Royal Splendor 101: Tiara Terminology

In the course of digging into various tiaras and various royal traditions, a series of requests has arisen in the comments and in my email for actual definitions of some of the common jewel terms I throw around. What constitutes a tiara, and how is that different from a diadem, or a crown? You get the picture. Probably should have taken care of that first thing, but hey, better late than never.

The thing about definitions is that you can always find someone else out there on the internet to support whatever technical babble you want to throw out, and words mean different things to different people. They're really going to mean different things when you get speakers of different languages to chime in, as we always do here. (By the way, I'm in awe of those of you that tackle this website without English as a native language. I don't even know the English word for the way I write, but "non-translatable" is a good start.) Anyway - my point is, all I can do is tell you how I personally use these terms and what they mean to me. At least you'll sort of know what I'm on about, for a change. Ready? Here we go:

Queen Elizabeth in her crown; Prince Philip in his coronet

Crown: I suppose, technically, crown could function as a generic word for any sort of ornamental headdress; but you usually see this word referring to a headpiece with a greater significance and place in the rites of monarchy. We'll define a crown as a circular headdress, typically with arches, belonging to a sovereign.

Coronet: A coronet is like a baby crown, I'd say. It also belongs to the rites of monarchy (coronations, for example). Coronets are also circular like a crown, but usually without arches, and their form often signals a noble rank.

Diadem: Oh, this one is tricky. Diadem often refers to the ancient markers of status that led to today's crowns and tiaras, and you'll also see it referring to a tiara or crown with perhaps a little more gravitas than the average headdress. On this blog, I sometimes use diadem interchangeably with tiara, for really no other reason than it is awfully boring to read the word tiara fifty times in a single entry. Most readers of this blog hail from English-speaking countries, but it's worth noting here that tiara translates to something spelled somewhat like diadem in several other languages, which will affect the overall understanding of this word's definition.

Oriental Circlet (L) and Turquoise Bandeau (R)

Tiara: Technical attempts to define tiara usually end up referring to a semi-circular bejeweled ornament worn at the front of the head by a lady on a formal occasion (the Papal Tiara being a notable exception). I personally define tiara as any kind of non-crown headpiece that still encircles a good portion of the head. There are several other terms that fall under here as different types of tiaras as well.

Circlet: A tiara that goes all the way around (or nearly all the way around) the head. Can also be used in reference to something that might be classified as a crown or a coronet.

Bandeau: Sometimes people ask where the border falls between a tiara and a bejeweled headband; if you're asking that question, you're probably looking at something that falls in the bandeau category. Bandeau refers to a headband style tiara, often rather low in height and without as much height variation along its top profile.

Kokoshnik versions

Kokoshnik: This is actually a sort of headdress from Russia's national costumes. Adapted and gem-covered at the Russian imperial court long ago (at left is Tsar Nicholas II's daughter Maria in court dress), when we use kokoshnik to refer to a tiara today, we're talking about something bejeweled that maintains the shape and/or style of those traditional kokoshniks (the most famous example today being Queen Alexandra's Kokoshnik Tiara worn by Queen Elizabeth at right).

Aigrette: Originally an ornament which can either hold a spray of feathers in the hair or on a hat, or just depicts a feather motif, the word is derived from the egret bird whose feathers were often used with these pieces. This sort of ornamentation was popular up until the early part of the 20th century; nowadays, remaining aigrettes are used without their feathers, and the term can sometimes be used to refer to other sorts of flexible ornaments for the hair (Queen Margrethe has a Floral Aigrette Tiara, for example). Aigrettes are usually too small to fall under the tiara definition for me.

Máxima wearing Queen Emma's diamond aigrette (L); Princess Astrid with her feather tiara (C) which is actually an aigrette which could have feathers as shown last (R)

Parure: This one doesn't actually refer directly to any sort of head ornament, but instead refers to groupings of jewelry which might include a tiara. A parure is a set of different pieces of jewelry which were designed to be worn together. A full parure might include a tiara, a necklace, a set of earrings, a brooch, and a bracelet, for example. There are also different terms for less-than-full parures; a demi-parure would have two or so pieces of jewelry to it. Using parure in the name of a tiara, as I sometimes do, is really just another way to make the name unique from other tiaras out there for ease of identification by referring to the complete set it belongs to.

Danish ruby parure

As I said, these are my definitions; you might have your own, and that's okay. There isn't a Tiara Police Force or something that's going to come and take your toys away if you use a term improperly. (You guys, we should be the Tiara Police! It could be like Ghostbusters, but instead of ghosts we'll bust people that disappoint us on the bling front. We could make shirts and everything. Now I'm totally off track.)

Do you have any other words to add to our glittering glossary, or any alternate definitions to share?

Royal Splendor 101: Royal Documentary Recommendations

The other day, somebody asked for some recommendations from my favorite royal documentaries. Sure, why not? Sounds like a nice leisurely topic for a weekend chat. I'll give you some suggestions, and you can give me some, and then we can all go out for ice cream later.

My favorite things are the little behind the scenes glimpses of our royals going about their business. It's such a refreshing - and occasionally eye-opening - change from still photographs and videos of speeches and hand-shaking. Accordingly, my very favorite royal documentary is Monarchy: A Royal Family at Work.

It opens with a thoroughly annoyed Queen sitting for Annie Leibowitz and continues on in 5 parts, following British royal family members around as they work and covering the preparations that go on behind the scenes. Snippets are available on YouTube - part 5 is embedded above - but the whole thing can be purchased on DVD. Worth it.

Along the same lines, Windsor Castle: A Royal Year is an interesting look behind the scenes at the Queen's favorite home. Prince Philip is particularly entertaining in this one, showing the cameras around the castle and estate, and it covers the prep for Charles and Camilla's wedding from a backstage perspective.

Again, I can only find snippets on YouTube, but all three parts are available on DVD.

NRK has recently produced a two part documentary called Kronprinsesse Mette-Marit about - you guessed it - Crown Princess Mette-Marit. The doc has drawn criticism for painting too rosy a picture of this controversial princess and her unconventional entry into the royal family, but since I don't speak Norwegian and can't understand the interviews anyway, that didn't bother me so much. Instead, I just enjoyed the glimpses into royal family life: Mette-Marit and Haakon have couches in their kitchen and Timeless Tiaras on their front table. You get to peek onto the royal yacht while the family was getting ready to depart for Crown Princess Victoria's wedding, and see Crown Prince Haakon lead a family jam session on his guitar. It is in Norwegian without English subtitles (if anyone knows of a subtitled version, do let me know), but there is a fair amount of English spoken in Part 2. You can view Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

Philip at 90 is another great documentary focusing on a single royal, produced obviously for his 90th birthday earlier this year. He's always entertaining, even more so now that he's reached the age where he has a good excuse to say whatever he wants.

This is Part 1, you can click through for Part 2.

Constantine: A King's Story is a fascinating look at the demise of the monarchy in Greece.

Though it's rather sympathetic to King Constantine - through interviews here he tells his own side of the story - it does not leave him purely a victim in the loss of his throne, as some overly sweet portrayals might. Plus, you get a few bonus shots behind the scenes of Pavlos and Marie-Chantal's wedding celebrations.

Another excellent depiction of the fall of a monarchy can be found in The Last Shah, a BBC documentary that depicts how Shah Reza Pahlavi's reign ended up the last in a 2,500 year monarchy.

It's always interesting to dip a little further into the stories of some monarchies that don't get as much press as the European ones do.

 Ending on a fluffier note, Britain's Royal Weddings is good fun.

Many of the stories told here will be old news to veteran royal watchers, but let's be honest: royal weddings don't get old.

What are your favorite royal documentaries? 

Hook us up with a link if you can!

Royal Splendor 101: New Jewels

In all our talk on the ins and outs of owning royal jewels, we've mainly talked about existing gems and how they are passed down (and around). But there's one last question looming: do they ever get new stuff? Well, sure. The trick is that they do it very, very quietly. Gone are the days of Queen Mary and her unabashed collecting practices; when things join a royal collection these days - by purchase or by gift - the royal houses usually do what they can to keep the details private, and vague if they can't achieve total privacy.

Take, for example, the case of Princess Letizia's new tiara. It's been reported as both a 5th anniversary gift from Felipe and as a gift from the jeweler, Ansorena. I suspect that ambiguity surrounding the tiara's origin suits the royal family just fine, because while accepting lavish gifts is dicey territory, so is the purchase of new jewelry when your country's economy is struggling.

This, supposedly, is Letizia's new tiara (only the center fleur-de-lys has been worn, as a brooch)

It's worth a diversion here to note that you can define "new jewels" in a few different ways. There are actual brand new things: new jewels, new design, everything shiny and fresh. Then there are old things worn in new ways: something existing in the royal collection that is just worn in a different way (like Sophie's wedding tiara), or something old that's been purchased by a new family (like when the old Poltimore Tiara was bought new for Princess Margaret). Plus, there are new jewels made from reconfigurations of old jewels torn apart, or from spare single jewels just rolling around at the bottom of the royal jewel case (fine, they're probably not just rolling around - but unmounted jewels are not an unusual inclusion in a collection). 

Suspected and known new tiaras: a possible purchase for Rania, a wedding gift for Charlene, a converted necklace/stomacher originally from a Belgian royal for Elizabeth, a potential purchase for Sophie, and a wedding gift for Sarah

Another area where ambiguity is sought after: gifts (a.k.a. free jewels, baby). As I said, gifts from jewelers or other commercial entities can border on inappropriate territory in the eyes of some, but so can gifts from other heads of state. The exchanging of gifts is a standard part of any state visit, and those gifts are often quite benign (framed photographs, orders, etc.). But sometimes, they can include some serious jewels.

Potential gifts from Middle Eastern rulers: Queen Rania's tiara, Queen Sofia's jewels, Queen Margrethe's necklace, Queen Silvia's set

Yes, I'm talking mainly about Middle Eastern rulers here, a group that tends to possess - and utilize - great wealth. On the whole, they tend to patronize certain jewelers and go with a rather modern style of jewelry, so much so that you could almost pick a Middle Eastern gift out of a lineup (and sometimes that's just what you have to do). Queen Rania's diamond tiara above is suspected to be a gift from a fellow ruler because of the design - that's Arabic script. New things worn first at return banquets or on subsequent trips to the gift giver's country are also provenance clues.

Different countries will have different policies on how official gifts are handled (if they become personal property, if they have to be declared, that sort of thing), but the unofficial rule for new jewels on the whole still applies: keep it quiet and be as vague as possible. Why? Because even though it's not commercially motivated, a gift can still be too lavish for today's public relations-run world. In other words: they make excellent fodder for scandal-inducing headlines. Queen Paola ended up in hot water after a visit to the Congo, a former Belgian colony, when she received a diamond demi-parure as a gift. She didn't ask for the present, surely, and who knows what the first lady of the Congo was thinking when she decided to give such a lavish gift to a former ruler while her country is struggling with plenty of issues of its own. Paola gave the gift over to the Belgian state (with the caveat that members of the royal family can still wear it) to dispense with the scandal. Still, one expects it will be quite some time before we see it in use.

Camilla made a particularly grand example of the kerfluffle official gifts can cause when she started using the fruits gained on one trip to Saudi Arabia early in her marriage.

All of these necklaces (ruby, sapphire, and emerald) are from a single Saudi visit

Yup, all of these necklaces came from one trip. (Not bad for a day's work, am I right? Sheesh.) The furor began when she debuted the ruby one because...well, look at it. Good grief. How is that not going to make headlines? Clarence House tried to keep it quiet by refusing to place a value on the gift and by stating that it was a private matter. Problem is, it's not a private matter. These are official gifts, and there are rules in Britain because official gifts have caused trouble before (Charles got in trouble in the early 2000s for passing gifts to staff who then sold them and for selling some himself, to name one incident). Here's the rule: these are in Camilla's possession now, but because they were given to her as a part of her role representing the country, they pass to the sovereign when she dies. At that point, the sovereign can include them in the Royal Collection.

Such hassle! Poor royals, just trying to be magpies and getting diamond-blocked at every turn. This is why we can only dream that a royal family would buy a well-known auction piece - hoping that the Spanish royal family will reclaim La Peregrina, for example. It's a far-fetched hope that they would buy something like that, because they wouldn't want the headlines that would accompany the purchase. Even a magpie like me can't blame them for doing what they can to avoid the controversy. (I mean, I'll accept it, but I won't like it. Yes, I am pouting right now.)

And thus ends my looooong digression on jewel ownership and sharing - I hope that sheds some light on those questions about royal collections some of you have sent in (well, as much light as we can shed without getting into the minor details of every single jewel and every single royal family). As always, if you have any ideas for other topics you'd like covered, let me know.

Royal Splendor 101: Loaned Jewels

This is part 4 of our series on jewel ownership.

After discussing the state involvement of crown jewels, the security of family foundations, and the precarious nature of personal property, it's time for our fourth and final sort of ownership, that which is not really ownership at all: the loan. Also known as, what to do when you don't have enough for yourself and you have neither the funds nor the desire to pay to increase your own collection. So you borrow something, from a  family member or even a jeweler. A little bit of bling that's yours for just a fleeting time...just like Cinderella.

Family Loans

As we know, some of the members of these royal families - usually the head ladies of the house - are sitting on some massive jewel stashes, so wouldn't they be the first you'd ask for a loan when in need? Well, yes and no. Whether they are willing to loan things out or not is personal - it depends on the owner's thoughts on sharing, but also on the relationship between the owner and the proposed borrower, you'd imagine. Some are more willing to share than others; Queen Silvia shares some of what is thought to be her personal property with Princess Madeleine fairly often, and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa seems happy to share her wealth with her daughter and daughter-in-law, to name two examples. Others, like Queen Margrethe, rarely share jewels with others in the family.

Mathilde's tiara loan

There are one-time loans, after which the jewel is immediately returned; weddings are excellent examples, as there's never a better time to ask for a loan than when you're a bride. We don't see sharing very often from Belgium's royal family but Queen Paola made a one-time loan to Princess Mathilde for her wedding, for example.

There are also lifetime loans, in which a piece of jewelry is given as a gift with the understanding that ownership has not been transferred and the gift giver will expect the jewel to be returned at the end of a life (or a marriage). Queen Elizabeth seems fond of this strategy and so far it's worked well for her, as some of the important family pieces given to Diana, Princess of Wales have returned to the royal vault.

Queen Elizabeth is another matriarch that's often called out for being "stingy" with her jewels. But here's what I wonder: is it possible that the ladies just aren't asking if they can borrow things? I ask because she seems not to make many loans to the Countess of Wessex, who is said to be a favorite of hers, but she did loan pieces to Diana. So I can't help but wonder if Diana had no qualms asking while Sophie maybe recognizes that her no-nonsense mother-in-law might not be impressed with a need for even more bling and thus refrains from requesting loans. Obviously, these are private family matters that will never be explained publicly, but the speculation is interesting.

I've had quite a few questions about Diana's jewels lately; since she did use a number of loans of different sorts, this is as good a time of any to throw some examples out there. The first picture above includes the Cambridge emerald choker from Queen Mary, a lifetime loan from the Queen, and the Spencer Tiara, which was a loan from Diana's family (as well as her Royal Family Order). Second, we have the Cambridge Lover's Knot Tiara - another lifetime loan - and a pearl choker which was a one-time loan from the Queen. The third and fourth pictures also feature necklaces on temporary loan from the Queen's stash. In the fifth picture, an engagement photo, Diana is wearing loans from Collingwood Jewelers. (Collingwood wanted to give the set to her as a gift, but it was deemed inappropriate - so it was sold and then pawned off as a Spencer family jewel being sold to pay for the royal wedding...should have just accepted the gift in the first place!) In the last picture, she's strung a borrowed amethyst cross from Garrard on a string of faux pearls. After Diana's death, any remaining loans she had in her possession were returned to their owners, and her personal jewels were left to William and Harry.

Jeweler Loans

Diana brings us to our second category of royal loans: the jeweler loan, in which a royal lady goes to a commercial jeweler to borrow something to wear for a royal event. It's like the Oscars, where you see all these fabulous jewels but the stars don't really own any of them - except in the ideal royal loan situation, nobody asks, "Where are your jewels from?"

