Buckingham Palace has long projected an image of duty and continuity — the unbroken thread of Britain’s monarchy. Yet behind its gilded façade lies a mystery worth £80 million, involving missing jewels, unaccountable custodianship, and questions of royal transparency that refuse to fade away.
An investigation first revealed in The Guardian on 14 April 2023 exposed that 11 pieces of royal jewellery, valued collectively at around £80 million, were not listed within the Royal Collection Trust (RCT) — the public institution tasked with safeguarding Britain’s royal art and artefacts.
These were not obscure trinkets but world-famous jewels, worn by Queen Elizabeth II, Camilla, Queen Consort, and Catherine, Princess of Wales. Yet, when asked where the pieces were, Buckingham Palace declined to answer. The RCT confirmed the jewels were not in its custody.
Two years later, the Palace’s silence remains unbroken.
“Not in Our Custody”
The missing items include a set of aquamarine jewellery, four brooches, and six necklaces, among them the dazzling Nizam of Hyderabad necklace — one of the most valuable and storied jewels in the royal collection’s history.
The Royal Collection Trust, when contacted by reporters in 2023, issued a terse but telling statement:
“Official gifts are not the personal property of the member of the royal family who receives them, but may be held by the Sovereign in right of the Crown or designated in due course as part of the Royal Collection.”
Translation: these gifts, though given to royal figures, might be privately held “in right of the Crown” — meaning they are technically state property, but not necessarily stored, catalogued, or displayed by the RCT.
In short, they exist in a legal grey zone, shielded from public oversight.
Buckingham Palace refused to clarify whether these pieces were being stored elsewhere, loaned, or privately retained. It declined all comment on their current whereabouts.
A Wedding Gift from the Last Nizam
At the heart of the mystery lies one of the most spectacular royal jewels ever created: the Cartier “Nizam of Hyderabad” necklace, gifted to the then-Princess Elizabeth in 1947 by Mir Osman Ali Khan, the last Nizam of Hyderabad — once the richest man in the world.
When asked by Cartier what he wished to present as a wedding gift, the Nizam famously told the jeweller to “let the Princess choose whatever she wants.” Elizabeth selected an opulent necklace and tiara crafted in platinum and encrusted with brilliant-cut diamonds and emeralds, including a detachable pendant centerpiece that could serve as a brooch.
The necklace became a royal icon. It featured in official portraits throughout Elizabeth’s reign and later adorned Catherine, Princess of Wales, during state events, symbolising continuity between generations.
Yet despite its fame, the piece does not appear in the RCT’s official records.
Valuation experts have placed the necklace’s worth between £30 and £40 million, though the historical and royal provenance could push it higher. But its true value, many argue, lies in what it represents: a legacy of imperial wealth, personal privilege, and opaque ownership.
Gifts or Private Property?
By long-standing convention, official gifts received by members of the royal family — particularly from foreign governments or dignitaries — are not considered private property. Instead, they belong to the Crown, to be held in trust for the nation.
Yet the rules governing these items are ambiguous. Some gifts are immediately accessioned into the Royal Collection; others remain “in right of the Crown” indefinitely — effectively under the monarch’s personal discretion.
“It’s a convenient arrangement,” said Professor Andrew Morton, an expert in constitutional ethics. “The Palace can claim these gifts are Crown property when it suits them, and private possessions when transparency is inconvenient.”
The lack of any enforceable disclosure mechanism means the public cannot distinguish which jewels belong to the nation and which belong to the family. The Royal Household, along with the RCT, is exempt from the UK Freedom of Information Act, ensuring that the royal vaults remain firmly closed to scrutiny.
A Culture of Silence
That secrecy extends beyond jewellery. In 2024, The Guardian reported that Buckingham Palace had failed to publish its annual register of official gifts for several years, despite earlier commitments to do so.
The register was finally revived under King Charles III in May 2025, covering gifts received after 2020 — but none of the 11 missing jewellery pieces appeared.
A Palace aide told journalists that earlier gifts “are recorded separately,” but refused to say how or where.
Critics see the delay and deflection as symptomatic of a broader “culture of concealment” around royal wealth and assets.
