“Tiara stolen! Everyone’s a suspect,” reads the headline of an article published in New Idea. That headline, situated next to images of the Duchesses of Sussex and Cornwall, implies that some new crime has been perpetrated.
The tabloid contends that Queen Elizabeth is “preparing to reopen” investigations into an old crime: The Case of Queen Maud’s Stolen Pearl Tiara. The UK-born, Norwegian royal was given the diamond-and-pearl diadem from her parents as a wedding present in 1896.
It was stolen from its resting place at the London jewelry company Garrard’s in 1995, at which point it was valued at about £200,000. The perpetrator was never caught. The article also includes a quote from… someone? We’re not sure who, because it doesn’t even say it’s from an unnamed “source” or and “insider.”
Not even that vague, suspicious attribution is present in the quote: “the Queen is getting more protective of her jewels in her late age, probably because everyone from Camilla to Meghan to Fergie have their beady eyes on them!” Um, what? The Queen Maud’s pearl tiara was stolen in 1995, when Meghan Markle was a child living in Los Angeles, so we’re a tad doubtful she was the mastermind behind the theft.
Camilla Parker Bowles was busy at that time as well, trying to improve her public image as the woman whom Prince Charles had left Princess Diana for, so she was most likely not planning a high-stakes jewel heist either. Also, Markle is currently living on the other side of the world, so how exactly is she supposed to have her “beady eyes” on the Queen’s jewels? We realize it’s a little ridiculous of us to be splitting hairs over an article that’s this ludicrous, but we can’t help it. It’s who we are.
All royal family members serve as frequent targets for phony tabloid stories, but Parker Bowles and especially Markle take the brunt of the abuse. In May, the magazine alleged that the Duchess of Cornwall was fighting with Kate Middleton “for the throne,” because Queen Elizabeth was supposedly considering replacing Prince Charles and Parker Bowles with Prince William and Middleton as her chosen successors to the roles of King and Queen.
As Gossip Cop has pointed out a million time before and will likely do so a million times again, even if Queen Elizabeth doesn’t like her son and daughter-in-law (which isn’t true), she can’t just decide to name Prince William her heir apparent instead. That role is set in place by parliamentary law.
In June, we called out the tabloid for claiming that Prince Harry had returned to the UK without Meghan Markle, supposedly because he was upset over his brother and father posting a Father’s Day picture that didn’t include him on Instagram.
The claim was nonsense: Prince Charles had posted a photo of himself and Prince William for Prince William’s birthday, and the Duke of Cambridge had posted the same photo for Father’s Day. Also, the whole thing’s a moot point because these are PR-managed official social media accounts that do not reflect any internal family drama, real or imagined.