Castleshort update
Sean J Murphy
unsettled James Shortt, 'Baron Castleshort', to the extent that he has
decided to return fire on, of all places, a Finnish martial arts forum
called Potku.net: http://www.potku.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=13209
(items in English starting '32 years ago' and 'In 1980').
Interestingly, Shortt now admits that he owes his 'Baron Castleshort'
title to Terence MacCarthy:
'However, during the period he was the MacCarthy Mor and prior to his
abdication and self-imposed exile in Morrocco he received confirmation
from the Chief Herald's office that he was able to grant the hereditary
gaelic lordships listed under his charge. One of those is Castleshort of
which University College Cork Historical department list 1 in Kerry and
5 in Cork in the former kingdom of the MacCarthy Mors. This is also
listed in history of The MacCarthy Mor's written in 1912 by Samual Trant
MacCarthy. I was recognised by Terence MacCarthy (during his time as
The MacCarthy Mor, Prince of Desmond) as The Baron of Castleshort. That
document is viewable in Gaelic and references are also available in
English.'
It is disgracefully true that the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland
validated MacCarthy's title and right to sell titles. In the course of
his reply Shortt also devotes some space to myself, recycling the
charges of the claimant to the Mac Sweeney Doe chiefship (as well as
those of a pseudonymous contributor to this forum) and making the
following observation:
'In addition to MacCarthy Mor, Sean Murphy has attacked the legitimacy
of at least 3 other Irish Chieftains of the name - The O'Long, The
Maguire and the MacSweeney Doe. He has been proven wrong in every case,
but has refused to apologise.'
Of course I have been proven right in the cases of Mac Carthy M�r and
Maguire of Fermanagh, and the professional reports which are claimed to
show I am incorrect in the cases of O Long of Garranelongy and Mac
Sweeney Doe are still being withheld.
Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefswatch
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/chiefswatch.htm
Joseph McMillan
quoting Mr. Shortt:
>
> 'However, during the period he was the MacCarthy Mor and prior to his
Brilliant! Terence McCarthy/McCartney was never discredited at all;
he merely abdicated. So all the titles he granted are just as valid
as those of any other now-deposed monarch. Imagine such ingenuity
applied to worthwhile ends...the mind boggles.
Joseph McMillan
GFL
LOL
I guess in that logic one can abdicate from offices one never really
held.
On an unrelated note, except that it deals with another notorious
purveyor of various orders - Julius Sokolnicki once self-styled
President of Poland and Grand Master of the so-called Order of St.
Stanislas passed away in August. Before he passed away he appointed
Jan Zbigniew Potocki (who claims to be of the line of counts Potocki)
to be not only the new Grand Master but his successor as Presient-in-
Exile of Poland (until a piece treaty ending hostilities is signed!).
Even more surreally the headquarters of this supposed Polish war time
government in exile has now moved to Germany. On
http://order-of-st-stanislas.org/dokument.htm there is information
about all of this. I got a particular chuckle from the letter he sent
the Chancellary of the Polish President in Warsaw informing them of
Sokolnicki's death and his succession to the office.
George Lucki
Greg
> Maguire of Fermanagh, and the professional reports which are claimed to
> show I am incorrect in the cases of O Long of Garranelongy and Mac
> Sweeney Doe are still being withheld.
>
> Sean Murphy
> Irish Chiefswatchhttp://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/chiefswatch.htm
...and people wonder why "Irish heraldry" remains under a cloud and
why the Irish won't go for spending a dime on state sanction...
Joseph McMillan
>
> ...and people wonder
What people?
> why "Irish heraldry" remains under a cloud
What cloud?
> why the Irish won't go for spending a dime
The National Library of Ireland receives something like €13 million a
year in state funds. The Chief Herald's office is part of the
National Library.
>on state sanction
What is your standard of what constitutes "state sanction" and how and
why is it different from that of the Attorney General of Ireland?
Joseph McMillan
Greg
> On Sep 14, 12:09 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...and people wonder
> What people?
The whole of the Irish people Joe.
> > why "Irish heraldry" remains under a cloud
> What cloud?
A cloud of ilegitimacy Joe.
> > why the Irish won't go for spending a dime
> The National Library of Ireland receives something like €13 million a
> year in state funds. The Chief Herald's office is part of the
> National Library.
The National Library receives the funds... Not the Chief Herald. He
gets an allowance with which he raises money for the library. The
Chief herald himsel knows he cannot grant arms: he sells
certificates...
>
> >on state sanction
>
> What is your standard of what constitutes "state sanction" and how and
> why is it different from that of the Attorney General of Ireland?
>
> Joseph McMillan
State sanction is a phrase that mens exactly what it says Joe. I
don't remember reading the AG was in charge of the National Library.
Joseph McMillan
>
> > > ...and people wonder
> > What people?
>
> The whole of the Irish people Joe.
Really? What evidence to you have that the whole of the Irish people,
or even half of them, are the least interested in this subject?
>
> > > why "Irish heraldry" remains under a cloud
> > What cloud?
>
> A cloud of ilegitimacy Joe.
How is an office operating under statutory authority illegitimate?
>
> > > why the Irish won't go for spending a dime
> > The National Library of Ireland receives something like €13 million a
> > year in state funds. The Chief Herald's office is part of the
> > National Library.
>
> The National Library receives the funds... Not the Chief Herald. He
> gets an allowance with which he raises money for the library. The
> Chief herald himsel knows he cannot grant arms: he sells
> certificates...
>
Are you sure that the Chief Herald (who is concurrently the head of
the genealogical section of the library) doesn't receive a salary? A
salary paid for by the Irish taxpayers pursuant to appropriations
passed by the Irish parliament?
>
>
> > >on state sanction
>
> > What is your standard of what constitutes "state sanction" and how and
> > why is it different from that of the Attorney General of Ireland?
>
> State sanction is a phrase that mens exactly what it says Joe. I
> don't remember reading the AG was in charge of the National Library.
Do you remember reading that the AG is the chief law officer of the
Irish Republic, whose opinions on the legality of the operations of
institutions of the Irish state are a damn sight more authoritative
than yours? Or mine or Sean Murphy's, for that matter?
And do you remember reading that he has formally advised the
government and parliament that the operations of the Office of the
Chief Herald pursuant to the National Cultural Institutions Act are
fully lawful?
Joseph McMillan
Sean J Murphy
> On Sep 14, 12:09 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>...and people wonder
>
>
> What people?
>
>
>>why "Irish heraldry" remains under a cloud
>
>
> What cloud?
> . . . . .
Our thread here relates to the Kalashnikov-toting 'Baron Castleshort'
who can claim, accurately, that the title bestowed on him by Terence
MacCarthy was validated in principle by a Chief Herald of Ireland, Donal
Begley. Of course Begley was acting ultra vires when he penned his
infamous letter approving Terence's title sales in 1988, indeed it would
later emerge that the Chief Herald had no vires at all. Begley went on
as we know to sign a certificate in 1992 confirming that Terence was a
chief, which certificate was also signed by the then acting Deputy and
now Chief Herald of Ireland, Fergus Gillespie. After a period of legal
uncertainty and suspension of arms grants directly related to the Mac
Carthy M�r scandal, it is now claimed that implementation of a 1997 act
has resolved matters, but some contest this and claim that further
legislation is required.
In these circumstances the statement that Irish heraldry 'remains under
a cloud' seems eminently reasonable.
Sean Murphy
An Irish Arms Crisis
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/armscrisis.htm
Greg
> Joseph McMillan wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 12:09 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>...and people wonder
>
> > What people?
>
> >>why "Irish heraldry" remains under a cloud
>
> > What cloud?
> > . . . . .
>
> Our thread here relates to the Kalashnikov-toting 'Baron Castleshort'
> who can claim, accurately, that the title bestowed on him by Terence
> MacCarthy was validated in principle by a Chief Herald of Ireland, Donal
> Begley. Of course Begley was acting ultra vires when he penned his
> infamous letter approving Terence's title sales in 1988, indeed it would
> later emerge that the Chief Herald had no vires at all. Begley went on
> as we know to sign a certificate in 1992 confirming that Terence was a
> chief, which certificate was also signed by the then acting Deputy and
> now Chief Herald of Ireland, Fergus Gillespie. After a period of legal
> uncertainty and suspension of arms grants directly related to the Mac
> has resolved matters, but some contest this and claim that further
> legislation is required.
>
> In these circumstances the statement that Irish heraldry 'remains under
> a cloud' seems eminently reasonable.
>
> Sean Murphy
> An Irish Arms Crisishttp://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/armscrisis.htm
Yes Sean, thank you. I have discussed this matter with Michael
Merrigan quite a bit and even according to him, the Irish at large
just don't want to go down the heraldry road anymore. I can't say how
much influence your findings have had on the subject, because I don't
know what kind of media you got, but I know MacCarthy didn't help
matters at all. This Castleshort character is just a hangover.
I think that Eireland just wants to move on in my opinion and just let
(the cloud) dissipate...
Greg
Joe, I think you're trying to cram the square peg into the round hole
again. I guess youy have Irish arms, or (a certificate) and want it
to be (worth something). Or, your just barking up this tree to be
dificult.
Who knew? Everything hinges on this 1997 thing, that I don't think is
going to go anywhere at all; it's just going to open up a new can of
worms.
And the chief herald of Ireland receiving a salary, is really no
different than any employee receiving a salary: he can be done away
with by the stroke of pen and (you know that).
I think that in the end, the staus quo will remain, it's a great fund
raiser and there has always been a great deal of genealogical interest
in it, so I don't think it's going to just go away. After the hubub
dies down, Irish heraldry'll go back to doing what it's always done.
Joseph McMillan
>
> And the chief herald of Ireland receiving a salary, is really no
> different than any employee receiving a salary: he can be done away
> with by the stroke of pen and (you know that).
>
incapable of remembering what he says from one day to the next.
Yesterday you wrote: "the Irish won't go for spending a dime on state
sanction" of heraldry. My point--good God, why do I bother?--was
that the Irish are in fact spending many dimes on sanctioned
heraldry. Is this really such a difficult concept?
Joseph McMillan
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
If the relevant heraldic authority, acting on behalf of the state and
within its powers, accepted these titles as valid in law then they are
valid in law. If the authorities got it wrong that is their problem;
people are entitled to rely on the state to get it right. There is a
parallel here in England with a writ of summons issued in error, which
was held to create a new peerage.
Congratulations, Baron Castleshort.
StephenP
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If the relevant heraldic authority, acting on behalf of the state and
> within its powers, accepted these titles as valid in law then they are
> valid in law. If the authorities got it wrong that is their problem;
> people are entitled to rely on the state to get it right. There is a
> parallel here in England with a writ of summons issued in error, which
> was held to create a new peerage.
> Congratulations, Baron Castleshort.
I'm not convinced. If the Irish authorities issued Letters Patent
"creating" the McCarthy Mor then there would be a direct parallel.
However, the title already existed and was fraudulently claimed by
McCarthy. The fact that the relevant heraldic authority was duped
does not make the titles valid in law ad infinitum. Once the fraud
was exposed the recognition, titles etc became null and void.
Perhaps another parallel is that if you receive/buy property, albeit
in good faith, that had been stolen, the property still belongs in law
to the original owner.
Now whether or not the recipients of such titles have a case against
the Irish authorities is another matter.
Stephen
Sean J Murphy
Indeed, and here is the man himself pictured with what the ARRSErs have
termed his 'household staff':
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z237/Cyril_Clunge/Mugshots/jimbo10.jpg
For a summary of a campaign of exposure which dwarfs anything seen here
on rec.heraldry refer to
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Baron_of_Castleshort
Of course Chief Herald Begley was acting outside even those powers he
was assumed to hold when he issued his infamous 1988 letter
rubber-stamping Terence MacCarthy's title sales. It emerged later that
the Chief Herald had no powers at all, if the Attorney General's advice
issued in 2002 was accurate. But there is different advice from another
AG issued in 2007, to the effect that the Chief Herald now has power to
grant arms at least, with some amending legislation recommended to tidy
things up. But do the legislators have the time or inclination to sort
out the Irish heraldic mess as the country struggles to avoid national
bankruptcy?
Sean Murphy
Irish Feudal Titles
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm
Greg
> On Sep 15, 7:49 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > And the chief herald of Ireland receiving a salary, is really no
> > different than any employee receiving a salary: he can be done away
> > with by the stroke of pen and (you know that).
>
> It's really hard to carry on a discussion with someone who seems
>
> sanction" of heraldry. My point--good God, why do I bother?--was
> that the Irish are in fact spending many dimes on sanctioned
> heraldry. Is this really such a difficult concept?
>
> Joseph McMillan
Oh please Joe. The state paying the chief herald a salary and the
state spendng money on creating a sanctioned office are two different
things. My point was that paying a state employee is not the same as
sanctioning heraldry. State owned parks and museums have gift shops
as well. The state pays the people who work there and makes money
from the sale of the gifts. Same thing.
Graham
Sorry, he was recognized by the state and that's it. There is no
parallel with stolen property but there is a direct parallel (it
couldn't be better) with writs of summons issued in error. If the
recognition had in some way affected the rights of other people to
their detriment then there may be some argument against it, but it
didn't. Whether he is a baron or not has no possible effect on anyone.
StephenP
>
> Sorry, he was recognized by the state and that's it. There is no
> parallel with stolen property but there is a direct parallel (it
> couldn't be better) with writs of summons issued in error. If the
> recognition had in some way affected the rights of other people to
> their detriment then there may be some argument against it, but it
> didn't. Whether he is a baron or not has no possible effect on anyone.
We may be at cross purposes a bit. McCarthy was "recognised" by the
State for a while. I have no idea whether or not any of his granted
titles were also "recognised" by the State.
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
But with nobiliary titles, etc., not having any existence in the laws
of the Republic of Ireland, it is simply meaningless to say that a
recognition (erroneous or not) of Terence MacCarthy as the
representative of the MacCarthy Mor family should somehow endow the
titles invented by the latter as having any legal status. What the
then Chief Herald stated--perhaps not very wisely--was (IIRC) that he
had no objection to Terence MacCarthy "disposing" of any titles he
might have a claim to, but such a statement carries no legal weight
whatsoever in Irish law.
Best wishes,
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
Sean J Murphy
Here again is the text of the letter sent by Chief Herald Begley to
Terence MacCarthy on 16 June 1988:
'Dear MacCarthy M�r,
This is by way of a reply to your letter of June 7th 1988. First allow
me to congratulate you on your new publication �One Thousand Royal and
Noble Ancestors of the House of MacCarthy M�r�.
Now to the matter of the Gaelic feudal lordships which, as you say, are
cited in the St Ledger Tract of 1588. Such incorporeal hereditaments,
whatever their precise nature, would, I believe, come under the term
�property� for legal purposes. Accordingly, under our Constitution you
have the right to beneficial disposal of such property, irrespective of
whatever I might say or think. Although no register of such property
exists here we have nonetheless an interest in your proposed course of
activities. Having considered the matter we do not propose to stand in
the way of your disposal of the aforementioned hereditaments.
Yours sincerely, Donal F Begley, Chief Herald of Ireland.'
(End quote)
The import of this letter is that an Irish state official was approving
MacCarthy's disposal of titles, which as was well known was usually for
money (now wisely invested in Morocco I believe, but a few bungs were
probably distributed to deserving parties in Ireland). Of course Begley
was writing rubbish, and obviously at Terence's dictation, but while the
letter was later quietly repudiated it was one of the many acts of this
man and his deputy which were never formally struck from the record and
whose ill effects continue. As is well demonstrated by the recent
statement of the 'Baron Castleshort' in defence of the title he received
from Terence MacCarthy:
'However, during the period he was the MacCarthy Mor and prior to his
abdication and self-imposed exile in Morrocco he received confirmation
from the Chief Herald's office that he was able to grant the hereditary
gaelic lordships listed under his charge. One of those is Castleshort of
which University College Cork Historical department list 1 in Kerry and
5 in Cork in the former kingdom of the MacCarthy Mors. This is also
listed in history of The MacCarthy Mor's written in 1912 by Samual Trant
MacCarthy. I was recognised by Terence MacCarthy (during his time as
The MacCarthy Mor, Prince of Desmond) as The Baron of Castleshort. That
document is viewable in Gaelic and references are also available in
English.'
(End quote)
Of course Terence was 'derecognised' as chief by Begley's successor in
1999, but it later emerged that the Chief Herald had no legal authority
whatsoever in relation to Gaelic chiefs, or indeed even to grant arms
before 2005 (after that remains debatable). An heraldic mess indeed, but
one of little importance when compared to the financial crisis which
threatens to bankrupt Ireland and which also had its origin in transfers
of brown envelopes.
GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie
A Chairde,
As my name has been brought into this discussion I think that it would
appropriate, at this stage, to reiterate my position and that of the
Genealogical Society of Ireland, therefore please note:
1. That, the GSI campaigns for legislative reform to provide a proper
legal basis for Irish heraldry and the delivery of heraldic services
by the National Library of Ireland.
2. That, as a part of such legislative reform that a mechanism be
included to provide a sound legal basis for the Arms granted by
successive Chief Heralds of Ireland between 1943 and 2005 when the
National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997 was finally implemented.
3. That, as a part of such legislative reform that a mechanism be
included to deal with the ‘fallout’ from the ‘Bogus Chiefs’ affair and
to provide a facility, by which, the records of the Chief Herald in
the National Library will be cleansed of any erroneous or falsified
records that may have been provided during the era of the ‘Bogus
Chiefs’.
4. That, as an interim measure, the Government should accept Senator
Alex White’s bill – National Cultural Institutions (Amendment) Bill,
2008 – to deal with the anomalous situation created by the absence of
a proper legislative framework between 1943 and 2005.
5. That, in order to avoid a repeat of the ‘Bogus Chiefs’ scandal that
a transparent, verifiable and competent mechanism would be agreed to
facilitate the compilation of a heritage based register of the
genealogies of persons claiming descent from the last known
inaugurated Gaelic Chiefs to be maintained and published by the
National Library of Ireland.
6. That, in order to prevent any misrepresentation of the purpose or
function of any register held by the National Library of Ireland
containing information on the genealogies of persons claiming descent
from Gaelic Chiefs, that an unambiguous statement be included in the
legislation to prevent such abuse.
I hope that the above clarifies the GSI’s position for all concerned.
Regards
Michael Merrigan
General Secretary
Genealogical Society of Ireland
www.familyhistory.ie
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's all very good. I would hope very much that it goes through,
however, did we not discuss the general citizenry's lack of interest
in such a thing? and that as a reult of the past, the - (legitimacy)
of anything coming out of the OCHI, even post 2005 is on very shakey
ground?
Or, do you expect this Bill to fly through unopposed?
Graham
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think this is correct. Unless titles are actually banned by
the constitution then the state is free to grant or recognize them.
So, unless otherwise banned, a title comes into existence by virtue of
the fact that it has been recognized by the state. You seem to coming
from the the viewpoint that nothing can be done unless it is
specifically approved. This is nonsense.
David E. Cohen
office holder does not legitimate it, whether the official rescinds the
recognition later or not. It is a nullity, and all acts that flow from it
are nullities as well.
"Graham" <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f36933c5-7a81-4c48...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Graham
> As has been said elsewhere, an ultra vires recognition of a title by an
> office holder does not legitimate it, whether the official rescinds the
> recognition later or not. It is a nullity, and all acts that flow from it
> are nullities as well.
No. As has been said elsewhere, in England writs of summons issued in
error create a new peerage. Nothing can be more 'ultra vires' than
issuing a writ in respect of a peerage that doesn't exist, yet such a
summons is deemed to create a peerage. You can't get round this point.
Joseph McMillan
>
> No. As has been said elsewhere, in England writs of summons issued in
> error create a new peerage. Nothing can be more 'ultra vires' than
> issuing a writ in respect of a peerage that doesn't exist, yet such a
> summons is deemed to create a peerage. You can't get round this point.
Well, actually you can. An writ of summons may be erroneous without
being 'ultra vires,' because the Crown actually does (or is it "did"?)
have the power to summon persons to attend Parliament. The point here
is that the Chief Herald of Ireland never had lawful authority to
judge matters relating to titles of nobility. It's as if a justice of
the peace in Tennessee issued a writ recognizing someone as Duke of
Cumberland. The JP is indeed an official of the state, but that
doesn't make the recipient of the writ Duke of Cumberland.
Joseph McMillan
the_ver...@comcast.net
What happens when the Tennessee State Legislature grants itself the
power to create State Titles of Nobility?
Does the "Faith and Credit" clause kick in and other states must
recognize those titles?
Graham
When an official issues a writ of summons, you describe that as 'the
Crown', which therefore has authority. On the same basis, when the
Chief Herald of Ireland recognizes a title, he is doing so as 'the
State' and therefore has authority. On what authority do you claim
that the Chief Herald of Ireland never had authority to recognize
titles? He clearly thought he did. I would like to see your authority
which proves that he had no authority.
Joseph McMillan
<the_vermina...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> What happens when the Tennessee State Legislature grants itself the
> power to create State Titles of Nobility?
> Does the "Faith and Credit" clause kick in and other states must
> recognize those titles?
No, for three reasons:
1. Article I, sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution provides that "No
State shall...grant any Title of Nobility."
2. To the extent that such a title would be hereditary, the
legislature would also be forbidden from granting it under Art. I,
sec. 30 of the Tennessee constitution.
3. The full faith and credit clause does not require states to
enforce actions by other states' that are contrary to their own public
policy.
Joseph McMillan
>
> When an official issues a writ of summons, you describe that as 'the
> Crown', which therefore has authority. On the same basis, when the
> Chief Herald of Ireland recognizes a title, he is doing so as 'the
> State' and therefore has authority. On what authority do you claim
> that the Chief Herald of Ireland never had authority to recognize
> titles? He clearly thought he did. I would like to see your authority
> which proves that he had no authority.
The logic works the other way. In a state with a written
Constitution, officials have only those powers assigned to them in
accordance with that Constitution and the laws and regulations made
pursuant to it. That's what the kerfluffle over the validity of CHI
grants of arms between 1943 and 2005 is all about. To show that he
was not acting beyond the scope of his authority (which is what 'ultra
vires' means), the Chief Herald would need to prove that the Irish
Government had empowered him to recognize noble titles, not the other
way around.
David E. Cohen
Kingdom, and hadn't been for some time. And if the act of issuing the writ
in and of itself creates the peerage, then it isn't ultra vires, is it?
"Graham" <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:96a69d16-ad9c-49be...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Don Aitken
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 18 Sep, 13:21, Joseph McMillan <mcmillan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 7:27 am, Graham <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > No. As has been said elsewhere, in England writs of summons issued in
>> > error create a new peerage. Nothing can be more 'ultra vires' than
>> > issuing a writ in respect of a peerage that doesn't exist, yet such a
>> > summons is deemed to create a peerage. You can't get round this point.
>>
>> Well, actually you can. An writ of summons may be erroneous without
>> being 'ultra vires,' because the Crown actually does (or is it "did"?)
>> have the power to summon persons to attend Parliament. The point here
>> is that the Chief Herald of Ireland never had lawful authority to
>> judge matters relating to titles of nobility. It's as if a justice of
>> the peace in Tennessee issued a writ recognizing someone as Duke of
>> Cumberland. The JP is indeed an official of the state, but that
>> doesn't make the recipient of the writ Duke of Cumberland.
>>
>When an official issues a writ of summons, you describe that as 'the
>Crown', which therefore has authority. On the same basis, when the
>Chief Herald of Ireland recognizes a title, he is doing so as 'the
>State' and therefore has authority. On what authority do you claim
>that the Chief Herald of Ireland never had authority to recognize
>titles? He clearly thought he did. I would like to see your authority
>which proves that he had no authority.
There is a distinction between the British and the Irish situations.
The British sovereign has a range of prerogative powers. No person or
instrumentality in the Republic of Ireland has any governmental powers
except as conferred by the Constitution and the laws made under it,
none of which make any reference to titles of nobility; the Irish
courts have repeatedly held that the law of the Republic recognises
nothing corresponding to prerogative powers. It would be neater if the
courts were asked to decide this specific point, but there can be no
real doubt which way the decision would go - which is why the Attorney
General gave the advice he did.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Joseph McMillan
> An writ of summons may be erroneous without
> being 'ultra vires,' because the Crown actually does (or is it "did"?)
> have the power to summon persons to attend Parliament.
Perhaps a better way of explaining this:
Writs of summons to Parliament are issued by the Clerk of the Crown in
Chancery on the direction of the Lord Chancellor. A writ issued
erroneously through this process creates a new peerage.
But suppose someone received a writ of summons to Parliament from the
Clerk of the Crown Court of Reading. Does that create a new peerage?
Of course not, because the clerk of the Reading Crown Court doesn't
have the authority to issue such a writ.
Can I prove that the clerk in Reading doesn't have this authority?
No, I can't. That's why when there's a question as to whether an
official has acted "ultra vires," the burden of proof lies on him to
show that he was duly empowered to carry out the function in question.
Now what if someone receives a writ issued by the Clerk of the Crown
in Chancery, but the Lord Chancellor denies having authorized it?
Discuss.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
> There is a distinction between the British and the Irish situations.
> The British sovereign has a range of prerogative powers.
In principle that is possibly true. In practice the British sovereign
can exercise none of those powers and if they were to try to, it is
likely they would be rapidly deposed. It suits everyone in 'England' to
have a powerless sovereign.
But then 'Parliament is Sovereign'.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Graham
The state has created a legitimate expectation and Baron Castleshort
has a right to rely on it; in equity no court would overturn what has
been done, particularly when there has been no detriment to any other
person. The state cannot punish others for its own faults (allowing
officials to do things they are not allowed to do). There is also the
question of prescription of course. Does this doctrine not apply in
Ireland? PS English case law is often cited in Irish courts, so
English law does carry weight in Irish courts.
Sean J Murphy
I hope that Terence MacCarthy isn't reading all this in Morocco. He
might just consider that the Irish state, in the person of Chief Herald
Begley, created a legitimate expectation that he could act as Mac Carthy
M�r and sell titles. As well as unabdicating and setting up in business
again he could institute a suit for damages for mental and physical
trauma and financial loss - as well as bringing a few criminal libel
cases against certain blackguards on this forum, preferably in Casale
Monferrato. MacCarthy might also resume his efforts to reclaim his lost
estates, starting with Muckross in Co Kerry. Of course Baron Castleshort
would deploy the Galloglas Guard again to place naysayers and
troublemakers under surveillance. The ICOC would restore MacCarthy to
his rightful position of leadership, the Standing Council of Irish
Chiefs would welcome him back and Chief Herald Gillespie would sign
another certificate of chiefship to replace that defaced in 1999.
Sean Murphy
MacCarthy versus Horak 1997-98
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/maccarthyversushorak.html
the_ver...@comcast.net
Thanks Joseph,
Guess we'll have to settle for County Court Clerks to issue Nobility
Titles on a county level then!
*GRIN*
Don Aitken
wrote:
>On 18 Sep at 22:22, Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> There is a distinction between the British and the Irish situations.
>> The British sovereign has a range of prerogative powers.
>
>In principle that is possibly true. In practice the British sovereign
>can exercise none of those powers and if they were to try to, it is
>likely they would be rapidly deposed. It suits everyone in 'England' to
>have a powerless sovereign.
>
>But then 'Parliament is Sovereign'.
To be more precise, the Queen in Parliament is sovereign.
But the question of what the sovereign may personally do is a red
herring. The vast majority of prerogative powers (the "ordinary
prerogative") are *governmental* powers, exercised on advice. They
range from the routine, such as commissioning an officer in the armed
forces, to the momentous, like a declaration of war.
Graham
> again he could institute a suit for damages for mental and physical
> trauma and financial loss - as well as bringing a few criminal libel
> cases against certain blackguards on this forum, preferably in Casale
> Monferrato. MacCarthy might also resume his efforts to reclaim his lost
> estates, starting with Muckross in Co Kerry. Of course Baron Castleshort
> would deploy the Galloglas Guard again to place naysayers and
> troublemakers under surveillance. The ICOC would restore MacCarthy to
> his rightful position of leadership, the Standing Council of Irish
> Chiefs would welcome him back and Chief Herald Gillespie would sign
> another certificate of chiefship to replace that defaced in 1999.
>
> Sean Murphy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly.
Nick B II
Counties an other local governments are technically simply agents of
the State Government. The State government has chosen to grant some of
it's pre-existing powers to a local government, and as the state has
no power to grant Noble titles Counties and Cities have no power to
grant those titles.
You might be able to get a real American title by referendum, on the
basis that if the people of Michigan (or Tennessee or wherever) vote
to declare somebody a Duke the State is not granting the title. The
10th Amendment grants all powers not reserved to the feds, to the
states or to the people. So you could argue that the 10th Amendment
gave the people the right to grant titles. But the state government
would still have to run the referendum, and the 10th Amendment does
not specify whether it's the people of the US as a whole or the people
of an individual state who retain those powers.
Nick
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
With respect to perogative powers, then titles as such, really do not
exist in Ireland except as perhaps documents of antiquity that could
be used for genealogical purposes alone. They are not then "heritable
property" in that sense either are they?
Graham
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly.
GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That's all very good. I would hope very much that it goes through,
> however, did we not discuss the general citizenry's lack of interest
> in such a thing? and that as a reult of the past, the - (legitimacy)
> of anything coming out of the OCHI, even post 2005 is on very shakey
> ground?
>
> Or, do you expect this Bill to fly through unopposed?
Greg, a Chara,
What the Irish citizenry and our political representatives will NOT
accept in any legislation is the attachment of heraldry to any issues
of ennoblement or ‘titles of nobility’ (generic term) and indeed, it
has already been pointed out in this discussion that such would be
extremely problematic constitutionally. Anybody advocating such a
measure is doomed to utter failure.
However, there is a general fondness for matters heraldic amongst the
ordinary citizens of our Republic and this is manifested in the use of
coats-of-arms by families, businesses and, of course, institutions and
local government etc. Indeed, today at the All-Ireland Football
Finals in Croke Park there will be a wonderful heraldic and
vexillological display as supporters cheer on their County Teams in
both the Minor and Senior Finals. See: www.rte.ie or indeed www.gaa.ie
But on the matter of this discussion nobody should underestimate the
serious damage done by the ‘Bogus Chiefs’ scandal as parliamentarians
constantly refer to this issue when heraldic matters are raised in the
Oireachtas (Irish Parliament). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary
that a legislative measure be introduced to effectively cleanse the
records of the ‘office’ of the Chief Herald of Ireland of any vestiges
of this scandal and to prevent a recurrence. Senator Alex White’s
Bill - National Cultural Institutions (Amendment) Bill, 2008, aims to
provide such a mechanism.
This is a Private Member’s Bill and therefore, unlikely to receive the
support of the government, however, as new legislation will be
required to facilitate the amalgamation of the National Archives,
National Library and the Irish Manuscripts Commission, the whole issue
of Irish heraldic services will be up for debate again. The Minister
has already indicated that the measures contained in Senator White’s
Bill will be examined for possible inclusion in the new legislation.
This time I hope we get it right once and for all.
StephenP
>
> I would like to see your authority which proves that he had no authority.
Graham
That is a daft argument as I'm sure you well know*. Methinks you are
having fun playing the Devil's Advocate.
* I think that Graham has the power to create English Feudal
baronies. Now someone show me the authority that says he cannot. ;-)
Stephen
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well Michael, that's very nice. I really hope it all works out. The
whole bogus chiefs thing really did jam up the wheel and I for one
would very much like to see a smooth resolution.
Thanks for posting the Bill by the way.
Joseph McMillan
>
> What the Irish citizenry and our political representatives will NOT
> accept in any legislation is the attachment of heraldry to any issues
> of ennoblement or ‘titles of nobility’ (generic term) and indeed, it
> has already been pointed out in this discussion that such would be
> extremely problematic constitutionally. Anybody advocating such a
> measure is doomed to utter failure.
>
> However, there is a general fondness for matters heraldic amongst the
> ordinary citizens of our Republic and this is manifested in the use of
> coats-of-arms by families, businesses and, of course, institutions and
> local government etc.
Alas, it's too bad that these are merely pseudo-heraldic logos, not
really coats of arms, for, as we have been informed in other threads,
a true heraldic practice cannot exist without a connection to nobility
and state sanction. And of course (as explained by another
participant earlier in this thread) that there is no state sanction of
heraldry in Ireland.
Personally, I had always thought that real heraldry was possible
independent of either a concept of nobility or state sanction, but I
have now had these misconceptions dispelled thanks to rec.heraldry.
If, as you say, the Irish have a fondness for heraldry, I hope you
will break the news gently.
Joseph McMillan
Greg
What a maroon. Joe, you couldn't ignore me if someone if someone paid
you.
Now, Joe. How many years - did heraldry, exist in Ireland? To whom
was it usually attributed? From whence did it derive?
Please Joe: inform me. Point out where I'm wrong.
Graham
I've been rumbled!
Nick B II
So you're claiming that a) Irish heraldry was derived solely from the
monarch, b) that monarch was eliminated by the Irish Republic, and c)
that Irish heraldry survived?
You got yourself some pretty flawed logic right there bucko.
Your problem, as it pretty much always is, is that you actually
believe the Tudor and Stewart-era BS that legitimate heraldry must be
blessed by the state. Before they showed up it was occasionally
blessed by the state, usually in wartime when the state brought many
armigerous people together and needed a guy to help keep things
straight. They served not to make psuedo-heraldic devices real
heraldry, but to make sure that only one guy in the army had a blue
shield with two yellow dots on it. Besides the obvious purpose of
helping keep things organized, they also mediated heraldic disputes
between knights.
The first state-blessed Irish officer of arms was created in 1392,
probably in preparation for a campaign. It survived until Henry VII
and the early 16th century. The Ireland King of Arms apparently never
spent time in Ireland, never tried to regulate Irish heraldry. and
only the very first granted any arms at all. Which means that, by your
definition, almost every Coat of Arms in Ireland before 1552 was mere
psuedo-heraldry because they were not granted by any fons honorum.
In 1552 Edward VI created the first herald charged with actually
regulating Irish heraldry. The Ulster Kings of Arms recognized all
previously existing heraldry on the island as real heraldry, not
psuedo-heraldry, but insisted that all future heraldry be registered
with them.
Nick
Joseph McMillan
>
> In 1552 Edward VI created the first herald charged with actually
> regulating Irish heraldry. The Ulster Kings of Arms recognized all
> previously existing heraldry on the island as real heraldry, not
> psuedo-heraldry, but insisted that all future heraldry be registered
> with them.
>
Interesting. I hadn't thought about the timelines before, but this
happens to be within 35 years of the first English grants of arms
connected with the settlement of North America, those to Sir Walter
Raleigh's proposed city of "Ralegh" and to his associates in the
colonization scheme.
Of course, this was not the first appearance of European heraldry in
what is now the United States; that would have occurred with the first
arrival of Spanish explorers in Florida--Hernando de Soto is recorded
as having erected a pillar with the Spanish royal arms on the shores
of Tampa Bay in 1539, and Ponce de Leon very likely did the same when
he explored the area near present-day Jacksonville in 1513-21.
Joseph McMillan
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Niick? I asked three questions of Joe McMillan, how does that
translate into a claim?
And, whoever said that I believe anything about what any monarch said
about Irish heraldry?
No Nick, you're the one with some sort of difficulty.
Please try again.
Greg
OMG.
So Joe, you can't answer the three questions I take it.
Mark E Sievert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please try again? At least I learned something from Nick's post.
This is rec.heraldry, not rec.debate.till.blue.in.the.face.
Best regards,
M E Sievert
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nick could very well have made an informative post without the ad-
hominem don't you think?
Maybe not. You can exhale now.
Edward Stewart
>
> Nick could very well have made an informative post without the ad-
> hominem don't you think?
>
Greg,
At the risk of starting a debate on how to debate, I feel I must point
out to you that your understanding of the term ad hominem appears to
be flawed. Nick stated that, in his view, your argument was flawed and
pointed out why, in his view, he felt that it was. It is not an ad
hominem tactic to point out that you logic is flawed if there is then
an explanation of why the writer feels that is the case. It is not
even an ad hominem attack to state that you have a problem believing a
particular point if the writer then goes on to give further evidence
of that point and cites why, in his view, you have a problem.
It would be an ad hominem attack if, no matter what point you wish to
make, the writer had dismissed your views by stating that your
writings show that you are an idiot and therefore no matter what you
write it can not be true. Any close analysis of the many threads in
which you participate may well give a certain impression of your
capabilities but it is patently obvious that in all cases your
respondents have tried their very best to present you with a worthy
debate. Sadly, more often than not, your inability to be consistent
coupled with your lack of logic, understanding of evidential debate
and inability to see another's point of view renders your respondents
frustrated and unwilling to enter into any kind of intelligent debate
with you because it is a pointless exercise.
Regards,
Edward
Graham
Before you start your debate on how to debate, I think we need a few
ground rules, so let's have a debate on how to debate on how to debate.
Sean J Murphy
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6745e97c84.jpg
You want to start something? . . .
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/abf0a75c6b.jpg
Images courtesy of
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=124516/start=1920.html
Sean Murphy
Joseph McMillan
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If the relevant heraldic authority, acting on behalf of the state and
> within its powers, accepted these titles as valid in law then they are
> valid in law.
Sorry; I should have noticed that Graham had it right in the first
place. We don't agree all that often and should therefore relish the
occasions when we do.
The key passage here is "within its powers." The Chief Herald of
Ireland was not acting within his powers by recognizing the titles.
His recognition was therefore invalid in law, which is why it was
subsequently declared null and void.
Joseph McMillan
Howard
letter? I give you the following for the sake of argument:
On Sep 17, 11:10 am, Sean J Murphy wrote:
> Here again is the text of the letter sent by Chief Herald Begley to
> Terence MacCarthy on 16 June 1988:
>
> 'Dear MacCarthy Mór,
> This is by way of a reply to your letter of June 7th 1988. First allow
> me to congratulate you on your new publication ‘One Thousand Royal and
> Noble Ancestors of the House of MacCarthy Mór’.
> Now to the matter of the Gaelic feudal lordships which, as you say,
This seems to be the CH making it clear this is MacCarthy’s claim.
> are
> cited in the St Ledger Tract of 1588. Such incorporeal hereditaments,
> whatever their precise nature,
This is a caveat that the precise nature of the claim is not accepted
still less supported. The last phrase raises questions about the
alleged nature of such hereditaments.
> would, I believe,
This is a caveat making the following into a _personal_ opinion and
not the opinion of the office of Chief Herald.
> come under the term
> ‘property’ for legal purposes.
The CH indicates that incorporeal hereditaments are property, no more.
> Accordingly, under our Constitution you
> have the right to beneficial disposal of such property,
This is a statement of fact and does not relate to accepting or
supporting any claim. See Art 40.3.2 and Art.43 of the Constutution.
> irrespective of
> whatever I might say or think.
An implied caveat that the CH had other thoughts on the subject. Also
and importantly indicating that his opinions did not have any bearing
on the legal issue of a right to sell incorporeal property.
> Although no register of such property
> exists here
The CH made clear he has no way of checking the claim and the CH does
not maintain a register. Anyone reading the letter should be warned by
this.
> we have nonetheless an interest in your proposed course of
> activities.
The CH wants to hear more about the follow up. This cannot be read in
the same way as holding an interest in a property. It might perhaps be
read in the same manner as the police having an interest in a
criminal.
> Having considered the matter we do not propose to stand in
> the way of your disposal of the aforementioned hereditaments.
However, the CH and his office have no policing role in Irish
heraldry, let alone the selling of fraudulent property. Begley knew he
could not have stood in anybody's way.
> Yours sincerely, Donal F Begley, Chief Herald of Ireland.'
> (End quote)
>
> The import of this letter is that an Irish state official was approving
> MacCarthy's disposal of titles, <snip>
I am not quite convinced. The worst that can be said about this letter
is that it indicates the CH may have had an idea things were not quite
right and sought to appease a client by turning a blind eye ("nothing
to do with me, gov") rather than immediately reporting TMcC to the
police (but then was this letter not before the crimes so no crime had
been committed). I do not see it as approving what went on.
Derek Howard
Sean J Murphy
I think we are losing sight of the complexities as well as the
absurdities here. Terence MacCarthy's 1992 recognition as a chief was
nullified in 1999 on the stated grounds that the information on which
the decision was based was not accurate. Following the Attorney
General's advice that the Chief Herald had no legal power in relation to
recognition of chiefs the Office of the Chief Herald simply withdrew
from the process in 2003. Attorneys General also advised that the Chief
Herald had no authority to grant arms until 2005, but few here can
accept the appalling vista that all Irish arms grants from 1943 until
2003 are in effect null and void, with doubts still hanging over the
status of grants from 2005.
To return to our topic, James Shortt has indicated that the Chief
Herald's past recognition of Mac Carthy M�r and endorsement of his right
to sell titles combine effectively to validate the Castleshort title
bestowed on him by MacCarthy. If one holds that the arms grants of
Begley prior to his sudden retirement in 1995 are valid because he was
acting within his powers as he understood them, then to be perfectly
consistent one has to accept that his endorsements of titles remain
similarly valid. One the other hand one could hold that the whole
shambolic edifice is beyond repair and should be wound up and replaced
with a more rational and ethical heraldic and genealogical service
within the National Library of Ireland.
Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefswatch
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/chiefswatch.htm
Joseph McMillan
wrote:
> If one holds that the arms grants of
> Begley prior to his sudden retirement in 1995 are valid because he was
> acting within his powers as he understood them, then to be perfectly
> consistent one has to accept that his endorsements of titles remain
> similarly valid.
Showing that an official was "acting within his powers as he
understood them" merely distinguishes error from malfeasance. It
doesn't legitimate acts that exceeded the official's powers according
to law. I would imagine that most cases of quo warranto involve
situations where the parties genuinely disagree about the legitimacy
or extent of the official's powers, but the fact that their
disagreement is sincere doesn't mean one of them isn't wrong.
Joseph McMillan
Sean J Murphy
> Perhaps we need to be more forensic about the Chief Herald's 1988
> letter? I give you the following for the sake of argument:
>
> On Sep 17, 11:10 am, Sean J Murphy wrote:
>
>>Here again is the text of the letter sent by Chief Herald Begley to
>>Terence MacCarthy on 16 June 1988:
>>
>>'Dear MacCarthy M�r,
>>This is by way of a reply to your letter of June 7th 1988. First allow
>>me to congratulate you on your new publication �One Thousand Royal and
>>Noble Ancestors of the House of MacCarthy M�r�.
>>Now to the matter of the Gaelic feudal lordships which, as you say,
>
>
> This seems to be the CH making it clear this is MacCarthy�s claim.
>
>
>>are
>>cited in the St Ledger Tract of 1588. Such incorporeal hereditaments,
>>whatever their precise nature,
>
>
> This is a caveat that the precise nature of the claim is not accepted
> still less supported. The last phrase raises questions about the
> alleged nature of such hereditaments.
>
>
>>would, I believe,
>
>
> This is a caveat making the following into a _personal_ opinion and
> not the opinion of the office of Chief Herald.
>
>
>>come under the term
>>�property� for legal purposes.
In effect, 'I have a pretty good idea those cars fell off the back of a
lorry me old son, but in any case here's some paperwork so you can flog
'em to the punters fair and square'.
I have made many criticisms of OCHI management over the years, but I
have never suggested that they were such poor heraldists and
genealogists that they would fail rapidly to spot that Terence MacCarthy
was a con artist - or Andrew Davison, or Duc de St Bar, or Duchess of
Braganza et al.
Of course Begley did not confine himself to one letter in 1988, writing
the following also to Harold Brooks-Baker of 'Burke's Peerage' on 3
November:
'Dear Mr Brooks-Baker,
My attention has been drawn to your letter of August 24th 1988 to The
MacCarthy M�r of Belfast, regarding his intention to dispose of certain
hereditaments which may subsist in the chiefship of the House of
MacCarthy M�r. I can confirm that I have written to him (June 16th 1988)
to say that the Office here would not stand in the way of the action he
proposes to take. For your further information Mac Carthy M�r (applicant
Terence McCarthy of Belfast) is one of a number of old Gaelic
designations which are shortly due for official recognition here.
Sincerely, Donal F Begley, Chief Herald of Ireland.'
Care to parse that one forensically, Derek?
Sean Murphy
Letter of Terence MacCarthy to (Acting) Deputy Chief Herald
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/deputychletter.html
Greg
Edward,
Nick said this:
>Your problem, as it pretty much always is, is that you actually
>believe the Tudor and Stewart-era BS that legitimate heraldry must be
>blessed by the state.
That is not only ad-hominem, but it also uses a faulty logic as a
transaltion of my posts.
I asked three pertinent questions of Joe McMillan that were related to
heraldry in Ireland.
And you too are personalizing: this makes your reply worthless as
well.
In all my posts, I have stayed very true to my original beliefs on the
subjects of:
Scottish Baronies
Irish heraldy
and the value of heraldic imagery in the US
I have been proven exactly right on the first issue. The second is
still in debate: I have however stated that there is indeed a cloud
over Irish heraldry a position which is validated by others. And Joe
McMillan et al disagree with my position as it refers to the US.
The bigger problem here, is that most of you have a personal prejudice
and therefore (find something) fulty in everyting I say. The chief
tool is to intentionaly misrepresent me points. Which is exactly what
Nick did, and I proved that to you.
Think before you speak. You don't know me, you know nothing about me
and are therefore unqulaified to make a judgement.
If you would like more consistancy, be consistant in validation, not
misrepresentation.
Greg
Is this character an Irishman? An American living in Ireland? An
American who thinks he's Irish? or a failed gameshow host?
Edward Stewart
>
> Edward,
> You don't know me, you know nothing about me
> and are therefore unqulaified to make a judgement.
Greg,
Of course I don't know you. My observations and judgements on your
behaviour are based entirely on how you represent yourself in your
writings and are entirely restricted to that alone. My observations
stand as self evident.
Regards,
Edward
Graham
I'm always right, even when I make a mistake!
Graham
Quite right. The chap could not dispose of (by grant or any other
means) property (including feudal titles) that he did not own. The
thing is a nullity.
Graham
Whoever he is, with all that weaponry I apologize for anything I may
have said ever!
Sean J Murphy
Pardon my manners. Allow me to introduce you to Mr James Shortt, styled
the Baron of Castleshort, the main subject of this thread, former
bodyguard of Terence MacCarthy 'M�r', continuing commander of the Royal
Galloglas Guard and Director General of the International Bodyguard
Association. For biographical and other information on Mr Shortt, see
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Baron_of_Castleshort or my own
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/chiefswatch.htm (last
item).
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
Graham, Baron Castleshort . . . (bowing slightly) Baron Castleshort,
Graham. Thank goodness there will be no need for Glock pistols at dawn.
Sean Murphy
Joseph McMillan
reminding us that we've moved on from the silly schlub who calls
himself Baron Castleshorts.
Instead I'd like to adduce two comments from the movies that bear on
the ancillary discussion:
Regarding setting the rules for debate, this is rec.heraldry. As
Harvey Logan observes in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: "Rules?
In a knife-fight? No rules!"
Regarding the term "ad hominem," we must turn to Inigo Montoya in The
Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means
what you think it means."
And finally, to quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about
that."
Nathaniel Taylor
<f6af0ae6-3541-4d6c...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph McMillan <mcmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the term "ad hominem," we must turn to Inigo Montoya in The
> Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means
> what you think it means."
Hey, I quoted I�igo on Usenet just a few months ago -- but I think it
was another group. Similar context, though.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Greg
My tendency is speak (to someone). Most around here spoaek (at
people). That tendency suggests hubris and I find that rather
offensive. If I bring that up, people tend to talk down evern more.
It's very unproductive and deversionary.
I would therefore say that you characterization is not very well
developed. A dissenting opinion often if often unfavorable, however
necessary for a greater understanding of the whole.
When the dissenter becomes the subject of the debate, it's a clear
indication that 1) the dissentiung oppinion is indeed true and 2) that
the status quo is ussually nervous about what is revealed.
Greg
See Joe? I knew you couldn't ignore me. No rules you say? The you
admit that you can't play by them...
But you still haven't answered the 3 questions. Under your "no rules"
theory this means that I can go at you with any ad-hominem I choose.
Though, I don't choose to.
Nick B II
>
> Niick? I asked three questions of Joe McMillan, how does that
> translate into a claim?
They were leading questions. One is impossible to answer with any real
precision, and the other two have no rational answer. For the record
your questions and their answers:
> Now, Joe. How many years - did heraldry, exist in Ireland? To whom
> was it usually attributed? From whence did it derive?
Heraldry came to Ireland around the same time it came to the rest of
Europe. If you want a really precise date you're probably gonna have
to go with the arrival of Strongbow in 1170, but that's debatable.
It's not like the Irish weren't using heraldry-like symbols before, or
Strongbow-era Normans had fully developed the art. Thus the closest
thing we can find to an answer to your first question is 839 years and
counting.
Just as other styles of art are not attributed to any single person,
heraldry was not attributed to anyone in particular in Ireland.
Individual coats would be attributed to someone, usually the founder
of a family or one of it's more prominent members, but heraldry itself
was simply a form of art used to identify people. Especially on the
battlefield.
Just as heraldry cannot be attributed to any individual, it cannot be
said to derive from any individual.
Nick
Andrew Chaplin
news:xX8um.30140$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie:
> Graham wrote:
>
>> On 22 Sep, 18:34, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 22, 5:58 am, Sean J Murphy <sjbmur...@SPAMOUTeircom.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hey . . .
>>>
>>>> http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6745e97c84.jpg
>>>
>>>> You want to start something? . . .
>>>
>>>> http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/abf0a75c6b.jpg
>>>
>>>> Images courtesy of
>>>> http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=124516/start=1920.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this character an Irishman? An American living in Ireland?
>>> An American who thinks he's Irish? or a failed gameshow host?
>>
>>
>> Whoever he is, with all that weaponry I apologize for anything I may
>> have said ever!
>
>
> Graham, Baron Castleshort . . . (bowing slightly) Baron Castleshort,
> Graham. Thank goodness there will be no need for Glock pistols at
> dawn.
He's a silly bugger and would do well to stay on the other side of the
Atlantic.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
David E. Cohen
And the moment Ireland was no longer under the jurisdiction of the College
of Arms, heraldry disappeared from Ireland like beer from an open admission
frat party.
"Nick B II" <nicho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c93c4468-bb0c-47b9...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Graham
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would arrive at dawn in a tank (in fact, my tank would be hidden in
bushes well before dawn). Forget the pistols!
Greg
> On Sep 21, 6:21 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Niick? I asked three questions of Joe McMillan, how does that
> > translate into a claim?
>
> They were leading questions. One is impossible to answer with any real
> precision, and the other two have no rational answer. For the record
> your questions and their answers:
>
> > Now, Joe. How many years - did heraldry, exist in Ireland? To whom
> > was it usually attributed? From whence did it derive?
Not leading at all. Thats' what (you) want to think.
a: when did it begin in Ireland and how long did it last until it lost
it's sanction?
b: Who was it, that was represented by heraldic display in 1169? de
Clare? Nope.
c: From where did the heraldic display that was transfered to Ireland
originate?
That's a geographic reference. Pembroke? you would be wrong again.
hinthint-- think of the person who ordered de clare to go over there
to attend to Macdermitt in the first place
Spain came later, so they don't count.
> Heraldry came to Ireland around the same time it came to the rest of
> Europe. If you want a really precise date you're probably gonna have
> to go with the arrival of Strongbow in 1170, but that's debatable.
> It's not like the Irish weren't using heraldry-like symbols before, or
> Strongbow-era Normans had fully developed the art. Thus the closest
> thing we can find to an answer to your first question is 839 years and
> counting.
Who says that de Clare's entrance with heraldic display, derived from
the crusade of 1096, was not not the first expample of what became
heraldry in Ireland, and what evidence do they offer: think in terms
of herladry as it was known in western Europe and who introduced de
Clare to Wexford.
I'm not leading here, I'm suggesting. You say something else was
introduced that (might be) heraldic. Again, what evidence do you
offer?
> Just as other styles of art are not attributed to any single person,
> heraldry was not attributed to anyone in particular in Ireland.
> Individual coats would be attributed to someone, usually the founder
> of a family or one of it's more prominent members, but heraldry itself
> was simply a form of art used to identify people. Especially on the
> battlefield.
This is irrlevent to the three questions.
> Just as heraldry cannot be attributed to any individual, it cannot be
> said to derive from any individual.
>
> Nick
Again, you last statement shows that you really don't understand the
questions at all. It is often better to to ask for clarrification if
it's needed, rather than venturing out on limb adn showing people you
really don't grasp the questions your answering.
It can also be bad form to insert yourself intop a conversation,
playing the know it all, when someone else has been challenged on
points of information.
Joesph McMillan (mr. history perfect) doesn't know this stuff: that's
why I asked him these questions and that's why he's not answering.
Now, if it's all the same to you Nick, I'd rather discuss the thread
topic.
Start another thread on Irish heraldry and we can go on there.
Greg
> Don't you know it all came from England? England, England, and only England!
> And the moment Ireland was no longer under the jurisdiction of the College
> of Arms, heraldry disappeared from Ireland like beer from an open admission
> frat party.
>
> On Sep 21, 6:21 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Niick? I asked three questions of Joe McMillan, how does that
> > translate into a claim?
>
> They were leading questions. One is impossible to answer with any real
> precision, and the other two have no rational answer. For the record
> your questions and their answers:
>
> > Now, Joe. How many years - did heraldry, exist in Ireland? To whom
> > was it usually attributed? From whence did it derive?
>
> Heraldry came to Ireland around the same time it came to the rest of
> Europe. If you want a really precise date you're probably gonna have
> to go with the arrival of Strongbow in 1170, but that's debatable.
> It's not like the Irish weren't using heraldry-like symbols before, or
> Strongbow-era Normans had fully developed the art. Thus the closest
> thing we can find to an answer to your first question is 839 years and
> counting.
>
> Just as other styles of art are not attributed to any single person,
> heraldry was not attributed to anyone in particular in Ireland.
> Individual coats would be attributed to someone, usually the founder
> of a family or one of it's more prominent members, but heraldry itself
> was simply a form of art used to identify people. Especially on the
> battlefield.
>
> Just as heraldry cannot be attributed to any individual, it cannot be
> said to derive from any individual.
>
> Nick
You're a boob Cohen and can't utilize this software correctly.
David E. Cohen
and railed against, yet you feel you can insult people and personally attack
them with impunity. Since you have chosen to make it personal once more,
two can play that game, and I'll keep this 'in block' so even you can follow
it. As litigation attorneys say, "When you don't have the facts, pound the
law. When you don't have the law, pound the facts. When you don't have the
facts or the law, pound the table." Your table is a pile of splinters. You
put forth vague and leading questions, and declare victory when no one
answers them immediately, as if anyone would be convinced by this. You
repeatedly misrepresent both the literal wording and the plain meaning of
texts, even after it is pointed out, as though no one would dare to check
them, and seem surprised that people would doubt the word of the heraldic
oracle on high. Though I had in a previous post stated you weren't stupid,
perhaps I was wrong, since you take completely inconsistent positions at
different points in an argument, and refuse to even admit the inconsistency,
much less reconcile it. You are a pompous ass who has been tossed from
multiple forums, and at least one of those bans was for bad behavior rather
than your particular views. On those none-too-frequent occasions where your
views are somewhat supported by facts, your boorish and infantile rants
alienate people who might be inclined to agree with you. In arguments about
heraldry, and as a person, you are a loser.
P.S. As far as utilizing software is concerned, utilize a spell checker
once it a while, Mr. McHerladry. It might give people who don't know you
the illusion that you are not a fool.
"Greg" <scot...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1e64f70d-19bd-4543...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Joseph McMillan
> Reasoned and civil arguments against your positions are called 'ad hominem'
> and railed against, yet you feel you can insult people and personally attack
> them with impunity.
David,
Substance aside (and why should we start worrying about substance at
this late date?), there are two points of newsgroup custom that would
make your excellent posts easier to read:
1. Don't "top post"--quote the message you're responding to first,
then give your response.
2. Set whatever program you're using so that it automatically inserts
the little > thingies (see above) at the beginning of each line you're
responding too. If you're reading and replying through Google groups
it will do this automatically, or at least it does for me. If you're
doing it through your email program there should be an option you can
set somehow.
Please carry on.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well David, you finally popped: see how it is when people choose (you)
over the subject. Makes you mad doesn't it.
Now you know what I go through. Most of these people antagonize
intentionally. The difference here is that you call a spade a spade.
Even Joe agrees that your posts are a little difficult to interpret.
I wasn't trying to piss you off the first time I mentioned it at all.
But rather than say "thank you", or try and improve the appearance,
you chose to challenge me personally, because I chose the quieter
route, you acted as though it was (me) that had some sort of problem.
I was trying to dialogue with you, but your replies were just becoming
too difficult to work with.
You see how it is? Ya can't win.
It's not what I say. This is proven by the many many threads: of (any)
subject, that I have participated in. The trouble is that there a
handful of "True Believers" who just don't like me period and as on
the HSS and then again on AHS forums, these few intentionally provoke
and keep it up because of my views on Baronies and because Joe
McMillan and I don't agree on the use of heraldic images in the US. I
didn't say anything untoward on the AHS, they just got wond of the
article I wrote on the HSS and panicked. (The board of governers had
to convene about [me]???)
Am I that important?
Ad-hominem? How many times have I asked, just in the last couple of
weeks that these guys please not resort to it? Joe McMillan, (on the
vanguard of class) says, "There are no rules in kinife fight".
Brilliant.
So, we make do as best we can don't we.
Read this very thread David: I posted, and noted that because of
people like the Castleshort and Terrance MacCarthy, Irish herladry has
a cloud over it. As usual, it's Joe McMillan who jumps in anad starts
a fight. Sean Murphy even agreed with me!
Then Joe makes this post, only designed to provoke: Sept. 15, 6:24pm
Quote:
" It's really hard to carry on a discussion with someone who seems
incapable of remembering what he says from one day to the next.
Yesterday you wrote: "the Irish won't go for spending a dime on
state
sanction" of heraldry. My point--good God, why do I bother?--was
that the Irish are in fact spending many dimes on sanctioned
heraldry. Is this really such a difficult concept?
Joseph McMillan "
The man (has) to win. No matter how polite I try to be about it, he
just kleeps it up. And there are a few others on this forum that are
(compelled) to act the same way. So, I what? Move aside for them and
take their abuse?
No. I call it like I see it, and they don't like that: "shoot the
messenger".
Good thinking.
David E. Cohen
>news:bda99007-d2da-492d...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
For *you*, I'll try and make the effort.
David E. Cohen
>over the subject. Makes you mad doesn't it.
>
>Now you know what I go through. Most of these people antagonize
>intentionally. The difference here is that you call a spade a spade.
So you consistently acting like an ass is supposed to educate everyone? Oh please. You are just so
tiresome.
>It's not what I say. This is proven by the many many threads: of (any)
>subject, that I have participated in. The trouble is that there a
>handful of "True Believers" who just don't like me period and as on
>the HSS and then again on AHS forums, these few intentionally provoke
>and keep it up because of my views on Baronies and because Joe
>McMillan and I don't agree on the use of heraldic images in the US. I
>didn't say anything untoward on the AHS, they just got wond of the
>article I wrote on the HSS and panicked. (The board of governers had
>to convene about [me]???)
>
>Am I that important?
Exactly. It isn't what you say. It is how you say it. I'll leave it to people who were in the
thick of what went on at the HSS to comment about your being tossed from there. Before I continue,
let me state that I am not a shill for the AHS. I am not even a member, much less on their board of
directors. Regarding the AHS, I can't imagine that you thought your view, that there is no such
thing as heraldry in America, would be well received. That said, if you didn't consistently act
like an ass in your participation in their forum, you would almost certainly still be allowed to
participate in the forum. There are other members and registered users there who frequently
disagree, sometimes strongly, with certain board members and other honchos at the AHS, but somehow
they manage to avoid getting banned. I am willing to bet they knew about you and the HSS, but you
were on the AHS forum quite a while. I think that 'panicked' is probably an exceedingly unlikely
characterization of their reaction to your behavior. From what I know about the organization, they
run things fairly, deliberately, and in a consistent manner according to their rules, so yes, they
probably had to 'convene' (online, I'm sure) to deal with the annoyance you were causing. "Are you
that important?" What a straight line! I am willing to bet you won't be a topic of conversation on
the forum there any time soon, nor will your views, which as far as I can tell, no one there agrees
with. That said, I am not aware of any of your posts being deleted, which they could certainly do
if you 'panicked' them.
As far as the subject of Baronies is concerned, it is only connected to heraldry in the weakest way
(as I understand it, the issue is whether or not a Scottish feudal Baron can add 'extra stuff' to
their achievement), and while slightly interesting, at a very esoteric level, why does it even need
to be discussed here for more than a post or two? To me it is forum-clogging spam that belongs on
the newsgroups discussing nobility, *which isn't heraldry*. If people want to blow enough money to
feed a starving village in Somalia for a year so they can be the 'Baron of Brigadoon', I don't care
one way or the other. It's their money and they can spend it as they wish. If Brian Hamilton sells
these titles, unless he is lying about what he is selling, I don't care if he retires a rich man or
goes broke. Even if he is lying about it, that isn't a terribly relevant topic for this newsgroup.
>Ad-hominem? How many times have I asked, just in the last couple of
>weeks that these guys please not resort to it? Joe McMillan, (on the
>vanguard of class) says, "There are no rules in kinife fight".
>
>Brilliant.
>
>So, we make do as best we can don't we.
From what I have seen, the nastiness usualy starts on your side of the conversation. People are
just responding in kind.
>Read this very thread David: I posted, and noted that because of
>people like the Castleshort and Terrance MacCarthy, Irish herladry has
>a cloud over it. As usual, it's Joe McMillan who jumps in anad starts
>a fight. Sean Murphy even agreed with me!
There may be a cloud over Irish heraldry because of buffoons and con men like Castleshort and
MacCarthy, though the cloud lies more over the clan/chieftain system, which is of course *not
heraldry*, though I suppose it is tangentially related. There are jerks like that everywhere,
including where heraldry is sanctioned and regulated by the state/sovereign, so similar clouds are
floating around all over. But the mere existence of these miscreants does not delegitimize Irish
heraldry as a whole, as you seem to want others to believe. More serious was the mess made due to
badly written and misinterpreted enabling legislation, which evidently has already been partially
fixed--and it seems the process is ongoing. But even with that problem, it ultimately doesn't
matter, because as has been stated ad nauseum (though obviously it needs repeating), sanction and
regulation by a state or a sovereign does not define heraldry, and the absence of such sanction or
regulation does not make heraldry any less legitimate. Hurray for assumption!
GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie
David, a Chara,
Your reading of the Irish situation as a 'mess made due to badly
written and misinterpreted enabling legislation, which evidently has
already been partially fixed--and it seems the process is ongoing' is
not quite correct.
Firstly, the issue of the 'Bogus Chiefs' scandal was not facilitated
by 'badly written and misinterpreted enabling legislation' as the fact
was simply that no legislative measures underpinned the granting of
'courtesy recognition' to Irish Gaelic Chiefs (real ones or fakes).
This was made clear to the Director of the National Library (and then
Chief Herald) in 2002 by the Attorney General.
Secondly, the delivery of Irish heraldic services between 1943 and May
2005 was not facilitated by 'badly written and misinterpreted enabling
legislation' because no such legislative measures were in place before
the enactment of the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997 which
was only implemented by the Minister in May 2005.
Thirdly, the issue of the recognition of 'titles of nobility' (generic
term) by the Chief Herald of Ireland in the granting of supporters or
whatever on the basis of the applicant for Arms holding (or
purchasing) such titles was not facilitated by 'badly written and
misinterpreted enabling legislation' but simply by some fanciful
notions held by persons in the 'office' of the Chief Herald of Ireland
during that period.
Fourthy, raising the issue of 'badly written and misinterpreted
enabling legislation' as an excuse for any actions of successive Chief
Heralds of Ireland is entirely without foundation as it was open to
any of the officeholders to seek legal clarification for their
decisions from the State's law officers. However, the clarity
afforded by Bunreacht na hÉireann (Constitution of Ireland) is
certainly sufficient to raise some serious doubts about certain
actions and decisions taken by successive Chief Heralds of Ireland.
Finally, though the existing legislation (National Cultural
Institutions Act, 1997) is fundamentally flawed, sections 12 and 13 of
the 1997 Act have been considered by the Attorney General and the
Minister has declared (25 Oct. 2007) that these sections provide the
National Library of Ireland with the power to deliver heraldic
services - but only from May 2005. The State had no legislative power
to grant Arms from 1943 to May 2005 and this point has been accepted
by the Irish Government.
New legislation is promised which, hopefully, will include the points
raised by Senator Alex White's Bill - National Cultural Institutions
(Amendment) Bill, 2008 - which seeks to provide a sound legislative
basis for Irish heraldry from 1943.
On the latter point, the Genealogical Society of Ireland has strongly
advocated that a meaningful public consultation process be facilitated
by the Minister in the run-up to the publication of any proposed
legislation to facilitate the amalgamation of the National Library of
Ireland, National Archives of Ireland and the Irish Manuscripts
Commission. Indeed, should such a public consultation process be
initiated by the Minister, hopefully, persons contributing to
rec.heraldry (from whatever point of view) will make their views known
to the Minister through such a public consultation process, that is,
of course, if such is established.
Regards
Michael Merrigan
General Secretary
Genealogical Society of Ireland
www.familyhistory.ie
Nick B II
> On 22 Sep, 18:53, Nick B II <nicholas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 6:21 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Niick? I asked three questions of Joe McMillan, how does that
> > > translate into a claim?
>
> > They were leading questions. One is impossible to answer with any real
> > precision, and the other two have no rational answer. For the record
> > your questions and their answers:
>
> > > Now, Joe. How many years - did heraldry, exist in Ireland? To whom
> > > was it usually attributed? From whence did it derive?
>
>
> a: when did it begin in Ireland and how long did it last until it lost
> it's sanction?
>
> b: Who was it, that was represented by heraldic display in 1169? de
> Clare? Nope.
>
> c: From where did the heraldic display that was transfered to Ireland
> originate?
>
> That's a geographic reference. Pembroke? you would be wrong again.
> hinthint-- think of the person who ordered de clare to go over there
> to attend to Macdermitt in the first place
Nobody ordered Strongbow to invade Leinster. He was invited by
"McDermitt," as you call him.
McDermit had just been deposed by the High King, McDermitt needed
troops to retake his throne. The deal was that if Strongbow won
Strongbow would become McDermit's heir. Henry II cleverly waited for
Strongbow to finish reconquering Leinster, and then swooped in and
claimed most of the spoils for the English crown.
> I'm not leading here, I'm suggesting. You say something else was
> introduced that (might be) heraldic. Again, what evidence do you
> offer?
>
> > Just as other styles of art are not attributed to any single person,
> > heraldry was not attributed to anyone in particular in Ireland.
> > Individual coats would be attributed to someone, usually the founder
> > of a family or one of it's more prominent members, but heraldry itself
> > was simply a form of art used to identify people. Especially on the
> > battlefield.
>
> This is irrlevent to the three questions.
How is it irrelevant?
You asked from whom Irish heraldry was usually attributed. I answered
and explained why.
It isn't my fault that the true answers to your questions are not the
ones you want to hear.
> > Just as heraldry cannot be attributed to any individual, it cannot be
> > said to derive from any individual.
>
> > Nick
>
> Again, you last statement shows that you really don't understand the
> questions at all. It is often better to to ask for clarrification if
> it's needed, rather than venturing out on limb adn showing people you
> really don't grasp the questions your answering.
If I didn't answer your questions nothing is stopping you from
rephrasing them.
> It can also be bad form to insert yourself intop a conversation,
> playing the know it all, when someone else has been challenged on
> points of information.
And here I thought you were merely asking for information. My mistake.
I did not realize that it was "bad form" to help you.
> Joesph McMillan (mr. history perfect) doesn't know this stuff: that's
> why I asked him these questions and that's why he's not answering.
I don't believe Joe, an ethnic Scot who specializes in US Heraldry,
has ever claimed to be an expert on early Irish heraldry. It's
possible he would claim to know more about early Irish heraldry than
you, but given that you think somebody ordered Strongbow to invade
Ireland that's not saying much.
> Now, if it's all the same to you Nick, I'd rather discuss the thread
> topic.
>
> Start another thread on Irish heraldry and we can go on there.
You asked three questions, and demanded they be answered. I answered
them, and I'm going off-topic?
Nick
Joseph McMillan
.
>
> I don't believe Joe, an ethnic Scot who specializes in US Heraldry,
> has ever claimed to be an expert on early Irish heraldry.
This is true, but not the principal reason for my declining to address
the questions. For that, see my final response, dated 17 September at
9:11 a.m., EDT, in the thread entitled "David Cohen's Opinion."
Joseph McMillan
Greg
> >Well David, you finally popped: see how it is when people choose (you)
> >over the subject. Makes you mad doesn't it.
>
> >Now you know what I go through. Most of these people antagonize
> >intentionally. The difference here is that you call a spade a spade.
>
> So you consistently acting like an ass is supposed to educate everyone? Oh please. You are just so
> tiresom
> >It's not what I say. This is proven by the many many threads: of (any)
Well. You've obviously not re-read the thread: too much work, I
know.... So you're going to maintain your postition. That's rather
telling.
Like I said; The AHS has nothing with which to hang their charge on
and they know that. All anyone has to do is look in on the ladt
thread: like this one, to see who really starts the trouble.
The HSS. I said here a long time ago: I made an intentionally
incendiary post becasue I had reached my limit - that was the plan.
Alex Maxwell Findlater knew that as well, that's I posted it to him -
there was a message in doing that too...
All you have to do is ask anyone at the HSS: they'll tell you anything
you want to know about me. They've know me (intimately) for over ten
years: my family, my personal motivations, my politics, exactly why I
do what I do and work where I work, my religion, etc etc. Just ask
'em, they'll tell ya anything you want to know.
I have nothing to defend.
Now, if you want to get aload of how this goes; Nick has posted a
reply below. He is under the impression that I don't know what I'm
talking about. It never ocurred to him that I left out some of the
little details with regard to de Clare, because I took it for granted
that people who do know could supply the details themselves. Nothing
too hard about that...
Substitue Nick's name for, oh, say Joe McMillan, or any other
antagonists that frequent this forum.
So, I'm going to reply to Nick now. Watch what happens:
Greg
> On Sep 23, 6:55 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Sep, 18:53, Nick B II <nicholas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 21, 6:21 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Niick? I asked three questions of Joe McMillan, how does that
> > > > translate into a claim?
>
> > > They were leading questions. One is impossible to answer with any real
> > > precision, and the other two have no rational answer. For the record
> > > your questions and their answers:
>
> > > > Now, Joe. How many years - did heraldry, exist in Ireland? To whom
> > > > was it usually attributed? From whence did it derive?
>
> > Not leading at all. Thats' what (you) want to think.
>
> > a: when did it begin in Ireland and how long did it last until it lost
> > it's sanction?
>
> > b: Who was it, that was represented by heraldic display in 1169? de
> > Clare? Nope.
>
> > c: From where did the heraldic display that was transfered to Ireland
> > originate?
>
> > That's a geographic reference. Pembroke? you would be wrong again.
> > hinthint-- think of the person who ordered de clare to go over there
> > to attend to Macdermitt in the first place
>
> Nobody ordered Strongbow to invade Leinster. He was invited by
> "McDermitt," as you call him.
Hi Nick,
"McDermitt"... (Dermitt MacMacmurough) I don't see where I referred
to him as "McDerrmitt". I spelled out "Macdermitt" who was King of
Leinster at the time as I recall. He had, as the story goes, stolen
the wife of a rival king: Muster, I believe.
> McDermit had just been deposed by the High King, McDermitt needed
> troops to retake his throne. The deal was that if Strongbow won
> Strongbow would become McDermit's heir. Henry II cleverly waited for
> Strongbow to finish reconquering Leinster, and then swooped in and
> claimed most of the spoils for the English crown.
Yeeesss, de Clare was in not too good a finacial situation at the
time, so Henry II asked him to go on a mercinary expedition
(feudalism), so Strongbow left Pembroke (one of the reasons for his
financial stresses) -- under the aegis -- (of the King of England).
That was my point. Henry fincanced de Clare's (adventure).
What happend immeditaly following all of that invasion is immaterial
to ordered it and under whose banner (heraldic display) it happened.
HenryII had wanted Ireland for some time, but could not get a good
enough reason going for support until (he was invited).
My point is: that was how heraldry made it's entrance into Ireland.
Then came the Spanish etc etc.
> > I'm not leading here, I'm suggesting. You say something else was
> > introduced that (might be) heraldic. Again, what evidence do you
> > offer?
>
> > > Just as other styles of art are not attributed to any single person,
> > > heraldry was not attributed to anyone in particular in Ireland.
> > > Individual coats would be attributed to someone, usually the founder
> > > of a family or one of it's more prominent members, but heraldry itself
> > > was simply a form of art used to identify people. Especially on the
> > > battlefield.
>
> > This is irrlevent to the three questions.
> How is it irrelevant?
>
> You asked from whom Irish heraldry was usually attributed. I answered
> and explained why.
>
> It isn't my fault that the true answers to your questions are not the
> ones you want to hear.
Am I completely misunderstanding, or did you just say that Strongbow
went into Ireland? Nick, I knew that when I asked the 3 questions of
Joseph McMillan originally. (Your answer) seems to indicate that
Irish heraldry had some other origin (seed)... I submit that
Strongbow / Henry II was (the seed).
So, when you say that (your answers) don't match (what I [want to
hear]), I don't follow you at all.
I would say here Nick, that it's you who is misunderstanding. ( I
knew where [ I ] was going...).
> > > Just as heraldry cannot be attributed to any individual, it cannot be
> > > said to derive from any individual.
> > > Nick
Everything has its beginning. In those days, in a country as small as
Ireland, those beginnings came with some heavy influence - that's what
I was getting at. (That influence is battled pretty much even to this
day, accords not withstanding). That influence, overshadowed Irish
heraldry, yes? So, that meant, that by and large, Irish heraldry,
wasn't really and truly Irish was it. Just like teh English influence
of heraldry in the American colonies --- which is what Washington was
cautioning William Barton about.
My arguments are very consistent about this stuff.
> > Again, you last statement shows that you really don't understand the
> > questions at all. It is often better to to ask for clarrification if
> > it's needed, rather than venturing out on limb adn showing people you
> > really don't grasp the questions your answering.
>
> If I didn't answer your questions nothing is stopping you from
> rephrasing them.
I asked Joe (those questions) intentionally Nick. You sort of walked
in after the movie had started.
If you had asked for a clarification or some other sort of qualifier,
I'd been happy to give it to you. But, you kind of just swept in an
ran with your own interpretation.
I knew Joe wasn't going to answer, because he would have been shown to
have been wrong and he doesn't like that. (That's just a little thing
between he and I). Yet for you to misinterpret, and then imply that
(I'm wrong) says something.
> > It can also be bad form to insert yourself intop a conversation,
> > playing the know it all, when someone else has been challenged on
> > points of information.
> And here I thought you were merely asking for information. My mistake.
> I did not realize that it was "bad form" to help you.
I was having a debate with Joe. I will admit, that sometimes, a
question to one can be taken as a question to all and that's okay.
But sometimes, that can lead to miunderstandings - like now... :)
> > Joesph McMillan (mr. history perfect) doesn't know this stuff: that's
> > why I asked him these questions and that's why he's not answering.
> I don't believe Joe, an ethnic Scot who specializes in US Heraldry,
> has ever claimed to be an expert on early Irish heraldry. It's
> possible he would claim to know more about early Irish heraldry than
> you, but given that you think somebody ordered Strongbow to invade
> Ireland that's not saying much.
As far as Strongbow goes: that's what all my history books have told
me, okay.
As for Joe, his ethnicity doesn't make him an expert at anything. My
ethnicity is Scottish as well and some believe (I know nothing about
anything except where to sit at the bar).
Of course Joe would claim to know more about Irsh heraldry that me.
Joe thinks he knows more about (everything) than me: he's into some
sort of personal competition. Joseph McMillan is way too competitive
adn we he finds someone he thinks he can pick on, (he just goes for
it).
That's not my problem.
> > Now, if it's all the same to you Nick, I'd rather discuss the thread
> > topic.
>
> > Start another thread on Irish heraldry and we can go on there.
> You asked three questions, and demanded they be answered. I answered
> them, and I'm going off-topic?
Nick, I asked three questions -- of Joseph McMillan. As I said
earlier herein; I'm very happy to discuss (anything ) with anybody,
but I don't appreciate it when what I say is taken out of context.
The subject of the thread was Ireland and this fool Castleshort. (My
comment), thrown in, had to do with the status of Irish heraldy: which
Sean Murphy validated (thank youy again Sean), and Joseph McMillan, as
usual, had to jump in with a remark, not about the topic of thread,
but to challenge me - yet again.
This is a heraldry forum: I put an heraldic note - that was relevent,
into a topic (that had nothing to do with heraldry): Sean Murphy was /
is doing exactly what most around here accuse me of!
Enough for now: Friday night and I got places to go and people to
meet.
Have fun this weekend Nick - whatever you do.
> Nick- Hide quoted text -
Graham
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does anyone actually read Greg's posts?
David E. Cohen
>written and misinterpreted enabling legislation, which evidently has
>already been partially fixed--and it seems the process is ongoing' is
>not quite correct.
I gladly defer to you and others with more knowledge of, and far greater interest in, the subject.
The point I made when mentioning the matter is still valid. Even thought there was for a good long
while in Ireland no legally proper regulation of heraldry, heraldry didn't magically disappear.
The Chief
Not anymore. Can't take it.
Regards,
The Chief
David E. Cohen
>know.... So you're going to maintain your postition. That's rather
>telling.
I read it once. That was one time too many.
>Like I said; The AHS has nothing with which to hang their charge on
>and they know that. All anyone has to do is look in on the ladt
>thread: like this one, to see who really starts the trouble.
Since part of the reason for your banning was evidently private messages going back and forth,
rather than public posts on the AHS forum, I am afraid I need to believe one side or the other to
some extent on faith. Given what I have observed of you, and of the people in charge of the AHS
forum, I concluded that they are more believable than you are.
>The HSS. I said here a long time ago: I made an intentionally
>incendiary post becasue I had reached my limit - that was the plan.
>Alex Maxwell Findlater knew that as well, that's I posted it to him -
>there was a message in doing that too...
>
>All you have to do is ask anyone at the HSS: they'll tell you anything
>you want to know about me. They've know me (intimately) for over ten
>years: my family, my personal motivations, my politics, exactly why I
>do what I do and work where I work, my religion, etc etc. Just ask
>'em, they'll tell ya anything you want to know.
So you planned to thrown out ot another group by behaving like an ass. You have been honing your
craft for quite some time, I see. As far as hearing all the details, since I get a barrel full of
this crap here, why would I want to get into it somewhere else? And hear about your personal life
from a bunch of other people? Sorry, I'd rather hear about heraldry.
>I have nothing to defend.
Agreed. LOL
Greg
Ya still can't do it can ya.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seems they don't have anytihng else to do. We're up to what? 93 posts
'er something? Then there was 80 and more, then over 100 and on it
goes. If you guys didn't have me you'd having nothing to do.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then, what the hell are you doing here?
Greg
Your such droll individual who can't back anything up. You're weak
David Cohen.
Do me a big favor: don't reply to me anymore. I'm sure a smart guy
like you can manage that. But then again, Joe McMIllan can't do it.
Greg
> On 22 Sep, 18:34, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 5:58 am, Sean J Murphy <sjbmur...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hey . . .
>
> > >http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6745e97c84.jpg
>
> > > You want to start something? . . .
>
> > >http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/abf0a75c6b.jpg
>
> > > Images courtesy ofhttp://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=124516/start=1920.html
>
> > > Sean Murphy
>
> > Is this character an Irishman? An American living in Ireland? An
> > American who thinks he's Irish? or a failed gameshow host?
>
> Whoever he is, with all that weaponry I apologize for anything I may
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I know what you mean. Isn't there some sort of post office or
something where these guys can have their pictures displayed?
Ya'know, a public warning device...
Graham
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's probably like me. He skims through the posts to see if there is
anything interesting. Frankly, Greg, when I see a long post from you I
just ignore it. On the other hand, if it's got my name on it I re-read
it 16 times in swooning admiration (or side-splitting laughter,
depending on the post). Seriously, sometimes long posts are justified
(like when I write them), but mainly I would keep it short and sweet
(like 'B_____ off you b______ !'). I find this raises the tone of the
debate.
David E. Cohen
>David Cohen.
Drollery is my instinctive response to your nastiness and asininity. If your arguments were strong
and persuasive, your flaws in delivery wouldn't matter. I am no heraldic expert, and I have no
problem saying so. I'm just an interested heraldic novice, with a broad educational background, and
an ability to follow an argument, both from the point of view of logical consistency and on the
strength of evidence presented. I didn't need to be an expert in heraldry to refute your arguments.
All I did was point out the silliness of your premises, the inconsistencies and misrepresentations
in your positions, and the weakness and irrelevancy of the evidence you presented. Other people
with much more knowledge can (and do) shred you on heraldic specifics.
>Do me a big favor: don't reply to me anymore. I'm sure a smart guy
>like you can manage that. But then again, Joe McMIllan can't do it.
Since you made it personal with me, I won't be doing you that favor, unless *I* don't feel like
replying. Maybe it's because I'm a nasty and vindictive individual, in addition to being droll and
weak, or maybe its just a case of you reaping what you sow.