Just let them wear pearls
QUESTION One of Marie Antoinette’s necklaces was recently auctioned for $32 million. What happened to the rest of her gems and the crown jewels after the French Revolution? MARIE Antoinette was the illfated queen of Louis XVI. They were both guillotined in 1793.
She had a great love for jewellery and amassed a sumptuous collection, much of which was lost or dispersed during the French Revolution.
The recent auction at Geneva featured ten items of her jewellery. By far the most precious lot was her pearl pendant, which sold for €32million. Alongside this was a diamond-set monogrammed ring containing a lock of her hair.
These were some of the jewels Marie Antoinette left with her loyal retainer, Count Mercy Argenteau, when she prepared to escape from France in March 1791. The collection travelled to Vienna via Brussels in a wooden chest.
In 1796, it was handed over to Marie Antoinette’s daughter Marie-Thérèse after she was released from prison. She had no children and passed the jewels to her niece and adopted daughter.
They were owned by relatives until they were auctioned.
Some of the jewels worn by Marie Antoinette are on public display. The most famous is the giant 140.5-carat Regent diamond.
It was bought in 1717 by Philippe II, Duke of Orleans and Regent of France, from whom it acquired its name. The gem was set in the crown Louis XV wore at his coronation and then used to decorate a large black velvet hat worn by his daughter-in-law, Marie Antoinette.
In 1791, its value was £480,000, which is equivalent to €59million today. After he came to power, Napoleon used the diamond for the pommel of his sword.
It was then mounted on the crowns of Louis XVIII, Charles X and Napoleon III before it was finally set in a Greek diadem designed for Empress Eugénie, Napoleon III’s wife. It remains in the French Royal Treasury at the Louvre and has been on display since 1887.
A stunning pair of Marie Antoinette’s diamond earrings are in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. Said to be the queen’s favourites, they were a present from her husband. They were subsequently owned by the Grand Duchess Tatiana of Russia, from whose family Pierre Cartier bought them in 1928. They were then acquired by American socialite Marjorie Merriweather, whose daughter Eleanor Barzin donated them to the Smithsonian.
Erika Simeon, London W6. QUESTION Have ‘squatters’ rights’ been won on many occasions in recent Irish history? SQUATTERS’ rights give someone in possession of land or property for more than 12 years the right to stay there, but there are so many ifs and buts that, in practice, it’s very difficult for someone to obtain squatters’ rights. The number of successful cases in recent years remains small.
The right for someone to remain in possession of either land or property is surrounded by qualifying clauses that make it very difficult to assert the right. Someone making the claim needs to have been in sole and exclusive possession of the land or property for 12 years or more, or six years if the rightful owner has died. But if the land or property is owned by a State authority, then the period of grace is extended to 30 years.
If someone is in possession of land or property, they have to be in physical possession of it for that 12-year period. But if the registered owner uses that land or property even occasionally, the squatters’ rights claim will fail.
What constitutes physical and continuous occupation depends on the circumstances; small acts that take place from time to time won’t be enough to oust the original owner; for instance, the occasional grazing of cattle owned by the claimant on the land being claimed. So if someone is to be successful in pursuing squatters’ rights, that case will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Owners of properties are also obliged to ensure that lands and properties aren’t occupied by third parties, but if they find someone in possession of their property, without a tenancy agreement, the owners have to show that they haven’t abandoned the property. Should the person in possession refuse to sign an agreement, and be in possession for less than 12 years, the land or property owner is expected to take the matter to court, or take steps to exercise an act of ownership over the property.
Given all these qualifications, it soon becomes apparent that squatters’ rights are less than easily obtained.
A court decision made in Galway in 2014 pushed back the boundaries even further, setting a legal precedent that has made the 12year rule for squatters’ rights even more uncertain. The case concerned Michael Flaherty, a Bus Éireann worker, who had lived all his life in a rundown house in Henry Street, near Galway city centre. Mr Flaherty’s uncle had been the life tenant of the house, but he died in 1995. After his death, Mr Flaherty’s father, who was brother of his uncle, took over the tenancy, but he died three years later, in 1998. Michael Flaherty paid rent on the property in 1998 and 2004, but apart from that, he paid no further rent. In 2014, he claimed squatters’ rights. But the judge in the case ruled against Michael Flaherty and said that the mere fact he had been in possession for the previous 12 years wasn’t sufficient for him to win the case, which had arisen after a couple had bought the house in 2012, believing that they had vacant possession.
That Galway judgment was significant for any future cases concerning squatters’ rights and meant the 12-year ‘rule’ was no longer valid, generally speaking.
Chris Farrelly, via email.