Behold, the resurrection of the Nia(dh) Nasc(k)
Guy Stair Sainty
Hillhouse reproduced at
http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Members/gallery.asp?ID=80 (or go to the main
page of the Heraldry Society of Scotland,
http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Homepage.htm and link to Members Arms).
The McKerrel of Hillhouse was formerly one of Terence MacCarthy’s disciples and
a member of the Niadh Nask.
The arms depicted show the McKerrel's arms surrounded by the collar of Terence
McCarthy's NN which, however, is now described as the collar of the Celtic
nobiliary fraternity of the Nia Nasc. Apparently the absence of the Irish “dh”
is sufficient to transform the fantasies of Terence MacCarthy into a new
Scottish reality.
It seems the former NN members are now courting the new Lord Lyon to grant the
Nia Nasc arms in Scotland. The apparent purpose of this endeavor is to receive
de jure recognition from the Crown as "The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia
Nasc" and then claim that this is a recognized noble corporation.
It is amusing that the decorations of this new “Celtic Noble Fraternity,”
described on Mr McKerrel’s armorial page as “the chain of The Nobiliary
Fraternity of the Nia Naisc, a Celtic fraternity in honour of the ancient Gaelic
Warrior Class, known as Nia Naisc, who wore a golden chain over their
armour” are identical to those of the Tangerian Terence. I suppose this saves
making a reinvestment in elaborate regalia. Nonetheless, despite the purported
antiquity of this “ancient” body, no ancient illustrations of its insignia are
known, and so (again quoting Mr McKerrel), “this rendition is based on an
original line drawing by the Cornish heraldic artist Dennis Endean Ivall.”
The site only displays the arms of 19 members, none others of whom are
apparently NN’s (at least not yet).
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Francois R. Velde
>"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
<groan>
It never ends, does it?....
Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Steven B. Madewell
> My attention has been drawn to the armorial achievement of Charles McKerrel of
> Hillhouse reproduced at
> http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Members/gallery.asp?ID=80 (or go to the main
> page of the Heraldry Society of Scotland,
> http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Homepage.htm and link to Members Arms).
>
>
> The arms depicted show the McKerrel's arms surrounded by the collar of Terence
> McCarthy's NN which, however, is now described as the collar of the Celtic
> Scottish reality.
>
> It seems the former NN members are now courting the new Lord Lyon to grant the
> Nia Nasc arms in Scotland. The apparent purpose of this endeavor is to receive
> de jure recognition from the Crown as "The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia
> Nasc" and then claim that this is a recognized noble corporation.
>
> described on Mr McKerrel’s armorial page as “the chain of The Nobiliary
> Warrior Class, known as Nia Naisc, who wore a golden chain over their
> known, and so (again quoting Mr McKerrel), “this rendition is based on an
> original line drawing by the Cornish heraldic artist Dennis Endean Ivall.”
>
> The site only displays the arms of 19 members, none others of whom are
>
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org
I note he sports the postnomial OStJ.... So, ... is the NN gong
superior to that of OStJ? Or was he a member of NN and obtained this
grant prior to joining OStJ? Just curious....
Guy Stair Sainty
bon...@hotmail.com says...>> [snip]
>I note he sports the postnomial OStJ.... So, ... is the NN gong
>superior to that of OStJ? Or was he a member of NN and obtained this
>grant prior to joining OStJ? Just curious....
I have to check if he is a member of the VOSJ. Strictly, however, the
post-nominal initials are not to be used other than at Order functions,
or in Order related activities or in connection with the other legitimate
Orders of St John. Hence you will see that other members of the Order of
St john who are members of this society do not use these post-nominals.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
>>"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
>
><groan>
>
>It never ends, does it?....
>
>Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
I certainly hope so, but I am afraid we cannot expect too much from the
Heraldry Society of Canada. I wrote a polite comment in their guest book,
congratulating them on their site but making a mildly framed criticism
of the use of this insignia. I received an email this morning from their
webmaster informing me that my comment had been removed, and then
stating:
"I did this not because of any criticism of the Website but because of the
direct attack on one of the Members rights to bear the legal insignia of an
organisation to which he is affiliated.
Our website is dedicated to Scots Heraldry and not to the petty bickering of
the so call 'chivalrous organisations. If you were a member of the Society, I
am fairly sure that you would require the right to display your insignia so
please respect the rights of others."
I suspect we shall soon see the insignia of other "legal" bodies being used.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Francois R. Velde
> described on Mr McKerrel’s armorial page as “the chain of The Nobiliary
> Fraternity of the Nia Naisc, a Celtic fraternity in honour of the ancient Gaelic
> Warrior Class, known as Nia Naisc, who wore a golden chain over their
> armour” are identical to those of the Tangerian Terence.
The enamel in Terence's chain was sometimes green, it's red in this picture.
> I suppose this saves
> making a reinvestment in elaborate regalia. Nonetheless, despite the purported
> antiquity of this “ancient” body, no ancient illustrations of its insignia are
> known, and so (again quoting Mr McKerrel), “this rendition is based on an
> original line drawing by the Cornish heraldic artist Dennis Endean Ivall.”
I think this sentence refers to the whole achievement (I can make out the artist's
initials DEI to the right of the mantling).
It must be the case that the matriculation of those arms (dated 11th July 1973) did not
include any chain, since Terence's scam only got started in the 1980s. What is the
law of arms in Scotland on this point? Is it acceptable to display arms different
from those that are matriculated, when the difference pertains only to the exterior
ornaments?
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Brian Gaylord Jeffs
You missed Mr. Wooten, though his acheivment no longer has a reference to the NN.
Cheers,
Brian
George W. Romanenkov
his arms with the badge of a body unrecognised by the Crown when he
could hang the badge of an officer brother of the highly esteemed
Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem under his
shield. One can only suppose he holds the Nia Naisc in higher regard.
I have always viewed the Heraldry Society of Scotland as a reputable
learned body, especially with the Lord Lyon as its Honorary President,
with this written it should always be remembered that a reputation is
a very fragile thing taking years of hard work to build and and
moments of poor judgement to destroy. If the Lord Lyon King of Arms
grants arms to the so-called "Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc" it
will stain the reputation of the Court of Lord Lyon in the eyes of
serious people for a long time. I don't know about Scotland, but in
England the criteria for a grant of arms to a corporation is
permanency and good reputation. The Nia(dh) Nasc(k) seems to have
neither the former, nor the latter, so why would such a serious person
as the Lord Lyon grant arms to an organization of such a... hmm...
doubtful reputation?
And a question: can a nobiliary corporation can be established in
Scotland or the rest of the UK without a Royal Charter? At least, I
see no precedents so far...
Also... if you read a two-message discussion between Patrick
Cracroft-Brennan and Anthony Maxwell on the HSS Message Board
http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=44
you will find out that the Webmaster of the HSS supports the opinion
'let people display the decorations they wish no matter how bogus they
are, after all, the customer is always right'. The same was some time
ago stated by a person of the American College of Heraldry who made a
mention of the "Royal Order of the Barnyard Chicken" which the ACH was
willing to record in their register. I can only say... it leaves us
only to regret...
George Romanenkov
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote:
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
>>"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
>
><groan>
>
>It never ends, does it?....
>
>Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
I hope so...I've raised the point on the Heraldic Forum on the HSS
wensite.....
Sean J Murphy
forthcoming book on the MacCarthy Mór Hoax, may be of interest:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/niadhnask.htm
Sean Murphy
Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:9u3n6...@drn.newsguy.com...
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
wrote:
>
>Also... if you read a two-message discussion between Patrick
>Cracroft-Brennan and Anthony Maxwell on the HSS Message Board
>http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=44
>you will find out that the Webmaster of the HSS supports the opinion
>'let people display the decorations they wish no matter how bogus they
>are, after all, the customer is always right'. The same was some time
>ago stated by a person of the American College of Heraldry who made a
>mention of the "Royal Order of the Barnyard Chicken" which the ACH was
>willing to record in their register. I can only say... it leaves us
>only to regret...
>
I have replied to Anthony Maxwell on the HSS message board......I
found his attack on this newsgroup somewhat unwarranted (obviously he
does not understand what can happen when people are passionate about a
subject!) and no doubt he will deal with my reply in an equally
dismissive manner.
Edward Doyle
> In article <lq7b0uogpptih51tq...@4ax.com>, Francois says...
> >
> >In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
> >>"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
> >
> ><groan>
> >
> >It never ends, does it?....
> >
> >Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
>
> I certainly hope so, but I am afraid we cannot expect too much from the
> Heraldry Society of Canada.
Do you really mean Canada, or should this be Scotland?
Canada I can (sort of) understand, given some of the things we have heard on
rec.heraldry, but Scotland? Given the reputation of Scots heraldry, the quote
below is astonishing (if indeed it is Scotland).
- Edward
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<seanj...@eircom.net> wrote:
>The following general account of the Niadh Nask, based on a section of my
>forthcoming book on the MacCarthy Mór Hoax, may be of interest:
>http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/niadhnask.htm
>
>Sean Murphy
>
Brilliant!!
Darren S. A. George
>
>I certainly hope so, but I am afraid we cannot expect too much from the
>Our website is dedicated to Scots Heraldry and not to the petty bickering of
>the so call 'chivalrous organisations.
Ummmm...Heraldry Society of Scotland, you mean?
Darren S. A. George
The Mad Alchemist
http://www.mad-alchemy.com/heraldry
"Who are those powers-that-be and what is their agenda? How do I get to be one
of them?" - SLC Cook
George Lucki
> In article <lq7b0uogpptih51tq...@4ax.com>, Francois says...
> >
> >In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
> >>"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
> >
> ><groan>
> >
> >It never ends, does it?....
> >
> >Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
>
> I certainly hope so, but I am afraid we cannot expect too much from the
> Heraldry Society of Canada. I wrote a polite comment in their guest book,
> congratulating them on their site but making a mildly framed criticism
> of the use of this insignia.
Did you mean Canada or Scotland?
George Lucki
George Lucki
> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
> >"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
>
> <groan>
>
> It never ends, does it?....
>
> Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
This is I presume another organization of "silly capes" or perhaps
golden chains. What I don't understand is the meaning of "nobillary
corporation" - is this some sort of a society or private club for
Scottish nobles or is this another chivalric order with faulty
plumbing? Beyond the concern about elaborate regalia and rituals what
is the concern this group raises? The self-augmentation of arms with
what looks like an order is I agree inappropriate. Not trying to be
difficult, just don't know.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Brian Gaylord Jeffs
> > Warrior Class, known as Nia Naisc, who wore a golden chain over their
> The enamel in Terence's chain was sometimes green, it's red in this picture.
Were there not different levels of the NN and therefore different
colors for the insignia?? I don't recall for sure. Any one remember?
BJ
> > I suppose this saves
> > making a reinvestment in elaborate regalia. Nonetheless, despite the purported
> > antiquity of this “ancient” body, no ancient illustrations of its insignia are
> > known, and so (again quoting Mr McKerrel), “this rendition is based on an
> > original line drawing by the Cornish heraldic artist Dennis Endean Ivall.”
