Posted by LittleMo on August 4, 2014, 2:16 am, in reply to "Re: Durbar Tiara"
Another thought to support it not being the Durbar tiara is where she is wearing it. It is shown in the 1920s style very low on her forehead where it would need to be big to fit around the circumference of her head. When we see the Durbar worn by Queen Mary and Camilla they wear it on the top of their heads showing that it has a smaller and narrower circumference.
--Previous Message-- : : I suspect that this is a drawing, although : the artist was probably attempting to depict : the Delhi Durbar tiara. Although the detail : is not clear, it seems to me that the shape : is not perfectly in tune with how the tiara : would have looked. The most obvious : differences are that the bottom and top rows : of diamonds are missing. We know that Queen : Elizabeth wore the tiara with those rows of : diamonds in South Africa. Secondly there is : no evidence that she wore this tiara before : 1947. : Roberts, p. 15 has a photo of a page from : Queen Mary's photographic inventory which : says that the tiara was "handed : over" to Queen Elizabeth for the South : African tour and was retained by her - : without the emerald drops. If the tiara had : been substantially altered before 1947 I : think that Queen Mary would have mentioned : it in her inventory. : Perhaps the artist was more concerned with : providing readers with an image of royalty : without due care for accuracy. : :
on August 4, 2014, 2:16 am, in reply to "