Talk:Jewels of Elizabeth II

Jewels of Elizabeth II was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
September 9, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 16, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Queen Victoria wore the George III Tiara, part of Elizabeth II's jewel collection, while being painted in Franz Xaver Winterhalter's The First of May (pictured)?

Current status: Delisted good article

British Royalty Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gemology and Jewelry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Vladimir Tiara - Image

Can we use a better image for the Vladimir? this is a bit more detailed; perhaps it could be cropped to remove the overly Canadian elements as well as make it a bit smaller. Thoughts? — [ roux ] [x] 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but it's copyrighted. It's a lovely photo though! ;) We're generally only allowed to use copyrighted media when there is no other option and it is vital to the understanding of the subject. :( Best, --Cameron * 13:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. my issue is that it's basically impossible to see any detail in the B&W photo. Let me see if I can find something free. — [ roux ] [x] 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Npg.org.uk (national portrait gallery), vam.ac.uk (victoria and albert museum), claim copyright on images older than 300 years!! On top of that they display low pixel versions so you can't even use them under "fair use". --Cameron * 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gahh.. I wish we could use this!!! What are the rules on photos from royalcollection.org.uk? — [ roux ] [x] 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found an email address for the Royal Collection... here's hoping! — [ roux ] [x] 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're just as bad. And it takes weeks for them to reply! The last time I was refused they told be "Website rights are usually only granted for educational establishments or museums or galleries where the works are being shown."

PS: You can always add links to the external links section if you don't get permission. --Cameron * 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Captions

Though not strictly pertinent to the main article many of the images have notable characters in them, such as the first Duke of Wellington (the godfather of the child in the picture) on the first picture of the page. Should these be added to the captions? 129.67.17.233 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough call. Most of me says no, as the focus is really on the jewellery. Part of me says yes, on general wikisurfing principles. — [ roux ] [x] 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contemplated adding Image:Victoria in her Coronation.jpg because Victoria was a great contributer to the collection and is seen wearing the George IV diadem. But a) we already have an image of the diadem and b) the article has quite a few images. I suppose it could be added to the feud section if one wished. ;) --Cameron * 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think Vicky's picture is the better one for the Diadem..~~ Actually on second thought, it's a tossup, and we already have Old Vic in the lead. (and my goodness, I'd never noticed how much Margaret and Elizabeth are the spitting image of Louise before...) — [ roux ] [x] 11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Value

No estimates of the value of the jewels come at anywhere near £1000 trillion, and ten times this would be the entire GDP of the UK for 5 millenniums assuming it was at the current level throughout that time. Anyone got a good reliable estimate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.243.80 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Russian Fringe Tiara

Princess Marina was presented with a tiara from the Lord Mayor and citizens of London. It was presented to her as a wedding gift and was passed down through her family. Her daughter Princess Alexandra wore the tiara to her wedding and it is now in the possession of Princess Michael of Kent, NOT Queen Elizabeth II. The tiara mentioned here incorrectly, which was her mothers Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna of Russia, was passed down to her other daughter, which you can clearly see she is wearing in her wedding photo Princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark..etc. That Romanov tiara is now in the possession of Archduchess Helene of Austria, daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark and her husband, Carl Theodor, Count of Toerring-Jettenbach. Duchess of Kent tiara The information comes from this site and another source listed here; this excerpt is from the Orient-Express Magazine-Volume 14, published in 1997, "On her marriage to the Duke of Kent in 1934, Princess Marina of Greece wore a diamond tiara, right, which was a wedding gift from lite City of London and was almost identical to the George III fringe tiara, later worn by the Princess Elizabeth" (later Queen Elizabeth). -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1936 Cartier Halo Tiara

Please tidy up link and add more information as it becomes known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.135.176 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was done, no one added the facts that both Princess Margaret and Princess Anne wore the tiara before Kate. There is no info on whether or not the Queen (Elizabeth II) wore the tiara herself; most likely she did not (no pictures of her wearing it). A brief description was also added. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary Fringe Tiara

The tiara which Queen Mary passed on to the Queen Mother which was worn at the present Queen's wedding and Princess Anne's is NOT the George III Fringe Tiara according to the Official Royal Collection site.