“The monarchy exists in a constitutional twilight zone,” said journalist and author Anna Pasternak. “It is publicly funded, yet privately accountable. The British taxpayer maintains the institution, but has no access to the details of its fortune.”
Colonial Shadows and the Ethics of Ownership
The story of the missing jewels resonates far beyond the Palace gates. Many of the gifts, including the Nizam of Hyderabad necklace, were made during Britain’s final years as an imperial power. Their current ambiguity revives an uncomfortable question: who truly owns these objects — the monarchy, or the people from whom they came?
For India, the Nizam’s 1947 gift was politically symbolic. It was an act of deference during the dying days of British rule, a gesture of goodwill to an empire soon to depart.
In today’s post-colonial context, however, that symbolism has shifted.
“These gifts were made under the shadow of empire,” says historian Dr. Meera Singh. “They represent unequal power relationships. If Britain’s monarchy keeps them outside the national trust — privately, without transparency — it’s not just a matter of secrecy. It’s a continuation of colonial privilege.”
The comparison to the Koh-i-Noor diamond, long disputed between Britain and India, is inevitable. While the Koh-i-Noor was formally seized under empire, the Nizam’s necklace was gifted. Yet both now symbolise the monarchy’s reluctance to confront the moral legacy of its imperial acquisitions.
An Uneasy Inheritance
Even within Britain, the story has stirred discomfort. The RCT’s refusal to specify whether the jewels might eventually enter the collection has left heritage experts uneasy.
“It’s about public trust,” says former museum curator Judith Reynolds. “When foreign dignitaries give gifts to a head of state, they’re offering them to the institution, not the person. These are national symbols, not family heirlooms. To keep them privately is to betray that principle.”
Despite public speculation, there is no evidence that any of the missing jewellery has been lost or sold. The Nizam necklace and other pieces have appeared in recent decades, suggesting they remain in secure possession.
The question is not one of disappearance, but of classification: why are these objects unaccounted for in any public register?
A Pattern of Ambiguity
The mystery mirrors a long-standing royal tradition of ambiguous ownership. Artworks, estates, and jewels are often described as being held “in right of the Crown” — a phrase that simultaneously denotes institutional custody and shields private control.
That same linguistic sleight of hand appears to protect the jewels in question. They are not officially “missing,” but they are also not officially anywhere.
For constitutional scholars, this opacity erodes the monarchy’s claim to moral neutrality. “If the Crown wants to remain above politics, it must also remain beyond suspicion,” said one senior Whitehall source familiar with royal asset oversight. “Transparency is the price of legitimacy.”
The Necklace as Symbol
In many ways, the Nizam of Hyderabad necklace has become a microcosm of Britain’s relationship with its monarchy: opulent, historic, and increasingly contested.
Its absence from public record is not just a bureaucratic oversight but a metaphor for a system built on selective accountability.
For nearly eight decades, the necklace has been a glittering symbol of royal continuity — from the young Princess Elizabeth to the modern Princess of Wales. Yet it also embodies a legacy of colonial wealth, unequal exchange, and unanswered questions about the ownership of national treasures.
A Glittering Mystery
As of October 2025, the official position remains unchanged.
The Royal Collection Trust confirms that the jewels are not held in its custody.
Buckingham Palace continues to decline comment.
The public still has no access to a complete record of where these multimillion-pound gifts reside — or under what authority they are withheld from national heritage.
There is no suggestion of loss, theft, or wrongdoing. But in a country where every penny of public expenditure is scrutinised, the monarchy’s refusal to account for the fate of its gifts stands out as a relic of a more secretive age.
And until the Palace breaks its silence, the mystery of the missing jewels will remain — glittering, elusive, and symbolic of a royal institution still learning how to live in the light.
SOURCES
- The Guardian, “Official jewellery gifts to royals worth £80 million are not in national collection,” 14 April 2023
- Jewellery World, “£80 million jewellery gifts missing from royal family collection,” 18 April 2023
- The Guardian, “Buckingham Palace failing to publish promised annual list of gifts,” 20 October 2024
- The Guardian, “Charles III publishes first official gifts register,” 9 May 2025
- Royal Collection Trust, official statements on gift policy
- Expert interviews conducted 2023–2025
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source greatreporter.com ’
