Were the French Crown Jewels Stolen?

Understanding the Difference Between Looting, Trade, and the History We Choose to Forget

When news broke about a robbery at the Louvre, social media did what it always does, it erupted. Some people celebrated the idea of “reclaiming” artifacts, saying it was justice for colonial theft. Others condemned it outright.

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.

Not every artifact in a European museum or royal collection was stolen. Some were violently looted. Others were traded, gifted, or commissioned, all transactions that existed within flawed systems, yes, but systems that were legal at the time.

As someone who works in communications, studied international affairs in the MENA region, and collects art and antiques myself, I find these debates fascinating. Not because I want to defend imperialism, but because I care about truth, nuance, and preservation. I collect not to hoard history, but to learn from it.

Buckle up, because this historical road is filled with bumps, turns, curves, hills and everything that will make you question why you even got into the car in the first place.

When something is looted, it’s taken by force, without payment or consent.

That’s what happened with the Benin Bronzes, violently seized by British troops in 1897 during their invasion of Benin City (modern-day Nigeria). It’s also what happened during the Nazi plunder, when Jewish families across Europe had their art and heirlooms stolen during World War II.

Those were clear cases of theft. The rightful owners and their descendants are identifiable, and returning those works is not just fair, it’s just.

But France’s Crown Jewels do not belong in that same category. They weren’t stolen from temples, palaces, or cultural institutions. They were bought, traded, and commissioned through legitimate, though often unequal, trade networks.

Beginning in the Renaissance and continuing through the Age of Enlightenment, French monarchs built their royal collections through trade and artistry, not conquest.

Under Louis XIV, known as the “Sun King,” France became one of Europe’s largest buyers of gemstones. Merchants like Jean-Baptiste Tavernier traveled across Asia between 1640 and 1660, purchasing diamonds, rubies, and sapphires from local traders and royal courts.

Tavernier’s name is forever tied to two of France’s most famous stones: The Blue Diamond of the Crown (later recut as the Hope Diamond) and the Regent Diamond, both sourced from India’s legendary Golconda mines.

France also acquired emeralds and gold from Brazil, rubies and spinels from Burma (Myanmar), and sapphires from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) all through paid transactions.

These weren’t spoils of war. They were products of commerce, documented in ledgers and contracts.

Where did the stones come from?

1. India (Golconda mines)

   Most of France’s largest and finest diamonds including the Hope and Regent came from Golconda, in modern-day Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Tavernier purchased these stones from Indian merchants and royal courts. While the gems were paid for, the mines relied on systems of bonded and forced labor under local rulers, not colonization.

   
   

2. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and Burma (Myanmar)

   France imported sapphires, rubies, and spinels from Ceylon and Burma via Portuguese and later French East India Company routes. Mining and trade often depended on colonial labor systems, though these were controlled by other European powers, not France.

   
   

3. Brazil (after the 1700s)

   Once diamonds were discovered in Brazil around 1725, Portuguese traders controlled the market. France purchased stones indirectly through intermediaries. These gems were paid for, but their mining relied heavily on enslaved African labor.

   
   

4. Africa (18th–19th centuries)

   Gold and later diamonds came from coastal African trade routes. Most of these acquisitions happened before France established its colonies, but they still existed within unequal systems of coercion and underpayment.

   
   

5. Europe (minor sources)

   Smaller gems like pearls, garnets, amethysts were mined within Bohemia, Germany, and France itself. These were acquired through standard trade.

Some argue that France colonized the countries where its jewels came from. However, that’s simply not accurate.

The Crown Jewels were acquired in the 1600s and 1700s, long before France’s major colonial empire emerged in the 19th century. The gemstones predate the French presence in Africa and the Pacific by nearly two centuries.

• India: France never colonized India the way Britain did. It established small trading ports like Pondicherry, but the Golconda mines were ruled by local Indian dynasties.

• Sri Lanka (Ceylon): Controlled by the Portuguese, Dutch, and later the British, but never the French.

• Brazil: A Portuguese colony. France only bought stones through merchants and smugglers.

• Africa: France’s colonial holdings in Africa began in the late 1800s, long after the jewels were made.

So, no. France didn’t “steal” its Crown Jewels through colonization. It bought them through global trade, a system that was exploitative, yes, but not equivalent to theft or imperial plunder.

The Golconda diamond mines, the source of the Hope, Regent, and other legendary stones, were always owned by Indian rulers, not Europeans.

