Shown in the photograph is Queen Mary (1867-1953), grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II. Queen Mary was a manic collector of jewelry and other fine pieces. During the reign of her husband, King George V (1865-1936), she vastly expanded the Royal Collection, often from the houses of friends. Mary is shown here wearing “the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara” which is also referred to as “Granny’s Tiara,” which she gave to Elizabeth in 1947, the year she married Prince Philip.
Queen Mary got it wrong. One is supposed to “love people and use things.” She did the very opposite. Mary loved things and used people. The Queen had an “emotional lurch of the heart when she saw beautiful jewels,” but hated to pay for them. On seeing something she coveted, she said, “I’m caressing it with my eyes.” But it didn’t stop there. She acquired jewels, furniture, Faberge animals, watches, and gold musical boxes by means that ranged from begging to extortion to outright theft. She loved to visit India where the “maharajas handed out jewels like blackberries.” (1)
One day Queen Mary almost met her match. She was taking tea one late afternoon with Old Lady Hudson. The Queen began admiring a set of chairs that belonged to Lady Hudson. The chairs were painted by Angelica Kauffman. The Queen remarked that Lady Hudson’s chairs would go splendidly with the Kauffman table she owned. Lady Hudson no doubt smiled but did not offer her chairs to Queen Mary. The clock ticked on. Queen Mary continued to sip her tea. The sun went down. Queen Mary still showed no sign of getting up and departing.
More time passed. Finally, when the clock struck nine o’clock, Lady Hudson capitulated. She had held on valiantly, but, at the end, she was an old woman and she was ready for the Queen to go home. So “the chairs went off in the royal Daimler.” (1)
At times, when Queen Mary wasn’t given something she desired, it is rumored she went ahead and stole it.
In the early 20th Century, wearing expensive jewelry was a way of defining status and Queen Mary was all about defining status – her status – as an elevated member of society. She was born the daughter of two royals who frittered away their money, infuriating their benefactress Queen Victoria, resulting in the whole family being tossed out of their apartments at Kensington Palace and run out of London. Mary ended up studying in Italy. Years passed and Mary returned to England. Queen Victoria cast her eye about looking for a suitable spouse for her grandson George, second in line for the throne. She selected Princess Mary, seeing in her “queen potential.” Upon the death of King Edward VII in 1910, George ascended the throne and Mary became his Queen.
Queen Mary with granddaughters, the Princess Margaret Rose and the future Queen Elizabeth II
Mary then set about to fulfill the potential seen in her by Queen Victoria and to become as royal as royal could be. She proceeded to outdazzle the royals around her, projecting such a flawless image of majesty that, to many, she ceased to be human. She was so decorated and gem-encrusted that, “at Lord Harewood’s wedding, a myopic E.M. Forster bowed to the iced and many-tiered cake under the impression that it was Queen Mary.” (1)
Queen Mary was so busy collecting, carrying out her royal duties, and hobnobbing with nobility that she had little time for motherhood, though she had borne six children. She had no passion for them. She left their care to cruel servants who pinched them. She did not kiss, cuddle, or hug her children. They were all starved of love, particularly her youngest child, John, born handicapped and epileptic. He was hidden away in a cottage with caregivers until his death at fourteen.
Upon her death from lung cancer in 1953, her son, David, Duke of Windsor, the former King Edward VIII, remarked:
I somehow feel that the fluids in her veins must always have been as icy-cold as they now are in death.
Lisa's History Room 
This actually reminds me of one of your recent posts on Mary Todd Lincoln. You always seem to find the greatest quotes, too – the final one from David, Duke of Windsor, really sums up an aspect of this woman I would never have thought about.
LikeLike
The similar post is “Mary Todd Lincoln Had the Gimmies.” The two Marys had delusions of grandeur. In psychology circles it’s called grandiosity – a feature of mania. Thank you so much for the compliments. Queen Mary’s coldness to her son David is largely what drew him to suffocatingly controlling women like Wallis Warfield Simpson. He wanted desperately to be mothered – at any age.
LikeLike
Mary was not sought out to be engaged to George but to his elder brother Eddy, the Duke of Clarence who died shortly after their engagement. Then she was passed on to the second brother who became king.
LikeLiked by 2 people
After reading this article, I feel that I really need more information on the topic. Could you share some resources ?
LikeLike
Thanks for visiting. There are umpteen thousand books written on the Windsor dynasty. Here are some recommendations:
The Windsors: A Dynasty Revealed by Piers Brendon and Phillip Whitehead
The Royals by Kitty Kelley
The Windsor Story by J. Bryan III and Charles J.V. Murphy
http://members.tripod.com/windsor_women/id25.htm
Mary of Teck in Wikipedia
http://www.divasthesite.com/Political_Divas/Trivia/Trivia_Queen_Mary.htm
LikeLike
Why don’t you try reading a factual book like Pope-Hennessy’s biography of Queen Mary instead of the silly scuttlebuck mentioned above. It is as fashionable now to derogate monarachy as it once was to fawn upon it. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, Peter. You seem angry about something in the Queen Mary article. In disagreements between history lovers, it’s usually best to lay out on the table what you disagree with. Please let me know on what point you differ. I’m very, very, very careful about selecting facts about people that can be verified through reputable sources. If you will read my credentials, you will see that I’ve been published by Texas Tech University Press and have prepared historical materials for the University of Texas, Harcourt Educational Publishers, and many other respectable publishers. I take great pride in presenting history in my books and articles as well as my blog post that is thoroughly fact-checked to be historically accurate.
You mention that I should read something like Pope-Hennessy’s biography of Queen Mary instead of “the silly scuttlebuck mentioned here.” Did you mean “scuttlebutt” or rumor? I can’t find scuttlebuck in my dictionaries.
The book I used for the post on Queen Mary is cited and is a thoroughly respected, highly researched, annotated to death biography of the Windsor Dynasty. Are you familiar with it ?
As for Queen Mary, she was an ice cube who cared only for material possessions. Period. There are no 2 ways of looking at it, however hard it is for someone to swallow. Check out Lord Harewood’s biography.
You are welcome to visit Lisa’s History Room but please resist throwing barbs. All my best, Lisa
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, Peter. I wanted to mention that I had considered using the Pope-Hennessy bio of Queen Mary for my research but decided against it as a credible resource when I read two things: Number one: It is the official biography of Queen Mary.
Number two: P-H was created Commander of the Royal Victorian Order in 1960 after the publication of QM’s bio.
Biographies commissioned by royal families that result in awards usually are written as hagiographies and are thus untrustworthy as sources of facts, i.e., the royal family vetted the book so that it presented a favorable picture of them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
why was quuen Mary such a theft an such cruel to people she didnt even know but jus wanted stuff she saw but did not need… imi glade in dont live in UK an i am glade i wasnt there doing her time
LikeLike
Nicely said, Lisa! I agree with you! The “Windsor” family has a habit of taking things–like their name! They adopted the name to distance them from their German origins and, in my opinion, they had no right to the throne. Regardless of whether the aristocracy continues to be tolerated or is abolished, they are just overindulged egomaniacs at this point. Though Mary is an excellent example of their selfish and disrespectful sense of entitlement and lack of affection for their children, Princess Margaret most definitely blew right past her to top the list! She might have been second in line for the throne as a child but she topped the list of royal mooches! She should have been knocked on her royal scuttle-BUTT for her behavior many times but, since she was “a Royal”, no one dared to stand up to her. They’re one of the wealthiest families in the world yet they expect to be given everything they fancy without question –pathetic, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Vonya, your comment on the Windsor name is perfect. Our view of the British royalty is obviously not shared by the Brits. They pay a fortune to keep their Queen, etc., in high clover.
LikeLike
I personally challange you to prove where Her Majesty Queen Mary ever stole anything! By aristocratic standanrds, Princess Mary of Teck (later Queen Mary of Grat Britain and Ireland, Impress of India) was born into a family that owned little more that a royal title. She made a marriage based on love as opposed to diplomatic, which was the norm in her day. True, she loved jewels; she could afford them; and she should have them! Unless you can prove that our Queen actually stole something, then you are just a bald face lie!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve cited sources so you may investigate my claims. I do not care for your incivility in calling me a name. Please don’t visit Lisa’s History Room unless you are prepared to read the truth. I do not hero worship here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“She made a marriage based on love and not diplomatic”…you do realize that she was originally engaged to George’s brother…Albert Victor…but he died so she married George?
