Talk:Three Brothers (jewel)

As an English Crown Jewel
A few issues to point out:

The transcription from the jewel inventory of September 1553 is correct as it is currently rendered in the article. The concern voiced by Most Comfortable Chair regarding the way in which Fowlkers and Flanders are transcribed is probably related to a lack of expertise in paleography (ancient handwriting). It was very common in early modern England for an upper case F to be written and represented by two conjoined lower case f's. It is therefore correct to transcribe the words as either ffowlker or Fowlker, and fflanders or Flanders. Both are correct, but the former more nearly reproduces the style of the original. If the transcription is meant to be "precise," however, it should written as "ffowlker." It would be transcribed as "Fowlker" only if similar changes/modern adaptations were made throughout the entire transcription. Which brings us to:

iiij, which is correctly understood to represent the number 4. Again, it was common for early modern writers, when using a string if i's to represent any number between 2 and 4, to render the terminal i as a j. "iiij" represents the number 4, not the number 3, just as "ij" represents the number 2 and "iij" represents the number 3.

But my main concern lies with the first few sentences of the section. The first sentence says that the jewel was left in the custody of Paulet in 1551 (True. As Lord High Treasurer, he was responsible for the safe keeping of the monarch's jewels, which were part of the Treasury owing to their monetary value.) But then the article jumps forward two years, to 1553, at which time it was supposedly decided to gift the jewel to Mary on the occasion of her marriage to Felipe of Spain in 1554. There are several issues with this sequence:

First, the gap between 1551 and 1553 is unfilled. Where was the jewel during that time? (The answer: It was part of Edward's treasury and therefore almost certainly kept locked in the Royal Wardrobe at Westminster, which was overseen by Paulet.)

Second, who decided to "gift" the jewel to Mary? (The answer: No one. In fact, Mary directly inherited the jewel following the death of Edward VI and her own accession as Queen in July 1553. No one "gifted" the jewel to her. She simply inherited it.)

Then, "Edward died before Mary's marriage." Presumably whomever wrote that sentence is referring to Mary's marriage to Felipe. Yes, it is true that Edward died before the marriage. But as the paragraph is written, it is implied that the marriage was planned or arranged prior to Edward's death. That is factually incorrect. Mary did not begin actively planning for her marriage until September 1553, almost two months after she became Queen and almost two months after Edward had died. But the planning process took time, and the marriage treaty was not signed until early in 1554 and was not approved by Parliament until March 1554.

It is therefore impossible for anyone to have "gifted" the jewel to Mary in 1553, as the section implies, and impossible for that "gift" to have been given in anticipation of a marriage that was not yet even contemplated.

Lastly, the source for the claim that Mary "seemed mostly to ignore the pendant in favor of gifts from her husband" is deeply problematic, and the claim itself is utterly baseless. The source cited is a 2013 reprint of a book written in 1938 by Norris Herbert, a costume designer with no training in history. He relied on paintings from the era for his evidence. Yet painted portraits of Mary represent only snapshots of a single moment in time. To use what she wore in her painted portraits as evidence of her daily attire at other times is an extremely poor scholarly research method. Instead, it makes perfect logical sense that a woman known to have been extremely passionate about her marriage would have chosen jewels given to her by him to wear in her portraits, rather than wearing jewels inherited from her half-brother and father, especially since some of those portraits were exported to Spain in an effort to encourage Felipe to return to England from his self-imposed estrangement. Norris was simply wrong, and his research methodology was unsound (NB: His publications are regarded by costume historians of today as amateurish and totally unreliable.) DesertSkies120 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Three Brothers jewel Basel.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 24, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-12-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 03:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Actual size of The Three Brothers
The article includes several photos of paintings of the jewel, including one that is labeled a 1:1 depiction. But nowhere is the actual dimensions of that painting given. If that dimension was provided, a reader would know the actual size of the jewel. Wis2fan (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Great suggestion, will do that right away! — Arcaist (contr —talk)  16:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)