Anna Wintour dazzles in £55,000 amethyst necklace with mysterious royal past at Buckingham Palace
- READ MORE: Kate Middleton's thoughtful jewellery tributes to Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana down the years
How do you impress the King? Arrive at Buckingham Palace in a Prince of Wales check suit and a necklace once belonging to his great-grandmother.
That's exactly what Dame Anna Wintour did on Tuesday when she accepted her honours.
The legendary editor-in-chief of American Vogue was made a Companion of Honour in the 2023 King's Birthday Honours list for her contributions to fashion.
True to her impeccable style, she wore a custom Alexander McQueen spring/summer 2025 draped skirt suit.
However, it was her striking amethyst necklace that captured the attention of royal watchers.
Once part of an opulent parure - comprising a tiara, necklace, earrings and a brooch - the piece traces its origins to Queen Charlotte, wife of King George III.
The collection was passed down to Queen Charlotte's daughter, Princess Charlotte, who married Frederick I, King of Württemberg. Although the couple had no children together, Frederick had a son, William, from a previous marriage.
William's daughter, Catherine, was a cousin of Queen Mary's father, the Duke of Teck. In 1898, she bequeathed the parure to Mary.
Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of American Vogue, wore a striking amethyst necklace when she accepted her honours at Buckingham Palace
It was bequeathed to Queen Mary (pictured) by Princess Catherine of Württemberg in 1898. The full set was worn by Mary in portraits during her time as the Duchess of York in the 1890s and later as the Princess of Wales in the early 1900s
Once part of an opulent parure - comprising a tiara, necklace, earrings and a brooch - the piece traces its origins to Queen Charlotte
The full set was worn by Mary in portraits during her time as the Duchess of York in the 1890s and later as the Princess of Wales in the early 1900s.
Though she was not photographed wearing the tiara during King George V's reign, Mary began donning the parure again in the late 1930s and 1940s.
Notable appearances included the gala premiere of René Blum's ballet company in 1937 and the London premiere of The Passionate Friends in 1949.
By the 1980s, the set belonged to the family of Rorik Ravel, whose wife wore it for their 1983 wedding. He said: 'As far as I know, PM [Princess Margaret] inherited it directly from QM [Queen Mary].' Mr Ravel also claimed that Margaret sold it while her mother was still alive.
The amethyst parure went up for auction at Sotheby's Geneva in May 1993 with an estimated value of $75,000-$125,000.
The set sold for £55,357 to an anonymous buyer. It later resurfaced at the London Grosvenor House Antiques Fair, listed for £150,000, before being sold once again.
It appears that Anna Wintour may have acquired the necklace, as she was seen wearing it at the Golden Age of Couture party at London's V&A Museum in 2007.
Initially thought to be a loaned piece, its modified reappearance at Buckingham Palace has led many to believe she owns it.
Though Mary was not photographed wearing the tiara during King George V's reign, she began donning the parure again in the late 1930s and 1940s
It appears that Anna Wintour may have acquired the necklace at auction, as she was seen wearing it at the Golden Age of Couture party at London's V&A Museum in 2007
Anna paired the dazzling necklace with a custom Alexander McQueen spring/summer 2025 checked draped suit
Ms Wintour seems to have had the distinctive amethysts reset into a more contemporary gold setting.
Reflecting on receiving her honour, the editor-in-chief said: 'It's wonderful to be back at Buckingham Palace, and I was completely surprised and overwhelmed to be given this great honour.'
She also shared that she and King Charles had a conversation about her work.
She explained: 'The last time I was here, [Queen Elizabeth] gave me a medal, and we both agreed that we had been doing our job a very long time.
'This morning, His Majesty asked me if this meant I was going to stop working, and I said firmly, "No."'
