Cost of peacock throne vs Cost of Taj Mahal

Cost of peacock throne vs Cost of Taj Mahal

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I am listening to the lectures: Professor Michael H. Fisher, phd - History of India and I stumbled upon a very surprising sentence:

The peacock throne cost twice as much as Taj Mahal.

Amazed, I tried to dig a bit and I found a very similar sentence:

The throne was even for the Golden Age Mughal standards supremely extravagant and cost twice as much as the construction of the Taj Mahal.

In this wikipedia article.

My question: is there any incontestable source which could confirm it?

If not, I would like at least to read some research on the topic of "cost of peacock throne". The wikipedia articles point to websites like this one here, but it's not a scientific research.

Well! Like you I also wasn't able to find a exact comparison between the cost of Peacock Throne and Taj Mahal. But I have found some interesting points which I would like to share as you asked, According to K. R. N. Swamy,

Wrought out of 1150 kg of gold and 230 kg of precious stones, conservatively in 1999 the throne would be valued at $804 million or nearly Rs 4.5 billion. In fact when made, it cost twice as much as the Tajmahal crafted for the same Emperor Shah Jahan.

Further he explains that about the jewels which were attached to the Peacock throne,

On the top of each pillar there were to be two peacocks, thick-set with gems and between each two peacocks a tree set with rubies and diamonds, emeralds and pearls. The ascent was to consist of three steps set with jewels of fine water". Of the 11 jewelled recesses formed around it for cushions, the middle one was intended for the seat it for Emperor. Among the historical diamonds decorating it were the famous Kohinoor (186 carats), the Akbar Shah (95 carats), the Shah (88.77 carats), the Jehangir (83 carats) and the second largest spinel ruby in the world - the Timur ruby (283 carats). A-20 couplet poem by the Mughal poet-laureate Qudsi, praising the Emperor in emerald letters was embedded in the throne.

There is another source about the cost of Peacock throne can be find in Padshahnama/Badshah-Nama , written by Abdul Hamid Lahori.

There is another source about the cost of the Peacock throne according to Abdul Hamid Lahori,

This throne was completed in the course of seven years at a cost of 100 lakhs of rupees. Of the eleven jeweled recesses (takhta) formed around it for cushions, the middle one, intended for the seat of the Emperor.

Now about Taj Mahal, the wikipedia page of Taj Mahal describes the cost of Taj Mahal

The Taj Mahal complex is believed to have been completed in its entirety in 1653 at a cost estimated at the time to be around 32 million rupees, which in 2015 would be approximately 52.8 billion rupees (US$827 million).

Hopefully this information can be helpful for you.

Cost of peacock throne vs Cost of Taj Mahal - History

Iran is a country with a rich history full of ups and downs. Therefore, each museum in Iran represents a part of this long history, and visiting them can greatly immerse us in what has happened over time. One of the most famous museums of Iran is the National Jewelry Museum, originally the Iranian Crown Jewels, which is located in the basement of the Central Bank of Iran. It houses royal jewelry and historical objects from ancient periods to modern times and is open to the public.

The National Jewelry Museum is one of the most attractive tourist destinations in Tehran, which preserves the exquisite treasures of crown jewels under the title of National Treasury. The unique and valuable objects that exist today in Iran's National Museum of Jewelry are a mixed collection of the history and art of this land. All over the world, from ancient times to the present, jewelry has been collected to be both a display of power and to enrich the treasury of kings and governments. But especially in Iran, perhaps the history of collecting precious gems dates back to the Safavid era because prior to the Safavid period,no action was taken to collect and protect jewelry,gems and precious ornamental stones in Iran. During the Safavid period, kings sent ambassadors to neighboring countries to buy, collect, and preserve existing and purchased jewelry.

The collection of national treasures of Iran developed during the Qajar period (19th century). It was during this period that jewelry design was supported and developed for the first time. Iranian and Armenian designers and jewel makers were invited to the court, and the making and collection of exquisite gifts and the precise classification of government treasury jewelry started. Kiani crown, Naderi throne, Jewel Globe and Peacock Throne (Sun Throne) are among the treasures of this period. Neyshabour turquoise and Persian Gulf pearls were gradually added to the precious collections.

