For those who don't know, the Kohinoor diamond is a 105+ carat diamond that has been sitting in the "Queen Mother's" crown and has been part of the "crown jewels" of England since about 1850.
It was found in India. There's a dispute between the British who say it was "given" to them and the Indians who say it was "stolen" from them. The Indian government has brought a lawsuit against England in the Indian courts. Pakistan is also, apparently, making a bid for the stone.
I'm not an international law expert (in fact, I know nothing about it) but if it were up to me, I would not be yanking that stone out of the English crown jewels and sending it back to India. And I wouldn't care what the Indian court ruled. Not after 165+ years.
From what I've read, there's been allegations of "theft" but no actual proof that the stone was stolen rather than given.
I really don't know anything about this diamond but based on what you said - about it being in the crown jewels since the 1850s - then I say it belongs to England and should remain there. I believe if they have had it for 160+ years then it belongs to them.
Not disagreeing that after 150+ years and a cloudy background about whether it was a gift or not, the diamond should stay with England.
BUT I wonder what you no-backsies people think about the return of items stolen during the Holocaust? What about the famous painting from the movie The Woman in Gold? The government of Austria was forced to return it to the Jewish family it was stolen from by the Nazis, even though it had become a national treasure to the Austrian people.
LUCYG Northern California
MoreCowbell says I’m a racist … hmm … 9/10/23
"The old Two Peas forum was American, but this one was set up by a Brit, as no one else could be arsed." --anniebygaslight 5/2/18
"Reality has a liberal bias, I guess." --pierogi 7/9/18
Not disagreeing that after 150+ years and a cloudy background about whether it was a gift or not, the diamond should stay with England.
BUT I wonder what you no-backsies people think about the return of items stolen during the Holocaust? What about the famous painting from the movie The Woman in Gold? The government of Austria was forced to return it to the Jewish family it was stolen from by the Nazis, even though it had become a national treasure to the Austrian people.
I think if something is FOR SURE stolen like all those paintings are, they need to go back. I'd say even the diamond has to go back if it can be proven it was stolen.
Not disagreeing that after 150+ years and a cloudy background about whether it was a gift or not, the diamond should stay with England.
BUT I wonder what you no-backsies people think about the return of items stolen during the Holocaust? What about the famous painting from the movie The Woman in Gold? The government of Austria was forced to return it to the Jewish family it was stolen from by the Nazis, even though it had become a national treasure to the Austrian people.
It's different because the items during the Holicauat were actually stolen and/or looted and there is no 'cloudy' or uncertain background. You can't take an item from someone at rifle point and consider it a gift.
Items verifiably stolen should be given back to the owners or their heirs or at least the value of the item.
I think that the diamond would have belonged to the diamond mine company who then decided to give it to the Queen for a gift.
Just like the Cullinan diamond is a gift from the diamond mine in Africa to Edward the whatever-VII? At first they threw it out because they thought that there was no way it could be real. Good thing the manager, Mr. Cullinan double checked.
I think if the door to well England took India as a colony by force, then there'd be a whole can of worms.
I don't think it's the same as the Holocaust--those were individual people who had their homes, bank accounts, and possessions looted--all under the guise of war.
Southern Side eyed Pea "Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free." ~Major Frank Burns, 'Novocaine Mutiny' M*A*S*H
As my father used to say . . . "Possession is 9/10 of the law"
zztop11 stores.ebay.com/ZZTOP11 Please check out my eBay store. I have regular and plus size clothing as well as modern and vintage household items and collectibles.
A lot of objects in museums worldwide has a somewhat dubious provenance... Greek, Roman and Egyptian objects has often been gifted to museums, but have been looted in the first place. And invading armies have brought back priceless artifacts wherever they went. At which point in time do we say that the artifact belongs to country A and not country B?
It wasn't the Indian Government that was asking for it back. It was an Indian NGO ( Non Government Organisation) that has taken the Indian Government to court to try and force them to petition for it to be returned.
Leaving aside the gift or stolen argument for a moment. The diamond was given to the East Indian Company by the former rulers of the Punjab as it was then......a country in it's own right. Taking account that the Punjab was partitioned in 1947 and dived between India and Pakistan neither India or Pakistan have a right to it in that respect.
No I don't think we should give it back. It was gift from a country that no longer exists as it was back in 1849.
BUT I wonder what you no-backsies people think about the return of items stolen during the Holocaust? What about the famous painting from the movie The Woman in Gold? The government of Austria was forced to return it to the Jewish family it was stolen from by the Nazis, even though it had become a national treasure to the Austrian people.
I think that is a difference scenario and I do think that if it could be proved without doubt that the items belonged to others then they should be returned to their rightful owners. The items stolen during the Holocaust actually belonged to individuals and not to a country that no longer exists.
I was really, really late in watching the mini-series 'Band of Brothers' and just finished the other day. (On a side note, if you haven't seen it either, it was TOTALLY worth it and really good.)
One thing that surprised me though was how much looting went on by the soldiers. Of course I had heard of it happening, but not as widespread as it was portrayed in the show. As I was watching, I wondered how it was different than what the Nazis had done? Is it because they were the winning side? And why didn't someone step up later and demand that it be returned? In theory, these soldiers were looting from the Nazis, but more often than not, I would guess that a lot of it came from looting the populations that were sent to the concentration camps.
I say this as a person who owns jewelry that came back from when my grandfather was in Europe in WWII. Granted, he was in the Merchant Marines so not actively fights and according to him he traded goods for the jewelry, but you have to wonder if the pearls I love so much were precious to another woman too and lost due to other reasons than hunger.
A lot of objects in museums worldwide has a somewhat dubious provenance... Greek, Roman and Egyptian objects has often been gifted to museums, but have been looted in the first place. And invading armies have brought back priceless artifacts wherever they went. At which point in time do we say that the artifact belongs to country A and not country B?
And this is the case with the Elgin Marbles - they have been at the British Museum since the early 1800s but Greece disputes the permit that was granted allowing Lord Elgin to remove the marbles from the Parthenon (I believe Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time). Greece has been fighting since its independence to have the marbles returned and the UK as refused.
Not disagreeing that after 150+ years and a cloudy background about whether it was a gift or not, the diamond should stay with England.
BUT I wonder what you no-backsies people think about the return of items stolen during the Holocaust? What about the famous painting from the movie The Woman in Gold? The government of Austria was forced to return it to the Jewish family it was stolen from by the Nazis, even though it had become a national treasure to the Austrian people.
I don't know the story of that piece in particular but if it was stolen by the Nazis from anyone then it needs to be returned (and they're still working on these today thankfully!). I don't care if it's a "National Treasure" and it's sad that they had to be forced to return it.
Sorry, you can't say anything mean or hurtful to me. This post is my "safe place."
A lot of objects in museums worldwide has a somewhat dubious provenance... Greek, Roman and Egyptian objects has often been gifted to museums, but have been looted in the first place. And invading armies have brought back priceless artifacts wherever they went. At which point in time do we say that the artifact belongs to country A and not country B?
And this is the case with the Elgin Marbles - they have been at the British Museum since the early 1800s but Greece disputes the permit that was granted allowing Lord Elgin to remove the marbles from the Parthenon (I believe Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time). Greece has been fighting since its independence to have the marbles returned and the UK as refused.
The Elgin Marbles were not looted. They were removed with the full knowledge and permission of the Ottoman authorities by Lord Elgin, legitimately during his time as the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. The British Museum carried out a full investigation before they took charge of them in 1815. I believe that the main reason that the museum are reluctant to return them is.. a) it happened before Greece became independent and... b) The Acropolis Museum allows the Parthenon sculptures that are in Athens (approximately half of what survive from antiquity) to be appreciated against the backdrop of ancient Greek history. The British Museum tells the story of cultural achievement throughout the world, from the dawn of human history over two million years ago until the present day. The Parthenon Sculptures( Elgin Marbles) are a significant part of that story because of the important representation of ancient Athenian civilization in the context of world history and not just Greek history. It's all about context in what the marbles are used for.......it comes down to.... are they more importantto the public knowledge & learning in the context of world civilization as per the BM or are they more important to just Greek history?
Not disagreeing that after 150+ years and a cloudy background about whether it was a gift or not, the diamond should stay with England.
BUT I wonder what you no-backsies people think about the return of items stolen during the Holocaust? What about the famous painting from the movie The Woman in Gold? The government of Austria was forced to return it to the Jewish family it was stolen from by the Nazis, even though it had become a national treasure to the Austrian people.
I don't know the story of that piece in particular but if it was stolen by the Nazis from anyone then it needs to be returned (and they're still working on these today thankfully!). I don't care if it's a "National Treasure" and it's sad that they had to be forced to return it.
oh, you should see the movie. It was wonderful (even if it sounds boring). Helen Mirren and Ryan ... Reynolds? one of those cute Ryans, anyway.
LUCYG Northern California
MoreCowbell says I’m a racist … hmm … 9/10/23
"The old Two Peas forum was American, but this one was set up by a Brit, as no one else could be arsed." --anniebygaslight 5/2/18
"Reality has a liberal bias, I guess." --pierogi 7/9/18
I don't know the story of that piece in particular but if it was stolen by the Nazis from anyone then it needs to be returned (and they're still working on these today thankfully!). I don't care if it's a "National Treasure" and it's sad that they had to be forced to return it.
oh, you should see the movie. It was wonderful (even if it sounds boring). Helen Mirren and Ryan ... Reynolds? one of those cute Ryans, anyway.
I'll look for it for sure. I love those kind of shows! I just watched a whole series on Amazon about art thieves and the recovery of artwork. It was so interesting! I also loved Monument Men. Probably one of my favorite movies in a long time.
Sorry, you can't say anything mean or hurtful to me. This post is my "safe place."
And this is the case with the Elgin Marbles - they have been at the British Museum since the early 1800s but Greece disputes the permit that was granted allowing Lord Elgin to remove the marbles from the Parthenon (I believe Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time). Greece has been fighting since its independence to have the marbles returned and the UK as refused.
The Elgin Marbles were not looted. They were removed with the full knowledge and permission of the Ottoman authorities by Lord Elgin, legitimately during his time as the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. The British Museum carried out a full investigation before they took charge of them in 1815. I believe that the main reason that the museum are reluctant to return them is.. a) it happened before Greece became independent and... b) The Acropolis Museum allows the Parthenon sculptures that are in Athens (approximately half of what survive from antiquity) to be appreciated against the backdrop of ancient Greek history. The British Museum tells the story of cultural achievement throughout the world, from the dawn of human history over two million years ago until the present day. The Parthenon Sculptures( Elgin Marbles) are a significant part of that story because of the important representation of ancient Athenian civilization in the context of world history and not just Greek history. It's all about context in what the marbles are used for.......it comes down to.... are they more importantto the public knowledge & learning in the context of world civilization as per the BM or are they more important to just Greek history?
Yes - they had the permission of the Ottoman Empire, but Greece disputes the authority of the Ottoman rulers to allow Greek treasures to be removed - that is the point.
Yes - they had the permission of the Ottoman Empire, but Greece disputes the authority of the Ottoman rulers to allow Greek treasures to be removed - that is the point.
Hmmm, at the time, the Ottoman Rulers technically owned everything. If that was the case, how can the argument be made hundreds of years later that the owners had no authority to give them away?
My original pea date was November 1999 and my number was 1803
A lot of objects in museums worldwide has a somewhat dubious provenance... Greek, Roman and Egyptian objects has often been gifted to museums, but have been looted in the first place. And invading armies have brought back priceless artifacts wherever they went. At which point in time do we say that the artifact belongs to country A and not country B?
Exactly what I think Lucyg was thinking too
~ Dori ~
Please don’t doodle the Poodle!
SamFan New Pea #504 PeaNut 33,625 March 2002 Posts: 9,769 Loc: Washington state