The casket of gems belonging to the English Crown is not of ancient date, for the followers of Cromwell—iconoclasts and economists—ordered all the ancient regalia to be sold. However, some of the finest of the gems were recovered not long after, and were used in the decorations of the coronation of Charles II.

The present crown of England was made by English artisans, in 1838, with gems taken from old diadems and others bought by Victoria. It is described by Professor Tennant as follows:—

The value of this beautiful ornament has been estimated by Barbot, the French jeweller, at the sum of $600,000, which, however, is probably very far below its real value.

The great prize and boast of the English treasures is the diamond called the Koh-i-noor, one of the spoils of the East India loot.

From the many descriptions given of it and its real and supposed history, it is better known to the English reader than any other gem; yet there are in Europe several diamonds of greater size and perfection, and a number of gems of greater beauty, and certainly of a higher value. The Koh-i-noor is said to have been discovered in the mine of Gani, near Golconda, about the middle of the sixteenth century. It is thought by some to be a portion of the Great Mogul diamond; but of the correctness of this view there is considerable doubt.

The form in which it was found by the English at the time of capture certainly conveys the idea that it may have been cleft from a larger specimen; but, according to Tavernier, the Great Mogul was ground down and not rifted by means of its cleavage planes at all. At all events, the gem, when it reached England, weighed one hundred and eighty-six karats, and its sides were polished and faceted in the Oriental manner, without regard to a symmetrical form. In this condition it was uncouth, it is true, but it was supposed to be the famous Koh-i-noor, “the mountain of light,” of Eastern romance and history. Now, in its new shape, it is no longer one of the giants of its species, and the prestige which the Hindoos bestowed upon it has also vanished. The recutting of this gem, and the attempt to reduce its irregular form into the shape of a brilliant, was most unfortunate. It is now only a brilliant in name, and it is far too thin in substance to exhibit the beautiful and natural refractive powers of the mineral.

In reality, the form of the brilliant should be cut according to mathematical laws; and its depth and breadth must be of a certain fixed ratio to call forth the natural brilliancy and prismatic display of the stone. This relative degree of form and its wonderful results is well exemplified in the gems cut by Ralph Potter at the commencement of this century, who was, without doubt, the best diamond-cutter the world has seen. It is also laid down as a mathematical problem in the scale which Jeffries has prepared.

The Koh-i-noor, before cutting, weighed one hundred and eighty-six karats; and was the second diamond in Europe. It is now reduced to 102¹⁄₄ karats, with its splendors but little increased; and is reckoned as the fifth in size among the European diamonds; and, to our view, is inferior in value to many of the diamonds of less size, and especially the green diamond of Dresden, or the blue of the Hope collection. In fact, it is far exceeded in beauty and splendor by the imitations of art. The prestige has been injured, if not destroyed, by cutting; and its position among the great gems of the world reduced to a comparatively low degree, notwithstanding its great weight.

No amateur will say that the gem has gained any advantage in cutting, when he sums up the arguments in favor of and against the operation. He will not say the Koh-i-noor, exhibited in the London exhibition, was superior in all respects to the time-honored gem displayed among the crown jewels of the Tower of London a few years before. In reality, its appearance in the Crystal Palace was inferior to that of its glass models; and a comparison of its form with the examples offered by Jeffries will at once show its imperfections.

In its spread, as compared with that of a properly proportioned one-hundred-karat brilliant, it is quite one third too large; or, in plainer language, it is now a badly shaped stone, and cannot display its latent splendors unless surrounded by a great number of wax candles.

A comparison with the outlines of the Regent will at once show the want of harmony in its shape so far as development of brilliancy and prismatic display are concerned; and to obtain the display of these properties, without which the diamond is not much better than common limpid quartz, the form of the gem must be invariably of a certain size and depth. A lustreless mass of diamond, no matter how large it may be, is not a choice example of the mineral, in comparison with a smaller stone, radiant with its natural, or rather developed, beauties. Size alone, without special excellence, brings no charm with it, but rather places it among mineralogical curiosities. Therefore, we regret exceedingly the recent cutting of the Koh-i-noor, which has injured its prestige, and reduced its value incomparably.

Had the lapidaries adopted the form of the Sancy, that is, the shape of the almond, with small facets all over it, a far greater brilliancy would have been obtained. Such is the opinion of Babinet and other connoisseurs, who are able to judge on this subject. The Koh-i-noor, before cutting, was submitted by Prince Albert to the examination of several eminent men, amongst whom was Sir David Brewster; and a variety of opinions were expressed upon the subject. It is generally believed that ideas of fashion directed the shape of the stone to be adopted; and that if its form had been left to Coster, the model of the brilliolette would have been copied, and but little of the stone sacrificed in the cutting. However, it is too late to lament the accident or the error; but we hope that the experience acquired will preserve other specimens for the admiration of art, although it availed nought in the case of the Star of the South, another stone admirably adapted for the exhibition of the beauty of the brilliolette model. This form, with numerous small facets, in both instances would have given more luminous points, and therefore produced more splendid effects.

Babinet properly exclaims against the mode of cutting the large gems with large facets, as thereby much of the glory of the gem is lost. Had the Regent, even, been cut with smaller and more numerous facets, its splendors would have been greater. As we have previously stated, the most vivid play of light and color is exhibited in diamonds of about ten karats or less; we may, perhaps, attribute the difference to the violation of some law in optics, as well as to the difference in the laminæ or substance of the larger stones.

Babinet, in defence of his remarks on this interesting subject, states that the beautiful rainbow hues are produced by the light entering the upper surfaces of the gem, and, being reflected backwards from the bottom surfaces, is then refracted, after traversing the side facets. The white light is then decomposed into every variety of hue, the perfection of which depends upon the condition of reflection and refraction. If the facets are too large and the light too voluminous there is danger of neutralization of these colors, and that white light be reproduced.

We doubt very much if this historic gem has been known to history for more than five hundred years. If it is, as it has been alleged, a part of the Great Mogul, its appearance among mankind dates from 1550. Had it been known in the times when Timour so mercilessly attacked India, it could hardly have escaped the rapacity of the Tatar. And the history of this conquest, in the latter part of the fourteenth century, leads us to believe that all, or nearly all, of the great diamonds of Bengal have been discovered since that time. Had this gem been added to the Mogul treasury at Delhi in 1304, from the conquest of Malwa by Ala-ud-deen, it probably would have been known to Timour. The last Tatar invasion, in 1736, under Nadir Shah, found the gem set in the turban of the Great Mogul, and it was carried away to Khorasan by the victorious host, together with all the fabulous wealth which had been garnered up during nearly four centuries of prosperity. From Nadir it was wrested by assassination, and passed from ruler to ruler, with strange vicissitudes, until the Sikh power succumbed to the arms of England; when it passed, in 1850, with other treasures, from the stronghold of Lahore to the jewel-chamber of Windsor Castle.

Ill fortune has always attended the possession of this gem, it is said; and certainly the reduction of the stone in the blind attempt to improve its brilliancy may be classed in this category. The Hindoos have always maintained that it inevitably brought ruin to its possessor; and surely, the history of the Mogul Empire, the reign of Nadir Shah, its conqueror, the Dooranee dynasty, and the rule of the Sikhs give strength to the plausibility of the tradition. In the chapter on the gems of Asia we shall again refer to this stone.

England has had the opportunity, during her Indian conquests, of collecting the most magnificent parure of gems the world has seen. The pride of the French Crown, the matchless Regent, was brought to London by the English Governor, Pitt, and offered to the Royal House; the great Orloff, the boast of the Russian regalia, was brought from India by an Englishman, Earl Effingham; and many other fine diamonds and gems from Hindostan have been brought within the reach of the English Crown before being offered elsewhere for disposition. The neglect to secure these beautiful and matchless treasures is inexcusable even in a commercial view, for a gem paragon is “an empire made portable.”

Among the diamonds brought from India by Englishmen, the Pigott and the Nassac deserve some mention.

The Pigott was a splendid gem of 47¹⁄₂ karats, and derived its name from its importer. In 1801 it was placed in a lottery in London, and valued at $150,000. The lucky drawer of the prize was content to part with it for $30,000 to an English jeweller, who afterwards sold it to Ali Pacha of Egypt. The Egyptian prince conceived a strange attachment to the gem. He did not display it among the ornaments on his person; but concealed it in a silken bag which he attached to his girdle. The story goes that when Ali was mortally wounded by Reschid Pacha he gave orders to have his favorite wife, Vasilika, strangled, and also commanded Captain D’Anglas to crush the diamond in his presence. A single blow of the hammer crushed to atoms this beautiful gem, which was really one of the finest in Europe on account of the perfection of its form and the absolute purity of its water. The model alone remains. The fascinating Vasilika by some means managed to escape the sentence of death.

The Nassac diamond was brought from India by the Marquis of Hastings, and formed a part of the Deccan booty. After passing through several ownerships it was finally purchased by the Marquis of Westminster for about fifty thousand dollars. It has since been recut into a triangular form, and its original weight reduced from eighty-nine to about seventy-eight karats. In its new form it has gained vastly in lustre and brilliancy.

The famous blue diamond known as the Hope diamond, from the fact that it belonged to one of the distinguished family of bankers of that name, is really one of the most valuable diamonds in Europe, for it is indeed one of the marvels of the mineral kingdom. Its weight is 44¹⁄₂ karats, but its history is unknown; and this obscurity leads to the suspicion it may be the lost gem of the French casket since reduced in size. It is now mounted as a medallion with a border of rose-cut diamonds and twenty brilliants, each of one karat weight and of the finest water.

This beautiful gem was shown to the public at the great Exhibition of 1851 in London, and the description given of it by Mr. Hertz is worth repeating here. It is “a most magnificent and rare brilliant of a deep sapphire-blue, of the greatest purity and most beautifully cut: it is of true proportions, not too thick nor too wide-spread. This matchless gem combines the beautiful color of the sapphire with the prismatic fire and brilliancy of the diamond; and on account of its extraordinary color, great size, and other fine qualities, it certainly may be called unique, as we may presume that there exists no cabinet nor any collection of crown jewels in the world which can boast of the possession of so curious and fine a gem.”

The value of this wonderful specimen of Nature’s work has been variously estimated. It is understood that Mr. Hope paid but $65,000 for it, which is a mere bagatelle to its comparative worth. To our view this matchless gem should be valued as highly as any of the fine paragon diamonds of the world, and we do not include the Koh-i-noor as among this number. In this estimate we refer only to the comparison of actual merits and qualities, unbiassed by the whims of royalty or of fashion.

A hundred years ago and more the citizens of London, transported with joy over the victory at Culloden by the Duke of Cumberland, hailed the soldier as a hero and a deliverer, and presented him with a beautiful diamond. It was a splendid gem of thirty-two karats weight, and cost the city the sum of $50,000. Not many years ago, however, the House of Hanover laid claim to the gem by reason of certain laws of inheritance; and we are informed that Queen Victoria, after investigating the claim, ordered the gem to be given up to the claimant.

Mr. Hertz, of London, in the course of his long experience collected a very costly, as well as unique and beautiful, collection of gems. His cabinet of diamonds, embracing almost every shade and color, rivalled in excellence the celebrated Wernerian cabinet at Freiburg, and that of Abbé Haüy at the Jardin des Plantes at Paris; but was surpassed by that of Helmreicher now preserved in the Imperial Museum at Vienna.

As the reader may be interested in the tastes of the English nobility in the good old times, we will look over a few of the pages of English history, and relate some of the incidents of court life, and describe the appearance of some of the distinguished characters of different reigns.

Eleanor of Provence exhibited great extravagance at her coronation as Queen of King Henry III., who was called the greatest fop of his time (1236). It was probably Eleanor who established the fashion of wearing chaplets of gold and gems over the hair. On the occasion of her coronation she had on no less than nine garlands or wreaths formed of gold and clusters of colored precious stones. She had, also, among her regalia, a great crown glorious with gems, and girdles radiant with the most beautiful specimens of the mineral kingdom. The wedding present from her sister, Queen Marguerite of France, was a large silver peacock, whose train was set with sapphires and pearls and other precious stones. It was used as a reservoir for perfumed waters.

It seems that the old Crusaders were wont to deck themselves with gems; and Provençal traditions declare that the first intimation Queen Berengaria had of the seizure of Richard Cœur de Lion was the sale of a belt adorned with gems, which she knew he wore and would not part with except by violence.

The coronation of Henry VIII. was attended with extraordinary splendor, and the King was arrayed with the finest gems that could be obtained.

At the famous Tournament of the Cloth of Gold, the English and French nobility attempted to outshine each other in the magnificence of their dresses and decorations. And the vanity of the festival caused the financial distress or ruin of many a gallant knight.

At the banquet at this time King Henry gave Anne Boleyn a beautiful jewel valued at 15,000 crowns.

