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.
Dudley rubies
Posted by Beth on December 14, 2019, 4:38 pm
I am finding the information about the Dudley rubies, so lauded by the press, confusing.
In the list drawn up by the first Earl of jewels to be treated as heirlooms there is the following description ---
[I am ignoring the description of the bracelet and rings]
Tiara.
A large ruby and diamond tiara with nine ruby and diamond clusters.
That does not match this tiara worn by Rachel, Countess of Dudley.
Necklace
Ruby and diamond necklace with five ruby and diamond clusters, two ruby and diamond drops and diamond cluster snap.
That does not match this necklace
The list notes that attached to the necklace was a large ruby and diamond pendant consisting of five rubies mounted with diamonds with 3 ruby cluster drops.
There was also a separate smaller ruby and diamond pendant set with 5 rubies.
When the first Earl married Georgiana in 1865 her wedding gifts included a ruby parure.
So far I don't know if these were new jewels purchased for the occasion, although the Earl was reported to have been in Paris buying jewels a few weeks prior to the wedding.
When the second Earl married Rachel Gurney in 1891 his principal gifts to her included a ruby suite (but no tiara) which was said to have been part of the family jewels.
There are several things which I would like to still investigate about the Dudley rubies.
1. Were they reset between 1878 and the 1902 photo of Rachel, Countess of Dudley at the coronation?
2. Are the rubies seen on Rachel, Countess of Dudley those which were worn by Georgina, Countess of Dudley? That is are the rubies seen in 1902 the ones the first Earl designated as heirlooms?
Re: Dudley rubies
Posted by Dave on December 14, 2019, 10:44 pm, in reply to "Dudley rubies"
I wonder if you can get us a picture on the star tiara received for a wedding gift. Beth, the ruby and diamond tiara of which you have questioned, could it be that it was altered i.e. added to in some way increasing the amount of ruby clusters? Making it have more of the same.
Regards,
Dave.
Previous Message
I am finding the information about the Dudley rubies, so lauded by the press, confusing.
In the list drawn up by the first Earl of jewels to be treated as heirlooms there is the following description ---
[I am ignoring the description of the bracelet and rings]
Tiara.
A large ruby and diamond tiara with nine ruby and diamond clusters.
That does not match this tiara worn by Rachel, Countess of Dudley.
Necklace
Ruby and diamond necklace with five ruby and diamond clusters, two ruby and diamond drops and diamond cluster snap.
That does not match this necklace
The list notes that attached to the necklace was a large ruby and diamond pendant consisting of five rubies mounted with diamonds with 3 ruby cluster drops.
There was also a separate smaller ruby and diamond pendant set with 5 rubies.
When the first Earl married Georgiana in 1865 her wedding gifts included a ruby parure.
So far I don't know if these were new jewels purchased for the occasion, although the Earl was reported to have been in Paris buying jewels a few weeks prior to the wedding.
When the second Earl married Rachel Gurney in 1891 his principal gifts to her included a ruby suite (but no tiara) which was said to have been part of the family jewels.
There are several things which I would like to still investigate about the Dudley rubies.
1. Were they reset between 1878 and the 1902 photo of Rachel, Countess of Dudley at the coronation?
2. Are the rubies seen on Rachel, Countess of Dudley those which were worn by Georgina, Countess of Dudley? That is are the rubies seen in 1902 the ones the first Earl designated as heirlooms?
Re: Dudley rubies
Posted by Beth on December 15, 2019, 7:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Dudley rubies"
Like you Dave, I would love to see more photos, but!
At present it seems unlikely that images of the star tiara will surface. But I never give up hope.
There are so few photos of the Countesses of Dudley wearing grand jewels available.
I would love to see one of the tiara which held the diamond which in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was called the "Star of South Africa" diamond.
The rubies could definitely have been reset, but I would like some additional proof.
I am more inclined to think that, at least, the ruby tiara was a new creation for Rachel, Countess of Dudley. But I have no proof -- even of the most nebulous kind.
All that I can say, at this point of time, is that the press had numerous references to the magnificence of the Dudley rubies.