"This tiara (which can also be worn as a necklace) was made for Queen Mary in 1919. It is not, as has sometimes been claimed, made with diamonds that had belonged to George III but re-uses diamonds taken from a necklace/tiara purchased by Queen Victoria from Collingwood & Co as a wedding present for Queen Mary in 1893. In August 1936 Queen Mary gave the tiara to Queen Elizabeth, from whom it was borrowed by Princess Elizabeth for her wedding in 1947." -- The Royal Collection © 2008, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II RCIN 200184

Please see: Royal Wedding Collection -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turquoise Parures

I updated the "Gloucester Jewels" section using the source Leslie Field's The Queen's Jewels, published in 1987. There were two separate turquoise parures put together by Queen Mary; one given to Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester and the other given to Princess Margaret (sister of the Queen). I re-did the section and took out several of the "Other pieces given to the Duchess of Gloucester that not much is known about most likely they are pieces commissioned by her husband" as all but two are listed in the book, pg 158 as part of the original suite given to Princess Alice. These two statements were also taken out:

The Teck turquoise earrings are a set of diamond drop earrings with a turquoise centre surrounded by 13 diamond brilliants and a pear shaped turquoise drop, in the middle of diamond scrolls.
- Which earrings? From the Gloucester or Princess Margaret suite?

A long necklace of twenty-six turquoise and diamond clusters. This necklace was given to Queen Mary's mother Princess Mary Adelaide and was worn at her first debutante review at Buckingham Palace.
- This is not what the book says. It explains that she wore three brooches from the Gloucester suite to her debut at Buckingham. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering why these are even listed on "The Personal Jewel Collection of Elizabeth II" when she does not own them and never has! They should probably be moved to the pages of the women who received them. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewellery not belonging to Elizabeth II

Why is jewellery belonging to the Gloucesters and Princess Margaret listed in an article about "the personal jewellery collection of Elizabeth II"? It would be a shame to remove these sections, as they are quite in depth and well sourced, but they really don't belong here. Any suggestions? Sotakeit (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article could be renamed. I have quite a few more bits I could add, I just haven't had a lot of time recently.--Cameron * 21:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The George IV State Diadem is part of the Royal Collection but is listed here as belonging to the Queen. I'm also not sure about the title, and "The Queen's Jewels" appears to be nothing more than the title of a book. Not sure if that qualifies as WP:COMMONNAME... Firebrace (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

The title ("The Personal Jewel Collection of Elizabeth II") seems to have been taken from the title of a book (The Queen's Jewels: The Personal Collection of Elizabeth II) written by Leslie Field in 1987. As the collection does not have a proper name, the title should be in sentence case per WP:NCCAPS, but since it isn't even the WP:COMMONNAME (word for word) and shouldn't begin with WP:THE, I propose shortening the title to "Elizabeth II's jewels". Others have expressed doubts over the title, so I'm going to WP:MOVE the article now because I don't think it is controversial enough to merit discussion... Firebrace (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiaras

'George 111 Fringe Tiara' appears to be an anomaly when the article goes on to state that the piece was commissioned in 1830 as George 111 died in 1820. Either the name of the tiara is wrong or the date of its commissioning is. Len of Essex (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tiara was made using diamonds that had belonged to George III (unlike the Queen Mary Fringe Tiara, which wasn't). Firebrace (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Collection

It seems necessary to justify the article's inclusion in the Royal Collection of the United Kingdom category. The Royal Collection is made up of heirlooms held in trust by the monarch for his or her successors and the enjoyment of the nation. Minor items are occasionally sold to raise money for acquisitions, and duplicates of items are given away as presents within the Commonwealth.^[1] However, the collection also contains some objects which are owned by the monarch as a private individual.^[2]

