Tiara Gate: What was the relevance of the "provenance " of the diamonds on a tiara?

No, The Queen just didn't want her to wear it. It had nothing to do with provenance.

It’s all nonsense. Meaning, not true.

Fake news made up story by a newspaper.

Tabloids are notorious for making up silly stories about the around family by twisting minor details.

The provenance of the stones themselves isn’t recorded unless the tiara was made using stones the family already owned.

Given that the shape of the tiaras Meghan and Eugenie wore at their respective weddings look similar if I were to guess, I’d say it’s most likely that she (Meghan) liked the look of the Kokoshnik tiara, but missed out from Eugenie asking for it first.

Blood diamonds, extracted from the earth by slaves. Hardly fitting for a squeaky clean Princess to wear, The republicans would have a field day.

This is only a story the tabloids got hold of, or made up! Could be that that tiara's origins were somewhat dubious. On the other hand, it might just have been as simple as HM not wanting to let Meghan wear it - 'what Meghan wants, she DOES NOT necessarily get'!! Any issue had more to do with the emeralds, as I read it.

For this story, there is no relevance. There is no such thing as "Tiara Gate," because there is not a scandal or hint of wrong-doing attached.

1. We have no idea if this story is true. Tabloids make up many stories in order to

attract readers. And, when they use "sources," the people are often not truthful,

reliable---making things up, telling some facts mixed with fiction. These sources

are often outsiders who have nothing to with the royals they supposedly know so

much about.

2. If one is to believe the story, the tiara Meghan reportedly was interested in was

Russian in origin. Russia was involved in some nefarious deeds and no one

a scandal about using Russian emeralds.

3. The word provenance does not need to be in quotations. People who buy and

sell antiquities, jewelry, paintings and such are concerned with who made the

item, who previously owned the item, the history often adding extra value to a

piece.The royals are already quite aware of the history behind their jewels.

This is probably out of an abundance of caution to avoid "blood diamonds" because when a gem's origin can't be determined there's always the chance it was mined by slave labor under conditions the world now considers human rights abuses. One suspects there are a lot of stones in the royal collection with some pretty dubious pasts.

The suffix "gate" is used for a scandal. This wasn't a scandal, and we don't even know that the tale is true. As best I could tell, it was never reliably sourced by the media that printed it. Frankly, I doubt she would ever have been shown a tiara that wasn't available for her to wear.

In any case, it was apparently the emeralds that were the issue -- they were, or possibly were, Russian in origin and provenance, though again, the media that made this claim didn't explain why that was supposedly a problem. I can't be sure, because I didn't read the actual tabloid stories, only references to them. There may have been some explanation in there somewhere, though I wouldn't bet on it. Perhaps some association with the Russian Imperial family?

Just out of curiosity, why did you put the word "provenance" in quotation marks? It's a standard, oft-used word in the world of art and antiques, anything valuable of some age.

If you mean the story doing the rounds of the tabloids, that is the emerald tiara; it is from the Queen's personal collection. Of course the provenance of the stones is known. They are Russian.