I think this is a very complex issue. I believe the unexpected happened, that at the auction a 'private' non-British person offered the top bid, I guess what many of us expected is that the usual British institutions would have been the main bidders. The bidding was though as far as one could guess since the final price was around five times more than the estimated price and also the starting price. The Jane Austen House Museum has stated they were interested in it but they had not enough time to gather resources or backers at that moment (that seems absolutely true, since the first news about the auction began circulating on June 21st, 2012, the auction took place on July 10th, barely time to find beyond the average resources).
Furthermore, it seems that any piece of jewelry above a price of £40,000 requires an UK exportation permit, that what it began to go wrong for the non-British winner (anyone would have had trouble there) and of course when that happened also other red lights were lighted immediately, which ended in the ban and this mess. Before you ask, no I am not British, but I know a little bit of international trade laws.
I would like to think well of Ms. Clarkson, but in her place, I would never have expected I would have been allowed to take such an item outside UK, some more knowledgeable art collectionist would know that and stop when they know the price they offer would make matters extremely problematic, so it seems she lacked the "know how" of such matters when she bidded (naivete).
I think the blames lies more in the previous owner(s), he/she/they should have first approached the institutions to see how much they could have offered. I could understand that in a moment of need, they seeked to make the most profit, but then again, look at the mess created.
I would never expect the British government to offer to purchase it, given the financial constraints imposed all over the world, including cuts from health and education, unfortunately cultural affairs are the ones which suffer most, the only thing government (any government) could do is exert the last legal resource: the ban.
As to the matter that Ms. Clarkson loves Jane Austen, well, she might like her books very much, but she does not seem to have yet developed the awareness or understanding that such an object is not for individual enjoyment, no matter how lawful would be the ownership. With so few items that once belonged to Jane Austen available, a more fully developed Janeite would know that it has to be shared and preserved in a proper place: the Jane Austen House Museum, either by donating it or lending it indefinitely. That does not seem to have been her intention. As I have said at another sites, paraphrasing another Ring tale, someone had the chance to show quality. But as that has not been her will, and I would understand she feels angry and thus she is not considering the aforementioned paths would win her a place among the outstanding Janeites, her countryfellow, Ms. Sandy Lerner has won it for example.
Furthermore, it seems that any piece of jewelry above a price of £40,000 requires an UK exportation permit, that what it began to go wrong for the non-British winner (anyone would have had trouble there) and of course when that happened also other red lights were lighted immediately, which ended in the ban and this mess. Before you ask, no I am not British, but I know a little bit of international trade laws.
I would like to think well of Ms. Clarkson, but in her place, I would never have expected I would have been allowed to take such an item outside UK, some more knowledgeable art collectionist would know that and stop when they know the price they offer would make matters extremely problematic, so it seems she lacked the "know how" of such matters when she bidded (naivete).
I think the blames lies more in the previous owner(s), he/she/they should have first approached the institutions to see how much they could have offered. I could understand that in a moment of need, they seeked to make the most profit, but then again, look at the mess created.
I would never expect the British government to offer to purchase it, given the financial constraints imposed all over the world, including cuts from health and education, unfortunately cultural affairs are the ones which suffer most, the only thing government (any government) could do is exert the last legal resource: the ban.
As to the matter that Ms. Clarkson loves Jane Austen, well, she might like her books very much, but she does not seem to have yet developed the awareness or understanding that such an object is not for individual enjoyment, no matter how lawful would be the ownership. With so few items that once belonged to Jane Austen available, a more fully developed Janeite would know that it has to be shared and preserved in a proper place: the Jane Austen House Museum, either by donating it or lending it indefinitely. That does not seem to have been her intention. As I have said at another sites, paraphrasing another Ring tale, someone had the chance to show quality. But as that has not been her will, and I would understand she feels angry and thus she is not considering the aforementioned paths would win her a place among the outstanding Janeites, her countryfellow, Ms. Sandy Lerner has won it for example.