LikeLike
OMG you people unbelievable. She did not make a marriage based on love. She was the arranged marriage to the oldest child of of Edward and Alexandra, Eddy the Duke of Clarence. He was not thrilled with the prospect. In addition, he died shortly after the engagement and she was passed on to the the younger son George. Love grew there but there is no way you can make the claim that she married for love. In a documentary it was reported that she wrote her husband a letter every day. In every letter she stated that she loved him but could never bring herself to verbally say I Love you to him. This tormented her. So I am thinking this woman had some issues as do we all and lets not idealize her. She stole stuff Ricky, its virtually in every biography that is not authorized by her.
LikeLike
Lisa,
I enjoy your website, but I have a question about Queen Mary’s kleptomania: Was it also possible that she collected items that once belonged to the Royal Collection. I understand that she put a some work into researching catalogs of items and securing thier return. And, is it not them possible, despite her possibly persuading people to give up things along the way, that Queen-Imperatrix consort was also a curatrix, too?
Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apollo, here’s what Wikipedia says about Queen Mary (May of Teck):
“Queen Mary was an eager collector of objects and pictures with a royal connection.She paid above-market estimates when purchasing jewels from the estate of Dowager Empress Marie of Russia and paid almost three times the estimate when buying the family’s Cambridge Emeralds from Lady Kilmorey, the mistress of her late brother Prince Francis. In 1924, the famous architect Sir Edwin Lutyens created Queen Mary’s Dolls’ House for her collection of miniature pieces. Indeed, she has sometimes been criticised for her aggressive acquisition of objets d’art for the Royal Collection. On several occasions, she would express to hosts, or others, that she admired something they had in their possession, in the expectation that the owner would be willing to donate it. Her extensive knowledge of, and research into, the Royal Collection helped in identifying artefacts and artwork that had gone astray over the years.The Royal Family had lent out many objects over previous generations. Once she had identified unreturned items through old inventories, she would write to the holders, requesting that they be returned.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] there. Didn't want to offend them by rubbing it in their faces. Here's what I mean about Mary: Queen Elizabeth Anyway, judging from the video, it's all such a financial tangle now that the family will probably […]
LikeLike
Even with all the distasteful things that she has done as a person, Queen Mary guided the British people through difficult times. Her firm belief in duty also saved the British Monarchy from demise. The British saw her as a pillar of their nation, especially during the abdication crisis.
LikeLike
Very interesting article. I had heard Queen Mary had this reputation and was looking for information on it when I came across your piece. Watching the Antiques Roadshow UK, a woman in Wales mentioned that Queen Mary and King George, wanting to visit a “typical” Welsh family, dropped in at her grandparents house for tea. Whereupon the queen ended up walking away with a vase that had been in the family 100 years! One note: it is my understanding that Queen Victoria originally set her sights on Mary for her eldest son but he died before the wedding, so then she figured why not have her for George, the next in line, instead! Wonder if Victoria ever knew of Mary’s need for precious things? Thanks again for the article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are several very savvy commenters posted here: yes, absolutely QVM was simply acquiring things to be returned to the Royal Collection. Her dealings were understood by all she made visits to. It did indeed become a joke and humorous; and the stories are hilarious too, “quick, put the silver away, hide that chest in the drawing room, Queen Mary is making a visit tomorrrow.”
Queen Mary was not stiff. The old film footage gave that impression. She was rye, and sarcastic with Her quips and comments. She may as wellv’e been cold to Her children, but She was very affectionate to “the Girls”. We all knew women like this once. Even old actresses as in Mararet DuMont playing Eva Stotesbury in the character of “Mrs. Dukesbury” these Dames put today’s woman’s liberation to shame. They ruled the day. The words laziness, and can’t were foreign concepts to this clan of Ladies. My Grandmother and Great Aunts were of this stoicism too. Women today wouldn’t understand there sense of duty, and absolute unquestionable dedication. Queen Elizabeth IS the product and Embodiment of this very conviction of Service. She adored Her Grandmother, adored Her.
