Lord Scarsdale's will states that "the personal effects, pictures, plate, etc. are to be held as heirlooms with the title [i.e. Barony Scarsdale]." This might well have included jewels, but it didn't affect the jewels owned by his daughter-in-law Mary Curzon.
In her will Mary Curzon had divided her property into three groups:
1) one part was left "to her husband in trust for her eldest son if any, and failing such son to her husband for life, with remainder to her daughters."
2) one part was left "to her husband for life, with remainder to follow the title of Curzon of Kedleston."
3) one part was left "to her husband."
We know that she died without having a son, and that the title of Curzon of Kedleston became extinct after her husband's death.
If Mary Curzon's rubies had been indeed a gift of her father Levi Leiter, it seems noteworthy, that they fell into the third category of her will and were left to her husband, and not included in the first group, which was left "to her husband for life, with remainder to her daughters."
George Curzon had set up a trust (Kedleston Trust) before he died in 1925. Since the title Curzon of Kedleston would become extinct after his death, it seems possible that he decided that his first wife's "diamond star tiara and a diamond brooch and pendant, given to her on her marriage by Lord Scarsdale" (does that mean tiara, brooch and pendant? Or just brooch and pendant?) should follow the Barony and Viscountcy Scarsdale and thus stay in the family. On the other hand he left "the residue of his personal property" to his second wife Grace Curzon.
Anne de Courcy writes in her book »The Viceroy's Daughters« regarding Mary Curzon's jewels that "none of the girls received any of these items. Nor [...] did their father leave them any of the rest of her splendid collection, much of which had come from their grandfather [...]. All of it had been given or was left to Grace."
If I understand the report about Lord Curzon's will correctly, this seems at least not true regarding the jewels held by him in trust under the will of his first wife. It would be interesting to know, what the first sentence: "The same particularity is observed on the distribution of the jewels" in the newspaper cutting refers to.
The titles Baron Curzon of Kedleston, Earl Curzon of Kedleston, Earl of Kedleston and Marquess Curzon of Kedleston became extinct, when George Curzon died in 1925. The Barony Ravensdale was inherited by his eldest daughter Irene, the Barony Scarsdale and the Viscountcy of Scarsdale passed to his nephew Richard Curzon, son of his younger brother Alfred Curzon. Richard Curzon had four daughters but no son. After his death his nephew Francis Curzon inherited the titles. The current Viscount and Baron Scarsdale is Francis Curzon's son.
I haven't been able to find any photo of one of the subsequent viscounts' wives or daughters wearing one of Mary Curzon's - or any other significant - jewels.
1
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »