Posted by Beth1 on June 25, 2015, 4:46 am, in reply to "Re: Crown Rubies"
Thank you Dmitry, I am very interested in what you have posted. Unfortunately, I am not au fait with the discussion you mention so I would be grateful if you could post a link.
I have always had queries about what are called the "Crown rubies".
I have often wondered if Queen Victoria did leave a complete parure to the Crown, even if parts were initially set with opals. My reading from what I have read on this board and in books suggests to me that the necklace (worn by QEQM) was never part of the opals jewels Queen Victoria left to the crown - but I may be incorrect.
Some time ago I queried if the "rubies" in the necklace worn by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother were actually rubies as, if rubies were substituted piecemeal for opals --as suggested by many -- then I felt it would be very difficult to find matched large rubies which matched the size of the opals which it is said were initially in the necklace.
On the other hand, if Queen Victoria did commission a necklace of large rubies then it is possible that the jeweller had large matching rubies, even though I would find that unusual, because of the size of the stones.
For me an additional question remains to be answered: why is it that Queen Victoria was never depicted wearing such a necklace, either with opals or with "rubies"?
I am still perplexed that such large matching "rubies", as used in the necklace worn by QEQM, would be in the hands of a jeweller at one time, but I acknowledge it would not be impossible.
I am intrigued by this issue and would welcome any information which might help our knowledge.
PS Nellie, I agree if we don't have knowledge, then we don't have knowledge, but sometimes we do start to untangle myths by combining our collective knowledge.