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 Devonshire stately home, Chatsworth.
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.”
The post The 6 Mitford Sisters, Their Jewelry and a New TV Series appeared first on New York Times.
