Tintin Forums

Hi everyone,

This is my first post. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through a lot of the discussions here.

Here's a question I put to you all.

What right did our heroes have in procuring and using all 3 scrolls in Unicorn? They only had rightful legal claim to the one from their model.
The other ones rightfully belonged to the Bird Bros & Mr Sakharine.

Even though the treasure was eventually found on Archie's newly acquired property, were they morally obliged to share the treasure with at least Mr Sakharine?

Peter

Hi Peter.

I understand the point you're making.

However Sir Francis Haddock's intention was for his sons, his offspring, to discover the treasure, and this did not happen. Captain Haddock ought certainly to qualify as thus, since he is Sir Francis' descendant.

As a side note he is also a sea-faring man (maybe a little irrelevant).

Perhaps one might argue Sir Francis had no claim to the treasure, but that is another matter.

"Three brothers joined"

Welcome aboard ;)

Another way to solve the problem is to say, how do we know Haddock didn't share some of the riches with Mr Sakharine?
After all, they were worth much more than a king's ransom, and in the last illustration of Red Rackham's Treasure we see Sakharine in the maritime gallery at Marlinspike.
From this we certainly must infer that the troubled relationship between Tintin and Ivan Ivanovich was smoothed by the end of this adventure; who is to say that the big-hearted Haddock did not reward him?

I don't think that "rightful ownership" was exactly relevant in the stories (I'm not trying to suggest that Hergé was an anarchist). Things changed hands all the time.

In The Black Island, guns were changing hands every several pages, for example.

In this case, it appears that the scrolls transferred from the Bird Brothers to Tintin because Tintin was the biggest winner in the fight.

it appears that the scrolls transferred from the Bird Brothers to Tintin because Tintin was the biggest winner in the fight

Or, if you're fiercely determined to keep Tintin and Haddock miles within the boundary of justice and law, we could say that the scroll owned by the Bird Brothers was part of the property included with Marlinspike Hall when acquired by the Captain. ;)

This is a good point Charles and certainly one way to look at it.
I think the biggest problem I had with this, was that Tintin just simply took the Bird's and Sakharine's scrolls from Max Bird's wallet (in front of the police I might add).

Even though the Bird's took his, he had that one back already.

He took someone else's property from someone else's wallet.

Would it be alright if he also helped himself to some money? Even though the Birds were criminals, their scroll was still their legal property.

Hi Peter,
I'm Ali and I love reading this section. I am a new member.
I sincerely think Tintin and Haddock have a right to the scrolls since Haddock's ancestor was carrying the treasure on the Unicorn and would have procured that treasure in the course of time. Anyway what would a guy do with treasure on a deserted island, but to give it to his future generations?
It is quite a coincidence that Haddock gets to know about him anyway and in such a dramatic manner.
Without the help of Tintin however he wouldn't have got his hands on the treasure.
Ali

The scroll's are not the key to whoever owns the treasure, it's where the treasure is hidden. Herge problably knew this and that's why he ended the hunt with the treasure being found in Marlinspike Hall.

If you buy a property you inherit all that goes with it at the time of the sale (good and bad). Therefore, when Professor Calculus gave the Captain the money to buy Marlinspike Hall, the Captain rightfully owned everything on and within the property. Note especially that the property was not put up for sale but was sold at auction.

The Captain, presumably repaid the Professor out of the sale of some of the treasure.

It's a very valid concern that you have, now that I think about it. It's questionable about the Bord Brothers, where their posession of Marlinspike (and the model ship it contained therein) may only have arisen from the profits of their crimes; but Sakharine's scroll was undoubtedly his, and morally and ethically in normal circumstances, Tintin was wrong, in my eyes, to just assume that it was his to take and use. The ancestral connection between Sir Francis and the Captain is a red herring, and isn't enough to over-ride that fact.

However, this being a fantasy adventure, I feel we have to overlook this infraction as being something that got overlooked in the creation of the adventure; not morally or ethically excusable, but ignorable on this occasion.


Do you? I think there would be more to it than that - I mean, if the Bird Brothers had stashed their loot (or drugs or guns) from their crimes at Marlinspike, that wouldn't automatically have gone to the Captain, would it?

In the U.K. it would have had to go to court to see if it was treasure-trove.

Until recently this was the propety of the British Crown, and covered any valuable collection of goods found under ground, where it wasn't known who owned it. If it was determined by the court that it had been dropped or lost, it could be returned to the finder; if it was decided that it had been hidden, it was the property of the Crown (this may still be the case, but I'm not familiar with the Property Act 1996, and the points may be different (he says, as if he's "familiar" with any property acts, rather than "just has a sketchy knowledge from reading stuff"...)).

As the treasure in this case was the result of piracy, it would also surely have been open to reclaim by the original owners; it may sound far-fetched, but there are treasures being returned to governments today that were lost from their navies, and presumably in turn someone would have turned up looking for their dubloons from the horde"

Anyway, don't assume that because you bought a house and it was full of booty that it is automatically yours...!

A property is heritable. I'm an underwriter and have underwritten mortgages and insurance for years. I remember once a client buying a property in Scotland and he noticed a valuable "item" that wasn't listed specifically in the sale but came with the property in the sale under the words "and all therein". He bought the property and sold the item (a chandelier believe it or not) for almost a quarter what he paid for the property. In additon, if you buy a property without checking it out you can buy a heritable debt owed on the property (to the state for example).

Treasure isn't illegal. unlicenced guns, drugs and stolen items are and these would have been removed by the police before the property was sold. As I mentioned the propery was sold at auction and unlike a managed sale there is not always an inventory of items, you take as seen and make your own investigations.

You are right, the Crown does have a claim on all treasure found in the UK but it has to prove it has a claim first of all and to do this, it has to prove cultural, historical or personal (e.g royal family) rights. The treasure wasn't "hidden" per se, Sir Francis Haddock simply kept it in a safe place in his own home.

Although the treasure is known to come from piracy I'm sure the items didn't have the owners name etched on them and so finding out who it belonged to would have been impossible. Chances are a settlement or agreement would have been reached with regard to the treasure.

But if you do buy a property and you find a picasso in the attic, as long as you paid for it fair and square, it is yours provided it wasn't previously stolen. But then that goes for everything not just treasure.