Honorary Grants of Arms
Sebastian Nelson
Is it true that an American holding an award or membership in a British
Order of Chivalry may apply to the CoA for an honorary grant of arms,
regardless of male descent from a British subject?
Also, is it true that the LL does not recognize honorary grants of arms
and will not matriculate them in Scotland?
Cheers,
Sebastian A. Nelson
nels...@usfca.edu
dons.usfca.edu/nelsse00/index.html
USF Countess Donohue Rare Book Room/
Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University
kur...@geocities.com
sne...@wco.com (Sebastian Nelson) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is it true that an American holding an award or membership in a British
> Order of Chivalry may apply to the CoA for an honorary grant of arms,
> regardless of male descent from a British subject?
That is my understanding.
> Also, is it true that the LL does not recognize honorary grants of arms
> and will not matriculate them in Scotland?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sebastian A. Nelson
That is the position set out by Innes of Leaney in "Scots Heraldry", and I
suppose that policy still stands.
Best wishes,
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Barry Gabriel
> Hi all,
>
> Is it true that an American holding an award or membership in a British
> Order of Chivalry may apply to the CoA for an honorary grant of arms,
> regardless of male descent from a British subject?
IIRC this is correct.
> Also, is it true that the LL does not recognize honorary grants of arms
> and will not matriculate them in Scotland?
I'm not so sure about this. However, Lyon unlike his English counterparts,
does not grant honorary arms (the term is a bit oxymoronic anyway...an
honorary honor?). He will however grant arms to anyone of proven Scottish
descent in the male line.
BG
kur...@geocities.com
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is it true that an American holding an award or membership in a British
> > Order of Chivalry may apply to the CoA for an honorary grant of arms,
> > regardless of male descent from a British subject?
>
>
> > Also, is it true that the LL does not recognize honorary grants of arms
> > and will not matriculate them in Scotland?
> >
> >
> > Sebastian A. Nelson
>
> That is the position set out by Innes of Leaney in "Scots Heraldry", and I
> suppose that policy still stands.
In fact, this is what he said:
"English and Irish arms can be matriculated in Lyon Register. This is
legally necessary if their owners settle in Scotland . . . Certain 'honorary
arms' recently given to foreigners [in England] . . . are not accepted in
Scotland," (pp. 91-92)
and, that:
"following a petition by Adams for matriculation of honorary arms in Lyon
Register in 1939, inquiry whether the grant had made the grantee a member of
the noblesse of England, as described in old English armorial patents . . .,
elicited a reply in the negative; it was held by Lyon that 'honorary arms' do
not fulfil the requirements of 'arms' as defined in 1592, cap. 125, as
'substantive' English (or foreign) arms do, and that 'honorary arms' are
inadmissible for matriculation in Lyon Register, per said decision of Lord
Lyon Grant." (p. 92n2).
Barry Gabriel
> [snip]
> In fact, this is what he said:"English and Irish arms can be matriculated in
> Lyon Register. This islegally necessary if their owners settle in Scotland . .
> . Certain 'honorary arms' recently given to foreigners [in England] . . . are
> not accepted in Scotland," (pp. 91-92)
> [snip]
> 'honorary arms' do not fulfil the requirements of 'arms' as defined in 1592,
> cap. 125, as 'substantive' English (or foreign) arms do, and that 'honorary
> arms' are inadmissible for matriculation in Lyon Register, per said decision of
> Lord Lyon Grant." (p. 92n2).
And the amazing thing is that Lyon got away with it!
BG
Francois R. Velde
>I'm not so sure about this. However, Lyon unlike his English counterparts,
>does not grant honorary arms (the term is a bit oxymoronic anyway...an
>honorary honor?).
Pleonastic, rather. Same goes (in my opinion) for "honorary knighthood".
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
But why shouldn't he? Lyon is supreme in his own sphere of authority
and if he decides that honorary arms are inadmissable, then who can say
he is wrong?
>
>BG
>
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
Tel: 0181-871 4659
E-mail: herald...@kwtelecom.com
Web site: www.kwtelecom.com/hmedia/
Michael F McCartney
it!"
Actually (IMO anyway) he was on firmer legal ground here than when
he pulled shiny new "ancient" principles out of his...well, from
under his tabard anyway. IN the case of "honorary" English arms,
he based his ruling on a reply from the English heralds - in
effect, at least as presented in his book, the English heralds
said (or were read as saying) that "honorary" arms were not the
equivalent of regular English arms; thus LL could (arguably) not
be faulted for treating them as less than...
IMO Garter et al screwed up by not saying that "honorary" arms
were the armorial equivalent of an "honorary" knighthood or other
honour granted to a foreigner - i.e. the same value, just
distinguished as to Crown subject vs non subject - in both cases
the gift of the Crown (or with "honorary" arms, of the Earl
Marshall as the Queen's delegated officer etc). To accept, say,
Spanish "certifications" and yet reject English "honorary" arms is
IMO terminally silly. Has anyone checked to see if the current
Innes incarnation follows this silly rule? It would be easy for
him to correct the problem, & to save face for dead pater, to
characterize it as correcting an error on the part of Garter
rather than Innes pere.
--
Michael F McCartney, Fremont Calif USA
REPLY TO: m...@sns.com
Francois R. Velde
>It would be easy for
>him to correct the problem, & to save face for dead pater, to
>characterize it as correcting an error on the part of Garter
>rather than Innes pere.
Actually, Peter's citation shows that Innes pere's predecessor made the ruling.
(And let the record show that I once defended I of L!)
Barry Gabriel
> [snip]
> >And the amazing thing is that Lyon got away with it!
>
> But why shouldn't he? Lyon is supreme in his own sphere of authority
> and if he decides that honorary arms are inadmissable, then who can say
> he is wrong?
I think I just did...but the point is the term "honorary". How on earth can you
have an honorary honor? Despite Lyon's supreme authority over things heraldic in
Scotland, this odd oxymoron seems more than a bit laughable, wouldn't you agree?
This and the silliness about nobility and arms in Scotland are just the things which
make Lyon appear pompous and lessens his credibility.
BG
Barry Gabriel
> [snip]
> IN the case of "honorary" English arms,
> he based his ruling on a reply from the English heralds - in
> effect, at least as presented in his book, the English heralds
> said (or were read as saying) that "honorary" arms were not the
> equivalent of regular English arms; thus LL could (arguably) not
> be faulted for treating them as less than...
Typical of Lyon to grasp onto something such as this and interpret it in
his favour. I remember the passage. The first time I read it as a
youngster, I just glanced over it. When I came across it again in early
middle-age, I stopped and thought about it. It seemed (and still seems)
more than a little odd. Lyon's interpretation is typical of not only
Lyon, but the very pharaseeical (is there such a word?) approach to law
which the Scots seem to have as part of their nature. The fault lay as
you indicate with the English heralds in opening their mouths.
The English heralds probably grant "honorary" arms because they do not
want to risk offending mostly Americans, whose laws forbid the out and
out acceptance of foreign honors, titles of nobility, etc. I wonder how
much of their revenue is derived from the "colonies". I don't know how
other European countries perceive these things, but I feel it is more to
do with political sensitivity rather than common sense..."an honorary
honor"?...give me a break! The fact is these arms are still granted,
treated the same as the regular arms, and said arms are considered an
honor.
>
>
> IMO Garter et al screwed up by not saying that "honorary" arms
> were the armorial equivalent of an "honorary" knighthood or other
> honour granted to a foreigner - i.e. the same value, just
> distinguished as to Crown subject vs non subject - in both cases
> the gift of the Crown (or with "honorary" arms, of the Earl
> Marshall as the Queen's delegated officer etc).
Agreed. Honorary knighthoods are just as peculiar. Either you are a
knight, or you aren't. Fish or cut bait!
> To accept, say,
> Spanish "certifications" and yet reject English "honorary" arms is
> IMO terminally silly.
More embarrassing than anything, but a way in for non-Scottish armigers
to have the dubious trappings of nobility which Lyon claims to provide
(but which don't seem to appear in the grants).
> Has anyone checked to see if the current
> Innes incarnation follows this silly rule? It would be easy for
> him to correct the problem, & to save face for dead pater, to
> characterize it as correcting an error on the part of Garter
> rather than Innes pere.
It would not be in Lyon's interest to correct the situation. He would
have to admit his father did something wrong.
BG
Barry Gabriel
> Barry Gabriel <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:
> >I'm not so sure about this. However, Lyon unlike his English counterparts,
> >does not grant honorary arms (the term is a bit oxymoronic anyway...an
> >honorary honor?).
>
> Pleonastic, rather. Same goes (in my opinion) for "honorary knighthood".
Pleonastic...I like that word even though I never heard it before. I agree.
Honorary knighthoods are another contradiction in terms.
BG
tyler hower
Barry Gabriel wrote:
It's not so much that these are case of contradictions in terms as that they are
merely redundant. A knighthood is purely honorary so to say that it is an
honorary one is merely to repeat oneself. That is the sense of 'pleonastic', that
the 'honorary' doesn't add anything.
Tyler
Barry Gabriel
Thanks for clearing that up. I was using the wrong term.
BG
James Dempster
<bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:
As resident pharisee I'm delighted to see that most of my work has
been done for me by Mike and even Francois!
>Michael F McCartney wrote:
>
>> IN the case of "honorary" English arms,
>> he based his ruling on a reply from the English heralds - in
>> effect, at least as presented in his book, the English heralds
>> said (or were read as saying) that "honorary" arms were not the
>> equivalent of regular English arms; thus LL could (arguably) not
>> be faulted for treating them as less than...
>
[BG]
>Typical of Lyon to grasp onto something such as this and interpret it in
>his favour. I remember the passage. The first time I read it as a
>youngster, I just glanced over it. When I came across it again in early
>middle-age, I stopped and thought about it. It seemed (and still seems)
>more than a little odd. Lyon's interpretation is typical of not only
>Lyon, but the very pharaseeical (is there such a word?) approach to law
>which the Scots seem to have as part of their nature. The fault lay as
>you indicate with the English heralds in opening their mouths.
>
The interpretation is strict because the traditions of Scots law are
to look at the logic of a situation rather than the prejudices of past
judges. Looking at the footnote in the 1956 edition of Innes of
Learney (p 92, 2) in more detail, it can be seen that possession of
the strange beast called "honorary" arms does not of itself cause a
problem, unless they are the only claim to armory.
The English heralds shot thier clients in the feet and have had to
live with this (their own) interpretation of "honorary arms". As an
aside of which, does anyone know when the CoA decided to issue such
things - it must be late 19th century invention at the earliest, since
I can't seem to find any mention of it in Fox-Davies.
However, I think that there may have been some glee at Lyon Court when
they received the answer from London since there may well have been
personalities (and not just Sir Tam's) at work.
Sir Malcolm Innes as Marchmont in the first issue of Double Tressure
(1979) describes the inscrutible workings of the Court of Claims at
the time of the 1953 coronation noting that the said court refused to
Lyon the designation Lord Lyon King of Arms in the ceremonial (though
the Earl Marshall of England continued to so style him in
correspondance) and rightly allowed to the Countess of Erroll the
style Lord High Constable of Scotland, which style Marshall and Garter
refused to use in any way, styling her as High Constable throughout.
Innes here notes that "in 1952 and 1953 there were two what must be
called 'Scotophobic' Kings of Arms in positions of influence". Were
these men in place in 1938 at the time of the honorary arms question?
If they were I can imagine the cries of "got the buggers" at Lyon
Court when the CoA admitted that it did not consider the things it
fobbed off on rich Americans the equal of those it granted to the
English.
[MFM]
>> To accept, say,
>> Spanish "certifications" and yet reject English "honorary" arms is
>> IMO terminally silly.
>
[BG]
>More embarrassing than anything, but a way in for non-Scottish armigers
>to have the dubious trappings of nobility which Lyon claims to provide
>(but which don't seem to appear in the grants).
>
The fact to note about the rematriculations of Spanish certificates is
that Lyon does not make the non-Scottish armigers members of the
"noblesse of Scotland" by entering them in his books. He accepts the
foreign armiger in the status presented by the foreign heraldic
authority, be that Grandee 1st Class, or peasant. By giving Lyon a
wording which allowed the interpretation that the "honorary" arms
granted by the CoA are not substantive, Lyon could argue that such
arms are not even the equivalent of the peasant arms of the continent
and thus are not eligible for recording.
However, getting out my hair-splitting razor, if they are not arms
(and they can't be otherwise Lyon would insist on their matriculation)
they can be used with impunity in Scotland! :-)
>> Has anyone checked to see if the current
>> Innes incarnation follows this silly rule? It would be easy for
>> him to correct the problem, & to save face for dead pater, to
>> characterize it as correcting an error on the part of Garter
>> rather than Innes pere.
>
>It would not be in Lyon's interest to correct the situation. He would
>have to admit his father did something wrong.
I can't see it happening not because of Innes of Edingight having to
admit Lyon Grant wrong but because its a delightful and perpetual
irritant to the CoA. Joy in scoring petty points off the English has
worked its way into the Scots (and Irish and Welsh) character for
centuries. It ain't going to stop now.
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
> Innes here notes that "in 1952 and 1953 there were two what must be
> called 'Scotophobic' Kings of Arms in positions of influence". Were
> these men in place in 1938 at the time of the honorary arms question?
Garter wasn't the same person (see http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/heralds.htm).
> However, getting out my hair-splitting razor, if they are not arms
> (and they can't be otherwise Lyon would insist on their matriculation)
> they can be used with impunity in Scotland! :-)
Beautiful!
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Francois R. Velde
> However, getting out my hair-splitting razor, if they are not arms
> (and they can't be otherwise Lyon would insist on their matriculation)
> they can be used with impunity in Scotland! :-)
So could Garter make honorary grants of arms to Scots?...
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> >And the amazing thing is that Lyon got away with it!
>>
>> But why shouldn't he? Lyon is supreme in his own sphere of authority
>> and if he decides that honorary arms are inadmissable, then who can say
>> he is wrong?
>
>I think I just did...but the point is the term "honorary". How on earth can you
>have an honorary honor? Despite Lyon's supreme authority over things heraldic
>in
>Scotland, this odd oxymoron seems more than a bit laughable, wouldn't you
>agree?
>This and the silliness
err...what "silliness"?
>about nobility and arms in Scotland are just the things
>which
>make Lyon appear pompous and lessens his credibility.
>
>BG
>
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Anton Sherwood
: .... Lyon's interpretation is typical of not only
: Lyon, but the very pharaseeical (is there such a word?) approach to law
pharisaic(al).
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
I'm a libertarian: I want to expand the gray area between the mandatory
(or subsidized) and the forbidden. Statists strive to contract it.
Barry Gabriel
> On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 08:42:15 -0300, Barry Gabriel
> <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:
>
> As resident pharisee I'm delighted to see that most of my work has
> been done for me by Mike and even Francois!
Barouch Adonai Eluheinu...:-)
>
> [snip]
>
> The English heralds shot thier clients in the feet and have had to
> live with this (their own) interpretation of "honorary arms". As an
> aside of which, does anyone know when the CoA decided to issue such
> things - it must be late 19th century invention at the earliest, since
> I can't seem to find any mention of it in Fox-Davies.
Nor could I. It seems this strange beast as you call it is fairly
recent...and my guess is it is directly tied to U.S. seekers of arms with the
CoA.
> However, I think that there may have been some glee at Lyon Court when
> they received the answer from London since there may well have been
> personalities (and not just Sir Tam's) at work.
Probably (and typical).
