Kent amethyst parure which Queen Victoria left to the Crown-- Is there a tiara?Archived Message
Posted by Beth on June 25, 2016, 3:35 am
In August 2014 board members had an interesting discussion about the Kent amethysts. It starts at http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/archive/1408838909.html Part of the discussion centred on the jewels of the Duchess of Kent depicted in a painting, in the Royal Collection, of the marriage of Victoria, the Princess Royal in 1858.
I recently found the following description of the jewels worn by the Duchess of Kent at the wedding of Victoria, the Princess Royal in 1858.
The Times 26 January 1858
Field says that there are 2 hair combs belonging to the Kent amethyst parure; yet, the painting of the wedding shows that the Duchess of Kent was wearing a tiara which appears to have some dark coloured stones at intervals. This jewel definitely does not fit the description of a hair comb. I believe that the description in the Times, as it was in the Court Circular, would have been accurate and that the Duchess would have worn amethysts in the jewels on her head. As other jewels are depicted with some accuracy in the painting, I think that the Duchess' jewels are accurately depicted - and that we now have to account for an unknown tiara in the British royal collection.
Detail from a painting of the occasion in the Royal Collection.
Does anyone know precisely what Lord Twinning said in his list of the jewels Queen Victoria left to the Crown? That may provide some clues.
on June 25, 2016, 3:35 am
