Talk:Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Identifying English coronation regalia

Found a nice image of the English Coronation Regalia: Image:EnglishCoronationRegalia.jpg I just don't know for sure what is what. If anybody knows, please add the info to the image page. Sources may be for example [1] Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Second world war

on the fort knox page it says they were kept there in the second world war, on this page it says in canada. Which one? or both? MattJordan 13:03, 6 June 2005 (UTC)

The US Mint also claims this. [2] 216.176.80.244 18:44, 1 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just going to ask that. "During World War II the depository also held the..British crown jewels" it says on that page. Astrokey44 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Civil Society of Ashby de la Zouch in Leicestershire claim the jewels were rumoured to be in one of the Ashby bank vaults (now flats) during WW2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.96.199 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WWII

According to several sources I've spoke with (Historians, University Professors) Fort Knox was the holding point during WWII. Personally I seriously doubt they'd entrust such valuable items to a vault in the basement of a Life Insurance company—however entrusting them to Fort Knox, which is one of (if not the most) secure ground-level vaults in the world, sounds more than reasonable.

A document (LEC, Fort Knox, KY. Soldier Study Guide) says:

"The U.S. Treasury Department began construction of the U.S. Bullion Depository. It first opened in January 1937. The Gold Vault was used to store and to safeguard the English Crown Jewels and the Magna Carta (the Great Charter, which dates back to the 13th century). On December 26, 1941, the Gold Vault also received the original documents of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These documents left Fort Knox on October 1, 1944, and were returned to Washington, D.C. for public display."

Other links supporting they were there (say the same thing, so probably sourced from each other or another common one):

• http://www.knox.army.mil/IMA/sites/about/history.asp
• http://www.govmint.com/knowledgebase/fortknox.aspx
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/fort-knox-depository.htm

mdnky 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That one is pretty simple to shoot down. The original Magna Carta has been lost and there are in fact 4 copies of identical age. so it makes no sense to store it in Fort Knox. There simply is no document in existance that can be refured to as the Magna Carta.Geni 20:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it very strange that Fort Knox is not even mentioned as a possible site. I thought that was common knowledge about World War Two and the Crown Jewels being placed in Fort Knox. At least it is what I've always been taught. Correct me if I am wrong somehow. Wish the alleged holding places were cited. Here are some sites that back up the Fort Knox angle. [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.122.35 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

The film mentioned in the text is obscure and, well, trivial. Anybody mind if I delete? Notreallydavid 06:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, it doesn't add anything to the article. FiggyBee 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Crown of India

The article about it says it isn't part of the jewels, just stored with them. Someone should make that consistant.--SidiLemine 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Photos would help improve this article

I'm surprised at the lack of any photos of the regalia in the article.Carnth (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Original sources of the jewels

This article doesn't discuss any of the sources of the crown jewels... certainly there must be some information available about some of them, correct?

http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20000630/ied30057.html

"In the last session of Parliament, Rajya Sabha MP, Kuldip Nayar, along with a group of 25 parliamentarians raised the demand for the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond, which is part of the crown jewels of the British Queen"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jewel-in-the-crown-the-curse-of-kohinoor-430100.html

"The diamond was war booty and its delivery was to be a spectacle carried out in much the same manner as the tribute paid by defeated enemies of Egyptian pharaohs and Roman emperors. It was the centrepiece of the Great Exhibition of 1851, attracting thousands of visitors."

Doom 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this belongs on the Koh-i-Noor page. Firebrace (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Value

any idea of the rough value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.99.176 (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if they're the symbols of the United Kingdom, then... the GDP of the United Kingdom? Heh. Technically speaking though, aren't they valueless (in financial terms)? Simply because if a thing's value is determined by how much people are willing to cough up for it, non-transferable items can't really be said to have a value, unless you take them apart and sell the metal and gems as separate items. Leushenko (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As items of gold and gemstone, british crowns are very valuable due to those huge cut diamonds in them. For spirituality, however, they are near worhtless, because they are neither holy, nor ancient. On the other hand the Holy Crown of Hungary has a value of only 3409 gold florins for its material content (gold, little pearls and lots of fired enamel). Yet it's spiritual value is immense, as the crown of Attila, the Hun, King Arthur and Charlemagne, before the Peope gave it to Stephan I, founding king of Hungary. 91.82.35.23 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Civil War losses

