[ Message Archive | Royal Jewels of the World Message Board ]

    Challenging published material Archived Message

    Posted by Beth1 on March 13, 2015, 3:05 am, in reply to "Re: QEII's earrings"

    A number of authors writing about royal jewels have been proved to have inaccuracies in their work.

    It would be a rare piece of history (in any field) which did not have some inaccuracies or contentious interpretations.

    Just because something has been published (and even repeated by other authors) does not mean it is accurate.

    It is perfectly legitimate to suggest that an author may be mistaken, providing the challenger has a logical, reasoned argument founded on verifiable evidence.

    Arthur presented such an argument and used photographic evidence to explain his point of view.

    Although the posters on this board may not have access to primary source documentation, the keen eye of many has resulted in some interesting discoveries. For example -- that there were two fringe tiaras in Queen Mary's collection: the so called Queen Adelaide fringe tiara and a second fringe tiara commissioned by Queen Mary. All of that was based on details observable in photographs and without access to primary source material. When H Roberts published his work, the validity of those observations was proven.

    As a historian, I have spent my professional life examining, analysing and sometimes challenging published work, so I find any new point of view of interest. As so many observations on this board have proven, new information can be obtained even without access to primary source material.

    I hope to read many more such interesting discussions in the future.


    Message Thread: