February is the month of amethysts, and there have been a few notes in my inbox recently asking about a necklace worn by Anna Wintour at Buckingham Palace. Is it the same one that was once worn by Queen Mary? The short answer is no—but I’ll give a longer explanation in today’s article, just for fun.
On February 4, King Charles III officially invested the fashion editor Dame Anna Wintour as a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace. The order, founded by King George V during World War I, recognizes Commonwealth citizens who have made “a major contribution to the arts, science, medicine, or government lasting over a long period of time.” Other recent honorees include the writers Ian McEwan and Sir Kazuo Ishiguro, the singer Dame Shirley Bassey, and former PM Gordon Brown.
For the investiture, Dame Anna wore one of her signature jewelry looks: colorful gemstone necklaces layered together. On this occasion, she chose two necklaces with purple stones: a smaller necklace with pale lavender gems and a larger one set with stones in a deeper shade of purple.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve received several questions wondering whether the larger of the two necklaces worn by Wintour for the investiture is the same amethyst necklace that once belonged to Queen Mary. Above is a nineteenth-century portrait of Mary, then Duchess of York, wearing an amethyst and diamond tiara, necklace, and brooch.
Queen Mary kept the set in her jewelry collection for decades. The tiara was one of the ones she often reserved later in her life for events where comfort was important, like outings to the cinema or theater. Above, she wears the amethyst tiara and brooch to attend a charity premiere for the Claudette Colbert comedy Midnight in London in May 1939.
After Mary’s death, the amethysts left the family. There were some rumors that the Queen Mother had sold the gems, but I believe that many now think that Princess Margaret is the one who privately sold the parure, then consisting of a tiara, necklace, earrings, and a ring. By 1993, the suite was auctioned at Sotheby’s in Geneva.
The necklace from the diamond and amethyst parure resurfaced in 2007, when Anna Wintour wore it for a gala at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London.
Though Wintour has an interesting collection of personal jewelry, it is believed that she borrowed Queen Mary’s necklace from one of her favorite jewelry firms, S.J. Phillips, for the evening. She has not worn the necklace again since that outing at the V&A.
But Anna has worn numerous other colorful necklaces set with purple stones in the years since, and some of these do indeed appear to be personally-owned pieces. She likes to source the antique necklaces, some of which are set with genuine stones and others apparently with paste, from S.J. Phillips. Most of the necklaces are thought to date from the nineteenth century.
More recently, we saw her wear a heavy stack of these necklaces, including a whopping necklace that appears to be set with amethysts, for the Fashion Awards in London in December 2024. The stones on this necklace appears to be more oval in shape than the ones that she wore at Buckingham Palace a few weeks ago.
To me, this looks like a clearer match to Wintour’s Buckingham Palace necklace. It’s from S.J. Phillips, and it’s described by the firm as a “19th century graduated amethyst riviere necklace, c.1880, with eighteen large circular facetted stones.”
Here’s another look at Dame Anna’s Buckingham Palace jewelry. Despite what other outlets (cough, Daily Mail, cough) have suggested, she didn’t wear Mary’s amethysts in a new setting. What do you think: is her necklace a match to the S.J. Phillips necklace above?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.