History of Famous Jewels and Collections: Re: OT, UK ownership

You are on point 992234177. I am sure it was mentioned or postulated on this very board that the Crown Rubies were the personal property of Their Majesties King Edward and his Queen, Alexandra.

All QA did was to remove the opals and slot in the rubies, yet they are known as the Crown Rubies, let me add that I do not know this to be fact, I'm just saying I am sure I saw it mentioned. And I am also sure it was mentioned on here before that HM's personal jewels are' or enjoy the same security as the Crown Jewels so I believed they are all vaulted together.

Windsor castle is considered state property but when it was damaged by fire a while ago I'm sure the public outcry made HM foot the repair costs albeit she offset those cost by opening up the castle to visitors.

I also recall seeing or reading that the triple fringe diamond necklace the present Queen wears were loose stones from the royal collection gifted to her by her dad. Her dad also I am given to understand gifted his Queen the late QEQM a diamond necklace on the day of his coronation.

Would the above be considered state property or personal property? They are other scenarios I can allude to as well but I would like to hear more from our more read and avid posters.

Regards,

Dave.

Previous Message

I think they are using the fact that it hasn’t been an issue since 1952 to try and prevent that nothing has changed. The Royal Collection is larger than that of the National Gallery but less available. If you compare the BRF to the Spanish (which did have a civil war and a dictator) they have put the public seeing it over the RF using it.

In select committees they have played legal games to obfuscate what rules to follow. In the Uk there are many legal exceptions that the royal family enjoy, eg exceptions from Health and Safety legislation that other nations do not enjoy. Some of the exemptions are explicit as I mentioned, but others are implicit and implied. I think the ownership issue is one of these.

Monarch to monarch inheritance is tax free, perhaps to allow transmission of these state objects and protect them from the need to be sold to pay bills, after all why should the public suffer the loss of a work of art because HRH Princess Octavia of Kendal has a poker addiction. I do worry that all this has done is kick the issue into the long grass for King Charles or King William to sort out. The collection is so vast and huge that it actually makes me angry that it is so difficult to see items. It has been stated that the Cambridge’s have items from the RC at Kensington Palace and at Balmoral hang exquisite paintings by Landseer, Balmoral in particular is a private residence inherited through aforementioned tax free inheritance.

I wonder as a broader question what is the best system to protect these collections and jewellery. The Swedish RF have lost the Bernadotte Rubies, Baden Palmette Tiara, Khedive Tiara, Stomacher Tiara, Norwegian Emeralds, Josephina Tiara. They have learnt but this is a huge loss. The British RF have lost Queen Victoria’s Sapphires, and Emeralds, Queen Alexandra’s Turquoise’s and Amethysts, her regal circlet, her wedding tiara, Cambridge Sapphires. Some of these losses are reasonable but they do show bad choices. Should they be the ones making the choices. I strongly believe that they were a bit too generous with Queen Ingrid. Unless they do just keep them and loan them out they will be lost. I hope that the BRF tax status doesn’t make them to relaxed in the future. Queen Margarete only gave away one tiara to Alexandra