Posted by Beth1 on July 19, 2014, 2:39 am, in reply to "wonder"
I feel that we cannot entirely dismiss what Roberts says as he was in a position to obtain accurate information. I think it is feasible that King George had the necklace made with the intention that it was to be given to Princess Elizabeth when she ascended the throne but in the interim it was worn by his wife, Queen Elizabeth. The fact that it was shortened by QEII suggests that the longer length necklace was made to fit her mother. We know that QEQM had Queen Alexandra's pearl necklace lengthened so she could wear it to advantage. I think we can also get confused by the term heirlooms of the crown. The fact that something is an heirloom of the crown - or to phrase it another way for our purposes - jewels belonging to the crown -- does not necessarily mean that only a queen (consort or regnant) can wear the item. In my opinion the term denotes ownership - not who can or cannot wear an item. We know that the King gave Princess Elizabeth the Crown Pearls as a wedding present and that QEQM continued to wear the Oriental circle tiara, which Queen Victoria left to the crown and the Crown 'rubies'. Edit King George treated Princess Elizabeth as his heir. That she was not officially recognised as heir to the crown is part of the English system as the King could potentially have had a son, but all the indications were that she was the heir and explains her speech of dedication on her 21st birthday.
on July 19, 2014, 2:39 am, in reply to "