When we discussed this aigrette previously, we had no definite proof that the aigrette was a separate jewel; however, Mauriz's keen eye spotted that was most likely.
For any who did not follow an earlier discussion on the Royal Jewels of the World Message board, here is the link https://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/thread/1502692531.html
I am totally convinced that what Princess Victoria wore to the Devonshire House Ball is the same as the aigrette depicted in the portrait of Queen Alexandra by Henrik Benedikt Olrik.
The portrait was exhibited at Burlington House in London in 1873.
There is no doubt that this is the portrait as, when an engraving was made and advertised for sale in 1877, the Morning Post provided the following description which matches with the Olrik portrait.
Although the painting was exhibited in 1873 it may not have been painted that year, but the style of HM's dress with a half bustle suggests it was done circa the late 1860s, as does the fact that Queen Alexandra was still dressing her hair in ringlets, a fashion she later discarded.
In 1877 when the engravings were for sale, a number of newspaper accounts indicated that the portrait did not portray Alexandra as she was then.
We know from a photo of HM at the Waverley Ball in 1871 that her hairstyle was completely different from in the Olrik painting, suggesting that the painting was done before then.
Waverley Ball 1871.
What ever the date of the Olrik painting, there is contemporary evidence that it was painted from life as indicated by the following press report in 1877.
And, Knightship's finding about the photo of Princess Victoria at the Devonshire House Ball proves that the aigrette existed.
Congratulations again Knightship!
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »