Following the discovery of the wreck 100m down in the English Channel by US firm Odyssey Marine Exploration, the Government has indicated that it could resist Odyssey's application to salve the wreck.
The wreck has yet to be confirmed beyond doubt as that of the Victory, sunk in 1744, the MoD having gone to English Heritage for advice on assessing the wreck's identity, condition and vulnerabilities.
EH would use associate Wessex Archaeology, the Government's contracted maritime archaeological assessor, to examine Odyssey's full pre-disturbance survey report.
However, the Government has stated in the House of Commons that, should the wreck be confirmed as the Victory or any other British warship, its "preference" would be for in-situ preservation.
This would marry with the cultural heritage message of "look-but-don't-touch" promoted by such as the DCMS, heritage agencies, NAS and diving bodies.
Only if it could be shown that the wreck is at risk of disturbance, by nature and/or human hand, might the raising of materials - either the cargo or other parts of the vessel - be justified.
Even then, in the case of any recovery of valuable cargo, subsequent sale of material would fall foul of the UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage Annex.
Recently signed up to by the Government, the Annex stipulates that no raised artefacts should be sold for profit.
Another area of controversy would include the wreck's status as a war grave, as all its complement of more than 1000 perished in the sinking.
The matter would be ethical rather than legal, because the ship cannot be designated as a protected site as it is more than 200 years old.
Either way, the Government is in the driving seat if the wreck proves to be that of Victory or any other British warship - even though it lies in international water.
As a sovereign-immune vessel, the wreck and its contents would remain the property of the Government, from which permission would have to be gained to excavate or in any other way disturb the site.