• Under the Kakatiya Dynasty (12th–14th centuries), mining was locally controlled and used mainly for temple offerings and royal tribute.

• From 1518–1687, the Qutb Shahi Sultanate of Golconda established a royal monopoly on the diamond trade. Foreign buyers like Tavernier could purchase stones, but only from Indian traders under royal supervision.

• In 1687, the Mughal Empire under Emperor Aurangzeb conquered Golconda, taking the mines as imperial property.

• Later, the Nizams of Hyderabad ruled the region after the Mughal decline.

At every point, the mines were controlled by Indian dynasties. France, Britain, or any other European power never owned, operated, or militarily occupied Golconda. Tavernier bought diamonds there in the 1660s with cash, not cannons.

But to be clear, while the mines themselves remained under Indian governance, the rulers who controlled them came from a diverse mix of dynastic origins, reflecting the complex and often foreign-influenced history of power in the Indian subcontinent. Although the Golconda mines were located within India, many of the dynasties that ruled the region during that era were not ethnically indigenous. The Qutb Shahi dynasty of Golconda had Persian roots and the Mughal Empire's emperors descended from Central Asian Turco-Mongol conquerors. The Nizams of Hyderabad, originally appointed by the Mughals, also traced their lineage to Persia. These foreign-origin dynasties established control through conquest but became deeply woven into India’s political and cultural fabric over time.

Their courts, administrations, and trade networks were based entirely within Indian cities, employing Indian officials and operating under Indian systems of governance. While their ancestry may have been Persian or Central Asian, their rule was geographically and politically Indian. Even during eras of foreign imperial influence within India, the French Crown Jewels were not obtained through European colonization or looting. Regardless of who held power, whether it be the Persian, Mughal, or indigenous, the French acquisition of diamonds came through legitimate commerce. The jewels were purchased from merchants operating under Indian authority, not seized by military force or colonial occupation.

It is sometimes suggested that during this period, Indian ownership of the Golconda mines was merely symbolic and that foreign powers such as the English held true authority. However, there is no historical evidence to support this claim for the 1600s and early 1700s, when France obtained its royal jewels. The British East India Company, though active at the time, was confined to a handful of coastal trading posts such as Surat, Madras, and Calcutta, it had no political or military control over the interior Deccan region where the Golconda mines were located. The Qutb Shahi rulers of Golconda governed as an independent sultanate; the Mughal Empire was a sovereign power based in Delhi and Agra; and the later Nizams of Hyderabad ruled their own semi-autonomous state. All three dynasties, though of Persian or Central Asian descent, exercised direct and legitimate authority over their Indian domains.

The British did not gain significant control in India until the Battle of Plassey in 1757, and the Hyderabad region did not enter into alliance with Britain until 1798, more than a century after France acquired its famous diamonds. When the Hope and Regent Diamonds were purchased in the 17th and early 18th centuries, the mines were under authentic Indian governance, not colonial manipulation or European oversight. This historical reality underscores the core point: France did not acquire its Crown Jewels through colonization, conquest, or deception. They were obtained through trade within Indian-controlled systems long before the rise of British imperial dominance.

While systems of enslavement and forced labor were tragically widespread across continents, none of these practices connect directly to the creation of France’s Crown Jewels. Often blurred in modern debates about cultural restitution, exploitation in mining was not confined to any single race or empire. Across centuries and societies rulers relied on enslaved or coerced labor to extract wealth from the earth.

In colonial Brazil, for instance, the Portuguese imported millions of enslaved Africans to mine gold and diamonds, making Brazil one of the largest destinations of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In the Indian subcontinent, systems of bonded labor and caste-based servitude existed long before European colonization, with both local rulers and later colonial powers utilizing forms of forced or indentured labor in agriculture, textile production, and mining. Similarly, Arab, Persian, and Indian merchants participated in regional slave trades across Africa and the Indian Ocean centuries before European involvement.

This broader truth reinforces that exploitation was a global human failing, not an exclusively European one. While European empires industrialized and profited from these systems on an unprecedented scale, the roots of forced labor were complex and multinational. Recognizing this complexity allows for a more honest understanding of history that condemns exploitation while avoiding oversimplified narratives of blame.

Can we prove a stone was mined by slaves? Not definitively. A gem doesn’t carry an ID tag. We can however infer likely origins based on time and place such as a diamond from 18th-century Brazil almost certainly came from enslaved labor, but inference is not proof.

