Inquiring readers, dear friend Tony Grant (London Calling) has written an article to help jump start my re-entry into blogging. I love this post, for I am a huge Kelly Clarkson fan, and I was happily astounded to learn that she was a Janeite. Who knew that the simple girl from Texas with the huge voice would make it so big in the music industry that one day she would outbid a host of collectors for Jane Austen’s cabochon blue stone ring? Since her winning bid, the ring has lived in limbo, as Tony’s tale will recount, but now it is safely in British hands again, thanks to a committed group of people.
Kelly’s other association with Jane Austen is peripheral. She sang a song for the hit movie, Love Actually, in which a number of actors who starred in Jane Austen films appeared: Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, Keira Knightley, Hugh Grant, and Alan Rickman. I have placed the YouTube video at the bottom of this post. Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy Tony’s tale.
It is possible that you might have heard about a certain ring that hit the headlines worldwide recently.
American singer Kelly Clarkson, a 31 year old singer from Fort Worth Texas, bought a small gold ring with a smooth turquoise stone set in it at Sotheby’s Auction for around £150, 000. The news hit the headlines because this ring had been the property of Jane Austen. British government officials, the Jane Austen Society and readers of Jane Austen across the known world were aghast.
A number of issues came to the fore. First, a ring, which is of British national importance, because of its provenance, was about to be taken out of Britain; secondly it was going to a pop star, who although she professed her love of Jane Austen, was really just buying it, because she could. A holding order was placed on the ring by the British Government preventing it leaving the country. A few months were given for a British buyer to raise the funds to purchase it back from Miss Clarkson.
Chawton Cottage , the home of Jane Austen for the last eight years of her life, came forward to raise the necessary money. An anonymous benefactor provided most of the funds required within a short space of time and petitions and activity, amongst American, Australian and British Janeites secured the rest. Susannah Fullerton took the lead in Australia and Maggie Sullivan sent out a rallying call in America and Chawton House made clear their aim over here. Janeites from around the world contributed money on the site set up by Chawton Cottage and Kelly Clarkson graciously sold it to Chawton Cottage. The ring will now have associations to Jane Austen, as well as to Miss Clarkson. The whole of the Jane Austen community will feel that they have a part of it because of their contributions. It will truly become a ring owned and loved by all. It has now gained another dramatic layer of history and meaning.
The ring will be on display at Chawton Cottage alongside other pieces of Jewellery, the topaz crosses brought back from a voyage by the Austen’s younger brother, Charles and also a beaded bracelet, also owned by Jane, for all visitors to see.
The Arts Council’s reviewing committee secretary states,
The expert adviser had provided a written submission stating that the gold ring (width 17.5 mm; height 8 mm) set with a turquoise was probably made in the eighteenth century, possibly about 1760-80. In excellent condition, the ring sat in a later nineteenth-century case bearing the name of T. West, Goldsmith of Ludgate Street, London and was accompanied by papers documenting the history of the ring within the family of Jane Austen.”
The gold circle of the ring is 9 carat gold which is rather low in pure gold content and so denotes the ring as being an ordinary piece. The highest carat possible is 23 carat, which is almost 100% gold. It has been assessed because of its design and construction as being made between 1760 and 1780. The ends of the hoop of the ring curve round underneath the bezel. Taken with the thin hoop and simple oval bezel this suggest its date. Jane was born in 1775 so it is evident that the ring was not made for her originally. The provenance of the ring is based solely on letters and documents within the Austen family and only go back to Jane‘s ownership. After her death it went to Cassandra and then passed down through the family. Could it possibly have got to Jane in the same way? A relative dying and passing it on to Jane as a keepsake. It is something that Jane obviously wanted to keep. It’s simplicity and effectiveness would have appealed to her. On her finger it would have had a lustre under candlelight. It would have been something that other people would have noticed at any gathering such as a ball or family event such as Christmas.
Gold itself was not an easy commodity to come by between 1760 and 1780. The American war of Independence which waged between 1775 and 1783 made Gold a rare commodity. It was a vital constituent of the wealth of the nation. Britain had to pay for the War. Much gold came to Britain from Brazil in the 18th century, but because of the European war against France and the War against the colonies in North America getting gold here from South America was not an easy business. Transport ships could be captured or sunk. It pushed the price of gold up. Even 9 carat gold must have been expensive and hard to come by at the time. There were some gold mines in Britain , at Dollgethlau in Wales, in the low border hills of Scotland and in Cornwall at the Treore mine near Wadebridge, the Carlson veins at Hopes Nose Mine and within the copper veins of Bampfylde, North Molton. The Romans first discovered gold in Wales so there is a long history of gold mining in Britain. It would be good to imagine that the gold in Jane’s ring came from one of the mines in Cornwall. She loved the West Country and had family holidays in Lyme, Sidmouth and Colyton.
There is a turquoise gem set in the ring. Turquoise is meant to be a bringer of good luck. It has been found in the tombs and on the artifacts of many Egyptian Pharaohs and important people. It can change colour under certain circumstances. Turquoise is found all over the world. It is associated with copper mining and indeed Cornwall, where copper has been mined it is also associated with turquoise. Because of the geopolitical state of the world in the 1770’s onward, Cornwall, like the gold in Jane’s ring, is the most likely source of the turquoise. It has also been suggested that the turquoise stone in Jane’s ring might be a special variant called Ondontolite. Ondontolite is also called bone or fossil turquoise. It is a gem formed by the infiltration of surrounding minerals into fossil bones. This would fit with the turquoise stone in Jane’s ring because, Dorset and the West Country have rich fossil deposits.
Jane’s ring is therefore connected to wars, national financial need, geology, the mining industry and mining communities and the lives of their inhabitants, which were being developed exponentially with the coming of the Industrial Revolution, social status, personal attractiveness, social occasions and mystical meaning. A designer designed it and a craftsman made it and a shopkeeper sold it. It is one symbol of economic and social endeavour within an historical context.
In the novels rings and jewellery have their importance and meaning. In Pride and Prejudice, Lydia describes how her carriage overtakes the curricle of William Goulding and she lowers the window and lets her ring be seen. Isabella Thorpe in Northanger Abbey looks forward to the day that friends and neighbours will envy her her, “exhibition of hoop rings on her fingers.” These two examples are of characters who show vanity and self-importance but in Mansfield Park, Fanny Price, who receives the present of a small cross from her brother William, is at pains to find just the right simple chain to wear it with and show off her brothers generosity. William cannot afford the chain to go with the cross and Edmund eventually comes to Fanny’s rescue with just the right sort of simple chain for her to wear. The jewellery in the novels seem to portray elements of character. They show Jane Austen’s understanding of the use of jewellery. This adds to the importance of the turquoise ring that Chawton Cottage have managed to now acquire.
In the Arts Council assessment of the ring, in the part where they describe the provenance of the ring, they describe documentary evidence for it belonging to Jane and various members of her family through the generations. The report sets out the ownership of the ring after Jane’s death. The other point to be made is the report in the news that the ring is, ” a never seen before ring owned by the novelist Jane Austen.”
The family for generations have kept the ring to themselves. Jane is one of the most pored over, read about and speculated upon authors in history. The family appeared to want to keep something of her just to themselves, their own private bit of her.
One member of the family in each generation was given guardianship over the ring. So what was special about the keepers of the ring? After Jane’s death Cassandra owned it. She passed it on to her sister in law Eleanor Austen, the second wife of Henry Austen, “as soon as she knew I was engaged to your uncle.” Henry had been Jane’s favourite brother and it was he, whilst a banker living in London, who had arranged for her novels to be published. Eleanor passed it on to Caroline Mary Craven Austen, the daughter of Jane’s brother James. Caroline Austen passed it on to her niece Mary Austen Leigh who passed it on in turn to her niece Mary Dorothy Austen Leigh. Mary Dorothy Austen Leigh then passed it on to her sister Winifred Jenkyns in 1962. Apart from the obvious observation that the ring passed along the female line what else can we deduce? The ring was adapted for the use of somebody with a smaller finger than the original owner. A bar of gold, called a stretcher, has been fitted at a later date, probably by the company T West Goldsmiths of Ludgate Hill which is named on the inside of the box holding the ring. It seems that the ring was worn and not just kept as a memento. This might suggest things about the owner in each generation. A memorial ring, which this is, especially after Jane’s death and passed on through the family, commemorates Jane through generations. The wearer and owner could almost be seen as a surrogate Jane to the family in each generation. It is unlike a memento, such as a piece of furniture or a vase, which is set at a distance from people to be viewed. This ring has a different connection. It was worn on occasions. One wonders what occasions the Austen ancestor in each generation would wear it? When you wear an item belonging to somebody you take on aspects of that person. It’s not just the touching of the object which makes a connection with that person and the past but it is also the using it as they would have used it. They almost, in a way, become that person. A little like an actor wearing a costume,however in a case like this, wearing Jane’s ring would have been much more personal and evocative than merely playing a part.
Neil MacGregor, the director of The British Museum, wrote and published “A History of The World in 1000 Objects,” in 2010 and broadcast his readings of the book on BBC radio 4. In his description of the first of his 100 objects, the Mummy of Hornedjitef (circa 240BC), an object taken out of chronological order in MacGregors 100 objects, he uses it as an illustration of how knowledge develops. The interpretation of the mummy has changed as more research has been possible. The Mummy is a vivid example of the work of the academic. Neil MacGregor states that the work of an Archaeologist or Historian is to gather the evidence and make the best of the evidence they can. This changes over time as more evidence emerges but the archaeologist can only do his best with what he has. MacGregor gives Durers portrait of a rhinoceros, drawn in 1515, as an example. Durer had never seen a rhinoceros. He drew his portrait from first hand witness accounts. He did his best with what evidence he had. The drawing is completely wrong. I have used the evidence I have got for Jane’s ring and gathered other evidence to answer questions as they occurred, from various sources but I, like Durer, don’t really know.
Clarkson, had almost the last word. This was her reaction to Chawton Cottage buying the ring from her,
“The ring is a beautiful national treasure and I am happy to know that so many Jane Austen fans will get to see it at Jane Austen’s House Museum.”
Chawton actually had the last word. They hoped for a long and fruitful relationship with Kelly and hoped she would visit the ring at the cottage.
Everybody appears to be friends!!!
Here’s Kelly’s song in Love Actually, The Trouble With Love Is, with scenes from the film
Thank you for this interesting item; I wonder why the family decided to sell it after so long.
From the OED:
‘cabochon, n. Etym: French: augmentative of caboch. To cut off the head of (a deer) close behind the horns.
A precious stone when merely polished, without being cut into facets or receiving any regular figure but that which belongs to the stone itself, the rough parts only being removed. This fashion is chiefly applied to the garnet (carbuncle), ruby, sapphire and amethyst. Chiefly attrib., as in cabochon shape, cabochan crystal, cabochan emerald, etc.
. . 1578 Inventories 266 (Jam.) Foure rubyis coboschoun.
. . 1883 Times 14 July 7 The centre stone..is encircled by ruby, emerald, sapphire, and five other stones, cut cabochon shape.’
Wonderful article, glad Kelly Clarson was gracious about it.
Why use the phase “safely in British hands again”?
Emily, I think the phrase,”safe in Britsh hands,” is apt. It has ended up where it should be, in Janes home within the context of other things belonging to Jane. It will add another facet to our understanding of her life.
Will you be able to visit Chawton to see it for yourself one day?
I visited Chawton last month and I am truly glad that the ring will be on public display. The continual reference to the ring being “saved” is insulting and it deflects from how badly the auction was handled. There was only an outcry after a foreigner bought it. Are the British people upset that non-UK residents love Jane too?
I completely agree with you, Emily. How on earth could the auction have proceeded without emphasizing that the ring was to remain in the UK? There seems to have been an assumption that only British buyers would be willing to bid the piece up. To quote one of my favorite JA characters, Mr Knightley, “Badly done.”
This was not an export ban but an enforced delay to allow the top bid to be matched by one that would keep the ring in Britain, ‘saved for the nation’ as we say:
‘ . . Many valuable cultural objects over 50 years of age require a licence for export out of the UK. Where the object has been in the UK for 50 years or more, the Reviewing Committee review these items against the three Waverley Criteria to assess whether the object is of national importance.The Culture Secretary can then place a temporary export bar on item assessed as of national importance, giving institutions or individuals in the UK time to raise the necessary funds to purchase it. . . ‘
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/treasures-worth-29-million-saved-for-the-nation
A google search on ‘saved for the nation’ brings up countless examples, some much more worth saving than others: ‘Between 1 May 2011 and 30 April 2012, 11 items were considered by the Reviewing Committee, 7 of which were referred to the Secretary of State. The seven items cover a diverse range of fields, from fine art, to a draft score by one of Britain’s most famous composers. 4 items were bought by public institutions. Matching funds could not be raised for paintings by Watteau, Guardi and an early 19th century Italian classical tripod.’
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/browse-advice-and-guidance/export-objects-cultural-interest-report-201112
The criteria applied are: ‘History – Is it so closely connected with our history and national life that its departure would be a misfortune? Aesthetics – Is it of outstanding aesthetic importance? Scholarship – Is it of outstanding significance for the study of some particular branch of art, learning or history?’
Click to access Export_of_Objects_of_Cultural_Interest_report_2011-12.pdf
Anyone bidding should have known that there would be a bar on exporting the ring.
Emily and Vic, the government doesn’t get involved until somebody, an academic, a museum etc flags up the situation. Sotheby’s had the ring priced at 20,000 to 30,000. Chawton had the finances to meet this original estimate. The fact that it went for 150,000 is rather mysterious. Somebody must have been bidding against Kelly Clarkson for it too get to that price.
The other point. Americans taking offence at my suggestion that the ring is now safe because it will remain in England at the cottage. America has bought our ships, bridges, books and even use our language.
How do you think we feel on this little island?
A ring with this cultural value, of course it should be here. How could you suggest anything different.?
I am glad that Chawton House gets Jane Austen’s ring. That said, I think it’s sad that there is a continual negative undertone about the purchase of the ring. The fact that Kelly Clarkson is a successful pop singer does not rule out the possibility that she genuinely admires Jane Austen’s work (I read that she also has a first edition of Pride and Prejudice). Ms. Clarkson did nothing wrong in bidding on this item. In future, I hope that, if a future “heritage” item comes up for auction, it is made crystal clear that there is a strong probability that the potential buyer may not be allowed to keep the item once purchased.
Lauren , this is nothing new. Holding orders are placed on all things that the government deem of national importance.Some wealthy people take a chance, that is all. Kelly Clarkson or her advisers did not realise the importance of the ring perhaps.
Just a slight correction… Kelly Clarkson owns a first edition of Persuasion, not Pride and Prejudice.
This is a very interesting article. I’m glad this ring is where it belongs and Kelly Clarkson was gracious in returning it. I love Clarkson’s song from Love Actually. Just a side note on the caption of Clarkson’s “concert” This photo is actually from Obama’s second inauguration ceremony, January 2013; Clarkson sang My Country ‘Tis of Thee. So it’s not just any concert!
Tony, I understand that it is not new; I just think that more emphasis should be placed on the fact that it is truly a complete “Buyer beware.” I also think that a determination about the importance of the item and the probability of a hold should be made before bidding begins, not after. (I think it’s likely Ms. Clarkson appreciated the ring for what it was; maybe someone at the auction hall or in the government end should have been more vigilant.) However, that is simply my opinion. Thanks for your reply.
Lauren, I agree with both your comments. There’s plenty of blame to go around in the handling of this sale. The only blameless person, IMO, is Kelly Clarkson, who must have naively thought that her winning bid meant she could take possession of the ring. I am sure she’ll never make that mistake again.
I find it intriguing that Cassandra did not keep the ring for her own lifetime, but was in such a hurry to give it to Eleanor Austen that she did not even wait until she was actually married to Henry, three years after Jane’s death. She must have given it as a token of Jane’s feeling for her brother Henry. Or perhaps she knew that as a sober and bereaved spinster she would not wear the brightly colored ring but it would sit in a drawer, so was better off with a young bride. Eleanor we see gave the ring to the surviving person closest to Austen, who in 1869 was Caroline Austen, then working with her brother JEAL on their recollections of Aunt Jane. (However, I notice that Deirdre Le Faye gives 1864 as Eleanor’s death date.) I also find it interesting that a “stretcher” was put into the ring, denoting that a person with slimmer fingers than the original owner would wear it. We think of Jane as quite slim, judging by descriptions.
