Professor Weiner's book (not the article) Inalienable Possessions features a royal crown on its cover because she was expounding on how something like a royal crown only has value on the head of a monarch. Or in a museum, I suppose. Such possessions are more than symbolic, their worth is firmly attached to a specific person or concept such as a monarchy.

Similarly, the Crown Jewels possessed by the Royal family of Great Britain have unmeasurable value as a collection inalienably connected to that monarchy. If they were sold separately without mention of provenance, their value would be based solely on economic supply and demand factors.

Thus, inalienable possession is totally separate from the value of objects available for sale on the open market. Between 1933 and 1974 it was illegal for private individuals to own gold bullion in the United States. I would say yes, gold was a kind of inalienable possession of the U.S. treasury in those years, and the government being a form of feudal authority, the gold at Fort Knox propped up America's feudal hierarchy, which actually contained only two strata, the government and the people. The government was the feudal manor and the people were the peasants. But it is a feeble connection of ragged dots at best.

Today however, anyone can buy and sell gold in any form anywhere, so it can hardly be seen as firmly attached to any one person or group. I suppose we can say it is attached to rich people, but being wealthy is a transitory concept, "one day you rich next day you poor," (Santana). Gold is just another form of storage for wealth, like land, which is actually better than gold in a sense because it is visibly finite. Or, someone can simply stash their wealth in yankee dollars under the mattress. When anyone can possess something, it cannot be seen as "attached" to any hierarchy.

Thanks for the interesting ideas/leads Hugh.

REF:

"a royal crown only has value on the head of a monarch"

"Thus, inalienable possession is totally separate from the value of objects available for sale on the open market"

"Today however, anyone can buy and sell gold in any form anywhere, so it can hardly be seen as firmly attached to any one person or group."

I have been looking at some "primary sources" published by the IMF, especially: IMF (2009), Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, Sixth Edition (BPM6) - https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2007/pdf/bpm6.pdf

I'm still trying to decipher the arcane language used, but already it seems to be that "monetised gold" as a "reserve asset" is an inalienable possession of the Central Banking system, as distinct from "nonmonetised gold", which is a mere "store of value".

In section 6.64 of the IMF document, "reserve assets" are defined as "those external assets that are readily available to and controlled by monetary authorities for meeting balance of payments financing needs, for intervention in exchange markets to affect the currency exchange rate, and for other related purposes (such as maintaining confidence in the currency and the economy, and serving as a basis for foreign borrowing).".[1]

I think this means that reserve assets are the fetish that supposedly legitimises the the allocation of monetised credit by Central Banking system, even though it produces nothing real, in terms of inputs or resources to real economy production. Monetised credit should be a purchasing right that is allocated against counterparty obligations by real economy producers. Banking should be the pure social accounting for the notarisation  and discharge of such economic production rights  (credit) and obligations (debt).

Apart from jewellery making and some industrial uses, gold cannot be considered as an input to  real economy production either. Gold as a means of exchange originated after the advent of credit clearing through social-legal accounting for economic production, exchange and redistribution. A system of legal enforcement for the clearing of production obligations (debt), which makes the counterparty transferable purchasing rights (monetised credit) universally accepted (trusted), whether in the form of ledger entries or off-ledger circulating tokens, can only operate within a jurisdiction under the rule of law.

The lack of inter-jurisdictional frameworks meant that international trade exchanges had to rely on other means: the use of a fungible and universally accepted commodity, such as gold and other precious metals. These commodity money payment systems also flourished in the event of a breakdown of the rule of law, such as in the case of internal insurrection, or military adventures for foreign pillage. In fact the present Central Banking system was established in 1694 (Bank of England), for the specific purpose of war financing, which may be why gold and war are still features and phenomena of the system today.

Anyway, getting back to your observation that "a royal crown only has value on the head of a monarch"; the implication of section 6.64 is that "Only financial assets, including gold bullion, controlled by the monetary authorities can be classified as reserve assets."[2]

At section 9.18 in the above IMF document, it describes under what conditions the crown of "ex nihilo credit creation" can be put on and taken off the head of the gold fetish, under the heading of "Monetization and demonetization of gold bullion":

9.18

A special case of change in classification occurs for gold bullion. Gold bullion can be a financial asset (monetary gold) or a good (nonmonetary gold), depending on the holder and the motivation for holding. Monetization is the change in the classification of gold bullion from nonmonetary to monetary. Demonetization is change in the classification of gold bullion from monetary to nonmonetary. The treatment of particular transactions is as follows:

(a) When a monetary authority sells gold bullion that is a reserve asset to a nonresident entity that is not a monetary authority or international financial organization, an entry for nonmonetary gold is recorded in the goods and services account. Demonetization of the gold bullion occurs immediately before the transaction and is shown in the other changes in assets and liabilities account of the monetary authority.

(b) When a monetary authority sells gold bullion that is a reserve asset to a resident entity that is not a monetary authority, there is no international transaction. As in case (a) above, demonetization of the gold bullion occurs immediately before the transaction.

(c) When a monetary authority purchases gold bullion from a nonresident that is not a monetary authority or international financial organization, the transaction is recorded in nonmonetary gold in the goods and services account. Monetization of the gold bullion occurs immediately after the transaction and is shown in the other changes in assets and liabilities account of the monetary authority.

(d) When a monetary authority purchases gold bullion from a resident for its reserve assets, there is no international transaction. As in case (c) above, monetization of the gold bullion occurs immediately after the transaction.

etc ....

In conclusion, as you say: "anyone can buy and sell gold in any form anywhere", but only as a store of value. The political power to allocate monetised credit still seems to be firmly attached to those who control the crown that designates whether gold is monetised or nonmonetised. Therefore it can be inferred that monetised gold is an inalienable possession of the Central Banking system.

I like your notion about "America's feudal hierarchy", however I would suggest it comprises three strata: (1) the People; (2) the Feudal Baliff (the government); and (3) the Feudal Lord (the Central Banking system, which serves the "to big to jail" commercial and investment bankers. When the King of England, as head of State, became a shareholder in the establishment of the Bank of England, he got the benefit of unlimited fiance for war, but at the cost of the Central Bank capturing the credit of the nation (the Treasury) which is the real lender of last resort to a corrupt banking system.

Ref: "Gold is just another form of storage for wealth, like land, which is actually better than gold in a sense because it is visibly finite."

Stored real wealth can only be things like public granaries, public infrastructures, the educational-creative capacity of the people; because these are real factors for the production of human "well-being" - the root meaning of "wealth". Land itself is not stored wealth, but a gift of Life that no human created. Yes, it is a means for producing human well-being (wealth), such as food. Perhaps humus that give the soil its fertility can be regarded as a form of stored wealth, which human activity can create.

Last but not least is why stored gold is considered to be a factor in the creation of wealth? Surely the ultimate key factor, above all else, is innate human creative ability and resourcefulness - i.e. innate human capital, which can't be stored in a bank vault. Instead, each of us is the investor of our innate human capital. Why do we let charlatans persuade us that the real capital is some kind of rare inert material, which they hold as an inalienable possession? If all the gold in the world evaporated, would our innate human ability to produce for our well-being also disappear?

NOTES:

[1] I have attached a screenshot of the IMF document, showing "The composition of reserve assets and reserve-related liabilities is shown in Box 6.5.".

[2] This corroborative statement is from footnote 24, of an associated IMF document: IMF (2013), International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity Guidelines for a Data Template

https://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/IRProcessWeb/pdf/guide.pdf

Did'nt have a chance to read all that, but instinctively I think we may differ on the specific meaning of certain words to even begin to understand all that IMF gibberish.

Monetized gold is not real gold. It is a title to ownership of real gold allegedly secured in a location such as Fort Knox. Real gold is supposedly physically relocated from room to room when ownership is transferred between two entities. Allegedly and supposedly, because some people speculate that Fort Knox may be an empty warehouse...

Non-monetized gold is the real stuff that shines brightly when you polish it. Because of its scarcity it has become reserve gold to back up the dollar.

Storage means the form in which wealth is represented. The North Pole stores water in the form of ice. Gold stores wealth in the form of a precious metal.

Wealth simply means owning more than you owe, i.e. net equity. Wealth can be stored in liquid assets (currency & bank accounts) or hard assets like property, land, and precious items e.g. gold.

Reserve is where we get into trouble. Ever since financiers began floating currencies (promises of payment) far exceeding the amount of the actual wealth held by them, the whole money system has become highly prone to manipulation. The concept of leverage has created wealth that is not backed up with any reserves. Reserve is not the same thing as storage.