Then you should tell that to the person or people who sold it. They wanted the loot.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Kelly Clarkson buys Jane Austen ring, England won't let her leave country with it
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
Then you should tell that to the person or people who sold it. They wanted the loot.
Yes, but that's not really relevant to my point.
Sale to an English collection would have been permitted, even thought it was deemed to be a national treasure.
I think we agree here -- the ring should be claimed and put on display in a publicly owned museum, or the government should allow it to be sold to whoever the fuck wants it. Anything else is an absurd jingoistic double standard.
The ring wasn't declared a national treasure until long after the auction, after the whole media cirkus started. None of this would have happened if she wasn't famous.
She isn't famous here. We have out own shitty talent show winners.
As I said, I don't really know the details of the law. You said there was no law holding it back.
I'll just point out that the donation drives to keep it in the country are for the museum.
True, but she is only famous in America who have latched onto this story: its news agencies stoking the imperialistic fires and much if its populace only willing to dance as evidenced by this thread.
There were 4 items put on export block by Vaizey by the end of July, but this story us only big because it involves a famous American, the other 3 items involving other international buyers.
This story is bigger in the States than it is in England.
ChubbyHuggs
Member
I'm still confused. How could it be a national treasure if Jane Austen's own family is pawning it off for cheap? They obviously don't feel that way about it.
She's sold a couple million albums there. She's pretty famous.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
If he hasn't heard of them, then they aren't famous at all.
I said -if-. If there's no law holding it back. I was the one who brought up the possibility of a law preventing inheritance of cultural artifacts in the first place.
Why the hell would I ask if a law existed, then state it didn't?
The donation drives being for the museum is a fact I'm aware of. I didn't bring it up because, once again, it isn't relevant. Sales of cultural artifacts to private collectors shouldn't have jingoistic laws attached to them, preventing foreigners from purchasing them but allowing them to rot away in domestic private collections. The donation drive is arguably the 'right' thing to do, but it's being done for misguided reasons.
Let me complicate this further:
The US should give back Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna's wooden leg, and the Koh-i-Noor should be returned to India. They're priceless artifacts obtained as war trophies through unjust means.
However, if they were in the hands of private collectors, I wouldn't care where they were. Yes, they belong in museums in their home countries. However, they are of no cultural value when owned by private citizens who will not be exhibiting them to the public.
Also, it's not as if England is some 3rd world country... Kelly Clarkson likely isn't in the Top 1000 wealthiest people whenever she's in the country, so it's not as if she came into this with some unfair advantage. Where is all this national treasure fervor amongst those who could have easily outbid her to ensure it was kept in the country?
In the end, I would say this: If it was made abundantly clear at the time of auction that this piece would not be allowed to go overseas, then fair enough. If not, then she should be given her rightful property.
As for people asking of something or other of Mark Twain's would be allowed to leave America... I frankly wouldn't care. Reason is, I don't think of Mark Twain or his effects as something the United States has rights to. He is a globally recognized and admired literary figure - he belongs to the world. I would prefer his things be kept in a museum so that everyone would have a chance to see them, but I wouldn't legally mandate it.
In the end, I would say this: If it was made abundantly clear at the time of auction that this piece would not be allowed to go overseas, then fair enough. If not, then she should be given her rightful property.
As for people asking of something or other of Mark Twain's would be allowed to leave America... I frankly wouldn't care. Reason is, I don't think of Mark Twain or his effects as something the United States has rights to. He is a globally recognized and admired literary figure - he belongs to the world. I would prefer his things be kept in a museum so that everyone would have a chance to see them, but I wouldn't legally mandate it.
Winterfang
Banned
Why the hell do they event auctions in the first place then, if they are not going to let people leave with the properties in the first place? Why would anyone want to own a ring that they need to fly to watch in a museum instead of wearing them?
The auctions and the law are separated I think. It's mostly for cultural donations, to keep the artifact in the place where it is most significant. Like adopting a lion. Aka misplaced integrity and tradition.
I dunno, I think it's all just as dumb as the 99% of posters in this thread.
I'm changing my opinion out of spite.
Keep it in England -- instead of going missing or getting scratched by a private collector in America, the government will be able to keep track of it. Future generations will thank us when it's deemed a 'treasure' and claimed for a public museum.
Who's to say if a law will be passed preventing the inheritance of such treasures? The only way to be sure is to keep it in the country, regardless of ownership.
Please stop lowering the level of discourse on gaf. Vague, passive-aggressive attacks aren't a substitute for reasoning -- if you can't clearly state your opinion, I'll do it for you.
I don't really know where this is going now.
I was just pointing out that there is. That's all, It may not be exactly what you meant, but it is still relevant to the purchase regardless.
How exactly is the author's ring valuable to literature? What about Jane Austen's tooth brush? Or her bedsheets? Are those also valuable to literature?
It's a physical possession that once belonged to her. Why the crazy amount of significance?
Maybe there isn't a law that can stop someone selling an item to the highest bidder. At that point maybe the Austen Museum made a request to the government and they made a decision.
Again, I don't know the details of this particular law so I can only speculate.
I don't really know where this is going now.
I was just pointing that there is. That's all, It may not be exactly what you meant, but it is still relevant to the purchase regardless.
Context was important in the post you quoted-- I thought it was obvious that I was referring to potential laws preventing English citizens from inheriting national treasures. I apologize if the post was unclear.
My point was simple, and only pertained to the hypocrisy of allowing domestic private collectors to own foreign artifacts while preventing their exportation.
Considering that the law allowing an export bar on 'national treasures' was of the basis of my argument, I was baffled that you called my knowledge of it into question.
While the particular object may hold no historical significance outside of its former owner, personal possessions of historical figures are notoriously difficult to acquire and identify. Her toothbrushes and bedsheets have likely rotted in a landfill, and I guarantee most of her other possessions are unidentifiable.
We have a priceless artifact here, one of the last things we can prove was physically connected to Jane Austen -- why should it leave the country to be worn and scuffed by an eccentric celebrity?
Again, I don't know the details of that law. It could be that museums have first refusal to buy an item when it is deemed a 'national treasure'. Maybe it was claimed to be so after the fact. I don't know.
Evidently it was worth £152,450.
....Fair enough.
You see that is the interesting thing about this. Nowhere does it even ask the question, it is just assumed that the museum will get it. I did wonder about that. The only other party involved in this now is the Austen House Museum. They are fundraising so that they have enough money to purchase the item.
Another thing to point out is that the ban is only until September(?) What happens after that?
.
Winterfang
Banned
I appreciate the information but the last paragraph was uncalled for. Kelly Clarkson is in the right here, the ring belongs to her.
What are they going to do next? Change the clarification of the ring to housing so it will have to stay there? This is crazy, the fact that it happened a bunch of times also is even worse.
This confused me too. I Googled around a bit and found absolutely nothing.
Here's my assumption:
The export bar voids the purchase. If money has been paid to the auctioneer, it is refunded immediately.
This gives domestic buyers an opportunity to purchase the item for the sale price at auction, if funds can be raised before the bar 'expires'. In this case, if no domestic buyer is found before September, the purchase is reinstated and the ring is sold at the previously negotiated price.
However, wouldn't that give Clarkson a chance to bid higher, even if a domestic group is able to match her original bid? Would she be immediately cut out of the deal in this situation? Isn't that unfair to the person selling the ring, who only wishes to sell for the highest possible price? Would it be (in a way) extortion, or some violation of auction proceedings, if Clarkson was permitted to bid higher?
This is really confusing. Is there a law expert who can weigh in?
lol, dude sorry, major misunderstanding
I meant I think the situation is dumb, like 99% of the posters here think it's dumb...not that 99% of the posters here are dumb
Of course the auction winner is in the right, the rule is bunk
....oh.
I... yeah, sorry. I was under the impression that you were calling the posters dumb.
Combined with this post:
I assumed you were dismissing the entire thread as 'beneath you'. My apologies, I jumped to conclusions.
By the way, that post reminded me of the current situation with Santa Anna's leg, so thanks for that.
Kelly and the ring will be moved to a British museum, and in the US a bidding was will ensue to find out who will buy Kelly back.
There is only one potential buyer though, and that is the museum. I was thinking that maybe it works similar to that other law I mentioned. Because it is a national treasure, maybe the museum gets first refusal
It is strange.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
But it's a ring, why didn't she just say OH OKAY I'LL JUST DROP IT OFF AT THE POST! Then stick it in her bum and come back to the airport and be like okay zooming off now.
I can't remember if it article mentions, but she could have bid from the US.
Ring is hers, she can have/wear/keep it as long as it stays in British.
Kelly Clarkson goes to India, without the ring.
Santa Anna's leg goes to England.
Mexico gets the Koh-i-Noor.
America gets the ring.
I should totally be a diplomat.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Unless she was somehow writing directly on the page with that ring, it's irrelevant to literature.
Winterfang
Banned
Off time but is it me of is GAF mobile all weird? I'm having trouble reading quotes.
But what happens after the 30th September though?
Then why does the ban end on Sept 30th?
Yeah. People have already mentioned this loads already
It is very relevant to the Austen House Museum though. The house she actually lived in and is now a museum.
I think we both ended up invested in a pretty vague situation.
I'm going to wait for more information. This is fascinating, though. I knew many European countries had restrictions on private citizens owning historical treasures, but this just seems like a huge mess.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, by the way. Was fun.
Winterfang
Banned
I don't get it.
samus i am
Member
Don't put anything up for auction if you care even a little bit about who gets it.
- Status