Regards,
Dave.
I am finding the information about the Dudley rubies, so lauded by the press, confusing.
In the list drawn up by the first Earl of jewels to be treated as heirlooms there is the following description ---
[I am ignoring the description of the bracelet and rings]
Tiara.
A large ruby and diamond tiara with nine ruby and diamond clusters.
That does not match this tiara worn by Rachel, Countess of Dudley.
Necklace
Ruby and diamond necklace with five ruby and diamond clusters, two ruby and diamond drops and diamond cluster snap.
That does not match this necklace
The list notes that attached to the necklace was a large ruby and diamond pendant consisting of five rubies mounted with diamonds with 3 ruby cluster drops.
There was also a separate smaller ruby and diamond pendant set with 5 rubies.
When the first Earl married Georgiana in 1865 her wedding gifts included a ruby parure.
So far I don't know if these were new jewels purchased for the occasion, although the Earl was reported to have been in Paris buying jewels a few weeks prior to the wedding.
When the second Earl married Rachel Gurney in 1891 his principal gifts to her included a ruby suite (but no tiara) which was said to have been part of the family jewels.
There are several things which I would like to still investigate about the Dudley rubies.
1. Were they reset between 1878 and the 1902 photo of Rachel, Countess of Dudley at the coronation?
2. Are the rubies seen on Rachel, Countess of Dudley those which were worn by Georgina, Countess of Dudley? That is are the rubies seen in 1902 the ones the first Earl designated as heirlooms?
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »