These pictures as supplied by mauriz means that their must have been jewels of the 1st Baroness being passed on to her daughters by her husband.
It just baffles why we cant get anything on the other two grand diamond head pieces mentioned and worn by the Baroness. Could they have been quietly sold; 'and then aren't they are just too significant to not have made a mark somewhere especially if they went into the hands of another family or jewel house.
I note the 2nd Baroness's bracelets at picture 15 which do look significant and at picture 14 a colored ring on her right pinky finger, possibly the ruby and diamond ring mentioned in the wedding gifts from Baron Scarsdale to the 1st Baroness?
At picture six, the Baron's daughter Irene looks resplendent and I just wanted to ask, 'are those embellishments on her dress, namely at the shoulders and bosom or are those brooches affixed to her dress?
Regards,
Dave.
Pearl necklaces are notoriously difficult to identify, but when Dave asked in the thread below if the pearls worn by George Curzon’s second wife Grace in a portrait from 1924 could have been part of the wedding gifts which Curzon’s first wife Mary Leiter had received in 1895, I thought it’s maybe worth to give it a try.
Beth has found a couple of reports on Mary Leiter’s wedding gifts. One mentions that Mary had received "three rows of magnificent pearls" from her father. In her will from 1898 Mary wrote of "four rows of white pearls". From Nicola Thomas’ paper, quoted by 992234177, we know that Mary Curzon owned "an imitation collar of pearls" she had bought in Paris and planned to combine it with – again – "4 rows of pearls". (Mary in a letter to her family)
There are a couple of photos, paintings and etchings which show Mary Curzon wearing pearls, occasionally one single short row, more often two long rows, or one short and one very long strand, but never three or four. Since we don’t know how long the (three or four) rows of Mr. Leiter’s wedding gift have been, it’s impossible to say whether she was wearing all of them in any of the photos. In all pictures the pearls seem relatively small and of roughly the same size.
1903
1899
1903
1902
She has probably worn the largest number of pearls for the Devonshire House Fancy Dress Ball in 1897, when she dressed up as Valentina Visconti of Milan.
When she died in 1906, her daughters were 10, 7 and 2 years old. When Irene, the eldest, was 20 in 1916, she was pictured in a newspaper article wearing a single row of pearls.
When her younger sister Cynthia married Sir Oswald Mosley in 1920, she was wearing a long row of pearls. Several newspapers reported that these were part of her late mother’s estate and a wedding present of her father (well, sort of). This photo shows all three sisters, Irene and Cynthia wearing their pearls. For the rest of her short life, Cynthia was often photographed wearing her necklace as a double row.
1929
In 2013, Bonhams auctioned a Van Cleef & Arpels ruby set which was once owned by Irene Curzon, Baroness Ravensdale. The jewels had been inherited by Michael Mosley (1932–2012), Cynthia’s youngest son and Irene’s nephew. Beth posted about it in May. In the same auction Bonhams offered a short pearl necklace which was advertised as probably stemming from the long necklace Cynthia had received as a wedding gift.
But another image of Irene in the newspaper article from 1916 captured her from a different angle. The clasp of her pearl necklace is visible, and I think it matches the ruby clasp of the necklace sold at Bonhams. Also the slightly oval pearls next to the clasp are identifiable in the picture. I therefore believe that Michael Mosley had inherited not only his aunt’s ruby set, but also her pearl necklace in 1966, and it was Irene’s, not (a part of) Cynthia’s necklace, which was sold at Bonhams in 2013.
Mary’s youngest daughter Alexandra married Major Edward Metcalfe in 1925, only four months after her father’s death. Like her sister Cynthia she was wearing a long pearl necklace for her wedding, and was often photographed wearing (these or very similar) pearls during the following years. It’s impossible to say if these pearls were – as her sister’s – part of her mother’s estate, but the size and length of both necklaces seem to match.
1928
1928
Now the two rows of pearls worn by Grace, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston in 1924 seem to be different: larger and graduated. She has worn one or both of them on various occasions, also after her husband’s death and her youngest step-daughter’s wedding in 1925.
1922
1923
1927
Grace’s portrait above is a cropped copy. The original shows an additional long strand of pearls in her lap.
She might have worn this (not graduated) strand of pearls at Cynthia’s wedding to Oswald Mosley. She’s pictured here curtsying to King Albert I and Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians who were wedding guests in 1920. When Grace Curzon was photographed wearing pearls after 1925, it seems to have always been one or two – occasionally short – graduated rows, so maybe this was (the last) one of Mary Curzon’s rows of pearls and given to Alexandra as a wedding gift in 1925.
1