I guess this picture based on the fantasie of the painter.
The Tiara worn by the Ducess of Kent was made of the original necklace of the Cambridge Sapphire Parure after the tiara has been sold (in the 80s?). This 'construction' has been discussed here serveral times.
--Previous Message-- : I came across the below painting of Queen Mary : a few weeks ago. It is by the Croatian : artist Krekovic. : : This painting is listed on www.croatia.org : but says the sitter is the Queen Mother – : which clearly is wrong. Whether this is just : a clumsy translation or a typo I don’t l : know. In 1938 [when the painting was : painted] Queen Mary was the mother of the : King, so the confusion may lie there, and is : lost in translation, rather than through : ignorance. It claims the painting is in : Buckingham Palace, but a brief search of the : Royal Collection produced nothing. However, : that is not terribly surprising, as I find : that website very hard to navigate. : : What surprises me is the tiara she is : wearing. I have three possibilities, and : would like to hear what other people think. : : 1. Artistic licence. This may have been : artistic licence because [a] there is no : record elsewhere of this particular sapphire : tiara. And, there is a very similar photo of : Mary in the same pose and clothing, but : without a tiara [in Fields’ book –I’m sorry : I don’t have the book at hand to give a page : number] However, against this – her other : jewels are recognisable [the earrings and : the diamond bar brooch.] : : 2. This tiara is the one worn by the Duchess : of Kent, which many people claim was made : from parts of the Cambridge Sapphire Parue. : For example here: : Photos of the present duchess wearing this : shows 5 sapphires, whereas the Krekovic : painting has at least 7, and with pearls. : The pearls are easy to explain, as it is not : too difficult to add them to the base or : frame of a tiara [esp easy for someone with : the artistic vision and creativity of Queen : Mary, and Princes Michael has done the same, : but with diamond collets], but the smaller : stones may be other parts of the parure, or : some loose stones lying around. Furthemore, : Queen Mary was painted in 1938, which is : after the Cambridge sapphire parure was : given to the Kents [in 1934], so, if this is : the same tiara [albeit in a slightly altered : form] worn by Katharine Kent, it is not part : of the Cambridge Sapphire Parure. : : 3. This tiara is one of the unknown sapphire : tiaras listed as being in the Queen’s : possession. As far as I can tell there is : no evidence as to what these tiaras look : like, so anything here will be purely : speculative. : : My opinion and research suggests that 2 is : probably the most likely response, though I : also would not rule out the other two : suggestions. What do people here think? : :
on August 12, 2016, 7:54 am, in reply to "