(And yes, we know we are a bit remiss on reporting this, but wanted to close the loop.)
Or so one would think from some of the press surrounding the Jane Austen House Museum’s successful campaign to raise enough money to purchase Jane Austen’s turquoise ring for the same price that Kelly Clarkson paid for it, after the UK government raised some question about whether she would be allowed to take it back to the U.S. Check out some of the headlines:
She didn’t “lose it,” she was paid for it, and wisely accepted the same amount that she paid for the ring, avoiding an international incident.
Hmm. Our understanding is that Kelly was paid what she paid for the ring–she was not “outbid.”
Well, excuuuuuuuuuse us.
The Mary Sue, a site we have been enjoying lately, got it just right.
Okay, that’s funny.
Not completely incidentally, Ted Scheinman filed a funny, gossipy report from the JASNA AGM in the Paris Review that pretty much revealed the identity of the Anonymous Benefactor.
The Englishwoman manning the Chawton House table on floor three was far more coy. “Oh, you can unravel it,” she assured me. “Consider who can spend that kind of money, and then consider which of those people is, shall we say, involved at Chawton.”
Just as many of us thought. (Noted Janeite J.K. Rowling was the other main suspect.)
ETA: Tony Grant has written a wonderfully detailed overview of the whole episode with additional information about the ring itself at Jane Austen’s World.