[ Message Archive | Royal Jewels of the World Message Board ]

    Re: QD Cambridge Emeralds Archived Message

    Posted by Boffer on May 25, 2012, 5:58 pm, in reply to "QD Cambridge Emeralds"

    I have not yet had time to study the conflicting sources in depth yet, and come to any conclusion as I currently do not have access to my QD.

    Yet I do remember that all the diamonds in the Delhi Durbar necklace were provided by Garrard (other than the Cullinan Pendant), the cost of which was met by George V as a 44th wedding-present to Queen Mary.

    See my post below: http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1337225122.html

    The Cullinan necklace, does not contain any emeralds, it is an all diamond necklace that was worn by Queen Mary; it has been inherited by the Queen, but never worn.
    I am honestly surprised that it did not feature in Roberts's publication; yet QD only seemed to feature jewels that have already been mentioned and featured in previous publications.

    --Previous Message--
    : After reading The Queens Diamonds I have
    : become thoroughly confused regarding The
    : Cambridge Emeralds. Almost Everything
    : previously published about The Cambridge
    : Emeralds seems to be wrong.
    :
    : According to The Queens Diamonds there were
    : "approximately 30 stones
    : altogether". 15 Cambridge emeralds in
    : the Vladimir Tiara, 7 in the stomacher, 2 in
    : the brooch, and 9 in The Delhi Durbar
    : Necklace. That adds up to 33.
    :
    : On the Royal Collection website in the
    : exhibition "Dress for the
    : Occasion" it says something different.
    : The choker (worn by Diana, Princess of
    : Wales) is made with 16 Cambridge Emeralds,
    : 15 in the Vladimir Tiara, 7 in the
    : Stomacher, 2 in the brooch, 1 in the
    : earrings, and 3 in the bracelet. That adds
    : up to 44. It also says The Delhi Durbar
    : Necklace was a gift from the ladies of India
    : (no mention of the emeralds being Cambridge
    : Emeralds).
    :
    : My question is how could the descriptions be
    : so different. Is it possible that the choker
    : was the gift from the ladies of India rather
    : than the necklace? I always thought it was
    : odd that Queen Mary started out with a
    : choker when making the new parure, and that
    : the necklace was an unexpected gift. It
    : would make more sense if it was the over way
    : around considering how much thought Queen
    : Mary put into the parure.
    :
    : Edit: I forgot about the necklace "that
    : gets caught in the soup"
    :
    : The other thing I am wondering is what
    : happened to the 96 small brilliants cut from
    : the Cullinan Diamond. And where did the 94
    : small brilliants in the Delhi Durbar
    : Necklace come from. My theory is that they
    : were used in the necklace.
    :
    : Laurence
    :
    :
    :

    Message Thread: