Re: Queen Mary and unknown emerald brooches (no 1 ) Archived Message
Posted by Beth on March 18, 2016, 3:43 am, in reply to "Re: Queen Mary and unknown emerald brooches (no 1 )"
Thank you Arthur, Your suggestion had me scurrying to look at Roberts' enlarged photo of the Women of Hampshire brooch on page 150 of his book. I suspect that the photo from the ILN 1935 does not show the Hampshire brooch set with an emerald. As everyone knows, I don't have the keenest eye but, to my eye, the setting of the diamonds above the emerald is different from the setting of the upper central diamonds of the Hampshire brooch. (I am assuming that Arthur was envisaging that the side diamond drops were removed) Unfortunately, I don't have a photo of the Hampshire brooch to post. I hope someone else does. --Previous Message-- : Could it be the Women of Hampshire Pearl : Brooch, with the original pearl pendant : replaced by an emerald? I think the design : could be a match. : : We know, thanks to Hugh Roberts, that Queen : Mary had the pear-shaped drop pearl of the : Women of Hampshire brooch removed in 1913, : along with other pear-shaped pearls from her : jewel collection, in order to create the : upper gallery of upright pearls of the new : Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara. : : It would make sense that Queen Mary had the : missing pearl in the Women of Hampshire : brooch replaced with another pendant, until : the missing pearl was returned back to the : brooch in the mid-1930s. : : I think that Princess Marina, Duchess of : Kent, later wore a similar pendant made of a : large round cabochon emerald. That could be : a match. : : (Sorry, I currently do not have access to my : files, and therefore can not post pictures. : I will try to do it later). : : : :
|
|