Queen Camilla praised for ‘recycling’ a crown rather than getting a new one

It continues to be absolutely bonkers to watch King Charles and Queen Camilla succeed at convincing everyone that they are doing this coronation on the cheap. Charles is buying two new thrones, for the love of God. He’s getting a fancy new gold carriage! He’s going to be decked out in all of the military medals, ribbons and sashes he can find. But the worst is all of the stuff about Camilla’s crown. This week, it was announced that Camilla would “recycle” the traditional queen consort’s crown, aka the Queen Mary crown or Mary Teck crown. Camilla will have the Koh-i-Noor replaced and she’ll have the Cullinan diamonds added to it. Royal reporters are falling all over themselves to lavish praise on Camilla for not demanding to have an entirely new crown made.

The Queen’s decision to use Queen Mary’s crown for the coronation on May 6 is further evidence of what has been apparent ever since the death of Queen Elizabeth last September: that the royal family is anxious to avoid controversy at all costs. By choosing a crown not believed to have been worn in public since 1937, the Queen is solving two problems at once.

The first is that it avoids any accusation of senseless extravagance. All three queen consorts of the 20th century — Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII; Queen Mary wife of George V; and Queen Elizabeth, wife of George VI — had crowns made for their coronations. It was a tradition that went back to the coronation of William IV in 1821, when Queen Adelaide had a crown made instead of using the one queen consorts had been using since 1685.

To go to such an expense during a cost of living crisis would be seen as wilfully insensitive. As Hugo Vickers, the royal historian, said: “There would be no possible reason for making a crown, because they have got so many crowns waiting to be used. We would all say, ‘Aren’t there enough crowns waiting in the Tower of London already?’. ”

The Queen’s choice of crown — believed to be her own personal preference, rather than advice from palace aides — also helps to avoid controversy over the Koh-i-noor diamond, which was the subject of inflamed debate last October after Buckingham Palace announced the date of the coronation. The suggestion that she might wear the crown made for the Queen Mother — then Queen Elizabeth — at her coronation, including the Koh-i-noor diamond, provoked an angry response from India, where the diamond’s history is inextricably linked with memories of British colonial rule. Anita Anand, co-author with William Dalrymple of Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond, told Times Radio at the time: “For Indians it is not just a gem, it is a diplomatic grenade. It is a symbol of the humiliation of colonisation.”

The crown, which is being modified by the crown jeweller, Mark Appleby of Mappin & Webb, will be mounted with three of the smaller Cullinan diamonds: III, which is known as the Lesser Star of Africa, IV and V….However, the Cullinan diamonds are not entirely free of controversy. Before the state visit by Cyril Ramaphosa, the South African president, last November activists urged the Queen not to wear the diamond. Zwelinzima Vavi, a South African trade unionist whose father worked in the mines at the height of apartheid, said that if the diamond was worn by either the Queen or the Princess of Wales it would “be like spitting in the face of South Africans”.

[From The Times]

I actually forgot that South Africa doesn’t want the Cullinan diamonds to be worn either. QEII loved wearing the Cullinan pieces – she often wore them mounted in giant f–king brooches. So… yeah, Camilla “side-stepped” the Koh-i-Noor controversy but y’all know that South African activists will have sh-t to say about the Cullinan diamonds being used. Plus, I don’t even think India will be placated, long-term, with this solution of “just temporarily remove the Koh-i-Noor and have a replica made.” That’s idiotic. As for the praise Camilla is getting for “recycling” an old crown… Jesus H. They literally have hundreds of tiaras and crowns and stolen jewels. It surely would have been easier and more cost-efficient for Camilla to simply reuse one of the less controversial pieces in general??

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

102 Responses to “Queen Camilla praised for ‘recycling’ a crown rather than getting a new one”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lolalola says:

    The sense of entitlement in these people is just astonishing.

