Posted by Jos on January 8, 2014, 5:52 am, in reply to "Style"
That really amazed me. He/she did not give any arguments why the story by the Duke de Baena was not trustworthy.(See De Baena's book "The Dutch Puzzle", The Hague 1966. A very good read, especially about Queen Wilhelmina). The "circumstantial evidence" for the Duke's story - that is, Irene having been the sole person who wore the peacock parure, princess Beatrix having been given the use of Emma's diamond tiara after the incident at her birthday, etc. - was very convincing too. FdF never reveals sources. I wonder if he or she reads this message board. Perhaps he/she could clear up some things.
--Previous Message-- : I don't recognize the style of writing. What I : do see is the typical 'I was there when it : happened', even when it was 100 years ago, : combined with the 'everyone else has it : wrong but not me' attitude that some : jewellery writers love to use. : : By the way, De Ferand falsely states the : peacock parure was not a gift to Irene. Els : Smit has discovered a first hand account by : the Spanish ambassador to the Netherlands : who was present when Wilhelmina gave the : jewels to Irene. : : : --Previous Message-- : I have been wondering too. He/she has : written : many articles about the Dutch royal jewels : and suggests to have intimate knowledge, for : instance about how the jewels are kept and : have been registered. But from time to time : his/her information turns out to be : incorrect, like for instance about the large : sapphire parure of which he/she stated that : is was created by Mellerio. : I also think that the name is a "nom de : plume". : : : --Previous Message-- : Just a question; I'm sure it's a pseudonym. : : : : :