Suspected and known tiara loans on (left to right) Princess Grace of Monaco, Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece, the Countess of Wessex, and Queen Rania of Jordan

Because we don't see a lot of new jewel purchases these days, it's natural to suspect that a royal might be taking advantage of a jeweler's gracious loan when they pop up in something sparkly and new. And if they pop up in a regular stream of new things, like Princess Charlene has been doing recently, or as Princess Mathilde has a tendency to do (she wears a fair amount of new diamond necklaces, I'd say), our suspicion grows.

Mary and the Midnight Tiara

As I said, ideally (for discreet royal courts) the jewelers do not confirm that the royal has loaned something, so we're left to guess. If we only see a new jewel once, that's a good indicator that it was a loan. And sometimes you'll get lucky and an identical piece will show up on a jeweler's website or something like that, helping to confirm the loan.

Usually a jeweler loan is a one-time occasion, but sometimes an arrangement can be worked out. Crown Princess Mary's third tiara, the Midnight Tiara, is an example of this: she has exclusive use of the tiara but does not own it. It remains the property of the Ole Lynggaard company. We'll talk more about this interesting piece, and this interesting arrangement, on Thursday.

Jeweler loans are always the subject of much debate. As a card-carrying magpie, I love seeing our royal ladies in a variety of different gems; but there's something about borrowing a piece that takes a bit of the fairytale out of it for me. It's a peculiar brand of snobbery, isn't it?

Next time: the tricky business of actually acquiring new jewels.

Royal Splendor 101: Personal Property

This is Part 3 of our series on who owns the jewels in royal families.

In our third installment, we come to the simplest category and the category that accounts for the largest amount of royal jewelry overall: personal property.

Mary with some of her personal jewels

The same definition that applies for something owned by you or me applies to the royals too: a personal purchase or a personal gift becomes personal property. (The exception here can be gifts given in an official capacity, which is a trickier story that we will handle in a later entry.) Personal property is everywhere, even in countries that make extensive use of a family jewel foundation, and collections range in size from small jewelry boxes to entire vaults and up.

Personal property sounds great, right? It’s always nice to have something to call your own. The owner can do whatever he or she pleases with a personally owned jewel – and that includes getting rid of it. Personal property is the easiest of our categories to be given away as gifts, inherited by descendants, and sold off for profit.

As we discuss these categories of ownership, we're looking at them with an eye to how they effect the longevity and size of a royal jewel stash, and that means that we have to consider the problems that personal property can cause. The reality is that personal jewel ownership can be a chief culprit in the dwindling size of an overall royal collection, and there are a few key reasons for that:

It’s not very good for a consolidated collection. The problem with being able to do whatever you want with the jewels is that there is no mechanism available to ensure that a central, historical collection is kept in place for future royal generations. Monaco is a good example of this: Princess Grace had to build a collection from the ground up as there were no jewels set aside for the Princess of Monaco and her mother-in-law wasn’t sharing her own jewels. And it seems now that Princess Caroline has most of the gems, with Charlene left to (seemingly) start a new collection. Jordan seems to have the same issue – Queen Rania’s collection features gifts and new acquisitions supplemented with loans.

Britain is an interesting case study here as well. A lot of the jewels you see Queen Elizabeth wear are her personal property, left to her by Queen Mary. Thus far she’s kept the collection mostly in tact, and the monarchy has a handy deal worked out with the government in which items transferred from sovereign to sovereign are inherited tax free, which should go a long way to ensuring that massive collection stays with the monarch. But it hasn’t always been that way: apart from state jewels, there are surprisingly few jewels left from Queen Victoria’s time, as a lot of those were split up among her many descendants.

Personal property can be given away. Giving family jewels as presents, particularly for weddings, was and is very popular. This can be good and bad, actually. Huge chunks of the collections of certain monarchies are owed to items brought by foreign princesses marrying into the family. Denmark, for example, owes a huge debt to the Swedish royal collection and the gifts given to the Swedish princesses that became Queen Louise and Queen Ingrid. That’s no big deal for the major collection of Sweden, but in a smaller collection it can be a real problem.

Present and former tiaras of Denmark originally from Sweden

Likewise, Luxembourg owes some thanks to Grand Duchess Joséphine Charlotte’s home country of Belgium, but gifts given to her and to the former Belgian princess Queen Marie José of Italy wiped out a section of the Belgian jewel collection. Today, Belgium has one of the smallest collections around.

The PoltimoreTiara

Personal property can, and sometimes must, be divided up when the owner dies. Luxembourg ended up selling (and almost selling) some of Joséphine-Charlotte’s jewels when they had problems dividing them up after her death. Plus, inheritances take jewels out of the main, jewel-wearing royal line and inject them into branches of the family that don’t have as many occasions to wear them. Inheritances can also cost a lot of money in taxes for families that might be asset-rich but aren’t necessarily cash-rich.

Personal property can be sold. There’s a certain formula that has resulted in many royal jewels leaving the minor royal family branches for good: few occasions to wear jewels + inheritance taxes = jewels sold at auction. This formula is the culprit behind the sale of Princess Margaret's personal items, including jewels, by her children after her death. The star item of that sale: the Poltimore Tiara, worn on her wedding day.

