Could this be an artistic rendering of the amethyst tiara supposedly sold by the Queen Mother (Elizabeth), which Queen Mary was pictured wearing as a young woman?
--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? : :