To be surprised if Camilla wears the Kohinoor Diamond…

[KohinoorDiamond]

The media is speculating if Camilla will wear the Kohinoor diamond as King Charles III’s Queen Consort during the coronation. What do you think?

It is said that the Kohinoor carries a powerful curse, ‘only God or a Woman can wear with impunity’. Ever since the Kohinoor came to Britain, the diamond has only been given to a woman in the royal family (either the Queen, the Queen Consort or the Queen Mother).

’Kohinoor’ was trending on social media soon after the sad news of the Queen of England’s passing. Koh-I-Noor: Why crown jewel is trending in India following Queen Elizabeth II’s death.

The Queen Mother was last to wear the Kohinoor on her crown. Back when she was given the Kohinoor, in 1936, the jewel symbolised her being the British Empress consort of India, because India was the jewel in the British Empire’s crown. She was the last to hold the title, since India gained its independence in 1947 and became a republic. So, a British royal wearing the diamond now in 2022 makes less sense given the title that used to go with the gem no longer exists (but the controversy around the Kohinoor definitely does exist).

Camilla wearing the Kohinoor might send the wrong message to nations claiming the gem and also show an insensitivity to the Kohinoor’s troubling history. The Kohinoor is a diplomatic gem, as well as a crown jewel.

Camilla could wear the Kohinoor, but I’d be surprised if she does given the baggage. Thoughts?

[KohinoorDiamond]

@Notarealmum

We’ll I know I wouldn’t be wearing it if cursed…..😳

The curse is also what adds to the Kohinoor’s power. Curses are placed to protect something of very high value.

The kohinoor’s curse comes from conflating it with another gem from Hindu scriptures called the Syamantaka which was said to belong to Surya, the sun god, and had the power to destroy unworthy mortals without mercy. The gem would, however, offer great power and good fortune to worthy mortals.

He who owns this diamond will own the world but will know all its misfortunes. Only a God or a Woman can wear it with impunity.

If someone can wear the Kohinoor without falling victim to the curse then that was viewed as being evidence of ‘divine appointment’. As upthread, only Maharajah Ranjit Singh has achieved enjoying success and victory in taken on the supposed curse.

The British Royal Family play it safe by giving the diamond to a woman.

[Fivemoreminutesinbed]

@motherstongue

Sorry to be a pedant but it really boils my urine when The Queen is offhandedly called “The Queen of ENGLAND”. She was not “The Queen of ENGLAND” she was “Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and NORTHERN IRELAND and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
I FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW, Sorry to derail

Amen.

[KohinoorDiamond]

@ProfessorLayton1

Good old excuse regarding who does the diamond belongs to?
One thing for sure, it does not belong to this country.
The claiming countries may sell it in auction and split the money.
They may decide to keep the diamond on rotation.
Give it back..

“Good old excuse regarding who does the diamond belongs to?”

A bit too convenient that the royal family line the Kohinoor came from has now mysteriously died out… “Oh no they’re all dead. So who does the diamond belong to now?! We have it, so I guess that means we can keep the kohinoor without contest now.” That’s not how Justice and fairness works… (justice and law is relevant because I think that’s key in the coronation oath).

I’d argue that the Kohinoor still belongs to Maharajah Ranjit Singh’s royal family even if their bloodline has mysteriously died out, partly because the Kohinoor was never lawfully acquired from his royal family.

Ranjit Singh was the King who wore the Kohinoor to show he was brave enough to take on the supposed curse (he was a successful warrior monarch, after all) and in overcoming the curse he had been divinely appointed by God (an important claim for any monarch to make when asserting their right to the Crown).

The Kohinoor is famous through Ranjit Singh using it as a symbol of his fabulous kingdom’s sovereignty; he prized the Kohinoor and held it sacred like no other owner ever had then or since (with the exception of his son Duleep Singh, perhaps). The diamond became infamous after his death and even more so when it was taken by force from his frightened young son (who was aged 10 or 11 at the time) and without the Queen Mother too.

The Kohinoor was desirable to the British in India at the time because it was a symbol of Ranjit Singh’s rich and powerful kingdom (also the last one princely province to take before Britain could lay claim to all of India).

When the problems of the 1849 Treaty’s lawfulness came to light thanks to Duleep Singh kicking up a fuss in later life, I think the British establishment realised they needed a strategy to get around the major Justice issue that was likely to arise down the line. So ending Ranjit Singh’s royal family line was the easiest thing to do… but not the right choice (it’s not their place to end other peoples’ royal family lines).

“Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right.” - Albus Dumbledore

Most people choose easy because they assume there will be no comeback to wrongdoing.

[FloorCushion]

Fascinating thread OP 👏🏻

[KohinoorDiamond]

@LampLighter414

The Royal family are appointed by God. They can do what they think is best and we shouldn’t question anything they do OP.

That adds to the argument that the first clause of the disputed 1849 legal Treaty signed by the 10 or 11 year old child Duleep Singh (without his Queen Mother) needs God’s courthouse to judge the lawfulness of this matter:

“I. His Highness the Maharajah Duleep Singh shall resign for himself, his heirs, and his successors all right, title, and claim to the sovereignty of the Punjab, or to any sovereign power whatever.”

This is a major Justice issue and dispute between two different royal families who both were in possession of the kohinoor diamond. One of the two royal family lines has mysteriously died out (the last surviving member of Duleep Singh’s royal family died during the early part of the late Queen’s 70 year reign).

So, the matter would be brought before God’s courthouse (assuming you believe in divine appointment).

This is a historical issue but it is proverbial that God’s courthouse takes its time to get things right. “The millstones of the gods grind late, but they grind fine.”

In any event, look at the latest census figures and you’ll see that most people in Britain don’t believe in God in the same way as they maybe did in 1952. God will also be looking at how well the faith has been defended.

[LoveLarry]

BloodyPenguinHouse

Excuse me?

Have you got an issue with my posts and are you accusing me of trolling/sock puppeting?

ODFOD

[LampLighter414]

The Royal family are appointed by God. They can do what they think is best and we shouldn’t question anything they do OP.

[KohinoorDiamond]

@Mummyoflittledragon

lol. This is such an interesting thread. I didn’t know the history.

I was shocked and horrified when I found out the history. I couldn’t believe it happened and had to verify it all. On a purely human level it’s such a cruel and unethical thing to do to a child and his mother (royalty or not); it’s not a cool thing to do to another royal family.

Given how the gem is on the crown and people adore it, I questioned how the truth of the kohinoor’s acquirement had gone unnoticed by so many people. It’s simply because people don’t know the history. Ignorance is bliss…

This kind of history is not taught in school for a reason. Likewise, it’s not on the crown jewel exhibition notes either. So, unless people do their own digging they are not likely to know this troubling history or about the diamond’s curse.

If the voters on this thread knew the history then I suspect it would make them think twice before voting I was being unreasonable.

[KohinoorDiamond]

@motherstongue

Sorry to be a pedant but it really boils my urine when The Queen is offhandedly called “The Queen of ENGLAND”. She was not “The Queen of ENGLAND” she was “Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and NORTHERN IRELAND and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
I FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW, Sorry to derail

Thank you for the clarification.

I traced back through my reading material to see where I got the title ‘Queen of England’ from. It’s a direct reference to the title as in the contested legal Treaty that the child Duleep Singh signed in 1849 as ‘Maharajah of Lahore’ (except he was only a child aged 10 or 11, so his Queen Mother should have been present in this legal document because she was acting on his behalf as regent, but she’s not in the Treaty at all).

“III. The gem called the Koh-i-Noor, which was taken from Shah Sooja-ool-moolk by Maharajah Runjeet Singh, shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.”

If this legal document were to be tested in a law court (an appropriate suggestion here is God’s courthouse because it’s a higher level matter and concerns royalty/monarchy), then the title ‘Queen of England’ and intended persons would still be clearly identifiable as the Head of State. So, at the time in 1849 this was Victoria and since then there was the late Elizabeth II.

Since at the time in 1848 this ‘Queen of England’ title was referring to Victoria, it’s interesting that @LoveLarry says that Queen Anne was the last to hold the title “Queen of England”.

[Mummyoflittledragon]

@HoneyIShrunkThePizza

It feels like you've been waiting years to start this thread. Mastermind?

lol. This is such an interesting thread. I didn’t know the history.

[darmaka]

If certain royals wore it, it would be a travesty. Only matters depending on who is wearing it.

[CPL593H]

@MarshaMelrose

Wouldn't that have been Elizabeth I? Queen Anne was a Stuart, post James VI/I.

When Queen Anne ascended to the throne, she had the separate titles of Queen of England and Queen of Scotland. Two separate countries, not united so still separate monarchies. After the union in 1707 she became Queen of Great Britain and Ireland.

So Larry was right to say she was the last Queen of England.

Thank you @MarshaMelrose and @LoveLarry , my mistake

[MarshaMelrose]

@KohinoorDiamond

I think I’ve earned this username lol 😂

Definitely. Don't use it on any other thread because if you then say something stupid, I'll be soooo disappointed. 😂
You're my go-to Kohinoor expert. 😁

[WindsweptNotInteresting]

@LoveLarry

You might be, I'm not

But then I'm not English

To be fair, I have literally just read someone in a thread elsewhere refer to her as "la reina Isabel II de Inglaterra" (Queen Elizabeth II of England). I also lived in the US for a while and a lot of them talk about the "Queen of England".

Not saying it is correct obviously, just that it is reasonably widespread (and incorrect), so not necessarily a "little Englander" thing :)

[TwoMonthsOff]

@MarshaMelrose
its quite an interesting read though and an eye opener

[motherstongue]

@RandomPenguinHouse lol. Bloody phone!!
And yes, I should have qualified by saying that many Scots consider Queen Elizabeth 2nd to actually be the 1st of Scotland but the point I was making was that she’s never been “The Queen of England”.

[HoneyIShrunkThePizza]

It feels like you've been waiting years to start this thread. Mastermind?

[KohinoorDiamond]

@MarshaMelrose

You know a lot, Kohinoor. 👍 Impressive.

I think I’ve earned this username lol 😂

[KohinoorDiamond]

*were

[KohinoorDiamond]

@MarshaMelrose

Again, Kohinoor, I don't know a lot about this just what I remember from telly, but didn't the child have a Indian protector to look after his interests? Another raja or someone?

Duleep Singh had a perfectly capable mother. She was separated from him because she was the only one who seemed to have his best interests at heart and was protecting his interests as his Queen Mother (acting as regent).

His Kingdom was rich and powerful, but that made it enviable and vulnerable. Vulnerability was identified when his father died.

British Guardians we’re appointed after the child signed everything away. Lord and Lady Login: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spencer_Login

[Saz12]

You know what? None of them should have it as they’ll all just argue. Hand it over to me, I’ll keep it until they all grow up enough to stop squabbling and quit making up silly stories about curses. (Or until I sell it, whichever happens first).

[MarshaMelrose]

You know a lot, Kohinoor. 👍 Impressive.

[MarshaMelrose]

Wouldn't that have been Elizabeth I? Queen Anne was a Stuart, post James VI/I.

When Queen Anne ascended to the throne, she had the separate titles of Queen of England and Queen of Scotland. Two separate countries, not united so still separate monarchies. After the union in 1707 she became Queen of Great Britain and Ireland.

So Larry was right to say she was the last Queen of England.

[KohinoorDiamond]

@MarshaMelrose

But the curse isn't on women, is it? It's just on men. Or is that something else I got wrong?

The curse apparently says “only God or a woman can wear it with impunity”.

Depends if God got there first… lol 😂

We’re talking royalty and monarchy here. So God matters in this arena.

The kohinoor’s curse comes from conflating it with another gem from Hindu scriptures called the Syamantaka which was said to belong to Surya, the sun god, and had the power to destroy unworthy mortals without mercy.