Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna-elder, wife of GD Wladimir

[bluetoria]

How could Ella possibly have been holier-than-thou & survived in a world so very far removed from the politesse of the Court? On a daily basis she encountered victims of incest, child-prostitution, alcoholism etc. etc. etc.  A holier-than-thou person could never make any headway in the really harsh world of the backstreets & slums as she did!  The people of Moscow (including many of the revolutionaries) respected her - a cold 'pious' nun wouldn't stand a chance!  

[DOMOVOII]

Grandduchess Ella, you are of course right, --apples and oranges.  Suppose you could also add "Horses for courses" Ella was drawn to the Poor and their plight, one to one, Maria used her posistion to support others to do that work. As long as the need was met, everyone won.

And I have to agree, I wouldn't like to have irked her, but to have seen this lady work a room,conversing with the leaders and movers of the beau monde at the height of its elegance, Europe-wide.

Magnificent!

[Greg_King]

I tend to admire Marie Pavlovna for her style and her sense of her role.  I think Meriel Buchanan expressed it best when she wrote that much of this criticism was simply inspired by the Grand Duchess’s success in her role, and by spite: “It was inevitable that anybody with her vivid personality should have enemies in a society like that of St. Petersburg, and it was perhaps natural that aspersions should have been cast upon both her moral and her public character by censorious busybodies, for she was fearless and of too strong a character ever to be ignored or thrust into the background.  Her vigorous mentality could not but deplore the attitude of the young Empress, but though she took a keen interest in both foreign and international politics, she was never guilty of an anti-Russian intrigue, and never anything but dignified, regal, and gracious in public.”

She seems, at least in the beginning, to have tried to befriend Alexandra.  Countess Marie Kleinmichel, who knew them both, later recalled that the Grand Duchess, on Alexandra's arrival, was "eager to guide all her movements, and took offense when this failed."

Greg King

[Johanna]

I'm still confused about the diamond briolette aigrette. I have a picture of it set with pear shaped diamonds, the table facets showing clearly in many stones. Otherwise the ornament looks quite identical.

I guess that the briolette diamonds were dismantled and used in other jewelry and replaced with the more common pear cut stones.

[DOMOVOII]

Do you have more information about the photo, age, origins?

Could this be a recreation of the famous tiara. If you look there are a couple of other discrepancies, the cushion shaped diamond supporting the upright, and the frame.

I know that the Diamond Fund of the RF have used modern jewellers to manufacture replicas of pieces that were sold off.... there is one of the Ears of Wheat diadem first owned by Maria Feodorovna, wife of Paul I, sold by the Soviet in 1929. In the first instance the tiara had briolette stones, which were later, effected with pave set "grains of wheat" .  (The Briolette cut means that rough/uncut stones needed have to be quite big to begin with, in order to facet the gem in the round. Though I find it difficult to believe they [the new jewellers] wouldn't have had access to some large stones, as they redesigned the central stone of the Wheat Tiara to be a huge yellow diamond, -- initially it had been a 37 ct white sapphire.)

But then again. it could be the same, with the drops changed.

Reading about the jewels that most of the ladies were lucky enough to wear, I am amazed by the versatility and adaptability of them. Most pieces it seems were fitted with hidden loops, catches and pins for using one item in many ways, adding drops, or inserting  posted uprights, maybe joining two or more pieces together,  or unclipping sections to make a different look,  changing it to complement a dress, or owing to the formality of an occasion.

It sounds like good value to me!!

[Johanna]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, DOMOVOII.

The only info I had was that the tiara was being made by Chaumet which proved to be wrong. The poster also called the ornament 'Waterfall aigrette' but I don't think Cartier has given this or any other name for this ornament.

Yes, I know about those copied tiaras. I think that the basic shape, the sprays, look just too identical to be copied from the original. That's why I thought it might have gone through some mild plundering just like the ruby tiara of Maria Alexandrovna, for example, which lost it's great faceted rubies.

Usually it's the modern cut brilliants that reveal that the ornament is modern make. It is difficult to get hands on enough many old cut stones (cushion cuts and briolettes in particular) of uniform size and quality, to make this large items.

The diamond cutters of today are no help because they are concerned so much about the optical symmetry which make the best light return, brilliance. That's why most of the diamonds are cut into brilliants. Of course these stones are great and real 'performers' but seem to lack the personality of an old cut brilliant not to mension the beautiful fire, dispersion, which is characteristic to quality OC brilliants.