These royal jewels and exquisite gems were kept in Golestan Palace during the Qajar period and then in the basement of Marble Palace (Marmar Palace) during the first Pahlavi period. In 1937, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, ownership of the Imperial treasury was transferred to the state and after the completion of Iran National Bank (Bank Meli) building, the jewels were placed in the vaults of the National Bank of Iran, where they were used as collateral to strengthen the financial power of the institution and to back the national monetary system. This important economic role is perhaps one reason why these jewels, undeniable symbols of Iran's monarchic past, have been retained by the current Islamic Republic.

Today, the crown jewels of Iran are protected by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its unique collection exposes many jewels of the Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties to the public.

Cost of peacock throne vs Cost of Taj Mahal - History

Can you even imagine throwing an international, transatlantic hissy fit over a baby’s name? Wouldn’t you, at some point, just say “you know what, even though I don’t care for the name, a baby is a blessing and God bless”? It’s shocking how so few of the royal commentators, royal journalists and actual royals have been able to do that. After spending this past week throwing a massive tantrum about whether or not Harry informed his grandmother about the name “Lilibet Diana,” one of the top stories on the Daily Mail today is “JAN MOIR: Lilibet is not just a name… Harry has stolen the Queen’s crown jewel.” R U serious? Apparently. The argument Jan Moir makes is that “Lilibet” belonged to the Queen alone because it was a family nickname, no one else can ever use it and it was supposed to be buried with her. And Harry “stole” it. I’m not going to post the entire thing, but here are some notable parts:

During a life devoted to public service and being on almost permanent display, Lilibet was the one thing the Queen had that was entirely her own. It was hers, and hers alone….It was also a private endearment uttered throughout more than 70 years of marriage by her husband who, may I remind certain parties, is recently deceased. Elizabeth may Regina, but Lilibet was something more sublime.

No, it does not appear on patents or seals or official documents, but it was her signature on the most personal of correspondences. It was the cipher that spoke of the bonds of family and also of the flesh and blood woman behind the throne, under the crown, beyond the castle moat. Its use was restricted. It was a tender diminutive spoken only by those who knew and loved her.

And now it is no longer hers, its emotional exclusivity shattered targeted and then blown apart like a clay pigeon. The jury is still out on whether using the name for the new baby Sussex is a deliberate act of marketing strategy and self-interest or an innocent tribute from a loving grandson that has gone awry. No matter whose side you are on it is clear that whatever it was, it no longer is — its private significance lost forever to the braying world.

Poor Lilibet! She has conducted herself with impeccable discretion and good sense during a faultless 69-year-reign, but once more she is dragged into the bear pit by Harry and Meghan who somehow always do so much harm, under the guise of trying to do so much good.

What is puzzling is that if the Sussexes wanted to name their baby in honour of the Queen — and what a lovely thing to do — there are many non-contentious Elizabethan options. Heavens to Betsy! I lost count at 20, including Thea, Tess and Isabella, not to mention the lovely Scottish Elspeth and Ailsa, the French Elise plus a solid Beth, Liza with a Z, Busy Lizzie and Betty Boop to boot. But no, nothing would do but the one name that would do untold damage, the one name that should have been off-limits, the one name that anyone with a drop of sense would realise was personal, untouchable, just let it go.

Like jewel thieves stealthily reaching in to unshackle the Cullinan Diamond from the grip of the State Crown, the Sussexes only wanted the best for themselves, the choice royal plum in the Windsor pudding.

If you ask me, I think everyone throwing a tantrum understands the fundamental reason why Harry chose “Lilibet” and not “Elizabeth” or a variation of her formal name. They understand that Harry was delineating between “his grandmother” versus “the Queen.” He was using a family name so it would continue with his daughter, as opposed to “the Queen’s name.” And that’s what has bothered all of these people too, that despite Harry’s criticism of his family and the institution, he genuinely has so much affection for his grandmother. And so they’ve set out to separate Harry and his grandmother, by any means necessary. Because they don’t want him to “have” or “own” any part of his grandmother. They’re so hellbent on punishing him. That’s what this is too.

Also: “Lilibet was the one thing the Queen had that was entirely her own. It was hers, and hers alone…” You know, except for the personal fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars protected for decades by a succession of Tory and Labour governments’ tax schemes. You know, except for her personal collection of jewelry and art work, and her vast personal real estate holdings. And, you know, all of her horses, dogs, books, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Except for all that, the name “Lilibet” was all she had.

Note by Celebitchy: Sign up for our mailing list and get the top 8 stories about the ridiculous controversy over Lilibet Diana’s name! I only send one email a day after lunch.

Watch the video: Η ρύπανση απειλεί το Ταζ Μαχάλ