The Case of Camilla and the Rubies
I don’t normally post negative material against the Royal Family because I know how things can so easily be misrepresented by their enemies. However, this story is inexplicable to me.
Apparently, the Duchess of Cornwall has received a fabulous ruby necklace (pictured) from a member of the Saudi Arabian Monarchy which rules that oil-rich country. The necklace is reputed to be worth £1 million, or nearly $2m.
We know that Michael Fawcett has cheerfully sold off such gifts in the past — after a suitable period of time has elapsed. In this case, we are told, the necklace will not be sold or pass into Camilla’s family heirlooms, but will become part of the Royal Collection.
The Duchess wore it for the first time last week at a reception in Pennsylvania, where it attracted a great deal of attention.
Already Labour MPs are calling for Royal gifts to be treated in the same way as political ones, and the bad publicity reaches into what we normally regard as loyal newspapers.
Why does a senior Royal personage feel the need to subvert her integrity by accepting such a high-value gift, when they’ve clearly got more than enough to compete with anyone else?
Has shooting yourself in the foot moved up to the neck?
I also wonder how in a trip where Charles was to receive an award for the inviroment,Camilla appeared with such an attention grabber Jewelry?Isnt being an inviromentalist means also being modest,and not so capitalistic and consuming?One million Necklace in a time when there are so many heavy problems out,seems a rather bad choice.And coming from the Saudis.Charles is a champion of Human rights too.Well no human rigts involved when its about milions.
By Shake on January 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
For once, I totally agree with you, Shake.
By John on January 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Dont you love Sewers comment?Blaming the necklace rather than Camila.Hehheheheh.Iam glad we agree on something.
By Shake on January 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I was horrified when I saw the stories about Camilla wearing the necklace. The trip to America to accept an environment award (with 24 courtiers) was already very controversial. Charles and Camilla should have kept everything as low key and tasteful as possible. Perhaps she and Charles thought it would be ok for her to wear an over-the-top necklace around Americans. The only people here who were impressed by that inappropriate display were Rod Stewart and Ed Rendell, the Governor of Pennsylvania, which speaks volumes. Charles and Camilla seem incapable of behaving appropriately in any setting which does not bode well for the monarchy when Charles comes to the throne.
By Gigi on January 31st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Why is this such a big deal? Diana and The Queen have received gifts like this from Arabs and no one blinks an eye. In fact, The Queen has a necklace known as the King Faisal Necklace because he gave it to her. The Royals have no principles when it comes to gifts or something they want. Queen Mary had sticky fingers, The Queen Mother didn’t return Queen Mary’s “acquisitions” and they all get goodies from Arabs when they visit or have a special occasion. This is nothing new, they like presents just like the rest of us.
By Cindy on January 31st, 2007 at 6:21 pm
John, this time I have to admit that I am confused. I do not want to be the lone dissenter, so perhaps I don’t full understand the situation. Why is it such a terrible thing for Camilla to have worn the necklace? Granted it was an ostentatious display, but the necklace itself is ostentatious. There’s no getting around that! Add in Camilla’s impressive cleavage, and it certainly becomes something to cause comment. What I’m not sure I understand is why this is perceived as such a negative action? My understanding is that the necklace was a gift to the Duchess that will pass into the Royal Collection of jewelry upon the event of her death. As far as I can see, wearing the necklace (although I would call that thing a Collar and not a necklace) it isn’t impacting the environment in any way, and although it was an extremely generous gift from the Saudi prince it doesn’t seem to have been deemed an inappropriate one. I’m afraid I don’t understand what’s wrong with her wearing that thing? (other than the fact that if it were me, I’d be afraid for my life to wear something so expensive.)
By mapleleaf on January 31st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
It’s not the wearing it that’s compromising, it’s accepting it in the first place. It does nothing for her integrity, I’m afraid.
By John on January 31st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The one thing this necklace states is look at me!!! I really think that wearing this necklace would divert attention away from the fact that
A. We flew over here for only two days.
B. To take attention away from all the fuel comsuming Limosines and SUVs in their motorcades.
C. First Class all the way!!!!!
By Trudie on January 31st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I don’t know that Charles and Camilla could not accept such a gift. It could cause problems for international diplomacy. It will not personally enrich them; it’s a gift of State. And wearing it in public once is what the Saudis would expect. We may not see it again.
By Evelyn on January 31st, 2007 at 9:16 pm
If it were turned upside down it would make a pretty tiara, but not such a pretty necklace. As for the Duchess accepting it, I have no idea what the protocol is, so I cannot comment either way.
By Julie on January 31st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
For the Queen, as Head of State, to accept such a gift from the Saudi’s during a State Visit is one thing. But for Camilla to accept it, and for it not to be a wedding gift, is entirely inappropriate. Also, you will note that, unlike Saudi gifts of lavish jewelry given to the Queen in past years, Charles and Camilla have decided that this will not be discreetly sold at a later date, but that it will go into the Royal coffers so Camilla can continue wearing it. This incident further demonstrates the bad taste, poor judgement and a dismissal of proper procedure for which Charles and Camilla are known. Bad form all around.
By Gigi on February 1st, 2007 at 12:05 am
I think they couldnt probbaly refused the gift.But as many others they could have left it for another occasion,maybe a grander one,or a celebration.Not in a visit that was supposed to celebrate inviroment and being modest.Those pictures of the one million necklace realy collided with the childrens visit in Harlem the next day.And can i say Camilla showed she wanted the lights to be on her.Something Diana was so much accused for,especialy stealing the show from Charles.Didnt Camilla stole the show from Charles in this visit?It was after all a trip planned around a honor for him.
By shake on February 1st, 2007 at 8:23 am
I’m afraid it makes Camilla look like Cherie Blair on a grander scale.
We’ve just had a big row with the Saudis over bribery and corruption in a large aircraft deal. The Government caved in to their shame. Now we have Camilla accepting this bauble. It’s just not good enough.
By John on February 1st, 2007 at 9:31 am
John, the weirdest thing happened… I hadn’t posted any comments in this note, yet I receive the post… either I’m going crazy or you most be clairvoyant! LOL
I don;t the protocol so yeah, fi hey gave it to her she can stay with it, no? John, about the bribery thing… I mean, can Camilla influene the British government????/ I doubt it…..
By Ziny on February 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
As a regular user, Ziny, the software may have included you by mistake. We’re getting a totally new design and upgrade to the software in a few days, so all problems will be solved.
No, Camilla doesn’t really have much leverage. It just looks bad.
By John on February 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Well, I’m shown for being the newbie I am. I don’t know much about protocol.
From what I read online, the necklace actually was given to Camilla last March. Maybe they didn’t think it wise to wear it earlier because of the Saudi/govt row. Maybe they felt the need to find SOME occassion to wear it before it sat unused for a whole year. Maybe safer in the US than the UK, given international politics.
By Evelyn on February 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
The thing is… and I’m sorry to say, I might even be the only one to think so… but, she doesn’t have the poise (sp?) to be a royal… there are people that can wear a garbage back and it would look absolutely smashing…you know what I mean? She just looks as if she is trying to hard to be something she is not or was not meant to be… she is making the royals look bad…. on the other hand thank God Charles didn;t marry her before, would you imagine the children?? that would have definitely ruin the englih monarchy,… LOL
By Ziny on February 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 am
He was never intending to marry her.He never thought about it.She was mistress material.He only married her,cause he had left with no choice,the issue had to be solved.As for the children and so on,i feel the way Diana was used as a children machine was despicable,and wished she was never married Charles.Especialy watching the way her children are ending up,its realy heartbreaking.In the end of the day,there is a biterness left in the mouth,cause lets face it,Camila has taken all.Even her sons.
By shake on February 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 am
Ziny, I agree with you completely. She does not look Royal, and her obvious attempts to be soignee, polished and of a higher class simply underscore the fact that she is none of those things. Yes, we are very fortunate that Princess Diana gave the country those two wonderful young princes. Thank God they have her genes and her qualities, because, in the end, that is what is going to carry the Monarchy through what I fear will be the disastrous reign of Charles and Camilla.
By Gigi on February 2nd, 2007 at 5:05 am
The Diana story will never die, will it? We’ll be speculating about what might have been until the end of this century and beyond.
The fact is, we don’t know what might have happened in different circumstances. This is where we are, so let’s be thankful we’ll never have Saddam Hussein on the Throne.
By John on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
great point, john
By Elizabeth on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
John, I read a story yesterday that reported that the Queen is concerned and disapproving of Charles’ strident campaign on the environment, in part because she feels it is so pointed that it will cause a rift among members of the Royal Family. There is a suggestion that she feels his stance is somewhat hypocritical, since the article points out that the Duke of Edinburgh and other members of the Royal Family travel with just one attendant, while Charles travels with an entourage everywhere he goes. It is unlike the Queen to criticize the heir to the throne in a way that becomes public, so she must have very strong feelings about this.
By Gigi on February 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 am