Diana, The Arts Council assessment of the ring states, ” Thomas West was not in business in late 1813 but was there from at least 1818……..Thomas west was listed at 3 Ludgate Street in 1825 and 1829,……” So the case is definitely post Jane’s death.. It also states that the ring is, “fitted with a patent 9 carat gold device, probably late 19th or early twentieth century.” I presume they know this from the style and construction of the stretcher. So it was probably made for somebody after Jane to enable them to wear it. I know, I should have mentioned all this in the article.
Tony, you made it perfectly clear in your article that Cassandra giving the ring to Eleanor Jackson happened after Jane Austen’s death; Eleanor’s note to Caroline (thank you so much for including that!) states that it was given her upon her engagement, in 1820. You also made it clear that the “stretcher” was of a later date. What I am trying to understand is why Cassandra gave away her sister’s ring so soon after her death (only three years later). It’s true she gave away many keepsakes of Jane, locks of hair, cut-up bits of letters, and many small souvenirs – all to family members and friends who had known and loved Jane. Eleanor Jackson (as she then was) seems to barely have known her. I suppose the gesture was really intended for Henry and can be understood in that light. Eleanor leaving it for Caroline years later must have been following family wishes, keeping it in the family. Though I’m still puzzled by the date in that note. I now see that Eleanor died in 1864 and gave the ring to Caroline in 1863. Could that possibly be 1863 in that picture? It looks so like 1869…but if it truly was 1863 my conjecture about Eleanor giving the ring to Caroline because she was working on the memoirs, is off base.
Here’s the previous post on this topic, dated July 10:
https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/jane-austens-cabochon-ring-to-be-auctioned-july-10th/
This is a fascinating story, Tony – thanks for sharing. I read about the sale in our morning paper a few days ago but you have given the ring and its’ story a lot more detail and history. My only question was why Kelly did not donate it back when the furor arose – she hardly needed her money back. But I’m glad it’s home and viewable. Someday I’d love to go to Chawton…to see the ring and all things “Jane”.
Hi Lynne, I have tried to place myself in Kelly’s shoes. She must be an ardent Jane Austen fan to purchase a first edition of one of her novels and bid for her ring. Perhaps she wanted to find ways to keep the ring and work with the British to find an amicable solution. It seems that one was found!
You’re right, of course, Vic. At least it’s home with Jane’s other memorabelia – that’s what is important. (By the way, Vic – this week I go through the torture of leading my book club through all things Jane. I’m a nervous wreck….:))
What a great article! Thanks so much for sharing as usual. You keep us going with so much fabulous information. ~jen red~
This was a wonderful post. I tweeted and shared on FB.
I was not aware it was a family member from the Austen side who auctioned the ring; I wrongly assumed it was someone from Eleanor Austen’s family, since she and Henry had no children. I hope that in future family members will remember to offer such artifacts to the Austen Memorial Trust and/or other museums (such as the late Joan Austen-Leigh and her daughters giving Jane’s writing desk to the British Library, where it is displayed beautifully for everyone to see). It will avoid unpleasantness like this. While I’m very glad that the Trust was able to purchase the ring, I really think Kelly Clarkson has the least blame of anyone involved in this as far as the unpleasantness goes. I, too, hope she visits the ring at the Museum!
At the JAS AGM at Chawton Louise West, the curator till this autumn of the Cottage Museum, during her review of activities there, made a heartfelt plea – for anyone, family members included, who was thinking of relinquishing memorabilia, to contact them first. She made this plea in the context of the auction of the Ring. It seemed natural to conclude from this that they weren’t forewarned, or perhaps at such short notice that they couldn’t organise an appeal in time. Whether Kelly was allowed to keep it or the Museum was awarded it, the sellers have come out of it with a lot more money.
That’s a wonderful story, and a magnificent piece of jewelry, I always thought that turqouise is the best choise for jewelry, but it seems very difficoult to find.
I really want to buy a ring that looks like this one I found one, which is not similar but has turquoise and gold. If anyone know where I can find a replica, please let me know.
O anything similar like this: http://www.doverjewelry.com/all-products/product/323-estate-italian-1-50cts-diamond-turquoise-18k-gold-dome-ring#