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.

Lady Curzon Necklace Posted by 992234177 on October 21, 2020, 10:30 am Just a post to say that while reading a journal article it stated that Lady Curzon the Vicereine of India took with her to India “a large sapphire necklace that was in fact a piece of costume jewellery, with stones painted on the back to give the impression of a sapphire” Embodieing Imperial Spectacle: Dressing Lady Curzon, Vicereine of India 1899-1905. — Nicola J. Thomas. — cultural Geographies 2007

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace Posted by mauriz on October 21, 2020, 4:10 pm, in reply to "Lady Curzon Necklace" How interesting, thank you for posting. It would certainly explain why Lady Curzon didn’t mention a sapphire necklace when she wrote her last will on her way to India in 1898, as quoted by Anne de Courcy in »The Viceroy’s Daughters«: I wonder if it is the necklace which she wore for the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and was later worn by Lord Curzon’s second wife Grace.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace Posted by 992234177 on October 21, 2020, 11:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace" the central section of her Sautoir/longchain does look like it but why would Marchioness Curzon wear costume jewellery. The only explanation I can think of is that costume doesn’t mean paste but instead a moonstone or crystal within a real diamond border. Since it is lopsided I think it can’t be fully pastel or it would have had a link taken out of it with no issue because of its low value.

I believe wearing fakes was much more common than Posted by Janet on October 22, 2020, 12:42 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace" we would imagine. I cannot comment on Lady Curzon but wasn't even some of Queen Alexandra's jewels paste as she didn't like travelling with real gems? I believe Queen Alexandra's niece Princess Margaretha of Sweden's fake tiara was sold a few years back by a French auction house. She had a fake one made so she could keep it at home to wear and the original was kept in the bank and she didn't have the hassle of going back and forth. It makes sense from a practical point of view but also given High society at the time was competitive and significant focus was placed on women's appearance and dress, it isn't surprising that some women would want to give a certain impression and wear as grand jewellery as possible, even if it wasn't real!

Re: I believe wearing fakes was much more common than Posted by Maria Olivia on October 22, 2020, 7:30 am, in reply to "I believe wearing fakes was much more common than " Indeed Janet , Coutau Begarie / Drouot Paris sold Princess Margaretha's fake tiara 600 euros. Previous Message we would imagine. I cannot comment on Lady Curzon but wasn't even some of Queen Alexandra's jewels paste as she didn't like travelling with real gems? I believe Queen Alexandra's niece Princess Margaretha of Sweden's fake tiara was sold a few years back by a French auction house. She had a fake one made so she could keep it at home to wear and the original was kept in the bank and she didn't have the hassle of going back and forth. It makes sense from a practical point of view but also given High society at the time was competitive and significant focus was placed on women's appearance and dress, it isn't surprising that some women would want to give a certain impression and wear as grand jewellery as possible, even if it wasn't real!

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace Posted by mauriz on October 22, 2020, 4:18 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace" Previous Message the central section of her Sautoir/longchain does look like it but why would Marchioness Curzon wear costume jewellery. I’d found it much more surprising if it turned out that the Vicereine of India had worn costume jewellery for the most important social event during her husband’s tenure. Mary Curzon’s last will, drawn up during her passage to India in 1898, made provisions for the major pieces of jewellery in her possession. Yet, it didn’t mention a necklace with coloured gemstones like the one she was wearing with her Boucheron tiara and Watherston diamond necklace for the state ball during the Delhi Durbar. While many contemporary reports mistook the iridescent beetlewings in Mary Curzon’s famous evening gown for emeralds, I don’t think the photos depict her wearing an emerald necklace. In a previous post about her jewels I speculated the gemstones could be amethysts, but of course, that’s just a speculation, based on what might have been considered a suitable complement to the gold-embroidered peacock dress. Now a faux sapphire (paste) necklace was somewhat surprising, but it would at least explain why it wasn’t mentioned in her will. Regarding Grace, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston possibly wearing the same necklace as the lower section of her sautoir: I count 13 clusters set in a slightly different way and closer to each other than the upper part of the sautoir, which I believe could be the ornaments Mary Curzon wore on her shoulders, lining her dress for the Delhi Durbar. In any case, it is known that Lord Curzon disregarded his first wife’s will and gave her jewels to his second wife, to such an extent, that his youngest daughter had to acquire a new tiara for her wedding.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace Posted by 992235177 on October 22, 2020, 8:26 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace" i think it’s likely that the shoulder ornaments are diamanté and part of the gown. The peacock dress has been altered and they are no longer on the gown but what does still exist shows that there were faux gems on the dress. https://www.countryimagesmagazine.co.uk/featured/kedleston-hall/ As an aside Cath Hay and Bernadette Banner are trying to make an exact replica of the dress https://youtu.be/a6o3eyeiVBs https://youtu.be/kXlye7ULq_w https://youtu.be/kIIPLWPq_1s https://youtu.be/jMGyfkvY06g https://youtu.be/Jb0jPc-3Nmw https://youtu.be/92R2X4f-e6A https://youtu.be/uf2YZg5Gl6U

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace Posted by mauriz on October 22, 2020, 7:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace" If the necklace was paste, the shoulder ornaments might have been paste as well, but I don’t think they were diamanté and part of the gown, neither was the brooch Mary Curzon wore at her neckline.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Probably rubies. Edited as I had some inaccuracies - and probably still do Posted by Beth on October 23, 2020, 6:02 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace" Edited to change my initial comments as one of the press cuttings did not refer to the State Ball of the Durbar celebrations, but to one given later in the year. I am indebted to Mauriz's keen eye for noticing my mistake. As readers will see from information given by 992234177 and Mauriz, it seems highly unlikely that my ideas about the necklace worn to the Durbar State Ball are correct. What an interesting discussion. I'll try to find a copy of the article 992234177 mentioned as I am unsure whether the author is asserting that the necklace Lady Curzon wore to the Durbar State Ball in 1903 was a paste sapphire and, if so, what evidence is given. Apologies for not being able to join in until this morning. According to the media Lady Curzon had a ruby necklace. The cutting below refers to a State Ball given in honour of the King's birthday (not the State Ball for the Durbar) This report refers to ruby and diamond clasps on the straps of her gown. This says the rubies were given to her by her father. After the official Durbar ceremonies and balls, another grand ball was held: the Centenary ball. At this Lady Curzon was again reported to have worn rubies. These cuttings refer to the Centenary ball. Most of the images we have of Lady Curzon are black and white photos which don't give us any clues about colour; however, in 1909 a posthumous portrait was painted for Lord Curzon. This painting suggests that Mary Curzon wore rubies. To my eye the necklace could contain any of several gemstones (judging by this reproduction) but the brooch does look like it contains rubies. There are other references in the press to Lady Curzon wearing rubies, but I never saw any references to sapphires. (The press doesn't seem to have many specific references to her jewels beyond the generic comments about magnificent diamond tiara etc. Above I posted quotes about the jewels she wore to the Centenary ball. I think that the dress and jewels below may have been from that occasion as several media outlets stated the photo showed the dress worn to the Durbar, but of course it isn't. Another factor which inclines me to the ruby scenario is Mary Curzon's will. I haven't looked at the actual document, but many press reports have more details than those cited by Mauriz. These reports do mention rubies, in particular a ruby ornament, clasps and brooches. During this period the press commonly referred to necklaces and brooches as ornaments, so the reference could refer to a necklace,especially if it could be broken into several pieces. Will of Mary Curzon In contrast to the above, Geoffrey Munn in Tiaras. A history of splendour p. 119 states that the necklace contains sapphires and was made by Boucheron. On page 126 Munn, in discussing Boucheron's archival evidence about the tiara, states that the firm also made a diamond necklace and a sapphire necklace for Lady Curzon which she wore "habitually" during her time as Vicereine. Can we afford to ignore evidence in Boucheron's archives?

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires Posted by Beth on October 23, 2020, 7:54 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Probably rubies" Below is a link to a much better photograph of the 1909 portrait of Lady Curzon. It shows that, although the brooch had rubies, the necklace contains sapphires. https://www.flickr.com/photos/78590035@N06/49527010746

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires Posted by mauriz on October 23, 2020, 8:30 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires" Even bluer than in the photo I've found... Now is it a piece of costume jewellery or a diamond and sapphire necklace made by Boucheron? The first seems highly unlikely if she was in the possession of the latter. But then, why didn't she mention the latter in her will?

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires Posted by 992234177 on October 23, 2020, 10:47 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires" 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.

