Kelly Clarkson banned from taking Austen ring out of UK

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The British government is trying to stop US singer Kelly Clarkson taking a rare turquoise and gold ring once owned by Jane Austen out of the country.




The 2002 winner of the American Idol TV show bought the jewellery at auction last year for more than £150,000. But Culture minister Ed Vaizey has put a temporary export bar on it and has appealed for UK buyers to come forward. The ring is one of only three pieces of jewellery known to have belonged to the Pride and Prejudice author. Mr Vaizey said he wanted the "national treasure" to be "saved for the nation". Buyers have until 30 September to match the £152,450 price ta




the deadline can be extended to 30 December if proof emerges of "a serious intention to raise funds" to match the six-figure price tag.

I dont know, is the Culture minister right to do this? I mean she bought it fair and square at auction.

Link




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
If the ring legally belongs to her this guy has no right to tell her she can't take it anywhere much less out of the country. If it is such a treasured piece then why isn't it in a museum?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Or why didn't THEY buy it vs. Clarkson? Sounds like a case of "you snooze, you lose" to me, and Kelly should get to keep the ring. Heck, if they want it, they should have to pay HER set price, not what she paid for it.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
A ring with powers not seen since the days of Legend of Zelda. This ring makes you immune to fire and cold while increasing your lightning damage.

Usually trades for 200,000+ rupees, what a deal!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
It seems a ridiculous ban to me. What if a UK purchaser comes forth and buys it and said purchaser leaves the country with it?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I don't care if it belonged to Alexander the Great, I would not pay that much for a jade ring.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


I dont know what the regulations are there, but yeah it is quite ridiculous, I mean if they wanted it to stay so badly then why allow bids from international buyers at the original auction, and why did a museum not buy it



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha
 


Totally ridiculous. She bought it, it is hers. He has no right, IMO.

Jane Austen's legacy lives on in her work, not her jewelry. Even if she did wear it while writing, or whatever excuses some people may use, it belongs to Kelly Clarkson now..



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
reply to post by InTheLight
 


I dont know what the regulations are there, but yeah it is quite ridiculous, I mean if they wanted it to stay so badly then why allow bids from international buyers at the original auction, and why did a museum not buy it


Exactly. What will they do if she leaves the country with it? Strange behaviour indeed.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
One word does it for the minister: nitwit.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
why not just smash it with a hammer



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Its sale to anything other than a British historical society should have been banned in the first place, and its a travesty that anyone could have purchased it with the intention of removing it from these shores. That is why we are in this difficult situation.

Unfortunate as this scenario is, its far more important that the trinket remain in Britain, cared for by a not for profit entity, than it is to ensure that all elements of fair play are adhered to. Our culture is being erroded from far to many angles just lately, to warrant any avoidable degradation, no matter how aggravating the circumstances might be for one individual.

I can assure you, the damage done to Miss Clarkson would be no where near as vast as the damage done to our nations culture by continuing to allow artifacts of our greatest ages, legends, and personalities, to end up out of easy reach of any Briton who would want to involve themselves in, and learn more about, the past of our nation. Given that Britain has such a rich literary tradition, it would be unforgiveable to allow anything as historical as this ring, to be taken out of Britain, or indeed owned by any entity or individual outside the realm.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
With that in mind, then it would be gracious if Kelly Clarkson donated the ring to a worthy institution. All they have to do is ask her, I think.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Its sale to anything other than a British historical society should have been banned in the first place, and its a travesty that anyone could have purchased it with the intention of removing it from these shores. That is why we are in this difficult situation.

Unfortunate as this scenario is, its far more important that the trinket remain in Britain, cared for by a not for profit entity, than it is to ensure that all elements of fair play are adhered to. Our culture is being erroded from far to many angles just lately, to warrant any avoidable degradation, no matter how aggravating the circumstances might be for one individual.

I can assure you, the damage done to Miss Clarkson would be no where near as vast as the damage done to our nations culture by continuing to allow artifacts of our greatest ages, legends, and personalities, to end up out of easy reach of any Briton who would want to involve themselves in, and learn more about, the past of our nation. Given that Britain has such a rich literary tradition, it would be unforgiveable to allow anything as historical as this ring, to be taken out of Britain, or indeed owned by any entity or individual outside the realm.


Well, the estate should have donated the ring to a museum, or sold it only to a museum, as it is, the auction was open to all buyers, and KC was the one that won it and she has the right to do with it as she pleases.
For PR purposes, I can see her hopefully donating it, but if not, then I dunno...



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The hell with that....she paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars for this ring, and she's supposed to donate it?

Charity is one thing, but that's ridiculous. Should be plenty of good PR just to allow them to buy it for what she paid. She should be able to name what SHE feels it is worth to part with it....to be honest. Free enterprise and all that. Not like it was a secret auction....plenty of time for the government to have acted BEFORE someone bought the ring. Again...you snooze, you lose.


why not just smash it with a hammer


If FORCED to sell it, and money is no object, why the hell not? "Sure, you can have the ring I paid for fair and square...I'll even donate it....in PIECES!" Then see if they back off.

Don't have a problem with them seeking to get it back, but ordering it is where I draw the line.
edit on 6-8-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Fair enough, but I wonder if she would have purchased it at the time knowing that she would afterwards not be allowed to take it out of the country. I rather doubt it. I think that amount of money she paid for the ring would be a drop in the bucket for her- chump change.

www.therichest.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


1 percent of your entire net worth is chump change???



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by InTheLight
 


1 percent of your entire net worth is chump change???


Pretty much, yes! But then I'm a spender, so spending 1% of my yearly income on a piece of jewellery that would most likely have a good resale $ would certainly affect my thoughts on value for my dollar.





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join