Saying that every royal gem is “stolen” isn’t historically or legally accurate. It’s an emotional argument, not an evidentiary one.

The global trade in precious materials enriched many parties, not just Europeans. Indian princes, Portuguese officials, Persian merchants, and local African rulers profited as well. The tragedy lies not in ownership, but in how wealth was distributed. France paid for its jewels and while the miners didn’t benefit fairly, that moral failure doesn’t make the gems stolen.

Here's the true test: If the stones were mined in Brazil but extracted by enslaved Africans, who should own them now? Is it Brazil, because the mines were on its soil? Portugal, because it ruled the colony? Or Africa, because the miners were taken from there by force?

Honestly, each answer points to a different kind of claim:

• Geographic ownership (where the resource came from)

• Political ownership (who ruled it)

• Moral ownership (who actually paid the price)

The truth is, all three are connected and none can fully claim the moral right. Brazil’s land produced the stones, Portugal’s system exploited the labor, and Africa’s people bore the suffering.

So where do they belong in my opinion?

Legally, to the country of origin: Brazil.

Morally, to the people who mined them: Africa.

Ethically, to the record of humanity, because the responsibility to tell that story belongs to all of us.

Restitution is not always about returning an object; sometimes it’s about telling the truth about how it came to be.

As someone who collects art and antiques, I understand the importance of preservation. My home isn’t filled with objects for the sake of ownership. It’s filled with stories, craftsmanship, and history.

I’ve purchased antique rugs in Saudi Arabia, woven by local artisans and sold in markets. They were bought fairly and legally. If one day someone argued I should “return” them to the Saudi government simply because they were made there, that logic would fall apart. Ownership changes. Cultures share. Collecting, when done respectfully, is a form of stewardship.

I also own sculptures from Africa, beautiful carvings made from serpentine and soapstone, many from Zimbabwe. They’re not ancient; they’re modern works of art. Today they might be worth a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. But in two hundred years, they could be priceless.

Would that mean my descendants should have to give them back simply because they increased in value? That’s the irony: people rarely fight to reclaim objects until they become valuable, either financially or historically. And as we know, value changes over time. History does not.

What was legal centuries ago doesn’t always align with what’s ethical today. But legality determines ownership, not retroactive moral judgment.

Calling the Crown Jewels “stolen” might feel righteous, but it’s historically false. They were traded, not taken by violence.

So, did Britain Have Anything to Do with France’s Crown Jewels? No. France’s royal gems were acquired and commissioned entirely by French monarchs, primarily between the 16th and 18th centuries.

• The Regent Diamond was purchased in 1717 by Philippe II, Duke of Orléans.

• The Blue Diamond of the Crown (Hope Diamond) was sold directly to Louis XIV by Jean-Baptiste Tavernier in 1668.

• The jewels were stored in Paris and stolen during the French Revolution by French revolutionaries, not the British.

Britain’s only later link was that the recut Hope Diamond resurfaced in London decades later through private sale. Britain’s Crown Jewels are an entirely separate royal collection, kept in the Tower of London.

To equate every traded artifact with looted art oversimplifies history and undermines genuine restitution efforts for items that truly were stolen, like the Benin Bronzes or art looted during the Holocaust.

The Louvre heist reignited these debates, but theft today doesn’t undo exploitation from centuries ago. It only repeats it in reverse.

Real justice lies in education and context, not destruction or theft. Museums should continue to research provenance, display truth, and collaborate with countries of origin. But rewriting every act of global exchange as colonial theft is historically inaccurate and intellectually lazy.

Here's where I stand: Return what was stolen. Acknowledge what was unjust. But don’t confuse ethics with legality or morality with ownership.

As a collector, I believe in preservation over possession. Every artifact, from an ancient vase to a modern sculpture, tells a story of human hands, ambition, and exchange. The Crown Jewels of France are part of that story: a reflection of beauty, power, and the flawed global systems that shaped them.

Understanding that truth doesn’t excuse exploitation. It just makes the conversation honest.

Sources

Ian Balfour, Famous Diamonds (2008)

Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Six Voyages en Turquie et en Perse (1676)

Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence (2000)

Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals (1997)

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: Hope Diamond Provenance Timeline

By: Michael-Chase Strollo

Published: October 20, 2025 9:05 PM ET | Updated: October 21, 2025 6:27 PM ET

Art, Artifacts, History, France