> [snip]
>
> Innes here notes that "in 1952 and 1953 there were two what must be
> called 'Scotophobic' Kings of Arms in positions of influence". Were
> these men in place in 1938 at the time of the honorary arms question?
Scotophobic? Interesting. Here in Canada if a member of parliament during
the Trudeau era dared to criticize a Francophone member's submissions, he was
quickly denounced as a racist. Could this be the same thing? i.e. "You
English don't agree with me, therefore you MUST be Scotophobic (read racist).
>
>
> If they were I can imagine the cries of "got the buggers" at Lyon
> Court when the CoA admitted that it did not consider the things it
> fobbed off on rich Americans the equal of those it granted to the
> English.
I believe they only say that so as not to irritate the rather sensitive
attitude of the official line that citizens of the republic are NOT to accept
foreign honors. Their thinking would probably be "Well, we'll just tell them
the arms are not quite the same thing as those granted to our citizens. If
we tell them the arms are honorary grants, that ouhght to shut them up."
> [snip]
> >More embarrassing than anything, but a way in for non-Scottish armigers
> >to have the dubious trappings of nobility which Lyon claims to provide
> >(but which don't seem to appear in the grants).
> >
> The fact to note about the rematriculations of Spanish certificates is
> that Lyon does not make the non-Scottish armigers members of the
> "noblesse of Scotland" by entering them in his books.
Does he REALLY do so for Scottish petitioners?
> He accepts the
> foreign armiger in the status presented by the foreign heraldic
> authority, be that Grandee 1st Class, or peasant. By giving Lyon a
> wording which allowed the interpretation that the "honorary" arms
> granted by the CoA are not substantive, Lyon could argue that such
> arms are not even the equivalent of the peasant arms of the continent
> and thus are not eligible for recording.
>
> However, getting out my hair-splitting razor, if they are not arms
> (and they can't be otherwise Lyon would insist on their matriculation)
> they can be used with impunity in Scotland! :-)
I like the way you think...you must be Scottish ;-)
> [snip]
> >It would not be in Lyon's interest to correct the situation. He would
> >have to admit his father did something wrong.
>
> I can't see it happening not because of Innes of Edingight having to
> admit Lyon Grant wrong but because its a delightful and perpetual
> irritant to the CoA. Joy in scoring petty points off the English has
> worked its way into the Scots (and Irish and Welsh) character for
> centuries. It ain't going to stop now.
Sad, but true.
BG
Derek Howard
> So could Garter make honorary grants of arms to Scots?...
I have recently received a copy of the LL's Information leaflet No.4
Petition for Arms and observe tha the specimen petition for a grant of
arms to an ancestor has as its earliest ancestor and potential grantee
aone theoretical "Thomas Augustus Blank" described only as "Naval
Architect" and "married Bexhill in the County of Sussex 4 July 1885
...". I just wonder whether there is an insinuation here that LL is
prepared to grant arms to ancestors who were English on the sole basis
that some intervening ancestor was Scots or lived there.
If so, this seems somewhat an infringement of jurisdictions and a cheap
way of getting ancestral arms for an English ancestor where the
circumstances allow and this benefiting lines (possibly including the
senior line) that have never had a Scottish connection - and could this
be extended if one could show that a distant cousin once lived a few
years in Scotland.
Derek Howard
Brussels, Belgium
Michael F McCartney
yet one more installment in the Scottish guerilla war against the
dreaded Southron, it makes MUCH more sense. Too bad about
"collateral damage" to the honourary grantees, but great theatre!
Seriously, its still silly & unnecessarily offensive to the
grantees. An honor from the Crown (directly or through its
officers of arms) is an honor from the Crown, & as long as Garter
& Lyon hold office from the same Crown, they dishonor their liege
Lady by this sort of nonsense. I still think Edingight could fix
it without having to cast doubt on daddy's logic*, by (in the best
traditions of bureaucracy) characterizing it as correcting an
"unfortunate misunderstanding" caused by late Garter's poor choice
of wording. Or perhaps by saying that "further research and
inquiries..." etc....
[*or, if I read JD's posting correctly, LL Grant's logic?]
James Dempster
<ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote:
>James Dempster <jdem...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Innes here notes that "in 1952 and 1953 there were two what must be
>> called 'Scotophobic' Kings of Arms in positions of influence". Were
>> these men in place in 1938 at the time of the honorary arms question?
>
>Garter wasn't the same person (see http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/heralds.htm).
>
>> However, getting out my hair-splitting razor, if they are not arms
>> (and they can't be otherwise Lyon would insist on their matriculation)
>> they can be used with impunity in Scotland! :-)
>
>Beautiful!
>
For my next trick I now show how Lyon has his cake and eats it too.
"Honorary" arms are not arms - they are not admissable for
matriculation in the Lyon Register. However, if such an "honorary"
armiger uses them in Scotland, he is using them *as* arms. Therefore
they are "bogus" arms and the powers to prevent such use can be used
against the "honorary" armiger until such time as that person has
applied for a Scottish grant of arms - rather than a matriculation of
his "honorary" arms in Scotland.
James Dempster
I don't personally think that Lyon Court has to do anything - the onus
is on the CoA to start granting substantive arms those to whom it
currently grants "honorary" arms.
Putting it as bluntly as possible - sometime between the time
Fox-Davies and 1931 (the von Redlich opinion) the CoA invented a new
thing called "honorary" arms. Lyon asked them if they were the
equivalent of the arms that would be granted to an ordinary Englishman
and were told - "NO". Lyon therefore did not accept them as arms. The
onus is on the CoA to stop short-changing its clients. If the CoA were
to start granting substantive arms which *it* considered to be fully
equivalent to the ordinary grant to an Englishman then I'm sure Lyon
would acccept them.
Barry Gabriel
[snip]
I don't personally think that Lyon Court has to do anything - the onus
is on the CoA to start granting substantive arms those to whom it
currently grants "honorary" arms.Putting it as bluntly as possible - sometime between the time
Fox-Davies and 1931 (the von Redlich opinion) the CoA invented a new
thing called "honorary" arms. Lyon asked them if they were the
equivalent of the arms that would be granted to an ordinary Englishman
and were told - "NO". Lyon therefore did not accept them as arms.
The
onus is on the CoA to stop short-changing its clients. If the CoA were
to start granting substantive arms which *it* considered to be fully
equivalent to the ordinary grant to an Englishman then I'm sure Lyon
would acccept them.
BG
VBasicBoy
>want to risk offending mostly Americans, whose laws forbid the out and
>out acceptance of foreign honors, titles of nobility, etc.
FWIW, AFAIK it's pefectly legal for most Americans to accept foreign honors,
titles of nobility, etc. except in the case of sitting U.S. Government
Officials, for whom such acceptance is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. But
that's just AFAIK (though I am an American.)
Grant D. Watson
VBas...@aol.com
Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S
VBasicBoy wrote:
>
> >The English heralds probably grant "honorary" arms because they do not
> >want to risk offending mostly Americans, whose laws forbid the out and
> >out acceptance of foreign honors, titles of nobility, etc.
>
> FWIW, AFAIK it's pefectly legal for most Americans to accept foreign honors,
> titles of nobility, etc. except in the case of sitting U.S. Government
> Officials, for whom such acceptance is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
And even then, it's only forbidden without approval...
James Dempster
<bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:
>> Putting it as bluntly as possible - sometime between the time
>> Fox-Davies and 1931 (the von Redlich opinion) the CoA invented a new
>> thing called "honorary" arms. Lyon asked them if they were the
>> equivalent of the arms that would be granted to an ordinary Englishman
>> and were told - "NO". Lyon therefore did not accept them as arms.
>
>What are they if not arms???
>
I think that they may be "assumed arms", Friar and Ferguson in "Basic
Heraldry" notes that
"In 1869, John von Sonnentgan Haviland, an English herald of American
birth, gave evidence ... that the College of Arms had consistently
refused to register the pedigrees of Americans who wished to trace
their descent from English families. For most Americans at the
beginning of the present century, the only way to obtain a grant of
arms was to trace a remote cousin who might be persuaded to petition
for a grant with extended limitations to include descendants of a
common ancestor. But, at some unrecorded datre, the English kings of
arms began granting honorary arms to eminent Americans who could prove
unbroken male descent from British subjects.... The English kings of
arms have no jurisdiction in the United States but, since 1962,
several American corporations have obtained heraldic designs
(devisals) from the College of Arms. These are similar in appearance
to letters patent and are issued only with the consent of a state
governor."
I have not seen the text of the "grant" of honorary arms, but it *may*
be that they are devisals in the same way as the arms designed for
American corporations. My understanding of these devisals is that they
are no more official than any other US assumed arms - they have just
been designed by persons with knowledge of heraldry, and have been
painted onto a nice piece of vellum with lots of seals and the like.
The ACH could do it cheaper, and here on r.h. the design service comes
free - though you've got to do your own artwork.
*If* this is the case, then the arms would not have been granted -
only designed, and since Lyon does not recognise assumed arms, the
fact that they've been painted nicely and all the rest means nothing.
The only way to solve this is for someone to find and post the wording
of one (preferably more to check for consistency) "grant" of honorary
arms.
>
>I agree that the CoA shpuld change its attitude re honorary honor vs honor
>type arms. You seem to know more about this peculiarity than the rest of
>us, so tell us in what way honorary arms are different or less substantive
>than the "regular" grants of arms by the CoA. Are they worded
>differently, or is it something else that is more ghostly in substance?
>Are the honorary "class" of arms psuedo-granted to Americans only, or
>could it be something that the English herald merely stated? Finally, how
>in the world do you get an honorary honor? That one is still a mystery to
>me.
>
Nope - I don't know any more about this than anyone else - all is
speculation as to the sorts of things that could have provoked Lord
Lyon Grant's decision. Until I've seen the precise wording please
treat it as such.
As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
piece of paper.
Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
waiving the fees. In the case of US citizens, the fact of their US
citizenship makes them not ordinarily eligible for arms, so whatever
the CoA gives them are honorary - though extraordinary might have been
a better term.
Subject closed from this end until I see the wording of an "honorary
grant".
James
PS quango = quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<jdem...@easynet.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 05 Jun 1999 09:40:27 -0400, Michael F McCartney
><10265...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>>Ah, now that Jamie D has clarified the "honourary" arms flap as
>>yet one more installment in the Scottish guerilla war against the
>>dreaded Southron, it makes MUCH more sense. Too bad about
>>"collateral damage" to the honourary grantees, but great theatre!
>>
>>Seriously, its still silly & unnecessarily offensive to the
>>grantees. An honor from the Crown (directly or through its
>>officers of arms) is an honor from the Crown, & as long as Garter
>>& Lyon hold office from the same Crown, they dishonor their liege
>>Lady by this sort of nonsense. I still think Edingight could fix
>>it without having to cast doubt on daddy's logic*, by (in the best
>>traditions of bureaucracy) characterizing it as correcting an
>>"unfortunate misunderstanding" caused by late Garter's poor choice
>>of wording. Or perhaps by saying that "further research and
>>inquiries..." etc....
>>[*or, if I read JD's posting correctly, LL Grant's logic?]
>>
>is on the CoA to start granting substantive arms those to whom it
>currently grants "honorary" arms.
>
>Fox-Davies and 1931 (the von Redlich opinion) the CoA invented a new
>thing called "honorary" arms. Lyon asked them if they were the
>equivalent of the arms that would be granted to an ordinary Englishman
>onus is on the CoA to stop short-changing its clients. If the CoA were
>to start granting substantive arms which *it* considered to be fully
>equivalent to the ordinary grant to an Englishman then I'm sure Lyon
>would acccept them.
>
members of the British Orders of Chivalry because they are incapable of
becoming full members by making the Oath of Loyalty to the Sovereing
Head of the various Orders.
This logic cannot be applied in the same way to a grant of a coat-of-
arms....undoubtedly it is an honour (or more correctly, official
recognition of one's advanced status in life) but I really do not see
why this particular honour should be restricted to HM's UK subjects
only.
It is interesting to note that there has been a history of grants to
foreigners resident in England and as far as I am aware non of these
were in any way regarded as being inferior or different to those granted
to English subjects (and of course there have always been grants to
subjects of the Crown's overseas dominions, territories and colonies).
"The Oxford Guide to Heraldry" says:
"The current policy of only granting to those who are subjects of the
Crown, and making honorary grants to those descended in an unbroken male
line [a ruling which has now changed] from people who were subjects of
the Crown with the consent of the country of which they are now
subjects, has only evolved in this century. This enables a limited
number of honorary grants to be made to eminent Americans who can trace
either descent in an unbroken male line from someone resident in a
British-american colony in 1783, when Britain recognized American
independence, or from a subsequent emigrant. The granting of arms to
foreigners when commanded to do so by the Sovereing was historically one
of the perquisites of the Office of Garter."
EJD
James Dempster wrote in message <375ac2bb...@news.easynet.co.uk>...
>As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
>honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
>prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
>piece of paper.
>
>Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
>of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
>waiving the fees. In the case of US citizens, the fact of their US
>citizenship makes them not ordinarily eligible for arms, so whatever
>the CoA gives them are honorary - though extraordinary might have been
>a better term.
>
>Subject closed from this end until I see the wording of an "honorary
>grant".
Well, as the resident Scottish expert, perhaps you could clarify one point:
Lyon is happy to grant "full" arms to US citizens, if they are of Scottish
descent, is he not? I believe than in the far off days of Empire, the
Ulster King of Arms in Ireland was similarly happy to grant full arms to
those of Irish descent, wherever domiciled . If this is so, then the real
question becomes why the COA has chosen to insist on "subjecthood" as a
criterion for a "real" grant, given that the crown, in its two other arms
granting persona, has had no such quibbles.
- Edward
>
>James
>
>PS quango = quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation
Francois R. Velde
>As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
>honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
>prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
>piece of paper.
>
>Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
>of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
>waiving the fees.
I like your analogy with the driving license. But how do you pursue it? An
"honorary" driving license makes no sense. Either you are licensed to drive or
you aren't. Either you have arms or you don't.
>In the case of US citizens, the fact of their US
>citizenship makes them not ordinarily eligible for arms, so whatever
>the CoA gives them are honorary - though extraordinary might have been
>a better term.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
James Dempster
wrote:
>
>Well, as the resident Scottish expert, perhaps you could clarify one point:
>Lyon is happy to grant "full" arms to US citizens, if they are of Scottish
>descent, is he not? I believe than in the far off days of Empire, the
>Ulster King of Arms in Ireland was similarly happy to grant full arms to
>those of Irish descent, wherever domiciled . If this is so, then the real
>question becomes why the COA has chosen to insist on "subjecthood" as a
>criterion for a "real" grant, given that the crown, in its two other arms
>granting persona, has had no such quibbles.
> - Edward
>
You'll have to ask a CoA expert that one.
Derek Howard
[snip]
> I have not seen the text of the "grant" of honorary arms, but it *may*
> be that they are devisals in the same way as the arms designed for
> American corporations.
My edition of the Oxford Guide to Heraldry states that while Devisals
can be made to American corporate bodies and local authorities (with the
consent of the State Governor) but that "Devisals cannot be made to
American subjects of non-British descent as an alternative to an
honorary grant".
> My understanding of these devisals is that they
> are no more official than any other US assumed arms - they have just
> been designed by persons with knowledge of heraldry, and have been
> painted onto a nice piece of vellum with lots of seals and the like.
> The ACH could do it cheaper, and here on r.h. the design service comes
> free - though you've got to do your own artwork.
>
> *If* this is the case, then the arms would not have been granted -
> only designed, and since Lyon does not recognise assumed arms, the
> fact that they've been painted nicely and all the rest means nothing.
>
> The only way to solve this is for someone to find and post the wording
> of one (preferably more to check for consistency) "grant" of honorary
> arms.
[snip]
> Subject closed from this end until I see the wording of an "honorary
> grant".
Again, 'The Oxford Guide to Heraldry' states "These grants are recorded
in the same series as other grants, the only difference being the
inclusion of the word 'Honorary'".
Derek Howard
Brussels, Belgium
Derek Howard
<snip>
> Putting it as bluntly as possible - sometime between the time
> Fox-Davies and 1931 (the von Redlich opinion) the CoA invented a new
> thing called "honorary" arms.
" 'The Oxford Guide to Heraldry' states that an early example of an
honorary grant is that to Alain Campbell White of Litchfield,
Connecticut, in 1920". This would appear to put the decision back into
the era of Sir Henry Farnham Burke's tenure of Garter. It would be
interesting to know if there was any political motive in the aftermath
of WWI or just a desire to widen the revenue sources after the
decimation of Britain's gentry in the officer corps.
Derek Howard
Brussels, Belgium
Barry Gabriel
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
> [snip]
> >This and the silliness
>
> err...what "silliness"?
The silliness below...didn't you see it?
Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S
"Francois R. Velde" wrote:
>
> jdem...@easynet.co.uk (James Dempster) wrote:
> >As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
> >honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
> >prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
> >piece of paper.
> >
> >Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
> >of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
> >waiving the fees.
>
> I like your analogy with the driving license. But how do you pursue it? An
> "honorary" driving license makes no sense. Either you are licensed to drive or
> you aren't. Either you have arms or you don't.
We have "honorary" driver licenses in Louisiana, but they are called
"non-operators's license." Issued by the same agency etc, but used only
for identification. Since the purpose of arms is graphic identification
in the first palce, I agree y0ou either have arms or you don't...
Dr J.C. Horton
> jdem...@easynet.co.uk (James Dempster) wrote:
> >As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
> >honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
> >prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
> >piece of paper.
> >
> >Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
> >of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
> >waiving the fees.
>
> I like your analogy with the driving license. But how do you pursue it? An
> "honorary" driving license makes no sense. Either you are licensed to drive or
> you aren't. Either you have arms or you don't.
An "honorary" driving licence makes no sense in the U.K. - any analogy when pushed
too far is likely to break down. However, I understand that "honorary" driving
licences do exist in the U.S.A.
Francois R. Velde
Well, the point of the driving license analogy was to illuminate the question of
honorary grants of arms; so I don't think I'm pushing it beyond its purpose, I'm
asking it to play the role it was supposed to play. If a grant of arms is like
a driving license, then an honorary grant makes no more sense than an honorary
driving license. If an honorary grant of arms makes sense, then a grant of
arms is not like a driving license.
Based on what L.D. Baldwin says, The honorary DL are not "honorary"; rather,
driving licesnes in the US have become the primary form of identification,
so that a DL nowadays proves (a) identity and (b) the right to drive. The
"honorary" DL in Louisiana only fulfill function (a). Are there multiple
functions played by a grant of arms, such that an "honorary" one would be
limited to some functions and not all?
The functions I can think of are pure identification, and indication of
gentility (in the UK). Arms identify no matter what; perhaps honorary arms
are not meant to indicate gentility. That would imply that the College of Arms
applies weaker criteria for granting "honorary" arms, which in turn would imply
that the "honorary" arms are less honorable. In any case, since there is no
way (that I know) to distinguish visually an "honorary" coat from a "real" one,
it's hard to understand how honorary arms could fulfill a different function.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Barry Gabriel
> [snip]
> >What are they if not arms???
> >
> I think that they may be "assumed arms", Friar and Ferguson in "Basic
> Heraldry" notes that
Assumed? There's a stretch (and I suspect you are just being provocative).
[snip]
> I have not seen the text of the "grant" of honorary arms, but it *may*
> be that they are devisals in the same way as the arms designed for
> American corporations. My understanding of these devisals is that they
> are no more official than any other US assumed arms - they have just
> been designed by persons with knowledge of heraldry, and have been
> painted onto a nice piece of vellum with lots of seals and the like.
> The ACH could do it cheaper, and here on r.h. the design service comes
> free - though you've got to do your own artwork.
>
> *If* this is the case, then the arms would not have been granted -
> only designed, and since Lyon does not recognise assumed arms, the
> fact that they've been painted nicely and all the rest means nothing.
Then why all the rigamerole? If they have no status and are as you say assumed
(and yet at the same time granted), why bother with the CoA at all?
> The only way to solve this is for someone to find and post the wording
> of one (preferably more to check for consistency) "grant" of honorary
> arms.
I would love to see one.
> [snip]
>
> As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
> honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
> prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
> piece of paper.
Take it up with the crown. It's their definition.
> Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
> of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
> waiving the fees. In the case of US citizens, the fact of their US
> citizenship makes them not ordinarily eligible for arms, so whatever
> the CoA gives them are honorary - though extraordinary might have been
> a better term.
Extraordinary is a much better term, and perhaps more accurate.
> Subject closed from this end until I see the wording of an "honorary
> grant".
OK lurkers, someone out there must have seen a copy.
BG
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
>
>
even I, might not agree with Lyon's interpretation of the Law of Arms
and related Scots nobiliary law, but we have to accept that he is a
national king of arms and is "sovereign" in his area.
The whole question about nobility and arms is an area where there are
many good arguments for and against...there is no absolute answer.
Barry Gabriel
> In article <375BDAEC...@uccb.ns.ca>, Barry Gabriel
> <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
> >
> >
> >Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >This and the silliness
> >>
> >> err...what "silliness"?
> >
> >The silliness below...didn't you see it?
> >
> >> >about nobility and arms in Scotland are just the things
> >> >which
> >> >make Lyon appear pompous and lessens his credibility.
> >
> I think it's a bit excessive to describe it as "silliness"...
Silliness is the "nice" term I chose to use.
> you, or
> even I, might not agree with Lyon's interpretation of the Law of Arms
> and related Scots nobiliary law, but we have to accept that he is a
> national king of arms and is "sovereign" in his area.
And there's the rub. Lyon is certainly "sovereign" in his domain...but
to grant nobility??? Even under his definition of blood relation to the
clan chief qualifying you for noble status is a stretch. I live in one
of the few areas where Gaelic can still be heard and a lot of the
individuals of Scottish descent hereabouts (some of them cousins of mine)
are no more noble than the man in the moon. I just don't buy it (but
this argument has gone on here many times before without resolution).
>
>
> The whole question about nobility and arms is an area where there are
> many good arguments for and against...there is no absolute answer.
I would like to hear some of the arguments FOR (I am obviously familiar
with the arguments against).
BG
Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S
"Francois R. Velde" wrote:
> Well, the point of the driving license analogy was to illuminate the question of
> honorary grants of arms; so I don't think I'm pushing it beyond its purpose, I'm
> asking it to play the role it was supposed to play. If a grant of arms is like
> a driving license, then an honorary grant makes no more sense than an honorary
> driving license. If an honorary grant of arms makes sense, then a grant of
> arms is not like a driving license.
>
> Based on what L.D. Baldwin says, The honorary DL are not "honorary"; rather,
> driving licesnes in the US have become the primary form of identification,
> so that a DL nowadays proves (a) identity and (b) the right to drive. The
> "honorary" DL in Louisiana only fulfill function (a). Are there multiple
> functions played by a grant of arms, such that an "honorary" one would be
> limited to some functions and not all?
>
> The functions I can think of are pure identification, and indication of
> gentility (in the UK). Arms identify no matter what; perhaps honorary arms
> are not meant to indicate gentility. That would imply that the College of Arms
> applies weaker criteria for granting "honorary" arms, which in turn would imply
> that the "honorary" arms are less honorable. In any case, since there is no
> way (that I know) to distinguish visually an "honorary" coat from a "real" one,
> it's hard to understand how honorary arms could fulfill a different function.
Excellant! This means that non-honorary arms are the honorable type
(i.e.,carry "gentility"), while honorary arms the non-honorable
classification?
Michael F McCartney
(1) While the drivers license analogy has a certain attraction, it
ignores (repudiates) the concept of arms as an "honour" from the
crown - which means little to a republican, but apparently a lot
to the heralds, & whether we share their values or not, se can
only (try to) understand them if we "listen" in their language.
(2) IMO a direct analogy is to "honorary" knighthood (for
non-subject) - also an honor, but one not requiring fealty to the
crown. Anyone know when "honorary" knighthoods began? i.e. before
or after the CoA began making "honorary" grants to 'mericans?
(3) we (US) have done it too - tho' rarely! e.g. Congress granting
"honorary" US citizenship to Winston Churchill after WW-II; the
intent was to honor him, but in a way that didn't suggest any
interference with his UK citizenship/fealty to the crown. (also
note, as an additional/coincidental parallel, that WC was of US
descent on his mother's side... :)
(4) Text of an "honorary" grant of arms is identical to text of a
regular grant, including the Earl Marshall granting warrant etc,
excpt that the word "honorary" is inserted before "arms", "crest"
and "badge" wherever they occur. (I sent the text of an honorary
grant to another/former r.h reader to FV & PCB a couple of years
ago, in case they waned to post it on their websites...at that
time apparently it wasn't of suficient interet)
Michael F McCartney
"noblesse" angle, but you can't lay the blame for "honorary" arms
at his feet - he didn't invent it, Garter et al did! TI just
asked an apparently simple question (all Scots are lawyers at
heart... :) & then gleefully gored his "brother herald" Garter on
his less-than-well-thought-out reply (shades of Cain & Abel!).
IMO/FWIW & other false modesties, the problem isn't with the
concept of "honorary" arms (or "honorary" honors, tho' it does
sound silly) - there is an honest distinction between an "honor"
granted to a subject/citizen who owes allegiance/fealty to the
"sovereign" granting the honor, and the same/similar "honor"
granted to a foreigner who does not (and depending on where he
lives, perhaps cannot legally) accept any sort of crown honor
without some clear waiver of any claim of allegiance/fealty.
(Better if they could find a good thesaurus [latin for a large,
erudite lizard, IIRC] & find some other term than "honorary honor"
- but in fairness to Garter, I don't think he was the first, he
apparently just copied the style used in the Queen's List.
The problem - & we can blame both Garter for the faux pas, & Lyon
for the gleeful leaping thereon - is treating these two catagories
of crown honors as being of unequal value. Both were unnecessary;
only made worse by petty stubbornness; and reflect badly on both
parties. Fie, fie, fie.... (or is it Fee-Fie-Fow-Fum?)
Michael F McCartney
track!) asked/commented on the apparent disparity of Lyon (&
formerly Ulster) granting arms to Americans of Scottish/Irish
descent, with no qualification as to "honorary" - while Garter, in
similar circumstances (e.g. some ancestral UK tie, apparently no
longer just "y" chromosome) grants only "honorary" arms. Why oh
why etc??
Apparently the difference is that the English heralds grant to the
petitioner and, perhaps, the other descendants of the qualifying
ancestor - not sure here, 'cause the one example I've seen was to
a naturalized US citizen born a UK subject - so the grantee is the
petitioner; & if not a Brit, it must be "honorary." Lyon on the
other hand, issues the grant posthumously to the deceased Geordie
- who as a good subject would not, even in death, require an
"honorary" grant; and the petitioner then inherits this
retroactive substantive right to arms, either directly if the heir
or differenced by matriculation if a cadet, but the basic
armigerousness is substantive not honorary. I assume that Ulster
(in the old days) did the same; TI of L, in a footnote, cites a
statement by one of the older Ulsters that the Kings of Arms had
the right to nobilitate ancestors (don't have it close at hand to
quote exactly, but IIRC that's about it).
Anyway, I think that's the "theory of the case" behind it all.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
McCartney <10265...@CompuServe.COM> writes
Ahhh....I do not recall this!
Anyway, to throw another spanner into the works, let's also think of the
term "honorary" when we're talking about something like an "honorary
degree" (or an "honorary" colonelcy that is granted by various US
States)....in both these cases the intention is to honour or give a mark
of an esteem to the recipient - but there is no suggestion that that
which is granted (be it degree or colonelcy) ranks with the "normal"
ones.
Can we look at "honorary" grants of arms like this also?
Derek Howard
> And there's the rub. Lyon is certainly "sovereign" in his domain...but
> to grant nobility??? Even under his definition of blood relation to the
> clan chief qualifying you for noble status is a stretch. I live in one
> of the few areas where Gaelic can still be heard and a lot of the
> individuals of Scottish descent hereabouts (some of them cousins of mine)
> are no more noble than the man in the moon. I just don't buy it (but
> this argument has gone on here many times before without resolution).
>
> >
> >
> > The whole question about nobility and arms is an area where there are
> > many good arguments for and against...there is no absolute answer.
>
> I would like to hear some of the arguments FOR (I am obviously familiar
> with the arguments against).
>
> BG
How about trying these arguments for:
1) Noblesse is not the same as a noble title or title of nobility it is
a quality.
2) Lyon does not grant nobility or membership of the Scottish noblesse -
he merely recognises it. It is a condition of being eligible to be
granted arms. The arms are symbolic of noblesse and do not themselves
grant it. The grants of arms effectively invite all and sundry to also
be able to recognise the quality.
3) Noblesse was not invented by TI of L. He was merely using terms that
were normal in nearly all 16th century and many early 17th century
grants in England, they may also have been common in Scotland at the
same time but I have not seen the texts of any Scottish grants prior to
the creation of the Lyon Register.
4) Arms granted by the sovereign or by the delegated authority of a
sovereign were formerly and generally considered to be marks of nobility
or of noblesse. Hence legislation at various times in a number of
countries (apparently including Empire, Italy, France, Spain, England,
Scotland, etc.) to restrict arms or at least arms with helm and crest to
the nobility or noblesse or gentry (however flexible the definitions or
rights and obligations of such may be). The widespread failure of such
attempts is largely due to the inability or unwillingness to enforce the
legislation, except in Scotland, hence a Scot could continue to perceive
of Scottish arms as indicative of noblesse.
5) It was formerly considered that qualities of noblesse just nobility
or gentility could pass down in the blood. The fact that this is
(probably!) an anachronistic view in this age of DNA analysis does not
detract from its theoretical application in a field that prides itself
on standing by ancient usage. Sure you or I or your cousins could be
serf by nature and appearance but if you are descended from a noble
rogue or gentleman you have as much right to 'noblesse' of blood in the
eyes of the Crown's officers as you have to his coat of arms. English
16th century grants indicate that they are in part to encourage later
generations to live up to their forebear's qualities. They just may
still give some such encouragement and that in itself is a noble thing
where the forebear's qualities are praiseworthy.
Derek Howard
Brussels, Belgium
Barry Gabriel
> [snip]
>
> Anyway, to throw another spanner into the works, let's also think of the
> term "honorary" when we're talking about something like an "honorary
> degree" (or an "honorary" colonelcy that is granted by various US
> States)....in both these cases the intention is to honour or give a mark
> of an esteem to the recipient - but there is no suggestion that that
> which is granted (be it degree or colonelcy) ranks with the "normal"
> ones.
>
> Can we look at "honorary" grants of arms like this also?
Good point, but not exactly the smae thing. Our institution here (where I
work) grants honorary degrees to worthy individuals. The difference between
this and honorary arms is that the degree parchment for the honorary doctor
states it is honorary. I wonder if the granted honorary arms say something
along the same lines? Ypou have access there with your pals at the CoA.
How about looking one up and settling this discussion?
By the way, I read the sample in your Cracroft's Peerage and found it quite
good (excellent actually).
