The turquoise and gold ring belonging to Jane Austen that singer Kelly Clarkson bought at a Sotheby’s last July has been officially but temporarily blocked from export by Culture minister Ed Vaizey. British law requires that any cultural objects 50 years old or older and above a certain monetary value (probably around 70,000 in this case) must be licensed before they can be removed from the country. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest examine each case and make recommendations as to whether export should be allowed. The Reviewing Committee advised that export be blocked on the grounds that the ring is of national importance.
That happened shortly after Clarkson purchased the ring for £152,450 ($244,000), and now the Ministry has followed the Committee’s advice, as expected.
Mr Vaizey said: “Jane Austen’s modest lifestyle and her early death mean that objects associated with her of any kind are extremely rare, so I hope that a UK buyer comes forward so this simple but elegant ring can be saved for the nation.”
That UK buyer has until September 30th to come forward with the £152,450 necessary to buy the ring back from the singer who has agreed to sell it should a UK buyer be found. If proof is offered that the money is being or will be raised, that September deadline can be extended to December 30th. If the money doesn’t appear to be forthcoming, the bar will be lifted and Clarkson will be allowed to take the ring home. It’s a lot of money for this simple ring, more money than small institutions like the Jane Austen’s House Museum in Hampshire, can easily scrape up, but individual collectors with deep pockets might be deterred from offering matching funds because they will be required to display the ring in public for at least 100 days of the year.
As modest as this ring is in intrinsic worth, it really is a pearl of great price, to coin a phrase, in historical terms. There are only three pieces of jewelry known to survive that are confirmed to have belonged to Jane Austen. The auction house experts couldn’t find a paper trail proving it, but they believe the ring may have originally been a gift from her favorite brother the Rev. Henry Thomas Austen to Jane. Jane left her jewelry to her sister Cassandra who in turn passed it along to her future sister-in-law Eleanor, second wife of her brother Henry. Eleanor gave it to her niece Caroline and it remained in that branch of the family tree until it was sold last July.
Kelly Clarkson has been patient and accommodating throughout this process, perhaps because she has a lovely replica to wear during the wait. USA Today wrote that the replica is her engagement ring. It’s not. Her engagement ring is a custom piece designed by Jonathan Arndt and Kelly’s fiancé Brandon Blackstock, a honking radiant cut canary yellow diamond surrounded by white diamonds. Blackstock worked with Clarkson’s lawyer to get the Austen ring out of the UK in time for his December proposal, but once the committee made its recommendation, the ring could not leave the country until the Minister decided whether to impose an export block. There’s no lawyering your way out of that one.
Instead, Blackstock and Arndt collaborated again to make Kelly a replica for Christmas last year. The lovely high-domed cabochon turquoise and gold setting are the same, but unlike the original, the replica’s band is embellished with diamonds. She wears the replica often and in highly visible events like when she sang at the presidential Inauguration in January. Most recently, I couldn’t help but notice it on Kelly’s right hand during an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?, the celebrity genealogy program that was cancelled by NBC but has been picked up by TLC for their summer programming.
It was a good episode, incidentally, tracing an ancestor of hers who fought for the Union, was imprisoned at the Confederate hellhole of Andersonville and then got into politics. You can watch the entire show on TLC’s website. Here’s a short preview:
7 thoughts on “Kelly Clarkson’s Jane Austen ring still export barred”
I have no problem with The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest deciding whether an object should be lost to overseas, presumably forever.
But perhaps the auction shouldn’t have gone ahead in the first place? And if Kelly Clarkson is the lawful owner of the ring, she deserves to proper payment in a relatively short time. I don’t like the ring personally speaking, but if it is important to save, there shouldn’t be uncertainty.
Well, Clarkson could have bought the ring but never intended to remove it from the UK. Wealthy buyers who purchase artifacts at auction and then give them to museums are not unheard of, as are rich expatriates who have residences in multiple countries. You can’t assume before the sale that the object is going to be exported, and therefore the export license process goes into effect after the sale.
I believe that Sotheby’s should have either had the permission of The Reviewing Committee prior to the sale or that the sale should have been limited to U.K. citizens only. Why sell the ring to anyone and then have to go through this procedure?
In my opinion, the ring should probably stay in England. I like Ms. Clarkson and think she deserves an apology for the hassle she has had to endure in this mishap.
There’s no way of knowing before the sale who is going to be the winning bidder. If a British resident had acquired ring, there would have been no need for an export license. Ms. Clarkson seems to have taken the annoyances of the process with equanimity, which makes me respect her all the more.
Why is that ring guard sizer still on the ring? I can’t imagine it is original to the piece.
As a followup, the ring stayed in the UK at the Jane Austen Museum.http://austenonly.com/2013/11/10/jane-austens-ring-and-kelly-clarkson/
Indeed. I blogged about the final disposition of the ring last September.