Queen Elizabeth II wore a never-before-seen emerald necklace last week

Buckingham Palace diplomatic reception

I always say that out of all my impossible dreams, I would love to spend a day just looking at the Royal Collection jewels. Queen Elizabeth II has a huge treasure trove of privately owned jewelry, of course, stuff that she inherited or was given personally, maybe even a few pieces that she bought for herself. Then there’s the Royal Collection, which belongs to “the crown,” and it’s probably the largest jewelry collection in the world. There are so many tiaras, necklaces, earrings, brooches, rings, bracelets and probably buckets full of loose jewels too. The collection is so enormous that there are pieces which have been “phased out” for decades during QEII’s reign, pieces which have not been seen in public for a century or longer. There are also pieces which no one has ever seen, which have been hidden away entirely and no one even knows exactly how the crown came to own them.

As it happens, the Queen debuted a mysterious emerald and diamond necklace at the Buckingham Palace diplomatic reception last week. Some people think that the necklace is some kind of reworking of the “Grenville Emerald Necklace” which has been seen before, but no one knows for sure. From People Magazine:

The Queen sparked a major jewelry mystery at Buckingham Palace’s annual Diplomatic Reception when she wore a previously unseen diamond and emerald necklace. Featuring a ring of 10 large emerald drops, the jewelry resembles the famous Greville Emerald Necklace that was previously a favorite of the late Queen Mother. The drop emeralds, however, point to the necklace either being a reworking of the original Greville design — or something completely different.

Described by a Buckingham Palace spokesperson simply as “an emerald and diamond drops necklace,” it is believed to be the first time the Queen has worn the priceless jewelry in public. The royal teamed the stunning necklace with the Greville emerald and diamond drop earrings, a white embroidered state gown by Angela Kelly and the emerald-rich Vladimir tiara — which Meghan Markle was reportedly denied from wearing at her 2018 wedding. On her wrists, she also donned two Cartier Art Deco bracelets set with diamonds and emeralds.

The history of the Greville jewels is just as mysterious as the Queen’s necklace. Bequeathed to the late Queen Mother in 1942 by aristocrat Dame Margaret Greville — who was a patron of Boucheron and Cartier — the collection is believed to have included necklaces previously owned by Marie Antoinette and the Empress Josephine of France. Yet it may have included far more.

“The jewelry was given in a black tin box,” reads an account provided by historic charity The National Trust, which now owns Dame Greville’s family home in Surrey, England. “To this day, we still don’t know everything that was contained in that black tin box.” The jewels remain popular with the royals. Princess Eugenie wore the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara for her 2018 wedding to Jack Brooksbank.

[From People]

So… an aristocrat put all of her jewelry in a black tin box and gave it to the Queen Mother (who was then the Queen Consort) and no one even knows all of the jewelry given to the royal family in the tin box and there are still “new” pieces being introduced. Either that or the Queen just reworks these historical pieces at will? It’s so weird. It’s also strange that… no one really blinks an eye? You would think that at some point, people would be like “we should really make a list of all of the jewelry in the Royal Collection.” Maybe there is a list somewhere, and it’s just not public, because they’re afraid that if the list becomes public, everyone will be like “what the actual f–k, you could literally sell ONE of those necklaces and pay your own upkeep for a decade.”

Buckingham Palace diplomatic reception

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

92 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth II wore a never-before-seen emerald necklace last week”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Carobell says:

    Shiny! I don’t see that tiara fitting with Meghan’s relatively simple wedding gown at all. It would have overwhelmed the whole look.

    • Smalltown Girl says:

      Yeah, I don’t think she wanted teh Vladimir Tiara at all. I do think she might have wanted the one Eugene wore. I have always believed the tiara story, but not in a Meghan was a diva way. I believe she chose her tiara, somehow Eugenie found out and freaked because she wanted that one. Eugenie is the blood grandchild (and possibly favorite son Andrew interfered) and got the tiara and Meghan had to choose again and Harry was upset on her behalf. *If* there was a tiara-gate, then I really believe that it is how it went down.

      • OSTONE says:

        I agree with this assessment 100%. The emerald tiara the queen wore last week is way too big to be married in to the 6th in line and I believe Meghan knew this. But the one Eugenie wore? I can believe it 100%.

      • Jen says:

        I think like most of the stories about Meghan, there is a small grain of truth, and it’s either like you speculated above or possibly there is another emerald one that Meghan was interested in, and she was told that since Eugenie was having an emerald tiara, she should not. If rumors are true that Eugenie had to push back her engagement announcement and wedding for the Sussexes, I can see her not wanting to also be the second to wear a similar tiara.

      • Sam says:

        Why would Eugenie have to have pushed back her engagement and wedding for the Sussexes? She had all the time to get engaged before Harry met Meghan.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        I think it was closer to what was originally described. I think Meghan chose a tiara we haven’t seen that was of possible Russian origin sometime before March. When the Russians poisoned that spy and his daughter in March, they got concerned about the connection. So, she was told that she could no longer wear it and wedding stress got the best of Harry. The whole idea that the tiara was the vlad or Eugenie’s came after the initial story. It was all based on speculation by the RR trying to make Meghan out to be greedy and show the family doesn’t like her. Eugenie’s tiara was from the Greville collection. They wear emeralds from it all the time. The one originally talked about with Russian connections would have been something Queen Mary picked up or something. We would never have gotten the Russian emerald story if they could have insinuated that Meghan was trying to ruin Eugenie’s wedding by wearing her favorite tiara or something right from the beginning.

      • Nic919 says:

        Meghan could only choose tiaras first offered by the Queen and so if there was a change, either it’s a Russian one that no one realized at the time was not one that should be used, or eugenie / Andrew pulled blood princess rank. The Queen wouldn’t have purposefully offered a tiara that she knew Eugenie wanted. Someone made a mistake in deciding which tiaras could be chosen but they instead spun it as Meghan busting in the vault and acting like a diva. Meghan would have no idea what could be offered since the royal collection, especially the stuff coming from Grenville, has never been properly or publicly categorized.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I can’t believe the Vlad would have been on the table for Meghan’s choice since that’s one of the tiaras reserved for the Queen i.e. Girls of Great Britain. If Meghan by any chance requested that tiara not realizing that’s a special reserve, I’m sure she would have gracefully accepted the explanation and moved on. That’s too bulky a piece for her anyway.

      • Hannah says:

        This is in response to Sam’s question:

        “Sam says:
        December 17, 2019 at 8:59 am
        Why would Eugenie have to have pushed back her engagement and wedding for the Sussexes? She had all the time to get engaged before Harry met Meghan.”

        Once again, one of our stuffy Royal protocol rules (Crikey, I’ve grown to loathe that term these past 2 years)

        The Duke & The Duchess of Sussex are higher up the line of succession and PH is the son of the next King, and as such is a Senior Royal (as is The DoS) so The DDoS engagement announcement and wedding would have taken seniority and priority over PE’s engagement and wedding

    • Becks1 says:

      She definitely didn’t want that tiara, but they had to get that dig in.

      ETA and Smalltowngirl – that’s my thought as well, if there is a grain of truth to “tiara-gate” I think its what you describe.

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        Becks1, I think that if tiara gate happened, Meghan didn’t do anything wrong. that she was Just a victim of family in fighting and I do think that Harry might have overreacted based on the fact that he is probably used to being higher in the pecking order than his cousins. Family dynamics can be messy and weddings amplify that adn then add in the mess of a family where rank matters and yeah… I’d be shocked if there wasn’t drama.

      • Becks1 says:

        @STG – yup. I can see Harry being ticked/annoyed if Meghan was offered a tiara and was later told “no” (for whatever reason), but I don’t think Meghan did anything wrong.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      I actually feel pretty bad that I’ve come to dislike this woman so quickly and so intensely. But looking at that crown, I just think “greedy, selfish old lady” still breaking out priceless crowns only for her personal use, while she doles out absolute trash to more minor royals (Sophie’s tin + glass “tiara”)

      The family has such an extensive collection that it always surprises me just how incredibly stingy she is with them to other Royals, while lavishing herself with priceless piece after priceless piece. I know that’s the whole idea of her being queen and I’m probably even being unfair to her but….ugh. Ever since her defense of her paedo son, I now see everything she does through the prism of her extreme entitlement.

      • Boo says:

        Bella, same. She’s far less admirable than I always thought because of her denial of Andrew’s wrongdoing.

      • Harla says:

        I admit that how the RF has kept silent on the outrageous abuse of Meghan and Harry and then the support for Andrew has really caused me to view the lot of them, though especially HM, PC and PW in a whole new light.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I had a distasteful feeling when I saw this necklace, beautiful as it is. She protects her pedo son and then brings out the big jewels in a power move as if to say that she’s the Queen, the ultimate authority, and has the jewels to back it up. And during a time of austerity as well. Just seemed coincidental that this got dusted off now, but this is my tin hat talking.

      • Becks1 says:

        The pictures of all the royal women from the reception threw me off. I didn’t see that many pics of Camilla but in every pic of Kate and the Queen, dripping in priceless jewels….it just seemed so tone-deaf to me. I agree that it was a power move.

      • Elizabeth says:

        I admired the Queen for so long, while seeing some small niggling things (like how she raised her kids, and keeping her head in the sand, for example). I was on her side completely when Diana died and people were yelling about the flag not being at half mast at Buckingham Palace. Last year’s Christmas speech in front of the golden piano was a real turning point for me (not least because gilding doesn’t improve the tone), and it just keeps getting worse and worse. At this point, I just want to give her a good shake.

      • NClover says:

        This comment perfectly sums up my feelings exactly!

      • Faye G says:

        Same, the royals are over-privileged and out of touch. How exactly are they serving or benefiting the British population? I think the monarchy has pretty much run its course in history.

    • Maria says:

      My opinion – I don’t necessarily agree that the Vladimir would have clashed with anything in her wedding. Her dress was so simple, and the green color scheme so unified, it would have been great.
      Here is what I think happened, if any of this is true – Meghan maybe did her own research before being offered a tiara and asked innocently if the Vladimir was available and was told no, for various reasons (provenance, it being one of the Queen’s preferred ones, et al) – I’m sure she was fine with this. I think maybe The Queen might have offered the Greville tiara (sort of a “no your first choice wasn’t available, but here is another emerald one” etc), which Eugenie possibly already had in mind but hadn’t “claimed it” – Andrew got involved to help Eugenie get her tiara, so the Queen took it back from Meghan and that was why Harry got so upset.

  2. Smalltown Girl says:

    I mean I am sure that is exactly why. I don’t think the Royal family wants anyone to know just how much priceless jewellery is just hanging around in vaults, barely seen, because ti would lead to questions. They don’t seem to enjoy having their wealth examined too closely.

    • Becks1 says:

      Bingo. They don’t want people to know the full extent of things like their jewelry collection. also I’m not clear from this -are the greville jewels property of the crown or property of the queen?

      Honestly it reminds me of a line from the ultimate royal documentary, the Windsors, where Pippa makes some comment to Kate about her art collection and Kate’s like, “we guard it for the public!” and Pippa’s response is “oh really? When was the last time the public saw it?”

      • Jen says:

        For a minute I thought you meant Pippa really said that in a documentary she did with Kate, but then I realized you meant the show.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        The Greville jewels were gifted to the Queen Mother and are the Queen’s private property.

    • Eliza_ says:

      The actual necklace base has been seen before, although not in decades, but the huge emerald drops are new to the public. I’m sure they’ve been in collection forever though, maybe off a different necklace never worn out. English aristos like to appear modest but QEII especially, probably has jewels in corners she’s never looked.

      Reminds me of the Swedes and the steel cut crown they found in a cabinet they never knew about, and that family has a lot less money and jewels than the Brits.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes and no. The Queen participated in a book about jewels personally owned by the Windsors, The Queen’s Jewels by Leslie Field.

  3. Mignionette says:

    Queen wears previously pillaged priceless jewels …. le shocke, le horreur….

    • Tanguerita says:

      exactly. I can’t wait for these amoral family to get lost in the annals of history. They can take their damn jewels with them.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I was just gonna say that there are reason why some of the bling has not been seen in public for decades/centuries – the provenance of HM’s bling is well dodgy for a great many pieces. Mary of Teck (i think it was her) not only bought up all the Faberge eggs gifted to the Tsarina that she could get she also bought up the jewels of other royal families etc..

      • notasugarhere says:

        Queen May/Mary was a magpie. The amethyst parure was said to be from a charity auction, where it was rigged so she’d win. That beautiful tiara, one of the best the Windsors had, was sold off (for debts?) by the Queen Mum. The necklace has been seen on Anna Wintour, but the whereabouts of the tiara are unknown.

  4. Lightpurple says:

    Just added to my Christmas wish list!

    ETA By “Queen Mother” do they mean Elizabeth’s mother, who was Queen at the time in 1942, or Queen Mary, who was Queen Mother in 1942?

    • Becks1 says:

      I think they mean Queen Elizabeth, mother of the current queen. Usually I see her referred to as the queen mother and Queen Mary as Queen Mary (in current writings/articles/etc.)

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        Queen Elizabeth’s mother, she was referred to as the Queen Mother to differentiate that both she and her daughter were Queen Elizabeth.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right….? (my point was that I have never seen Queen Mary referred to as the Queen Mother.)

    • fifee says:

      I believe they mean Elizabeths mother.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, the former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. I cannot imagine Queen Mary allowing people to refer to her as something cute like ‘Queen Mum’.

  5. ChillyWilly says:

    QEII is one shady, greedy old bitty. And they put these jewels in a TIN box?? Travesty! The emeralds are breathtaking but that setting is fug.

    • Jen says:

      It also doesn’t go well with the neckline of her dress. It looks weird. Beautiful piece, but weird.

      But yeah, she’s shady and has been for years. Remember her off-shore investments? Her refusal to release information on the taxes she pays (now that she actually pays them)? The mismanaged funds that were supposed to maintain the palaces? She’s basically a less orange Trump.

      • K.T says:

        Exactly! I’m really salty about royalty especially the Queen & Charles… when before I didn’t think about them at all! Or was neutral at least!

        Because of Andy & I skimmed that book about Charles & then found out that the Queen/Queen mother fixed it so they don’t even pay inheritance tax – ya what!!! And they have prob a billion & in jewels, estates and whatever money they hide in Panama (lol) because they actively work to not be transparent. Austerity is for peasants ;p Upper-classy

    • Bella DuPont says:

      “Shady, greedy old bitty…” Yup. This, EXACTLY. And add “selfish” to that as well.

    • Elisa says:

      she looks so smug, barf.

  6. emmy says:

    This is so sketchy. The entire jewelry issue with the BRF is so so sketchy. Really, if it were a painting that had gone missing during the 30s or 40s, people would lose it. It’s not even beautiful!

    • Darla says:

      This is the time period I was thinking of, and yeah, my mind went THERE alright.

    • Algernon says:

      There is a lot of dodginess around the royal art collection, don’t worry. Art just isn’t as glamorous as jewels, so it gets less headlines.

  7. Originaltessa says:

    In this day and age, royalty, excess, extravagant jewelry… all of it just rubs me the wrong way. The Queen showing off new flashy jewelry doesn’t have the same effect that it would 50 years ago. Now it just seems tacky.

  8. Eenie Googles says:

    I mean austerity, and your country is falling apart and whatnot, but sure —whip out some giant new emeralds.

    Tone deaf old biddy.

  9. bgirl says:

    Did anyone call Tamara Ecclestone already…

    • Olenna says:

      Ha! That girl got robbed, big time. Can’t imagine someone trying to fence all that bling and not get caught.

      • bgirl says:

        I still can’t believe that someone has blinbling worth about 50 MillionPounds at home !!! without a Fort-Knox-like Vault !!! Or Security Personel like Ex Military or so…

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ bgirl

        Her father is worth many, many billions and dotes on both his daughters like mad. Her london house alone is worth over £70m.

  10. Deanne says:

    How tone deaf are these people? Why in the hell do taxpayers have to fund them? There are homeless people on every corner and these idiots prance around, dripping in jewels. It’s truly nauseating.

  11. SJR says:

    I still say the BRF has the best jewelry on Earth.
    It is the only reason to marry into that hot mess of a family and The Firm.
    Netflix has Peaky Blinders streaming and one season involves the Russians and some serious jewelry + Faberge eggs. Good stuff!

  12. Nikki* says:

    Emeralds are my absolute favorite, but I didn’t enjoy this post at all for 2 reasons:
    1) Either use the collar part OR the teardrop part, but both together aren’t lovely, and just seem too heavy and saggy, not a good look.
    2) Agree with all previous posters who said how incredibly tone deaf it is to debut priceless gems when your son’s been outed as a sex predator, and your countrymen are struggling to make ends meet. Such an ugh!

    • Vava says:

      I love emeralds, too. The tiara looks nice, but that necklace would look much better without the drops.

