I've found a slightly clearer photo of William Logsdail's posthumus painting, and here the necklace, unlike the brooch, seems to contain pale sapphires.
I wonder, if the first of your newspaper cuttings really refers to the Durbar state ball? Wasn't the Durbar held in January 1903 whereas the article dates 2nd July and refers to the ball "last Friday"? On the other hand it seems very plausible that Lady Curzon chose the same set of jewels for yet another state ball the same year.
As far as I understand the article 992234177 mentioned didn't suggest Mary Curzon was wearing the paste sapphire necklace at the Durbar state ball. I just found the idea intriguing that the second necklace she wore with the peacock dress could have been costume jewellery, because I'd always wondered why the necklace wasn't mentioned in her will. Now I see that the report I'd read wasn't as comprehensive as the press reports you've found.
What appears to be a ruby brooch in Logsdail's painting would be the ruby ornament mentioned in the will? Or is it rather the ruby clasp and the necklace is called ruby ornament?
And regarding Geoffrey Munn's reference to Boucheron: Wouldn't Lady Curzon have made explicit provisions for two valuable Boucheron necklaces in her will, instead of subsuming them as "all other jewels"?
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »