all actually belong to Betty ?
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 960

Offline Offline

Posts: 3798





Ignore
« Reply #1130 on: December 14, 2019, 04:16:14 PM »

So, my question is, do the wearers own the jewels or do they all actually belong to Betty ?

Of the big stuff...

Some are owned by the crown and some are owned by The Queen.  Apparently anything that one Sovereign (or Consort ?) leaves to the next Sovereign (or current Sovereign in case of consorts) is exempt from death duties. 

Anything that a royal receives as an official gift above a certain value is not their personal property and their just allowed to use it during their lifetime. 

The big stuff that other royals wear has not been gifted to them but loaned for either that outing or their life (duration of their marriage). 

Itís super confusing.  Iíll post links later when Iím on my computer.
Logged
karma chamelion

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 700

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2550


Salvia microphylla 'Hot Lips'




Ignore
« Reply #1131 on: December 14, 2019, 06:14:33 PM »

Sincerely, one of my first thoughts when I saw the necklace she was wearing was 'it's awfully nice of her Maj to treat PeDe to some new emeralds to Drool over'

One of my first thoughts is that she has a metric !@#$-ton of beautiful jewelry that is never loaned out and kept moldering in a vault. Why be so stingy?

Who should she loan jewelry to? Camilla has many wonderful pieces on permanent loan, as does Kate. Sophie is the only one that I can think of who could do with a few more loaners but she really doesn't have that many opportunities to wear them. Her tiara gifts/loans are not nice IMO, so there's that.
Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 4074

Offline Offline

Posts: 18765





Ignore
« Reply #1132 on: December 14, 2019, 09:03:56 PM »

(..)
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that both Beatrice and Eugenie had the RFO but I am not so convinced about Zara and Louise as they aren't royal. 
(..)

Why would you sy, that Louise isn't royal? I understand that in the strict sense of inheritance Zara isn't royal, as traditionally status is passed down thru the father and Zara's father is a commoner.
However Louise's father is a royal prince, they declined to give the children the prince/ss title, but that makes them not "not royal"?
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
luvcharles

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 945

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2566





Ignore
« Reply #1133 on: December 14, 2019, 11:17:08 PM »

There are three ways for titles to be granted - Letters Patent, Royal Warrant or The Monarch's Will.

In 1999 the Queen's Will was made known - that the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex wouldn't be Prince/Princess but Lord/Lady. There is a writer on The Royal Forums who even wrote to BP to check what that meant and was told that The Queen's Will is enough and that having made her will known Louise and James aren't Prince/Princess and thus they aren't royal.

As a result Louise is as much a non-royal as Zara.

George V used The King's Will to declare that wives of Princes would be HRH and Princesses. He was asked whether the soon to be Duchess of York would also be HRH and have the status of Princess to which he replied 'yes'. That was all that was needed to ensure that wives of HRH Prince xxxx became HRH Princess xxxx.

It is the least used way of granting or not titles but it is just as legal, according to BP.
Logged
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1332

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3885





Ignore
« Reply #1134 on: December 15, 2019, 12:35:58 AM »

There are three ways for titles to be granted - Letters Patent, Royal Warrant or The Monarch's Will.

In 1999 the Queen's Will was made known - that the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex wouldn't be Prince/Princess but Lord/Lady. There is a writer on The Royal Forums who even wrote to BP to check what that meant and was told that The Queen's Will is enough and that having made her will known Louise and James aren't Prince/Princess and thus they aren't royal.

As a result Louise is as much a non-royal as Zara.

George V used The King's Will to declare that wives of Princes would be HRH and Princesses. He was asked whether the soon to be Duchess of York would also be HRH and have the status of Princess to which he replied 'yes'. That was all that was needed to ensure that wives of HRH Prince xxxx became HRH Princess xxxx.

It is the least used way of granting or not titles but it is just as legal, according to BP.

Seems nice and easy, too.  No pesky documents required.
Logged
HolgerDanske
Banned
Banned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 11

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 64





Ignore
« Reply #1135 on: December 15, 2019, 02:06:30 PM »

So, my question is, do the wearers own the jewels or do they all actually belong to Betty ?

Of the big stuff...

Some are owned by the crown and some are owned by The Queen.  Apparently anything that one Sovereign (or Consort ?) leaves to the next Sovereign (or current Sovereign in case of consorts) is exempt from death duties. 

Anything that a royal receives as an official gift above a certain value is not their personal property and their just allowed to use it during their lifetime. 

