The 6
Mitford Sisters, Their Jewelry and a New TV Series
The costume
designer for “Outrageous” talks about finding designs that the women would have
worn.
By David
Belcher
Published
May 20, 2025
Updated May
22, 2025
The Mitford
sisters, known for their 20th-century aristocratic glamour and political
scandal, were not among England’s most gem-laden women. But jewelry did play a
role in their outsize public profiles.
“Diana the
fascist, Jessica the communist, Unity the Hitler-lover, Nancy the novelist,
Deborah the duchess and Pamela the unobtrusive poultry connoisseur” is how Ben
Macintyre, a writer for The Times of London, once described the six women.
Now they are
the subjects of “Outrageous,” a six-part series scheduled to debut June 18 on
BritBox in the United States and Canada and June 19 on U and U&Drama in
Britain. The series is set in the 1930s, the era in which they became famous —
and infamous — and arrives on the heels of the discovery of a diary kept by
Unity, who was obsessed with Hitler and, by her own account, was his lover.
Excerpts were published this year by The Daily Mail.
A childish
prank involving Unity and Jessica was most likely one of the sisters’ earliest
jewelry episodes. “A diamond ring was used to etch both the image of a hammer
and sickle and swastika on a window in their childhood home,” Sarah Williams,
the writer of “Outrageous,” said in a recent video interview. “They had such a
young bond as kids, but they were both rebels, and that bond of rebellion was
stronger than their political beliefs. They were absolute extremes.”
The sisters
— there also was one brother, Thomas, who was killed in World War II — were the
children of David Freeman-Mitford, the second Baron Redesdale, and his wife,
Sydney Bowles. While the family was not particularly wealthy, the sisters were
schooled at home and then entered society.
“As part of
our research, we specifically collected images of jewelry pieces worn by the
Mitford girls,” Claire Collins, the costume designer for “Outrageous,” said by
email, “and although we couldn’t replicate certain pieces, we were able to use
them as a guide.”
She added:
“For example, we decided to incorporate more bohemian pieces for Nancy as we
were keen to express her ties with the creative types of the time, such as the
Bloomsbury group.”
Ms. Williams
said she found dozens of references to jewelry in her research, which included
Jessica’s 1960 memoir, “Hons and Rebels,” and “The Mitford Girls” by Mary S.
Lovell, the 2001 biography that was the basis for “Outrageous.”
Diana, for
example, wore a tiara of diamonds and rubies at her 1929 wedding to Bryan
Guinness, heir to the brewery fortune. She reportedly returned the tiara to him
when they divorced four years later, but kept several other pieces. (Later she
married Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British fascist movement.)
“The Mitford
sisters came from impeccably aristocratic stock, but growing up, money was
tight,” Ms. Williams said. “Nevertheless, I think jewelry was highly
significant in their lives, as it often came in the form of gifts from the men
they loved, but it could also be exchanged for hard cash and might help them
out of a tight spot.”
That idea
plays out in “Outrageous,” in a sequence portraying Nancy as a celebrated but
not always financially secure novelist.
“Nancy is
forced to sell all her jewelry to pay her rent, but we retained one small
pinkie ring that was our nod to her connection with her family,” Ms. Collins
wrote. “It’s small and unnoticeable to most, but it grounds her character and
gives her heart.”
One anecdote
from “The Mitford Girls” describes Nancy seeing Pamela’s 17th-century enamel
and gold wedding ring — from a suitor who ended the engagement shortly before
the ceremony — and commenting that it looked like “a chicken’s mess.” The
scenario was fictionalized in Nancy’s novel “The Pursuit of Love,” and the real
ring was said to be given to Unity, who reportedly regifted it to Hitler.
Of the
sisters, the youngest, Deborah, also known as Debo, probably had the most
jewelry. She married Andrew Cavendish, who was later the 11th Duke of
Devonshire, and eventually became the chatelaine of the stately home,
Chatsworth, in Derbyshire.
Much of her
personal jewelry — including a heart-shape brooch pavéd with brilliant-cut
diamonds and a curb link chain bracelet with white sapphires forming the
letters to spell Teapot Row, the name of one of the duke’s racehorses — along
with paintings, furniture and household goods were auctioned in 2016 by
Sotheby’s.
The auction
also listed several brooches, such as a citrine, onyx and diamond caterpillar,
that were gifts from her husband.
“It was
rumored that every time he had a fling, he would feel guilty and would buy her
an insect or animal brooch,” said Adrian Dickens, a jeweler in Australia and a
recognized expert on the Mitfords. “There is one photo of the duchess wearing
30 to 40 of them.”
The
Devonshire jewels belonged to the family, although Deborah wore them as
duchess. “She had nine major pieces,” Mr. Dickens said, “including the
Devonshire parure, a collection of seven matching items — bandeau, bracelet,
coronet, diadem, necklace, stomacher and comb — commissioned by the sixth Duke
of Devonshire for his nephew’s wife to wear to Czar Alexander II’s coronation
in 1856.”
The
collection also included two diamond tiaras: the Devonshire tiara, sometimes
referred to as the Palmette tiara, with 1,881 diamonds in palm leaf and lotus
motifs, which, like many tiaras, could be divided into several brooches; and
the honeysuckle tiara, which could be dismantled into as many as seven
brooches, Mr. Dickens said.
“Deborah
wore the Devonshire parure but not often because it must have been very heavy
and uncomfortable,” he said. “A portrait of her in front of her Lucian Freud
portrait does show at least three of the pieces being worn quite casually.”
Her jewelry
could be seen as the final, glamorous chapter in the saga of the Mitford
sisters.
“The family
was torn apart by politics, but the sisterhood remained intact,” Ms. Williams
said. “They had a yearning for diamonds and fine jewelry as the era of
aristocracy was ending. There was a lot of good breeding, but not much cash.”
A correction
was made on May 22, 2025: Because of an editing error, an earlier version of
this article misstated the location of Chatsworth. The stately home is in
Derbyshire, not Devonshire.
No comments:
Post a Comment