Do you have a link to your message board?
This is getting interesting!
So many sources say the current crown was made in 1661 to replace the previous crown melted down. The Royal Collection supports that.
However, in my collection of souvenir booklets called "The Crown Jewels", one published 1986 reprinted 1992 by Historic Royal Palaces Agency for the Tower of London says -
"The Crown dates from the Coronation of King Charles II but records show that it was an old crown refurbished. It is highly probable that it was one of three old crowns held at Westminster Abbey before the Cromwellian Commonwealth. From records of the costs and weight it is possible that at least the lower half of the Crown may have been that of King Edward the Confessor, the alterations being centred on the arches."
This demonstrates how challenging research can be. Just how many sources should the researcher visit? When is it time for a scholar to go right back to as many primary sources as possible and work their way through again?
Tempting as it is, speculation can lead quickly into deceptive directions. Of the three sentences quoted above, the first asserts "dates from" but also an old refurbished! The second states a high probability. The third sentence describes a possibility based on certain records.
I'm still working through more booklets then will go back to my major source again The Crown Jewels 1998, sixth in this list.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index