I don't understand the fascination with the Pooh non-issue or the "heated debate" that ensued. No one--repeat, no one in England has any claim on Pooh if the newspaper reports of the legal ownership status of these toys is correct. They were freely given to an American publisher, who later donated them to the NYPL, if I remember the chain correctly. If the library should decide to donate them to someone in England--assuming that the institution has the legal right to dispose of them in that manner--that's their business. But anyone who asserts that they should be returned to England as part of the English patrimony or that they otherwise "rightfully" belong in England is denying the right of the original owner--who simply bought them at Harrod's, for heaven's sake--to give a gift to whomever he chose. Such an assertion, IMHO, would be both arrogant annd silly. "King Rudy?" Come on. Because he wouldn't give in to a lamebrained, cheeky, improper request and pressure the library, he's some kind of dictator? BTW, "attempts by the British" is far too strong a characterization. It was a misguided attempt by a few crass idiots, who happened to be English, to get some cheap publicity. The lesson for museum people is obvious. Be sure your Deeds of Gift are in order so you can protect yourself against vultures who want to trick you out of them by appealing to cheap sentiment. And be sure and keep your receipts from Harrod's, and when you donate your purchase to a museum, include the receipt with your Deed of Gift. You can't be too careful. --David Haberstich