Posted by Dmitry on June 25, 2015, 6:15 am, in reply to "Re: Crown Rubies"
I have a feeling that the problem may be that an order for rubies and an order for opals may have occurred about the same time leading to confusion. However, the person with whom I am in discussion insists that the opals-replaced-by-rubies necklace was broken up by Queen Mary in 1926. Personally, I believe that they are confusing the resetting of the necklace in 1926 with "breaking" it up.
As Nellie pointed out, with so few concrete details, it easy to cross snippets of information and construct theories that are accepted as fact, and often more than one theory is around, which adds to the confusion.
Just to find out for certain, I have sought the answer from Garrard's themselves, simply asking them if the current Crown ruby necklace was originally set with opals. Their answer will, hopefully, resolve the question.
Thanks to all!
--Previous Message-- : 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. : : See : http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1397038252.html : : 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. : : :