Re: Diamond Diadem (or George IV or State Diadem)Archived Message
Posted by Nellie on August 7, 2012, 9:54 am, in reply to "Big and small"
I have followed discussion on the British board and wanted to contribute this information about the Diamond Diadem and a possible non-royal wearer of it, according to a manuscript by George Fox who had worked with Rundell, Bridge & Co.
From Jewellery 1789-1910 by Shirley Bury -
“ George Fox of Rundell’s held that George IV had the circlet made in order that his new favourite, Lady Conygham, might wear it after the coronation. Though he [Fox] was probably retailing a rumour current at the time, there was a tradition, probably originated by William III in 1689, of a male sovereign processing to his coronation in a circlet. It is, however, indisputable that circlets of the shape made by Rundell’s for the King were fashionable female wear in England in 1820. “
From The Crown Jewels 1998 in a supplementary chapter on “George IV’s Circlet”, after noting that George IV had no immediate female members of his family to present it to, Ronald Lightbown states -
“Fox slyly pointed to another possible recipient. ‘His Majesty’, he wrote, ‘might have entertained the Idea ... that after it had been worn by him on the only occasion on which he could with propriety use it it might be a splendid ornament for the Head of a Lady who tho’ not entitled to any thing so regal yet enjoying as she did at that time and until his decease the Royal Favor might nevertheless wear any thing that he was pleased to bestow upon her. However this might or might not have been anticipated when the order was given the Lady in question certainly had it and kept possession of it till the demise of the King when with several other Articles of great value she delivered the whole of them up to the proper Officer for the use of King William IV and Queen Adelaide the Law Officers having decided that they were Crown Property’. “
The writer goes on to say “ Fox’s allegation regarding Lady Conyngham, George IV’s last Favourite, can neither be proved nor disproved. “
on August 7, 2012, 9:54 am, in reply to "