About Precious Stones as a Sign of Affection

In a similar spirit, the true value of jewels, as souvenirs of affection, is shown in the will of the late Earl Stanhope, in which he gives certain diamonds to his daughter-in-law, Evelyn (the present Countess Stanhope), for her life, stating that in so doing, it is in accordance with the wishes of his late wife, as expressed in a memorandum, in which she sets forth that the jewels were part value of the deceased peer's published works, and as such she was very proud of them. After the death of the countess, the diamonds were to be made heir-looms, to pass with the title.

Among the spoils brought from the province called the Golden Castile, by Fernando Cortez, were five emeralds, then valued at one hundred thousand crowns. The first was cut in the shape of a rose, with its leaves; the second in that of a hunting-horn; the third in that of a fish, with golden eyes; the fourth was a bell, the clapper of which was a large pear-shaped pearl; and the fifth, the most precious of all, was a cup on a golden foot, with four small gold chains attached to a large pearl, by which the jewel was hung as an ornament to the person. These jewels probably entailed their owner's loss of court favour. The empress-queen expressed a desire to have them, but the conqueror of Mexico was about to be married to a pretty woman, and preferred to make her a present of them.

Queen Charlotte (consort of George III.) in a confidential conversation with Miss Burney, in 1762, talking of her jewels, said: "I thought at first I should always love to wear them, but the fatigue and trouble of putting them on, and the care they require, with the fear of losing them, made me in a fortnight's time long for my earlier dress, and I wished never to have them more." There is a vein of philosophy in this, but, like the great Queen Elizabeth, she yielded to the seduction of rare and costly jewels to such an extent, that gossip declared her favour, in the way of appointments, might be won through a present of jewellery.

However, Walpole, in his history of the reign of George III., mentions a trait of character which does honour to the Queen. It seems that George III., in the early part of his marriage, took pleasure in presenting his young consort with jewels, and seeing her wear them. Once only she begged to lay them on one side. It had been one of the injunctions of her late mother that on the occasion of her being a communicant at the altar as Queen of England, she should receive the sacrament unadorned with jewels, and without parade. "The king," says Walpole, "indulged her, but Lady Augusta, carrying this tale to her mother, the princess obliged the king to insist on the jewels being worn, and the poor young queen's tears and terrors could not dispense with her obedience."