I know just the basics of the brilliant cut but I would think that the cutting of a briolette saves more rough weight than brilliant cut which requires sawing/cleavaging an octahedron crystal into two.


Charts of the different cleavagings of a diamond crystal (picture from www.timantit.com. Thank you, Mikko.)

[Johanna]

Oh, you are most welcome, Joanna. I'm also very fond of the site. Seldom you can see this good pictures of Royal jewelry and among there are some true rarities which can't be found anywhere else. I think Ursula is updating the site relatively often. She is, by the way, a member on this board too.

[Martyn]

I'm still confused about the diamond briolette aigrette. I have a picture of it set with pear shaped diamonds, the table facets showing clearly in many stones. Otherwise the ornament looks quite identical.

I guess that the briolette diamonds were dismantled and used in other jewelry and replaced with the more common pear cut stones.

I am afraid Johanna that you are confusing two entirely different pieces of jewellery.
The image of the tiara that you have posted is indeed by Chaumet, but is not the tiara that was created for Miechen.  This piece was created for Prinzessin Henckel von Donnersmarck, by Chaumet, in 1904.


This tiara was created by Cartier for Miechen in 1908.  The similarity in style is remarkable, but Cartier were not above copying or re-interpreting the work of other jewellers to supply their customers' needs.  In the case of Miechen's tiara, the differences are the use of briolettes for the pendant stones and the use of a large round brilliant in place of a cushion-cut at the base of the spray.  To an untrained eye the two pieces are nearly identical.
The Nadelhoffer Cartier book describes this jewel thus;
'Briolette diamond aigrette designed as floral sprays with circular-cut diamond base, the tips suspending briolette-cut diamonds.  Commissioned by Grand Duchess Vladimir in 1908.'

[Martyn]

Martyn, do you know of any photo's of these pieces worn, the Emerald aigrette, is stunning, love the upright drops (if that makes sense), but how were they worn, dead centre, set back from the hairline a'la tiara? Round the back decorating a chignon?  Worn at the front it may look like a huge pair of bugs antennae!

quote]
I'm not entirely sure DOMOVOII but I have a feeling that the briolette aigrette was meant to be worn dead centre, with the wire frame set into the hair and back from the hairline - same with the emerald and diamond aigrette.  However the latter is a much more versatile piece of jewellery and could have been moved around the head to suit, I imagine.  It would be marvellous to find an image of her wearing these jewels so that we could see once and for all exactly how they were worn.....

[Mia]

Oh, those two aigrette's... Thanks, Martyn for the info. Nice to no that it is a copy. And what a copy! I guess the copy-right laws weren't that developed at that time.

Since the model is 'a bit' unusual the thought of two entirely separate pieces didn't even cross my mind. But seeing the 'innumerous' circlets with Maltese crosses, I should be more suspicious, not to mention all the kokoshniks and fringe tiaras.  

Also because the stones look more old cut in the Cartier version I thought of course that this was the tiara in the original state.

[grandduchessella]

I have her portrait in uniform,bout don't know how to post it!If someone want's I can send it by e-mail!Really,great to see one of her pictures wearing a tiara(don't think about photos)!

I'm always available Marc!    I post so much you know it would get right on.  

[Marc]

Ok,no problem!If you can,write to me(here) your e-mail adress and I will post the picture to you!

[Martyn]

I'm always available Marc!    I post so much you know it would get right on.  

Hmm, beat me to it!

[Marc]

Gdella,I have just seen your message with the mail!I will try to send the portrait of Marie in uniform to you tommorow!Greetings

[brnbg aka: liljones1968]

No one has answered my pronounciation.

Would it be Miechen = My Kin, My Ken

Miechen = My Chin, My chen

Miechen = Me Kin, Ken

Miechen = Me Chin, Chen

Perhaps no one living has heard the name pronounced as she would have.

Miechen is a german diminutive, so the pronunciation would follow german languauge rules.    
therefore --

Miechen = Mee  (sh)en    

the 'ch' in Miechen would be pronounced with a much more gutteral sound than 'sh' requires --- imagine you had something stuck in the very back of your throat; it starts to "tickle", and you start trying to dislodge it.  

but, in some areas, pronouncing Miechen as "Meeshin" would be acceptable.