The exact condition of the Crown of Eugénie hidden by the musée du Louvre

During the theft of the crown jewels at the Louvre on 30 October 2025, the thieves had dropped the Crown of Eugénie during their escape, which was found severely damaged. The only information to emerge was provided by Olivier Gabet, director of the [art objects] department at the Louvre, who reported in Le Monde on 28 October : “None of the major diamonds and no emeralds are missing. The globe surmounted by the cross at the top of the crown is also intact. It is therefore entirely restorable”, and by Laurence des Cars on franceinfo on 7 November : “The initial observations made by the art objects department team confirm that the crown has been damaged […]. The most important pieces, the diamonds and emeralds, are intact. However, a few small diamond pieces and one gold eagle out of the eight originally on the crown are missing.”

It is an object belonging to the French public collections, therefore partially to everyone, and it is legitimate to seek further information on the exact condition of this crown and what will be required to restore it. As Julien Lacaze, president of Sites & Monuments, explains (see this article) : “It is important that the condition of the Crown of Eugénie be precisely known (losses, dents, etc.) so that it is not improperly restored, as everyone has an interest in erasing the consequences of a burglary that should never have occurred.” That is why the association, on 30 October 2025, requested from the musée du Louvre the “report on the condition necessarily prepared following the attempted theft of Empress Eugénie’s Crown”.

Manifestly, even this seems classified as [“classified as secret-defence”] at the Louvre, since it only received a non-response from the museum. After a month of silence, which thus constitutes a tacit refusal to communicate this administrative document (which the law nevertheless requires to be provided to any requester), the association referred the matter to the Commission for Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) to obtain it.

One cannot emphasise enough how, particularly in areas under the ministère de la Culture, the lack of responses to legitimate requests for administrative documents hinders the public’s right to information. Not only must one go through the CADA, which causes long delays, but in many cases, even when its response is favourable, the administration persists in its refusal, initially forcing the matter before the administrative tribunal, and sometimes even before the [Council of State], which entails a prohibitive cost. The law that applies to the ordinary citizen[,] clearly does not seem to be the same when it comes to the ministère de la Culture.

It should also be noted that some – sometimes kindly, sometimes with astounding stupidity – have, on X, claimed with more or less certainty that this condition report was covered by the secrecy of the investigation, which, if one thinks about it, does not hold for a second. We therefore questioned the parquet of Paris, which replied that: “the stolen object [having] been returned. It is no longer sealed in the procedure”, referring us back to the Louvre for further information…

Here is further proof that the président-directeur of the Louvre, who thus seeks to hide elements she should communicate, truly no longer belongs at the head of this museum. Yet, as 2026 begins, she remains in her post, continuing the project “Nouvelle Renaissance”, which we have shown is largely the reason for the current situation.