BG
Barry Gabriel
[snip]
> How about trying these arguments for:
> 1) Noblesse is not the same as a noble title or title of nobility it is
> a quality.
True, but that is not how Lyon's grants are being portrayed - perhaps by others
(nor discouraged by Lyon either).
> 2) Lyon does not grant nobility or membership of the Scottish noblesse -
> he merely recognises it. It is a condition of being eligible to be
> granted arms. The arms are symbolic of noblesse and do not themselves
> grant it. The grants of arms effectively invite all and sundry to also
> be able to recognise the quality.
Yes...but this was discussed before.
> 3) Noblesse was not invented by TI of L. He was merely using terms that
> were normal in nearly all 16th century and many early 17th century
> grants in England, they may also have been common in Scotland at the
> same time but I have not seen the texts of any Scottish grants prior to
> the creation of the Lyon Register.
Nobody said TI of L invented the term.
> 4) Arms granted by the sovereign [snip] The widespread failure of such
> attempts is largely due to the inability or unwillingness to enforce the
> legislation, except in Scotland, hence a Scot could continue to perceive
> of Scottish arms as indicative of noblesse.
The terms are a bit muddy, which is one of the problems. Noblesse is more a
continental term. Among the English speakers, gentility would I believe be a
better term.
> 5) It was formerly considered that qualities of noblesse just nobility
> or gentility could pass down in the blood. The fact that this is
> (probably!) an anachronistic view in this age of DNA analysis does not
> detract from its theoretical application in a field that prides itself
> on standing by ancient usage. Sure you or I or your cousins could be
> serf by nature and appearance but if you are descended from a noble
> rogue or gentleman you have as much right to 'noblesse' of blood in the
> eyes of the Crown's officers as you have to his coat of arms.
That's the part I get stuck on (you should meet some of my cousins!).
> English
> 16th century grants indicate that they are in part to encourage later
> generations to live up to their forebear's qualities. They just may
> still give some such encouragement and that in itself is a noble thing
> where the forebear's qualities are praiseworthy.
Well put, but you are assuming that the descendants would know about their
noble ancestor. I have encounterd individuals here with the surname MacDonald
who don't even know they are of Scottish descent! And this in an area where
Gaelic was, until about 30 years ago, spoken more here than in Scotland. I
suppose it all hinges on the definition of noble.
By the way...are you related to the other better known Howard? :-)
BG
Derek Howard
<snip>
Which one? Howard is the 93 most common English surname so there are a
fair few to chose from - I can think of a large number of
FitzAlan-Howards who should be better known on this NG. As for Michael
Howard in the UK he is completely disowned by me. I have no knowledge of
the origins of the Australian politician. As for me - the line goes dim
in the mid-17th century before which it was spelled as variants on
Heworth (village near York). The surname stabilised with a marriage of
widow Heyworth to one William Ward in the 18th century - they may also
have been influenced by the arrival nearby of the Earls of Carlisle.
Illegitimacies in 1736 and 1799 mean that I have no original Howard
blood and no traceable male line before the end of the 18th century.
This rambling is not as off-topic as might appear as, to celebrate the
bi-centenary of the birth of my great-great grandfather, Robert Howard
of Stillington, North Yorkshire on 17 June this year, my brother and I
have submitted a Memorial to the Earl Marshal for a Warrant to the Kings
of Arms to grant arms with the Letters Patent (hopefully) dated 17 June.
I shall post the outcome.
Derek Howard
Brussels, Belgium
Barry Gabriel
> [snip]granting arms to Americans of Scottish/Irish
> descent, with no qualification as to "honorary" - while Garter, in
> similar circumstances (e.g. some ancestral UK tie, apparently no
> longer just "y" chromosome) grants only "honorary" arms. Why oh
> why etc??
I believe it has something to do with that old cheasnut called "blood".
If I read things correctly, Lyon can grant to anyone of male Scottish
descent. A Scot is a Scot is a Scot, no matter where the "Scot" is
born and Lyon claims heraldic jurisdiction over all of Scottish descent
(though how Scottish is defined, I don't know).
>
> [snip]
> Lyon on the
> other hand, issues the grant posthumously to the deceased Geordie
> - who as a good subject would not, even in death, require an
> "honorary" grant; and the petitioner then inherits this
> retroactive substantive right to arms, either directly if the heir
> or differenced by matriculation if a cadet, but the basic
> armigerousness is substantive not honorary. I assume that Ulster
> (in the old days) did the same; TI of L, in a footnote, cites a
> statement by one of the older Ulsters that the Kings of Arms had
> the right to nobilitate ancestors (don't have it close at hand to
> quote exactly, but IIRC that's about it).
Though I have my problems with TI of L, he was quite the scholar and
(like all Scots) extremely legalistic in his mind-set. Caiaphas could
learn a thing or two...
BG
Barry Gabriel
Derek Howard wrote:
> Barry Gabriel wrote:
> <snip>
> > By the way...are you related to the other better known Howard? :-)
>
> Which one?
The Earl Marshal of course (it was a joke).
BG
Francois R. Velde
>How about trying these arguments for:
>1) Noblesse is not the same as a noble title or title of nobility it is
>a quality.
Namely?...
>2) Lyon does not grant nobility or membership of the Scottish noblesse -
>he merely recognises it.
That's not what Lyon says (or at least TI of L). He claims to grant it, and
that's the crux of the problem.
>3) Noblesse was not invented by TI of L. He was merely using terms that
>were normal in nearly all 16th century and many early 17th century
>grants in England, they may also have been common in Scotland at the
>same time but I have not seen the texts of any Scottish grants prior to
>the creation of the Lyon Register.
The word "noble" may be used in a generic sense by English heralds to designate
the grantee, as to say that he is worthy, honorable, esteemable, etc, etc.
These are certainly "qualities" but they are not Lyon's or anyone else's to
grant.
>4) Arms granted by the sovereign or by the delegated authority of a
>sovereign were formerly and generally considered to be marks of nobility
>or of noblesse.
Arms were restricted in Scotland, in 1672, but it was not to the nobility, and
the word "noblesse" does not appear. Moreover, there is no word before TI of L
that Lyon grants noblesse, whatever that is. Either noblesse=nobility in which
case the theory is contradicted by the act of 1672, or noblesse is something
else, in which case a definition is needed.
The idea that grants of arms are restricted to individuals possessing hereditary
quality X, and that, by virtue of this restriction, arms are an indication of an
individual possessing quality X, is the English theory of arms. It makes sense.
Lyon's theory is that his grants confer quality X on the grantee. That is
founded on nothing.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Dr J.C. Horton
> Dr J.C. Horton <ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Francois R. Velde wrote:
>
> > > jdem...@easynet.co.uk (James Dempster) wrote:
> > > >As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
> > > >honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
> > > >prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
> > > >piece of paper.
> > > >
> > > >Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
> > > >of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
> > > >waiving the fees.
> > >
> > > I like your analogy with the driving license. But how do you pursue it? An
> > > "honorary" driving license makes no sense. Either you are licensed to drive or
> > > you aren't. Either you have arms or you don't.
>
> > An "honorary" driving licence makes no sense in the U.K. - any analogy when pushed
> > too far is likely to break down. However, I understand that "honorary" driving
> > licences do exist in the U.S.A.
>
> Well, the point of the driving license analogy was to illuminate the question of
> honorary grants of arms; so I don't think I'm pushing it beyond its purpose, I'm
> asking it to play the role it was supposed to play. If a grant of arms is like
> a driving license, then an honorary grant makes no more sense than an honorary
> driving license. If an honorary grant of arms makes sense, then a grant of
> arms is not like a driving license.
I think the original poster suggested the analogy simply to indicate his idea of one
aspect of a coat of arms. That it may (or may not) break down when extended to
illuminating what an honorary coat of arms might be hardly invalidates it.