+GSTQ+ from Sunny Cal.
LikeLike
[…] Is this like those places where a person admires something in a home and is given it? Is this like Queen Mary around whom trinkets had to be hidden lest she took a liking to them and badgered her host into […]
LikeLike
I have heard this about Queen Mary as well. Were any of the items returned, following her death?
LikeLike
I don’t have an answer for that but am doubtful. Lisa
LikeLike
No. They loved Queen Mary, and for Her to
pay a Visit to them was pay enough. It was a running joke
at the time among the Gentry.
They would hide the good stuff as soon as the call came up from the Front gates that Her Majesty was making a surprise visit.
The servants already knew what to hide and it had already been done in advance…….similar to preparing for an hurricane. Lol!
Also, it was an Honour to have ones piece of furniture grace a Palace home. I supppose now with tours, one can find their once owned object of Art. Lol!
LikeLike
Reminds me of the honor a cuckolded husband felt when one of the British kings or princes chose their wives as mistresses. Strange and skewed value system.
LikeLike
[…] II’s grandmother loved her jewels…maybe a bit too much. She supposedly would go to great lengths (including some illegal) to obtain jewels and other nice […]
LikeLike
[…] https://lisawallerrogers.com/2009/03/19/queen-mary-had-the-gimmies/ […]
LikeLike
I have enjoyed reading the article and comments. I don’t know why some of you are so upset with the Royal lineage and behavior, considering we have the same situation here is the U.S. We have wealthy families that have been controlling our government and society since before we were a country up to present day. These families feel they are “owed” certain things due to their wealth, status, and their contribution to our country. How is this any different than the Royals of the world? The Royals have a long history of making political and social decisions that can contribute to the survival of a nation. You might say that some of the decisions the Royals have made throughout history have not been wise, or good, for the common people, to which I would ask you to refresh your history lessons on how we here in the U.S. have treated Native people, former slaves, poor people, and minorities through our history. Our government is no different than any of the Royal families that have ruled, except that we elect our leaders who still may not make wise, or good, choices for the common people. My point? I am proud to be an American, but I don’t feel Royal bashing is warranted considering the parallels between them and any elected government. If we want to take it a step farther, we can look to our past President, Andrew Jackson and his Removal Act, which was solely to expand the American Nation at the expense of anyone who was in the way. So what if the Queen Mother took some jewels and fine items, at least she didn’t kill them to get them. History isn’t pretty, whether it’s Royal or not.
LikeLike
I found the article hilarious.
We are talking about Mary of Teck, not the Present Queens mother.
Queen Mary was regal in every way. She was the Womon behind the Man…from the looks of it.
She loved antique’s, and who can blame Her.
I would’ve don’t the same thing. For the home owners to quickly hide what they loved was very funny.
There was no announcement of her arrival, she’d just show up.
She probably figured, I’m giving them an audience for several hours. The least they may do is oblige Me to be “gilfted” a little treasure to add to the Royal Collection.
LikeLike
You need to fact-check. Prince John was not locked away and hidden his entire life. The only time he was removed to a private setting was when his epilepsy got to the point where he could no longer function. You’re welcome
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve only seen this statement that QM died of lung cancer very recently. I can’t seem to find any literary citations that this was the cawe. Where did you find this information?
LikeLike
You know, I’ve done a cursory search for a good source for this but only can come up with countless websites reporting cause of death as lung cancer. The BBC announcement refers to a gastric trouble. Here’s a great forum that touches on the topic. No doubt the Palace was not keen to refer to the Queen having died from lung cancer, if that was the case, and may have referred to something more bland. http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/forum/general-royalty-discussion/smokers/
LikeLike
Read a lot of the comments and articles about Mary since I was told by a Russian historian that she received long Gold chains from Tsarina Alexandra but never handed over payment . The royal family were treated as gods and if a plate or crown was wanted they got it .Her son Edward quote when she died sums it all and John would have loved some real care during his short hard life . The days of the empire are long gone and never coming back and Britain is being rewarded for those days by thousands of immigrants who remember what they were told about how there people were treated
LikeLike
Your only source was an unauthorized book, written by two men who would not have been old enough to remember the King George V and Queen Mae. I recommend that you read IN SEARCH OF QUEEN MARY, by James Pope-Hennessy. The author inerviewed everyone, including Edward VIII.
