An update on the theft of the Crown Jewels at the Louvre

If we are publishing this article so long after the event, it is because we were fully engaged on television and radio platforms, attempting to shed light on this affair. This provides greater visibility for La Tribune de l’Art, which is important for us. In any case, it may be better to write only now, when we know a little more about this tragic event for French heritage.

Let us summarise the facts. The robbery reportedly began around 9:30 am, though it is unclear whether the clock started with the arrival of the lift or when the thieves entered the Galerie d’Apollon. According to Le Figaro and other newspapers, which obtained direct information from police sources, the alarm went off at 9:37 am, and the thieves fled at 9:38 am. This suggests that the alarm connected to the French door leading to a balcony on the Seine side did not sound when it was opened.
This aligns with information we have gathered from several internal Louvre sources, including one very high-ranking source, about the malfunction of the alarm connected to the French door. About a month ago, reports of this malfunction were escalated to management (we have proof of what we claim), which seems to have ignored them — according to our sources — and effectively disabled the system. Had it been reactivated? This seems doubtful.
The Ministry of Culture and the prosecutor, however, issued statements claiming that all alarms had functioned properly. So be it. It is therefore a coincidence that this alarm was faulty a month ago, and the minute-by-minute sequence of events is not as described by our colleagues.

Even without considering the alarm issue, the ease with which the thieves operated is staggering. How is it possible, along the Louvre and the Galerie d’Apollon, to bring in a lift, turn it against the flow of traffic, set up traffic cones, and then calmly ascend in broad daylight to a Louvre window without being spotted by a security control room monitoring the perimeter videos — if such a room exists, it was clearly deficient? How could they then calmly break a window that did not seem very secure, and then quickly smash supposedly bulletproof display cases? Let us recall that the Galerie d’Apollon was fully restored a few years ago, and the Crown Jewels were supposedly secured.
All of this demonstrates, at the very least, significant responsibility on the part of the Louvre’s management, especially since unions have long been calling for more security resources.

The President of the Republic tweeted this evening in response to the theft (a belated reaction, as several observers noted), stating: “The Louvre Nouvelle Renaissance project, which we launched in January, includes enhanced security measures. It will ensure the preservation and protection of what constitutes our memory and our culture.” How could this costly project, whose main objectives are to build a new grand entrance, underground exhibition halls, and a special room for the Mona Lisa (also underground), possibly address long-standing issues that the Louvre’s president has done nothing to resolve quickly? Why was there a need to renovate the Department of Islamic Antiquities, which is less than fifteen years old? Why was security allowed to deteriorate so badly, with a reduction in the number of guards (resulting in an unacceptable rate of gallery closures)? When will the disastrous conservation conditions of artworks in certain rooms be addressed? One example: if the Louvre only lent one Georges de La Tour painting to the Jacquemart-André Museum retrospective, it is because the others are too fragile to be moved

We must now consider the fate of these objects, whose removal by the thieves is puzzling given their notoriety. The greatest concern is the possible dismantling of these works to sell the stones and pearls separately. Unfortunately, this is a possibility, even though some objects consist only of very small diamonds that are practically impossible to recut. This would be an “inestimable” loss for French heritage, “inestimable” being the word most frequently used today to describe this theft.
Yet, in financial terms, these “inestimable” works have a well-documented value. Indeed, following the disastrous sale of a large part of the Crown Jewels by the State in 1887, the Louvre has been trying for years to recover them. Of the eight stolen objects, seven were acquired on the market since 1985 (including two sold in 1887). Tens of millions of euros’ worth of items have been stolen, but their actual value is nil, as no one would dare buy these well-known and documented works. Let us hope that the numerous police forces assigned to this case will recover them quickly. There is reason for hope, as in some cases, stolen works are recovered, such as the recent recovery of several snuffboxes stolen from the Musée Cognacq-Jay (see the news item of 14/10/25).
Finally, let us list the stolen objects:

– the Diadem from the set of Queen Marie-Amélie and Queen Hortense (ill. 1), acquired in 1985. This piece had remained in the Orléans family and was therefore not sold in 1887,

– the Necklace from the sapphire set of Queen Marie-Amélie and Queen Hortense (ill. 2), which shares the same history as the diadem,

– the Earring, one of a pair from the sapphire set of Queen Marie-Amélie and Queen Hortense (ill. 3), with the same history as the previous items,

– the Emerald Necklace from the set of Marie-Louise (ill. 4), given by Napoleon to Marie-Louise on the occasion of their marriage, another jewel not sold in 1887, as it was not part of the national collections, acquired in 2004 with the support of the Société des Amis du Louvre,

– a pair of emerald earrings from the set of Marie-Louise (ill. 5), with the same history as the previous item,

a Brooch, known as the reliquary brooch dating from 1855 (ill. 6), curiously assigned to the Louvre in 1887, the year of the sale of a large part of the jewels; as Julien Lacaze, president of Sites & Monuments, noted in a tweet, “the diamonds arranged in butterfly wings during the Second Empire by the jeweller Bapst are the Mazarin nos. 17 and 18 (bequeathed to Louis XIV by his minister), while the large central diamond was the fourth button of Louis XIV’s justaucorps, before being used as an earring by Marie-Antoinette. A brief summary of the history of France.”

– the Diadem of Empress Eugénie (ill. 7), created in 1852 and sold in 1887, donated to the Louvre in 1982 by the Société des Amis du Louvre,

– and, finally, the Grand Corsage Knot of Empress Eugénie (ill. 8), also sold in 1887, and acquired in 2008 partly thanks to the legacy bequeathed to the Société des Amis du Louvre by Mr. and Mrs. Michel Rouffet.

We know that, during their escape, the thieves dropped the crown of Empress Eugénie, which they had also taken. Unfortunately, it was damaged, though the extent of the damage is unknown.

This is what can be said tonight about this affair. Clearly, the responsibilities of the Louvre Museum’s management are overwhelming. We have been writing for years about the disastrous management of this museum, without being truly heard. The fact that the President of the Republic feels compelled to highlight his Louvre Renaissance project, which is itself a symptom of the museum’s problems, makes the necessary sanctions highly unlikely. In France, those in charge do not resign, nor are they dismissed. They are celebrated.