Re: Greville bequest - a question raised - Archived Message
Posted by Rachel in IN on January 31, 2016, 9:28 pm, in reply to "Re: Greville bequest - a question raised - "
I agree with what you have said, Arthur, and add one other thought for consideration. We have been hearing for generations now about the fragile state of some of the older items in the the royal(s) possession. The fringe tiara breaking on Princess Elizabeth's wedding day would be a dramatic example of this. Queen Elizabeth II has had her favorite jewelry throughout her adult life, as did her mother and sister. There have been times when HM has made loans and gifts to her daughter, daughters-in-law, and more recently to her granddaughter-in-law. But more than these gifts, or jewels outgoing, the biggest transformation the the jewelry under the control of the Queen was probably the influx of items that rolled in from the estate of her mother, which may have contained items that were previously loaned to her sister Margaret. The interests of the Queen Mother were rather famously horses, horse racing, her castle in Scotland, and collecting British china. I rather doubt she was spending money in her widowhood on the conservation or repair of jewelry. Similarly, while I'm sure Queen Elizabeth is a good steward of the jewels in her possession, I rather doubt there is a huge policy of collection-wide restoration or repair. Maybe on a piece by piece basis, for instance, I'm sure there was cleaning and perhaps minor repair done to the tiaras worn by the Duchess of Cambridge from her wedding day forward, but we've not seen the Strathmore Rose or the Teck circles, both of which have long been rumored to be in fragile condition. As is the way of things, I'm sure as there is call or renewed interest in different styles, expressed interest in specific items from the younger generations, and changes in the monarch itself, we shall see more of what is in the vaults. But it is rather unrealistic to imagine that every item in the vault is in a condition to see the light of a modern day on a moments notice. --Previous Message-- : Franck, : : I am not sure to agree entirely with your : comments. : : That a lot of jewels of the British Royal : Family are not worn is a fact that everone : can see: several jewels have resurfaced : after decades in the vaults. For example, : when I listed the emerald necklaces in the : British collection, I realized that the : Cambridge emerald choker, made for Queen : Mary, was never seen between the late 1930s : and 1981, when it was presented by Queen : Elizabeth II to Princess Diana. And even : several jewels which are worn on a regular : basis may even appear publicly only once in : two or three years (in other words, they : appear regularly, but not frequently). : : Yet, I remain suspicious about book-writers' : comments about the extent of Buckingham : Palace's jewel vaults. How do they know? Did : they visit these vaults? Leslie Field : stressed that she had only minimal support : from the Royal Household in her research for : her book; Andrew Morton, who wrote the : sensationalistic Diana: Her True Story , : was certainly not welcome at Buckingham : Palace; and our fellow poster Vincent made a : very serious work thanks to his access to : the archives or Boucheron, Van Cleef and : Arpels and Mellerio dits Meller, but I would : be surprised if he could get first-hand : report about jewel storage at Clarence House : (unless I underestimate Vincent's royal : connections, who knows... ). I think that : these comments sound more like rumours : repeated again and again, but who lack solid : and proven background. : : Regarding the historic jewels which have : resurfaced again in the recent years (the : diamond cockade, Queen Mary's Trophy-of-love : dog collar, Queen Alexandra's amethyst, : pearl and diamond sautoir...), it is easy to : write retrospectively that we were : "almost certain" that these jewels : were in the vaults. Personally, until I saw : these jewels, I had absolutely no certainty : about their whereabouts. They could also : have been dismantled, or bequeathed outside : the main line of the Royal Family. : : Finally, we should also refrain from hasty : conclusions about the attributions of : "new" jewels worn by Camilla. As : far as I know, no connection has been : established between Camilla's sapphire : pendant or aquamarine set (whose designs : look quite modern, by the way) and Queen : Elizabeth the Queen Mother. The citrine (or : orange topaz?) brooch worn once by Camilla : in Ascot looks more antique, but no : connection is proven with the Queen Mother : either. All these jewels could be gifts to : Camilla (private or official gifts), or : personal purchases. So far, no option can be : excluded. : : Only one thing is sure: the British jewel : collection IS enormous! May be more or less : enormous, but enormous anyway! : : :
|
|