Rubies Posted by 992234177 on October 23, 2020, 11:08 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires" could the ruby ornament shown in the hi res image posted above https://mb.boardhost.com/historyroyaljewels/msg/1603404998.html could it be the same as in image 7 next to the order of the crown of India https://mb.boardhost.com/historyroyaljewels/msg/1603396974.html. It’s not my idea of clasp. It could be filigree with three rubies. If they are diamonds they must be very tiny. Since the images show her as Vicereine the item could be a native object not a western style jewel.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires Posted by Dave on October 24, 2020, 10:03 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires" What a wonderful thread, 'I have been quietly following with great interest. All I will add is that we have no real or full knowledge of all the gifts Baroness Curzon the 1st received via her wedding or further anniversaries. 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. Previous Message 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.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires Posted by 992234177 on October 24, 2020, 3:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires" From what I have read the Curzon family were very poor. I believe Lord Scarsdale was also incumbent of the parish of Kedleston since he needed the money, usually it was given to a younger son or favoured friend. My personal view about the relative scale of aristocratic jewel collections is that they were generally very small. lady Londonderry and lady Dudley were famous for their jewels and I believe they were probably atypical. Royals would receive large amount of jewels but theses were paid for by large public subscriptions. I would also say that Queen Mary received far more pieces of jewellery than Queen Alexandra did suggesting that the prices were starting to come down, perhaps thanks to new mines. I’m not sure exactly how rich Mary Leiter was, certainly poorer than Consuelo Vanderbilt or Mary Goelet. If we look at some rich families did the Devonshires or Rutlands or Beauforts or Derby’s have large collections. I think we need to look at several families rather than say that because one family had four tiaras several did. And also remember that lady Curzons pearl necklace would have been far more valuable than it would be today. A good pearl necklace was a couple of times more valuable than a comparable quality diamond necklace.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires Posted by mauriz on October 24, 2020, 5:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. This indicates sapphires" I agree with your view about the scale of aristocratic jewel collections. Looking at f.i. the Spencers small amount of significant jewels a large collection like that of Lady Cory was probably an exception rather than the norm.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Probably rubies Posted by mauriz on October 23, 2020, 8:16 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Probably rubies" Thank you, Beth. Very interesting, as always. I've found a slightly clearer photo of William Logsdail's posthumus painting, and here the necklace, unlike the brooch, seems to contain pale sapphires. I wonder, if the first of your newspaper cuttings really refers to the Durbar state ball? Wasn't the Durbar held in January 1903 whereas the article dates 2nd July and refers to the ball "last Friday"? On the other hand it seems very plausible that Lady Curzon chose the same set of jewels for yet another state ball the same year. As far as I understand the article 992234177 mentioned didn't suggest Mary Curzon was wearing the paste sapphire necklace at the Durbar state ball. I just found the idea intriguing that the second necklace she wore with the peacock dress could have been costume jewellery, because I'd always wondered why the necklace wasn't mentioned in her will. Now I see that the report I'd read wasn't as comprehensive as the press reports you've found. What appears to be a ruby brooch in Logsdail's painting would be the ruby ornament mentioned in the will? Or is it rather the ruby clasp and the necklace is called ruby ornament? And regarding Geoffrey Munn's reference to Boucheron: Wouldn't Lady Curzon have made explicit provisions for two valuable Boucheron necklaces in her will, instead of subsuming them as "all other jewels"?

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Another scenario Posted by Beth on October 23, 2020, 4:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Probably rubies" Many thanks 992234177 and Mauriz for all the information. Yes, Mauriz is correct. I had mixed up my cuttings. I will delete that cutting in a few minutes (and acknowledge my mistake) I have now read the article which 992234177 initially mentioned in the first post. It is incredibly interesting. After reading it, I am inclined to think that the necklace worn by Mary Curzon with the peacock dress is the fake sapphire necklace. 992234177 I think that the information about it is probably covered by footnote 88 which cites Mary Curzon's letter of 31 May 1901 to her mother. In her paper, "Embodying imperial spectacle: dressing Lady Curzon, Vicereine of India 1899-1905", on page 383 Nicola Thomas has a photograph of Mary Curzon at what the media called the Centenary Ball in 1903. This is the one for which there are many references to Lady Curzon wearing a ruby necklace. Interestingly, it is a description relating to the Durbar State Ball which seems to match the necklace worn to the later Centenary Ball. It was claimed that the 4 rubies had once been owned by King Thibaw (or Theebaw), the last King of Burma. What ever the reality, we do know from her will that Lady Curzon owned rubies, and if it was the ruby necklace which was worn to the Centenary Ball, it is different from the sapphire worn with the peacock dress. Centenary Ball necklace In the paper Nicola Thomas describes another costume ball, Lady Curzon's last in India, held in October 1905. For this Mary Curzon adapted part of her dress for the Centenary ball and wore a necklace as a head ornament. For this pageant Mary Curzon dressed as Berengaria of Navarre. I suspect that it was the full length of the sapphires which is draped over her veil, but it is difficult to get a clear impression. Detail I wonder if any of Mary Curzon's rubies were inherited by her daughter, Irene, Baroness Ravensdale? See https://mb.boardhost.com/historyroyaljewels/msg/1589015033.html