James Dempster
of Scotland website. It was strongly worded, but no less so than his
attack on the whole of the body of people who make up the regulars of
this newsgroup. I do not like being called a "bigot".
In my reply I also queried whether the decisions on the inclusion of
such elements were his personally or represented the policy of the
Society. If the latter I asked that this be made clear by an office
bearer either on the forum or elsewhere on the site. I also pointed
out that due to the close association with the Heraldry Society of
Scotland of various members of the Court of the Lord Lyon, any
depiction of arms on the Society's site could be considered to
potentially reflect their views.
In the 30 minutes or so since I made that post to the forum, the whole
thread has been pulled. I hope that Mr Maxwell will use the time to
consider what I believe may be a misguided policy as regards the
display of the arms of Heraldry Society of Scotland members.
If the censorship of that forum is simply to save face on his behalf,
I fully intend taking the matter up with the committee of the Society
and should no adequate reply be forthcoming at the next HSS AGM. I am
willing to take matters as far as the Lord Lyon if necessary.
I await his reply either on the HSS forum or by email.
James
James Dempster (jdem...@easynet.co.uk)
You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
Francois R. Velde
> Were there not different levels of the NN and therefore different
> colors for the insignia?? I don't recall for sure. Any one remember?
You're right: red, green, or blue depending on the division.
As for the color of the cap inside the "gaelic crown" it's sometimes red,
sometimes green (e.g., green in the "royal arms" of Terence MacCarthy).
James Dempster
of Scotland and the matter is being forwarded to the Chairman of that
Society.
I hope that it will be possible to clarify just what does and does not
go onto the Society's website.
If other members of the Society who are regulars here wish to make
representations to the Chairman concerning this matter, now would
appear to be the ideal time to do so.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>Also... if you read a two-message discussion between Patrick
>Cracroft-Brennan and Anthony Maxwell on the HSS Message Board
>http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=44
>you will find out that the Webmaster of the HSS supports the opinion
>'let people display the decorations they wish no matter how bogus they
>are, after all, the customer is always right'. The same was some time
>ago stated by a person of the American College of Heraldry who made a
>mention of the "Royal Order of the Barnyard Chicken" which the ACH was
>willing to record in their register. I can only say... it leaves us
>only to regret...
Patrick was lucky that Mr Maxwell was so sparing in his comments. To me
he wrote: "I have to say that there is no intention to discuss or debate the so
called chivalric orders on the website. They are not heraldic matters and
frankly of no interest to me or 99.999% of the worlds population what-so-ever.
As far as I am concerned they are just boy clubs for gangs of fantasy seeking
men and women who could surely find something better to do with their lives.
You are clearly missing the point of your own quest, “in the vanguard of
challenging the aims and activities of self styled orders of knighthood”. If
they are ‘self styled’, what the hell has it got to do with you and why are you
challenging their aims and activities? It is their club, not yours, if they ask
you to join, I’m sure you are big enough and daft enough to say no.
If you want to fight something, fight Bigotry, Racial Hatred, Religious
Intolerance. Get off the case of a bunch of blokes having fun in their own
club. And if you are really worried about fraud and deceit, join the police
force and defend the innocent from a position of authority." [end quote]
No doubt Mr Maxwell is off fighting bigotry, etc, in between his activities
as webmaster of the HS of S website, an extraordinarily worthy activity
which he presumably believes is of interest to that 99.999% of the world's
population who share his disdain for chivalric orders.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>
>
>It must be the case that the matriculation of those arms (dated 11th July 1973)
>did not
>include any chain, since Terence's scam only got started in the 1980s. What is
>the
>law of arms in Scotland on this point? Is it acceptable to display arms
>different
>from those that are matriculated, when the difference pertains only to the
>exterior
>ornaments?
According to the ill-mannered webmaster of the HS of S web site:
""This HSS website is not the website of the Lyon Court. If the Lord Lyon has
any objection to anything displayed on the website I am sure he will make his
objection known to me at the earliest opportunity. I hasten to add, that so far,
he has objected to nothing.
I am sure you have studied heraldry long enough to be aware that any armiger can
decorate or portray his achievement as he chooses for his own use as long as he
does not assume augmentations or exterior adornments to which he is not entitle.
As far as I am concerned if a member want to ‘enhance’ his achievement with
order of the golden moonshine of inner circle of the golden light of number 34
poplar crescent, he can do so. It is not for us to judge." [End quote]
This (gentle)man ends his email to me with the statement:
"And whilst I am on the subject, I am frankly hacked off with the continual
clap-trap that you and your bunch of cronies spout on the rec.heraldry site.
Isn’t that supposed to be a forum for Heraldry?"
In the face of his displeasure, should we perhaps not considering closing
down all exchanges that are not first vetted by this individual (a Mr
Anthony Maxwell).
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Robert MacAndrew
from Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> contains these words:
> My attention has been drawn to the armorial achievement of Charles McKerrel of
> Hillhouse reproduced at
> http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Members/gallery.asp?ID=80 (or go to the main
> page of the Heraldry Society of Scotland,
> http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Homepage.htm and link to Members Arms).
> The McKerrel of Hillhouse was formerly one of Terence MacCarthy’s disciples and
> a member of the Niadh Nask.
> The arms depicted show the McKerrel's arms surrounded by the collar of Terence
> McCarthy's NN which, however, is now described as the collar of the Celtic
> nobiliary fraternity of the Nia Nasc. Apparently the absence of the Irish “dh”
> is sufficient to transform the fantasies of Terence MacCarthy into a new
> Scottish reality.
In Scots Gaelic the name would be Niadh Nasg; the form Nia Nasc looks
like modern Irish.
RMcA
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
>> In article <lq7b0uogpptih51tq...@4ax.com>, Francois says...
>> >
>> >In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
>> >>"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
>> >
>> ><groan>
>> >
>> >It never ends, does it?....
>> >
>> >Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
>>
>> I certainly hope so, but I am afraid we cannot expect too much from the
>> Heraldry Society of Canada.
>
>Do you really mean Canada, or should this be Scotland?
I am sorry, I should have written Scotland!
>Canada I can (sort of) understand, given some of the things we have heard on
>rec.heraldry, but Scotland? Given the reputation of Scots heraldry, the quote
>below is astonishing (if indeed it is Scotland).
>- Edward
I will send you a copy of the webmaster's astonishing emails to me!
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
Read Sean Murphy's article(s) on the NN and MacCarthy Mor, then you will
understand the nature of these organizations. MacCarthy, incidentally,
used his pretended status to fool many different people, and as well
as joining St Lazarus, and getting the false President of the Polish
government in exile to confer upon him the "Order of Polonia restituta,"
also used another unwitting connection to be recommended for admission
to the Constantinian Order.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Thomas J.F. Wallis
>> Fraternity of the Nia Naisc, a Celtic fraternity in honour of the ancient
Gaelic>> Warrior Class, known as Nia Naisc, who wore a golden chain over
their
>> armour” are identical to those of the Tangerian Terence.
>
>
Nonetheless, despite the purported>> antiquity of this “ancient” body, no
ancient illustrations of its insignia are>> known, and so (again quoting Mr
McKerrel), “this rendition is based on an>> original line drawing by the
Cornish heraldic artist Dennis Endean Ivall.”
>
artist's>initials DEI to the right of the mantling).
>
1973) did not>include any chain, since Terence's scam only got started in
the
1980s. What is the>law of arms in Scotland on this point? Is it acceptable
to display arms different>from those that are matriculated, when the
difference pertains only to the exterior>ornaments?
>
>
Not 100% sure, but I believe the external display (chains, decorations, et
cet.) beyond the "officially" granted shield, crest, helm, mantling, and
(possible) supporters or compartmenting is governed more by custom and good
(or bad?) taste than law.
Regards,
Thomas J.F. Wallis
James Dempster
<TJFW...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>Not 100% sure, but I believe the external display (chains, decorations, et
>cet.) beyond the "officially" granted shield, crest, helm, mantling, and
>(possible) supporters or compartmenting is governed more by custom and good
>(or bad?) taste than law.
The webmaster of the HSS web site's current view is that he will post
anything so long as you can prove that you're entitled to it. I
suggested that once I had formally granted arms I could create four
orders, have an heraldic artist prepare a drawing festooned with
collars and the like and submit it and he would have to accept it.
He raised no objections to this proposal.
I've never before experienced ordenshunger (check spelling someone)
but suddenly investiture in the Order of My Back Yard (apologies for
probably getting the name wrong) seems strangely attractive :-)
Thomas J.F. Wallis
>golden chains. What I don't understand is the meaning of "nobillary
>corporation" - is this some sort of a society or private club for
>Scottish nobles or is this another chivalric order with faulty
>plumbing? Beyond the concern about elaborate regalia and rituals what
>is the concern this group raises? The self-augmentation of arms with
>what looks like an order is I agree inappropriate. Not trying to be
>difficult, just don't know.
You're on the right track with the former, i.e., "silly capes". This
"nobillary corporation" has little or nothing to do with Scottish nobles,
but
rather faux-Irish ones.
The commotion over the NN has more to do with the, I believe, the MacCarthy
Mor connection (please see Mr Sean J Murphy's excellent explanations on this
topic) AND the NN corruption/disruption of the past activities of the ICOC
(and other bodies?).
Regards,
Thomas J.F. Wallis
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>I have had a reply by email from the webmaster of the Heraldry Society
>of Scotland and the matter is being forwarded to the Chairman of that
>Society.
>
>I hope that it will be possible to clarify just what does and does not
>go onto the Society's website.
>
>If other members of the Society who are regulars here wish to make
>representations to the Chairman concerning this matter, now would
>appear to be the ideal time to do so.
>
I was struck by his comments regarding Orders and their members, bearing in
mind his chairman is a Knight Grand Cross of Obedience of the SMOM and a
Knight of Justice of the Most Venerable Order of St John (as well as
a sometime, twice resigned, once rejoined, member of the Sacred Military
Constantinian Order of Saint George headed by Prince Ferdinand of
Bourbon-Two Sicilies), who dedicated some considerable effort to
complain about the decision of the Chief Herald of Canada's grant of
arms to a "self-styled" Order of St John. I would be interested to
learn if Mr Maxwell's comments were intended to include the chairman
of the Society, who has had a long term interest in Orders of Chivalry, or Fra
Frederick Crichton-Stuart whose arms are also displayed on the site, and
who is a Professed Knight of Justice of the SMOM. I wonder if Mr Maxwell
considers that someone who has made the monastic promises of chastity,
poverty and obedience as a sign of his religious devotion, is merely a
member of a "boy club(s) for gangs of fantasy seeking men and women who could
surely find something better to do with their lives."
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Tamás the Sellsword
One gets the feeling that Mr Maxwell was having a bad day and simply
volleyed-off without sufficient forethought.
Regards,
Tamás the Sellsword
RenMerc# 465
Esquire Úallas de Király, Diplomat-at-Arms
Consort of Lady Monncha Uí Séaghdha (the Roguette)
"Can't Dance, Might As Well Drink."
51.6% FaireFolk pure (48.4% FaireFolk corrupt)
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Mr Maxwell was obviously NOT pleased with my response. Here is the
content of an e-mail he sent to me:
Dear Sir
Because I have the right and ability to decide as to the palatability
of material on the HSS website. I have decided to remove the entire
thread of the topic you posted on the Forum and will send the
contents to the Chairman with my recommendation that similar material
which makes accusations against members and their rights will also be
removed.
regards
Anthony Maxwell
Somewhat alarming to see that censorship is so well founded north of
the Border!!!
Thomas J.F. Wallis
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:57:38 GMT, "Thomas J.F. Wallis"
><TJFW...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
>>Not 100% sure, but I believe the external display (chains, decorations, et
>>cet.) beyond the "officially" granted shield, crest, helm, mantling, and
>>(possible) supporters or compartmenting is governed more by custom and good
>>(or bad?) taste than law.
>
>The webmaster of the HSS web site's current view is that he will post
>anything so long as you can prove that you're entitled to it. I
>suggested that once I had formally granted arms I could create four
>orders, have an heraldic artist prepare a drawing festooned with
>collars and the like and submit it and he would have to accept it.
>
>He raised no objections to this proposal.
I suppose that the Society website is taking the somewhat defensible stance
that if an armiger is of sufficient good character to be granted or
matriculated by LL, then they will take their word for their additional
ornamentation.
>
>I've never before experienced ordenshunger (check spelling someone)
>but suddenly investiture in the Order of My Back Yard (apologies for
>probably getting the name wrong) seems strangely attractive :-)
>
>James
>
>You know you've had a good night
>when you wake up
>and someone's outlining you in chalk.
I once had the idea for sewing white ribbon into a chalk-outline shape for
greater portability.
Regards,
Thomas J.F. Wallis
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
My own view is that copies of Mr Maxwell's comments ot members of this
newsgroup should be sent to the Chairman of the HSS with a request
that he intructs Mt Maxwell to be more polite in future and not quite
so aggressive.
Francois R. Velde
> The webmaster of the HSS web site's current view is that he will post
> anything so long as you can prove that you're entitled to it. I
> suggested that once I had formally granted arms I could create four
> orders, have an heraldic artist prepare a drawing festooned with
> collars and the like and submit it and he would have to accept it.
> He raised no objections to this proposal.
I suggest that one of the collars of your orders look like the following:
a figure of St. Pantaloon slaying a basilisk, hanging from a collar of
knots alternating with hawthorne flowers each surrounded by a turquoise belt,
inscribed in gold letters "ores pour quelque chose de completement different."
St. Pantaloon is a distant cousin of St. George, whose career was not unlike
that of his more famous relative. The two saints, however, could not possibly
be confused because of St. Pantaloon's distinctive limp.
You may also surround your arms with the collar of the Most Chaotic Dis-Order
of the Usenet which, as Hereditary Grand Keeper of the rec.heraldry FAQ, I
hereby bestow upon you for services rendered to the newsgroup, that you may
enjoy all due honors, rank and privileges; in witness whereof I have hereunto
set my .sig, this twenty-ninth day of November in the year 2K+1 and of our
blessed newsgroup the ninth.
(Old-timers may recall that the collar consists of flames gules and thunderbolts
or, with a keyboard argent as pendant. Gosh, that takes me back...).
--
His Enormity François R. Velde,
by the Grease of Cod Hereditary Grand Keeper of the rec.heraldry FAQ
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote:
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit James Dempster <jdem...@easynet.co.uk> os suum:
>> The webmaster of the HSS web site's current view is that he will post
>> anything so long as you can prove that you're entitled to it. I
>> suggested that once I had formally granted arms I could create four
>> orders, have an heraldic artist prepare a drawing festooned with
>> collars and the like and submit it and he would have to accept it.
>
>> He raised no objections to this proposal.
>
>I suggest that one of the collars of your orders look like the following:
>a figure of St. Pantaloon slaying a basilisk, hanging from a collar of
>knots alternating with hawthorne flowers each surrounded by a turquoise belt,
>inscribed in gold letters "ores pour quelque chose de completement different."
>
>St. Pantaloon is a distant cousin of St. George, whose career was not unlike
>that of his more famous relative. The two saints, however, could not possibly
>be confused because of St. Pantaloon's distinctive limp.
>
>You may also surround your arms with the collar of the Most Chaotic Dis-Order
>of the Usenet which, as Hereditary Grand Keeper of the rec.heraldry FAQ, I
>hereby bestow upon you for services rendered to the newsgroup, that you may
>enjoy all due honors, rank and privileges; in witness whereof I have hereunto
>set my .sig, this twenty-ninth day of November in the year 2K+1 and of our
>blessed newsgroup the ninth.
>
>(Old-timers may recall that the collar consists of flames gules and thunderbolts
>or, with a keyboard argent as pendant. Gosh, that takes me back...).
Grief!! Has it really been nine years? Surely not........
Darren S. A. George
>inscribed in gold letters "ores pour quelque chose de completement different."
My French is rusty- is this -really- "and now for something completely
different."?
>(Old-timers may recall that the collar consists of flames gules and
> thunderbolts or, with a keyboard argent as pendant.
Sigh, and here I was starting to think that I qualified as an old regular after
only three or four years....
Francois R. Velde
<hme...@heraldicmedia.com> os suum:
>Grief!! Has it really been nine years? Surely not........
Not since you came along; but rec.heraldry started in the fall of 1992. Josh
Mittleman surely remembers.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Francois R. Velde
>Twas brillig, and Francois R. Velde slithely toved....
>
>>inscribed in gold letters "ores pour quelque chose de completement different."
>
>My French is rusty- is this -really- "and now for something completely
>different."?
In slightly archaic French, yes...
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Steven B. Madewell
> I posted a reply to Mr Maxwell, the webmaster of the Heraldry Society
> of Scotland website. It was strongly worded, but no less so than his
> attack on the whole of the body of people who make up the regulars of
> this newsgroup. I do not like being called a "bigot".
>
> In my reply I also queried whether the decisions on the inclusion of
> such elements were his personally or represented the policy of the
> Society. If the latter I asked that this be made clear by an office
> bearer either on the forum or elsewhere on the site. I also pointed
> out that due to the close association with the Heraldry Society of
> Scotland of various members of the Court of the Lord Lyon, any
> depiction of arms on the Society's site could be considered to
> potentially reflect their views.
A valid point. I hope LL nips this in the bud. Otherwise we can only
construe ... Qui tacet consenti’re vide’tur.
> In the 30 minutes or so since I made that post to the forum, the whole
> thread has been pulled. I hope that Mr Maxwell will use the time to
> consider what I believe may be a misguided policy as regards the
> display of the arms of Heraldry Society of Scotland members.
You aren't the only one to be come under HSS censorship. One of my
posts was removed with near lightening speed. Looks to me like NN and
their associates have found a new home. It would be a pity to see yet
another recruiting station for them set up shop, especially with LL's
sanction.
George Lucki
> In article <65e42eca.01112...@posting.google.com>,
glu...@cha.ab.ca
> says...
> >
> >Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote in message
> >news:<lq7b0uogpptih51tq...@4ax.com>...
> >> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os
suum:
> >> >"The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Nasc"
> >>
> >> <groan>
> >>
> >> It never ends, does it?....
> >>
> >> Let's just hope common sense prevails in Edinburgh.
> >
> >This is I presume another organization of "silly capes" or perhaps
> >golden chains. What I don't understand is the meaning of "nobillary
> >corporation" - is this some sort of a society or private club for
> >Scottish nobles or is this another chivalric order with faulty
> >plumbing? Beyond the concern about elaborate regalia and rituals what
> >is the concern this group raises? The self-augmentation of arms with
> >what looks like an order is I agree inappropriate. Not trying to be
> >difficult, just don't know.
>
> Read Sean Murphy's article(s) on the NN and MacCarthy Mor, then you will
> understand the nature of these organizations.
Fascinating account.
MacCarthy, incidentally,
> used his pretended status to fool many different people, and as well
> as joining St Lazarus, and getting the false President of the Polish
> government in exile to confer upon him the "Order of Polonia restituta,"
Are you referring to the very colourful Mr. Serene Highness Prince Count
Grand Master Excellency Sokolnicki? I thought he stopped giving out military
ranks and Polonia Restituta crosses in 1990 with the fall of communism and
focused on his very own 'new and improved' Order of St. Stanislaus.
I ask because the Polish Government in Exile did legitimately award the
Polonia Restituta as the legal successor of the pre-war government of
Poland. This government transferred its authority to the democratically
elected President Walesa in a ceremony in Warsaw about a decade ago.
George Lucki
news4all
> This (gentle)man ends his email to me with the statement:
>
> "And whilst I am on the subject, I am frankly hacked off with the
continual
> clap-trap that you and your bunch of cronies spout on the rec.heraldry
site.
> Isn't that supposed to be a forum for Heraldry?"
Good point, forcefully made.
>
> this individual (a Mr
> Anthony Maxwell).
Ah! ad hominem
news4all
"Patrick Cracroft-Brennan" <hme...@heraldicmedia.com> wrote in message > I
have replied to Anthony Maxwell on the HSS message board......I
> found his attack on this newsgroup somewhat unwarranted
I did not read it as an attack on the newsgroup. I thought he was referring
to a tendency for discussions about coats of arms to be overwhelmed by
discussions about orders of chivalry. Like me, he seems to be interested in
the former and not the latter.
news4all
> Patrick was lucky that Mr Maxwell was so sparing in his comments. To me
> he wrote: "I have to say that there is no intention to discuss or debate
the so
> called chivalric orders on the website. They are not heraldic matters and
> frankly of no interest to me or 99.999% of the worlds population
what-so-ever.
> As far as I am concerned they are just boy clubs for gangs of fantasy
seeking
> men and women who could surely find something better to do with their
lives.
>
> You are clearly missing the point of your own quest, "in the vanguard of
> challenging the aims and activities of self styled orders of knighthood".
If
> they are 'self styled', what the hell has it got to do with you and why
are you
> challenging their aims and activities? It is their club, not yours, if
they ask
> you to join, I'm sure you are big enough and daft enough to say no.
>
> If you want to fight something, fight Bigotry, Racial Hatred, Religious
> Intolerance. Get off the case of a bunch of blokes having fun in their own
> club.
Good heavens! A person interested in heraldry who lives in the real world!
What will these countries with a living heraldic tradition come up with
next?
Bryan Maloney
news:9u7qn1$ebg$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Good heavens! A person interested in heraldry who lives in the real
> world! What will these countries with a living heraldic tradition come
> up with next?
Let's see. Somebody who cravenly cowers behind a pseudonym denounces the
expose of self-styled orders. How appropriate...
--
"Why then did the passengers on the plane that went down near Pittsburgh
decide to resist the hijackers and prevent them from completing their
mission? Because they knew: their relatives had told them by cell phone that
the World Trade Center had already been attacked by hijacked planes. They
were armed with final awareness of the nature of the evil they faced.
So armed, they could act. So armed, they did."
--Time Magazine
Francois R. Velde
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>news:9u66h...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> This (gentle)man ends his email to me with the statement:
>>
>> "And whilst I am on the subject, I am frankly hacked off with the
>continual
>> clap-trap that you and your bunch of cronies spout on the rec.heraldry
>site.
>> Isn't that supposed to be a forum for Heraldry?"
>
>Good point, forcefully made.
You mean "Anybody who does not agree with my definition of rec.heraldry is a
crony of Guy Sainty" is a good point?
Whether discussions of orders and decorations is outside heraldry or not has
been debated many times here over the years. There are people who think so,
others who don't. There are arguments to be made on both sides. M. Maxwell is
not the only one to be exasperated by the persistence of these threads on
rec.heraldry. But his contribution to the debate is nil.
As webmaster of the HSS website he can certainly make sure that its forum does
not touch on this or that topic. Rec.heraldry cannot be so controlled, and the
only recourse he or anyone else has against "clap-trap" is the delete key, or a
well-managed killfile.
>> this individual (a Mr
>> Anthony Maxwell).
>
>Ah! ad hominem
??? A complete sentence would help understand what the anonymous poster had in
mind. He or she seems to think that designating a person by their name is an
"ad hominem" attack. That is not the meaning of that phrase. I don't believe
anyone has said anything whatsoever about M. Maxwell's character.
DavidWu10
>You missed Mr. Wooten, though his acheivment no longer has a reference to the
>NN.
Mr Wooten has not been a member of the NN (in whatever incarnation it chooses
to resurrect itself) since the McCarthy issue reached a head. In fact, I
sacrificed several tens of thousands of dollars worth of books my company
published (penned by McCarthy, Davison, etc) because I knew they were more
fiction than fact - supporting a nonexistent/fabricated organization.
If any of you need trunk weight/firewood for the winter season, I have plenty
of kindling for you in the form of library bound and peperback editions...
David R Wooten
victim of MacCarthy-no-More
Cook SLC
>St john who are members of this society do not use these post-nominals.
Not justifying such, but I have noticed that in the UK the postnomials have
increasingly been used outside of the Order.
Glen A. Cook
Attorney (US)
Solicitor (England & Wales)
Cook, Skeen & Robinson, L.L.C.
5788 S. 900 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
USA
Phone: *01-801-266-7414
Fax: *01-801-892-5067
glen...@cooklaw.org
Francois R. Velde
os suum:
>Not 100% sure, but I believe the external display (chains, decorations, et
>cet.) beyond the "officially" granted shield, crest, helm, mantling, and
>(possible) supporters or compartmenting is governed more by custom and good
>(or bad?) taste than law.
I certainly can't find anything in Stevenson or Innes of Learney to the contrary
(they don't even discuss the matter of decorations and orders). I find that a
little surprising, but so it is.
If the Scottish law of arms has no objection to the addition of fanciful
decorations, it's a little hard to see at first what the webmaster of the HSS
can do about it. If the law of arms doesn't care, why should he? And if he
did, on what basis should he allow or disallow this or that ornament? The only
simple criterion one could think of is to allow only the display of British
royal orders, or maybe only British and foreign state orders. (Guy wouldn't be
able to include his Januarius insignia, for example). To make finer
distinctions would require the webmaster to turn himself into a one-man
commission on orders of chivalry, and no one can blame him for refusing the job!
The problem, of course, is that the HSS will find itself drawn into the matter
sooner or later. In particular, the presence of this collar in the arms of a
member displayed in the HSS's online gallery of arms will become part of the
body of "evidence" that will be inevitably adduced to legitimize the
organization.
What is considerably more serious (but goes beyond the HSS website) is if the
resurrected NN is trying to worm its way into Scottish heraldry by way of a
grant of arms. But that's another matter.
On the original question, it seems that a well-placed disclaimer would be
sufficient: presumably, the description in the text accompanying the arms ("The
collar shown is the chain of The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia Naisc, a Celtic
fraternity in honour of the ancient Gaelic Warrior Class, known as Nia Naisc,
who wore a golden chain over their armour") was supplied by the armiger, and is
not endorsed or checked for accuracy by the HSS.
Francois R. Velde
I have a quick question about those books: the Clan MacCarthy Association in
Belfast seems to have some of them on sale (http://www.maccarthymor.net/clannpress.htm).
Are those reprints of the Gryfon editions, then?
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Guy Stair Sainty
>>
>> If you want to fight something, fight Bigotry, Racial Hatred, Religious
>> Intolerance. Get off the case of a bunch of blokes having fun in their own
>> club.
>
>Good heavens! A person interested in heraldry who lives in the real world!
>What will these countries with a living heraldic tradition come up with
>next?
>
self-styled Orders reasonable; I perceive his toleration of their activities
as that of an "enabler".
Just yesterday I was informed that the US Justice department had issued
indictments and arrested a group of people who have been involved for
decades in one of the most notorious "self-styled" orders of St John. This
they coupled with a fraudulent banking operation and lured individuals who
believed they were supporting humanitarian work into parting with $millions.
This fraud was first exposed because one of those defrauded found the
information on my web site about the so-called Order, and I was able to help
this person and the US Justice department in their inquiries.
Meanwhile another such body has stolen millions of funds intended to assist
the poor and desparate in West Africa, while another has been involved in
gun-running to one of the factions in Angola. In Europe a self-styled
Order of Malta has been selling "diplomatc passports" and honors, while
another based in Italy has used the name of the Order of Malta but then
sells the services of call-girls.
In the case of the MacCarthy Mor, a number of somewhat naive people with a
romanticised view of Irish history were persuaded to part with tens of
thousands of dollars to obtain a worthless title and honor that they
believed linked them with their Gaelic past.
Perhaps you and Mr Maxwell consider such activities should be tolerated;
fortunately the forces of law and order strongly dissent. You may be
surprised to learn that criminal fraud and stealing from the most
desparate and most in need is part of the real world, and combatting
these activities a worthwhile endeavor - even if Mr Maxwell considers
that the people behind such bodies should be entitled to do what they please
and get away with their crimes.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit "Thomas J.F. Wallis" <TJFW...@MailAndNews.com>
>os suum:
>>Not 100% sure, but I believe the external display (chains, decorations, et
>>cet.) beyond the "officially" granted shield, crest, helm, mantling, and
>>(possible) supporters or compartmenting is governed more by custom and good
>>(or bad?) taste than law.
>
>I certainly can't find anything in Stevenson or Innes of Learney to the contrary
>(they don't even discuss the matter of decorations and orders). I find that a
>little surprising, but so it is.
>
>If the Scottish law of arms has no objection to the addition of fanciful
>decorations, it's a little hard to see at first what the webmaster of the HSS
>can do about it. If the law of arms doesn't care, why should he? And if he
>did, on what basis should he allow or disallow this or that ornament? The only
>simple criterion one could think of is to allow only the display of British
>royal orders, or maybe only British and foreign state orders. (Guy wouldn't be
>able to include his Januarius insignia, for example). To make finer
>distinctions would require the webmaster to turn himself into a one-man
>commission on orders of chivalry, and no one can blame him for refusing the job!
Noentheless the Lord Lyon does take a view on this, and allows some
decorations but not others. Interestingly he permits the decorations of
the SMOM to be used (as, for example, in Fra Frederick crichton-Stuart's
arms), although the College of Arms does not. He also (I believe) allows
Knights of Malat the knight's helm - as he does knights of the VOSJ
(although strangely, the College does not - I have in vain sought for an
explanation of the latter's decision in this case - both the
College and LL allow supporters to Knights GC of St john, but not of
course to Knights GC of Malta).
Somewhat inconsistently, although he allows the SMOM decorations, I was
refused the use of my St Gregory the Great badge and star in a patent or
official painting of my arms as matriculated in Scotland - on the grounds
that since 1990 (I think that is the year) the FOP determined that it
was a Church, rather than a State award. This seemed to me to be a
contradiction in the light of the recognition accorded the SMOM.
The Lord Lyon may at one time have allowed the use of St Lazarus
insignia (under Sir T I of L) but no longer. Otherwise, the only
Orders whose insignia may be used are those for which official permission
has been obtained from the Sovereign (via the FO).
I am not sure whether there is a statutory or customary basis for these
distinctions, but they clearly exist. So when the webmaster of the HS of S
makes a contrary determination (and without even being an elected official
of the Society or, as far as I can see from what I have read on the site,
authorized to make such determinations) he is clearly contradicting the
established policy of the Lord Lyon.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Francois R. Velde
> decorations but not others.
How is that view publicized or manifested? You mention that he controls
what gets painted in a patent. It is the case that the armiger must not
use arms that are any different from those painted in the patent, or is
LL's view just a policy applicable only to his official painter? LL might
have strong views about how elaborate the mantlings ought to be on a
patent or how green the grass on the compartment, without such views being
part of the law of arms.
I'm playing devil's advocate here (Mr. or Mrs. "news4all" is free to
misconstrue this as an "ad hominem" attack on M. Maxwell: I just called
him a devil!).
> Somewhat inconsistently, although he allows the SMOM decorations, I was
> refused the use of my St Gregory the Great badge and star in a patent or
> official painting of my arms as matriculated in Scotland - on the grounds
> that since 1990 (I think that is the year) the FOP determined that it
> was a Church, rather than a State award. This seemed to me to be a
> contradiction in the light of the recognition accorded the SMOM.
He presumably does not consider the SMOM to be a Church award. That does
not strike me as unreasonable, given how heavily the SMOM insists on its
juridical independence from the Church! If LL considers the SMOM as a
"state" sui generis, there is neither internal inconsistency nor inconsistency
with the SMOM's own views of itself.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Thomas J.F. Wallis
>>You missed Mr. Wooten, though his acheivment no longer has a reference to
the
>>NN.
>
>Mr Wooten has not been a member of the NN (in whatever incarnation it chooses
>to resurrect itself) since the McCarthy issue reached a head. In fact, I
>sacrificed several tens of thousands of dollars worth of books my company
>published (penned by McCarthy, Davison, etc) because I knew they were more
>fiction than fact - supporting a nonexistent/fabricated organization.
>
>If any of you need trunk weight/firewood for the winter season, I have plenty
>of kindling for you in the form of library bound and peperback editions...
>
>victim of MacCarthy-no-More
Bravo Mr Wooten.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
>> Noentheless the Lord Lyon does take a view on this, and allows some
>> decorations but not others.
>
>How is that view publicized or manifested? You mention that he controls
>what gets painted in a patent. It is the case that the armiger must not
>use arms that are any different from those painted in the patent, or is
>LL's view just a policy applicable only to his official painter? LL might
>have strong views about how elaborate the mantlings ought to be on a
>patent or how green the grass on the compartment, without such views being
>part of the law of arms.
>
>> Somewhat inconsistently, although he allows the SMOM decorations, [snip]
>
>He presumably does not consider the SMOM to be a Church award. That does
>not strike me as unreasonable, given how heavily the SMOM insists on its
>juridical independence from the Church! If LL considers the SMOM as a
>"state" sui generis, there is neither internal inconsistency nor inconsistency
>with the SMOM's own views of itself.
The inconsistency that struck me was that his reason for the decision to
exclude St Gregory the Great (that until c. 1990 was allowed unrestricted
permission as a "state" award) was that the Sovereign did not accord
accord permission to wear it as a decoration. However she has never allowed
the decorations of the SMOM to be so worn, and indeed the SMOM has no
status in the UK other than as a registered charity.
In his regulation of Scottish Arms, most of what the LL requires is established
by heraldic custom, not by law or statute. He is authorized by statute to
have sole authority in Scotland over herladiv matters, but statute does not make
any provision regarding the conventions of heraldry that LL will insist on
when matriculating or granting arms. Hence, presumably, when he makes some
decision regarding what augemntations can be added he is doing so on the
same basis - acting under his statutory authority. The Crown does in fact
retain the right to authorize, or refuse authorization for the wearing of a
non-British decoration. This extends to the regulation of the wearing of Orders
and decorations - for example, I do not believe one can wear one's RSPCA
medal (say), with military decorations (even though in that case the Queen
is Patron of the RSPCA).
I believe we may assume, therefore, that in circumstances where the Sovereign's
authority may be exercised (as it is, for example, in respect of the use of
decorations on military uniform, or by members of the diplomatic service, or
anyone in the royal service), which includes Arms, I would assume also that
Lord Lyon can claim authority over what augmentationhs may be assumed or
added to Arms born in Scotland.
Clearly the LL has no authority over what anyone may add to the display of
Arms outside Scotland, but he mujst surely command such authority in
Scotland.
If I am correct about this, then I find it strange that the HS of S, of which
the LL is an honorary member, would consider adopting some other policy.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
> I posted a reply to Mr Maxwell, the webmaster of the Heraldry Society
> of Scotland website. It was strongly worded, but no less so than his
> attack on the whole of the body of people who make up the regulars of
> this newsgroup. I do not like being called a "bigot".
>
> In my reply I also queried whether the decisions on the inclusion of
> such elements were his personally or represented the policy of the
> Society. If the latter I asked that this be made clear by an office
> bearer either on the forum or elsewhere on the site. I also pointed
> out that due to the close association with the Heraldry Society of
> Scotland of various members of the Court of the Lord Lyon, any
> depiction of arms on the Society's site could be considered to
> potentially reflect their views.
(Snip)
Excellent. Here is what I have just added myself:
Sir,
My attention has been drawn to the fact that at the new—and
otherwise quite impressive—website of our society, the roll of
arms of members includes that of a member, Charles McKerrel of
Hillhouse, whose arms sports the so-called “Niadh Nask,”
or as it is here called “The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia
Naisc.”
I am most surprised and disturbed by the use of such
“insignia” in heraldry at this website. The organization
was founded by Terence MacCarthy, who claimed to be “Prince of
Desmond” and that this was his “dynastic house
order,” which supposedly had founded more than a thousand years
ago. Two years ago it was finally demonstrated that he in fact had no
genealogical connection with the MacCarthy of Munster, and that the NN
was—as some of us had long believed—an entirely new
invention, dating back only to the 1980s.
There is in fact no historical evidence of such an “order”
ever having existed as a body in the medieval period, and even less of
any historical continuity to the present, and it is beyond my
comprehension why the HSS will allow it to be promoted as a
“noble confraternity”. If the argument is, as I suspect,
that the HSS does not want to pass any judgment on the insignia used
by members in relation to their arms, then what would the society and
its webmaster do, if I as member submitted my arms with insignia
portraying me as a member of the Order of Malta, the Order of the
Thistle, the Order of the Garter, etc.? I do not belong to any of
these orders, but I could always found some new “orders”
bearing these names and using these insignia—would the HSS
webmaster then also accept this without “passing
judgment”?
I have been a member of the Heraldry Society of Scotland for several
years, and I hold its work and its publications in the highest esteem;
the scholarly character and good critical sense of the society is, or
ought to be, an ideal for any heraldic society anywhere in the world.
But if the HSS in such a way promotes an organization, which is
without any basis in historical fact, then it will be a most
unfortunate spot on the reputation of the society, and thus—by
association—indirectly on the Court of Lord Lyon and Scottish
heraldry. In such a case I am afraid I will have to take my
membership of the HSS up for serious reconsideration.
Sincerely,
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
Timothy A. McDaniel
Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
>another based in Italy has used the name of the Order of Malta but
>then sells the services of call-girls.
"Could you send round a professed Knight of Justice for the weekend?"
The mind boggles.
--
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
Francois R. Velde
> Arms outside Scotland, but he mujst surely command such authority in
> Scotland.
There's no doubt in my mind about that. The LL exercises the royal prerogative
and regulates the use of heraldry in Scotland; addition of ornaments such as
orders and decorations to an achievement obviously comes within his remit
(which is why, ultimately, questions about orders are difficult to exclude
from rec.heraldry; like questions of titles, or anything that has been
traditionally represented in heraldic achievements).
The question is whether and to what extent LL has *actually* regulated decorations.
The absence of any discussion of the matter in Stevenson and Innes of Learney makes
me suspect that, at least until a few decades ago, he perhaps didn't.
There's another interesting question: is LL bound by some principle of
consistency when regulating decorations, consistency, that is, with similar
regulations of decorations in other contexts (such as military personnel
wearing decorations etc). From the example you cite, it seems that he does
not (or did not) feel so bound. Since the regulation of heraldry is
essentially an arbitrary exercise of the royal prerogative, the sovereign
has no need to be consistent; hence LL need not be consistent with, say,
the Foreign Office (each seen as an agent of the sovereign, exercising
a portion of that prerogative).
Darren S. A. George
>
>But if the HSS in such a way promotes an organization, which is
>without any basis in historical fact, then it will be a most
Surely you mean "a blot on the escutcheon"?
Steven B. Madewell
Earlier Mr. Maxwell stated, "I have to say that there is no intention
to discuss or debate the so called chivalric orders on the [HSS]
website. They are not heraldic matters and frankly of no interest to
me or 99.999% of the worlds population what-so-ever. As far as I am
concerned they are just boy clubs for gangs of fantasy seeking men and
women who could surely find something better to do with their lives."
Until recently I (more-or-less) shared Mr. Maxwell's opinion. My
vision for the AAH was to create an association focused on "heraldry"
alone and my intention was to open membership to any and all. I felt
that these self-styled Orders consisted of wannabe's who liked
dressing up in capes and gongs in order to live out their romantic,
nostalgic fantasies, rather like many SCA members do.
The difference is that most SCA members understand that their titles
are fanciful at best and their role playing is pure fantasy.
Self-styled Orders on the other hand tend to take themselves much more
seriously and present themselves to be the Real Deal or worse,
superior to the Real Deal.
Further, ... they often "legitimize" their claims by linking
themselves to some royal pretender or bogus noble, who has been
"unfairly" treated and/or "unjustly" persecuted and/or dismissed by
the "Establishment." Oh how people will flock to an underdog!
Initiation fees and membership dues and donations start rolling in and
the titles and honors begin to flow!
Sure, ... some of these self styled Orders maintain they're just
fraternal organizations, yet they use the trappings of real Orders to
tantalize and lure those who otherwise couldn't obtain REAL honors,
etc. And while the "masses" who follow them think that their hard
earned coin is going to help the poor and needy, funds are being
siphoned off and funneled into other "projects" by the leadership.
But hey! As long as I've got my cape and gong and my illusion of
nobility who cares, right? Well, ... as Mr. Sainty points out, one
should care!
Would anyone here pay the SCA over $1,000 to become the Baron of
Splendoria and a Knight Champion of the Holy Order of the Golden
Chalice? No! Because these titles and honors are worthless! Yet,
... the leadership of self styled Orders have no qualms about bilking
people right and left for this very thing.
That's why the AAH has aligned itself with the ICOC and the "Orders
Police." Not because the AAH is "pro-Catholic" or "pro-Monarchy", but
because the AAH stands against bucket-shops that are cheating the
general public and/or misrepresenting heraldry and because self styled
Orders are doing the same thing by bilking hundreds of thousands of
dollars from people to support their agenda(s), which, as Mr. Sainty
points out, often have a much seedier side. I for one find this
practice not only objectionable but unacceptable.
I trust that in time Mr. Maxwell will modify his views.
Peace,
Steven B. Madewell
AAH, Pres.
His Jadedness
>its webmaster do, if I as member submitted my arms with insignia
>portraying me as a member of the Order of Malta, the Order of the
>Thistle, the Order of the Garter, etc.?
May I suggest a new Order?
The Most Noble Order of the Gartered Thistle of St. John of Malta.
DavidWu10
>Belfast seems to have some of them on sale
>(http://www.maccarthymor.net/clannpress.htm).
>Are those reprints of the Gryfon editions, then?
>
that great a demand for ludicrous fiction (don't start another thread on that,
please). I even offered to sell them remainders at pennies on the dollar, but
evidently even THEY knew the true value of the material in hand.
I would imagine they're remnants of the authors' copies shipped to them at date
of publication, and they STILL can't dump them. Perhaps if they went the
marketing route I've taken (kindling) they might have better luck.
David R Wooten
James Dempster
wrote:
In reply to Francois suggestion of an order with St George's brother
St Pantaloon slaying the basilisk, I must admit that I have been
working on the (in my opinion more appropriate) knighthood of the Most
Recent Order of the Throstle (song thrush to the initiated). The
collar would be alternate artichoke heads and sprigs of Syrian Rue and
pendant from it would be (in the current draft) St Alexander with
behind him the cross on which he was martyred. In finest Scots
heraldic fashion, the cross would be pendant from its guiges and any
resemblance to a saltire would be purely coincidental.
I'm still working through all the saints to see if I can find one
other than St Andrew that is associated with the saltire. So far no
luck. I never realised just how many there are, and indeed how many
have names starting in A.
James
James Dempster
Kurrild-Klitgaard) wrote:
>jdem...@easynet.co.uk (James Dempster) wrote in message news:<3c069428...@auth.news.easynet.co.uk>...
>> I posted a reply to Mr Maxwell, the webmaster of the Heraldry Society
>> of Scotland website. It was strongly worded, but no less so than his
>> attack on the whole of the body of people who make up the regulars of
>> this newsgroup. I do not like being called a "bigot".
(Snip)
>
>Excellent. Here is what I have just added myself:
>
Thank you for the posting. As those who visit the site will see, Peter
Kurrild-Klitgaard's posting no longer exists (as of 01:30 GMT) on the
HSS web site. I assume that it has been excised as being an "attack on
a member of the HSS." No doubt you are now noted as being one of Guy's
cronies.
As time goes by I'm more and more of the view that the member that is
being protected from attack is the webmaster rather than any of those
who have posted arms on the site.
However, I have to say that all of the private emails between me and
the webmaster have been quite polite. I have not been in receipt of
any of the intemperate language quoted by others on this group. This
may be because the webmaster has been informed that, as a member of
the HSS, I am planning on forwarding all of the correspondence on the
matter to Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick.
If (and I'm very, very reasonably giving the webmaster the benefit of
the doubt here) the quotations from correspondence on the matter are
genuine, I can't imagine that he wouldn't also want copies of that
correspondence to also be forwarded to Peter Drummond-Murray, in order
that he, as Chairman and the other members of the committee of the HSS
may gauge the level and quality of debate on all sides.
Francois R. Velde
>(in my opinion more appropriate)
I must apologize for having overlooked the historic association that exists
between St. Pantaloon and the region south of the border.
If you are looking for a saint under whose name to place your order, may I
remind you of St. Solipsus, a disciple of St. Andrew. When his time came to be
martyred, he asked to be crucified like his apostle on a saltire but, just as
St. Peter, upside down. I would think that a badge based on St. Solipsus's
cross should offer no chance of confusion with any existing order.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Perhaps...but as I seem to be continually pointing out, phaleristics
(i.e. the study of Orders of Knighthood and of Merit) is as part of
heraldry as are armory (i.e. the study of coats of arms) or genealogy
(i.e. the study of family trees and pedigrees). Both are part of the
everyday work of the professional herald and so both come under the
umbrella word "heraldry".
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
The poster might be somewhat alarmed to realise that we all live in
the "real world". Just because one has an interest, nay a passion, in
heraldry and related matters does not mean for one second that one in
Colonel Blimp like character living in a world of make believe. I am
all for making heraldry relevant to the 21st century.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Madewell) wrote:
>jdem...@easynet.co.uk (James Dempster) wrote in message news:<3c069428...@auth.news.easynet.co.uk>...
>> I posted a reply to Mr Maxwell, the webmaster of the Heraldry Society
>> of Scotland website. It was strongly worded, but no less so than his
>> attack on the whole of the body of people who make up the regulars of
>> this newsgroup. I do not like being called a "bigot".
>>
>> In my reply I also queried whether the decisions on the inclusion of
>> such elements were his personally or represented the policy of the
>> Society. If the latter I asked that this be made clear by an office
>> bearer either on the forum or elsewhere on the site. I also pointed
>> out that due to the close association with the Heraldry Society of
>> Scotland of various members of the Court of the Lord Lyon, any
>> depiction of arms on the Society's site could be considered to
>> potentially reflect their views.
>
>A valid point. I hope LL nips this in the bud. Otherwise we can only
>construe ... Qui tacet consenti’re vide’tur.
>
>
>> In the 30 minutes or so since I made that post to the forum, the whole
>> thread has been pulled. I hope that Mr Maxwell will use the time to
>> consider what I believe may be a misguided policy as regards the
>> display of the arms of Heraldry Society of Scotland members.
>
>
>You aren't the only one to be come under HSS censorship. One of my
>posts was removed with near lightening speed. Looks to me like NN and
>their associates have found a new home. It would be a pity to see yet
>another recruiting station for them set up shop, especially with LL's
>sanction.
>
>
>> If the censorship of that forum is simply to save face on his behalf,
>> I fully intend taking the matter up with the committee of the Society
>> and should no adequate reply be forthcoming at the next HSS AGM. I am
>> willing to take matters as far as the Lord Lyon if necessary.
>>
>> I await his reply either on the HSS forum or by email.
>>
For everyone's information I am copying below Mr Maxwell's response to
a long email from myself. I can see where he is coming from, even if
I don't entirely agree with him. I think the basic probelm is that Mr
Maxwell does not believe in, for want of a better word, Orfers of
Chivalry and so cannot understand quite what the fuss is over
McKerrell of Hillhouse "reviving" the NN. Whether such a person is
suitable as a webmaster for an heraldic society is debatable.
<quote>
Thank you for you more reasonable reply but you are still missing the
point. Charles McKerrell is a member of the Heraldry Society of
Scotland. All armigerous members were asked to submit their favourite
rendition of there arms for inclusion in the Gallery of Members Arms.
Charles McKerrell submitted that one. I asked him if he wanted the NN
collar excluded and he was adamant that it should remain and I have
respected his wishes.
I have known Charles McKerrell since 1989. He is an honest man and
well beloved by all who know him. I know he suffered greatly on the
ousting of the Macarthy Mor because he had been taken in like so many
others and had lent his good name and contacts to the NN to Macarthy's
advantage.
He has, I am informed, done a fantastic job repairing the damaged
reputations of the members and forming the new organisation. Whatever
you and I may think of that organisation, it does belong to the
members and in its new formation I should imagine, is faultless. I
understand that everyone has dropped the 'titles' and 'ranks' and it
is now a gentleman's club for want of the better term.
As such it is not for us to criticise them or we stand to be accused
to bigotry and prejudice. You know that most members of the
organisation are respectable, upright members of the international
community so it is quite wrong to condemn their allegiance to each
others friendship, comradery or what ever else it is that they get
from belonging to such a society.
Charles McKerrell is no fool, he has, I am very sure, engaged the Lyon
Court on the subject of the NN collar. You and I both know that the
collar forms no part of his matriculation and is therefore outside the
interests of the Lord Lyon and thus he is allowed to carry it on his
arms in Scotland (and for that matter anywhere in the world).
The HSS website in not an extension of the Lyon Court. The Lord Lyon
is not the president of the Society, Orkney Herald Extraordinary is.
No-one on the committee of the Society has commented on the arms of
Charles McKerrell, so as I see it, the problem lies with you and the
contributors to rec.heraldry. Perhaps a bunch of HSS members should
launched an attack on the OStJ or whatever order it is you are member
of. How are you going to react?
Personally I belong to no Orders and would never consider joining one.
I consider all orders to be self- serving inspite of the 'good works'
that some are reported to be involved in. Any gong you buy with money
is instantly devalued. If I wanted a gong I would be still serving in
HM's forces presumably getting ready to spill my blood in Afghanistan.
But anyway. That is my opinion and my course is set until I am advised
otherwise by Charles McKerrell, The Committee of the HSS or the Lyon
Court in that order.
regards
Anthony Maxwell
<end quote>
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote:
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
><hme...@heraldicmedia.com> os suum:
>>Grief!! Has it really been nine years? Surely not........
>
>Not since you came along; but rec.heraldry started in the fall of 1992. Josh
>Mittleman surely remembers.
Working it out, I think my involvemnet with rec.heraldry dates from
about 1996 or 1997.
Anyone who says that that is the time about which rec.heraldry started
to go rapidly downhill is just being unfair.......
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
There has long been a tradition, for want of a better term, that
official depictions of arms emanating from either the College of Arms
or the Lyon Court (eg. grants, library paintings, etc.) should only
carry the insignia of British Orders of Knighthood or of Merit or off
such Foreign Orders as are specifically recognised by the Crown or
which the grantee, etc. has been given official permission to wear by
the Crown.
For example, neither heraldic authority will allow depictions of arms
they have produced to show the insignia of the "Order of St Lazarus".
I did suggest to Mt Maxwell that adopting such a criterion would make
his life easier as he would have an objective standard which could be
applied.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
wrote:
>In article <9u8f1c$eu4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Francois says...
>>
>>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> os suum:
>>> Noentheless the Lord Lyon does take a view on this, and allows some
>>> decorations but not others.
>>
>>How is that view publicized or manifested? You mention that he controls
>>what gets painted in a patent. It is the case that the armiger must not
>>use arms that are any different from those painted in the patent, or is
>>LL's view just a policy applicable only to his official painter? LL might
>>have strong views about how elaborate the mantlings ought to be on a
>>patent or how green the grass on the compartment, without such views being
>>part of the law of arms.
>
>>
>>> Somewhat inconsistently, although he allows the SMOM decorations, [snip]
>>
>>He presumably does not consider the SMOM to be a Church award. That does
>>not strike me as unreasonable, given how heavily the SMOM insists on its
>>juridical independence from the Church! If LL considers the SMOM as a
>>"state" sui generis, there is neither internal inconsistency nor inconsistency
>>with the SMOM's own views of itself.
>
>The inconsistency that struck me was that his reason for the decision to
>exclude St Gregory the Great (that until c. 1990 was allowed unrestricted
>permission as a "state" award) was that the Sovereign did not accord
>accord permission to wear it as a decoration. However she has never allowed
>the decorations of the SMOM to be so worn, and indeed the SMOM has no
>status in the UK other than as a registered charity.
As Guy is aware, it has long been the tradition that the decorations
of the SMOM (and indeed of any of the Alliance Orders) can be worn at
functions and ceremonies of the VOStJ.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote:
Interesting point. From what I can read, it seems to me that even the
Lord Lyon is constrained by the "Regulations Concerning the Acceptance
and Wearing of Foreign Orders, Decorations and Medals by Persons not
in the Service of the Crown (August 1954)".
Rule 1 reads "It is The Queen's wish that Her subjects should not
accept and wear the insignia of any foreing Order without Her
Majesty's permission". (Rule 1 in the related regulations for persons
in the service of the Crown is much more firm at this point).
Rule 6 reads: "When Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs shal have sought and obtained Her permission for a
British subject to wear the insignia of a foreign Order without
restriction, he shall signify the same to Her Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State for the Home Department, or to Her Majesty's
Principal Secretary of State for Scotland of appropriate in the
circumstances of the case, in order that he may cause a Warrant, as
contemplated in Rule 2, to be prepared for the Royal Sign-Manual.
When such Warrant shall have been signed by Her Majesty, a
notification of the grant of permission shall be published in the
London Gazette, or in the Edinburgh Gazette as the case may be."
Rule 7 reads: "The Warrant conveying Her Majesty's permission may, at
the request and expense of the recipient, be registered in the College
of Arms if it has been submitted to Her Majesty by HerPrincipal
Secretary of State for the Home Department, or in the Court of the
Lord Lyon King of Arms if it has been submitted to Her Majesty by Her
Principal Secretary of State for Scotland.
Every such Warrant shall contain a clause providing that Her Majesty's
licence and permission does not authorise the assumption of any style,
appellation, rank, precedence or privilege appertaining to the degree
of Knight Bachelor."
From this, it does seem that in this matter at least the LL does have
to be consistent with the practice in other parts of the United
Kingdom.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Madewell) wrote:
Just to say how much I agree with both Guy and Steven here.....
Guy Stair Sainty
perspective), that despite the FO ruling the St Gregory was a "Church"
award, it was in fact a State award, ahd been treated as such in the past
and was treated as such by every other state with which the Holy See
had diplomatic relations.
As I have related in the past the real reason for the FO decision was that
British subjects very arrely receive foreign awards, and although only
30 or so Papal honors were awarded annually in the UK, this was a higher
proportion of all foreign awards to UK citizens than any othe foreign
awards. By determining it was *exclusively* a church award (following an
inquiry to the Nuncio "are the Papal Orders "church awards"), the FO was
able to limit their use and prevent permission being sought for them to
be worn.
Nonetheless, in this instance, the LL preferred to follow the FO, although
the FO does not recognize the SMOM at all.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org
Brian M. Scott
<hme...@heraldicmedia.com> wrote:
[...]
>Working it out, I think my involvemnet with rec.heraldry dates from
>about 1996 or 1997.
13 April 1995, according to the archives at groups.google.
[...]
Brian
Francois R. Velde
>and Wearing of Foreign Orders, Decorations and Medals by Persons not
>in the Service of the Crown (August 1954)".
Is this a statutory instrument?
>Rule 1 reads "It is The Queen's wish that Her subjects should not
>accept and wear the insignia of any foreing Order without Her
>Majesty's permission".
Interesting loophole, you will note: What is a "foreign order" and would a
reconstituted Niadh Nask be one? If it's just a "gentlemen's club" in the
words of Anthony Maxwell, it's not a foreign order (one could dispute both the
"foreign" and the "order" part), and therefore does not fall under said
regulation.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Andrew Yong
"Francois R. Velde" <ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote in message
news:9u8sl1$8mo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> wearing decorations etc). From the example you cite, it seems that he
does
> not (or did not) feel so bound. Since the regulation of heraldry is
> essentially an arbitrary exercise of the royal prerogative, the sovereign
> has no need to be consistent; hence LL need not be consistent with, say,
> the Foreign Office (each seen as an agent of the sovereign, exercising
> a portion of that prerogative).
I think the decisions of the Lord Lyon could very well be subject to
judicial review, in which case the test could include irrationality or
unreasonableness.
andrew
Francois R. Velde
That's a terminus ad quem, since the Google archives only go back to
29 March 1995.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Francois R. Velde
> a long email from myself. I can see where he is coming from, even if
> I don't entirely agree with him.
Thanks for posting the quote (of course, he might say it's *** rude
to post the contents of a private email...). Such a calm presentation
of his views would have been much more helpful at an earlier stage than
what various people have received instead. Anyway, I too can see where
he is coming from. But two points come to mind.
First, whether LL is indeed indifferent to what decorations Scottish armigers
put in their achievements is still an open question in my mind, but it is one
that must have an answer somewhere.
Second, I can understand his position that all orders are equally to be
dismissed. But even granting that position, it does not follow
that he, as webmaster of the HSS site, or that the Society itself
(even if the Society shared that position) should be totally indifferent
to which "gongs" get displayed on the HSS site. The fact is that
the Society has a high reputation to protect, and that reputation
can easily be misused by some people.
Francois R. Velde
They are, but not when he is acting in his ministerial rather than judicial
capacity. See Macdonnell v. Macdonald (1826): "In regard to matters of arms,
the Lord Lyon has a ministerial power; and unless he invades the rights of
others, this Court [i.e., the Court of Session] has no jurisdiction to review
his proceedings." Unless it were established that displaying decorations or orders
is a well-established right in Scottish law which he would infringe by his
decisions, I don't see how such a decision would be subject to review.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote:
I agree with you entirely, Francois. I have recently applied to join
the HSS so as a lowly member probably can do nothing to influence how
their website is run.
However, as some of you will know, I was one of the five people who
were nominated to the five vacancies on the Council of The Heraldry
Society and will take office in a few days time. Hopefully, having
been the unoffiical webmaster for the Society for some years, I will
be invited onto the website sub-committee, which is overseeing the
creation of a new and improved website for the Society. As the HSS
found, a page of members' arms is something obvious to have on the
website but at least I hope we can learn from the HSS's experience and
have Council lay down some firm guidelines as to what can and cannot
be shown on that particular page.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
wrote:
Wow!! Does someone rerally keep an archive of all that we've said on
here.....spooky!!
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote:
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
><hme...@heraldicmedia.com> os suum:
>>"Regulations Concerning the Acceptance
>>and Wearing of Foreign Orders, Decorations and Medals by Persons not
>>in the Service of the Crown (August 1954)".
>
>Is this a statutory instrument?
No..they are regulations issued by the Foreign Office and approved by
Her Majesty The Queen.
>
>>Rule 1 reads "It is The Queen's wish that Her subjects should not
>>accept and wear the insignia of any foreing Order without Her
>>Majesty's permission".
>
>Interesting loophole, you will note: What is a "foreign order" and would a
>reconstituted Niadh Nask be one? If it's just a "gentlemen's club" in the
>words of Anthony Maxwell, it's not a foreign order (one could dispute both the
>"foreign" and the "order" part), and therefore does not fall under said
>regulation.
I would think the term "foreign Order" would take it's common sense
meaning, i.e something called the "Order of X" and issued by a
recognised foreign State.
Using this definition the NN does not, as you have correctly said,
fall under the term "foreign Order" (I was not suggesting it did, but
merely quoting current regulations so that everyone knew the current
and correct position......though the admonition against using the
prefix "Sir" is useful to know about). As far as I am aware the
reborn NN does not claim to be an order but a "nobiliary fraternity",
and is presumably on the same level of some of the wine tasting
fraternities that one hears about or the local glee club.
Members of these latter organisation would not think to show their
membership insignia, if it exists, around their arms so why should the
NN, given that traditionally the only external ornaments to a coat of
arms are either symbols of Royal or Imperial office, medals for valour
or insignia denoting membership of Orders of Knighthood.
It does seem to me that the revised NN is trying to have it both ways
- claiming NOT to be an order so as to avoid the acrimony that they
know would be heaped on their heads, and yet using the insignia as if
it were an order so as to make their arms look something out of the
ordinary. They really cannot have it both ways.
Edwin King
>
> > I think the decisions of the Lord Lyon could very well be subject to
> > judicial review, in which case the test could include irrationality or
> > unreasonableness.
>
> They are, but not when he is acting in his ministerial rather than judicial
> capacity. See Macdonnell v. Macdonald (1826): "In regard to matters of arms,
> the Lord Lyon has a ministerial power; and unless he invades the rights of
> others, this Court [i.e., the Court of Session] has no jurisdiction to review
> his proceedings." Unless it were established that displaying decorations or orders
> is a well-established right in Scottish law which he would infringe by his
> decisions, I don't see how such a decision would be subject to review.
I don't see that there is a problem in supposing that LL might be
subject to judical review (which means a review by judges, not of
them). One of the aims of the process is to stop ministers (and others
in authority) from execising arbitary power. The benchmark LL would be
judged against would be the established law of arms, the precidents set
by his predecessors and natural law.
Edwin
Francois R. Velde
>One of the aims of the [judicial] process is to stop ministers (and others
>in authority) from execising arbitary power.
But isn't that exactly what the royal prerogative is about: arbitrary power?
Suppose you apply for a grant of arms from Lord Lyon and he gives you a crest
with a pair of donkeys' ears. You can sue all you want, you won't get it
changed. The precedents are quite clear: see the documents on my web page.
Likewise, the sovereign's decision to grant or not grant the garter, or a
peerage, can't possibly be subject to judicial review?
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Brian M. Scott
<ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote:
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> os suum:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2001 13:01:50 +0000, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
>> <hme...@heraldicmedia.com> wrote:
>>>Working it out, I think my involvemnet with rec.heraldry dates from
>>>about 1996 or 1997.
>> 13 April 1995, according to the archives at groups.google.
>That's a terminus ad quem, since the Google archives only go back to
>29 March 1995.
Yep. But given Patrick's own recollection, it's probably close.
Brian
Edwin King
>
> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> os suum:
> >One of the aims of the [judicial] process is to stop ministers (and others
> >in authority) from execising arbitary power.
>
> But isn't that exactly what the royal prerogative is about: arbitrary power?
Except that Scotland isn't an absolute monarchy. The exercise of the
royal perogative is limited by the constitution of the UK as defined by
parliament and the courts.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the process of judicial
review (a fairly recent introduction) was to circumvent precisely this
argument - that government bodies were almost automatically guaranteed
crown immunity whatever the level of the decision made. The most common
appeal to judicial review are in cases of planning permission, but cases
brought have also included cases of neglegence leading to injury of
members of the armed forces.
> Suppose you apply for a grant of arms from Lord Lyon and he gives you a crest
> with a pair of donkeys' ears. You can sue all you want, you won't get it
> changed. The precedents are quite clear: see the documents on my web page.
As is the case with any other proceeding, if no real harm can be shown
to have been done the is no case to answer.
The kind of case that could conceivably come up for judicial review
would be if the customary fine for the illegal display of arms was a
fine of £20, but in the case of Al Fayed, Lord Lyon fined him £20,000.
Judicial review wouldn't judge the rights or wrongs of the case, but
whether the usual rules and procedures were followed: it wouldn't ask
whether discrimination took place, but whether that discrimination is
allowed within the perameters of the rules as usually applied and
whether due process took place.
Edwin
Sean J Murphy
Insignia of the Niadh Nask. The NN cross pommé is inset with a Greek cross
'which is either red, green or blue, depending upon the companion's division
within the Order (First, Second or Third, respectively)'. Hereditary and
First Division NNs 'may surround their arms with the collar, while
Companions of the Second and Third Divisions may not'. The McKerrell of
Hillhouse arms have a red cross inset, and under the MacCarthy Mór regime
this gentleman was listed as an 'Hereditary' NN and also 'Brehon' of the
organisation from 1980. It would appear that the divisions and distinctions
concocted by MacCarthy are being maintained by the revived organisation.
Sean Murphy
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/niadhnask.htm
Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:9u3n6...@drn.newsguy.com...
> My attention has been drawn to the armorial achievement of Charles
McKerrel of
> Hillhouse reproduced at
> http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Members/gallery.asp?ID=80 (or go to the
main
> page of the Heraldry Society of Scotland,
> http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/Homepage.htm and link to Members Arms).
>
> The McKerrel of Hillhouse was formerly one of Terence MacCarthy's
disciples and
> a member of the Niadh Nask.
>
> The arms depicted show the McKerrel's arms surrounded by the collar of
Terence
> McCarthy's NN which, however, is now described as the collar of the Celtic
> nobiliary fraternity of the Nia Nasc. Apparently the absence of the Irish
"dh"
> is sufficient to transform the fantasies of Terence MacCarthy into a new
> Scottish reality.
>
> It seems the former NN members are now courting the new Lord Lyon to grant
the
> Nia Nasc arms in Scotland. The apparent purpose of this endeavor is to
receive
> de jure recognition from the Crown as "The Nobiliary Fraternity of the Nia
> Nasc" and then claim that this is a recognized noble corporation.
>
> It is amusing that the decorations of this new "Celtic Noble Fraternity,"
> described on Mr McKerrel's armorial page as "the chain of The Nobiliary
> Fraternity of the Nia Naisc, a Celtic fraternity in honour of the ancient
Gaelic
> Warrior Class, known as Nia Naisc, who wore a golden chain over their
> armour" are identical to those of the Tangerian Terence. I suppose this
saves
> making a reinvestment in elaborate regalia. Nonetheless, despite the
purported
> antiquity of this "ancient" body, no ancient illustrations of its insignia
are
> known, and so (again quoting Mr McKerrel), "this rendition is based on an
> original line drawing by the Cornish heraldic artist Dennis Endean Ivall."