Lucy Aikin writing in 1833 in Memoirs of the Court of King Charles the First, states:

On page 347 [in 1643] "The third, moved by Pym, was an impeachment of high-treason against the queen, charging her, amongst other articles, with pawning the crown jewels, raising the rebellion in Ireland, endeavouring to stir up a party against the parliament in Scotland, and marching at the head of a popish army in England."

and on page 284 "The carriages of the ambassador himself were subjected to strict search in London before he was permitted to proceed to Oxford, and a letter to the queen from lord Goring, ambassador extraordinary to France, was intercepted. It announced supplies of arms and money coming from that country to the king; mentioned that the whole of the crown jewels, with the exception of one or two, were now pawned, and ..."(citing Whitelocke page 79)

Given the Royalists lost the war and Charles II was for more than 10 years strapped for cash, unless Parliament retrieved the crown jewels from the pawn brokers before selling them again (something that seems unlikely), surly most of the jewels must have been lost to continental pawn brokers by Charles I and not destroyed under orders of the Commonwealth. Could it be that the common accusation that "Oliver Cromwell melted down most of the Crown Jewels of his time after the establishment of the Commonwealth in 1649" is old Royalist propaganda? --PBS (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This unreliable source lists the stuff sold off by the Commonwealth, but AFAICT there is no way of knowing from this list what proportion this is of the total amount. --PBS (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sun Life

I don't have any references but I've heard the Crown Jewels were kept safe in Montreal during the Second World War as the threat of a German invasion was ever present and Montreal was set to be Headquarters for The British Empire had London fell to Germany. this is all hear say but perhaps someone can do the footwork on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.239.215 (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The crown jewels 'may' (it is not confirmed not denied) have been relocated from London to a Cornish cave in 1940. I am aware that the plan was for the royal family (presumably with the jewels) to be evacuated to Canada were Britain to fall. This was only a plan and so long as the king remained in England so did the jewels. For the Cornish cave see here: Carnglaze Cave Aetheling1125 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lost content and clear bias

I worked on the original early versions of this page way back in the second-age of Wikipedia and there was a lot of interesting content regarding the crown jewels that existed before the Commonwealth and their respective fates. It included a summary of the various crowns found by Cromwell's men in Whitehall Palace, the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey as well as the very ancient coronation robes found. Almost all of this has been deleted amd the tone of this article has been poisoned by baseless revisionism... and this makes me very sad. It does seem to be the fashion on Wikipedia of late to constantly revise and delete content which is of real interest to some people (though not necessarily to that particular 'reviewer')... so firstly, is there any way of retrieving what was lost because my anxiety is that the sources available to the reader still online are obscure and may one day be deleted and so Wikipedia provides an extremely useful place for a summary of this information to be maintained for people to see. It only means an extra paragraph to this article and can hardy be described as a strain on Wikipedias servers. Also, I resent the over insertion of a single secondary source used to cast doubt on long-standing English tradition which are officially upheld and which state that the state crown claimed to be that of Edward the Confessor and destroyed in 1649 was not in fact the crown of Edward the Confessor but something else. The basis of this revisionism is that there is no record of it being described as such prior to the 12th Century. Indeed, there is no mention of it prior to 1220 (a mere 160 years after it was worn by Edward) however the mere absence of literary "proof" does not means something now unprovable was not what they said it was, remember the absence of proof is not proof of absence and the mere absence of literary evidence for this tradition being true prior to the early 13th Cenury does not prove that the tradition is wrong, actually its mention in 1220 makes the tradition more likely to be true.

In the section named Norman England — "Glorious Revolution"' in para.2 we find the following sneering remarks which are either unsourced or drawn from a single, secondary source.

• "This claim is largely believed to have been fabricated in order to draw pilgrims to the abbey" (unsourced)

• "In the 12th century the monks of Westminster Abbey claimed that Edward the Confessor had bequeathed to them his regalia and stipulated that it was to be used in the coronation of each subsequent monarch. This claim is largely believed to have been fabricated in order to draw pilgrims to the abbey. At the coronation of Henry III in 1220 the crown was declared to have belonged to Edward the Confessor; thus the concept of a hereditary collection of regalia came to be."(Blair)

• "The original purpose of the spoon was unclear; it is only since the 17th century that it has been referred to as the "anointing spoon"" (Blair)

I would like these sentences to be reviewed and ultimately amended so they don't imply everything is a lie, which it isn't. Aetheling1125 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is ever really lost to Wikipedia (except under very strict conditions). If you click on this link, you'll see edits you made in the past. Clicking on a date will bring up the article as it was on those dates. If you think this article has been over-edited, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold. However, don't just revert for the sake of it.--ML5 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Clean up

Some excessive overlinking of common terms removed, and made some very minor improvements to text. Article protected against slow, but annoying persistent disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard III

Richard III literally lost his crown (some sources say coronet or helm) to Henry at the Battle of Bosworth field. This crown isn't mentioned in this article so should it be?--Darrelljon (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the paragraph about the transferring of crowns symbolising the transfer of power. The idea is to give readers a few examples, not bore them with every known instance of a crown having been transferred to a new king or queen, of which there are many. If we included every myth, legend, and blip in the history of regalia, the article would be several times longer. It probably is a legend, anyway, as is King John's losing the Crown Jewels in the Wash. Richard III's crown is not mentioned in any of the books cited in the article. King John is only briefly mentioned in Twining (1960) and Steane (2003). They both say it is doubtful that any jewels were lost. If they were it certainly was not the coronation regalia (the Crown Jewels proper), which never left Westminster Abbey. Firebrace (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

So since the circlet King Richard III was wearing in battle wasn't the coronation regalia, then it isn't considered one the Crown Jewels (let alone state crown) proper?--Darrelljon (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because authors have suggested that new coronation regalia were "probably" made for Henry III's coronation in 1220 as King John had lost the Crown Jewels. Well that's nonsense; the coronation regalia were holy relics and never left Westminster Abbey. Errors like this one just prove that not all books on a topic are reliable. Quite a few of them carelessly repeat myths and legends as if it were fact. Firebrace (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I see, so King Richard may not have been wearing any such thing in battle?--Darrelljon (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

He wore a helmet with a circlet over the top. Kings only wore the state crown (also known as the great crown) at religious feasts and state openings of parliament. It was heavy, expensive, and not practical or safe to wear in battle. Firebrace (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Three swords

It seems someone wants to insist that the Three Swords survived the Cromwellian purge and they were restored to the monarchy. But the citation does not say the 3 swords survived with the spoon. I believe it says the 3 swords date from 1661.

I've been working on the Curtana article a bit, and sources I find say present Curtana was created after the Restoration.[5] I did find James Planché saying the three swords were discovered, were not specifically stated as "totallie broken and defaced" like the other regalia inventoried in 1649, but then their whereabouts became unknown.[6] --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC) --corrected03:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ever since the seminal work The Crown Jewels: The History of the Coronation Regalia in the Jewel House …, which runs to 1,487 pages and took a team of experts 15 years to write, was published in 1998, it has been accepted that Curtana was made in the reign of James VI & I and was added to the regalia by Charles I.

I have added a new source, but to appease your doubts, here are some additional sources, the first two of which are based on research for the 1998 book:

"Four items which now form part of the royal regalia pre-date the Restoration: the anointing spoon, the sword known as Curtana and the two Swords of Justice, which are early seventeenth century." – Tessa Rose, The Coronation Ceremony and the Crown Jewels (1992), p. 21.

"The Swords of Temporal Justice, Spiritual Justice and Mercy (the Curtana), early 17th century. These three swords represent types that have been used in the coronation ceremony since the Middle Ages. They only became a permanent part of the regalia in the 17th century: for almost 200 years prior to this they had been provided new for each coronation … Evidence suggests that they were used at the coronation of Charles II in 1661 but the first documented record of their use is at the coronation of James II in 1685. They have been used at all subsequent coronations." – Kenneth J. Mears, Simon Thurley, Claire Murphy, The Crown Jewels (1994), p. 9.

"… except, it seems, the 'Three swords with scabbards of Cloth of Gould'. The recent catalogue of the crown jewels establishes that these, in fact, survived. They were sold to one Roger Humphreys for five pounds in November 1649 and must have been recovered at the Restoration. Claude Blair in his study of these remarkable artefacts demonstrates that they must have been made as a set between about 1610 and 1620 and were certainly those used in 1626 and presented by Charles I to the Abbey as part of the regalia. The maker is likely to have been one Robert South, a member of the London Cutlers' Company, and their appearance is first recorded among the engravings illustrating Francis Sandford's account of the Coronation of James II." – Roy Strong, Coronation: From the 8th to the 21st Century (2006), p. 268.

"Some of the jewels worn by earlier kings and queens escaped the destruction, while some items were sold off. The Coronation Spoon and Swords of Spiritual Justice, Temporal Justice and Mercy survive (see pages 20 and 14 respectively) and can be seen at the Tower of London today." "What we see today is a replacement of a medieval sword that was believed to have belonged in turn to the Arthurian hero Tristan; to Morhaut, champion of Ireland; and to Emperor Charlemagne … The swords actually used in 1189 are long lost, and their replacements date from the early 17th century. They were probably supplied for the coronation of Charles I in 1626." – Sally Dixon-Smith, Sebastian Edwards, Sarah Kilby, Claire Murphy, David Souden, Jane Spooner, Lucy Worsley, The Crown Jewels: Souvenir Guidebook (2010), pp. 7 and 14.

"By the 13th century a sword called Curtana … was to be found among the English regalia. Until the early 17th century the three processional swords were generally provided new for each coronation. But in 1626, after the coronation of Charles I, the king 'gave into ye Hands of ye B[isho]p ye Curtana, and the two other Swords, yt wear carryed before him, w[i]th Scabberds of Cloth' and these were 'to be kept w[i]th ye other Regalia att Westminster'. [They] can be seen in … the Tower of London today … the blades were the work of famed Italian swordsmiths Andrea and Giandonao Ferrara and were imported into England in the 1580s." – Anna Keay, The Crown Jewels (2011), p. 30.

Thanks again. Firebrace (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well yes, you've given me a better idea of what's going on. On the Curtana article, the sources cited for this claim were the "The Sword of Mercy" page on the Royal Collection site and the Anna Keay title you mentioned, whose full title is The Crown Jewels: The Official Illustrated History.

The problem is, on the strength of these, the Crown is "officially" saying it was made for Charles II's 1626 coronation, and, Keay's "Official History" for all I know could just be the mouthpiece for what the Royal Collection is saying. So I was just going to call it the "official" view.

From what you've taken trouble to copy out, it appears that this was based on the research of Claude Blair, so that is how I will present the finding.

I'm still almost totally in the dark as to what the evidence or argument is that allowed him to date the sword to 1626. Establishing that the blade is from the 1580's (make of Andrea and Giandonao Ferrara) hardly precludes it from it being a 1661 sword, for instance.

Also there is the document by Sir Edward Walker which states that the regalia had been destroyed and had to be remade for Charles II. And I don't know if this has been deftly addressed in that study.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A few quick points:

• There are two versions of Anna Keay's book: a hardback (2011) which is titled The Crown Jewels, and a paperback (2012) which is The Crown Jewels: The Official Illustrated History. I have a copy of the former, and it is well researched, with hundreds of sources in the bibliography.
• What Blair (ed.) is saying is that the swords were made between 1610 and 1620, using blades imported from Italy in the 1580s, and they were supplied (i.e. sold) to Charles I (not II) for his coronation in 1626. Roger Humphreys bought the swords for £5 at an auction of the Royal Collection at Somerset House in 1649. Unlike the gold crowns, orbs, sceptres, etc., the swords and silver-gilt spoon had little intrinsic value. No replicas of them were purchased by Charles II.
• We are all in the dark as to the precise contents of The Crown Jewels (1998). Only 650 copies were printed, and it is an expensive book, retailing for USD$1,300. Helpfully, Roy Strong, Anna Keay, Tessa Rose, and the various authors of the guidebooks have all seen it for us.

Firebrace (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Honours of Scotland

Re [7]: "[Edward I] had earlier presented the relics of his conquests in Wales to the shrine of St Edward, and the Stone and Scottish regalia followed suit … on the morrow of the feast of St Botulf, Edward came to Westminster and offered to St Edward the regalia of the kingdom of Scotland." Breeze, et al. (2003), The Stone of Destiny, p. 216.

Re [8]: Between 1603 and 1707, England and Scotland were sovereign states, and monarchs had an English coronation as King of England, using the Crown Jewels of England, and a Scottish coronation as King of Scotland, using the Crown Jewels of Scotland. In 1707 the Crown Jewels of England were adopted as the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. Why mention the Honours of Scotland when they have never been part of the British Crown Jewels? Firebrace (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom" are, as the article says, essentially the English crown jewels, as updated. It seems wholly perverse not to briefly mention the other UK crown jewels, which only have a dismissive sentence (using the wrong name) right at the bottom of the article. As it is, the title, infobox and other parts of the article are rather misleading; the Scottish pieces also have an official ceremonial UK role, if a small one. This is especially the case given that the Scottish pieces are a good deal older. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Crown of Scotland has an official ceremonial role in Scotland; it is not a UK role. The Scottish Crown Jewels (as was) are mentioned in Restoration to the present day: "After the Acts of Union 1707 joined England and Scotland together, the Scottish Crown Jewels were locked away in a chest, and the English Crown Jewels continued to be used by British monarchs." If this appears "dismissive", it is because the regalia were dismissed. In fact, the chest was not opened again until it was rediscovered in 1818. So they are older... ok, but the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire pre-dates the Scottish crown by 700 years...

You seem to be suggesting that the regalia in the Tower of London are really just the Crown Jewels of England, which is wrong: Elizabeth II was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England, a title which has been extinct since the Acts of Union 1707. They are British Crown Jewels, used at coronations of British monarchs and State Openings of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Firebrace (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be unaware that Scotland is part of the UK (ok, obviously you are not, but I will take a leaf from your book re patronizing twisting of the comments of others). By no means all the Crown Jewels are "used at coronations of British monarchs and State Openings of the Parliament of the United Kingdom", far from it. I am not saying they should receive equal treatment here, but they need to be better covered in an article called "Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom". Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Scotland is part of the UK, but it does not have Crown Jewels; it has Honours. The Scottish Crown was dissolved in 1707, and therefore Scotland, like England, has no Crown (monarchy) to which any jewels can belong or represent. The old Crown of Scotland does make an appearance at openings of Scottish Parliament at the behest of Parliament (not the Queen), but this can be seen as "an emblem of the sovereignty of the Scottish people, rather than as an emblem of the modern monarchy" (Robert Crawford in Caroline McCracken-Flesher, ed. (2007), Culture, Nation, and the New Scottish Parliament, p. 246). The old sword and sceptre, however, are effectively museum pieces that have not left Edinburgh Castle since George IV's official visit in 1822, when all the Honours were carried before him in procession through the streets of Edinburgh. Of course, George IV was not King of Scotland, so the regalia, which had only be found four years earlier and were something of a novelty, had no real meaning in that context, and the whole thing was stage-managed to appease the king's Scottish subjects, many of whom were pro-independence even in those days. FWIW, 54 of the 140 objects in the Tower of London were made after 1707, and of the 86 which pre-date the United Kingdom, 8 coronation regalia, 2 anointing objects, 7 processional objects, and most of the 31 pieces of altar plate are still used at coronations of British monarchs. The Honours of Scotland are not – and never have been – Jewels of the Crown of the United Kingdom. Firebrace (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If the article were called "Jewels of the Crown of the United Kingdom" you might have a point, but it is not. You like to make up your terminology, as you go along, as is evident above, but the Honours are crown jewels, as the Royal Family website confirms, and they relate to a part of the UK. Most WP articles on crown jewels relate to monarchies that have been (in your invented term) "dissolved", and the reader of an article entitled "Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom" has a reasonable expectation that there will at least be mention and a link for any major groups of objects from the UK, that are on display in the UK, without having to read through thousands of words on Georgian fonts etc. I hope I don't need to mention all the relevant basic policies. This is especially the case when the article begins with a rather questionable section on misty prehistoric connections. I can't for the life of me understand why you are objecting to a simple mention and link in the appropriate place in the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"Jewels of the Crown" was the original term for the coronation and state regalia, and over time it was shortened to "Crown Jewels". Per the article, Sir Edward Coke ruled in the 17th century: "the ancient jewels of the crown are heirloomes and shall descend to the next successor and are not devisable by testament". Then there is the 1642 statement by the Houses of Parliament: "Information hath been given that the Jewels of the Crown (which, by the Laws of the Land, ought not to be alienated) are either pawned or sold in Amsterdam, or some other Parts beyond the Seas … It is therefore Declared, by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, that whosoever hath been, or shall be, an Actor in the selling or pawning of any of the Jewels of the Crown … shall be held and accounted a Promoter of this intended War, an Enemy to the State, and ought to give Satisfaction for this public Danger out of his own Estate".

