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