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Another oddity Posted by Beth on October 23, 2020, 6:19 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Another scenario" In Tiaras. A history of splendour Geoffrey Munn page 119 notes that the photo he has of the elaborate Curzon diamond necklace was of a necklace ordered from Boucheron on 14 February 1905. Munn also notes that the necklace appears to have been altered. As Munn details the number of diamonds used and the total carat weight, it seems that this information has been taken from Boucheron's archives. The date of 1905 is perplexing, as Lady Curzon was photographed wearing the elaborate diamond necklace in January 1903. 1903 photo What to make of all this?

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Another oddity Posted by mauriz on October 24, 2020, 1:13 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Another oddity" I assumed the elaborate diamond necklace worn at the Delhi Durbar was not from Boucheron, but the one made by Watherston & Son which she mentioned so prominently in her will in 1898. But of course I might be entirely mistaken.

Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Another scenario Posted by mauriz on October 24, 2020, 1:02 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Another scenario" I immediately thought of your previous post about Irene, Baroness Ravensdale's ruby brooch and earrings. The photo of Mary Curzon wearing the ruby necklace is too blurry to get more than an idea of the jewel, but size and shape of the stones seem similar to the rubies in Irene's Van Cleef & Arpels set.

Lady Curzon Turquoise belt Posted by mauriz on October 24, 2020, 1:32 am, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Necklace. Probably rubies. Edited as I had some inaccuracies - and probably still do" Beth posted two newspaper reports about Lady Curzon's will, which both mention a turquoise belt. I wonder if she might have worn this belt at the Devonshire House Fancy Dress Ball in 1897, when she dressed up as Valentina Visconti of Milan.

Re: Lady Curzon Turquoise belt Posted by Beth on October 24, 2020, 3:27 pm, in reply to "Lady Curzon Turquoise belt" I suspect Mauriz might be correct; however, in a brief search I did today, I could not find a description of Mary Curzon's jewels at the Devonshire House ball.

Re: Lady Curzon Another jewel?? Posted by Beth on October 24, 2020, 3:42 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Turquoise belt" Just to complicate matters I have found a better image of Mary Curzon at the 1905 fancy dress ball where she appeared as Berengaria of Navarre. I have no idea what jewel she was wearing on her head or what is draped over her veil -- the latter is not the sapphire necklace. And is that her large diamond necklace used as a bodice jewel, or another jewel? Any guesses? The only description I have found is this --

Various wills Posted by Beth on October 24, 2020, 4:03 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Another jewel??" The only will which I have read about which contains information about jewels is that of Mary Curzon. The clue to what happened to some of her jewels is contained in that will where she directed that her Boucheron tiara, a tiara made by the Goldsmith's Co, her diamond necklace and the pearls were to be held in trust for her eldest son and if none, then for her daughters. The jewels given to her by her father-in-law were for her eldest son and if none they were to follow the title of Curzon of Kedleston. Her rubies etc she left to her husband. Will of Mary Curzon In his will her husband (later Marquess of Curzon) made mention of the jewels which had been left in trust for Mary Curzon's daughters. Part of the will of Marquess of Curzon Whether these jewels included those Mary Curzon left to her husband (such as her rubies) is not clear to me. The Marquess of Curzon's mother, as noted by Dave, died in 1875. I could not find any mention of a will by her. The Marquess of Curzon's grandmother, Sophia Curzon died in 1890 and left nearly eighteen and a half thousand pounds. I didn't find any mention of jewels in reports of her will. The Maquess of Curzon's father, Lord Scarsdale died in 1916 and left a larger estate than his son. There is only a very generalised reference to jewellery. Will of Lord Scarsdale

Re: Various wills Posted by Dave on October 24, 2020, 10:08 pm, in reply to "Various wills" Ahhh Beth, you have touched on what I was trying to get at exactly. In Lord Scarsdale will, his estate is massive, able to leave each of his 11 children parts of his estate apart from other legacies mentioned. It is unfortunate the will does not point out exactly what the jewels were but it does say the jewels were to be passed from the eldest to the eldest son and remain at Kedleston as a trust. So within that point there could be the clue as to where some of the mysterious jewels we are discussing may have come. The will also mentions that their was a split between Lord Kedleston and his wife and a settlement noted. Normally when their is such an aristocrat split, there surely are jewels as the case may be. Very good research Beth. Cheers, Dave. Previous Message The only will which I have read about which contains information about jewels is that of Mary Curzon. The clue to what happened to some of her jewels is contained in that will where she directed that her Boucheron tiara, a tiara made by the Goldsmith's Co, her diamond necklace and the pearls were to be held in trust for her eldest son and if none, then for her daughters. The jewels given to her by her father-in-law were for her eldest son and if none they were to follow the title of Curzon of Kedleston. Her rubies etc she left to her husband. Will of Mary Curzon In his will her husband (later Marquess of Curzon) made mention of the jewels which had been left in trust for Mary Curzon's daughters. Part of the will of Marquess of Curzon Whether these jewels included those Mary Curzon left to her husband (such as her rubies) is not clear to me. The Marquess of Curzon's mother, as noted by Dave, died in 1875. I could not find any mention of a will by her. The Marquess of Curzon's grandmother, Sophia Curzon died in 1890 and left nearly eighteen and a half thousand pounds. I didn't find any mention of jewels in reports of her will. The Maquess of Curzon's father, Lord Scarsdale died in 1916 and left a larger estate than his son. There is only a very generalised reference to jewellery. Will of Lord Scarsdale

Re: Various wills Posted by mauriz on October 25, 2020, 6:50 am, in reply to "Re: Various wills" Dave, the marriage settlement between Lord Scarsdale and his wife Blanche Senhouse, which is mentioned in Lord Scarsdale's will, does not imply there was a split between the couple. A marriage settlement was an arrangement to hold property in a trust to provide for the couple during their lifetimes while after their deaths ownership would descend to one or more children. 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.

Re: Various wills Posted by Beth on October 25, 2020, 6:38 pm, in reply to "Re: Various wills" Thank you for such a lucid explanation Mauriz! I think that the only way to solve many of our questions is to look at the actual wills to ascertain their precise wording. Even then not all will be revealed, as often the wills refer to earlier trusts, some of which have been established privately. I have noticed that there are a few legal cases relating to these family trusts. It is all immensely interesting.

Contemporary perception of Lord Curzon's will Posted by mauriz on October 25, 2020, 10:21 pm, in reply to "Re: Various wills" Slightly off-topic, but fun to read: A contemporary report on George Curzon, Marquess Curzon of Kedleston's will sheds some light on the public perception of the controversial politician. The Canadian Bar Review is the peer-reviewed legal journal of the Canadian Bar Association. The editorial of Vol 3 No 7 (Sept. 1925) included a rather sarcastic comment on Lord Curzon's attempt to secure his ancestral estate through the Kedleston trust. (p. 398–399)

Re: Contemporary perception of Lord Curzon's will Posted by 992235177 on October 26, 2020, 10:23 am, in reply to "Contemporary perception of Lord Curzon's will" My name is George Nathaniel Curzon, I am a most superior person. My face is pink, my hair is sleek, I dine at Blenheim once a week There is a story that on walking past a jewellers he looked into a window and said to a friend “what are those small silver tubes” “they are napkin rings, some people some don’t use fresh linens for each meal but use the same one all day and store it rolled up in the ring”. To which a Curzon replied “Can there be such poverty!” It is probably apocryphal but shows how he was viewed. He was also involved in building the cenotaph in Whitehall. There is a book about a latter Lord Scarsdale that is quite good as behind the scenes https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004CVKQC0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Re: Contemporary perception of Lord Curzon's will Posted by mauriz on October 26, 2020, 8:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Contemporary perception of Lord Curzon's will" The story is hilarious! And »Tiara and Tantrums« is a promising title for a book on twenty-five years in service at Kedleston Hall.

Re: Lady Curzon Another jewel?? Her rubies Posted by mauriz on October 24, 2020, 5:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Another jewel??" I think she was wearing the large diamond necklace as a bodice jewel to the fancy dress ball in 1905 and her rubies draped over her veil. The larger cluster on the bottom right is the pendant of the ruby necklace worn to the Centenary Ball, the other six clusters formed the necklace: the clusters' outline and the rather spiky and elongated interlinks are quite characteristic. The jewel on her head might be the large diamond brooch.