The Honours of Scotland were Crown Jewels up until 1707, when the Scottish Crown was dissolved, which is not a term I invented, as a Google of the phrase "monarchy was dissolved" shall attest. Regalia of other former monarchy states in Europe are historical Crown Jewels. Unlike the Scottish regalia, they were not re-purposed as Honours, and it is quite correct to refer to those objects as Crown Jewels – they have never been anything else. The Royal family uses "Scottish Crown Jewels" only in the past tense, referring to Cromwell's desire to destroy the Scottish, as well as the English, regalia, in the 17th century, when they still were Crown Jewels. In a present-day context, they are the Honours of Scotland, as that is all they have been during the lifetime of the UK.

Anyway, a link to the Honours of Scotland is now included in the lead, without a reference to their being "older" than the English regalia, since the oldest surviving object in the British Crown Jewels dates from 1150–1200 – some 330 years before the Scottish sceptre was made c. 1494. In any event the objects made for Charles II in 1660–61 are replicas of the medieval St Edward's regalia, whose first recorded use was in 1220 by Henry III.

A section on the early history of Britain shows the reader how crowns and other well-known emblems of sovereignty came about. They did not suddenly appear out of nowhere – there is no defined geographic or historic point of origin – but evolved gradually over thousands of years, from the primitive rods and antler carvings made by pre-historic man to the sophisticated and multi-dimensional objects that we see today. Firebrace (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Early history

@Johnbod: Re [9] and [10], before you hack away at the article any further, please digest the following extracts from Keay (2011):

"... still clinging to his skull, complete and unmistakable, was a bronze crown. This sensational discovery revealed the earliest known English crown, dating to between 200 and 150 BC. (p. 9; see also British Museum number 1990,0102.24: "Coppy alloy crown ... The crown is made up of... " and "The crown has been damaged in the ground".)

"The English regalia … acquired its distinctive character from a series of different cultures in the centuries before and after the birth of Christ. The streams that converged on Celtic Britain were: the Roman Empire … the Germanic tribes who invaded the old Roman territories … and the Christian church that came to dominate Europe" (p. 10.)

"… there was a tradition of crown-wearing in Britain before the arrival of the Romans and this evidently continued. Ploughing in a Norfolk field … at Hockwold cum Wilton, in the 1950s turned up … and a bronze crown, all dating to the Roman occupation … it had been assumed that they were priestly equipment. But since the discovery of the Mill Hill crown – obviously connected to a military rather than a religious figure – that assumption has been called into question." (p. 11.)

The point of this section is to inform the reader how the types of objects we know today evolved from, as Keay puts it on page 12, "Classical and barbarian traditions", and the point of using multiple sources, per Wikipedia guidelines, is to avoid accusations of plagiarism. Firebrace (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a very tendentious and inaccurately nativist account by, as I keep saying, a non-specialist in the various periods rammed recklessly together ("Anna Keay was a curator at the Tower of London and now works at English Heritage. Her books include The Magnificent Monarch [Charles II], The Elizabethan Tower of London, and The Crown Jewels"). The archaeologists and art historians simply do not see things in these terms, as you will discover if you bother to read them, rather than popular sources. In fact the English regalia does not have a very "distinctive character", but closely copied continental forms known from the Franks, Carolingians etc. It was there that the "Classical and barbarian traditions" came together. Our article on Crown (headgear) is a complete mess, and improving that would be a useful and educative thing to do. That the Deal burial was of a "military rather than a religious figure" is by no means the general view - he is commonly seen as both, with the crown relating to the religious function. The Hockwold crowns were not just "assumed" to be priestly - they clearly relate to other objects from Britain and the continent that are priestly, and literary records. Who, among archaeologists, has "called that into question"? Johnbod (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

From Keay's book:

"A note on sources: Any work on the subject of the English regalia relies heavily on the research and publications of previous scholars. But this has been true to a new extent since the publication of the two-volume history and catalogue of the collection in 1998. The Crown Jewels, edited by Claude Blair and with major contributions from the editor, Ronald Lightbown and Shirley Bury, as well as from a distinguished team of gemologists and other specialists, was a major scholarly achievement. This short history of the regalia has drawn on it heavily, particularly in the account of individual pieces in the collection. As a consequence, I have not as a matter of course provided individual footnote references to it, or they would run to many more pages"

Followed by 181 sources, including some written by archaeologists, which are cited throughout the book. The problem here John is that you have come into this blind. You make confident statements like "non-specialist" and "popular sources" when everyone who has read the book knows this not to be the case. And remember, it was you who boldly declared that Elizabeth II's jewels were "NOT part of the Royal Collection",[11] that Æthelstan was not the first English king depicted wearing a crown (portraits on coins were generic or copied from overseas coins),[12] and that "Jewels of the Crown" and "monarchy was dissolved" were made-up terms (which is funny coming from a person who once made up the name of a Leonardo Da Vinci drawing;[13] it's "feotus", not "child" or "babe"). I enjoy defending the article but this is getting ridiculous. Spend two years reading everything you can about the subject like I did, then we'll talk. Firebrace (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ownership

@Celia Homeford: According to HM Treasury, the Crown Jewels are owned by the monarch as "non-surrendered Crown property" (as opposed to the Crown Estate, management and revenues of which George III originally surrendered to the government in 1760). They cannot be alienated, but there is an opt-out in the English constitution allowing a monarch to dispose of the Jewels via letters patent, hence the Duke of Edinburgh's assertion that Her Majesty is "technically, perfectly at liberty to sell them". All official sources refer to their being owned by the Queen in right of the Crown; there is no source for government ownership. There are sources for state ownership (worth a read) and Crown ownership, but per my comments at Talk:List of British royal residences#What is the Crown? and Talk:List of British royal residences#What is the State?, "the Crown" and "the state" by themselves are WP:WEASEL words ("phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated"). By the way, the Crown Estate website also makes the point about 'the Crown' and its various meanings: "In the UK "the Crown" is used not only to describe the Monarch, but also the Executive and the Judiciary. Thus properties owned and managed by Government departments are also Crown Property; these have nothing to do with the funding of the Monarchy or The Crown Estate". Government assets, such as the Government Art Collection, are separate from royal property, and this distinction between state/government and royal property was made by David Mellor QC as Secretary of State for National Heritage before the House of Commons in 1992 when, in answer to a question from an opposition back bencher, he announced the government stance on ownership of the Crown Jewels: "There is no reason to think that the jewels are state property; they are royal property". Mr Mellor had seen the question at least three days in advance, giving his department enough time to prepare a definitive answer; he did not offer his personal opinion on the matter. Firebrace (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

'There are sources for state ownership'. Wikipedia does not select one source over another. If sources disagree then the article needs to point that out, not present only one view. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The law says they are royal property, the government says they are royal property, and the Royal Collection Trust says they are royal property. If the state, i.e., government, owned the Crown Jewels, why would the Treasury and the Department for National Heritage emphatically deny it? Because some authors, journalists, and opposition back benchers have a preconception that jewels and palaces must belong to the government, does not make it so. They must be confusing us with the United States. Firebrace (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not what the citations say. Look at the first one: it's a 'convenient fiction' that is 'muddied by time and different people's interpretation'. The disagreement/confusion/controversy over ownership should be covered in the article. 'Because some authors, journalists, and opposition back benchers have a preconception that jewels and palaces must belong to the government, does not make it so'. No, it doesn't make it so, but it does mean that there are many sources that say it is, and those are currently excluded from the article. The article should not be excluding one side of a debate in favour of another. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Some people have funny ideas about all sorts of things but we don't humour them on Wikipedia. The "convenient fiction" is that the Royal Collection is "commonly but incorrectly said to "belong to the nation"". Its subheading is "Art and jewels: a very private collection". The Guardian makes an argument for moving the Royal Collection into the hands of trustees, like the National Gallery and the British Museum, and ends with: "Only then will a more detailed valuation be possible of a collection of treasures that most certainly does not belong to the nation". In other words, it is convenient for the Royal family's image that people such as then Labour back bencher Harry Cohen mistakenly believe the Crown Jewels to be government assets. Firebrace (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to either state both sides of a debate or neither. If you're not going to permit the inclusion of the other side, then we will have to remove the clause and just state who owns them and not who doesn't. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no debate here, it is wishful thinking on your part; the misconception of the Crown Jewels belonging to the government is WP:FRINGE and, by the government's own admission, incorrect. Per state ownership, property vested in an individual such as the Queen cannot be state owned. Re [14], you have been told that in everyday usage and understanding, both 'the state' and 'the Crown' refer to the government. When Mr Mellor said there was no reason for Mr Cohen to think the Crown Jewels were owned by the state, he clearly meant the government. Although not personally owned by the Queen, the Royal Collection is private royal property, and when the Royal Collection Trust was set up in 1993, it was decided ownership would remain with the Queen instead of being handed over to a board of trustees, and the Trust exists purely to raise money and conserve objects. Firebrace (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't provided a reliable secondary citation saying the Crown jewels are not owned by the Crown. I do not want to include a fringe view in the article. You are the one doing that by insisting on retaining a clause that is not supported by the citation next to it. I want to remove content not add any. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The clause is supported by a reliable source next to it ("There is no reason to think that the jewels are state property"). I have told you that, in everyday usage and understanding, 'the state' and 'the Crown' refer to the government, and I provided a reliable source to that effect, (see Talk:List of British royal residences#What is the Crown?). You have come here with nothing but your preconceived ideas and, as far as I can tell, determination to 'protect' the Queen's public image by muddying the waters yourself. Firebrace (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a primary source that also says they are state property. You're the one trying to protect the Queen and pushing a romantic monarchist myth that the palaces and crown jewels belong to her and not the state. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been told how Parliamentary Question Time works. Labour back bencher Harry Cohen said he thought they were state property. He was corrected by a government minister, as advised by the then Department for National Heritage. Firebrace (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeating the same tired original research is unconvincing. You need reliable secondary citations that explicitly support the clause. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Research is not always original, 'Celia', it can be just research, and in any case, WP:OR "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". It is all available in reliable sources that were not written by me... Firebrace (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have reworded the paragraph to mention how, despite technically not belonging to the nation, "some contend that effectively they are public assets", using the source David McClure (2014), Royal Legacy: How the Royal Family Have Made, Spent and Passed on Their Wealth, quote:

… these valuations include some of her inalienable assets … the royal palaces (Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace), the Crown Jewels, the Royal Collection, and hereditary revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster. But being inalienable assets, the Queen can never sell them. As palace spokesmen are quick to point out, they are held in trust for the nation by the sovereign and must be passed on to her successor. For all intents and purposes, they are public assets and should not be included in any calculation of her private wealth. But the fact that they are often lumped together leads to confusion and perversely an underestimation of her worth as the palace can use this common error to discredit other higher estimates of her private riches.

Mr McClure is a seasoned television producer, writer, and journalist, who has worked for Reuters and BBC News, made documentaries for Channel 4 and Sky, and written for the Sunday Times and the Guardian. Firebrace (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: Re [15], we now have two secondary reliable sources: The Guardian says the Jewels are not "officially state-owned" and Royal Legacy says they are effectively public assets. I'm not sure why, having won the case for deleting primary sources, you are now adding them yourself. Firebrace (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Intact or complete

@Dhtwiki: Re [16], I am not especially bothered either way, but here are some books which use "intact" in the same context. Firebrace (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be just myself, but "intact" struck me, at the time, as meaning items being whole (e.g. no missing stones), while "complete" seemed to imply completeness with regard to having all the historically authentic pieces necessary for the coronation ritual. Probably both apply in this case. Maybe further explanation as to what is meant could be attempted. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of stones are missing – 12,300 from George IV's coronation crown, 740 from Mary of Modena's diadem and crown, and the crowns of Adelaide and Alexandra are full of fakes. Three crown frames have no ermine borer and Queen Victoria's monde has gone AWOL. Firebrace (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

How much of that is due to slovenly accounting and theft and how much reflects the practice of renting, and then returning, stones? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of the 'missing' stones were hired, but some were personally owned by monarchs and queens consort, and a few also passed along to the current Imperial State Crown. My point is that "most complete" refers to the whole collection and not to the integrity of individual pieces. Firebrace (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Hi page watchers, any last comments before I take this to Featured Article Candidates (FAC)? Firebrace (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)