(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:
Kelly Clarkson Loses Jane Austen Ring To Museum
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.
Kelly Clarkson denied Jane Austen ring after museum campaign
Jane Austen ring to stay in Britain after museum beats Kelly Clarkson’s £150,000 bid
Hmm. Our understanding is that Kelly was paid what she paid for the ring–she was not “outbid.”
Kelly Clarkson won’t be getting her hands on Jane Austen’s ring after all
Kelly Clarkson ring purchase thwarted by Jane Austen fans
Well, excuuuuuuuuuse us.
The Mary Sue, a site we have been enjoying lately, got it just right.
MUSEUM SUCCESSFULLY BUYS BACK JANE AUSTEN’S RING FROM KELLY CLARKSON, CAN DESTROY SAURON NOW
Ha!
BATTLE FOR JANE AUSTEN’S RING SETTLED & NOW KELLY CLARKSON KNOWS HOW JUSTIN GUARINI FELT
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.