Re: Queen Alexandra's wedding pearl necklace Archived Message
Posted by Nellie  on September 29, 2014, 8:33 am, in reply to "Re: Queen Alexandra's wedding pearl necklace"
There's the hint of another cluster at the back.
--Previous Message--
: 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.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
|
|