LikeLike
The royal librarian asked Pope-Hennessy to write the biography, thus ensuring that it would portray the royal family in a favorable light. P-H is not to be trusted. He admired the Duke of Windsor (whom you refer to as Edward VIII), whom he thought ‘exceedingly intelligent’ and ‘liberal-minded.’ This is the Duke (whose loyalty to a serially-unfaithful woman ran deeper than that to the country of his family), the king who abdicated the throne, staying in a French manor house provided by a Nazi, the Duke that received money to attend social gatherings, the Duke who met with Hitler and, a man whose Nazi sympathies ran so deep that King George had to send him far, far away to be the Governor of the Bahamas during WWII, lest Hitler use him as a puppet king, should the Island nation be overthrown. P-H had an uncanny, wholly unreliable ability to render whole conversations in almost word for word detail in his books. Finally, he indulged his appetite for homosexual encounters with underage “rent” boys. He was an unsavory character that the Crown used to paint a favorable picture of their dynasty. H-a-g-i-ography.
Back to your cutting remark that I only used one source for this information. I always use multiple sources. I also use reliable sources. The documentation of Queen Mary’s (Queen “Mae” is not correct. She was called Mae by family members.) kleptomania is wide and deep, no matter how unhappy it makes you feel inside. Why you want to waste keystrokes defending that Ice Queen is beyond understanding.
LikeLike
The central plot line of Downtown Abbey The Movie is about a visit from King George and Queen Mary. A sub-plot on silver trinkets disappearing upon arrival of royal household staff seemed implausible to me–who would risk their job and reputation in the royal household? Regardless, the royal visit was a delight to see unfold. So, I wanted to learn more about Queen Mary and came upon Lisa Waller Rogers’ fascinating article. After learning about the Queen’s penchant for “Gimmies,” the thief’s lack of remorse upon confrontation now seems very plausible. As witness to the Queen’s penchant for helping herself to trinkets and treasures of the aristocracy, it makes perfect sense that the thief would have been emboldened to do the same. Kudos to Lisa Waller Rogers and, of course, Julian Fellowes.
LikeLike
Maggie, exciting to hear about a DA the Movie! Q Mary was quite a character. Just off the cuff, I remember reading about her outright abhorrence for ivy on houses. When a visitor at her daughter-in-law’s? house during WWII, she took it upon herself to rid the house of ivy and eliminate other greenery not to her liking on her hostess’s property. Lisa
LikeLike
In the recent “Downton Abbey” film, there is a scene in which Queen Mary’s dresser is exposed as a thief and is confronted about it. She’s told that she will be discovered eventually and she wouldn’t want people to think the Queen has “light fingers.”
Knowing this about Queen Mary just makes that line hilarious. I wonder if the “light fingers” remark was supposed to be satirical? Then again, I think Julian Fellowes is a true dyed-in-the-wool adulator of the monarchy, so I doubt it.
LikeLike
The one that just came out in theaters this month. Released September 20 in the US. I didn’t think there were any other “Downton Abbey” feature films that had been released theatrically.
LikeLike
How cool that you picked up the reference to “light fingers” in reference to Queen Mary’s maid, in the film “Downton Abbey.” Having just viewed this film in a theatre, and not having watched the previous television series, I am now quite intrigued by this period of time. Even more so, my curiosity is now aroused to learn more about King George V and Queen Mary.
LikeLike
[…] Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 […]
LikeLike
Is this the Queen Mary of Queen Mary’s Needlework Guild, who established a worldwide association of ladies and girl to sew clothing for World War I soldiers?
LikeLike
I am unaware of this guild. Let me know what you discover. Best, Lisa
LikeLike