Jane Austen's Ring: Should It Stay Here?

[ChillDoubt]

And if so, who will buy it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23531601

Whilst I agree the ring ought to stay here due to its heritage and cultural significance, why is the Culture Secretary asking for buyers to come forward?
Can't it be bought with funds from the culture budget?

And what Ms Clarkson wants with it is beyond me, but hey-ho.

[Gromit]

Yes, but you still haven't explained why it is worth saving. It has been passed down through the generations, why does yhat matter? Can you explain why the ring of a popular writer deserves taxpayers' money being spent on it. Surely it is her work that is worth preserving. A ring tells us nothing.

[ChillDoubt]

Yes, but you still haven't explained why it is worth saving.
----------------------------------------
Read the link, but like I said, I don't expect you to understand.

[ChillDoubt]

Here you go, maybe you could write to the curator and ask him why they feel the need to display Mr Dickens personal items:

http://www.dickensmuseum.com/

[Gromit]

Yes, we all like artefacts. They are interesting. But they are not always important and do not automatically deserve tax payers money spent on them. I will give up asking you to justify spending public money on Jane Austen's ring because you seem unable to put forward any case.

[Gromit]

// The Charles Dickens Museum is governed by an independent charitable trust which aims to protect and preserve 48 Doughty Street and its museum collections //

So they are self financing and are not cadging off of the tax payer. If there are enough Jane Austen fans who want this ring kept in the country, then maybe they should send in their donations.

[Mamyalynne]

RobKep , what Gromit can or cannot do is not really relevant to the OP's question , is it?

[Mamyalynne]

Oh do calm down.

[Gromit]

Robkep

The quesion was // Jane Austen's Ring: Should It Stay Here? //

My answer is No (if that involves tax payer money). I disagree with you and the OP. You both seem to take offence at that and my attempts at asking you to justify using public money. Statements like, 'I wouldn't expect you to understand' don't really advance your arguement.

[ChillDoubt]

(Sigh)
Ok, for the hard of understanding......

Personal effects come and go and are changed on a regular basis. Jewellery is far more personal, often has sentimental meaning, is durable, everlasting and often passed through families and onto successive generations, as this piece was.

Given her status within the literary world and her cultural significance to these islands, chances are she may at times have worn that ring as she wrote what are considered worldwide as masterpieces, or spun it on a finger as she mused about what her next book and plotline may be?

Isn't that something that is historically and culturally significant to these islands?

[Mamyalynne]

Well Rob , all I can say is that if you allow dislike of a fellow poster to cloud your responses then you may be sat on the sidelines.

What we have to accept is that we don't always agree with one another.

[Mamyalynne]

In my opinion, the ring should indeed stay here and furthermore - it should never have been offered up to auction to all and sundry without caveats. What happens now is more difficult as Miss Clarkson has paid for it (I confess ignorance on the workings of any export issues).

[Gromit]

Thank your for your expanation ChillDoubt.

Do we have any idea what the Austen family need the money for? To try and spirit a national treasure out of the country, they must have a really worthwhile reason.

[Gromit]

This explains the criteria and rationale behind the ban...

// The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest advised the Secretary of State not to grant it on the grounds that the object is of national importance. With the export ban in place, the item cannot be exported.

The Reviewing Committee assesses each object according to three criteria established by a 1950 export policy committee chaired by Viscount Waverley. There are three Waverley criteria against which an export item is to be judged:

1. History — Is the object so closely connected with our history and national life that its departure would be a misfortune?
2. Aesthetics — Is the object of outstanding aesthetic importance?
3. Scholarship — Is the object of outstanding significance for the study of some particular branch of art, learning or history?

Although Jane Austen’s ring is a lovely cabochon natural turquoise, it’s too simple a design, I suspect, to qualify as a national treasure under Waverley two. There is little of scholarship value in the ring. Jane was known to have simple tastes in jewelry, something reflected in her characters and in at least one letter to her sister Cassandra from May 24th, 1813:

“I have bought your Locket, but was obliged to give 18s* for it-which must be rather more than you intended; it is neat & plain, set in gold.”

It’s a limited area of study, however, and there’s nothing in the correspondence or in the literature about this particular ring. Keeping the ring in country isn’t likely to add anything of major import to Jane Austen scholarship.

That leaves Waverley one, which assesses an object’s significance as an individual artifact or in the context of local history or of a collection, or in its association with important events, people or places. It’s that personal association with one of England’s greatest authors which I suspect underpinned the Reviewing Committee’s decision to recommend an export ban. //

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/20677

[joko]

its a nice little ring and nice bit of history but it isn't relevant to her fame, so although I understand why its important and would be nice to see in a museum or something, i think if the government paid a ridiculous sum for it just to keep it here there would be uproar - the money is for more important things