Posters of original research, analyses, insights etc retain all rights to their work.
Such research etc cannot be used in any format without the written consent of the author.
Cambridge Sapphires question
Posted by 992234177 on March 2, 2019, 10:57 am
I have a question about the Cambridge Sapphire Parure. Firstly apologies if I am ignorant of some knowledge that seems blindingly obvious to you. The current thinking seems to me to be (correct me if I am wrong) that Queen Mary inherited the suite from Grand Duchess Augusta of Mecklenberg-Strelitz, who got it from her mother Augusta, Duchess of Cambridge, and that Queen Mary altered it by adding elements from some jewels she had to improve it.
The tiara and the rest of the suite dont quite physically match each other, which assuming the alterations were fairly minor by QM they should. The clusters on the necklace are different to the tiara and I can see no scroll element which is integral to the tiara.
Very probing questions 992234177, hope we get the answers to them. By the way could someone say if the stomacher in this profile below https://pin.it/72c4j4ynuaidat if it was also gifted to Princess Marina as a wedding gift and if not, is it still with the main line of the RF? Can anyone get it in colour please?
Regards,
Dave.
Previous Message
I have a question about the Cambridge Sapphire Parure. Firstly apologies if I am ignorant of some knowledge that seems blindingly obvious to you. The current thinking seems to me to be (correct me if I am wrong) that Queen Mary inherited the suite from Grand Duchess Augusta of Mecklenberg-Strelitz, who got it from her mother Augusta, Duchess of Cambridge, and that Queen Mary altered it by adding elements from some jewels she had to improve it.
My question is, since we have a portrait of GDA wearing the tiara https://pin.it/vyvsvn62c54fzf and a photograph of GDA wearing it as a necklace with the Cambridge Lovers Knot Tiara https://pin.it/uxfad5hpxkdaux , why do we (maybe just me) believe that QM inherited the Parure and not just the tiara. The only photo of QM that I have seen does not prove that she did not bring the suite together herself https://pin.it/72c4j4ynuaidat . GDA died in 1916, about the same time that Russian jewels flooded the market, since sapphires were very popular in Russia could she not have created the suite to complete the necklace. I am not convinced of my arguement since she gave it away after a fairly short period of ownership.
The tiara and the rest of the suite dont quite physically match each other, which assuming the alterations were fairly minor by QM they should. The clusters on the necklace are different to the tiara and I can see no scroll element which is integral to the tiara.
It’s not a stomacher. It’s two of the cluster brooches one above each other with one of the two larger pendants and two of the four smaller pendants arranged in formation. I’m not sure if anything other than the tiara was sold. My guess is that all the clusters were called into service to get enough elements. The necklace, brooches, earrings and pendants are now a necklace, Tiara, earrings, pendants and at least one Brooch.
Firstly to throw in my ideas and thoughts. As GDA was QM's aunt and godmother and she was extremely close to her, so leaving her the entire parure is very likely. GDA was also extremely close to the BRF and as the parure is British by history so she may have decided as well it should return to the mainline.
I think jewellery wise QM hardly ever saw a piece of jewellery and didn't think about a redesign, so any changes to some pieces and not others may have started to throw out the parure feeling.
With your ideas about the Russian Sapphires, it's likely as the huge quantities of jewellery and loose stones that hit the markets and collapsed prices would have made any upgrades, expansions and renovations much cheaper. However I believe that the big sales and flooding of the markets didn't come about until the 1920's. Up until then most Russian Emigre's sold as private sales and for the vast number of emigre's they didn't have anything to sell anyway apart from trinkets. When the Bolsheviks "nationalised" the banks anyone with safety deposit boxes lost access to them overnight. So I guess we can only look at that from the idea from a point of when any alterations get made.
However Princes Mary, QM's daughter got this set of sapphires for her wedding in 1922, and I read somewhere that apart from the necklace the stomacher and tiara were of Russian origin.
Sorry if I've gone off in too much of a tangent in places.
Previous Message
I have a question about the Cambridge Sapphire Parure. Firstly apologies if I am ignorant of some knowledge that seems blindingly obvious to you. The current thinking seems to me to be (correct me if I am wrong) that Queen Mary inherited the suite from Grand Duchess Augusta of Mecklenberg-Strelitz, who got it from her mother Augusta, Duchess of Cambridge, and that Queen Mary altered it by adding elements from some jewels she had to improve it.
My question is, since we have a portrait of GDA wearing the tiara https://pin.it/vyvsvn62c54fzf and a photograph of GDA wearing it as a necklace with the Cambridge Lovers Knot Tiara https://pin.it/uxfad5hpxkdaux , why do we (maybe just me) believe that QM inherited the Parure and not just the tiara. The only photo of QM that I have seen does not prove that she did not bring the suite together herself https://pin.it/72c4j4ynuaidat . GDA died in 1916, about the same time that Russian jewels flooded the market, since sapphires were very popular in Russia could she not have created the suite to complete the necklace. I am not convinced of my arguement since she gave it away after a fairly short period of ownership.
The tiara and the rest of the suite dont quite physically match each other, which assuming the alterations were fairly minor by QM they should. The clusters on the necklace are different to the tiara and I can see no scroll element which is integral to the tiara.
So interesting! How I wish I hadn't been gadding about this afternoon or that I have a busy week ahead!
I have a number of cuttings from searches on newspapers I did a few years ago -- but I will need time to go back to analyse it all again (and perhaps do more searches).
My recollection is that I didn't then think that Augusta, Duchess of Mecklenburg Strelitz, was given the complete parure (tiara, necklace etc) as a wedding present as both she and her mother, Augusta, Duchess of Cambridge, were sometimes described for many years in the British press as wearing sapphire jewels simultaneously at court events. In particular, the mother, Augusta of Cambridge, was said to have worn a grand sapphire necklace and stomacher at various court events.
None of that helps us resolve the questions 992234177 has asked!
Did Queen Mary inherit only the tiara? I strongly suspect that Augusta Mecklenburg Strlitz inherited her mother's necklace and other sapphire jewels, because (a) there is evidence that Augusta Cambridge had significant sapphire jewels, and (b) there is evidence that Mary Adelaide was not given so much jewellery because the family had paid so much of her debts before their mother's death. (The will of Augusta of Cambridge is available and makes for interesting reading - even though the jewels are not specifically mentioned)
I'll try to sort out what I have in the coming days -- but, unfortunately, I have a busy schedule and it may be a few days before I can sort it all out.
I have no real information about what Queen Mary may have added to the parure. My only comment on this is -- it may not be as much as people suspect.
I think that the necklace as worn by Augusta Mecklenburg- Strelitz is probably the same one which Queen Mary gave to Princess Marina.
This necklace is not the tiara
Obviously, Augusta of Mecklenburg-Strelitz owned, at one stage, both the necklace and tiara. Her mother, Augusta of Cambridge was also reported as wearing a necklace and a stomacher of sapphires and diamonds. I do not have images of her with these, but it allows for the possibility that they formed part of the parure, probably given to her over a period of time, and eventually inherited by Queen Mary. I suspect that, at least, the basis of the stomacher/brooches and probably the bracelets came directly from Augusta Cambridge. Perhaps Queen Mary made some changes, but as Queen Mary was so assiduously attached to items from her own royal family ancestors, I wonder how many changes she would have made?
Dear 992234177 thankyou for starting this interesting thread prompting me to take a closer look at the Cambridge/kent sapphires. In my opinion it is wrong to suggest that Grand Duchess Augusta is wearing the tiara as a necklace with the Lovers Knot Tiara. In the picture with the lovers knot tiara even with the poor qualitywe can see that there is a central square(ish) stone in the necklace which matches the necklace as worn by Queen Mary and 2 Duchesses of Kent. However the tiara does not have such a large stone in the center.
Here is a 1861 miniature of Grand Duchess Augusta showing the original tiara:
Grand Duchess Augusta wearing the necklace with Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara:
Queen Mary with the parure:
Princess Marina with the parure:
However it is interesting to note that the original tiara as seen in the painting above shows that the tiara was much larger in its original form with 17 upright elements however as worn on Queen Mary and the Kent Duchesses it only has 7 elements. My theory is that the rest of the elements from the tiara were used as drops on an existing necklace and brooch by Grand Duchess Augusta to make a married parure and this was what was inherited by Queen Mary in 1916.
I think the painting may be at least partially artistic license. It cannot have ever had 17 sapphire elements or it would have practically would round itself. Also perhaps my issue with the suite is that in the photo of GDA she is wearing pearls with a sapphire necklace. If you had a complete sapphire suite would you wear part of it with a pearl tiara. The necklace looks later than the tiara, the clusters of the brooch look to have almost a double border, which Russian jewels often have. Maybe the necklace that came with the tiara was a much smaller one and the current necklace is later.
A large Brooch with pendant is also seen at the photo.
"I think the painting may be at least partially artistic license. It cannot have ever had 17 sapphire elements or it would have practically would round itself"
it could be round - why not..... The jewels set was so much historic it would be not painted in an artistic license.
I believe that the tiara may have had more spires that seven. I agree with OmerH that elements may have been removed to form six pendants which would take it to thirteen, but if you look at the miniature portrait it shows the spires as being close together. In that image it clearly does not close at the back. It also looks like the spires are more equal in size that the real spires.
When I write about the artistic license I do not mean that the artist deliberately changed things rather they were wrong. If the image was derived from another they may not have actually seen the jewel. Though it is accurate in how the spires look, it is inaccurate in its relationship to the next spire, they are too close together. The painting shows the spacers were there but indicate that they made little difference to the spacing.
I would also highlight the difference in the clusters. Those of the tiara look markedly different from the new tiara. They were not made at the same time by the same hand as a set. Perhaps the tiara was made by a jeweller in Kassel and given by her parents and the rest was made in Paris and purchased ten years later. I do not know enough to date either the tiara accurately or the necklace. The tiara clusters look less well made in the auction photograph then the scrolls they sit upon, perhaps the tiara was made from elements that already existed. There is also the difference in size of the sapphires in the tiara versus the necklace, again as if they had different points of origin.
I have re-read the cuttings I have and am still convinced that the sapphires were not given to Augusta of Mecklenburg-Strelitz as a wedding gift. If they were, then Augusta Cambridge had an enormous amount of sapphires. I suspect that the Duchess of Cambridge gave her eldest daughter the sapphires in stages over the years -- in the same way as Princess Mary Adelaide received various jewels.
I cannot see any way of resolving if the tiara originally had as many upright elements as the painting would suggest.
When the wedding presents for Princess Marina were photographed we saw only the elements visible from the front, suggesting that the tiara had only 7 upright elements.
Princess Marina expanded the tiara from time to time, but it looks as if this may have been done by adding a bracelet to make it a circle.
For a dinner at the French Embassy during the 1939 state visit.
We can see the mismatched side element in this photo which suggests that the tiara had been extended.
on March 2, 2019, 10:57 am
Previous Message
