Any thoughts on what maybe her mother in law Blanche (1837–1875), the daughter of Joseph Pocklington Senhouse of Netherhall in Cumberland may have left after her passing.
Lord Curzon seem to be very wealthy and his father also give his daughter in law jewels and maybe some which were not mentioned. Judging from the period of which Baroness Curzon was married it was the custom to lavish the bride with many different jewels by her guest.
I for one doubt that the sapphire necklace was paste as same seem to have been worn by the 2nd Baroness Curzon. If we take the British royal family as an example, the Queen or her mother could or would never actually be able to mention every set of jewels they have in their keep, nor would most ducal families of the UK.
It would have been painstaking for the lady to list all and sundry of her jewels in a will, maybe we may have to see what Lord Curzon left in his will to really get an understanding of the jewels which were retained left as legacies to his daughters or maybe gotten rid of via auction or other.
Some mention must have been left if those jewels were auctioned in those times. Lets find some more clues.
Regards,
Dave.
the article I quoted from makes no mention of a source for the the paste comment. It does go on to quote Lady a Curzon “tonight after the past had gone we hold a drawing room. I wear my new tiara, an imitation collar of pearls I bought in Paris, my diamond necklace and the four rows of pearls” letter is undated but must refer to her time as Vicereine as it mentions a drawing room. It also states that it gave her great pleasure to see the comments about her fake sapphire necklace. The source for this comment is a letter to her mother dated 31 May 1901 that is not quoted or reproduced. I think it worth mentioning that one of the articles mentions a diamond necklace and Yet the ruby ornament seems a bit vague. One of the articles says “I am told” meaning second hand. And if it’s true that Lady Curzon was laughing at the press, these could be what she found funny. They reported several times that her dress included real emeralds. The comment about a parure cannot be true as it had disappeared at her death. Even if it means demi parure that means a complete set was given at a single time not several separate items. It would a least be a necklace, a brooch and a pair of earrings. The article seems to be suggesting an impressive suite that is unlikely to be an ornament, a clasp and a ring. I think each comment needs to be read separately to each other since the press were so unreliable. She clearly had enough ruby jewellery to wear together to create an effect but it seems to have been with other items and perhaps these other items were what caused the effect of impressiveness.
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »