Robbery of royal family's items leads to $6.7 million insurance payment
The two royal snuff boxes were found to be among the stolen artefacts, according to the museum.
They were on loan from the Royal Collection Trust, which controls the royal family's art collection, and the trust's annual financial report revealed the resulting £3m insurance payout.
'During the year, an insurance settlement was received in respect of snuff boxes stolen whilst on loan to the Musée Cognacq-Jay,' the report said, adding that the money had been placed into a fund 'to be used for the enhancement of the collection'.
Also taken in the robbery were two snuff boxes belonging to the Louvre Museum in Paris and three that were on loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum of London, according to the trust.
The trust's website details how European jewellers began to make luxurious boxes in the 1600s as the practice of using snuff became increasingly fashionable, and the two stolen artefacts were part of a wider collection of such items held by British royals.
One of the stolen boxes dates from the 1700s and was previously owned by Russia's ruling Romanov family but was confiscated by Soviet authorities after the revolution and was eventually purchased by Queen Mary, King Charles III's great-grandmother.
The Royal Collection Trust describes it as a 'spectacular bloodstone box' and one of the finest German-made boxes of its kind.
The other stolen box was given to King George V as a birthday present in 1920, and is made of gold and lapis lazuli, with an onyx cameo depicting the birth of Venus, according to the trust's website.
The two boxes and the other artefacts stolen in the heist have not been recovered – and it is not the first time that thieves have targeted the Musée Cognacq-Jay.
In March 1937, the New York Times reported that several 18th-century gold snuff boxes and items of jewellery had been taken by a gang who smashed their way into a glass display case.
On that occasion, the suspects were described as a 'blond young woman and an elderly woman, and a bewhiskered, decorated man'.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Lizzie Dearden
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Former top cop Jevon McSkimming faces charges of possessing child sexual exploitation, bestiality material
Caption: Former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming. Photo: Getty Images Former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming is facing eight charges of possessing objectionable publications including child sexual exploitation and bestiality material over a four-year period, it can now be revealed. The charges, which are all representative, carry a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. McSkimming resigned as the country's second most powerful cop in May amid separate investigations by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) and police. His resignation came a week after RNZ approached him, via his lawyer, with allegations about material found on his work devices. RNZ earlier revealed pornography found on the 51-year-old's work devices was being investigated as alleged objectionable material. On 18 July, an interim injunction that prohibited publishing the nature of the allegedly objectionable material lapsed after Justice Karen Grau declined McSkimming's application to continue the order. It can now be revealed that McSkimming was arrested on 27 June in Wellington. It's understood McSkimming's lawyers approached the Wellington District Court seeking name suppression shortly before he was arrested given the media coverage at the time. The application was granted in chambers. Do you know more? Email Later that day RNZ approached both Police and the Wellington District Court with inquiries about McSkimming's arrest. Police declined to comment, and the Wellington District Court confirmed an application had been granted prohibiting media from being able to report McSkimming's name, identifying particulars as well as the nature of the charges he faced before his first appearance. McSkimming, then referred to by RNZ as a "prominent New Zealander" first appeared in the Wellington District Court, via audio-visual link on 3 July. He was remanded on bail without plea until 4 August. A suppression order in relation to McSkimming's charges lapsed on Monday after he did not apply for a continuation of the interim suppression. McSkimming was remanded on bail by Judge Tim Black, without plea, until his next appearance in November. Before the hearing began the former deputy police commissioner sat quietly scrolling on his phone in the front row of the public gallery. He sat directly in front of the officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Inspector Nicola Reeves. CAPTION: Police Commissioner Richard Chambers. Photo: Calvin Samuel / RNZ It can now be reported McSkimming faces eight representative charges of possessing objectionable publications, namely child sexual exploitation and bestiality material knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the publication is objectionable. One of the charges alleges the offending occurred between July 2020 and December 2024. Of the remaining seven charges, four relate to bestiality, and three child sexual exploitation material. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. After the revelations of the alleged objectionable material found on McSkimming's work devices, Police Commissioner Richard Chambers emailed staff. In the email, seen by RNZ, Chambers addressed the media reports "in relation to an individual". "I am aware that there are many who are angry and feel let down. I feel the same. "It is important to let you know at this point I am unable to comment on the matter, but I do intend to do so when I am able to. "As I have said before, I have high expectations of all Police staff and will act if standards are not met, irrespective of rank or role. "These are the actions of an individual, and I will do my best not to let it distract from the job we are all here to do. "However, I am aware there may be reactions from some that do not sit easily with you." Chambers said if any staff wanted to talk they could contact him or their manager. The IPCA earlier announced it was investigating allegations of misconduct by McSkimming following a complaint from a member of the public. It is also conducting an investigation into if there was misconduct or neglect of duty by any other police officers or employee in responding to the allegations. The investigations were being given priority, but no timeframe for their completion date could be given. McSkimming was one of the final two candidates for New Zealand's top cop job last year, with Chambers eventually appointed police commissioner. McSkimming was promoted to statutory deputy commissioner in 2023 on the recommendation of then-prime minister Chris Hipkins. Late last year he was overseeing road policing and operational services, which include strategy, media and communications, risk and assurance, and firearms regulation and reform. During his appointment process, it was noted he had a "relatively unique career path", working at police headquarters since 2010 across a range of areas: strategy, service delivery, resolution, financial planning, arms admin, ICT and infrastructure. McSkimming joined the police in 1996 and worked on the frontline in Auckland and Southland. He had also been responsible for large restructures - as well as managing police IT systems, property portfolio, vehicles, and launching the 105 non-emergency number. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Misusing The Children: The UK Online Safety Act, Privacy And Censorship
The United Kingdom can always be relied upon to supply us with the eccentric, the admirably dotty, and the odd extreme bit of adventure in policy. Lately, those mad protectors and censors with their shields of false virtue and hollow intellect have decided to launch an assault on the users of the Internet. In this, they are joining the platoons of hysteria from such countries as Australia, where age verification restrictions on platforms are all the rage. It's all about the children, and when adults start meddling with children, all sorts of trouble arise. Much in line with the foolish, and potentially dangerous efforts being made by the eCommissioner (not a misspelling) in Australia to impose 'industry codes' of child safety, the UK Online Safety Act (OSA) is being used to blanket social media, search engines and virtually any other site of service with age verification restrictions. The OSA lists three categories that are said to be harmful to children: primary priority content, priority content and non-designated content. Primary priority content is a British favourite of the repressed classes: pornography, and content that supposedly encourages suicide, self-harm, or various behaviours and disorders with eating. (If only there was a form of pornography that might encourage good eating habits.) Priority harmful content covers abuse relevant to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment and any content that incites hatred against such people. To this, among others, can be added bullying, the promotion of 'serious violence, and depiction of serious violence' whether authentic or fictional. To make things even more expansively ludicrous, the regulations cover content that is non-designated (NDC), which might as well be the entire body of knowledge and existence on this planet and beyond seen by the regulators of the day as dangerous. Examples are skimpy, and do not mention the enriching apple in the Garden of Eden offered to Eve by the opportunistic serpent. Something, however, is 'NDC if it presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the UK'. What a triumph of insufferable vagueness. The onus is placed on the online service providers to ascertain whether the hosted content is harmful to children. 'As the regulator, we won't be accessing individual pieces of content, or telling online services to remove legal material,' states the UK Office of Communications, Ofcom. They are, in effect, being enlisted by the government as moral, vigilant guardians, never the wisest thing when it comes to technology companies. If the providers in question determine the material to be harmful, they must implement various mitigation measures. Ofcom lists some of them: 'highly effective age assurance to protect children from [harmful content online]'; safer algorithms to limit access to such harmful content (goodbye much literature and culture); effective moderation; transparent reporting and complaints processes; supportive information for children and 'strong governance and accountability'. This constituted a true charter for docile imbecility. The platforms are told to implement an age verification process that is 'technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair.' These include, among a range of options, facial age estimation, granting the age-check service access to bank information, digital identity services, which include digital identity wallets, credit card age checks, mobile network operator age checks and uploaded photo-IDs. Social media platforms such as Reddit, Bluesky, Discord, and have already imposed age checks to comply with the July 25 deadline. Ditto Pornhub, the most visited pornographic online provider in the UK, Tube 8, YouPorn and RedTube. The well named Carl Dong, Obscura VPN founder, is not shy in calling the law a 'ticking time-bomb for the privacy of UK citizens.' The broader consequences of the OSA are snappily summed up by Paige Collings, senior speech and privacy activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: the OSA is nothing less than a 'threat to the privacy of users,' a restriction on free expression by arbitrating online speech, an imposition of 'algorithmic discrimination through face checks' and excludes 'millions of people without a personal device or form of ID […] from accessing the internet.' The cleverer users will simply make a mockery of the whole show by using other means of regulatory subversion, including installing a VPN (Virtual Private Network) and browsing the web as if the user was from another country where age-verification rules do not apply. 'The logistics,' explains Graeme Stewart, head of public sector at Check Point Software, 'are near impossible. You could, in theory, ban the sale of VPN equipment, or instruct ISPs not to accept VPN traffic. But even then, people will find workarounds. All you'd achieve is pushing VPN underground, creating a black market for VPN contractors.' A rush for the most appropriate VPNs has already been ushered in while a petition featuring over 481,000 signatures urging the repeal of the OSA has gathered steam. On July 28, the government responded in the customary tone deaf manner, admitting to having 'no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act'. Instead, it was 'working with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.' Critics of these digital walls of restriction and exclusion face a body of manipulated public opinion. Gone are the days when everyone could post, mention and vent on any topic with merry impunity and noisy enthusiasm. Information superhighways have become potholes fought over by tribes and regulatory zealots inoculated against debate. Many members of the public seem to want censorship as a form of stand-in parenting, and a YouGov poll found a majority of Britons satisfied with the law (the latest figure as of July 31 comes in at 69%). Yet again, such an encroachment is being done in the name of the children, who are to be left permanently immature and unspoiled by the richer, more complicated life. Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Robbery of royal family's items leads to $6.7 million insurance payment
The stolen boxes, one encrusted with diamonds, have not been recovered. Photo / Getty Images The two royal snuff boxes were found to be among the stolen artefacts, according to the museum. They were on loan from the Royal Collection Trust, which controls the royal family's art collection, and the trust's annual financial report revealed the resulting £3m insurance payout. 'During the year, an insurance settlement was received in respect of snuff boxes stolen whilst on loan to the Musée Cognacq-Jay,' the report said, adding that the money had been placed into a fund 'to be used for the enhancement of the collection'. Also taken in the robbery were two snuff boxes belonging to the Louvre Museum in Paris and three that were on loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum of London, according to the trust. The trust's website details how European jewellers began to make luxurious boxes in the 1600s as the practice of using snuff became increasingly fashionable, and the two stolen artefacts were part of a wider collection of such items held by British royals. One of the stolen boxes dates from the 1700s and was previously owned by Russia's ruling Romanov family but was confiscated by Soviet authorities after the revolution and was eventually purchased by Queen Mary, King Charles III's great-grandmother. The Royal Collection Trust describes it as a 'spectacular bloodstone box' and one of the finest German-made boxes of its kind. The other stolen box was given to King George V as a birthday present in 1920, and is made of gold and lapis lazuli, with an onyx cameo depicting the birth of Venus, according to the trust's website. The two boxes and the other artefacts stolen in the heist have not been recovered – and it is not the first time that thieves have targeted the Musée Cognacq-Jay. In March 1937, the New York Times reported that several 18th-century gold snuff boxes and items of jewellery had been taken by a gang who smashed their way into a glass display case. On that occasion, the suspects were described as a 'blond young woman and an elderly woman, and a bewhiskered, decorated man'. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Lizzie Dearden ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
