So here’s the thing: Kelly Clarkson’s pretty rich – she won American Idol and has built a successful music career off the back of it – so she can buy cool stuff pretty much whenever she wants to. She’s rich, right?

She bought this ring, it was around £150,000, and that’s nearly $230k for you American readers out there. But see, it used to belong to Jane Austen, and she’s kind of a big deal for the Brits.

Austen is basically responsible for period dramas, and don’t go acting like you don’t like period dramas, you Downton Abbey-consuming bunch of period drama-loving maniacs.

She wrote the following classics: Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813) Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1815). That’s a pretty powerful body of work, so it’s no wonder the Brits want anything to do with her to stay in Britain.

And this ring, this rare, turquoise and gold, £150k ring, is so valuable to the country, their minster of culture, a Mr. Ed Vaizey, has put a temporary export bar on it, and sent out a plea to British buyers to snap up the ring and basically save the world (England) ((A bit of English Culture)) (((A ring that, until now, no one knew existed apart from him and maybe one other person))).

Just trying something out with brackets there.

Kelly ClarksonKelly Clarkson - It's her ring and she can take it anywhere she wants! (maybe)

So what do you think, should Clarkson be allowed to take the ring away from the country? Or should she respect British culture and let them have what they consider to be a cultural icon? Well, we’ve joined the debate club, and we’ll be batting for both corners in this one.

Team Kelly

She bought the ring. It’s her ring. She paid up, has got the receipt and is probably thinking ‘when can I actually wear this thing?’ and ‘Oh man, what have I done?’ But it’s still her ring. Why were they selling it in the first place? Surely if this is such an important artifact, it should have been donated to a museum years ago? Either way, the case is cut and dry with the first argument: she bought it!

Team Britain

(Quick disclaimer, if you’re a Brit and you’re on Team Kelly, please don’t consider yourself to be under the sizable umbrella we just erected.)

Britain should be allowed to keep their artifact because it belonged to one of their heroes. Jane Austen insired thousands of writers today; she’s studied the world over for her literary texts and, by Jove we’re going to say it: she’s a national treasure! How would an American like it if some rich Brit came over and bought… Jack Kerouac’s On The Road? Yeah – that really long manuscript. We’ve got the answer: an American – especially (the only) one interested in this – wouldn't.

So we’ll admit it, both arguments are pretty thin, but if we had to pick a winner, it’s Clarkson, and that’s because she BOUGHT THE RING IN AN AUCTION.

What do you think? Should Kelly Clarkson be allowed to move her property around the globe as she pleases? We’d like to hear what you think below.