Jewels Created for Princess Diana Going up for Auction in New York
3 min
A diamond and South Sea pearl necklace and pair of matching earrings created for the late Princess Diana—and worn by her just once, at a 1997 English National Ballet performance—will go up for auction in June and could fetch as much as US$15 million.
The auction will take place not long after the coronation of Diana’s ex-husband, Charles, who will become king in a ceremony on Saturday at Westminster Abbey in London.
New York-based auctioneers Guernsey’s will oversee the sale at Manhattan’s Pierre Hotel on June 27, according to a news release. The jewels were speculated to have been commissioned by Dodi Fayed, Diana’s paramour, before the couple perished in an August 1997 car crash, a Guernsey spokesperson said.
Along with its clusters of pearls and 178 diamonds, the necklace is significant because of Diana’s mystique—and the scarcity of her possessions on the market, according to Arlan Ettinger, president and founder of Guernsey’s.
“This is the only major jewellery of Diana’s that will ever be sold,” Ettinger says. “The family is not about to start parting with treasured items from their late mother.”
The prized jewels are being sold by Mark Ginzburg, a Ukrainian real-estate developer who bought them in 2009 at Guernsey’s and now is being forced to sell because of the war against Russia
Guernsey’s declined to disclose how much Ginzburg for the set.
One report, however, said Ginzburg paid US$632,000, which Penta couldn’t independently confirm.
“The family’s success in Ukraine enabled them to buy the jewels, but their business has been largely devastated by the war,” Ettinger says. “This is a motivated sale.”
The Crown Jeweller, which has created baubles for the Royal Family for centuries and at the time was the venerable British jeweler Garrard, designed the necklace for Diana after meeting with her in early 1997, according to Guernsey’s. Two years after Diana’s death, her family authorised the Crown Jeweller to sell the necklace.
Diana “didn’t have much in the way of jewelry while she was princess,” Ettinger says. “Most of what she wore was jewellery owned by the crown, given for an occasion, but not permanently.” Once Diana divorced then-Prince Charles, “she emerged as her own woman, and the fact that the Crown Jeweller created this for her is a big deal.”
Once the necklace was completed, Diana wore it to a June 3, 1997, premiere of Swan Lake by the English National Ballet. She returned the necklace to the jeweller after the ballet so he could complete a set of matching earrings, although Diana never had a chance to wear them, Guernsey said.
“It has been said that the Princess of Wales—who was also England’s Patron of Dance—was photographed more often on that occasion than at any other time of her life, with the exception of her wedding day,” according to Guernsey’s.
Next month’s sale will mark the third time the necklace has changed hands. Ettinger handled the first sale in 1999; the buyer was Houston furniture magnate James McIngvale. Ten years later, McIngvale put the necklace up for auction with Ettinger and Guernsey’s, which is when Ginzburg bought it.
The diamonds and pearls on their own “are intrinsically worth at least US$1 million to US$1.5 million,” Ettinger says. “But what they’re worth on the market is hard to predict.”
He estimated the necklace may sell for anywhere from US$5 million to US$15 million, though there was no official range provided by the auction house.
“This is connected to someone who was one of the most admired and accomplished women in the world,” Ettinger says.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
The Federal Budget may have softened some of its proposed tax reforms, but it has exposed a bigger issue: too many families are relying on wealth structures that no longer reflect the realities of modern life.
3 min
For many Australians, the 2026 Federal Budget initially felt like a direct challenge to the way wealth is created, held and transferred between generations.
The headlines were immediate: changes to capital gains tax, reforms to discretionary trusts, restrictions on negative gearing and increased scrutiny of investment structures. Unsurprisingly, affluent families, business owners and investors began asking the same question:
Is the way we hold our wealth still fit for purpose?
In recent days, the government has announced several significant amendments following industry consultation and public feedback, including exempting testamentary trusts from the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax and expanding capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.
The backdown is welcome. But it also highlights something much bigger.
This Budget has accelerated a conversation that many Australian families have been postponing for years.
The conversation is not really about tax. It is about wealth stewardship.
For decades, Australians have built wealth through businesses, property, investments and careful long-term planning. Yet many families have not revisited the legal structures surrounding those assets in years, sometimes decades.
We often see clients who have spent years building significant wealth, only to discover their legal arrangements no longer reflect their current circumstances.
Their children are now adults. They may own multiple properties.
They may have sold a business, entered a second marriage, become grandparents or accumulated digital assets that did not exist when their original estate plans were prepared.
The trust that distributes income may need to be reconsidered. The bucket company may no longer be so attractive.
The Budget has simply exposed a reality that already existed: wealth structures cannot remain static while life continues to evolve.
Importantly, trusts themselves are not the issue.
Trusts are legitimate planning tools that provide flexibility, protection and continuity. When used appropriately, they allow families to adapt to changing circumstances over time.
And neither is tax the issue, really. Getting the fundamentals right is more important for long-term, sustainable wealth than a few favourable tax treatments around the edges.
The real issue is complacency.
Too often, families create structures and assume the job is done. It isn’t.
Estate planning is no longer a document you sign once and file away in a drawer. It is an ongoing process that should evolve alongside your life.
We are also seeing a broader shift in how Australians define wealth itself. It is no longer just the family home and an investment portfolio.
Modern wealth includes businesses, digital assets, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, frequent flyer points and increasingly complex family arrangements.
At the same time, Australians are living longer than ever before, meaning wealth may need to support multiple generations simultaneously. This creates new responsibilities and new risks.
How do you help your children enter the property market without exposing family wealth to relationship breakdowns?
How do you structure wealth so that it remains a source of opportunity rather than future conflict?
These are the questions families should be asking now.
The recent debate surrounding testamentary trusts also serves as an important reminder that policy decisions can have unintended consequences for vulnerable Australians. It is encouraging that the government has listened to feedback and clarified its position.
But the lesson remains: the wealth landscape is changing.
Increasingly, governments, regulators and tax authorities are paying closer attention to how wealth is held and transferred. That means families cannot afford to adopt a “set-and-forget” approach to their structures.
The families who will be best placed for the future are not necessarily those with the greatest wealth.
They are the families with the greatest clarity. Clarity around ownership, succession and governance. And clarity around how wealth will transition from one generation to the next.
Ultimately, preserving wealth is not about avoiding change.
It is about preparing for it.
Because the greatest risk is not change itself.
It is losing the ability to respond to it.
Anthony Hunt is Co-Founder of Wealth Lawyers and former COO of Westpac Private Bank. He advises business owners, investors and affluent Australian families on wealth protection, succession planning and intergenerational wealth transfer
Australia’s housing market defies forecasts as prices surge past pandemic-era benchmarks.
BMW has unveiled the Neue Klasse in Munich, marking its biggest investment to date and a new era of electrification, digitalisation and sustainable design.
