The Louvre Heist Shines Light on Forgotten French Crown Jewels—and Their Political History

Before the shocking theft of the French Crown Jewels from the Louvre on October 19, most had all but forgotten the ruling women who once wore them during their 19th-century reigns. Even the Louvre’s own website offers little context—under “Object Location,” the page for each piece now reads the stinging phrase: “Not exhibited.” But the individual histories of the women who once owned these jeweled parures reveal much about France’s tumultuous political past—and bring those royal names to life.

Historian Raphaël Dargent, however, hasn’t forgotten them. He recently published biographies of Maria Amalia, the last queen of France, and of Empress Eugénie, both of whose jewels were stolen Sunday. Dargent told ARTnews that the theft of the eight jewels is especially painful given that they were among the few remaining Crown Jewels after most were auctioned off in 1887 by the French government, both to pay down debt and to rid the newly established Third Republic of monarchical symbols.

Two of the stolen pieces once belonged to Empress Eugénie: her pearl-and-diamond tiara and a bow-shaped brooch. Both were sold at that fateful 1887 auction and later repurchased for the Louvre more than a century later with the help of the Société des Amis du Louvre, the museum’s association of private donors. Eugénie’s tiara, adorned with 212 pearls and 1,998 diamonds arranged in 992 roses, was acquired in 1992 from Sotheby’s for a reported $1 million. The brooch was acquired in 2008 for nearly $8 million. Other pieces, acquired by the museum in 1985, had never been sold by the French state. They remained with the families of their original owners, who were allowed to keep them.

One item of particularly high value, according to Dargent, was the reliquary brooch, which had never left official hands and was preserved at the Louvre until its theft. The brooch includes two enormous diamonds originally gifted to King Louis XIV by Cardinal Mazarin in the 17th century. The central diamond was once worn by the king as a button.

For the monarchs who wore them, these jewels were political tools, Dargent said—symbols of power and authority, not personal preference. “These sovereigns needed to don the appearance of power, and their jewels were attributes of that power, or political statements, not necessarily a reflection of their own, personal taste,” Dargent explained.

Still, some rulers, like Queen Maria Amalia—owner of the stolen sapphire parure and diadem—had reason to be cautious about flaunting that power. After all, France had not long before beheaded its queen, Marie-Antoinette, widely condemned for her luxurious tastes and extravagant displays. It is no exaggeration to conclude that she paid for it with her life.

Maria Amalia of Naples and Sicily reigned as queen from 1830 to 1848, until her husband, King Louis-Philippe, was overthrown in yet another French revolution. Marie-Antoinette, her aunt, was guillotined in 1793. “When Marie-Antoinette was executed, Maria Amalia was about 11 years old,” Dargent said. “She saw her mother grieving. They went to church to pray. These executions were her first political memories, and and were incredibly traumatic, with this horrible image of her aunt and uncle beheaded by the public in Paris.”

All of Europe’s ruling elite, he added, were “profoundly shocked” by the French Revolution and feared its repetition. As a result, Maria Amalia projected a deliberately modest, bourgeois style when she became queen. She declined to wear the Crown Jewels in official portraits, though she wore them occasionally in private paintings.

Louis-Philippe and Maria Amalia came to power after the 1830 July Revolution, known as the Trois Glorieuses, establishing a constitutional monarchy. It was not the time for a ruler to flaunt their bling,

“The violence was ongoing in France, which was why Louis-Philippe wanted to reconcile France with its past. This meant both he and his wife had to appear forward-looking, and not as though they were returning to a form of absolute monarchy,” Dargent said. “It was important for both of them not to exhibit the crown jewels in public, which could have been seen as a form of provocation.”

Even so, Maria Amalia purchased jewels as a financial investment and wore them ceremonially. But what she cherished most was “sentimental jewelry”—pieces containing locks of hair or portraits of her many children and grandchildren. She reportedly owned about 40 such “portrait bracelets.”

The other empresses whose jewels were stolen, however, had a different mandate. They presided over a France eager to project renewed grandeur—stronger, unified, and modern after the reign of failed absolutist king Louis XVI. The glittering regalia was back.

Dargent’s favorite among them is Empress Eugénie, a progressive figure in her time. As wife of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte—who seized power in a coup and crowned himself Napoleon III in 1852—she ruled as Empress from 1853 to 1870. “During the 2nd Empire, there was a desire to revive an older sense of royal splendor, which is why it was important that Empress Eugénie wore these jewels in an official capacity,” Dargent said.  To that end, she “talked about her ‘political toilette,’ as part of her given role, and the same applied to her jewelry,” he added.

An opinionated, independent woman, Eugénie was routinely cheated on by her husband but didn’t hesitate to express her views. She served as regent during his absence at war in 1870 and proved politically savvy—though, Dargent noted, “she was sometimes criticized for speaking out too much.” She also supported women artists and embraced modernity. Despite the symbolism of her jewels, they held little personal value for her. When the city of Paris offered her a diamond necklace, she refused and instead used the funds to build an orphanage in the shape of a diamond necklace: the Maison Eugène Napoleon.

Another sovereign whose jewels were taken was Empress Marie-Louise (1791–1847), who ruled from 1810 to 1814 and replaced Empress Joséphine as the wife of Napoleon I because Joséphine could not bear an heir. A political bride—she was the daughter of Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor—her marriage briefly stabilized relations between France and Austria.

To commemorate the union, Napoleon gifted her a necklace from the jeweler Nitot composed of 32 emeralds, 1,138 diamonds, and matching earrings—all stolen in the recent heist. The Louvre acquired the parure in 2004 with donor support, for a reported $4 million.

Empress Marie-Louise “had a lot of success with men, and one might say, wasn’t very loyal to the emperor, but he was very in love with her,” said Dargent. As for her taste in jewelry, privately, the empress also preferred those of sentimental value.

Lastly, there is Hortense de Beauharnais (1783–1837), Queen Consort of Holland from 1806 to 1810 when it was part of the French Empire and daughter of Empress Joséphine from her first marriage to Alexandre Francois Marie, the Vicomte de Beauharnais, who was beheaded during the first French Revolution. Napoleon arranged for his adopted stepdaughter to marry his brother, King Louis Bonaparte; their son would go on to become Napoleon III.

Hortense was the original owner of the sapphire parure, which she later sold to Queen Maria Amalia for financial reasons. Legend says her mother Joséphine gifted it to her, but the Louvre notes there is no documentary evidence to support this claim—or that Marie-Antoinette ever owned it, as some believe.

After Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, Hortense lived in exile and eventually had an illegitimate son with her lover, the Comte de Flahaut. But that’s a story for another time.