    • Maggie says:

      They can’t wear any crowns with without controversy

    • Gill says:

      I have been to the ToL and seen the Crown Jewels and I had absolutely no idea there were so many different crowns, WTAF?? I thought the whole point of the RF was tradition so surely there should be one crown, one throne, one carriage etc that’s for every king or queen, in Scotland we have a fricking stone that dates back to the Middle Ages and it’s sitting on that that makes you the king not playing dress up in something different each time round 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

      • Stewart says:

        Absolutely, and they stole THAT one as well! I would gladly give it back if it could be pushed up the first English arse that sits on it.

    • The Recluse says:

      They do so freakin’ little and expect to be praised for it.
      That monarchy needs to end.
      Let them keep their two private properties: Balmoral and Sandringham, and give the rest to the nation to turn into museums.

      • Stewart says:

        He’ll no to Balmoral! That belongs to the people of SCOTLAND!

      • equality says:

        Give them the deal they give the lesser royals-the right to pay rent and/or maintenance on one of the “royal” properties as a tenant.

  2. Savvy Sue says:

    FTB

    • Lady D says:

      Ha! I figured out your acronym, and if I didn’t I came up with a really good substitute 🙂
      Not my Queen.
      Not my King.
      Viva le republic

  3. Molly says:

    Give that woman a cookie! Well done, Camilla. The selflessness. The humility. My God we’re lucky to have you.

  4. SarahCS says:

    I read the book that Anand and Dalrymple wrote and found it absolutely fascinating. I’d recommend it if (like me) you knew the name of the jewel and the broad strokes of the controversy and want to know more.

    • Ann says:

      Is that “The Anarchy” published 2019? Just downloaded it from my library for my Kindle. Looks like a fascinating read.

      • SarahCS says:

        It’s called Koh-I-Nor but I’ve got The Anarchy too and it’s excellent while also being profoundly disturbing. Again I knew the bare bones of events but the detail he gives is fascinating and needs to be more widely known and talked about.

        Koh-I-Nor just focuses on the story of the diamond from the stories about where it first turned up to the Brits setting up a scenario where they could steal/’be gifted’ it by a child.

    • Alarmjaguar says:

      They also did a great 4 episodes on the podcast Empire about the stone’s history. I really enjoyed that as well – I’ll have to check out the whole book!

  5. MoBiMom says:

    It’s quite an experience to take a step back and consider the utter insanity of all of this.

  6. Jais says:

    I’m baffled by the fact that they’re just replacing the Indian diamond with the South African diamonds and calling it a day like it’s all good.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      Yeah, she won’t wear this stolen gem; she’ll wear that one. Can’t see any problem here. 😕

      ♻️ crown. Huh?

    • Becks1 says:

      So, I don’t think they are. The Koh-i-Noor is not in Queen Mary’s crown, it was removed from that and added to the Queen Mother’s coronation crown, and that’s when Mary added another Cullinan diamond to it. I think. The article earlier this week mentioned that they were using the QM’s crown and replacing the Koh-i-Noor but I think they’re just not touching the Koh-i-Noor at all.

      The reporting around this has not been very good.

      • Jais says:

        Yeah it’s very confusing. Maybe it’s on purpose? At the same time, it feels like there is a strategic opacity around all their jewelry. I really want to know who’s in charge of the jewels now, as opposed to AK. Charles must have assigned someone new?

      • ShoppeGirlMN says:

        I’d like a full account of all their jewelry and accessories, where or how the pieces or stones were acquired, and their value. And the account published. And any cultural or historical artifacts belonging to current or former colonies should be returned. It’s disgusting.

      • CourtneyB says:

        The koh i noor in queen Mary’s crown was replaced with a crystal in 1914, I believe.

        The Cullinans have take various routes to get where they are. The Transvaal presented the uncut stone to Edward VIi for his birthday. He accepted but designated them as state property not personal. A Dutchman, Aascher, was given the appointment to cut the stone. It took eight months! The two biggest pieces are part of the Crown jewels, not the monarch. Asscher was given the smaller chips as payment. Except for what came to be known as Cullinan VI and VII— Edward bought those for his wife Alexandra. Aascher then polished some of the stones, calked the Lesser Stars of Africa, and sold them to the government of South Africa. They presented the LSOA, what are known as Cullinan 3-5 and 8-9, to queen Mary. She had them set into various pieces including the very famous brooch.