    • Giddy says:

      I think TQ wore it because she was feeling burned by Andy’s scandal. I think that she got tired of journalists digging up dirt on Andrew, and editorials about that situation that she felt were over the line into her family business. So, the old gal decided to make an emerald-ish power play to remind all that she is THE QUEEN DAMMIT! The richest woman on earth, with the most incredible jewels, art, and estates, of anyone alive, and how dare anyone insult her fair haired boy! So when we see pictures of that elderly woman in her tweeds, with a scarf tied over her hair, we need to remember that she has vaults of treasures that put to shame any other collection on earth. Treasures that she clutches and hides like the evil queen from a fairytale. She’s not a sweet granny.

  13. L84Tea says:

    I don’t know what those broach things are called, but is she wearing ones with her father and grandfather on them?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, Royal Family Orders given to her by previous monarchs George V and George VI. Once you’re given them, you wear all the ones you have at the same time. Princess Margaret used to wear three – George V, George VI, and QEII.

  14. Capepopsie says:

    I think these ”new” jewels were worn to divert
    attention from P Andrew, giving the press
    something else to write about. 💎 💍 👑

  15. Malcolm H. says:

    Pieces which included those previously owned by Marie Antionette!?! That’s insane and incredible!

    • Bohemian Angel says:

      That was given/ sold to Marie Attoniette by my ancester. I know the queen owns a certain diamond that bears my family name. Would be interesting to view the collection.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        I’m sorry that such lovely heirlooms were lost to your family. Hopefully you have many more and these aren’t missed.

  16. Sof says:

    Wait, I’m confused, are they allowed to accept gifted jewelry in private?

  17. Marjorie says:

    Her jewelry collection is easily worth a couple billion dollars, maybe more. The Cullinan III and IV brooch, or “Granny’s chips,” is a 95 carat teardrop diamond suspended from a 65 carat square-cut diamond. That alone, if it were sell-able, would probably be worth a hundred million bucks.

  18. Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

    I always believed there was something to the Megan emerald story. Given that her attendants wore a green sash on their dresses, an emerald tiara would have coordinated and given her look a “pop” I thought missing.

    • notasugarhere says:

      For the millionth time, she would not have been offered a tiara that was not available for use. No scandal, no Meghan demanding things, all made up.

      • Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

        Assumed a lot there about my thoughts!

        I never mentioned scandal or demanding, I think she may not have been offered her wish or preference….which was emerald. That’s it. Everything here is conjecture…..including your own thoughts that nothing happened at all.🤷‍♀️

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yet you believe there was something to the emerald story. Tells me what I need to know about your suppositions and conjectures.

    • Harla says:

      Eugenie’s attendants wore green sashes not Meghans.

  19. vertes says:

    From what I’ve seen, Meghan appears to prefer more delicate pieces than the emerald tiara. I think the one she wore at her wedding was perfect – not too splashy, didn’t overwhelm her small frame & delicate features.

    • Some chick says:

      I agree. Made up nonsense. She’s way too intelligent to burst in and start making demands. Also that tiara was absolutely perfect, suited her and the dress.

      I can see Harry being a bit of a groomzilla tho that is also pure speculation!

  20. Jojo says:

    My intuition points towards some of her baubles coming from victims of WW2. Her jewelry collection is steeped in colonialism and blood. I love jewelry and I sell it but I get a bad vibe from her collection.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      It is more likely that they have jewellery that comes from the fallen Romanov dynasty. Some are publicly known as Romanov jewels that they acquired in non-dodgy ways but I bet that there’s stuff that was acquired in dodgy ways. Queen Mary was a notorious jewellery hoarder and I don’t think that she had any scruples if she could get her hands on some serious bling on the cheap.

      After the fall of the Romanovs the new Soviet state sold of their immense jewellery collection (as well as the huge collection of the Youssupovs). A lot of the jewellery was broken up because they wanted to sell the large stones individually – but I often wonder where these items went.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Swedish royals finding a pillowcase stuffed with jewels in a closet is another sketchy story.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Another poster (not sure if it was you or NOTA) said that if Queen Mary visited your home and saw you had something that once belonged to the RF she’d demand it back for free. People used to hide the china (so to speak) if she was coming round.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        @nota The jewels in the pillow case were actually handed over to the Swedish legation by one of the Grand Duchesses (the pillow case was for hiding the precious content) and the jewels (mainly Fabergé cigarette cases, etc). The pillow cases were actually discovered in an archive room at the Swedish Foreign Office, when the archive was reorganized. The items were handed over to the descendants, Prince Michael of Kent among others and they went on auction.

