History of Famous Jewels and Collections: Re: An interesting but ultimately misguided view…

Dear Janet,

I do thank you for your very interesting link and comments (technicals).

Unfortunately, I have currently no time to do more researches about what you have written.

I totally agree with you.

Nevertheless, I always raise a question : if the jewels are considered as a "collection owned by the Nation - The Queen has only a usufruct" why are they not displayed in museums. They would attract many tourists and would be so interesting from an historical point of view.

The jewels are kept in the vault for dozen of years without been watched....In the Louvres, even though it is a republic (it is not the same situation obviously) jewels are exhibited.

Last but not least, I do not understand why they are not transparent concerning the extend of the collection of jewels compared to other collections. For example, the British Royal Family has published books about the collection of Faberge same for the collection of arts owned by QEQM. An eggs cost more money than a tiara or a necklace - Same for the study of rocks by Monet.

Previous Message

I appreciate your views but they are detached from reality and have no evidential basis.

It is correct that the Royal Collection is vast and spread across numerous royal residences, many of which are open to the public. The Royal Collection is taking gradual steps (like most museums) to digitise its collection. However the Royal Collection like most museums in wealthy Western countries only displays a small percentage of its collection.

A 2016 academic study suggested that of the major Western museums in Europe and North America just 5% of items owned by various major museums are on display. By way of example the Louvre owns 615,797 items and 35,000 are actually on display. This is a widespread problem and no major art collection/museum has identified a way to address in a way that increases public access.

https://qz.com/583354/why-is-so-much-of-the-worlds-great-art-in-storage/

Therefore as with pretty much every major museum in the world, the Royal Collection exhibits its star pieces, loans items, while other pieces are on rotation to allow academic research and restoration to be undertaken. Some items are on display in the Royal Family’s private homes. Some are left in store.

In many respects the Royal Collection is no different to the Government Art Collection, a vast art collection owned by the British government (largely donated in lieu of inheritance tax) and which is one display in various government offices/buildings to which the general public generally has zero access.

I don’t really understand what your overriding point is, it seems possibly that you favour some kind of forced nationalisation of the Royal Collection which you believe will increase access.

I am not sure what evidence you have to support this as being a likely outcome based on the evidence produced which shows that the Royal Collection isn't behaving out of the ordinary.

If you want to increase access it would require a huge injection of cash. Certainly, such a scenario is unviable without the taxpayer incurring huge significant costs, which at the current time it is unlikely to stomach. The Royal Collection is currently not funded by the taxpayer, contrast with the Louvre to which the French government currently contributes around $200 million annually and to which again the French public has access to just 5%.

A forced nationalisation may actually be something that the Royal Family advocate at some point in the future – the Royal Collection Trust lost £64 million in 2020 and the long-term economic impact of the Coronavirus pandemic will be felt for decades (and across the entire museum sector) and will likely reduce public access to the Royal Collection as displaying items costs money and placing items on public display increases the level of deterioration and increases the need for restoration which costs money etc. It’s a chicken and egg scenario.

In relation to the aspects of the Royal Collection which is personally owned by HM The Queen, you’ll appreciate that the Queen can do whatever she see’s fit with those assets and to deprive her of her personally owned assets would breach fundamental principles of English law and likely result in litigation.

Your point about the jewellery collection of the Swedish Royal Family makes no sense to me.