Jane Austen ring bought back from Kelly Clarkson

[cali]

She couldn't have just donated it back?

A ring once owned by the 19th century novelist Jane Austen is to remain in Britain after a museum successfully raised funds to buy it from American singer Kelly Clarkson.

The gold and turquoise ring is one of just three pieces of jewelry in existence known to have belonged to Austen, the author of novels including "Pride and Prejudice" and "Emma."

Jane Austen's House Museum, in Chawton, southern England, said it had been unable to meet the sale price of £152,450 ($231,227) when the ring was auctioned by Sotheby's last year. Clarkson, a "long time Austen devotee" bought the item instead, it said. The sale price was more than five times the estimate Sotheby's had placed on the ring.

In August, UK Culture Minister Ed Vaizey placed a temporary export bar on the ring "on the grounds that it is so closely connected with [Britain's] history and national life that its departure would be a misfortune."

<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/world/europe/uk-jane-austen-ring-bought/?hpt=wo_t3

[TorchTheWitch]

1. why on earth should she have?

She wanted it, she bought it for far more than it was worth, and it's nice that she's willing to sell it on to the Austen Museum so it could remain in Britain instead of keeping it. Why should she have parted with it at all much less give it away for free? Why not ask the previous owner why they didn't donate it instead of having Sotheby's auction it off for much more than it was worth? Geez, be happy she was willing to part with it at all after wanting it so much that she over bid so much in order to get it in the first place.

[MADem]

3. I'm with you--she's not a "charity" and if the Museum wants it, they can pay what it is worth.

And your point about the previous owner is spot-on.

[durablend]

2. Um, maybe the Brits shouldn't have sold it in the first place? n/t