Re: Lady Curzon Another jewel?? Her rubies Posted by Beth on October 25, 2020, 7:02 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Another jewel?? Her rubies" Oh!! That is amazing Mauriz! What a wonderfully clear version you have of the necklace worn by Mary Curzon to the Centenary Ball!! I agree that it is the same as the jewel Mary Curzon has draped across her veil at the 1905 fancy dress ball. If this is the ruby "ornament" or necklace then it is an impressive jewel. Again, many thanks. We all benefit so much from your keen eye and how you put photographic evidence together!

Scarsdale jewels Posted by Beth on October 25, 2020, 7:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Lady Curzon Another jewel?? Her rubies" In a post above Mauriz mentioned the Scarsdale jewels and not finding photos of any of the ladies wearing significant jewels. Sadly for us, none of the photographic agencies appear to have any photos of the ladies from this family wearing grand jewels. However, there are some photos in the UK press of the wives of the successor to the titles of Scarsdale after the death of the Marquess of Curzon in 1925. There are no photos of any Lady Scarsdale prior to then as, after the death of Blanche, Lady Scarsdale (the mother of the Marquess of Curzon) in 1875, there was technically no Lady Scarsdale until the Marquess of Curzon married his second wife, Grace in 1917 following the death of his father, Baron Scarsdale in 1916. The complexities (and hierarchy) of titles given to George Curzon, 1st Marquess of Curzon, meant that his second wife, Grace, was never referred to as Lady Scarsdale. I don't know if she was ever photographed wearing any of the heirlooms of the Scarsdale family, as I haven't followed her in the UK press. What I can show are jewels worn by the wives of the 2nd Viscount Scarsdale. He was the heir to the titles Viscount Scarsdale (created for the Marquess of Curzon) and the title of Baron Scarsdale which had been held by the Marquess' father and other forebears. The first wife of the 2nd Viscount (who acceded to the title following the death of his uncle, the Marquess of Curzon) was Mildred Dunbar. The couple divorced in 1946. Lady Scarsdale (Mildred) 1932 at the Opening of Parliament 1935 1935 1929 1929 detail The second wife of the 2nd Viscount, Ottilie Pretzik, wore the tiara as a necklace. 1950 1953 It seems to me that these elements could be mounted either as a necklace or a tiara, and when worn as a tiara that the central 3 elements were mounted side ways on a frame. As worn as a necklace by the 2nd Lady Scarsdale the elements were all positioned in the same orientation on a necklace base/chain. I have wondered if these elements might be the "star tiara" referred to by Mary Curzon in her will, but I have no proof, and the only thing suggesting a star are the cross shaped elements in the centre of the oval elements. The elements in the jewel worn by both Viscountess do not seem to be a modern jewel. Another little mystery for us to solve.

Bingo! Posted by mauriz on October 25, 2020, 8:45 pm, in reply to "Scarsdale jewels" And now we have a match with a jewel worn by Grace Elvina Curzon, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston! She was photographed by Bertram Park in 1924, wearing it as a bandeau.

Re: Bingo! Posted by mauriz on October 25, 2020, 8:52 pm, in reply to "Bingo!" And possibly worn by Mary Curzon in its original form? What do others think? The elements seem larger than in Grace Curzon's bandeau. The design is somewhat reminiscent of Princess Lilian's Boucheron necklace-tiara. Might that be Mary Curzon's Boucheron diamond necklace mentioned by Geoffrey Munn in »Tiaras. A history of splendour«?

Re: Bingo! Posted by Dave on October 26, 2020, 1:18 am, in reply to "Bingo!" Bravo both to mauriz and Beth, you both are exemplary in your findings. Thanks for your explanations about the will of Lord Scarsdale mauriz. There you have it, here you both have seemingly been able to make a match of one of our mysteries. This may build on my feelings that maybe the large sapphire and diamond necklace came from an entailed Scarsdale family legacy. The great diamond necklace of the 1st Marquess Curzon has a look like this tiara piece we have now found. Keep up the good work, I am enjoying this. Regards, Dave. Previous Message And now we have a match to a jewel worn by Grace Elvina Curzon, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston! She was photographed by Bertram Park in 1924 wearing it as a bandeau.

Re: Bingo! Posted by mauriz on October 26, 2020, 2:01 am, in reply to "Re: Bingo!" Credit goes to Beth and her fabulous ability to unearth information and photographic evidence from newspaper archives. I've known the photo of Grace Curzon wearing the laurel leaf diamond bandeau for quite a while, but it was only after Beth posted the photos of the 2nd Viscount Scarsdale's wives, that it became evident this wasn't a jewel which Grace Duggan had owned already prior to her second marriage to George Curzon. Regarding the sapphire necklace though, after reading Nicola J. Thomas' excellent article, which 992234177 quoted when starting this thread, I'm even more convinced that the information about the necklace having been paste is correct.

