The SHOCKING Truth Behind Queen Elizabeth’s Crown Jewels – Hw

They’re worth over $4 billion, contain some of the largest diamonds ever discovered, and have been passed down from monarch to monarch for centuries. The crown jewels are supposed to represent tradition, power, and glory. But they hold secrets far darker than most people realize. Stones with blood on their history.

Gems that aren’t what they appear to be. A crown that survived something most people have never heard about. and origins that several countries are now demanding answers for. Then there’s Queen Elizabeth herself, the woman who wore these jewels for 70 years. The way she actually talked about them when cameras weren’t around, why she eventually stopped wearing them altogether, and what they reveal about her that most people never knew.

The crown jewels carry centuries of secrets, and Elizabeth had her own complicated relationship with the stones she inherited. This is the truth behind the crown jewels. and Elizabeth’s complicated relationship with them. Before we go any further, there’s something most people get wrong, and it changes everything about this story.

The crown jewels and Queen Elizabeth’s personal jewelry collection are two completely different things. The crown jewels belong to the crown itself. They’re passed from monarch to monarch and can never be sold. Elizabeth inherited them when she became queen, and they transferred to Charles the moment she died.

These include the crowns, the orbs, the scepters, the pieces you see at coronations, and the state opening of Parliament. They’re kept in the Tower of London, guarded around the clock, and are valued at around $4 billion. The collection includes over 100 objects, and more than 23,000 gemstones. The Imperial State Crown alone contains 2,868 diamonds, 273 pearls, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds, and five rubies.

The sovereign scepter holds the largest clearcut diamond in the world. These aren’t just valuable, they’re irreplaceable artifacts of British history, some dating back centuries. But Elizabeth also had her own personal collection. Over 300 pieces she actually owned. 98 brooches, 46 necklaces, 37 bracelets, 20 tiaras. These were hers to do with as she pleased, to modify, to give away, to leave to whoever she wanted.

This collection was worth around $39 million, a fraction of the crown jewels, but entirely her own. Here’s why this matters. Elizabeth only wore the crown jewels a handful of times each year for coronations and the state opening of Parliament. Everything else, every state banquet, every royal tour, every official photograph, that was her personal collection.

And Elizabeth had clear favorites. She wore her threest strand pearl necklace so often that she had replicas made. She didn’t want to wear out the originals. A sapphire brooch her father gave her for her 18th birthday appeared in photographs decade after decade. When she was buried, she wasn’t wearing any of the crown jewels, just her wedding ring and a pair of pearl earrings.

The way she treated these two collections could not have been more different. In a BBC documentary, Elizabeth was asked about wearing the Imperial State Crown, the one covered in nearly 3,000 gemstones, including the massive Cullinan 2 diamond and the Black Prince’s ruby. Her response was blunt. The crown weighs over 2 lb.

And Elizabeth explained that when you’re wearing it, you can’t look down to read your speech. You have to bring the speech up to your eyes. because if you tilted your head forward, in her words, your neck would break and it would fall off. She called it unwieldy. This wasn’t a woman in awe of what she was wearing.

This was a woman describing a piece of equipment that made her job harder. She couldn’t turn her head naturally. She had to keep perfectly still while reading a speech she probably could have recited from memory. One wrong movement and the crown could slide forward or tip to the side. And the Imperial State crown wasn’t even the heaviest one.

She wore at her coronation in 1953. She wore St. Edward’s crown, the crown used only for the actual moment of crowning. It weighs nearly 5 lb. Elizabeth later said it was so heavy she could barely move her head at all during that portion of the ceremony. She had to walk slowly and deliberately, each step calculated to keep the massive gold crown balanced.

By the 1990s, Elizabeth stopped wearing the Imperial State Crown to Parliament altogether. She was in her 70s and the weight had become too much. Instead of placing it on her head, she had it carried in and set on a cushion beside her. The crown still attended. It just didn’t sit on her head anymore. Some saw this as a concession to age.

But it was really just practical. Why endure the pain when the symbol could sit next to her just as easily? She also had the crown delivered to Buckingham Palace the day before each state opening so she could practice wearing it. She’d put it on while reading newspapers or doing paperwork just to get her neck muscles used to the weight again. Imagine that.

The Queen of England sitting at her desk doing administrative work wearing a crown covered in billions of dollars worth of diamonds just to build up her neck strength. It wasn’t just the Imperial State crown that gave her trouble. On her own wedding day in 1947, the tiara she was wearing snapped as she was getting dressed.

The court jeweler had to rush it to be repaired with a police escort while Elizabeth waited at Buckingham Palace. She later told Catherine, Prince William’s wife, now Princess of Wales, about the incident when they toured a royal jewelry exhibition together. A rare moment of commiseration about the realities of wearing priceless, fragile objects on your head.

For 70 years, this was the reality. Not glamour, not reverence, just a woman managing the physical complications that came with her job. But Elizabeth’s relationship with royal jewelry wasn’t just about what she wore. It was about who else she allowed to wear it and when she took it back. When Diana Spencer married Prince Charles, Elizabeth’s eldest son and heir to the throne in 1981, it was the wedding of the century, and Elizabeth lent her the Cambridge lovers, not tiara, a pearl and diamond piece.

so heavy it gave Diana headaches. The tiara contains 19 hanging pearls and hundreds of diamonds, all set in an intricate pattern of lover’s knots. Diana wore it constantly throughout her marriage. It became one of her signature pieces, appearing at state banquetss, on royal tours, and in some of her most iconic photographs.

When people picture Diana in formal attire, they often picture her wearing this tiara. But after the divorce in 1996, Diana had to return it. The tiara went into a safe at Buckingham Palace. It wasn’t seen in public for nearly 20 years. The piece most associated with Diana, the crown that had appeared in hundreds of photographs alongside her, simply vanished from royal life.

Elizabeth could have lent it to someone else. She could have worn it herself. Instead, she locked it away as if the memories attached to it needed to be stored out of sight. When Catherine married Prince William in 2011, Elizabeth lent her the Cartier Halo tiara, a significant choice. It was Elizabeth’s first tiara given to her on her 18th birthday by her father.

Elizabeth had previously lent it to her sister, Princess Margaret, and her daughter, Princess Anne, in their younger years. Now, she was passing it to Catherine for her wedding day. The message was clear. Catherine was being welcomed into the family with a piece that held personal meaning for Elizabeth herself.

Then in 2015, Elizabeth brought the lovers not tiara back out for Catherine. The same piece Diana had worn, stored away since the divorce, was now Catherine’s go-to tiara for state occasions. It’s become her signature piece, appearing at diplomatic receptions and state banquetss ever since.

Catherine has worn it more than any other tiara in her collection. There’s something striking about that choice. Elizabeth could have kept that tiara locked away forever. Instead, she chose to pass it to her grandson’s wife, the woman who would one day be queen. Diana’s tiara, worn by the future queen.

Whatever complicated feelings existed around Diana’s memory, Elizabeth made a decision about the jewelry’s future. The contrast with Sarah Ferguson, who married Elizabeth’s second son, Prince Andrew, in 1986, tells you everything about how deliberate these choices were. Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Philillip, actually purchased a tiara for Sarah as a wedding gift.

They didn’t lend it, they gave it. Sarah kept it even after her divorce because it was never a loan. It was hers. Why the difference? We can only speculate. But Elizabeth understood exactly what she was doing with every piece she lent or gave. A loan could be revoked. A gift couldn’t, and she chose very carefully which was which.

But there’s another side to these jewels that Elizabeth never publicly addressed. The blood and deception woven into their history. The Cullin and diamond, the largest gem quality diamond ever found at over 3,000 carats uncut, was gifted to King Edward IIIth in 1907. It was cut into nine major stones and nearly 100 smaller ones.

Elizabeth wore both of the largest. The Cullin and Wet, a 530 karat diamond worth an estimated $400 million sits in the sovereign scepter. The Cullinan 2 at 3 and 17 carats is set in the Imperial State Crown she wore for 70 years. But that gift came just 5 years after the brutal bore war which killed tens of thousands and saw the British establish concentration camps in South Africa.

The diamond was found in a South African mine on land that had been taken from the BS who had taken it from African tribes before them. The gift to Edward IIIth was widely seen as an attempt to improve relations with Britain after the war. A peace offering wrapped in the world’s largest diamond. Today, South Africa’s government has formally requested the diamonds be returned.

They argue that the stones were taken from African soil during colonial rule and belong to the South African people. Elizabeth wore these stones for seven decades without ever publicly addressing their origins. She carried them in processions, wore them to Parliament, held them during ceremonies, all without acknowledging the complicated history of how they came to be in British hands.

Then there’s the Black Prince’s ruby, the massive red stone at the center front of the Imperial State Crown. One of the most prominent gems visible when Elizabeth wore it. Except it isn’t a ruby at all. It’s a spinnel, a completely different gemstone that happens to look similar. For over 400 years, everyone believed it was a ruby.

The deception wasn’t discovered until 1783, when gemological science had advanced enough to tell the difference. And how did this stone enter royal hands in the first place? In the 1360s, Don Pedro, the cruel of Castile, invited Sultan Abui to a meeting, then murdered him and took his jewels.

Pedro later gave the stone to England’s black prince. Edward, Prince of Wales, as payment for military support in a Spanish civil war. Elizabeth wore a fake ruby taken from a murdered man’s body over 600 years ago at the center of her crown for 70 years. Every time she appeared at the state opening of Parliament, that stone sat on her forehead, a silent reminder of centuries of violence and deception that most viewers never knew about.

But that same Imperial State crown has another story most people don’t know. One that happened centuries before Elizabeth ever wore it. In 1671, a man named Colonel Thomas Blood befriended the keeper of the crown jewels at the Tower of London. Over several visits, Blood gained the keeper’s trust completely.

One day, Blood and his accompllices attacked the keeper, beating him unconscious. Then, Blood flattened the Imperial State crown with a mallet so it would fit under his coat and stuff the sovereign’s orb down his trousers. One of his accompllices tried to saw the sovereign scepter in half to make it easier to carry.

They were caught before they could escape the tower grounds. But here’s where it gets strange. Instead of being executed for treason, which was the standard punishment for stealing the crown jewels, blood was pardoned by King Charles II, not only pardoned, but given lands in Ireland and a pension.

To this day, no one knows exactly why. Some historians suspect Blood had information the king wanted kept quiet. Others believe Charles simply admired Blood’s audacity. The same crown that was bashed with a mallet and shoved under a thief’s coat is the one Elizabeth wore for seven decades.

Every time she placed it on her head, she was wearing a piece of jewelry that had once been flattened for theft. After Elizabeth’s death in September 2022, the crown jewels passed immediately to her son, now King Charles III. There was no inheritance process, no waiting period. The moment Elizabeth died, every crown, every scepter, every orb in the Tower of London became his.

He now wears the Imperial State crown at each state opening of Parliament, just as his mother did, though he’s mentioned finding it heavy. Like Elizabeth in her later years, he may eventually opt to have it placed on a cushion beside him instead. The tradition of the heavy crown continues, even as those who wear it find ways to manage the burden.

At his coronation in May 2023, there was one notable decision about jewelry. Queen Camila, Charles’s second wife, who married him in 2005 after decades of controversy, deliberately chose not to use a crown containing the co-enor diamond. The co-enor is 105 karat stone that India, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan have all claimed Britain should return.

The diamond had been set in the queen mother’s crown and worn by Elizabeth’s mother at her own coronation. Using it would have been traditional, but it also would have been politically explosive. Instead, Camila wore a crown set with the Cullinan third of four and V diamonds. Still controversial given their South African origins, but less immediately volatile.

Elizabeth’s personal collection, the 300 plus pieces she actually owned, has been distributed to her heirs, though the details are sealed for 90 years. We won’t know the full picture of who received what until 2112, but we’ve already seen some pieces reappear on the new generation of royals. The lover’s not tiara continues to appear on Catherine at state occasions.

The brooches Elizabeth wore decade after decade are starting to appear on her daughters and granddaughters. The collection she built, not the crown jewels, but her own personal horde of gems, is scattering across the family. The jewels Elizabeth wore and lent and took back are now beginning a new chapter.

The woman who called crowns unwieldy is gone, but the stones remain, passing to new hands, carrying their histories forward. What’s striking about Elizabeth’s relationship with the crown jewels is how unscentimental it was. She called crowns unwieldy. She used jewelry as a silent language of approval, lending pieces to signal belonging, taking them back to signal its end.

For 70 years, she wore stones with blood in their history and lies in their names. And she never said a word about it publicly. But she also never pretended the weight was anything other than what it was. That honesty might be the most surprising truth of all. What about the crown jewels surprised you most? Let us know in the comments.

Please like and subscribe.

QQ4 Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The friendship began on a live television program in November of 1986 in the 11 seconds after Bob Dylan called Keith Richards music derivative on camera. Keith Richard’s response to that assessment, one sentence said without anger, without performance, with the specific directness of a man who has nothing to prove and knows it made Bob Dylan laugh.

Then made Bob Dylan go quiet. then made Bob Dylan say two words that people who know Bob Dylan say he almost never said to anyone. This is the story of those 11 seconds and the 40 years that followed them. The program was a live music interview special broadcast on an American network on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The format was simple.

Two musicians, a host, an hour of conversation about music and the state of it. The producers had assembled the pairing of Bob Dylan and Keith Richards with the specific calculation of television producers who understand that two people with equally strong and potentially incompatible views about what music is and what it should do will produce better television than two people who agree about everything.

The calculation was correct, though not in the way the producers had anticipated. Bob Dylan was 45 years old in November of 1986. Bob Dylan had released Empire Burlesque the previous year and had been on the road for most of the intervening period as part of the True Confessions tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.

Bob Dylan was in November of 1986 in one of the most prolific and restless phases of a career that had consisted almost entirely of prolific and restless phases. A career that had moved through folk, rock, country, gospel, and back again, that had been declared finished at least six times by the music press, and at each time continued with the serene indifference of a river to the opinions of people standing on its banks.

Bob Dylan had been redefining what music could be. Since 1962, Bob Dylan had invented and reinvented himself so many times that reinvention had become his defining characteristic, not in the superficial sense of a performer changing costumes, but in the deeper sense of a musician who had never allowed his work to settle into a form that could be anticipated or categorized from the outside.

Bob Dylan understood influence and originality and the relationship between them better than almost anyone alive in 1986. Bob Dylan had spent 24 years thinking carefully and specifically about where music came from and where music was going and what it meant that those two things were always in constant conversation with each other.

Keith Richards was 42 years old in November of 1986. Keith Richards had been playing guitar professionally since 1962. Keith Richards had built a career on a foundation of American blues and rhythm and blues. A foundation that Keith Richards had studied with the systematic devotion of someone who understood that the tradition he was building on was not incidental to the music he was making, but essential to it.

that you could not understand what Keith Richards did without understanding where Keith Richards had come from and what Keith Richards had been listening to since he was a teenager in Dartford with American Import Records and a secondhand guitar and no teacher except the recordings themselves. Keith Richards had never pretended otherwise. Keith Richards had in fact spent considerable energy across his career making the lineage explicit, naming the artists, citing the recordings, insisting on the acknowledgement of influence that the mainstream music

industry had a long history of suppressing or ignoring or crediting to the wrong people. If anything, Keith Richards was more transparent about his sources than most musicians of his generation. Keith Richards had always said openly that the Rolling Stones came directly from the blues, that Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and the specific tradition of the Mississippi Delta were not background influences, but foundational ones.

The music Keith Richards made was in direct and sustained conversation with that tradition, something Keith Richards considered not a limitation, but a responsibility and a form of respect. The interview had been running for 8 minutes when the host asked Bob Dylan about the current state of rock and roll.

Bob Dylan answered with the density and the indirection that characterized Bob Dylan’s responses to direct questions, turning the question over, approaching it from an unexpected angle, finding his way to what he actually thought through a series of observations that moved like a river rather than a road. Bob Dylan was not a straightforward interview subject.

Bob Dylan had been asked about rock and roll in hundreds of interviews across 24 years and had developed the habit of treating the question as an invitation to think out loud rather than a request for a prepared position. The producer Gerald Sherman said afterward that in the first 8 minutes of the interview, he had been slightly anxious, not because anything was going wrong, but because nothing was going anywhere in particular yet.

The interview had the feeling of two conversations happening simultaneously. Bob Dylan’s internal one and the external one visible to the cameras. And Gerald Sherman was not certain in those first eight minutes that the two conversations would converge into something. Bob Dylan talked about influence. Bob Dylan talked about originality.

Bob Dylan talked about the difference between music that absorbed a tradition and transformed it and music that absorbed a tradition and reproduced it. And then Bob Dylan made his assessment. And then Bob Dylan said with the precision of a man making a musical assessment rather than a personal judgment that the Rolling Stones work, and Bob Dylan was specific, naming Keith Richards as the guitarist whose approach he was discussing was derivative in a way that Bob Dylan found limiting.

Bob Dylan said it without hostility. Bob Dylan said it as a technical observation about the relationship between source material and the work that came from it. Bob Dylan said that Keith Richards played the blues the way the blues had already been played, rather than using the blues as a starting point for something that had not yet been played.

Keith Richards had been listening to this with the specific attention Keith Richards gave to things being said about music by people who knew music. Keith Richards did not interrupt. Keith Richards did not shift in his chair or display any of the visible signals of a person preparing a defensive response. Keith Richards listened to Bob Dylan’s complete observation all the way to its conclusion without interrupting and without displaying any visible signal of preparing a response.

Then Keith Richards said one sentence. The sentence was not a rebuttal. The sentence did not defend Keith Richards music or argue for its originality or challenge Bob Dylan’s characterization of what the blues meant in the context of rock and roll. The sentence was something else entirely, something that required a specific kind of confidence to say.

The confidence of a person who has spent long enough thinking about the same things as the person they are talking to that they can locate the exact point where their thinking diverges and say something useful about that point rather than simply defending their own position. The sentence acknowledged everything Bob Dylan had said, the assessment, the distinction Bob Dylan was drawing, the specific musical concern underlying the observation, and then turned it 90°.

Keith Richards took Bob Dylan’s own framework, the one Bob Dylan had used to analyze Keith Richards relationship to the blues tradition, and applied it back to Bob Dylan’s work with the same precision Bob Dylan had used to apply it to Keith Richards. Spare aimed. The sentence asked Bob Dylan something about Bob Dylan’s own music, about the relationship between Bob Dylan’s sources and Bob Dylan’s output that Bob Dylan had not been asked on television before.

The sentence did not attack. The sentence illuminated. Bob Dylan laughed. The laugh was not the polite laugh of someone responding to a joke. The laugh was the involuntary laugh of someone who has been genuinely surprised. The specific kind of surprise that a person of exceptional intelligence experiences when someone else’s intelligence exceeds their expectations.

Bob Dylan laughed for 4 seconds. Then Bob Dylan stopped laughing. Then Bob Dylan was quiet for 3 seconds in the way that Bob Dylan was quiet when Bob Dylan was thinking rather than performing thought. Then Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” The producer in the booth, a man named Gerald Sherman, who had been working in television for 14 years, said afterward that in 14 years of live television production, he had never heard Bob Dylan say those two words in a public forum.

Gerald Sherman said he had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions and had observed Bob Dylan in numerous other contexts and that you’re right was not a phrase that Bob Dylan deployed easily or often because Bob Dylan had spent 24 years being right about music in ways that other people eventually caught up with. And the experience of being right ahead of everyone else does not generally produce a man who says you’re right readily when someone else makes a point.

The host of the program, a journalist named Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said afterward that the 11 seconds between Bob Dylan’s assessment and Bob Dylan saying, “You’re right,” were the most extraordinary 11 seconds of television she had been present for. Patricia Wells said that what she witnessed in those 11 seconds was not a debate or a confrontation or a celebrity exchange of competing opinions.

Patricia Wells said what she witnessed was one musician recognizing another musician as an equal, which was in the specific context of Bob Dylan in 1986, not something that happened in public very often. The interview continued for another 42 minutes after those 11 seconds. The conversation between Bob Dylan and Keith Richards in the remaining 42 minutes was described by everyone who watched it as fundamentally different from the first 8 minutes.

The host, Patricia Wells, who had been conducting music interviews for 12 years and understood the difference between the performance of conversation and actual conversation, said that at approximately the 9-minute mark, something shifted in the studio. That the formal interview, architecture dissolved, and what replaced it was something less structured and more genuine.

Bob Dylan and Keith Richards talked about influence and originality and the blues and what it meant to build on a tradition without being consumed by it. They talked about specific recordings and specific musicians with the specificity of two people who had spent their entire adult lives thinking about these things and rarely found another person who had thought about them with equivalent care.

They talked about where music came from and where music was going and whether those two questions were actually one question or two. Patricia Wells said afterward that she had asked approximately four questions in the remaining 42 minutes because Bob Dylan and Keith Richards did not require questions. They required only a room and a camera and the shared understanding that what they were saying together was worth recording carefully.

She said it was the best interview she had ever conducted and that she had conducted the smallest part of it. After the program, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards were in the corridor outside the studio when the host Patricia Wells passed them. Patricia Wells said she did not stop because she did not want to interrupt.

She observed them for approximately 30 seconds from a distance. She said they were talking with the ease of people who had known each other for years rather than people who had met for the first time 2 hours earlier. She said that something had shifted between them during the broadcast that the broadcast had made permanent rather than temporary.

She continued down the corridor and did not look back. She said in her account of that evening that she had decided in that moment not to interrupt the conversation because some conversations are more valuable than any question a journalist might ask and that the conversation she had observed for 30 seconds in the corridor outside the studio was one of them.

She had been a music journalist for 12 years. She recognized the difference. Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have maintained their friendship across four decades. They have appeared together at various events, most significantly at the concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, where people who were present described them as inseparable for most of the evening, occupying the same corner of the backstage area and talking with the concentrated attention of people who only have a limited amount of time together and intend to use it

well. Bob Dylan has spoken about Keith Richards in interviews with the specific thoughtful care that Bob Dylan reserves for musicians whose work Bob Dylan considers genuinely important rather than merely culturally prominent. Keith Richards has spoken about Bob Dylan in similar terms with the specific respect of someone who recognizes in another person a commitment to music that goes deeper than career.

Neither Bob Dylan nor Keith Richards has made a public statement specifically about how the friendship began or about the November 1986 interview. Bob Dylan has not mentioned the 11 seconds. Keith Richards has not mentioned the sentence. The interview exists in the archive. The 11 seconds are there. The laugh is there. The two words are there.

What is also there for anyone who watches the interview from its beginning and pays attention to the shift that happens at the 9-minute mark is the specific moment when two people who thought they were appearing on a television program discovered they were actually talking to each other. What Keith Richards said in that one sentence has never been officially reported.

The people who were in the studio that evening, Gerald Sherman, Patricia Wells, the floor crew, the two camera operators, the makeup artist who was watching from the side of the set, have described the sentence in consistent terms. They have described its effect. They have described Bob Dylan’s laugh and Bob Dylan’s silence and Bob Dylan’s two words.

They have not repeated the sentence itself in the specific understanding that the sentence was said between two musicians on a television program and that its power resided in the specific context of that exchange and would not survive removal from it intact. What can be said is this. Keith Richards said something to Bob Dylan about Bob Dylan’s music that used Bob Dylan’s own observation about Keith Richards as its starting point and arrived somewhere that Bob Dylan had not anticipated.

Keith Richards turned Bob Dylan’s assessment 90° and showed Bob Dylan something about the music they had both spent their lives making that Bob Dylan recognized immediately as true. And Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” Two words said by Bob Dylan in public on live television in 1986 to Keith Richards in response to a single sentence Keith Richards had said about music.

Two words that Gerald Sherman, who had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions, said he had never heard Bob Dylan say in a public forum. Two words that Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said were the most significant two words she had heard in those 12 years. Not because of their content, but because of who said them and what it cost to say them and what it meant that Keith Richards had produced them in 11 seconds from a conversation that began with Bob Dylan calling Keith Richards’s music derivative. And Keith Richards and

Bob Dylan have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The sentence did its work in 11 seconds on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The work has been ongoing ever since. If this story moved you, subscribe and leave a comment below. Have you ever said something to someone that turned a potential disagreement into an unexpected and lasting connection? Tell us about it in the comments below.

Share this with someone who needs to be reminded that the right sentence said at the right moment can completely change the entire direction of a relationship. Ring the notification bell for more untold stories about the extraordinary human beings behind music’s greatest legends.