Edited by Jorge on April 23, 2017, 1:09 pm
Now, I am going to try to answer the questions you made.
If I remember correctly, there are recent pictures of the tiara. The idea was the pictures to be published in the book "Se as joias falassem", a book (in Portuguese) about (some of) the portuguese royal jewels. That book indeed talks about the wedding gifts of D.Augusta, but without recent pictures. Unfortunately, if I am not mistaken, the authorization to release the pictures in the book never came from the Sigmaringen Museum. Without the proper authorization, that copyrighted material was sealed and locked away from public eyes. A true shame ...
Really? Two different designs, both from Leitão e Irmão? I only know one, but your information raises some questions! Could it be possible there was a third (missing) design from the Crown Jewels that match the actual tiara? According to the book "Se as joias falassem", the tiara has no longer its original case and has no maker's mark.
So we are facing one of the following options:
* Designed by Leitão e Irmão but made by other jeweler;
*Designed by someone but made by the Crown jeweler;
*Designed and made by some unknown jeweler;
*Designed and made by Leitão e Irmão.
Did you notice that the portuguese royal jewels always give us so many mysteries to solve and generally we end up in a dead-end?
Thanks! I try to do my best. Is my opinion that the jewels are important not only because of its intrinsic and artist value, but because of all the history behind them. Like Queen Margrethe II said "we do not count the carats; we count the centuries". But sometimes is difficult to do a proper background history because in history everything is connected to everything and Portugal has more than 900 years of history.
But I am quite sad that such portuguese piece is no longer in possession of the Portuguese Royal Family.
Thanks. Do you speak portuguese? I always smile when I see my beloved mother language in international forums or boards.
In what concerns the death of King D.Manuel II, we need to be careful because there are some conspiracy theories. Some of them actually make sense, considering the historic context, but they were never fully proved.
I try to get the facts and form my own opinion. Here they are the most important ones:
1. In the beginning of May 1932 some burglars entered Fulwell Park (the King's house) and robbed some jewels, silverware and historic documents. Between the documents robbed was one of the only two copies of the report of police investigation about the murder of his father and brother. The conclusions of the investigation never reached the court because the monarchy ended and the republic was not interested in knowing what really happened and who was really involved. The other copy of the report was in a safe in a governmental department and disappeared mysteriously. Was the republic afraid of the conclusions of the report? Some say the burglars were republican "secret agents". Well, about this there are some books that try to reconnect the broken links.
2. 30/06/1932: the King watches a Wimbledon tennis tournament with his wife, Queen Mary, the Duke of Kent and other members of the BRF. At the exit, D.Manuel II feels a heavy sore throat.
Arriving home, the pain increases and he ordered the physician Lord Dawson to be called. Strangely the doctor only (?) recommends absolute rest and the cancellation of all appointments. The clinical situation became increasingly worst and the king starts to have some difficulties to talk;
3. 2/07/1932: much worse, the King decides to go to London in order to consult the famous (and with good reputation) laryngologist Sir John Milsom Rees. The doctor sent D.Manuel II home to rest (?). Arriving home, the King was even worse: besides talking hardly, he started having breathing difficulties.
4. The signs of suffocation were evident but Sir Rees, that allegedly promised to visit the king one hour after he examined the King, was not appearing. Orders were given to call the local doctor but when he arrived, did not made what he was supposed to do in that situation: a tracheotomy;
5. At this time D.Manuel II was already not able to speak or to breathe. Desperate, through gestures, he asks a window to be opened.
6. D.Manuel II dies with edema of glottis. Shortly after the king's last breath Sir Reed arrives, only to sign the death certificate. The Doctor was also doctor of BRF and was immediately dismissed.
7. Contrary to the common practices, the body is not autopsied and is not embalmed.
Three doctors, including a very prestigious one that was physician of the BRF, and none of them paid proper attention to the case? Only sent D.Manuel to rest?
Now a conjecture: some people say the King's body started decomposing faster than usual.
« Back to index | View thread »