Baxter - thank you for the reminder that some beliefs are only that. They acquire some sort of "validity" from repetition, which is nonsense of course.
--Previous Message-- : --Previous Message-- : Interesting history, but it's too bad the : Queen Mother sold Queen Mary's parure and : kept this necklace. It could be improved by : using the heart shaped amethyst as a brooch : and keeping the necklace simple. : : In a thread a couple of years ago, I : inquired if anyone had proof that it was the : Queen Mother who sold Queen Mary's amethyst : parure. : : Other than "cocktail party gossip" : not one poster was able to produce any : source that said the Queen Mother ever owned : the jewels. Neither Young, Menkes, Field, : Munn, nor any other reputable publication : has mentioned it. : : Also since none of the parure has ever been : seen on the QM, it seems this is one of : those rumors that gets repeated enough on : the boards until it becomes accepted as : fact. : : In the thread it was pointed out that the : auction catalog listed the provenance as : "By Tradition from the Collection of a : Royal Family." I'm sorry I don't : remember who, but a poster had a friend at : one of the major auction houses who stated : that this phrase is used for an item which : at one time belonged to royalty but is being : sold by someone who is not royal. : : Interestingly, the Cambridge sapphire : tiara/necklace was sold by the Kents around : the same time with the same auction house, : and its provenance simply stated that it was : from a private collection. : : It is certainly possible that Queen Mary : left the parure to someone outside the Royal : Family. She was very close to her niece, : the Duchess of Beaufort, who died a couple : of years prior to the parure's auction. : However, that is of course complete : speculation on my part. :