King John suposedly lost the Crown of England and assorted other treasurs crossing the fens. They were never recovered. What if someone, say an amature metal detectorist was scaning what then was marsh at best if not open water and is now dry land and found them?
Englands Crown Jewels
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
well theyd be immeditaltyy sent to the tower of london to be put on display....not much else apart from that...they person who found them would definatly not be allowed to keep them, but would rpobaly get some compensation...mabye even a obe or something
the problem is though with this is we arent sure he did lose them...theres alot of theories like they were stolen en route, sold off to pay for his armies, and so on...i for one would love to see them back int he lgiht, but realisitically, even fit hey did fall into the wash, theyd probaly have being destroyed
I know there's extreamly little chance of them being found, but I have to kind of pity the poor sod that did find them. He or she would be at the centre of a media frenzy of masive proportions. As the jewels allready belong to the crown I wonder what sort of treasure trove payment they'd recieve. The treasury could argue that as the Jewels would be impossible to sell they are worthless so only a small payment should be made. It would be an incredibly stupid thing for them to do but thats never stopped them before.
What ever payment they were given how ever large or small their life would be changed. Every one would assume they'd been paid a kings ransom which could make them a target. They'd be overnight media celebrities with the press swarming round to find as much as they can about them and any skeletons in the closet would be dragged out for public scrutany.
What ever payment they were given how ever large or small their life would be changed. Every one would assume they'd been paid a kings ransom which could make them a target. They'd be overnight media celebrities with the press swarming round to find as much as they can about them and any skeletons in the closet would be dragged out for public scrutany.
Garrison
Donor
I'm not sure what would happen nowadays as the law was revised a few years back so the metal detectorists would report finds and not simply sell them off illegally. I suspect the person locating them, and the owner of the land assuming there was one, would probably come in for a large reward based on the market value of the items.
Given that the current Royal Family has no line of descent from the Norman kings I'm not sure they could claim them as Crown property.
Don't misunderstand the Crown...
...Crown Estates and property are NOT the property of the Queen but of the national government, which allows the monarchy lifetime use of some symbolic parts of the Estates. Kings and Queens die, but the Crown goes on.
The Crown Jewels of King John were probably lost in a tidal marsh. If recovered, they would be valued by a Coroner's Court as Treasure Trove and a valuation made. This valuation would not be a 'King's Ransom' but probably moderately substantial. The archaeological significance might be as great as that of the Sutton Hoo treasure.
...Crown Estates and property are NOT the property of the Queen but of the national government, which allows the monarchy lifetime use of some symbolic parts of the Estates. Kings and Queens die, but the Crown goes on.
The Crown Jewels of King John were probably lost in a tidal marsh. If recovered, they would be valued by a Coroner's Court as Treasure Trove and a valuation made. This valuation would not be a 'King's Ransom' but probably moderately substantial. The archaeological significance might be as great as that of the Sutton Hoo treasure.
But these jewels date from before Parliament existed and were very much the property of the King. Its how monarchs were able to pawn their regailia. I also didn't say the the finder would be paid a kings ransom only that people would think he had.
As for the significance of the find I would have put it closer to discovering Tutankamun's tomb but that's a judgement only an archeaologist would be qualified to make.
There is a chance that if they fell into the chest they were in fell into the silt then documents might have survived. Vellum is a lot tougher than paper after all. Still that would depend on the hieght of the water table.
The jewels after restoration would of course be put on display in the tower, but the demands from the great and the good of Lincolnshire for them to be shown in Lincoln Cathedral would be amusing to watch. Though if the finder was from County Durham I personaly would like to see them refuse to hand the find over until the Lindisfarne Gospel was returned permenantly to Durham Cathedral from where it was stolen by King Henry VIII.
As for the significance of the find I would have put it closer to discovering Tutankamun's tomb but that's a judgement only an archeaologist would be qualified to make.
There is a chance that if they fell into the chest they were in fell into the silt then documents might have survived. Vellum is a lot tougher than paper after all. Still that would depend on the hieght of the water table.
The jewels after restoration would of course be put on display in the tower, but the demands from the great and the good of Lincolnshire for them to be shown in Lincoln Cathedral would be amusing to watch. Though if the finder was from County Durham I personaly would like to see them refuse to hand the find over until the Lindisfarne Gospel was returned permenantly to Durham Cathedral from where it was stolen by King Henry VIII.
There's a direct line of descent from King John to the current royals.
- John
- Henry III
- Edward I
- Edward II
- Edward III
- John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster
- John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset
- John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset
- Margaret Beaufort
- Henry VII
- Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland
- James V of Scotland
- Mary, Queen of Scots
- James VI and I
- Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia
- Sophia, Electress of Hannover
- George I
- George II
- Frederick, Prince of Wales
- George III
- Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn
- Victoria
- Edward VII
- George V
- George VI
- Elizabeth II
And this all comes down to whether or not the person is wishing to return them. If he came forward and they were identified (I doubt an amateur metal detectorist would be able to identify the Crown Jewels, I mean they'd look like a shiny lump of muddy rubbish) by a college or something, I imagine they'd pressure him to sell them or donate them to the British Museum or something equally prestigious. He would probably be paid quite well (he has found one the most sought after lost treasures), not to mention revenue he would generate from the story he could sell to magazines.
As I understand it, the Crown Estates are the personal property of the Crown, but that by convention the monarch exchanges control over them and rights to the income they produce for the Civil List funding at the start of their reign. This was all agreed when the Civil List was much bigger and the income of the Crown Estates much smaller. Now, the Royal Family would be much better off if the next monarch declined to renew the deal, although it would produce a minor constitutional crisis if they did so.
Iirc it was the wash, not the fens. Since it was ra tidal estuary, i doubt theyd be on dry landd now.
The wash was a lot larger then and the reclaimed lands are classed as been part of the Fens.
Alratan, there's more to it than that...
...The head of the Royal Family reigns, she doesn't rule, as descendant of Sophia, the Electress of Hanover, with the consent of Parliament. The Queen owns Sandringham, Balmoral and a handful of other estates - Sandringham was bought with King George V's winnings on the horses. These are separate to the Crown Estates of which the Queen is symbolic owner and the income from which provides money for the Civil List. A typically British fudge.
The confusion of Crown Estates and Royal Family's actual possessions has been used by newspapers to claim that Queen Elizabeth is the richest person in Britain. The actual list for 2012 is on http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-rich-list/ and the Duke of Westminster comes 7th with £7.3 billion. William and Harry are heirs to only £28 million in land. Rather paltry, don't you agree?
http://www.richest-people.co.uk/the-top-100/ offers another listing - and, again, where's the Queen?
http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/26/0626queens.html has a US slant ($$) but again is a poor $150 million in land in a total $ 420 million portfolio. Say, £200 million?
In brief, Richard Branson (£4.3 billion) could buy out the Queen from his loose change.
...The head of the Royal Family reigns, she doesn't rule, as descendant of Sophia, the Electress of Hanover, with the consent of Parliament. The Queen owns Sandringham, Balmoral and a handful of other estates - Sandringham was bought with King George V's winnings on the horses. These are separate to the Crown Estates of which the Queen is symbolic owner and the income from which provides money for the Civil List. A typically British fudge.
The confusion of Crown Estates and Royal Family's actual possessions has been used by newspapers to claim that Queen Elizabeth is the richest person in Britain. The actual list for 2012 is on http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-rich-list/ and the Duke of Westminster comes 7th with £7.3 billion. William and Harry are heirs to only £28 million in land. Rather paltry, don't you agree?
http://www.richest-people.co.uk/the-top-100/ offers another listing - and, again, where's the Queen?
http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/26/0626queens.html has a US slant ($$) but again is a poor $150 million in land in a total $ 420 million portfolio. Say, £200 million?
In brief, Richard Branson (£4.3 billion) could buy out the Queen from his loose change.
Corditeman: my point is that the derogation of the Crown Estates' surplus and management to the Exchequar is technically purely voluntary for each acceding monarch. If he wanted to, Charles would be fully within his technical rights to decline to accept the Civil List and retain the Crown Estates if/when he is crowned.
The current Queen can't take the assets back, but the way the various entailing Acts work is that the monarch cannot give away the assets or prevent their unhindered inheritance, that's why the next monarch also has to make the irrevocable lifetime grant.
The current Queen can't take the assets back, but the way the various entailing Acts work is that the monarch cannot give away the assets or prevent their unhindered inheritance, that's why the next monarch also has to make the irrevocable lifetime grant.