as another example of artistic licence, I have in mind this portrait by Jean-Baptiste Isabey of Marie-Louise of Habsburg-Lorraine, Empress of the French (as second wife of Napoleon I) and later reigning Duchess of Parma. Isabey has depicted the Empress with a ruby parure... which is actually an emerald and diamond parure!
The necklace and the earrings of this parure are now in the Louvre Museum in Paris (though not on display, unfortunately), whereas the tiara (with the emeralds replaced with turquoises) is in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC.
I have seen the necklace and earrings in the Louvre a few years ago (when they were still on display in the Apollo's Gallery of the Museum), and they are just simply gorgeous! A beautiful Empire design, beautiful intense green emeralds of the highest quality... It is beyond perfection!
More information about this parure on Ursula's website:
--Previous Message-- : Sully's portrait of the young Queen Victoria : has drawn my attention to how artistic : licence can make it difficult for those : interested in royal jewels to identify : specific jewels with certainty from : paintings, or questions might be posed as to : whether the jewel had been reset. : See : : http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus;jsessionid=6D4E1DCE187BAB140E98650CC9C801B1.node1?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.t1.collection_detail.$TspImage.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SelementList&sp=0&sp=0&sp=999&sp=SdetailView&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F : While Queen Victoria is wearing what is : obviously the diamond diadem, the artist's : rendition is different from the actual jewel : and might cause confusion to those who were : unfamiliar with it. : Do others know of portraits where artistic : licence might cause confusion or make : identification problematic? For example in : the recent post I did about Annigoni's study : of the Queen Mother wearing her Greville : emerald necklace and earrings, those : unfamiliar with the set might ponder if she : was wearing that demi-parure. :