We’re heading back to the UK this week, for a rousing discussion about Queen Elizabeth’s II Burmese Ruby Tiara.
Queen Elizabeth II is not a modern day Queen Mary, she doesn’t really play with her jewels, keeping most of them as she has received them. This is not one of those…
Elizabeth II commissioned this tiara from Garrard in 1973, using stones from the vault: 96 rubies which were a gift from the Burmese people on the occasion of her wedding, and diamonds which came from the Nizam of Hyderabad Tiara (another wedding gift). For a more in-depth history, check out the post over at the mothership.
The tiara is designed as a wreath of roses, separated by rays of diamonds. The center of each rose is made up of rubies, with diamonds representing the petals. A row of rubies connects each rose.
The Case for the Tiara
LIL: While the best way to defend it is to say “It can always be Mary-ed or cannibalized for it’s parts”, I’m going to surprise you all and defend this tiara as is! I like the swags well enough, and the open, airiness of the “rose” petals. Looks to be a good size for Betty’s head, too.
It really is dreadful, isn’t it?
The Case against the Tiara
LG: I love rubies, and I love diamonds, and I kind of like where this was going…but the execution is not good, at all. Queen Mary it and start over.
The Handbag: It has rubies and diamonds. It is designed to represent roses. How could this go wrong? In my eyes, it just did, in every way possible. That said, Lil’s Photoshopped all diamond version improves it immensely.
The Case of The In Between
OC: As is? Newp, despite the symbolism of the red and white roses. I’ve always maintained this would be amazing as an all diamond piece, in the medium sized category. I could even live with the roses even those ruby swags were diamond. I’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time thinking about this one.
Where do you guys stand?