        The Vladimir Tiara was smuggled out by a British diplomat on behalf of the same Grand Duchess when she was under house arrest. It was inherited by the Grand Duchess’s daughter who married into the Greek royal family and she later sold the tiara to Queen Mary. The Vlad is an example of Russian jewels acquired in a non-dodgy way. Liz inherited the Vlad from Mary (so it is probably personal property and not property of the Crown).

        @digital unicorn The Queen Mother Elizabeth was absolutely notorious for this. People would hide their valuables, especially family heirlooms if they knew she came around. I could be wrong but I think that Princess Margaret did this as well.

  21. dawnchild says:

    Also…too much weighing down an old, bent woman. Looks ridiculous…time to tone down, not turn up the amount of jewelry as you age. This would look foolish if she were not the queen, trying to resemble her postage stamp days… As it is, still unattractive.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      You are judging by very modern, Western standards. In most times and societies this isn’t true at all.

  22. GirlMonday says:

    Yuck. Ostentatious display of gratuitous wealth that we accept seeing and her having because her ancestors decided that God said that they were entitled and therefore had the divine right to plunder the world to get and have it. I ooh and ahh at the gems because they’re pretty and I’m a magpie, but when I think about what it represents and what the queen represents (especially in light of all that is happening currently with the royal family), I am disgusted!!!!

  23. Flying Fish says:

    I hold hardheartedly agree with GirMonday and Dawnchild. Elizabeth is totally deaf to all that is happening in the world around them, the ostentation and self entitled attitude is mindboggling. I don’t care that she is 90+ years old this is bad.
    These people disgust me!

  24. Bread and Circuses says:

    See, this is something I think must be a bit of a delicate issue for the British royal family. So much of its wealth is stuff that arguably isn’t “theirs”.

    I mean, is Buckingham palace theirs, or does it belong to England?

    The royal family seems to take their stewardship of their duties fairly seriously, and I suspect they consider many of their properties–both the real estate and the jewels–to really be the property of the institution of the monarchy, or the nation itself, more than the family.

    Which means they can’t sell a lot of the stuff. A great deal of their wealth consists of items they can only treat as being loaned to them by history.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      That’s so true Bread and Circuses (PS- I’ve always absolutely *loved* your user name). Even when things do just belong to the family, it’s still a betrayal to sell- the custodian principle still applies- the family is greater than you, one mere individual in its long history.

  25. RoyalBlue says:

    Ugh. I agree with everyone that they are tone deaf. This notion of a superior class by birth is outdated and should be changed. Most of the jewels were plundered. When someone tells you the queen mother gifted something, ask and who gifted it to her and where did they get it from. If you go back far enough you may find most were from India or South Africa. I don’t think the mainland was known for its mining. It doesn’t take long for the oppressed to accept their fate because of fear. Now the serfs have become adoring subjects.

  26. SJR says:

    Didn’t many wealthy people and wealthy countries gift very expensive jewelry and other objects to The Queen as wedding gifts? Also Charles & Diana? Fabulous tables extreme value? IIRC, the Saudi nation/ruler gifted some breathtaking pieces….Honestly, back in the days of Henry 5 or the The Tudors the royals became the ruling class by slaughtering thousands of people, constantly going to war, etc. I’m only half joking but they got to be BRF because their ancestors were murdering thugs!

    In this coming year of 2020…down with the rich!
    Tax the living end out of them and spread the $$ to decent health care, house the homeless, etc. to better the lives of citizens who have been supporting these worthless royals.

  27. Deanne says:

    I already posted my disgust but I just read that almost 300,000 people will be homeless in Britain this Christmas, including more than 100.000 children and this “ordained by God” twat is showing off her long hidden, ill gotten jewels. The entire Royal Family needs to be kicked to the curb. They’ll all be fine, Not that I care, They all have money.Maybe not gold toilet money, but a lot regardless. Meghan has an actual work ethic and Harry has money from Diana so they’ll be fine. As for the rest to them, they can go rot in hell. My son is a pedophile and the country is in shambles, time to trot out a 16 million dollar necklace. Yeah, that’s the ticket to distract from what a disgusting bunch we all are. Tone deaf doesn’t come even close to describe these awful, entitled crapapples.