YouTuber Emma Chamberlain's Met Gala 2022 entry sparks outrage
- By Web Desk -
- May 10, 2022
YouTuber Emma Chamberlain sparked controversy when she came to Met Gala 2022 wearing a necklace that originally belonged to the Maharaja of Patiala.
Emma Chamberlain, who recently became Cartier jewels’ ambassador, came to the event wearing a custom made Louis Vuitton dress and the necklace.
Here’s how netizens reacted to her decision to wear the necklace.
who was gonna tell me emma chamberlain wore a $30 million necklace from a maharaja of india to the met gala. astronomical privilege to wear something that is historically connected and stolen from india’s history… pic.twitter.com/05En7VcICl
— eternity ♡ (@eternitwt) May 8, 2022
So i just found out emma chamberlain wore the maharaja of patiala’s necklace at the met gala… this is wayyy worse than kim wearing marilyn monroe’s dress. It has a deep and painful history attached to it. Very on theme, nothing screams gilded glamour quite like expropriation pic.twitter.com/XqqHwqusdU
— 🦋 (@arianaspovv) May 7, 2022
emma chamberlain wearing that necklace that was “taken” from that prince in india is 100% worse than kim k wearing marilyn monroes dress
— stefi (@coaie69) May 7, 2022
It is pertinent to mention that the diamond choker has a rich history. The De Beers diamond was mined in 1888 and purchased a year later in an exhibition at the Paris Universal exhibition.
The maharaja, at the age of 34, decided to convert the De Beers diamond into an heirloom and commissioned Cartier jewels to make it into a necklace with the diamond in the centre.
It was named the Patiala Necklace following its completion in 1928.
The jewellery piece comes with five rows of platinum chains that are made with 2930 diamonds and Burmese rubies. It became the most expensive piece of jewellery in history and the cost would cost around $30 million at this moment.
It became a centre of controversy back in 1948 when it disappeared from the Patiala royal treasury without a trace. It was spotted at an auction in 1982 but without the necklace.
The parts of the necklace were seen at one of London’s antique shops. The company brought them and encrusted the replica of the diamonds on it.