Posted by Arthur on August 27, 2014, 4:20 am, in reply to "Re: Some thoughts "
Thank you, Beth1, for sharing your thoughts. Until we can see a portrait of a former wearer of this demi-parure, we will never know for sure.
The sunray design in the top part of the earrings does not imply, in my view, that the sunray elements were made for the necklace: the sunray earrings could have been designed to match the brooch, as well as the necklace...
You are right when you notice that the necklace, in its 1984-1985 shape, is longer than what Queen Elizabeth II usually wears. But had she added only one element, and not two, the necklace would have looked asymetrical, which would have been weird. And had she added only one element, but as a clasp at the back, the necklace would have looked symetrical, but with two large amethysts at the front (the very central point of the necklace being one of the small diamond stars visible between the large oval amethysts), and not one, as it should normally be the case.
Your theory that the sunray elements in the necklace were deliberately designed so to alternate the motifs of the necklace, in order to make it look less regular, is interesting and should not be excluded. But in this case, I think the jeweller who created the necklace would have alternated large brilliant-framed oval amethysts and hexagonal sunray-framed amethysts on the full length of the necklace, and not just at the front.
Anyway, I think we should take into consideration the fact that each element of the necklace (the large oval amethysts, the hexagonal sunray-framed amethysts and the pendants) are probably all detachable and can be hitched and unhitched at will. This versatility was quite common with jewels from the mid-19th century. So, talking about the "original" shape of the necklace might be a misinterpretation: I think that, from the very beginning, the necklace could be worn in various lengths, by adding or removing the brooches from the necklace and by adding or removing one or several pendants.
--Previous Message-- : I accept your evidence regarding the brooch : worn by QEQM Mauriz but, because of the : setting on the top section of the earrings : and the one brooch we are sure about, I : still think the necklace could have been : originally set with the elements with the : sun ray diamond design. I would even accept : that the brooch worn by the Duchess of Kent : in the image Joye posted could look : different because of artistic licence. How I : would like to see a painting or photograph : showing the necklace in an earlier period. : : --Previous Message-- : --Previous Message-- : [snip] : In the photos supplied by Joye the Duchess : of Kent and the Queen Mother are wearing : different brooches (and I suspect we can see : a shadow rather than pendant drops under the : brooch worn by QEQM). The brooch worn by the : Duchess is commonly identified as part of : the demi-parure so I think we can identify 2 : of the brooches. : [snip] : : : I think that it's due to the blurry picture : of QEQM that the pendant drops look like a : dark shadow. Darker colours tend to : "leak" in a grainy picture, hence : the "shadow" looking bigger than : the amethysts actually are. I'd say the : brooch in both photos is probably the same. : : Regarding the two remaining brooches I agree : with Arthur - the two elements in the : necklace and the brooch are just too similar : in size and shape and design. : : : : :