Re: Queen Alexandra's wedding pearl necklace Archived Message
Posted by Nellie on September 29, 2014, 6:35 am, in reply to "Re: Queen Alexandra's wedding pearl necklace"
The cluster earrings don't seem to be accounted for. And regarding the illustration done for Russell's work, I think the artist had access to the display of the jewels andf this pic does not represent a case, for either the tiara or the diamond and pearl parure. --Previous Message-- : Thank you Arthur for these photos and for your : thoughts about the jewels. : I wonder if any of us will find definite : information in the near future. : I hope that we do, as I would be very : interested in solving some of the questions. : : --Previous Message-- : Thank you, Nellie, for the pictures, which : help the comparison. : : I add a few more pictures, just to see the : difference of length of the necklace as worn : on Queen Alexandra (worn very close at the : base of the neck) and on Queen Elizabeth : (hanging lower on the top of the breast). : : : : Queen Alexandra with her sister Dagmar : (Empress Maria Feodorovna), by Winterhalter: : : : : http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/drawings-watercolors/franz-xaver-winterhalter-portrait-of-czarina-maria-feodorovna-5447272-details.aspx : : : : : Personally, I prefer the shorter version, : but it is only a matter of personal taste. : It would be fine to see the necklace again, : either on Queen Elizabeth II, or on the : Duchess of Cambridge (a good match with the : Papyrus tiara ). : : It is clear, in the picture of the necklace : published in Hugh Roberts' book The Queen's : Diamonds , that Queen-Mother Elizabeth had : the necklace lengthened in 1937 by : lengthening the two diamond swags at the : back, which are clearly longer than the : front and side swags (and longer than on the : black-and-white picture of the necklace in : the presentation box that I have posted : earlier). : : Therefore, I see two plausible (and : alternative) explanations: : - there were not more pearl clusters : available (otherwise the Queen-Mother would : have had them used, instead of increasing : the diamond swags' length); and all the : brooches from this parure that we have seen : on pictures (including the most recent one : in Angela Kelly's book) are clusters : dismounted from the necklace; : - or there were a few extra pearl clusters : mounted as brooches (and possibly dismounted : from a longer never-seen version of the : necklace), but for whatever reason, the : Queen(-Mother) did not receive them when she : received the necklace in 1937 (remember that : Queen Mary retained until her death the : brooch and the earrings from the parure and : that she bequeathed them directly to her : grand-daughter Elizabeth II). : : : --Previous Message-- : Thank you so much for those photos Nellie. : They will help people understand what I was : discussing. : After contemplating all the photos later : this afternoon, and trying to consider : various scenarios, I am now wondering if the : photo shown in Field is Photoshopped. The : composition of the necklace, brooch and : earrings, as shown in Field's photo, is the : same as that in the image published by WH : Russell, as shown in Roberts page 82. : To me, two of the most telling aspects are: : first the indistinct view of the metal which : slides into the clasp (on the left hand side : as we view the photo) and secondly that the : diamond swags are not set into a moulded : section. I would expect to see that in a : storage/presentation box for high quality : jewellery. As I stated in my earlier post, : the moulding in the photo in Field would not : ensure a secure environment for the necklace : as worn by either queen. Pearls with : diamonds, especially with swags which might : fall any way, need to be stored safely, : otherwise scratches will occur on the pearls : as the diamonds fall around. : : --Previous Message-- : Two relevant pics. : : : : --Previous Message-- : Thank you for finding this description, : Baxter. You have solved the mystery for us. : Now that you have pointed out the shape of : the moulding, it all seems so clear. I : wonder when and why this moulded section was : made as the photo shows the earrings and : brooch -- although I doubt if these are : fitted into moulded sections -- but not the : extension added by QEQM, and the moulded : section does not seem to fit the necklace as : worn by either queen. Because of this, it : would not have provided secure storage for : either version of the necklace. : Re photos in Roberts. I should have taken : the time to look this morning, as the photo : of Queen Alexandra as a bride on page 86 : shows that the necklace was not then longer. : Roberts on page 82 has the older photo I was : referring to. : Of even more interest to our present : discussion is the photo on page 93 showing a : portrait of QA as a young Princess of Wales : wearing a pearl and diamond brooch with a : drop pearl. The shape of the drop suggests : to me that this is the central element from : her necklace. (I suspect the grayish colour : of all the pearls may be artistic licence). : : EDIT. On page 88 Roberts says that the : central pearl and diamond element in the : wedding brooch is detachable. On page 92 he : says that the pearl and diamond brooch with : drop pearl, as depicted in the portrait on : page 93, is probably the central section of : her wedding brooch. : I disagree, as the shape of the drop pearl : and the two diamonds above it seem to me to : more closely resemble the drop pearl and two : diamonds from the central element of the : necklace. Obviously, as Airgette's : information tells us, Queen Alexandra did : once wear her wedding brooch with a pearl : and diamond brooch with a drop pearl. : : : : : : : : :
|
|