For example, the Queen Mary Fringe Tiara is RCIN 200184, Queen Mary's Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara is RCIN 200192, Queen Victoria's Bow Brooches are RCIN 250535, the Coronation Necklace is RCIN 100003, the Coronation Earrings are RCIN 100004, the Brazil Parure necklace is RCIN 200159, a diamond necklace and bracelet are RCIN 200152-3, the Nizam of Hyderabad Necklace is RCIN 200154, an emerald and diamond choker is RCIN 200156, the Delhi Durbar necklace is RCIN 200134, a ruby and diamond necklace is RCIN 200158, the Brazil aquamarine tiara is RCIN 200131, the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara is RCIN 200145, the Cullinan V brooch is RCIN 200136, the Cullinan VI and VIII brooch is RCIN 200137, various jewelled brooches are RCIN 200143, RCIN 200140, RCIN 200141, RCIN 200146, RCIN 200161, RCIN 200144, various bracelets are RCIN 200151, RCIN 200139, and two pairs of earrings are RCIN 200133 and RCIN 200135.1-2.

All these items were inherited by the Queen from family and friends or presented to her as personal gifts at various stages of her life by family and other heads of state. None of the items show up in searches on the Royal Collection website, and a level of creativity is needed to find them. Perhaps that was what caused the confusion... Firebrace (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Royal Collection, the coronation jewellery and the bow brooches are heirlooms of the Crown, so not personally owned by the monarch, who has to forfeit them if he or she were to abdicate, and cannot will them to anyone but his or her successor. It appears that other items dating from before 1901 are part of this arrangement. Instead of deleting them I have changed the wording to make it clear that some items do not belong to the Queen personally. Firebrace (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Andrew Morton (1989). Theirs Is the Kingdom: The Wealth of the Windsors. Michael O'Mara Books. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-948397-23-3.
^ "Royal Taxation". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 351. United Kingdom: House of Commons. 7 June 2000. col. 273W.

Jewels

I found this website that has a comprehensive list of jewels from the Royal family. Maybe someone could go through the website and see if there is anything we missed? http://www.thetudorswiki.com/m/page/Jewellery+of+Today%27s+British+Royalty Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request Number 5 7 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Consistency with other titles such as Coronation of Elizabeth II and Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Interstellarity (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Canadian nurse (1939) (14771468775).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consort of King George VI

In references to Queen Elizabeth II when she was a princess, her mother is described as the Queen Mother. I changed a couple of them, pointing out that she was then Queen (Consort) Elizabeth. They were immediately reverted to "Queen Mother" with the explanation that she is elsewhere so referred to even when the events occurred during her husband George VI's reign. Shall I find time to go through and make all the mentions chronologically accurate, or do we have a consensus that she shall be called Queen Mother even when she wasn't? J S Ayer (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "(later the Queen Mother)". That means she was later the Queen Mother, after she was the Queen. Please don't try to make any further mentions "chronologically accurate". It is already chronologically accurate to say that she was later the Queen Mother, and it is obviously confusing to call five different women in the article "the Queen". Celia Homeford (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? J S Ayer (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Queen Elizabeth and Princess Elizabeth.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is uncited text in this article, including entire paragraphs,
The article suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, with many one-paragraphs sections that make this article seem more like a list. I think these sections should be merged together or the article reformatted into a list.

Is anyone interested in improving this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Jewels of Elizabeth II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 00:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements including entire paragraphs. The article also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION that makes the article appear more like a list. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Morton1989-1] Andrew Morton (1989). Theirs Is the Kingdom: The Wealth of the Windsors. Michael O'Mara Books. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-948397-23-3.

[2] "Royal Taxation". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 351. United Kingdom: House of Commons. 7 June 2000. col. 273W.

[1]

[2]