And we probably shall (agree to disagree). I totally understand the perspective of those who would like to see it in a museum, but I don't personally feel there's any sort of moral imperative attached to it. Is the pleasure to be enjoyed by thousands who would file past and peer at it through glass really superior to the pleasure of one woman who would use it, wear it, and delight in it? On that reasonable people may disagree.
As for the British government, I never thought they should have bought it themselves, just that if they were opposed to it being taken out of the country, that should have been made known before the auction. It was a highly publicized sale, after all. I'm sure you're right that Ms. Clarkson was naive, and someone should have advised her that it could be potentially difficult, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to own it. It just seems like a mismanaged situation that is not very fair to her--sellers remorse, if you will. Oh no, we didn't mean for you to buy it. Really? Then you should have said so in the first place.
As for the British government, I never thought they should have bought it themselves, just that if they were opposed to it being taken out of the country, that should have been made known before the auction. It was a highly publicized sale, after all. I'm sure you're right that Ms. Clarkson was naive, and someone should have advised her that it could be potentially difficult, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to own it. It just seems like a mismanaged situation that is not very fair to her--sellers remorse, if you will. Oh no, we didn't mean for you to buy it. Really? Then you should have said so in the first place.