Midlands museums face Vatican battle for Staffordshire Hoard

[Adsos Letter]

Source: Birmingham Mail.com

It has been described as the “stuff of dreams”. It brought one archaeologist to tears at the very sight of it.

But the awe-inspiring Staffordshire Hoard, one of the most important discoveries of Anglo-Saxon treasure in British history, may be whisked away by the Vatican.

That is the fear of experts who believe the haul of 1,500 artefacts, made of gold and silver and decorated with precious stones, could be the lost treasure of King Edwin, a seventh century Christian monarch.

Edwin ruled Northumbria from about 616 AD until his death in 633 AD.

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/12/20/midlands-museums-face-vatican-battle-for-staffordshire-hoard-97319-25433986/

[DURHAM D]

1. As soon as the Vatican gives back all of the stuff they stole -

I think they may be able to lay claim to the Hoard.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Sounds like a job for the Queen.

She could probably scrape together 3.3 million pounds from somewhere or another.

[Hekate]

3. The Queen's ancestor Henry VIII broke ties with Rome rather decisively. ...

I think the Queen may have a claim to the hoard herself, as titular head of the Anglican Church. My money's on the artifacts remaining in England.

Hekate

[aquart]

4. Was the treasure a gift or merely a loan?

If it was a gift, they can keep their filthy greedy paws to themselves.

[petronius]

5. Am I understanding correctly, that the finder of the treasure makes the decision

on who to sell it to? It sounds from the article that it's been appraised at that big amount, and if the local museum can't raise the money it will be sold to whoever does have the cash.

I've got to wonder if some of the local archaeologists are regretting any past snarky comments about amateurs with metal detectors...

[Princess Turandot]

6. Is the Birmingham Mail a tabloid? The 'battle' with the Vatican exists only in the reporter's mind..

The reporter just assumes that the Vatican 'would' be interested because of the nature of the find, not based upon any overt interest expressed by them.

Apparently, British law does not allow the finder to keep finds declared to be 'treasure'. However, all proceeds from selling the treasure go to the finder (and in this case, the farmer whose land it was found on.)

What's very odd (at least to me) is that a museum in Britain, by law apparently, must raise funds on its own to acquire such 'treasure'. If they can't, others can vie for it. Why wouldn't the British Crown act to keep this in England?

[enlightenment]

7. The Crown doesn't really have the authority to do so.

I suppose they could refuse to vest (claim) the hoard, but it's the government that does that, not the monarch - the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport.

Treasure vesting in the Crown

(1) Treasure vesting in the Crown under this Act is to be treated as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown to which section 1 of the <1952 c. 37.> Civil List Act 1952 applies (surrender of hereditary revenues to the Exchequer).

(2) Any such treasure may be transferred, or otherwise disposed of, in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State.

(3) The Crown’s title to any such treasure may be disclaimed at any time by the Secretary of State.

(4) If the Crown’s title is disclaimed, the treasure—

(a) is deemed not to have vested in the Crown under this Act, and

(b) without prejudice to the interests or rights of others, may be delivered to any person in accordance with the code published under section 11.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960024_en_1#pb2-l1g6


I agree that the article is rather hyperbolic, but they really want to keep the treasure in the shire and they know the Vatican has deep pockets.