Beth, I think you have stated the matter very well.
--Previous Message-- : 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. : : :