I almostfainted from the stunning beauty of these photos !!!!!!!!
What an incredible post!!!!
--Previous Message-- : Source: all from the Library of Congress : collection. : : Comments are welcome about any of these : pictures which are posted here. : : Left: (from 'The Times Dispatch' [Richmond, : VA], dated Oct. 9, 1904) PRINCESS BEATRICE : (Princess Henry of Battenberg). : Right: (from 'The New York Tribune' [NYC, : NY], dated Jan. 28, 1906) Then-PRINCESS : VICTORIA EUGENIE OF BATTENBERG (later Queen : of Spain) : : Both mother and daughter appeared to have : the same necklace, so if that is so, : Victoria Ena inherited that from her mother. : Does the Spanish royal family still have : that one today? : : : Already identified here. (from 'The Saint : Paul Globe' [St. Paul, MN], dated Sept. 27, : 1903). : : : QUEEN ALEXANDRINE OF DENMARK : (from 'The Sun' [NYC, NY], dated May 16, : 1912) : Which member of the Danish royal family or : someone else entirely has that choker which : the queen in photo wore? : : : Was this PRINCESS DAGMAR (as according to : the caption above the picture, the one who : wed Lieut. Castenskjold) the daughter of the : above? The Danish queen and this lady below : looked a lot alike to be mother and : daughter. : [from 'The Evening World' (NYC, NY), dated : Nov. 23, 1922] : : : (from 'The Washington Herald' [D.C., dated : Aug. 17, 1913]) PRINCESS PATRICIA OF : CONNAUGHT.. : : That nice tiara and necklaces probably were : passed down into Patricia's family and owned : by that family today, I suppose. : : : This lovely tiara (similar to the one once : owned by Grand Duchess Vladimir of Russia : and now owned by the British Queen except : for the pearls or emeralds) was worn by : ROMANIA'S QUEEN MARIE (formerly Princess of : Edinburgh). This is from 'The Washington : Times' (D.C.), dated June 22, 1918. What : happened to this tiara? : : : Once again, it's QUEEN MARIE OF ROMANIA but : this time with a different tiara. Also, what : had happened to this tiara? It's from 'The : North Platte Semi-Weekly Tribune' (North : Platte, NE), dated Feb. 12, 1915. : : : The well-known tiara worn by GRAND DUCHESS : VLADIMIR OF RUSSIA (along with a pretty pair : of earrings and necklaces and choker and a : brooch....who owns these pieces of jewels : now?) is from 'The Saint Paul Globe' (St. : Paul, MN), dated April 17, 1904. The tiara : is of course in the possession of the : British royal family now. Also, the Grand : Duchess had on at least two or three : bracelets but they were out of the picture. : : : Britain's QUEEN MARY is shown here in 'The : National Tribune' (D.C.), dated June 23, : 1910. This is a wonderful picture showing : her profile. : : : Left: QUEEN OLGA OF THE HELLENES (from 'El : Paso Herald' [El Paso, TX], dated March 18, : 1913). : Right: QUEEN SOPHIA OF THE HELLENES (from : 'The Day Book' [Chicago, IL], dated March : 19, 1913). : : Both Greek queens seemed to have the same : choker. What do you think? Sophia's tiara : could be consisted of aquamarines, could it? : Olga seemed to have some type of small tiara : in her hair. Does anyone own these pieces of : jewelry today? : : Interesting that this photo (from the : Library of Congress collection also) : identifed her as Queen Olga rather than : Queen Sophia, but the newspaper picture on : the right side immediately above identifed : her as Sophia. Which one is correct? : : : The tiara worn by DOWAGER QUEEN OLGA OF THE : HELLENES obviously belongs to Queen Anne : Marie now. Is this choker in any way the : same as the one worn by those ladies : immediately above or is it a different : choker? : : : Interesting portrait of DENMARK'S QUEEN : SOPHIA MAGDALENA is from 'The Salt Lake : Tribune' (SLC, UT), dated July 2, 1911. : : : THE GRAND DUCHESS ERNEST OF HESSE & : DARMSTADT wore those various jewels in the : picture from "The Washington : Herald" (D.C.), dated Nov. 4, 1906. : Does anyone own this big tiara? : : : AND LASTLY, this picture of THE DUCHESS OF : GUISE is from 'The Washington Herald' : (D.C.), dated Nov. 4, 1906. : :
on February 23, 2012, 5:23 pm, in reply to "