    • Eowyn says:

      This exactly! Replacing one atrocity of colonial theft with another isn’t an improvement!

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Neither is recreating another crown and calling is “recycled” for the outlandish costs for the Clowning show!! She’s NOT wearing a ready made crown, she’s creating one from others. 🙄🙄

  7. JanetDR says:

    Yes to finding one to just wear as is! Try them all on, pick the one that feels the best, isn’t too controversial and looks the prettiest or makes your heart sing -done!
    By the way, tiaras are constantly popping up in my Etsy suggestions because I like to look at them as well as flower crowns. There are some lovely, lovely semi precious ones! I would recommend taking a look. 🤩

  8. kelleybelle says:

    How about you just give the Koh-i-noor diamond back to its rightful owners? What are these two corpses going to do with it anyway? It’s stolen. Repulsive bastards.

    • Kara says:

      I get what you’re saying, but good luck finding the “rightful owners” of the Koh-i-Noor diamond.

      India, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan all lay claim to the Koh-i-Noor. The origin of the diamond was most certainly India–as in, that’s where it was dug up–but it’s passed hands between rulers of the four modern-day countries I mentioned, and likely more. Throughout history, it was sold and bought. Most definitely taken by conquest, repeatedly.

      Historians are certain it passed through the hands of Moguls, Persians, Afghans, and Sikhs. That diamond has been through a lot!

      (And diamonds don’t even do anything but shine. They’re add nothing to the hierarchy of needs; they’re worthless to the human condition.)

      To whom do you return such a cursed object when four countries want it? Do you return it to the people *you* stole it from, or do you call a rep from each country laying claim to it into a room and toss it to them like a wedding bouquet?

      • Rnot says:

        Just like there are no ethical billionaires, there are no ethical owners of $20 billion diamonds. A hereditary ruler in India inherited a stolen stone while still a child. The stone was then stolen again for the hereditary ruler of Britain where successive monarchs have inherited it. The details make it a bad choice of symbol for the profound injustice that was colonization.

        If it were up to me I’d destroy the damned thing just so people would stop being distracted by it and put that energy toward meaningful restitution. Theft of land and food matters so much more than the theft of shiny rocks from the obscenely wealthy. No one was ever going to use those rocks for any higher purpose than decorating a rich man’s trophy.

      • kelleybelle says:

        It’s also been cut many times. I didn’t realize so many countries laid claim to it. Interesting!

      • blacktoypoodle says:

        How about (with great security) we (the public) get to make appointments to have our photo taken while wearing it. Maybe $ 300 for 5 minutes or $500 for 10 minutes of photo shoot. Money going to food banks, education or charities deemed appropriate. People can afford Beyoncé tix, they can afford this.
        Kind of like those “old tyme” dress up photo shops. I have one from “the Old South West” (USA)
        If you want to wear it at your wedding: $250,000. (cost of security included) 4 hours only. Then it gets taken back. For the 250K you can choose which charity you prefer from a designated list.
        I’d definitely scrape up $300 to take a photo wearing a giant diamond crown. I’d show up with hair and makeup ready.

  9. MY3CENTS says:

    She’s so savy, she recycled being an old side piece into being a Queen.

    • JanetDR says:

      🤣🤣🤣

    • Well Wisher says:

      Best comment.

    • JoJo says:

      🤣😂🤣😂. Exactly this.

      I just can’t comment seriously on the crowns/gems debate because the whole thing disgusts me for so many varied reasons that my comments would end up being dissertation length.

      Suffice to say the juxtaposition of this week’s KC photo-op in front of a food bank sign with the simultaneous discussion of millions of £’s worth of gems set into useless vanity wear does nothing to convince this Brit that it’s worthwhile having a royal family at all.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ MY3CENTS, yes! This!!!! ☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻

      All damn day and everyday!!!

    • jenjamtx says:

      Every time I see a photo of this woman all I can think is “You can’t make a silk purse out of sow’s ear.”

    • Debbie says:

      First of all, @My3cents, great comment. I agree with everyone else and as I’m rather a “glass 1/2 full” kind of person, all I can think about with this issue is: No matter what kind of dress, or expensive crown jewels she wears, these things will still be on… Camilla, bless her heart. So, last laugh.

  10. equality says:

    Don’t they have a gold carriage “just waiting to be used”? And perfectly sturdy thrones with nobody’s bottom currently using them?

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      Why can’t they ♻️ a gold carriage?

      • MoBiMom says:

        I believe the one they have was deemed too uncomfortable for the delicate royal posteriors…. poor dears.

    • JoJo says:

      Apparently, one simply must have a gold carriage to get to the new throne and a second gold carriage for the return journey home from the new throne. Do keep up 😂.

    • Jais says:

      Charles and Camilla riding in a brand new golden carriage in front of the entire world is just not the flex they think it’s going to be. The memes and incredulity will surpass whatever rhapsodizing Nicholas Witchell is narrating on the BBC.

      • MoBiMom says:

        Speaking of Nicholas and now that I think of it…. this nonsense makes at least a casual nod to those fatally tone deaf relatives, Nicholas and Alexandra Romanov.

  11. Michele says:

    This woman looks like something that’s been in the trash heap for awhile.

    • Patricia says:

      She has been in the trash for quite a few years now. I still think of Anne Boleyn being called The Great Whore by the people of England. Seems to work for this too.

  12. Lissen says:

    I laughed at this from Seth Meyers’ Corrections for this week:
    “We referred to Camilla Parker Bowles as the queen. She is the queen consort. Consort is the British slang for ‘homewrecker!'”

    I will forever remember. Brit slang is good.

    • Paulkid says:

      On Twitter, I saw Camilla referred to as the Queen Escort. Don’t want to think of the service that name implies. She is disliked enough without wearing stolen jewels and C3’s version of a modern monarchy has changed nothing of substance. The world is watching in a brand new light! Keep tempting karma with your extravagant tawdriness.

  13. Andy Dufresne says:

    A “recycled” crown for the King’s side piece. I can’t believe it has all come down to this.

    Why do we even bother with these monarchs?

  14. Ameerah M says:

    We won’t use the diamond from one country we colonized…but we’ll use the diamond from one of the OTHER countries we colonized.

  15. Chantal says:

    So the RRs keep ignoring the kings blatant extravagance and spending. I don’t believe they will actually replace it. They will probably have the replica made for plausible deniability but no way will C-Rex let his queen wear a fake gemstone on his special day.

    Getting praised for recycling crowns containing stolen jewels in 2023. The bar is now below the floor. I hope India and South Africa keep raising hell about their stolen jewels on a regular basis. No rest for the wicked!

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Chantal, I agree!! The fact that KC3 seems to want to ignore the atrocities that his ancestors committed is not showing the world how “in touch” and slimming down the Monarchy you are. You simply want to keep the institution with the status quo that it has and will fight with all of your might to keep it that way.

      #AbolishTheMonarchy

  16. HeyKay says:

    Oh FFS!
    Will their awfulness never end?
    Cast iron egos on these Tools.

    I keep thinking “Well, the craftsmen who make crowns and gold carriages at least have work right now” while the rest of the world are struggling.
    Boo! Boo Camzilla and KingTampon!

  17. HeyKay says:

    That photo with Camzilla in those beautiful jewels always makes me think
    “LIPSTICK ON A PIG”

    No insult to pigs intended.

    No amount of money, makeup, jewelry, or finery can help Camzilla.
    She is vile to her soul.

  18. Amy Bee says:

    I think aides (yes, aides) also realised that making a new crown would reinforce Harry’s comments, about Camilla being hell bent on becoming Queen. If Charles and Camilla really cared about the cost of living crisis they would not be having a coronation. The accession ceremony after the Queen’s death made them King and Queen.

  19. C-Shell says:

    This is ridiculous, and it should blow up in Camilla’s face because “ The Queen’s choice of crown — believed to be her own personal preference, rather than advice from palace aides…” She owns this now. And, rather than avoiding controversy during an economic crisis, they are going to be justifiably dragged to hell and back. Good.

    • OriginalLeigh says:

      They are so tone deaf and stupid to be doing all of this while so many working class families are struggling in the UK. I think they’re a day or two away from yelling “let them eat cake.”

  20. Becks1 says:

    Wait, I thought she was going to wear the QM’s crown and replace the Koh-i-noor with a replica? But now she’s wearing Mary’s crown which doesn’t have the koh-i-noor (since its in the QM’s crown.) So they’re just putting the Cullinan diamonds back into the crown (since at least two were in there originally, and according to Wiki another was added when her son was crowned.)

    To me this just reminds people that the royals have more crowns than they know what to do with and more diamonds than they can keep track of.

    • Becks1 says:

      Okay wait I think i’m seeing where I’m confused. So they’re going to “redo” the place where the Koh-i-Noor was when the crown was first made, they’re not going to take the Koh-i-Noor from the QM’s coronation crown.

    • Jaded says:

      It’s nothing more than a jewelry shell game and they ain’t fooling anyone. Oh, we’ll just take this piece from here and put it there, then take that piece from there and put it here! Nobody will notice! It’s all still there you craven thieves.

    • SarahCS says:

      Having read the article and versions elsewhere my understanding is that she was going to wear Queen Elizabeth (the queen mother’s) crown – stolen Indian diamond. But now the plan is to take Queen Mary’s crown (Queen Liz the queen mothers predecessor) and add stolen South African diamonds. Problem solved.

  21. I may be wrong but aren’t most of the jewels taken from somewhere else? Do these people have any that don’t really belong to others? Replacing one stolen jewel for another is just really really bad form. Recycling my arse.

  22. Cessily says:

    What I can’t comprehend is that people actually fall for this 💩.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      I can’t either.

      Since Charles apparently can get away with anything, he and Camilla should be conveyed on their fancy new thrones through the streets of London, a la Willy and Kate in Tuvalu.

      I’ll donate to an egg fund.

  23. Ash says:

    There is a mural in Vancouver, BC, Canada featuring the Koh-i-Noor diamond and the CBC has a good article about it which also outlines the history of the diamond. So conversations about this ‘controversial’ diamond and how it was stolen are happening here in Canada too.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-artist-kohinoor-diamond-mural-1.6750169

    • BeanieBean says:

      Cool! Thanks for the link.

    • JoJo says:

      Interesting link. Thanks @ASH

      This quote from the article caught my attention too.

      ‘…Buckingham Palace has announced that the Queen Consort is to wear a recycled crown for the coronation with some minor changes that will pay tribute to Queen Elizabeth II, as the Crown will be reset with the Cullinan III, IV and V diamonds.’

      Just how long are they going to use & abuse QEII’s name and the residual goodwill from her reign. Everything from Kate’s Christmas carol concert to Cowmilla’s crowning is packaged and sold as a f***king tribute to the late queen to avoid any negative reactions from the public.

      • SueBarbri33 says:

        This times one-thousand! The original article (or anyway, the first article I saw about it) included a hazy picture of QEII (looking almost like Mrs. Claus or something, all white hair and supportive grin) in the corner as if she was giving permission from heaven to the use of this crown, and then also a photo of Camilla staring at the jewels and it was just so strange and such obvious propaganda that I was embarrassed for the whole team. I think they’ve taken it down by now, but it was really quite something. Even if the Queen did say she wanted Camilla to wear the Crown or whatever….so? So what?

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Ash, many thanks for the post!!! I am so pleased that there are more conversations as well as pointing out the atrocities of the British military as well as the Monarchy. They knew that they were coercing a child at that time and yet they still refuse to right the wrongs that happened so many centuries ago.

  24. Tessa says:

    I doubt it was Camilla decision. This is spin to try to promote camilla.camilla and Charles solved no problems. The two of them are super patronizing. I wonder what queen Mary would have thought of a former married mistress wearing this crown

  25. laura says:

    oh look at me so thrifty that I opened my treasure trove and dug out another blood diamond tiara instead of making a new one! and i love how the new crown isn’t conflict free as well.
    just shows you the monarchy, with everything it represents, from all their jewelry and pomp is just capitalizing on the suffering of other people. in fact, i bet all of the diamonds are blood diamonds…from the spencer tiara to all the jewelry and gifts/loans that kate, meghan, and the york princesses wear. i’m sick of these people.

  26. Tessa says:

    Camilla just can’t help giving those smug del satisfied looks wearing the bling. Kate does the same. I wonder what thrifty tiara Kate will choose.

  27. Over it says:

    Who knew horses wore crowns. Go figure

  28. Eurydice says:

    Let’s see if I understand this logic – in order to avoid controversy at all costs, she chooses the one crown and those jewels that are the most controversial.

  29. Saucy&Sassy says:

    The first thing I think when I read this is that KFC is embracing the “we are the Empire” belief. He knows the jewels are stolen. He’s telling them, “too bad, their mine.” Do they have no one with a brain in the palace?

  30. equality says:

    I wonder what the system of checks and balances is for anyone using or handling the royal jewels. Does an outside jeweler check to make sure that no jewels have been replaced with replicas?

  31. Eggbert says:

    *Slow clap + eye roll

  32. MadsM says:

    Colonialism with a side of greenwashing.

  33. LynnInTx says:

    Can someone explain why it’s suddenly “traditional” to wear a crown that, what, one other person has worn before in the last 100 years…. instead of wearing the 400ish year old one that was used for over 200 years? I mean, THAT would be more traditional I would think. Of course, it’s most likely not BeDazzled in stolen shiny rocks, so there is that.

    And I am completely confused about what stolen shiny rock is going where at this point. Other than them all staying in BRF hands, naturally.

    ( And it continually boggles my mind that the Brit media is reporting – with a straight face – about how ‘low cost’ this Clowning is going to be. And how much they hammer on made-up tradition when trying to cudgel unsaid members of the Family but turn a blind eye to real tradition when it comes to Chuckie-Three and co. Like the new gold carriage instead of using the ‘traditional’ one that’s 200+ years old.)

  34. Jillybean says:

    As dumb as it is, it would look very modern if she just commissioned a simple tiara made of ethically spiced Canadian diamonds

    • Lara (the other) says:

      Or carbon neutral labgrown diamonds with recycled gold.
      Today we have the environmental friendly alternatives.

  35. tamsin says:

    Sheesh, questionable African diamonds are okay as opposed to questionable Asian diamonds?
    There might be not much if they couldn’t wear anything not acquired during the British Empire days. Why not just avoid wearing anything that’s less than a thousand years old? They do have stuff going back that far. Mind you, there are still all those Romanoff jewels that Queen Mary acquired. Those would make some people squeamish as well. Anyway, this whole conversation is so absurd in this century.

    • CourtneyB says:

      This old canard again? I suggest you look up the actual info about the Romanov jewels. They were bought at or, usually, above market value. And there’s about 4-5 pieces. Including the Vladimir tiara that QM paid the modern equivalent of $1 million for to the heirs who were selling it. It’s all in bank records and auction book. But people just keep repeating the same drivel. Even Olga romanoff had to admit in he4 book their tales of swindle were bunk. I’d suggest starting with Lost Fortune of the Tsars which actually traced it all.

  36. Lizzie says:

    Not me, I want a new crown or forget it. And I’d wear it to breakfast every single day.

  37. Katie Beanstalk says:

    Camilla’s hair looks lovely. I think I’m jealous.

  38. Elsa says:

    It’s basically a new crown. She is changing stuff and adding those crazy diamonds. It bites thinking of her wearing ANY crown.