When Bluff King Hal went to meet his bride, Anne of Cleves, he was arrayed so magnificently as to be likened by the wits of the time to the “king of diamonds.” He wore a coat of purple velvet curiously embroidered with gold and lace. “The sleeves were cut, and lined with cloth of gold, and clasped with great buttons of diamonds, rubies, and Orient pearls; his sword and girdle set with stones and special emeralds; his cap garnished with stones, but his bonnet was so rich of jewels that few men could value them. Besides all this he wore a collar of such Balais rubies and pearls that few men ever saw the like.”

Henry demanded of Francis I. of France, the gems and jewels which had belonged to his sister Mary, who had married Louis XII. Among them were a ruby two inches and a half long, some great pearls, and large diamonds, forming together a casket which the Earl of Worcester describes as the “goodliest and richest sight of jewels he ever saw.” But they were never returned; and Francis refused to allow the claim on account of the loss of the fine diamond known as the Mirror of Naples, and which he valued at 30,000 crowns. What this diamond really was, and its subsequent history, is still a matter of historical conjecture.

Mary Queen of Scots, when married to the Dauphin of France in 1558, was decked in a marvellous manner with all that art could afford at the time. Her crown was of exquisite workmanship, and was composed of gold, with diamonds, pearls, rubies, and emeralds of immense value, having a huge carbuncle suspended in the middle valued at half a million crowns. Around her neck was hung the esteemed jewel known in Scottish history as the “Great Harry.” The inventories of her property show that she possessed a large number of valuable gems. It seems that she lavished upon Bothwell, before they parted at Carberry Hill, jewels of more than $30,000 in value.

One of the most magnificent pageants known in English history was that celebrated by the wealth of England and illustrated with the poetry of Ben Jonson, and which was the occasion of investing the eldest son of Queen Anne with the rights of the Prince of Wales, in 1609. The “Glorious Masque,” which took place at this time, has never been excelled in England. The whole court of England and all the aristocratic beauties of the day were engaged in the event. The palace of Whitehall was transformed into a scene of enchantment under the hands of the best artists of the time, guided by the taste of Inigo Jones. This magnificent festival, characterized by so many beautiful and dazzling scenes, was the happiest in the life of Queen Anne of Denmark.

A few years after this glorious celebration, which lingered in the memory of the participants like a golden dream, Queen Anne died; and the King, on opening her coffers and cabinets, discovered that all of her beautiful gems and jewels had disappeared; and notwithstanding the Queen’s maid and attendants were arrested, and diligent search made in all directions, there is no evidence that even a trace was ever found of the missing treasure. No vestige was ever obtained of the jewels which Herrick made for her, and which were worth nearly $200,000.

When the Duke of Buckingham was sent to Paris, in 1625, to bring over to England Queen Henrietta Maria, he carried with him twenty-seven rich suits of clothing, as beautiful and valuable as the invention of the times could make them. The suit arranged for his entry into Paris was reckoned of a value of more than a quarter of a million of dollars. It was made of white satin and uncut velvet, set all over with diamonds. His spurs, hat-band, feather, girdle, and sword were all covered with diamonds. For the wedding day, at Paris, he had a suit of purple satin, embroidered all over with Orient pearls, and a cloak to match, made after the Spanish fashion, all of the value of about one hundred thousand dollars.

Charles I. had many fine gems and jewels at his disposal; and, according to the documents still extant, he made free use of them. The very first year of his reign, he examined the contents of the jewel house, with a view of pledging them in the future; and it is said that his queen, Henrietta, raised in one year ten millions of dollars on the royal jewels. The great collar of rubies was sold in Holland.

Charles, in the days of his prosperity, was an eager purchaser of gems and jewelry; and a record is preserved which shows that he bought in a year and a half, a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of jewelry, and chiefly to use as gifts. It is also related that he bought the great diamond which Sir Paul Pindar brought home from Constantinople, and which he valued at $150,000. The subsequent history of this rare gem is to be placed among the mysterious things of the past.

The queen of James II. was ornamented for the coronation in a manner that would have startled even Lollia Paulina; and a half million dollars were expended in dressing her up. The diadem also was a wondrous piece of extravagance for the times, and cost more than five hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The historian of the times states that “the jewels she had on were reckoned at a million’s worth, which made her shine like an angel.” The exiled Queen, in the after years of her widowhood, said to the nuns of Chaillot, “My dress and royal mantle were covered with precious stones; and it took all the jewels that the goldsmiths of London could procure to decorate my crown.”

When Queen Caroline was crowned as consort of George II., she made use of all the material she could find in London. And Lord Hervey exclaims that “the appearance and the truth of her finery was a mixture of magnificence and meanness not unlike the eclat of royalty in many other particulars, when it comes to be nicely considered, and its source traced to what money hires and flattery lends.” For it is stated that she used upon her head all the pearls and necklaces she could borrow from the ladies of quality; and that she placed upon her petticoat all the diamonds she could hire of the Jews and jewellers in town.

When Philip of Spain went to England to receive his bride, Queen Mary, the ceremonies on the occasion were conducted with great splendor. The King was accompanied by sixty of the most distinguished grandees of Spain, clad in royal array. He was dressed in a robe of rich brocade bordered with large pearls and diamonds. His trunk hose were of white satin worked with silver. He wore a collar of beaten gold full of inestimable diamonds, and from which hung the jewel of the Golden Fleece. Around his knee was the Garter, studded with beautiful gems of various colors.

The daughter of Henry VIII. inherited her father’s love for ornamental display; and at the time of her marriage with Philip of Spain, she appeared magnificently arrayed. She is described as wearing a robe whose ample train was bordered with pearls and diamonds of immense size and value. The large sleeves were ornamented with clusters of gold set with pearls and diamonds. Her coif was bordered with two rows of large diamonds; and she wore on her breast a splendid diamond of inestimable value, which Philip had sent her as a gift. Mary, on her death-bed, sent the most of her jewels to her sister Elizabeth of England; and King Philip added to them a casket of very beautiful gems.

Elizabeth, when she became Queen of England, gradually acquired a passion for jewelry, which finally became absurd and grotesque. She possessed at one time two thousand dresses and an immense quantity of gems. The portrait of Queen Elizabeth at Henham Hall represents her in a blaze of jewels. She appears with an enormous ruff, which rose as a bird-like structure behind the fabric of jewels which adorned her head, until it overtopped the cross of her regal diadem. A rich collar of gold, woven in delicate filigree work, set with pearls, rubies, and amethysts, adorned her neck. The bodice of her dress was also ornamented with gold filigree set with many gems; and the sleeves were profusely ornamented to match the bodice. Horace Walpole, in describing her portraits, says, “There is not one that can be called beautiful. The profusion of ornaments with which they are loaded are marks of her continual fondness for dress; while they entirely exclude all grace, and leave no more room for a painter’s genius, than if he had been employed to copy an Indian idol, totally composed of hands and necklaces. A pale Roman nose; a head of hair loaded with crowns, and powdered with diamonds; a vast ruff, a vaster fardingale, and a bushel of pearls,—are features by which everybody knows at once the picture of Elizabeth.”

Sir Walter Raleigh dressed himself in a gorgeous manner, and was profusely decorated with gems. On court days, even his shoes wore gems of the value of more than $30,000 (£6,600). His armor was of solid silver, with sword and belt blazing with diamonds, rubies, and pearls.

The Duke of Buckingham, the favorite of King James, wore his diamonds loosely attached, so that he might shake off a few at pleasure. His cloaks were trimmed with great diamond buttons; his hat-bands were of diamonds; also his cockades. Among his many rich suits was one of white uncut velvet, set all over with diamonds, to the value of £80,000; besides a great feather bespangled with diamonds, as well as his sword, girdle, hat, and spurs.

In olden times the shrine of Thomas à Becket was famous throughout England and attracted countless devotees from all parts of the realm. One hundred thousand persons of all ranks are said to have visited it in one year, offering a vast variety of gifts. In the twelfth century Louis VII. of France, disguised as a common pilgrim in the meanest garb, visited the shrine and presented it with a famous precious stone, called the Regale of France, and as large as a bird’s egg. Not a fragment of this glittering and splendid shrine—a mass of gold and jewels—remains at the present day to interest the antiquary; and its treasures have been scattered to the winds, leaving no trace behind.

The churches of England, as well as France and Spain, were at one time enormously rich in precious stones and ecclesiastical ornaments of the jewellers’ art; but wars and insurrections are fatal to collections of the rare and the beautiful; and the fury and cupidity of the Leaguers, the iconoclasts, and the revolutionists have destroyed these treasures of art and nature, or dispersed them so that their identity is lost.

The magnificence of the English clergy led Pope Innocent III. to exclaim, “O England, thou garden of delights! Thou art truly an inexhaustible fount of riches. From thy abundance much may be exacted.”