Laced with controversy from the very beginning, Wuthering Heights has since sought to defend itself against accusations of ‘whitewashing’ their cast as Jacob Elordi takes centre stage. Readers have raised questions about the casting of Heathcliffe, arguing that the character is explicitly described as ‘not white’. However, the racial ambiguity persisted as others took to social media to justify the casting, viewing it through an all-too-modern lens. Unfortunately, as one would assume or rather hope, not to be hit by a wave of criticism once again, I regretfully inform you that the premiere of the movie opened yet another cultural wound.
Oh my! What an expensive neck!
As the red carpet unrolled, there was one star who did not disappoint. After her spectacular run during the Barbie press tours, Margot Robbie, who plays ‘Catherine Earnshaw’, pulled it off again. Embracing the novel’s dark, gothic themes, Robbie rocked the carpet in shades of beige, black, and blood red, becoming an immediate hit among fans.
While the ombre look blended into the red carpet, Margot Robbie’s neck stood out against the light. Now, if you were to look at it from a distance, sure, it might look like any other Cartier high collection necklace, but upon further inspection, it appears oddly familiar. Inscribed with the name of Nur Jahan, the recipient of the necklace from her husband, the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahangir, who eventually passed it down to his son Shah Jahan and his Wife, Mumtaz Mahal, now buried in the Taj Mahal in India. However, popular media and even Robbie do not affirm the same. On the other hand, as seen through their eyes, this necklace doesn’t date back centuries. Rather, it belongs to Elizabeth Taylor.
“I’m wearing Elizabeth Taylor’s necklace”
Well, not really, right?
Yes, it was gifted to Taylor by her husband after he purchased it from Cartier. Yes, the necklace does come to be associated with Taylor’s name, but its history doesn’t end there, does it? It raises questions as to how this historical and cultural piece came to be in possession of Cartier in the first place and why it was so easy for Taylor’s husband to purchase and gift a museum artefact-worthy piece.
Acquired by Cartier, which yet again raises doubts on the acquisition, we can only assume that this might have been looted from India following British Colonial Rule. Exploiting artistic license, Cartier went on to replace the traditional silk cord holding the pendant with a gold chain studded with rubies and tassels instead.
So, can this necklace, a symbol of epic love and longing between the most powerful rulers in India, simply be erased, undermined by the same emotions that led Taylor’s husband to gift her the necklace?
Not Cartier’s first rodeo
Unfortunately, this is not the first time the cultural and historical past of an artefact, or in this case jewellery, has been omitted under the ‘care’ of the ‘Big House’. The Patiala Necklace, once owned by the Maharaja of Patiala, was seen sported by Emma Chamberlain on the 2023 Met Gala red carpet. Surprisingly fitting the theme of ‘Gilded Glamour’, it happened to be another piece that lost its history, worn against a white neck.
While it retained its name, Cartier’s possession of the Patiala Necklace was questioned following the rejection of the request made by the Indian singer and actor Diljit Dosanjh to adorn the same at the Met Gala just last year. This rejection could have been easily brushed off, but fans took to social media to criticise this decision, explaining that this necklace formed part of his heritage, culture and ancestry.
Fans are curious to know if this was simply protocol or an ideology that had a hidden colonial perspective behind the curtains.
The importance of acknowledgement
Culture and traditions are not just theoretical concepts, but rather they form the very core of the country in which they originated. They aren’t rules that we follow from time to time, but they invoke a feeling of belonging and community. It’s an individual’s identity that is stripped away as soon as it is renamed and reinterpreted to be something it is not. To see these pieces on a global stage and only learn about them through the eyes of those who exoticize cultural practices different from their own is not the way I want to hear about mine.
It becomes increasingly disturbing that a piece’s origins are erased almost immediately when they are worn today by a well-known ‘white’ individual and suddenly become the talk of the town. It is this loaning of culture that needs to be acknowledged.
So, when you next see an exotic and unreal-looking piece, take a moment to research its story; it only takes a few seconds to look beyond the present.