Posted by John R on March 22, 2013, 12:30 am, in reply to "Dutch Jewels"
Thank you for this interesting quote and picture from 1899.
In the Netherlands we don't have 'Crown Jewels'. Some jewels were considered Historic Family Jewels and were inherited by the Head of the House and were not allowed to be sold. The Family has put their most prized posessions in Family Foundations: The Regalia (Ceremonial Crown, Scepter, Orb and Sword) and the Jewellery owned by the Family are thus at the disposal of the Monarch for the execution of his/her function and to his/her family. They do not belong to 'The Crown' as such. I think it's somewhat unlikely that in 1898 Queen Wilhelmina wore any of the jewels that were once stolen from the Palace in Brussels. I think it is safe to say, we don't know.
The jewels that were stolen belonged to Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna, wife of the Prince of Orange, later King Willem II. She had a large collection of (Russian) jewels and many were indeed stolen. She asked her brother the Tsar for some replacements and received some of the stolen items back. But I believe they were actually found burried in Brussels, not Brooklyn. I have never seen the complete inventory of the 76 pieces of jewellery that were stolen, nor have I seen a list of items that were returned. I found these two scans from the archives detailing some of the items stolen. It was part of a communique to the Embassies to look out for these items.
Source: Ga het Na
I have always read that only a part of the jewels were retrieved and that the majority of the jewels in the posession of Anna Pavlovna later in life were inherited by her daughter (Grand Duchess of Saxen-Weimar) and her second son, Prince Hendrik. The latter left his share, mostly Sapphires, to his brother, King Willem III and thus some ended up with Queen Wilhelmina.
The Tiara shown in the picture you posted, is depicted quite accurately but was created in the 1880's by Mellerio for Queen Emma. Queen Wilhelmina never wore this piece. The central sapphire is said to have been a brooch of Anna Pavlovna. The devant de corsages, I can't place.
--Previous Message-- : Source: Library of Congress collection. : : This is from the "The Appeal" (St. : Paul, MN) newspaper dated February 4, 1899. : : : : : CAPTION: : : CROWN JEWELS BURIED IN BROOKLYN. : : WILHELMINA'S TREASURES WERE ONCE CONCEALED : IN AN AMERICAN CEMETERY AND DUG UP AFTER : MANY YEARS. : : The crown jewels worn by the girl queen of : Holland at her coronation were once buried : in a Brooklyn cemetery. : : One year before the outbreak of the Belgian : revolution these jewels were stolen from the : court in Brussels, where William I held : forth. It was said that the thief or thieves : were intimate friends of one of the trusted : court servants; that one day while cleaning : the aparmtents the servant was made to drink : drugged wine and that the strong box : containing the jewels was broken open while : he was unconscious and the jewels taken out : of the country. : : On July 28, 1831, a Frenchman by the name of : Jean Romage appeared in the Dutch embassy at : Washington and asked to see the ambassador, : Baron Huygene. This man declared that he : knew the man who had taken the crown jewels : and that he would be willing to reveal his : whereabout if he would receive an assurance : that the $25,000 reward offered by King : William I would be forthcoming at once. : : Baron Huygene gladly gave a written : assurance, and then Romage accused an : Italian by the name of Polart as the thief. : Romage confessed that he had became : acquainted with Polart's sweetheart and that : the latter had betrayed to him the story of : the theft. He had quarreled with her, and, : to be avenged on him, she told of his crime : and the place of concealment is a Brooklyn : cemetery. When search was made they were : found there and returned to Holland, but : Polart had been warned before he could be : arrested and was never apprehened. : : End of quote. :
on March 22, 2013, 12:30 am, in reply to "
