Queen's gems, gowns to go on show

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/10/queen.gowns.ap/index.html

LONDON, England (AP) -- Buckingham Palace is to mark the 80th birthday of Queen Elizabeth II with the largest exhibition of her evening gowns and jewelry, officials say.

Eighty dresses dating from the 1940s to the present will be shown together to the public for the first time when the palace opens to visitors as usual this summer.

The outfits, which have been carefully preserved by the Royal Collection, were worn by the queen for both official engagements and private family events; among them are creations by couturiers Norman Hartnell and Hardy Amies, who both worked for the queen for many years.

"It's spectacular. The gowns have never been shown in public together like this before and there will be 30 pieces of personal jewelry," said a spokesman for the Royal Collection, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with the collection's policy.

Clothing on display includes a gold one-shouldered gown overlaid with fine lace which was made by Hartnell for the queen's tour of Commonwealth countries in 1953-54.

One of the earliest creations on show will be an elegant tiny-waisted black velvet and duchesse satin Hartnell evening dress from the late 1940s.

Jewelry on display will include the diamond and emerald Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara -- purchased from an aunt of Tsar Nicholas II -- and brooches set with stones from the famous Cullinan Diamond.

Also on show will be a pair of Cartier aquamarine and diamond brooches given to the then Princess Elizabeth by her father, King George VI, for her 18th birthday.

Other personal gifts include a gold, sapphire, diamond and ruby bracelet made by Boucheron to a design by the queen's husband, Prince Philip, for their fifth wedding anniversary and incorporating the interlaced initials "E" and "P".

As part of the birthday celebrations, Windsor Castle will stage an exhibition of photographs tracing the queen's public and private life over the past 80 years.

They include pictures by Cecil Beaton, Lord Lichfield and the queen's second son, Prince Andrew.

Buckingham Palace will be open this summer from July 26 through Sept. 24.

The photographic exhibition at Windsor, west of London, will run from April 3 through March 11, 2007.

[JazmenFlowers]

for a minute there, I thought someone had raided my closet. :lol:

there's something about this article that pisses me off. there's something I just can't stand about the royal family...and putting all their billion dollar dresses and jewelry on display sorta says look how wealthy we are just for being who we are

[DavidMn]

for a minute there, I thought someone had raided my closet. :lol:

there's something about this article that pisses me off. there's something I just can't stand about the royal family...and putting all their billion dollar dresses and jewelry on display sorta says look how wealthy we are just for being who we areAre you kidding. You're all man!!:woohoo:

[bretonbanquet]

there's something about this article that pisses me off. there's something I just can't stand about the royal family...and putting all their billion dollar dresses and jewelry on display sorta says look how wealthy we are just for being who we are

Take it from me, they're not interested in whether people know they're wealthy or not - THEY know they're wealthy, and I doubt they even think about it much. It's another world entirely. And the world is FULL of people who are wealthy for just being who they are, not just the Royal Family.

[gldstwmn]

I'd love to see the jewelry. I think the vintage clothes would be fab too.

[strandinthewind]

Take it from me, they're not interested in whether people know they're wealthy or not - THEY know they're wealthy, and I doubt they even think about it much. It's another world entirely. And the world is FULL of people who are wealthy for just being who they are, not just the Royal Family.

I agree. Plus, it is not like much of the jewelry is not already on display at the Tower of London :shrug: I also think theuy kind of have an obligation to display much of it as the tourism rev. generated by it now and in the future is staggeringly large. Say what you want about them, but their mere existence brings billions in tourism rev. to GB every year.

Finally, Goldie - which one do you want :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I'd love to see the jewelry. I think the vintage clothes would be fab too.

Let's take my mother and her checkbook to see them :nod: :eek:

[gldstwmn]

Finally, Goldie - which one do you want :wavey:

"The diamond and emerald Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara -- purchased from an aunt of Tsar Nicholas II. "

Why do a have a vision of us doing a tug of war over this piece at the hotel later?:laugh:

[bretonbanquet]

I agree. Plus, it is not like much of the jewelry is not already on display at the Tower of London :shrug: I also think theuy kind of have an obligation to display much of it as the tourism rev. generated by it now and in the future is staggeringly large. Say what you want about them, but their mere existence brings billions in tourism rev. to GB every year.

Finally, Goldie - which one do you want :wavey:


Absolutely - if there was no Royal Family, Japanese people would never come here :laugh: Also, if they hoarded all their jewels and fancy clothes then they'd get criticised for never letting anyone see it - so they can't win. I'm no monarchist, but I wouldn't swap places with them...

[strandinthewind]

"The diamond and emerald Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara -- purchased from an aunt of Tsar Nicholas II -- and brooches set with stones from the famous Cullinan Diamond."

Why do a have a vision of us doing a tug of war over this piece at the hotel later?:laugh:

Because they will fit better in my navel :laugh: :rolleyes: :eek: - though you have the hair for the tiara :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Absolutely - if there was no Royal Family, Japanese people would never come here :laugh: Also, if they hoarded all their jewels and fancy clothes then they'd get criticised for never letting anyone see it - so they can't win. I'm no monarchist, but I wouldn't swap places with them...


I am not really a monarchist per se, though I do think the current "no power just look at me like a caged chimp" setup sems to be working very well for the country. In college, I did a whole study on the monarchy and the rev. generated by them over the last several hubdred years. The advent of two things really boosted their global status: 1. The insane desire of Amercian Industrial Magnates and the sort to buy a title/status, and 2. television - though it had the mostly opposite effect on the Russian monarchy, who were despised even more when they were more visible, which granted was not for too long. In the end, I think it should be kept though. I get that many differ in opinion, but I like all the pomp, etc. - and so does most of the world judging by the interest in them over the last 30 or so years.

[bretonbanquet]

I am not really a monarchist per se, though I do think the current "no power just look at me like a caged chimp" setup sems to be working very well for the country. In college, I did a whole study on the monarchy and the rev. generated by them over the last several hubdred years. The advent of two things really boosted their global status: 1. The insane desire of Amercian Industrial Magnates and the sort to buy a title/status, and 2. television - though it had the mostly opposite effect on the Russian monarchy, who were despised even more when they were more visible, which granted was not for too long. In the end, I think it should be kept though. I get that many differ in opinion, but I like all the pomp, etc. - and so does most of the world judging by the interest in them over the last 30 or so years.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. I'm sure it'll be kept - the monarchy is no more expensive than running a republic with all the extra expense of a president, and it would mean a severe drop in tourism. They have bad patches - they always have, but they always get through them and carry on. There are enough royalists who hang on that family's every movement to sustain them through the next 50 years at least, barring freak occurrences like "Buckingham Palace Brothel Scandal", or "Prince William caught selling his body in exchange for drugs" etc.

Anyway if we got rid of them, we'd end up with some horror like "President Blair" :distress:

[strandinthewind]

I think there's a lot of truth in that. I'm sure it'll be kept - the monarchy is no more expensive than running a republic with all the extra expense of a president, and it would mean a severe drop in tourism. They have bad patches - they always have, but they always get through them and carry on. There are enough royalists who hang on that family's every movement to sustain them through the next 50 years at least, barring freak occurrences like "Buckingham Palace Brothel Scandal", or "Prince William caught selling his body in exchange for drugs" etc.

Anyway if we got rid of them, we'd end up with some horror like "President Blair" :distress:

Or, my personal fav., Maggie T in a kitten with a whip costume stepping on those pesky commoners :eek:

[irishgrl]

ha HA! with this post, I nail the title of last poster in the top five threads!
WOO HOO!

[seeker007nmss]

ha HA! with this post, I nail the title of last poster in the top five threads!
WOO HOO!


Are you two okay? Just curious......:shocked: