Why Elizabeth II Never Made These Necklaces Her Own

For 70 years, Queen Elizabeth II chose her necklaces with precision. Pearls for the day, diplomatic gifts for delicate moments, the coronation necklace for the weight of history. But what we saw was only part of the story. Inside the royal vaults lay many more necklaces, inherited from queens before her, tied to earlier eras, some later worn by other royals, and some never brought into the light at all. They were fully hers to wear, yet she chose otherwise. And yet, she never made them hers. Today, we're looking at the royal necklaces Elizabeth II chose not to wear, and what those quiet decisions tell us about her reign. Before we begin, please support my channel by clicking on the like and subscribe buttons. Thank you. The first piece that Queen Elizabeth II left untouched is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of the dog collar style, Queen Mary's love trophy collar. In 1901, the newly titled Princess of Wales, the future Queen Mary, commissioned this piece from Gerard. Mary was known for her love of diamonds, but she was also practical. To pay for this massive collar, she dismantled her own inheritance. She took diamond star earrings from her mother, the Duchess of Teck, seven diamond stars from her grandmother, the Duchess of Cambridge, and a brooch from her aunt, the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. She dismantled several inherited pieces, combining diamonds from three generations into one imposing collar. The design is incredibly dense. It features rectangular panels linked by vertical rows of diamonds, decorated with motifs of cupids, quivers of arrows, and torches, hence the name Love Trophy. It is a piece of jewelry that functions almost like architecture. Queen Mary wore it constantly in the early 1900s, stacking it high on her neck, often paired with other necklaces cascading down to her waist. However, Queen Elizabeth II never wore it. When you look at the construction, it becomes clear why. It is a stiff, unyielding band of gold and diamonds, designed for the corseted posture of 1901, not the working wardrobe of a modern monarch. For decades, we assumed this piece might have been broken up, just as Mary had broken up her ancestor's jewels to make it. But, in a surprising turn of events, the Love Trophy collar appeared intact at the Edwardian's Age of Elegance exhibition in 2025. It survived the century in perfect condition, simply waiting in the dark. I admit, it is difficult to imagine anyone wearing such a rigid piece today. The fashion has changed so drastically that a collar of this magnitude feels almost costume-like. Yet, there is a part of me that hopes to see it on the elegant neck of Catherine, Princess of Wales, perhaps the only person who could carry such a historic weight with the necessary grace. If the Love Trophy collar was too heavy, the next piece in our unworn list was perhaps just too specific to a bygone era. This is Queen Alexandra's Edwardian choker. This piece is lighter, composed of delicate diamond swags and circles set on a velvet band, with a small diamond suspended from the center. It captures the aesthetic of the first decade of the 20th century perfectly. Queen Alexandra was photographed wearing it aboard the Russian Imperial Yacht Standard during the Cow's Regatta in 1909, and again for her 70th birthday portrait in 1914. Queen Elizabeth II inherited this choker, but like the Love Trophy, she completely ignored it. It simply didn't fit her aesthetic. However, this piece did not stay entirely hidden. Princess Anne decided to rescue this choker from the vault. In 1971, she wore it to present the Society of Film and Television Arts Awards, the precursor to the BAFTAs. She wore it again during a visit to Norway, a fitting choice given that the Norwegian royal family descends from Queen Alexandra's daughter, Queen Maud. Since then, the choker has not reappeared publicly. It is also unclear whether it was formally gifted to Princess Anne, or simply loaned to her at the time. There has been no official clarification. I do hope we see it again. It has a lightness that would suit a younger princess beautifully, especially today, when Edwardian silhouettes no longer feel old-fashioned, but quietly romantic once more. While the velvet choker found a brief moment of revival, there is another masterpiece from Queen Alexandra's collection that has remained completely in the dark for over 70 years. This brings us to Queen Alexandra's Collier Raziel, or The Net Necklace. Commissioned from Cartier in 1904, this is a masterpiece of the jeweler's art. It is designed literally as a net of diamonds, a fishnet of platinum and stones that covers the entire neck. Originally, Queen Alexandra wore it with detachable emerald and ruby drops, stones she had received from Indian maharajas. When Queen Mary inherited the piece in 1925, she made a significant edit. She removed the colored stones, leaving only the diamonds, transforming it into a stark, white geometric web. She wore it this way for her 80th birthday portraits in 1947. Queen Elizabeth II inherited the Collier Raziel in 1953, and from that moment on, silence. The Queen never wore it publicly. Unlike a simple strand of pearls or a pendant, a net necklace requires a specific neckline and, frankly, a specific physical presence to pull off. It is a design that demands a long, swan neck, reminiscent of the Edwardian ideal. Unlike the rigid love trophy collar, this Cartier net is flexible, but its scale and silhouette still demand a very specific styling. The only barrier today is fashion. It remains one of the most intriguing, unworn items in the collection. I still hold out hope that we might see it on Catherine, Princess of Wales, or perhaps, if not on a royal neck, displayed again in an exhibition where we can appreciate the sheer technical skill of Cartier's work. Queen Elizabeth II was a woman of action. She needed jewelry that stayed put while she worked. This brings us to a specific category of necklaces that became casualties of her pragmatism, the long, swinging chains of the 1920s, known as sautoirs. The first casualty is a piece with a backstory worthy of a spy novel, Queen Mary's Diamond Sautoir. The diamonds in this piece originally belonged to the Grand Duchess Vladimir of Russia. When the Grand Duchess fled St. Petersburg after the Revolution in 1917, her jewels were left behind in a hidden safe in her bedroom at the Vladimir Palace. It took a secret mission by a British friend, Bertie Stopford, to retrieve them. He snuck into the palace disguised as a workman, smuggled the jewels out in a pair of Gladstone bags, and eventually got them to London. After the Grand Duchess passed away, her daughter, Princess Nicholas of Greece, sold the diamonds to Queen Mary. But Queen Mary didn't just wear them as they were. Initially, she wore the diamonds as a bandeau in 1923. Then, in 1928, she commissioned the jeweler A. Sincinich to completely reimagine them. The sautoir could be divided into two smaller necklaces of varying lengths. The remaining sections could even be detached to form two bracelets. Queen Mary adored this piece. She wore it constantly throughout the 1930s for concerts and gala events, often pairing it with the Vladimir tiara, which she had also purchased from the same collection. However, when Queen Elizabeth II inherited this historic piece in 1953, she had a very different reaction. She reportedly said, quite bluntly, that she disliked wearing longer necklaces because they get in the soup. Personally, I find it a little strange that we never saw this piece after Queen Mary's time. The sautoir was designed to be versatile. It seems like a universally flattering design that would fit perfectly in the modern day. I certainly hope it hasn't been dismantled, and that perhaps it is just waiting for the right moment to reappear. The next piece is a mystery of disappearance. This is the Queen Mother's Sapphire Necklace. When Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married the future King George VI in 1923, she received a suite of sapphire and diamond jewels from her mother-in-law, Queen Mary. The set included a large corsage brooch, which Elizabeth loved and wore for the rest of her life, and a sapphire fringe necklace. However, the new Duchess of York reportedly did not like the fringe necklace at all. She never wore it in public in its original form. But here is where the mystery deepens. In the 1930s, the Duchess began appearing in photographs wearing a very different, long diamond and sapphire sautoir with a large pendant, a style much more in line with the fashion of the Art Deco era. There is a widely held version of events where she took the unwanted fringe necklace and had it remodeled into this trendy sautoir. It makes perfect sense given the timing. But the intriguing part is that this sautoir also vanished. We haven't seen it since the late 1930s. So, the question remains, does this necklace still exist in its reworked form? Or does it lie in pieces in a vault waiting for another redesign? It is one of those frustrating gaps in the history of the collection that I would love to see resolved. It is fascinating to wonder where it is today. Finally, we have a sautoir that did manage to wake up from its long sleep. The Queen Mother's Amethyst Sautoir. This was another wedding gift from 1923, this time from the groom's grandmother, Queen Alexandra. It is a piece made of pearls and diamonds, featuring a striking heart-shaped amethyst pendant. The Queen Mother, then the Duchess of York, reportedly wore it during the mourning period for Queen Alexandra in 1925, as purple stones like amethysts were considered acceptable for half-mourning. However, we have to trust the court reports on this, because interestingly, there are no known photographs of her actually wearing it. It remained a bit of a ghost in the archives. After that period ended, the necklace essentially disappeared. Queen Elizabeth II never wore it. It seemed destined to be another forgotten relic of the 1920s. But then, nearly 90 years later, it made a surprise return. In 2012, Camilla, the then Duchess of Cornwall, walked the red carpet for the premiere of the James Bond film, Skyfall, wearing this very necklace. She paired it with amethyst earrings from her own collection. But there was a crucial change. Camilla didn't wear it as a long 1920s sautoir. She had it shortened, transforming the pearl chain I am always delighted when these ancient and seemingly forgotten jewels find a second life. Even if Queen Elizabeth II couldn't find a practical use for a long amethyst chain, it is wonderful that she kept it safe, allowing it to eventually have its moment in the spotlight again, updated for a new era. Emeralds require a certain attitude. They are not as polite as pearls or as safe as diamonds. But they are pieces that Elizabeth II deliberately stepped back from, leaving them for other royal women to wear. The first is a piece that feels surprisingly modern, even though its roots go back to 1911. Originally, this was a gift from the Ladies of India, a committee of Maharanis, presented to Queen Mary during the Delhi Durbar. But Mary, this is not a deco choker set in platinum. It is a stark, geometric piece. And perhaps that is exactly why Queen Elizabeth II never wore it. She generally disliked chokers, preferring necklaces that draped lower on the neck. So, in 1981, she passed this difficult piece to her new daughter-in-law, Diana, Princess of Wales, as a wedding gift. And Diana didn't just wear it, she wore it in 1985 during a dance in Melbourne, Australia. Diana wore the choker not around her neck, but as a bandeau across her forehead. Whether calculated or accidental, it became a defining image of 1980s royal style. For Elizabeth, this choker was likely too maud. For Diana, it was stylishly rebellious. But for Catherine, Catherine wore it to the Earthshot Prize Awards in Boston. She paired it with a rented neon green gown, letting the art deco lines speak for themselves. I must admit, I was absolutely thrilled to see it on Catherine. It felt like a perfect bridge between the generations. But does it not seem to you that it has been quite a while since that Boston appearance? I truly hope it hasn't been too grand. This is the Greville Emerald Necklace, another treasure from the bequest of Mrs. Greville in 1942. The provenance of these stones is the stuff of legend. There are persistent rumors, unconfirmed but persistent, that some of these emeralds once belonged to Empress Josephine or even Marie Antoinette. What we know for sure is that the necklace features large, square-cut emeralds in a diamond frame, and Elizabeth absolutely loved this necklace. She wore it constantly, often pairing it with the Greville tiara and long diamond earrings for state visits and galas. It was her signature, power look. Since the Queen Mother passed away in 2002, this specific necklace has not been seen in public. Queen Elizabeth II, however, never wore it. She only wore it most notably, the Delhi Durbar Necklace, which became her go-to piece for such occasions. She simply didn't need another heavy emerald necklace competing for attention. There was a moment of excitement recently when Queen Camilla appeared at the German State Banquet wearing a striking emerald necklace. Many believed it was from the extensive Greville bequest, a collection so large that not all of its jewels have been regularly seen in public over the years. So, the massive, square-cut necklace remains a sleeping beauty. But, given that Queen Camilla has started to dip into the Greville emerald vault, perhaps there is hope. Maybe this year, for the right occasion, and in the jewels she inherited from her mother in 2002. The first of these is Queen Alexandra's Wedding Necklace. This piece has a history stretching back to 1863 when it was given to Princess Alexandra of Denmark by her groom, the future King Edward VII. The Prince of Wales commissioned a magnificent wedding ring. Alexandra wore the necklace, the earrings, and the brooch. While the necklace has survived, the suite has not stayed together. The tiara was inherited by Alexandra's daughter, Princess Victoria, and was eventually disposed of, lost to history. The rest of the peruer pieces of royal jewelry. She wore it constantly, pairing it with the Greville tiara for decades of gallows and state occasions, right up until her last appearances in her late 90s. It became inseparable from her public image. When Queen Elizabeth II inherited it in 2002, she reunited it with the original earrings and brooch, which she had owned but she never put it on. Instead, she let it rest for 16 years. It wasn't until October 2018 that the silence was broken. Catherine, then the Duchess of Cambridge, wore the necklace to the Dutch state banquet. It was a stunning moment, seeing the pearls against a velvet gown, breathing new life into a piece that had been dormant for so long. However, for those of us who missed it, the necklace was displayed just last year at the Edwardian's Age of Elegance exhibition alongside the Love Trophy Collar, where we could finally admire its craftsmanship up close. This next piece carries the weight of its former owner. The Greville festoon necklace, once closely associated with Queen Elizabeth II, was purchased in 1929 and was expanded to three rows in 1938. The result is a monumental five-row bib of diamonds, commanding and unmistakable. The Queen Mother absolutely adored it. She had the sheer presence to carry off all five rows at once, often blazing with light at gala dinners. However, Queen Elizabeth II, upon inheriting it, never wore it. It is widely believed she found it too ostentatious. It is a truly formidable, armor-like piece, and frankly, not every royal woman is ready to wear something that demands so much attention. For Elizabeth, this necklace likely carried a double weight, the strong association who has made it a key part of her gala wardrobe. Camilla usually follows the Queen Mother's later example, wearing the slightly more restrained three-row section, most recently at the American State Banquet at Windsor in 2025. Finally, we have a piece that fell victim to redundancy. This is Queen Adelaide's fringe. This is the oldest and the third. It is a historic piece, but it suffers from a case of mistaken identity. It is often confused with the Queen Mary fringe tiara, the one Elizabeth wore at her wedding, and the City of London fringe necklace. But they are distinct pieces, and this one has been a true shapeshifter through history. Queen Victoria wore it as a new frame to wear strictly as a tiara, but when it passed to the Queen Mother, she had it converted back, preferring to wear it as a necklace. But Queen Elizabeth II? Never. The reason is likely practical. Elizabeth already owned the City of London fringe necklace, a wedding gift she wore frequently. I find it fascinating when jewels mirror each other so closely, yet have such different fates. To the casual eye, a diamond fringe is a diamond fringe. But to a curator, and the Queen was the ultimate curator, they have different historical weights and different souls. It is easy to confuse them at first glance, but it is their specific history that decides which one is worn and which one stays in the dark. While some jewels were rejected for being too heavy or too sentimental, the final pieces in our collection were likely set aside for a much more subtle reason. They carried a meaning that was simply too complex for a modern wardrobe. This brings us to one of the most historically Designed in 1863 by King Frederick VII of Denmark, this isn't just a necklace. It is effectively a reliquary. Designed in a Byzantine style with gold, enamel and pearls, its centerpiece is the famous Dagma Cross. Inside that cross, there is reportedly a fragment of wood said to be from the true cross, along with a piece of silk from the grave including during the 1957 state visit to Denmark. However, and this is an important detail, she chose to remove the Dagma Cross. She wore the necklace without its central reliquary pendant, allowing the diamond and pearl framework to stand on its own while the sacred element remained unattached. That decision may have reflected her sense of propriety. While avoiding the complexity of displaying a sacred object in a formal diplomatic setting. Regardless of whether the cross is attached or not, the necklace has remained sleeping in the vaults for decades now. It hasn't been worn publicly in its full form in living memory. However, visitors to the Edwardian's Age of Elegance exhibition in 2025 were finally able to see what this piece truly is. Our final necklace was perhaps just a victim of bad timing. This is the Czech Garnet Perure. In 1996, during a state visit to the Czech Republic, the city of Brno presented the Queen with a set of deep red garnet jewelry, a necklace, brooch and earrings. It was a thoughtful gift, and instead of handing the box to a lady in waiting as she usually did, the Queen kept the case on her own lap as her car drove away. However, despite that moment of appreciation, she never wore the necklace. The only piece from the set to ever see the light of day was the brooch, which she wore exactly once, 10 years later, as a beauty, and perhaps the Queen simply never found the perfect diplomatic occasion to wear the full necklace. I still hope that one day we might see the full suite worn by someone in the family. It is a rare stone in the Royal Collection and deserves a moment to shine. Queen Elizabeth II had access to an extraordinary jewelry collection, one of the most remarkable in the world, and it became almost predictable in the best possible way. She returned to certain pearls again and again. She favored pieces that felt balanced, measured, comfortable. Heavy chokers stayed in their cases. Long, swinging sautoirs of the 1920s rarely, if ever, appeared. More theatrical designs simply never entered their necklaces untouched. Not discarded, not forgotten, simply waiting. That is perhaps why pieces like Queen Alexandra's Wedding Necklace or the Art Deco Emerald Choker were able to reemerge later on a new generation, feeling fresh rather than overused. They had not been absorbed into her identity. They still had space to belong to someone else. I'm curious which of these would you bring home? If you enjoyed exploring these quieter corners of the royal collection with me, I would truly appreciate a like. And if you'd like to continue these journeys through royal vaults and family histories, don't forget to subscribe. There are still many stories resting in those jewel cases, and we'll open another one very soon.