>
> The site only displays the arms of 19 members, none others of whom are
> apparently NN's (at least not yet).
>
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org
>
Francois R. Velde
>Francois R. Velde wrote:
>>
>> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> os suum:
>> >One of the aims of the [judicial] process is to stop ministers (and others
>> >in authority) from execising arbitary power.
>>
>> But isn't that exactly what the royal prerogative is about: arbitrary power?
>
>Except that Scotland isn't an absolute monarchy. The exercise of the
>royal perogative is limited by the constitution of the UK as defined by
>parliament and the courts.
Yes, but within those (extremely narrow) limits, isn't it arbitrary?
>The kind of case that could conceivably come up for judicial review
>would be if the customary fine for the illegal display of arms was a
>fine of £20, but in the case of Al Fayed, Lord Lyon fined him £20,000.
>Judicial review wouldn't judge the rights or wrongs of the case, but
>whether the usual rules and procedures were followed: it wouldn't ask
>whether discrimination took place, but whether that discrimination is
>allowed within the perameters of the rules as usually applied and
>whether due process took place.
But that strikes me as an example of Lord Lyon acting in his judicial capacity,
not his ministerial capacity. As such, it seems natural that it would be
subject to review, on the merits of the case as well as on due process.
Francois R. Velde
Actually, I dug up an old email exchange from early May 1995, which indicates he
had just started posting on rec.heraldry.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Francois R. Velde
> - claiming NOT to be an order so as to avoid the acrimony that they
> know would be heaped on their heads, and yet using the insignia as if
> it were an order so as to make their arms look something out of the
> ordinary. They really cannot have it both ways.
around a coat of arms has, by virtue of centuries of tradition, the implication
that the bearer is member of an important order of chivalry or bearer of a
prominent state decoration. I don't think one will find many instances of
Scottish arms surrounded by the insignia of a gentlemen's club (supposing there
are any gentlemen's clubs that have collars and cross-shaped badges). Using the
NN insignia in such fashion is, at a minimum, disingenuous.
Note that having it both ways was part of the MacCarthy scam throughout: we're
not like European royalty (so don't try to apply your usual concepts and
definitions, you Celtophobe) but we'll dress up as if we were; we're not an
order of knighthood (remember that oymoron, a "non-chivalric order of knighthood")
but we'll dress up like one; we don't follow primogeniture (go read about
Brehon law, you Celtophobe), but we'll write our pedigrees as if we did;
etc, etc.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Bryan Maloney
news:3C0A99...@virgin.net:
> Francois R. Velde wrote:
>>
>> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> os
>> suum:
>> >One of the aims of the [judicial] process is to stop ministers (and
>> >others in authority) from execising arbitary power.
>>
>> But isn't that exactly what the royal prerogative is about: arbitrary
>> power?
>
> Except that Scotland isn't an absolute monarchy. The exercise of the
> royal perogative is limited by the constitution of the UK as defined by
> parliament and the courts.
And part of that definition is that LL cannot be subject to judicial review
when acting "in his ministerial capacity". Ain't fumble-bumble fun?
--
"Why then did the passengers on the plane that went down near Pittsburgh
decide to resist the hijackers and prevent them from completing their
mission? Because they knew: their relatives had told them by cell phone that
the World Trade Center had already been attacked by hijacked planes. They
were armed with final awareness of the nature of the evil they faced.
So armed, they could act. So armed, they did."
--Time Magazine
Bryan Maloney
news:fe2k0u4of9f6u4eg5...@4ax.com:
> Members of these latter organisation would not think to show their
> membership insignia, if it exists, around their arms so why should the
Awww, but wouldn't it be so cute to have every parish baking society
represented on achievements?
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<seanj...@eircom.net> wrote:
>A few additional points I have noted in a 1997 Guide to the Wearing of the
>Insignia of the Niadh Nask. The NN cross pommé is inset with a Greek cross
>'which is either red, green or blue, depending upon the companion's division
>within the Order (First, Second or Third, respectively)'. Hereditary and
>First Division NNs 'may surround their arms with the collar, while
>Companions of the Second and Third Divisions may not'. The McKerrell of
>Hillhouse arms have a red cross inset, and under the MacCarthy Mór regime
>this gentleman was listed as an 'Hereditary' NN and also 'Brehon' of the
>organisation from 1980. It would appear that the divisions and distinctions
>concocted by MacCarthy are being maintained by the revived organisation.
As some may know on here, TM awarded me the NN 3rd Class......why am I
no surprised that the revived organisation have not asked me to join
them.......
Darren S. A. George
>Wow!! Does someone rerally keep an archive of all that we've said on
>here.....spooky!!
Yep. So anyone can go back and read the vicious swill I occasionally posted
while thesis-writing and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Goody.
I'm much better now. Honest.
Darren S. A. George
The Mad Alchemist
http://www.mad-alchemy.com/heraldry
"Who are those powers-that-be and what is their agenda? How do I get to be one
of them?" - SLC Cook
Mark E Sievert
Bryan Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:9ufug0$7gd$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <hme...@heraldicmedia.com> wrote in
> news:fe2k0u4of9f6u4eg5...@4ax.com:
>
> > Members of these latter organisation would not think to show their
> > membership insignia, if it exists, around their arms so why should the
>
> Awww, but wouldn't it be so cute to have every parish baking society
> represented on achievements?
>
Something like county fair blue ribbons?
Come to think of it, is it a coincidence that premier (1st place) ribbons
match the hue of several principal or highly placed orders of chivalry, such
as Garter and St. Esprit? No agenda here, just wondering.
Mark E. Sievert
Don Aitken
<velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote:
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> os suum:
>>Francois R. Velde wrote:
>>>
>>> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> os suum:
>>> >One of the aims of the [judicial] process is to stop ministers (and others
>>> >in authority) from execising arbitary power.
>>>
>>> But isn't that exactly what the royal prerogative is about: arbitrary power?
>>
>>Except that Scotland isn't an absolute monarchy. The exercise of the
>>royal perogative is limited by the constitution of the UK as defined by
>>parliament and the courts.
>
>Yes, but within those (extremely narrow) limits, isn't it arbitrary?
>
Effectively, yes. The way it is usually stated is that the courts will
not enquire into the *manner* in which an admitted prerogative has
been exercised, as opposed to the question of whether the alleged
prerogative power exists.
>>The kind of case that could conceivably come up for judicial review
>>would be if the customary fine for the illegal display of arms was a
>>fine of £20, but in the case of Al Fayed, Lord Lyon fined him £20,000.
>>Judicial review wouldn't judge the rights or wrongs of the case, but
>>whether the usual rules and procedures were followed: it wouldn't ask
>>whether discrimination took place, but whether that discrimination is
>>allowed within the perameters of the rules as usually applied and
>>whether due process took place.
>
>But that strikes me as an example of Lord Lyon acting in his judicial capacity,
>not his ministerial capacity. As such, it seems natural that it would be
>subject to review, on the merits of the case as well as on due process.
>
The distinction, which you quoted from a case of 1826, between
ministerial and judicial functions, with only the latter being subject
to judicial review, has been rendered obsolete by a series of judicial
decisions since the 1960s which have greatly widened the scope of
judicial review. Most decisions which are now reviewed by the courts
are undoubtedly ministerial.
The distinction between prerogative powers and statutory powers, with
judicial review being much more readily available for the latter,
probably still represents the law, but is difficult to be certain of
this since there have been no major cases on judicial review of the
exercise of the prerogative since the 1940s, except for Burmah Oil v.
Lord Advocate, in 1964, the result of which was immediately reversed
by statute.
--
Don Aitken
Andrew Yong
"Francois R. Velde" <velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote in message
news:0l2l0uc4gbe3nr8b2...@4ax.com...
> Suppose you apply for a grant of arms from Lord Lyon and he gives you a
crest
> with a pair of donkeys' ears. You can sue all you want, you won't get it
> changed. The precedents are quite clear: see the documents on my web
page.
Though one mustn't imagine that the law doesn't change, and in the realm of
administrative law and judicial review the past 20 years has seen a lot of
change, though I don't know anything about Scottish law.
In general prerogative powers are excluded from judicial review, but while
this may hold for treaty-making powers and appointments to the Garter, I
can't see how legality and rationality applies any less to the routine
granting of arms than to the granting of passports, another royal
prerogative. Surely at minimum the Lord Lyon can be made to comply with the
statutes that give him his powers.
p.s. I also speak as a non-lawyer.
andrew
Edwin King
>
> Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> wrote in
> news:3C0A99...@virgin.net:
>
> > Francois R. Velde wrote:
> >>
> >> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Edwin King <edwin...@virgin.net> os
> >> suum:
> >> >One of the aims of the [judicial] process is to stop ministers (and
> >> >others in authority) from execising arbitary power.
> >>
> >> But isn't that exactly what the royal prerogative is about: arbitrary
> >> power?
> >
> > Except that Scotland isn't an absolute monarchy. The exercise of the
> > royal perogative is limited by the constitution of the UK as defined by
> > parliament and the courts.
>
> And part of that definition is that LL cannot be subject to judicial review
> when acting "in his ministerial capacity". Ain't fumble-bumble fun?
But I'm not sure that the definition isn't that LL *is* subject to
judicial review when acting in his ministerial capacity. After all,
other ministers are.
To some eyes, saying that someone acts with authority immediately
derived from the Crown may make them seem unusual, but such things are
everyday here - that's how government operates.
Edwin
Edwin King
>
> >The kind of case that could conceivably come up for judicial review
> >would be if the customary fine for the illegal display of arms was a
> >fine of £20, but in the case of Al Fayed, Lord Lyon fined him £20,000.
> >Judicial review wouldn't judge the rights or wrongs of the case, but
> >whether the usual rules and procedures were followed: it wouldn't ask
> >whether discrimination took place, but whether that discrimination is
> >allowed within the perameters of the rules as usually applied and
> >whether due process took place.
>
> But that strikes me as an example of Lord Lyon acting in his judicial capacity,
> not his ministerial capacity. As such, it seems natural that it would be
> subject to review, on the merits of the case as well as on due process.
Yes, bad example. I should think of ministerial one, but it's late and
I must go to bed.
Suffice it to say that judicial review is intended to check the exercise
of authority. There's no precedent for it's use against Lord Lyon
because no case has arisen (and long may it remain so), but I'm sure
that he could be subject to the process.
Edwin
Michael F. McCartney
power (vs. judicial power, in which he is clearly an inferior court - in the
legal sense!) - seems to me that a modicum of common sense on Mr. Blair's part
(LL, not PM) would avoid, or attempt to avoid, outrageous exercises of
ministerial power so as to avoid embarassment to self & Queen. More simply
put, so far no one has suggested the current LL has a professional death wish!
Michael Fannin McCartney
Fremont, California