Made in 1811 by Nitot (later known Chaumet) this cameo, pearl and diamond parure was owned by the Empress Josephine, the first wife of Napoleon, then her daughter Hortense of Beauharnais, spouse of Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.
Diamond brooches, diamond jewelry elements and Devant de Corsage | from the Dowry of the Princess Louise of Prussia
The tiara was originally a diamond stomacher / devante de corsage – with 27 pearls and six pendants with a poire pearl each.
Queen Ingrid of Denmark changed this 4-piece set into a historic Pearls and Diamond Tiara with a pendant >>
A jewelry with many possibilities – in change – the different versions as a large picture >>
The tiara’s provenance traces directly to Princess Louise of Prussia (1838–1923), the intellectual and philanthropic Grand Duchess of Baden, and her husband, Grand Duke Frederick I of Baden.
Their daughter, Victoria of Baden (1862–1930), became Queen of Sweden upon marrying King Gustaf V in 1881.
Victoria’s son, Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden, later married Princess Margaret of Connaught (1882–1920). Margaret, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of Britain, became Crown Princess of Sweden and mother of Ingrid of Sweden (later Queen Ingrid of Denmark). Thus, Victoria of Baden was not only Queen Ingrid’s grandmother but also the original link between the Prussian diamonds and the Swedish-Danish-Greek royal axis.
This lineage explains how the jewels passed from the dowry of Princess Louise of Prussia – Baden → her daughter Queen Victoria of Sweden → to Queen Ingrid (via her father, Gustaf VI Adolf) → and ultimately to Queen Anne-Marie of Greece.
The tiara’s resurgence at Prince Nicholas’ 2025 wedding to his 2nd wife Chrysi Vardinogiannis underscores its timeless role in Greek royal ceremonies.
Durch die Entdeckung im Wiesbadener Staatsarchiv aber gibt es nun den Namen eines weiteren Akteurs beim damaligen Deal: das Ehepaar Louis und Alice Koch. Die beiden Inhaber der Frankfurter Juwelierhandlung Robert Koch waren mit 25 Prozent am Verkauf des Welfenschatzes beteiligt.
Neue Dokumente aufgetaucht: Ist der Welfenschatz doch NS-Raubkunst?
New documents: Is the Welfen treasure of Nazi loot?
The Complex History of the Welf Treasure and Its Restitution Battle
The saga of the Welf Treasure appeared to come to a resolution in 2023 for the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, SPK), which had been embroiled in legal disputes over it since 2008. The restitution claim brought forward by the descendants of four Jewish art dealers, originally based in Frankfurt, seemed to have been decisively rejected.
This significant medieval church treasury, once housed in Braunschweig’s cathedral, was sold in 1929 by Ernst August, the last reigning Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, to a consortium of art dealers for 7.5 million Reichsmarks. Half of the collection was retained by museums in Berlin, specifically in the Kunstgewerbemuseum at the Kulturforum. There, visitors can marvel at splendid artifacts such as crosses, tabernacles, monstrances, and the dome-shaped reliquary adorned with extravagant gold, silver, and ivory work. The other half of the 82-piece collection had long since been sold to American museums and private collectors.
In 2014, the Advisory Commission, which examines claims related to Nazi-looted art, determined that this particular sale was not a case of Nazi-looted property. The art dealer descendants, dissatisfied with this conclusion, escalated their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in 2021, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction, and the case was subsequently dismissed by lower courts as well. Relief spread within the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation.
That sense of finality, however, was short-lived. New documents, discovered by chance in the Hessian State Archives in Wiesbaden, have reopened the debate. The documents provide fresh insights into the consortium of four art dealers—Julius F. Goldschmidt, Isaac Rosenbaum, Saemy Rosenberg, and Zacharias M. Hackenbroch—whose descendants have been fighting to reclaim the treasure.
The 2014 Advisory Commission had determined that the sale, finalized in 1935, occurred without Nazi coercion and at a fair market price of 4.5 million Reichsmarks, which was allegedly paid out in full. Sotheby’s 2014 appraisal valued the 44 pieces now housed in the Kunstgewerbemuseum at $300 million. However, the newly discovered archives reveal a crucial addition to the story: another party involved in the sale—the couple Louis and Alice Koch, Jewish owners of the Frankfurt jewelry firm Robert Koch.
The documents confirm that the Kochs owned a 25% stake in the Welf Treasure consortium and that they received 1,155,000 Reichsmarks as part of the transaction. Critically, this amount corresponds precisely to the Reichsfluchtsteuer—a punitive tax levied by the Nazi regime on Jews attempting to emigrate from Germany—which Alice Koch was forced to pay shortly after the sale. This key detail strongly suggests that the sale took place under duress. Consequently, the proceeds were not freely available to the Kochs, making the transaction a likely case of Nazi persecution-related asset forfeiture.
This revelation has sparked fresh claims for restitution. In 2022, Alice Koch’s great-grandson, currently residing in Switzerland, approached the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation to demand restitution. His first request was unsuccessful, and his second attempt—the submission of a claim to the Advisory Commission in April 2024—also stalled.
For nine months, the SPK has been investigating whether the claimant is even entitled to file such a request. In response to an inquiry from Der Spiegel, the foundation stated: „The examination of these requirements is still ongoing.“ This delay has raised eyebrows, as the admissibility of such claims typically falls under the Commission’s purview.
Critics argue that the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation is employing stalling tactics, particularly since Germany’s cultural institutions, which are publicly funded, are strongly encouraged by the Federal Commissioner for Culture and the Media to voluntarily submit to the Advisory Commission’s recommendations. Efforts to streamline restitution procedures—including proposed arbitration tribunals for faster resolutions—received broad approval in recent legislation. In this context, a nine-month wait for heirs of Nazi persecution to learn if their claim is even admissible seems unnecessarily burdensome.
The impending departure of Hermann Parzinger, President of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, adds another layer of complexity. Parzinger, who has been grappling with the Welf Treasure controversy since taking office in 2008, will leave his position in May. In an interview with RBB, he acknowledged the gravity of the newly discovered evidence: “The reference to the Reichsfluchtsteuer requires us to speak directly with the heirs and claimants.” Nevertheless, the situation appears to have progressed beyond discussions, as the Advisory Commission’s involvement has already been deemed necessary.
The final responsibility will fall to Parzinger’s successor, Marion Ackermann. According to RBB, other legal claims from descendants of former owners of the Welf Treasure are already being considered by the SPK. It remains unclear whether these claims will involve sums as substantial as those owed to the Koch couple, who were pressured by the financial demands of the Nazi regime.
Should the Advisory Commission or a future arbitration tribunal rule in favor of restitution, the compensation owed to Alice Koch’s great-grandson could reach an astronomical figure.
Despite these ongoing disputes, one aspect of the Welf Treasure’s fate is certain: it will remain in Germany. Since 2014, the collection has been classified as a national cultural asset, which prohibits its export. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a German collector would be willing—or even able—to pay the staggering value of the treasure.
Nonetheless, one aspect of the museum’s presentation should change immediately: the plaque accompanying the treasure in the display cases. Currently, it states that the sellers received “the agreed purchase price at their own disposal.” While the Nazis did not directly seize the treasure itself, they effectively stripped away the proceeds of its sale through measures like the Reichsfluchtsteuer. This crucial context must be acknowledged, regardless of how the reopened case is ultimately resolved.