>>26895
But let's jump back a few steps. Let's say it's an earlier artifact compared to the addition of the Doukas plate (about 1074), but then the two other icons, of Géza and Constantine/Konstantios are also additions of that time since they lived about then. But it means the socket of theirs weren't made for them, they still could perfectly fit in but not the Doukas icon? And no they cannot be cut to size since this enamel if it's damaged it starts to crumble, this is why the Doukas plate wasn't cut to size either. Their socket also can't be altered more easier (if at all!) than poor Michael's. Moreover all the historians firmly agreed they are original for the crown many even say the Doukas icon is as well tho but that would mean those guys depicted aren't even Géza I. and Constantine X or Konstantios, since they were made when the crown, way before these guys' time.
All right they still can be grand prince Géza (~970-997), father of Stephan I, and Constantine VII (913-959) or VIII (1025-1028) who were really called Purple-borns unlike the other two "Kons" I mentioned above. This solution has two drawbacks. One, why would these two included together? The dates don't match either way. Two, why would a Hungarian ruler's imagery was used on a piece of item which was worn in the Byzantine court (especially if the user was 1. female; 2. empress)? Makes no sense.
But maybe it was sent to prince Géza, but then why would anyone from the Hungarian court order to put Doukas' icon onto it 70-100 years later (or even later anytime)? And who was in the now empty socket covered by Doukas? And why would anyone from the Byzantine court sent a crown to Géza when he pursued a pro-western politics (pope and emperor)?