Also, sometimes things are just not needed and cash is preferred. Queen Elizabeth's Kent cousins have used auctions to generate money for years. Over in Spain, the Duchess of Alba confessed to selling off one of her major tiaras in favor of purchasing a horse for her son. And sales have really been the final nail in the coffin of the Belgian jewel collection; several things were sold off while King Leopold was alive, and after his death his second wife Princess Lilian sold one of their best bits - Queen Elisabeth's Cartier Bandeau (more on that, and other notable tiara sales, later this week).

It poses an interesting question: if it was your jewel collection, what would you prefer? Sentimentally, and selfishly too, personal property might be the preference. But if you have an eye to preserving your family's history for generations to come, it might not.

One final note, as we've also been looking at reasons why things are or are not shared in a royal family: Personal property is only shared when the owner feels like sharing, basically. And as we know, in many royal families, that means the wealth is almost never passed around.

Next up: when personal property actually does get loaned out, and some talk of increasing the size of the collection.

Photos: PPE/Daylife/Getty Images

Royal Splendor 101: Family Jewel Foundations

This is Part 2 of our series on jewel ownership.

Swedish foundation jewels

Second to a piece of jewelry being included as a part of a set of crown jewels, I'd say the most secure way to keep a gem in the royal family is to include as part of a family foundation. Only a few countries use this strategy and if you call yourself a magpie, you should prepare yourself now to applaud those families that have one and use it to its greatest advantage.

What is a family foundation? For our purposes, a family foundation is an entity which is created to manage and maintain precious objects. This can include jewels, of course, but can also extend to furniture, art, and other valuables. The benefit here is that once objects are donated to the foundation, they cease to be personal property and are thus exempt from things like inheritance laws and taxes. Family foundations have less state involvement to them and have fewer restrictions on wearers and wearing occasions and locations than crown jewels do, generally speaking.

How does this affect the size of a jewel collection? If you recall, I posited that one of the things that determines the size of a royal jewel collection is the ability of the family to keep hold of their gems over time. Enter the family foundation: not only are these items safe from ugly inheritance issues, they are not to be sold or given away by other means, meaning that important historical collections are kept intact and preserved for generations to come.

Take Sweden, for example. Not only do they have one of the largest jewel collections, they have one of the most historical: a number of their pieces date all the way back to the Napoleonic era. This size and level of historical importance is directly due to the fact that they have a family foundation (well, more than one) to hold the jewels and other sorts of goodies as mentioned previously too.

Some of the tiaras belonging to the Bernadotte Family Foundation

How does this affect the sharing of a jewel collection? It’s no mistake that the best examples of family foundation usage are Sweden and the Netherlands, and both of those countries share their jewels more than others.

The family foundation that holds the Dutch jewels is relatively new. King William III (reign: 1849-1890) had only one child and heir, Queen Wilhelmina. Wilhelmina also had only one child, Queen Juliana, which meant that the royal collection grew as personal property of the sovereign for decades without being divided up by inheritance. But Juliana had four daughters (including the current monarch, Queen Beatrix), and the laws of the land would require that they split the inheritance between them. Juliana knew that not only would historically important items leave the family line, her daughters would face massively high taxes on anything they inherited. And so she created a foundation and donated her gems. The jewels stayed a part of the family for future generations to use, her daughters were free of that sparkly tax burden, and they still get to use the jewels. All in all, a very smart move.

Some of the tiaras included in the Dutch family foundation

So now we have the answer to one of our original questions: how can Princess Máxima wear so many different tiaras? Because she’s not borrowing them from Queen Beatrix personally; she gets them from the foundation. Certainly one gets the sense that Beatrix doesn’t mind her digging through the vaults, but it’s quite different from asking for a personal jewel loan every time a state banquet nears.

Danish foundation jewels

Does this mean all foundation jewels are shared? No, certainly not. Even in the Netherlands, some of the biggest pieces are only worn by Beatrix (including the first two tiaras above). In Sweden, Queen Silvia tends to keep the largest ones to herself most of the time, and she is the only one that wears the Braganza Tiara.

Denmark has a family foundation as well – formed by King Frederik VIII and Queen Louise in 1910; one of Queen Margrethe’s favorite pieces, the Pearl Poiré Tiara (shown at right), belongs to it – but there’s still no sharing happening in that country.

Are foundations all-inclusive? Nope, foundations don’t cover all the jewels in a country. Denmark has their crown jewels, of course, and all countries – even those with foundations – have jewels that are personal property belonging to individual family members. And personal property is just where we will pick up when we continue next time.

Photos: PPE/Daylife/Svenskdam

Royal Splendor 101: On Jewel Ownership

For our next chunk of Royal Splendor 101 posts, I thought we'd take a stab at a bit of the background information behind some of the questions pondered in the comments on nearly every Tiara Thursday post: Why are some jewel collections bigger than others, and why are some countries happy to share while others aren't?

Because when you follow a royal family for any amount of time, the size of their jewel stash becomes evident pretty quickly. And when you follow multiple families and you start trying to make comparisons, things can start to get confusing. Why does Queen Paola have only two proper tiaras to pick from, but Queen Elizabeth has tiaras sitting in boxes that she’s never even worn? Why is it that Crown Princess Mary has only worn three tiaras while her counterpart Princess Máxima is sitting at thirteen and counting?

Sometimes the answers are simple and obvious: some families have more money to spend on jewels than others, and some people are more generous while others prefer to keep their toys to themselves. But sometimes, there's more to the story.

Before you can answer questions like these, I think you have to back up a step and answer a more basic question: Who owns the royal jewels?

