Re: Movement of Queen Mary's Jewellery Archived Message
Posted by Nellie  on September 2, 2014, 7:34 am, in reply to "Re: Movement of Queen Mary's Jewellery"
Wow! I have just got to read all this. Thank you all for the contributions to the discsussion. I'm not sure where to begin to comment. I had better just make a few observations. I will not even get out Roberts. Perhaps I should but will not.
Queen Alexandra kept Queen Victoria's small diamond crown, I think. If I recall correctly, Queen Mary wrote to her beloved Aunt Augusta about the difficulty of getting some jewels handed over. I wonder if we will ever know if the small crown passed through Queen Mary's record books.
During the reign of Edward VIII it is possible that Queen Mary contrived to keep the principal royal jewels, heirloom amd traditional, safe in her own care, there being no queen consort, rather than relinquish them to her son. [Maybe later on, Queen Elizabeth (QM) viewed that as a part-precedent for herself to apply.] As the likelihood of Bertie succeeding grew, perhaps Queen Mary beagn to plan jewels for the next Queen. Queen Mary knew better than most about essential dignity and majesty for a queen. And Queen Mary was generous in fitting out many royal ladies in jewels.
I have suggested that Queen Mary eventually gave her own fringe tiara to Queen Elizabeth (QM) being conscious that the heirloom fringe was not suited. It would seem that every British royal lady had to have a fringe, or two. I suggest that Queen Mary was allowed to use the heirloom fringe. It would have been her only fringe but we do not have evidence she ever made use of it in her dowager years.
It has been shown that the wonderful QD does contain some errors, and it would be rare if such a huge work did not. I believe Roberts compiled the work of quite a team of researchers, and their work might have varied in diligence. I recall a small souvenir book published by the Royal Collection where the contributors had not researched back further than Menkes and Field, such that a glaring error was included. If research had started back with original and contemporary sources then an error made by Menkes would not have been perpetuated.
Today's researchers could still be including similar works in their current research, but I would hope not, well, not to rely on them heavily. Further, research in the royal sphere is not as simple as a Royal Collection person "popping next door" to the Royal Archives, or to private and personal records in possession of current royals.
This has been another highlight thread. Must save lots of it.
|
|
