Re: Duchess of Angoulême's ruby and emerald paruresArchived Message
Posted by Arthur on August 26, 2014, 5:08 am, in reply to "Two queries"
I do not know why the Louvre authorities have decided to display the jewels in this way. I had supposed it was a temporary display, in relation to the renovation works carried out in the Apollo’s Gallery, but it has been a few years now since the renovation was completed (and with success... the Apollo’s Gallery is splendid!), and the “temporary” display still remains unchanged...
I wonder if the new display could have been decided because the initial display case in the Apollo’s Gallery (designed in the late 19th century to display the few crowns and jewels which had not been sold at auction by the government of the Third Republic) happened to be a bit overfilled, with all the jewels bought back by the Louvre or gifted by generous donators. When the Louvre bought back Empress Eugénie’s large diamond bow brooch in 2008, there was very little room left in the display case. As the jewels collection grew larger, maybe the museum’s authorities decided it was time to have a new display case made.
From a scientific point of view, the museum’s curators may also have thought it was better to have the 19th century jewels displayed near the collections of furniture and artefacts of the 19th century. But, let’s be honest, the little gloomy corridor in which the jewels are displayed remembers very little of the pomp and pageantry of the Restauration or the Second Empire...
There might also have been safety concerns (some jewels, notably King Charles X’s diamond-encrusted sword in 1976, have been stolen while they were on display in the Apollo’s Gallery). The new display case, which stands against a wall, is probably better protected.
Just speculation, because I have never found an official explanation given by the Louvre. But whatever the reasons, the result is very unsatisfying and puzzling, as I said in my previous post.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Marie-Thérèse of France, Duchess of Angoulême (daughter of Louis XVI, niece of Louis XVIII and Charles X and daughter-in-law of Charles X), had a full ruby parure made for her with the Crown jewels. It was made in 1816 by the Crown jewellers Ménière and Bapst, using stones from Empress Marie-Louise’s ruby parure (Louis XVIII considered himself as the legitimate and rightful King and consequently held Napoleon for an usurper, and therefore had all the jewels made for Joséphine or Marie-Louise dismantled and their stones reused on new parures). The ruby parure was completed in 1825 and 1827, and was worn by the Duchess of Angoulême (by then the Dauphine of France) for Charles X’s coronation in Reims in 1825. As both Louis XVIII and Charles X were widowers, there was no Queen of France, and the Duchess of Angoulême was de facto the “First Lady” throughout the Restauration period (1814-1830) and could use the Crown jewels.
When sold at auction in 1887, the ruby parure included a tiara, a small coronet (without arches), a large necklace, a small necklace, a belt, a pair of bracelets, a pair of earrings, a “neck pendant”, two small brooches, a clasp and 14 corsage buttons.
As Lorenzo pointed out, most elements of this parure still exist. The belt was dismantled, but some fragments of it have resurfaced in auctions, turned into brooches or earrings.
Lorenzo, we know that the tiara was auctioned in 1961 from the estate of the late Countess Craven. But is it sure that it was then bought by Niarchos? I have read this a lot of times on the net, but on which elements does this assumption rely? As far as I know, we have never seen this tiara worn by a Niarchos lady...
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
The Duchess of Angoulême also had a full emerald parure. It was made in two stages:
- in 1814, Louis XVIII handed over to the Crown jeweller Ménière several diamond and sapphire jewels from the Crown’s collection which had been made for Empress Marie-Louise, to have these jewels dismantled and their stones mounted on new jewels for the Duchess of Angoulême. Using the diamonds from the dismantled jewels, Ménière made a diamond parure and an emerald parure, the latter with 91 emeralds newly acquired by Louis XVIII. Therefore, this emerald and diamond parure combined stones from the Crown’s treasury (the diamonds) and from the King’s private property (the emeralds). This parure included a hair comb, a necklace, a pair of bracelets and a pair of earrings. After 1815, this parure was given in full property to the Duchess of Angoulême (which was a breach in the “rule” that Crown jewels can not be alienated), which explains that the Duchess took the parure with her when she went into exile in 1830. It was probably bequeathed to her nephew, the Count of Chambord, after her death in 1851, and by Chambord to his Parma relatives. Unfortunately, I have never seen pictures of this parure.
- a tiara was missing to have a full parure. Therefore, the King commissioned Bapst (son-in-law and successor of Ménière) to make a new tiara, using 40 emeralds and 1031 brilliants from the Crown’s treasury. Contrary to the rest of the parure, the tiara was always clearly considered as belonging to the Crown, and not to the Duchess personally, which explains that the tiara remained in France until it was auctioned off in 1887. Empress Eugénie was said to be particularly fond of this tiara. Unfortunately, we have no picture of her, or of the Duchess of Angoulême, wearing the tiara.
After the 1887 auction, this diadem was owned by the Earls of Durham. It was bought back by the Louvre in 2002.
The source for most of this information is Bernard Morel's book Les Joyaux de la Couronne de France, published in 1988, and which is "the" authoritative book about this topic.
--Previous Message-- : Thank you for all the photos and fascinating : information Arthur. I wonder why the museum : authorities have decided not to display all : the jewels. If I were to make a trip to : Paris with the expectation of seeing all the : jewels, I would feel very disappointed if I : could see only a few. Perhaps visitors from : other parts of the world who don't have to : undertake such long flights might feel more : philosophical and start planning another : trip. : Do you know if the Duchess of Angouleme had : a complete ruby parure? : Did the Duchess of Angoulene have a complete : emerald parure? Her emerald tiara is one of : my favourites. : : --Previous Message-- : Lorenzo, : : this is the former display of the French : Crown Jewels in the Apollo's Gallery of the : Louvre, as it was a few years ago. : : The Apollo's Gallery went into renovation : for several years, and now the glassed case : displays only the crowns (Louis XV, Napoleon : I/Charles X, Empress Eugénie) and some other : jewels minor in size, but important in : history: the drake-shaped 'Côte de Bretagne' : spinel (the oldest piece of the French Crown : Jewels, dating back to the Renaissance), the : 'Eagle of Poland' (a white-enamelled : eagle-shaped brooch with a large central : spinel), a diamond-framed portrait of Louis : XIV, and an enamelled Elephant for a : bejewelled decoration of the Danish Order of : the Elephant: : : : : There has been, in the meantime, a new : display case installed in another section of : the Louvre (near the 19th century 'State : Apartments'), for some of the jewellery : pieces of the 19th century: : : : : But I find this display case quite weird and : unsatisfying. It is a rather small case, : strangely located at the end of a narrow and : gloomy corridor, in front of which only a : few people can stand. The light in the case : is yellowish, which does not do justice to : the jewels. And last but not least, the case : is too small, so only four jewels are on : display: the Duchess of Angoulême's emerald : tiara, the Duchess of Angoulême's ruby : bracelets, Empress Eugénie's pearl tiara : (once in the Thurn-und-Taxis collection) and : Empress Eugénie's large diamond bow brooch. : But, the 'Regent' diamond, Queen : Marie-Amélie's sapphire parure, Empress : Joséphine's pearl drop earrings of Empress : Marie-Louise's emerald parure (minus the : tiara, which is in Washington DC), as well : as other beautiful pieces, are somewhere in : the Museum's reserves... : : : --Previous Message-- : Breathtaking !! : : : : --Previous Message-- : Hello Beth1, : : 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: : : : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/french/napoleon-marie-louise.htm : : : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/french/emerald-marie-louise.htm : : : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/french/emerald-marie-louise-2.htm : (I think the portrait on this webpage was : digitally colorized to make the stones : green) : : : : : http://www.royal-magazin.de/french/emerald-marie-louise-3.htm : : : : : --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. : : : : : : : : : : : :
on August 26, 2014, 5:08 am, in reply to "
