I can understand Arthur's scepticism. The same thoughts occurred to me.
I think that the conundrum may be solved by other news reports describing this jewel, as it seems to me that some media outlets may have used sloppy terminology.
The confusion is highlighted by the report in the Courier and Argus, Dundee 10 February 1923 p 3 which uses the term rising sun and also sunburst to describe the jewel.
The Register, Adelaide, Australia, 10 February 1923 p 11.
I don't know which of the news reports is the most accurate and I have not had time to hunt for relevant photos, but it seems to me that it is possible that Queen Mary gave the Queen Mother a jewel which fits with the photo that Ursula used.
Edit: I should have made it clear that I do not think the jewel in the photo used by Ursula and the Warwick star brooch are the same jewel. Apologies - I was concentrating on the issue of the description of the jewel given to QEQM.
--Previous Message-- : I remain quite sceptical about : - Queen Mary's Warwick Star Brooch : - Queen Mary's wedding gift to the Duchess : of York in 1923 (" a sunburst diamond : brooch pendant, the stones being set in the : form of a rising sun ") : - and the sunburst pendant worn by QEQM : (then Duchess of York) on the picture : published by Ursula's website : being one and the same jewel. : : Reason for my scepticism is that the pendant : worn by the Duchess of York might look as a : sun, but not as a rising sun. A rising : sun would include only a partial view of a : sun, not a full sun. : : To explain clearly what I mean, the : following jewels could be described, IMHO, : as "rising suns" (pictures from : the web, these jewels are not from specific : royal collections, I only include them for : illustration purpose): : : : : : :