A 200-Year-Old Tiara With Ancient Stones Makes Its First Public Appearance at Glittering State Banquet
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
It's not too often that a rare tiara comes out of the woodwork, with royals like Princess Kate often relying on favorite pieces like the diamond-and-pearl Lover's Knot. But after more than 140 years in royal storage, Queen Caroline Amalie's gold tiara has finally seen the light of chandeliers again. Queen Mary of Denmark pulled the historic piece out for the first time this week while visiting Finland for a state visit, and its history is pretty incredible.
Queen Mary, 53, chose the slim gold headband for a formal dinner hosted by Finnish President Alexander Stubb at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki. The Danish royal family's Instagram account shared some details on her new-to-us jewelry on March 4, writing, "During the state visit to Finland, Her Majesty the Queen has chosen to wear two special historical pieces of jewelry. At the gala dinner in Helsinki, the Queen will wear Queen Caroline Amalie's gold tiara with antique gems and Princess Vilhelmine Marie's bracelet with Vesuvius stone."
The palace explained that the 11 gems adorning the headpiece weren't just decorative—they were collected by King Christian VIII, who ruled Denmark from 1839 to 1848. The monarch himself found the jewels during his time in Italy with wife Queen Caroline Amalie from 1819 to 1821, where they visited Rome and the excavations at Pompeii. Unlike today's diamond-heavy royal tiaras, this piece "reflects the classicist taste of the time" and was originally intended for everyday wear rather than state occasions.
The tiara was created around 1820, and the coordinating bracelet was later presented by Christian to his wife with the note, "It is from the summit of the flaming Vesuvius that my heart flies to you. April 24, 1828."
Queen Mary is the first person to wear the tiara and its matching bracelet in more than a century, with the Danish royal family noting that the pieces "have not been worn for over 140 years."
The Danish queen paired the jewels with a black leaf-patterned Jesper Høvring gown featuring gold detail that beautifully coordinated with her tiara.
This is the second time in recent weeks Queen Mary has broken out a tiara and ballgown. On Feb. 28, she shimmered in the same pink sequined Jenny Packham gown owned by Princess Kate during the royal family's annual Evening Party for Art and Culture at Christiansborg Castle.
She paired the shimmering gown with her diamond necklace tiara, giving off a very different vibe than the ancient cameo-style stones featured in her recent headpiece.
As for the unearthed jewelry, the discovery follows another recent tiara mystery. In November, royal blogger Saad Salman told Marie Claire how he helped solve the case of Princess Margaret's long-lost tiara. It turns out the diamond headpiece has been in Queen Azizah of Malaysia's collection for decades after she acquired it at auction in New York City—and the royal was completely "unaware" that the tiara once belonged to Princess Margaret.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Netflix hitmaker Scott Frank on Hollywood: 'People are afraid now.'
Scott Frank figured out how to thrive in Hollywood. Now he's doing it at Netflix. But the writer/director has advice for young people who want to follow in his footsteps: Try something else. If Frank were starting out his career in 2025, he said he wouldn't mess around with movies or television. "I'd want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on," he told me this month. That's quite a comment coming from someone who spent years as one of the most in-demand writers in the movie business, and has now established himself as a reliable hitmaker for Netflix. " Dept. Q" — his third series for the streamer, following his "Godless" western and the pandemic megahit "The Queen's Gambit" — is his take on the British mystery genre, and it's been near the top of the Netflix charts since it debuted in May. But Frank says the wave of digital distractions and options makes it incredibly difficult for traditional movies and TV to capture audience attention today. For all of Netflix's massive success, it still lags behind YouTube in terms of time viewers spend on screens, he notes. And teens are now spending an astonishing two hours a day on TikTok. "So, how do you get people to go to the movies? How do you get people to pay attention to your show? There's so much stuff," he tells me. "Whereas gaming — you're not folding your laundry while you're playing a game. You're not texting while you're playing a game. You're involved. And that seems to me like an opportunity for storytelling." That won't be an opportunity for Frank himself — "I'm too old," he says — and he says he'll continue to try making movies and TV shows. He'd love to make a second season of "Dept. Q," which is based on a series of crime novels by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen. You can hear my full conversation with Frank on my Channels podcast. The following is an edited excerpt from our chat: Peter Kafka: Some Netflix shows and movies seem like they'll generate huge numbers, but don't feel like they have cultural resonance. But it seems like people are talking about your show. Do you feel that? Scott Frank: You're certainly correct in that a lot of the movies, in particular, don't leave much of a ripple. There's not a lot of cultural wake. That being said, they are watched a lot, and people enjoy watching them and seek them out. And Netflix has 300 million worldwide subscribers, so way more people are going to watch your movie. As opposed to something getting released in theaters that no one watches, and it doesn't create any kind of long tail, either. With the television shows, it's a little different. Because when they hit, they tend to leave a mark. They tend to resonate. What accounts for that? Is it simply because there's more of it? There's 10 episodes, so you're spending more time? And there's more reason to talk about it, because it's episodic — you can tell people, "Wait till you get to episode five?" Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I think that's why. It's a different sort of investment. When you're sitting down to watch a show, you are hoping that it's something you're going to stick with. Whereas when you're watching a movie, you know: "I have a couple hours, an hour and a half, I'm gonna watch this thing." I don't have an easy answer other than to say that, for me, the engagement and narrative in the world right now have never been higher. During the Hollywood writers' and actors' strikes a couple of years ago, AI didn't start off as the big issue, but then became one, or at least the dominant talking point. What did you make of that discussion then? And how are you thinking about AI and tech now? Tech has been a bit of a disaster for the country in many ways, but it's also been an amazing boon to the world. I just think that these guys run the companies, so many of them are compromised and … Let's narrow it down to your world. We could have the other discussion … But I think it affects my world because they now own my world. We probably were striking against the wrong people that time. Because we're owned by tech people now. This is increasingly more and more a tech business. And so, ultimately, we're at the whim of these people at the very top of these companies. We saw after, after the election, everybody's sort of paying, essentially bribes to [ Donald Trump ]. So that affects us. That really does affect the business. People are afraid now. And so you see that. You see people are too careful. They're afraid because of the political climate, or they're afraid just because it's an era of consolidation and there just aren't that many places to go if you upset a studio chief? I think all of the above. I just think it's all at the same time. Also, the ground is shifting. This business hasn't landed where it's going to land yet, and people keep looking backwards and saying, "No, we just need to get moviegoing back to where it was." That boat's sailed. That's not gonna happen anymore. So we're not thinking about, "Well, what is the business now? What does the business want to be?" The audience is trying to tell us, and we're not listening. How do you feel about using tech and AI in your work? There's one theory that says someone's going to type in a prompt and the AI spits out an entire movie. The more conservative argument is, "We're going to improve flows, and instead of using 10 visual-effects people, you could do it with four or eight." The even more positive spin is, "Those eight to 10 visual-effects people could do much better work." We've always used versions of that. If it wasn't proper AI, there were always ways to shortcut those kinds of things, to create a smoother workflow and all of that. If an actor couldn't do a certain stunt, and we wanted to put their face on something else, that's been happening, and that's going to get easier. Which is scary if you're an actor. I think the bigger problem is not making stuff with AI, but deciding what to make with AI. That's the bigger threat, at least for me, in the immediate sense. Have you played around and asked ChatGPT to write a script in the mode of Scott Frank? Yeah. It was silly. But if you want to write a letter, a business letter or something … my wife needed to write this letter, and she just thought, "Let's see what ChatGPT said," and she sent me the letter and it was damn good. It was really good. I think it's more about the future of the algorithm. The algorithm is great for marketing after something's done. [But] it's death to the industry to use it to decide what to make because you're gaming something. And if everybody's using the same algorithm, it becomes a snake that eats its own tail eventually. That's my big fear. You started in Hollywood the old-fashioned way — you moved there and spent years trying to get work as a writer. I wrote one script over and over that no one wanted — " Little Man Tate" — until somebody wanted it. What would that path look like for you now if you wanted to get into making movies or television? Would you move to LA, for starters? That's easy. I wouldn't go into movies or television. I'd go into games. If I were 24 now, I'm not gonna fuck around with movies or television. I want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on. Other than the fact that lots of people play games, what's appealing to you? They seem pretty narratively limited. But they're at the beginning, in a way. I mean, the first movies were narratively limited, too. And I wonder what you can do with them. I'm really curious. I just feel like that world is way more interesting. You know, more people watch YouTube stuff and TikTok stuff than Netflix. YouTube is No. 1 [for time spent] and Netflix is way down [the list]. And then the next closest thing, Disney, is way down. And people on average spend two hours a day on TikTok. So that's what you're competing with. So your next project is an immersive game … No. I'm too old. There's a series of "Dept. Q" books. Will you do more of them? I'd love to. It's up to Netflix. I would absolutely love to.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
General Hospital spoilers: Drew's deplorable new low sets up a major murder mystery?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. In all my time watching daytime soaps, I can't recall ever having more vitriol for a character than what I have for General Hospital's Drew (Cameron Mathison). Every time I think he's hit his rock bottom of moral depravity, he does something even more disgusting. This time, in the General Hospital episode that aired on June 9, after seeing Willow (Katelyn MacMullen) and Michael (Rory Gibson) with their kids, seemingly happy to look at Michael's new daughter Daisy, a desperate Drew did the unthinkable to prevent Willow and Michael from reaching a truce. He saw Wiley (Viron Weaver) sitting on a bench in the hospital hallway and purposefully had a nearby conversation with Ric (Rick Hearst), in which Drew told the lawyer, 'Willow and I need custody of Wiley and Amelia, because now that Michael has the new baby, he doesn't want Wiley and Amelia anymore.' The words devastated Wiley, and understandably so. What kid wants to hear their parent doesn't want them? Thankfully, Michael came around shortly thereafter, and he was able to reassure his son that he loves him and certainly wants him and Amelia. When Michael told Willow what Drew said in earshot of Wiley, she protested in disbelief that Drew would say that. She even proposed that Wiley misunderstood Drew. An outraged Michael chastised Willow for again choosing Drew over their kids. Honestly, I hope Willow is stripped of custody and is left with supervised visitation with her kids outside of the presence of Drew. My patience for her naivety has run out, and she needs to see what Drew is really costing her. This may sound harsh, but this has all gotten ridiculous (plus, it's the soap world). With all that being said, I just don't see how General Hospital writers can redeem Drew at this point with the other residents of Port Charles (or with viewers at home). Short of it being revealed that Drew is actually Shiloh (Coby Ryan McLaughlin), which is something I've previously theorized, I think the only way forward for Drew is a prison cell or a grave. Considering it would be hard to pin an actual crime on him, his murder is more likely, or at the very least, attempted murder. Along those lines, if someone does decide they've had enough of Drew, who might take matters into their own murderous hands? Well, the soap world loves a good murder mystery, so if my hunch is correct, then a few suspects will emerge. If I had to guess, Willow may be the person to actually try and take out Drew. When she finally realizes all the manipulative things he's done to her and her kids, she might snap in a blind rage. Ironically, though, I think Nina (Cynthia Watros) would step up for her daughter and claim responsibility, wanting to protect Willow and feeling as if she could probably beat the odds in a court of law. I'm getting ahead of myself, of course, so for now I'll have to do like other General Hospital viewers and just wait to see what happens next. Let's all hope Drew's epic downfall comes sooner rather than later. New episodes of General Hospital air on weekdays on ABC. If you miss an episode, you can catch up on Hulu.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
If you're still upset about Joel in The Last of Us season 2, the co-creator wants you to remember that Pedro Pascal is actually "alive" and he's "in literally everything else"
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. If you've seen The Last of Us season 2, you're probably still sad about one moment in particular. In episode 2, Pedro Pascal's Joel is brutally killed by Kaitlyn Dever's Abby, just as he is in the game. It's certainly a harrowing scene, but, for those of us still upset, co-creator Craig Mazin wants you to remember one key thing. "He did a thing. Everyone lost their shit, and then I had to do that same thing, because he did the thing. I loved doing the thing, I thought it was great," Mazin said at a Variety panel of Joel's death, referring to Naughty Dog's Neil Druckmann and the game's decision to kill the character off. "The big complaint that I've gotten is, 'Why did you kill Pedro Pascal?' And I keep explaining, we didn't kill him! He's a man, he's alive. He's fine. And he's in literally everything else. So I don't know what the problem is!" Mazin isn't wrong about Pascal being a busy man. He's starring as Reed Richards in this summer's The Fantastic Four: First Steps, and he's also in Celine Song's Materialists. Plus, you can see him in Game of Thrones (though that one might not cheer you up…) as well as other hit shows like Narcos, and, of course, you can scratch the itch of watching Pascal take care of a young charge with The Mandalorian. In fact, he's returning as the Beskar-clad papa in The Mandalorian & Grogu, which releases next year. The Last of Us season 2 is available to stream on HBO Max now. While you wait for the show to return with The Last of Us season 3, check out our guide to all the most exciting upcoming shows of 2025 to fill out your watchlist.