The big stuff that other royals wear has not been gifted to them but loaned for either that outing or their life (duration of their marriage). 

Itís super confusing.  Iíll post links later when Iím on my computer.

Thank you for the explanation
Logged
HolgerDanske
Banned
Banned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 11

Offline Offline

Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Republic of

Posts: 64





Ignore
« Reply #1136 on: December 15, 2019, 02:11:04 PM »

There are three ways for titles to be granted - Letters Patent, Royal Warrant or The Monarch's Will.

In 1999 the Queen's Will was made known - that the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex wouldn't be Prince/Princess but Lord/Lady. There is a writer on The Royal Forums who even wrote to BP to check what that meant and was told that The Queen's Will is enough and that having made her will known Louise and James aren't Prince/Princess and thus they aren't royal.

As a result Louise is as much a non-royal as Zara.

George V used The King's Will to declare that wives of Princes would be HRH and Princesses. He was asked whether the soon to be Duchess of York would also be HRH and have the status of Princess to which he replied 'yes'. That was all that was needed to ensure that wives of HRH Prince xxxx became HRH Princess xxxx.

It is the least used way of granting or not titles but it is just as legal, according to BP.

Technically, anyone who does not have a HRH style is not regarded as royal.
Logged
A Citizen not a Subject

Warned
Large Member
******

Reputation: 522

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1172





Ignore
« Reply #1137 on: December 15, 2019, 02:27:00 PM »

There are three ways for titles to be granted - Letters Patent, Royal Warrant or The Monarch's Will.

In 1999 the Queen's Will was made known - that the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex wouldn't be Prince/Princess but Lord/Lady. There is a writer on The Royal Forums who even wrote to BP to check what that meant and was told that The Queen's Will is enough and that having made her will known Louise and James aren't Prince/Princess and thus they aren't royal.

As a result Louise is as much a non-royal as Zara.

George V used The King's Will to declare that wives of Princes would be HRH and Princesses. He was asked whether the soon to be Duchess of York would also be HRH and have the status of Princess to which he replied 'yes'. That was all that was needed to ensure that wives of HRH Prince xxxx became HRH Princess xxxx.

It is the least used way of granting or not titles but it is just as legal, according to BP.

Seems nice and easy, too.  No pesky documents required.
Nice and easy or ridiculously undemocratic? Monarchy is obviously undemocratic at the best of times, but this appears to be open to someoneís whims. And then ordinary citizens are expected to address them as sir or maíam. Itís nuts.
Logged

I live in hope that one day I will be able to elect my Head of State.
anastasia beaverhausen

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1167

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4493





Ignore
« Reply #1138 on: December 15, 2019, 02:41:24 PM »

Sincerely, one of my first thoughts when I saw the necklace she was wearing was 'it's awfully nice of her Maj to treat PeDe to some new emeralds to Drool over'

One of my first thoughts is that she has a metric !@#$-ton of beautiful jewelry that is never loaned out and kept moldering in a vault. Why be so stingy?

Who should she loan jewelry to? Camilla has many wonderful pieces on permanent loan, as does Kate. Sophie is the only one that I can think of who could do with a few more loaners but she really doesn't have that many opportunities to wear them. Her tiara gifts/loans are not nice IMO, so there's that.

I guess I see Camilla and Kate wearing the same pieces a lot. Maybe put some others in the rotation for them.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 960

Offline Offline

Posts: 3798





Ignore
« Reply #1139 on: December 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM »

Sincerely, one of my first thoughts when I saw the necklace she was wearing was 'it's awfully nice of her Maj to treat PeDe to some new emeralds to Drool over'

One of my first thoughts is that she has a metric !@#$-ton of beautiful jewelry that is never loaned out and kept moldering in a vault. Why be so stingy?

Who should she loan jewelry to? Camilla has many wonderful pieces on permanent loan, as does Kate. Sophie is the only one that I can think of who could do with a few more loaners but she really doesn't have that many opportunities to wear them. Her tiara gifts/loans are not nice IMO, so there's that.

I guess I see Camilla and Kate wearing the same pieces a lot. Maybe put some others in the rotation for them.

ITA.

I can see limiting certain pieces to the highest ranking members but limiting people to only a few choices is so boring.  Granted the Modern Sapphire Tiara is a bit of a design fail but it still would have been a great look for Kate's gown (putting aside my issues with the gown).  It's so boring to always see Camilla in the Greville and Kate in the Lover's Knot.  Especially with Kate as her coloring lends itself perfectly to rocking the jewel tones.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 91   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: