Attention "TunaEars" and Post #45: You are incorrect in relating the damage done to a Faberge egg by linking the cause to the Emperor Nicholas II of Russia and his spouse! I would certainly like to know your documented source from which you derived SPECIFICALLY the involvment of an argument between Their Majesties that caused such!
Since you asked for further information: The egg in question is the "Rosebud Egg." It was SAID to be damaged by the then owner, Henry Talbot de Vere Clifton. Quoting from the volume, "The Art of Carl Faberge," by Alexander von Solodkoff, page 37, ISBN 0-517-57124-2: "Rumor had it that Clifton has thrown it at his wife, the former Lillian Lowell."
The Rosebud is dated 1895. I have seen the egg personally at close range on several occasions, and if you know what to look for, you can see the repair to the enamel. Such inaccurately-recalled information as to the effect that the Imperial couple damaged it during a row over the Heir is how FALSE information begins through such posted garbled (" so I looked it up, and I found this snippet of information....." ) interpretation and potentially leaving impressionable readers to believe as true.
This is a very good example/rejoiner to the whining complaint of another poster (when called to task to back up a statement on another thread) who wanted to know (paraphrased): "Why do we have to document everything we post?" The simple answer, of course, is "For accuracy!" Regards, AP.