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.
Queen Victoria's Jubilee Necklace
Posted by Beth on August 25, 2022, 7:35 pm
Apart from my new discovery the basic information comes from H Roberts in The Queen's Diamonds.
I have decided to use some of the imagery I did for the Instagram post.
This topic is entirely new work. No one else has identified this aspect before..
As we all know, the "Daughters of the Empire" collected funds to pay for a large statue of Prince Albert, a project which immediately appealed to the Queen.
So keen were people to contribute that an enormous sum, £84,000 was raised.
After the estimated costs of the statue etc, somewhat over £70,000 remained.
At Queen Victoria's suggestion the money was to go to the St Katherine's Fund for Nurses.
Some, nevertheless, felt that a personal gift of jewellery should be presented to the Queen.
Others demurred, arguing that people had contributed on the expectation that the excess money would go to charity.
As a compromise some suggested that the Queen be given a jewelled badge of the nursing organisation.
Victoria was outraged & didn't hesitate to say so.
Finally, Carrington & Co were selected to make a diamond & pearl necklace & earrings to present to the Queen, which the Duchess of Buccleuch did on 30 July 1888. The cost was £5,000.
What is new about this necklace
Roberts has told us that 6 of the trefoils & the central quatrefoil element are detachable to be used as separate ornaments.
But the necklace has 2 clasps & the central element can be worn without the little crown, which is one of the 2 clasps/b]
In the photos I have seen of Queen Victoria wearing the necklace, it is worn without the little crown on top of the central element
First can I say I never knew about the earrings before and second it appears that the necklace has been shortened by one pear cluster on either side of the back snap, do you know when it was altered. The Queen does have a habit of shortening necklaces.
I am amazed by your keen eye 992234177. I admit I never knew that one link had been removed.
I kept comparing the photo & the engraving from 1888. You are correct.
I then looked at another image I had & it also indicates that one link has been removed.
I know that Queen Victoria carried some weight, but when I looked at the photo of her wearing the necklace, I wondered if she might have removed the link?
Even without the little crown atop the central element, the necklace sits very close to the base of Queen Victoria's throat.
On QEII the necklace, even with the little crown, sits below the base of QEII's neck. I think given the photo in Roberts that we can accept that QEII wears it with the link removed.
What do others think?
PS Sorry about the funny reproduction of the 2nd image. I am not sure what has gone wrong.
Previous Message
First can I say I never knew about the earrings before and second it appears that the necklace has been shortened by one pear cluster on either side of the back snap, do you know when it was altered. The Queen does have a habit of shortening necklaces.
I have always been intrigued by the small crown - it looks uncomfortable. And in my opinion it makes the necklace look unbalanced. I understand the symbolism, but I cannot understand why they would include this crown in that position.