Re: Bingo! Posted by Beth on October 26, 2020, 3:11 pm, in reply to "Bingo!" Well spotted Mauriz! A definite match. The photo of Grace, Marchioness of Curzon shows the jewel is a lot more attractive than I thought.

The star tiara Posted by mauriz on October 25, 2020, 10:45 pm, in reply to "Scarsdale jewels" When Ottilie Harris (née Pretzlik) wed Richard Curzon, 2nd Viscount Scarsdale in 1946, it was for both the second marriage. From her first marriage to James Henry Harris, Ottilie, Viscountess Scarsdale had a son, Bryan, who married Tessa Riscoe in 1958. The bride wore a star tiara. It could be the one mentioned by Mary Curzon in her will as a wedding gift of her father-in-law, Lord Scarsdale, and might indeed have followed the titles of Baron and Viscount Scarsdale after George Curzon's death. The cross-shaped elements between the stars could be the same as in the centre of the oval-shaped laurel leaf elements.

Re: The star tiara Posted by Beth on October 26, 2020, 3:14 pm, in reply to "The star tiara" That is quite plausible Mauriz. I wish we could find definite evidence to prove this -- i.e. a photo of one of the other ladies wearing this tiara.

Mary Curzon's wedding gifts. The plot gets more complicated. Posted by Beth on October 26, 2020, 3:33 pm, in reply to "Re: The star tiara" Below are 2 cuttings detailing wedding gifts given to Mary Leiter on the occasion of her marriage to George Curzon. As people will see the reports differ from the reports of the will of Mary Curzon's about what her father-in-law, Lord Scarsdale gave her, in particular about the star tiara. In the first report it says that Mary Leiter's sisters gave her stars. In the second it says a star tiara. One of the things which I have noticed in reports is that, (a) often not all gifts from close family members are known to the press, and (b) family jewels, passed from lady to lady, are often not mentioned. The fact that her brother is said to have given her a massive diamond collar is interesting, but I think we need more information before any conclusions can be made. Mary Curzon is also reported to have received a diamond Prince of Wales brooch from George V and Queen Mary when they visited India as Prince and Princess of Wales in 1905.

Re: Mary Curzon's wedding gifts. The plot gets more complicated. Posted by mauriz on October 26, 2020, 8:05 pm, in reply to "Mary Curzon's wedding gifts. The plot gets more complicated." Thank you for the wedding gift reports. I was wondering before if the wording in Mary Curzon's will regarding her "diamond star tiara and a diamond brooch and pendant, given to her on her marriage by Lord Scarsdale" meant, that both, tiara and brooch were wedding gifts of her father-in-law. Apparently not. *If* the star tiara worn by Tessa Riscoe on her wedding day was the gift of Mary Leiter's sisters, it wouldn't be too surprising, that it was described as a tiara in one report and as diamond stars in the other. It apparently consisted solely of 5 stars and 6 small intermediate parts mounted on a metal frame. On the other hand I was asking myself, if the tiara worn by Ottilie, Viscountess Scarsdale in your photo – and also for the coronation in 1953 – might have been the star tiara later worn by her daughter-in-law, but with a more elaborate frame? It obviously had 5 larger and 6 smaller intermediate elements. Might the lighting and the sparkling diamonds obscure the stars' shape? The jewel worn by Grace Curzon as a bandeau in 1924 – and later by Mildred and Ottilie Curzon as a tiara and as a necklace – is puzzling. Both Mildred's halo tiara and Ottilie's necklace consisted of 9 elements. If Grace had used all of them, her bandeau would have been a full circle. That's possible of course, but then: How was it supposed to be worn as a necklace? Its design suggests something like a collier de chien. In that case 6–7 elements would have been sufficient. If it was meant to be worn as a lower sitting necklace with 9 elements, why didn't Ottilie wear it that way, but chose a rather unattractive setting of loose elements on a thin chain? The only explanation I can come up with is, that Mildred, Viscountess Scarsdale had the piece irreversibly altered to mount the elements as a fashionable halo tiara – a rather barbaric and unsuccessful alteration, in my opinion. I've searched for Richard and Mildred Curzon's four daughters at their respective weddings, but the only photos I've found show their third daughter, Juliana, at her second wedding to Frederick Nettlefold in 1953, wearing no tiara. As an aside, Juliana and Frederick Nettlefold's daughter Caroline Anne Nettlefold would later marry Ivor Windsor-Clive, the son of the 3rd Earl of Plymouth and his wife Caroline Helen Rice. Rice was the granddaughter of Grace Curzon, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston from her first marriage to Alfred Duggan. Caroline Anne is now the 4th Countess of Plymouth.

Re: Mary Curzon's wedding gifts. The plot gets more complicated. Posted by Dave on October 27, 2020, 12:00 am, in reply to "Re: Mary Curzon's wedding gifts. The plot gets more complicated." The pearls on the 2nd Baroness are outstanding, I wonder if they could be two of the set of 3/4 pearls gifted to the 1st Baroness Curzon by her parents. I wonder what wedding gifts were received by the said Grace Curzon as well, so we could actually make a division between the 1st and 2nd Baronesses gifts. Regards, Dave. Previous Message Thank you for the wedding gift reports. I was wondering before if the wording in Mary Curzon's will regarding her "diamond star tiara and a diamond brooch and pendant, given to her on her marriage by Lord Scarsdale" meant, that both, tiara and brooch were wedding gifts of her father-in-law. Apparently not. *If* the star tiara worn by Tessa Riscoe on her wedding day was the gift of Mary Leiter's sisters, it wouldn't be too surprising, that it was described as a tiara in one report and as diamond stars in the other. It apparently consisted solely of 5 stars and 6 small intermediate parts mounted on a metal frame. On the other hand I was asking myself, if the tiara worn by Ottilie, Viscountess Scarsdale in your photo – and also for the coronation in 1953 – might have been the star tiara later worn by her daughter-in-law, but with a more elaborate frame? It obviously had 5 larger and 6 smaller intermediate elements. Might the lighting and the sparkling diamonds obscure the stars' shape? The jewel worn by Grace Curzon as a bandeau in 1924 – and later by Mildred and Ottilie Curzon as a tiara and as a necklace – is puzzling. Both Mildred's halo tiara and Ottilie's necklace consisted of 9 elements. If Grace had used all of them, her bandeau would have been a full circle. That's possible of course, but then: How was it supposed to be worn as a necklace? Its design suggests something like a collier de chien. In that case 6–7 elements would have been sufficient. If it was meant to be worn as a lower sitting necklace with 9 elements, why didn't Ottilie wear it that way, but chose a rather unattractive setting of loose elements on a thin chain? The only explanation I can come up with is, that Mildred, Viscountess Scarsdale had the piece irreversibly altered to mount the elements as a fashionable halo tiara – a rather barbaric and unsuccessful alteration, in my opinion. I've searched for Richard and Mildred Curzon's four daughters at their respective weddings, but the only photos I've found show their third daughter, Juliana, at her second wedding to Frederick Nettlefold in 1953, wearing no tiara. As an aside, Juliana and Frederick Nettlefold's daughter Caroline Anne Nettlefold would later marry Ivor Windsor-Clive, the son of the 3rd Earl of Plymouth and his wife Caroline Helen Rice. Rice was the granddaughter of Grace Curzon, Marchioness Curzon of Kedleston from her first marriage to Alfred Duggan. Caroline Anne is now the 4th Countess of Plymouth.

Re: Mary Curzon's wedding gifts. The plot gets more complicated. Posted by Dave on October 26, 2020, 11:53 pm, in reply to "Mary Curzon's wedding gifts. The plot gets more complicated." Thank you Beth for your incredible research. I take note of the list of wedding gifts as you supplied, and it indicates that Lord Scarsdale gifted his daughter in law with a Sapphire and diamond bracelet, the only mention of that set gem. I am wondering could it be that Mary was able to wear that said bracelet as the noted necklace? Could it be that the bracelet was part of a parure which included that magnificent necklace? To be gifted some one thousand gifts is really more than anyone could readily account for in a will. Regards, Dave. Previous Message Below are 2 cuttings detailing wedding gifts given to Mary Leiter on the occasion of her marriage to George Curzon. As people will see the reports differ from the reports of the will of Mary Curzon's about what her father-in-law, Lord Scarsdale gave her, in particular about the star tiara. In the first report it says that Mary Leiter's sisters gave her stars. In the second it says a star tiara. One of the things which I have noticed in reports is that, (a) often not all gifts from close family members are known to the press, and (b) family jewels, passed from lady to lady, are often not mentioned. The fact that her brother is said to have given her a massive diamond collar is interesting, but I think we need more information before any conclusions can be made. Mary Curzon is also reported to have received a diamond Prince of Wales brooch from George V and Queen Mary when they visited India as Prince and Princess of Wales in 1905.

« Back to index