Why does this matter? Some of the largest tiara collections are the ones that have grown over generations. The longevity, if you will, of a collection can a bigger determinant of overall size than the relative wealth of a royal family. If you want to know why some countries are more tiara-poor than others, I’d say you first need to know how easy or hard it is for tiaras to leave the family (via gift, sale, or inheritance) - and for that, you need to know who legally owns the gems.

The same goes for the question of sharing; generosity plays a role here to be sure, but understanding how jewels are owned will give you an insight into whether something can or can't be loaned, and whether or not it really is just up to any one particular person to decide if things should or shouldn't be shared.

I like to break it down into four basic categories of ownership:

1. Crown jewels
2. Family foundations
3. Personal property
4. Loans

We’ll tackle these in separate installments (completed entries are linked above), and along the way we'll deal with the tricky business of adding new stuff to a royal collection.

Royal Splendor 101: Crown Jewels

This is Part 1 of our series on jewel ownership.

From time to time, "crown jewels" gets thrown about as a descriptor for any old gem worn by a royal. That's not really the right story, though, because proper crown jewels are in a different class. They are owned by the state or the crown (depends on the country), and can include a whole different set of objects.

What's included in a crown jewel collection? That's different for every country (and not every country has such a thing, mind you). The first thing that might come to mind is regalia - the objects associated with coronations, enthronements, and such; you know, the sacred rites of monarchy. These items are the most frequently included elements of crown jewel collections, and the British crown jewels are the most famous example. You can visit the regalia at the Tower of London - certainly worth a trip, if you've never been.

A few British crown jewels, left to right: the Imperial State Crown, St. Edward's Crown, the Crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, the Sovereign's Sceptre with Cross, and the Sovereign's Orb

Crown jewels, though, are neither limited to regalia nor do they necessarily include regalia - it all depends on the country in question. All sorts of precious items can be included, like baptismal fonts. Wearable sets of jewels - by which I mean gems that are suitable for wear for events less important than coronations - can fall under the "crown jewels" label as well; those that are the most relevant to the set of royals we normally chat about are the Danish and, again, British jewels.

Some Danish crown jewels, L to R: diamonds, emeralds and diamonds (including a tiara not pictured here), and pearls with rubies and diamonds

How do jewels become crown jewels? Some items, regalia being a prime example, can be crown jewels not just because of their historical significance but because they may have been funded by the state in the first place. Other items can be given over to the crown jewels by a royal, or can be left for future use in a will.

Queen Mary's Crown

When it came time for her husband's coronation Queen Mary funded a brand new crown for herself, but she then gave it over for use by all future Queen consorts (of course, this hasn't happened yet as she ended up using it herself, sans arches, for her son's coronation and the future Queen Mother had to come up with the crown shown above instead). Queen Mary also sent a few other items in her possession as queen to the Tower of London for inclusion with other crown jewels - items that came from some of the riches she received as India's Empress, plus a few rings and so forth.

Denmark's crown jewels got their start when Queen Sophia Magdalene (1700 - 1770) bequeathed some of her gems to future queens. (The Danish crown jewels are now displayed at Rosenborg Castle.) Over in Britain, Queen Victoria did the same; she left some of her most important and regal pieces to the Crown, for use by future queens. A few of these jewels were included with the Victoria & Albert: Art & Love exhibition, where they were labelled as state jewelry.

Jewels left to the Crown by Queen Victoria, L to R: the Kent Amethysts, Queen Victoria's collet necklace and earrings (Girls of Great Britain & Ireland Tiara not included), the George IV State Diadem, Prince Albert's sapphire brooch, and the Oriental Circlet with a set of rubies (originally set with opals)

Why does this matter? As always, all of this information is very detailed and customized to each country, and this is just a basic overview to get us back to our original question: how does this factor in when you're trying to figure out why collections are a certain size, and why jewels are or are not shared?

First of all, these items are not privately owned. Britain's crown jewels are a part of the Royal Collection, which "is held in trust by The Queen as Sovereign for her successors and the Nation." I think that's a good way to phrase it - whether owned by the state or the crown, these things are kept in preservation of a history which belongs to an entire nation. To our point, that means they aren't going to be sold, given away, or doled out as part of an inheritance; so long as a monarchy remains intact, so should the crown jewels (should being the operative word).

Second, these items are subject to the greatest restrictions on use. Lots of these gems were specifically left for use by queens. Only Queen Margrethe wears the Danish crown jewels, for example, and she is prohibited from taking them out of the country. In other words: don't expect a lot of sharing to happen.

Next time: the scoop on family foundations.

Photos: royal.gov.uk/Rosenborg Castle/Leslie Field

Royal Splendor 101: Tiaras and Hair

Do you  know why I have such a fanatical affection for tiaras? It's the fantasy thing. (Why yes, Cinderella was my favorite fairy tale growing up, thanks for asking.) Personally, I'd be happy to imagine that these magical diadems are delicately placed atop a royal head by a troupe of wee birds chirping a merry tune. But not all of you are willing to be so naive, apparently, since the question of how exactly these things stay on comes up regularly.

In reality, ladies today are fighting an uphill battle when it comes to tiara attachment. Tiaras can be a century or two old - think how much hairstyles have changed since the initial designs were completed. Use of wigs and hairpieces used to be incredibly common, plus people didn't wash their hair all that often. All of that made it easier to wear a tiara. Also, tiara attachment isn't exactly a specialty of modern hairstylists as it once would have been. But they make it work regardless, bless 'em, and today we're talking about a few of the ways they do it.

Tiaras with full circle frames: the Delhi Durbar Tiara (left) and Princess Mary's (daughter of George V and Mary) Fringe Tiara (right)

Tiaras themselves offer some sort of assistance in terms of noggin attachment, obviously. These things are meant to be used after all. On something like a circlet, where the gems wrap all or nearly all the way around the head, attachment is pretty self-explanatory. Other tiaras may include a full circular base even if the gems are only semi-circular.

The Boucheron Honeycomb Tiara (left) and the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara (right) with their back elastics

If the frame does not encircle the entire head, an elastic can be added at the back (there are often small loops for this) to hold the tiara snugly to the head. Diana, Princess of Wales' hairdresser confessed to using a knicker elastic to get the job done. Doesn't matter what you use, it should all be concealed underneath the hair at the back of the head.

Princess Madeleine of Sweden wears the Connaught Diamond Tiara at her sister's wedding

Some tiaras have a base that can be wrapped in fabric or ribbon - something with a bit of cushion to it, preferably. This helps not only with comfort but can add some traction for use with shiny, freshly washed hair. It also gives the hairpins a better spot to hang on to, as hairpins are another obvious method of sticking a tiara to a hairdo. (As some of you noted on when we discussed Sophie's Wedding Tiara, there was a very visible pin in the close up picture.) For best results, the wrapping should match the wearer's hair color as closely as possible so as to disappear - Madeleine makes a painfully obvious example for us above while wearing a tiara customized for her mother's dark hair on her bleached blonde locks. The most attractive tiara appearances, if you ask me, are the ones that use the rest of the hair to conceal the base as completely as possible, a feat that is notably easier on longer and darker hair.

From L to R: Crown Princess Margarita of Romania's unnaturally red base sticks out from her red hair; the Princess of Wales and Queen Sofia have shorter hair which doesn't conceal bases as well; and Crown Princess Mary's flat part doesn't conceal anything

From here, it's really up to the royal hairstylist to come up with methods to get the tiara to sit attractively and securely, something that seems to be an easier task on thicker locks with more texture to them (and that's why it was a simpler feat in the days of wigs and unwashed hair).

Tiaras with braids, L to R: Princess Astrid of Belgium, Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, the Duchess of Cambridge

One sneaky tactic to help secure a tiara is to make a small braid in the hair where the tiara will sit. Braids can just be decorative, of course, but they can also be functional: they give you a secure place for sticking pins, or even for sewing the thing on. Yes, sewing it on: stitching into a hidden plait is precisely how the Duchess of Cambridge's team ensured the Halo Scroll Tiara would not fall off on her wedding day.

Queen Silvia, 2010 Nobel Prize ceremony

There's really no end to the trickery a hairstylist can come up with to get these things in place. The shot of Queen Silvia's hair at the left gives away a little hint of the understructure involved in creating what looks like an effortless 'do.

While we're killing the magic of wearing a tiara, we might as well go all the way and answer yet another common question: are tiaras uncomfortable? Yeah, sometimes. Some ladies are better suited to handling the perils of tiara wearing, while others suffer. And some tiaras are better suited to being worn than others; weights vary, and some have better capabilities to be adjusted for different head shapes.

Sweden's Nine Prong Tiara, or Queen Sophia's Diamond Tiara if you prefer, is apparently quite inflexible and can be rather uncomfortable. It certainly looked like a painful fit when the King's sister Princess Birgitta wore it to Victoria's wedding, and she apparently had problems with it staying on properly. Another uncomfortable gem in the Swedish collection is the Braganza Tiara; Queen Louise complained that it left her with a sore head and a headache. (We'll tackle this beast - including how much it actually weighs - on Thursday.)

Diana, Princess of Wales found the whole tiara-wearing experience uncomfortable. Not only was the Cambridge Lover's Knot Tiara heavy and headache-causing, the swinging pearls clanked around noisily in their arches. Part of the reason she used her family's tiara as an alternative was because it was lighter, but even that one reportedly left her with a splitting headache on her wedding day.

Comfort levels, L to R: Princess Birgitta in the Nine Prong Tiara, Queen Louise in the Braganza Tiara, the Princess of Wales in the Cambridge Lover's Knot Tiara, Queen Beatrix in Queen Emma's Diamond Tiara, Queen Elizabeth in the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara

Another royal headache victim is Queen Beatrix, and one imagines it is no coincidence that she frequently picks from the small and moderately sized tiaras in the family collection. Her favorite seems to be Queen Emma's Diamond Tiara with its small floral motif. Queen Elizabeth also has her favorites, the top of which is the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara. Among the reasons she's said to love it so: it's light. (Queen Elizabeth puts on her own tiaras, by the way. I suppose that's just another benefit of keeping the same hairstyle for decades at a time.) Too bad I'm not right about those singing birds, hmm? Just think of the variety we could have if none of this was a factor in tiara selection...

Photos: Geoffrey Munn's "Tiaras: A History of Splendour"/Polfoto/Life/Svensdam

Royal Splendor 101: Tiara Rules

Since we spend so much time around here talking about tiaras, I get a lot of questions about the nitty gritty details: who wears them? When do you wear them? How do you wear them? What are the rules? So our next few installments of Royal Splendor 101 attempt to provide answers to said questions. First up: answering the who and the when.

When somebody asks me what the rules are in terms of who can wear tiaras, and when they can be worn, honestly my first instinct is usually to say: don't bother trying to figure it out. These are matters of etiquette and dress code, which means there are many different opinions and absolutely no hard and fast rules to make you (or the royals) stick to any one way of doing things. Seriously, there's nothing but a second mortgage and a whole lot of strange looks stopping you from buying a tiara at the next Sotheby's auction and wearing it to the grocery store. So it's almost not worth trying to figure it out, but I'll tell you what I've observed and then you can disagree with me later.

Who can wear tiaras? In the days of yore, tiaras were for noble and royal ladies (marks of rank, sure, but you also have to consider that they were at one point the only groups of people that could afford jewels). They were also usually reserved for married ladies. Younger women didn't need the extra ornamentation, I suppose, and they probably didn't have any to wear in the first place; tiaras were commonly given as wedding gifts.

Nowadays? Well, as society on the whole has gotten a lot more casual, so have the rules. I am far from an etiquette expert, but there just doesn't seem to be universally followed rules for tiara-wearing anymore. I would say the first rule to die was the royalty and nobility one. Royalty are the ones that have the most public tiara occasions to attend, but tiaras are auctioned off regularly; someone's buying them, and it usually isn't royalty or nobility (both groups are more likely to be the ones selling the gems, sadly).

Unmarried ladies in tiaras, left to right: young Princess Margaret, young Princess Anne, Princess Madeleine, Princess Theodora, engaged Máxima Zorreguieta, Carina Axelsson

And though people still tend to repeat it, I personally don't put much stock in the marriage rule these days. Obviously it doesn’t apply to unmarried royal princesses, as they wear tiaras all the time and have for a long time. (Eighteen is an average age to start wearing tiaras, though each family decides for itself.) We don't usually see royal girlfriends or fiancées in tiaras, but it happens: Máxima wore tiaras during her engagement, and Prince Gustav of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleberg's long-term girlfriend Carina Axelsson often wears them. As for non-royal unmarried ladies...well, how many tiara events do you think they have on their social agenda in the first place? If you want to boil it down to a rule for today's etiquette averse world, I'd say it's this: if you've got 'em, flaunt 'em.

Or if you can borrow 'em, in Elizabeth Hurley's case...

When are tiaras worn? A century ago, the answer to this would be: all the time! King George V and Queen Mary dined in full white tie with orders and tiaras most nights. White tie also used to be a common dress code for gala performances at the opera or the ballet...sigh. I think I was born about 80 years too late (and also in the wrong country and in the wrong class, but you get my drift).

Queen Victoria, with tiara, at the christening of her son Prince Alfred

Today, not only are we rather casual on the whole, the wealth that made all those grand occasions possible has significantly diminished. Tiara events aren't all that common now, and the most accurate answer to the question at hand is: you wear a tiara when the dress code says you should. It's the hostess/host's choice! Of course that isn't helpful at all, so here are some general guidelines:

• Time of day. The first guideline is the time of the event. Tiaras are for evening affairs. Afternoon might be close enough; this was the case at Crown Princess Victoria's wedding (held at 3:30 pm), where the events continued on well into the night. This is a prime reason why we see the ladies in hats and not tiaras at Prinsjesdag, which is a day event.
• State occasions. The more formal and important an event, the more likely you are to see tiaras. That said, nothing stops a person from organizing a private event with tiaras included, such as the wedding ball of the Prince of Prussia, or Elton John's annual White Tie and Tiara Ball (hence Elizabeth Hurley's tiara above).

Queen Elizabeth with a tiara at a white tie state banquet at the White House (left), and wearing a tiara for a black tie dinner in Ireland (right)

• White tie. When the dress code is white tie and/or dress military uniforms for the gentlemen, the corresponding code for the ladies will usually be evening gowns with orders and tiaras (if you have them, that is). White tie isn't always a guarantee that tiaras will be involved; at Princess Nathalie's wedding, gentlemen were in white tie with orders, but the ladies were unadorned.
• Black tie, occasionally. Black tie events usually do not include tiaras for the ladies. But sometimes there are exceptions: Queen Margrethe's 70th birthday celebrations included a black tie and tiara event. Queen Elizabeth sometimes wears tiaras to state banquets abroad when everyone else is in black tie. (See: the state occasion rule.)

Mary and Frederik modeling multiple dress code situations for you

Protocol for royal events is usually well hashed out in advance, but that doesn't mean there isn't the occasional bit of confusion. On a state visit to the United Kingdom in 2001, Queen Rania wore a tiara to the black tie return banquet, while Queen Elizabeth went without. Grand Duchess Maria Teresa did the same thing while on a state visit to Sweden, and then seems to have removed her tiara when the Swedish royal ladies showed up with no head ornamentation. Awkward. 

L to R: Queen Elizabeth (sans tiara) chats to a tiara'd Queen Rania, Grand Duchess Maria Teresa arrives with tiara, and then appears without a little bit later, and Queen Fabiola opts out of tiara-wearing

It's also worth noting that you don't have to wear tiaras if you don't want to or if you don't have one, even when the dress codes says so. Some of the later Nobel events will see the Swedish ladies with brooches in their hair instead of a tiara. Queen Fabiola has opted not to wear tiaras for the most part since her husband passed away. (She's also never been one for wearing sashes, that rebel.)

Do you see what I mean when I say it's almost not worth attempting to figure "rules" out? Any time you think you have it down, there's an example to contradict you. No doubt some of you have examples to contradict the things I've said here. Personally, my policy is never to worry about it when it means we get more tiaras, and only to complain when it means we get fewer tiaras. Right?

Photos: Corbis/Polfoto/Billed-Bladet/Royal Collection/Getty Images/Daylife/PPE/ANP