If we want an analogy which can be extended to include the honorary version, then
perhaps an honorary degree might be a possibility.
Dr J.C. Horton
> "Francois R. Velde" wrote:
>
> > Well, the point of the driving license analogy was to illuminate the question of
> > honorary grants of arms; so I don't think I'm pushing it beyond its purpose, I'm
> > asking it to play the role it was supposed to play. If a grant of arms is like
> > a driving license, then an honorary grant makes no more sense than an honorary
> > driving license. If an honorary grant of arms makes sense, then a grant of
> > arms is not like a driving license.
> >
> > Based on what L.D. Baldwin says, The honorary DL are not "honorary"; rather,
> > driving licesnes in the US have become the primary form of identification,
> > so that a DL nowadays proves (a) identity and (b) the right to drive. The
> > "honorary" DL in Louisiana only fulfill function (a). Are there multiple
> > functions played by a grant of arms, such that an "honorary" one would be
> > limited to some functions and not all?
> >
> > The functions I can think of are pure identification, and indication of
> > gentility (in the UK). Arms identify no matter what; perhaps honorary arms
> > are not meant to indicate gentility. That would imply that the College of Arms
> > applies weaker criteria for granting "honorary" arms, which in turn would imply
> > that the "honorary" arms are less honorable. In any case, since there is no
> > way (that I know) to distinguish visually an "honorary" coat from a "real" one,
> > it's hard to understand how honorary arms could fulfill a different function.
>
> Excellent! This means that non-honorary arms are the honorable type
> (i.e., carry "gentility"), while honorary arms the non-honorable
> classification?
... but since "honorary" and "honourable" are not synonyms are there any reasons why
this shouldn't be the case? In the U.K.*, an honorary degree does not confer (full)
membership of a university; a non-honorary one does.
* In general - exact rules differ from university to university.
Andrew Yong
> ... but since "honorary" and "honourable" are not synonyms are there
> any reasons why this shouldn't be the case? In the U.K.*, an honorary
> degree does not confer (full) membership of a university; a
> non-honorary one does.
>
> * In general - exact rules differ from university to university.
I don't know about membership, but in Oxford the phrase 'honoris causa' is
used instead of 'honorary', and they entitle the recipient to use the
title of Dr and wear the gowns of a doctor.
andrew
--------------------------------------
Andre...@Christ-Church.Oxford.AC.UK or @chch.ox.ac.uk
Francois R. Velde
> I think the original poster suggested the analogy simply to indicate his idea of one
> aspect of a coat of arms.
Presumably, the aspect under consideration in this thread.
> That it may (or may not) break down when extended to
> illuminating what an honorary coat of arms might be hardly invalidates it.
I said that I like the analogy, so I don't consider it invalid. But it doesn't
help make sense of honorary grants of arms. That may well be because honorary
grants of arms don't make sense to begin with.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Francois R. Velde
> > (i.e., carry "gentility"), while honorary arms the non-honorable
> > classification?
> ... but since "honorary" and "honourable" are not synonyms are there any reasons why
> this shouldn't be the case? In the U.K.*, an honorary degree does not confer (full)
> membership of a university; a non-honorary one does.
They are not synonyms, yet honorary degrees are confered to *honor* the recipient,
and they are a mark of honor and distinction. The paradox is that, under one
interpretation of the C of A's honorary grants at least, the difference between
"honorary" grants and substantive grants is that, while substantive grants are
an indication of gentility and honorable status, the "honorary" grants are not.
Therefore, the "honorary" grants do not honor the recipient, and are not a mark
of distinction.
Imagine that honorary degrees differ from real degrees *only* in that they are
*not* confered to people of any (academic) distinction. Wouldn't you find the
word "honorary" a bit paradoxical?
I'm slightly surprised that university degrees confer membership in a university.
I thought a degree was what you received upon *leaving* the university.
Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S
"Dr J.C. Horton" wrote:
>
> Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S wrote:
> > Excellent! This means that non-honorary arms are the honorable type
> > (i.e., carry "gentility"), while honorary arms the non-honorable
> > classification?
>
> ... but since "honorary" and "honourable" are not synonyms are there any reasons why
> this shouldn't be the case? In the U.K.*, an honorary degree does not confer (full)
> membership of a university; a non-honorary one does.
O course they aren't. I merely pointed out that the phrase *not*
containing the word "honor" was supposedly imbued with it, while the
phrase that *does* contain the word honor is adamantly *not*. Struck me
as kinda humourous, but YMMV.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
Thanks Barry...I will reply to the some of the points you raised in your
interesting e-mail shortly...thanks for taking time to look at the
sample from CP!!
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
>Michael F McCartney wrote:
>
>> [snip]granting arms to Americans of Scottish/Irish
>> descent, with no qualification as to "honorary" - while Garter, in
>> similar circumstances (e.g. some ancestral UK tie, apparently no
>> longer just "y" chromosome) grants only "honorary" arms. Why oh
>> why etc??
>
>I believe it has something to do with that old cheasnut called "blood".
>If I read things correctly, Lyon can grant to anyone of male Scottish
>descent. A Scot is a Scot is a Scot, no matter where the "Scot" is
>born and Lyon claims heraldic jurisdiction over all of Scottish descent
>(though how Scottish is defined, I don't know).
and, of course, LL will even matriculate arms for non-Scots who are not
even resident in Scotland!!
Andrew Yong
> I'm slightly surprised that university degrees confer membership in a university.
> I thought a degree was what you received upon *leaving* the university.
A person who becomes a Master of Arts becomes a full member of the
university and gains the right to vote in Convocation, which elects the
Chancellor, etc.
Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>
> In article <375DD51A...@uccb.ns.ca>, Barry Gabriel
> <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
> >Michael F McCartney wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]granting arms to Americans of Scottish/Irish
> >> descent, with no qualification as to "honorary" - while Garter, in
> >> similar circumstances (e.g. some ancestral UK tie, apparently no
> >> longer just "y" chromosome) grants only "honorary" arms. Why oh
> >> why etc??
> >
> >I believe it has something to do with that old cheasnut called "blood".
> >If I read things correctly, Lyon can grant to anyone of male Scottish
> >descent. A Scot is a Scot is a Scot, no matter where the "Scot" is
> >born and Lyon claims heraldic jurisdiction over all of Scottish descent
> >(though how Scottish is defined, I don't know).
>
> and, of course, LL will even matriculate arms for non-Scots who are not
> even resident in Scotland!!
>
Interesting. What reasoning does he use to claim jurisdiction\domain
over over non-scots outside of Scotland??
Barry Gabriel
> In article <375DD51A...@uccb.ns.ca>, Barry Gabriel
> <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
> [snip]
> >I believe it has something to do with that old cheasnut called "blood".
> >If I read things correctly, Lyon can grant to anyone of male Scottish
> >descent. A Scot is a Scot is a Scot, no matter where the "Scot" is
> >born and Lyon claims heraldic jurisdiction over all of Scottish descent
> >(though how Scottish is defined, I don't know).
>
> and, of course, LL will even matriculate arms for non-Scots who are not
> even resident in Scotland!!
Provided they are officially granted...unless of course they are
honorary...Any luck on an additional honarary grant text?
BG
Barry Gabriel
> [snip]
> >By the way, I read the sample in your Cracroft's Peerage and found it quite
> >good (excellent actually).
>
> Thanks Barry...I will reply to the some of the points you raised in your
> interesting e-mail shortly...thanks for taking time to look at the
> sample from CP!!
My pleasure.
BG
Barry Gabriel
Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > and, of course, LL will even matriculate arms for non-Scots who are not
> > even resident in Scotland!!
> >
> Interesting. What reasoning does he use to claim jurisdiction\domain
> over over non-scots outside of Scotland??
Those with noble aspirations of course.
BG
James Dempster
couple of days - I see the debate has moved on a little, but I think
this is all still reasonably valid. JD
On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 14:51:11 GMT, "Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S"
<eir...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Francois R. Velde" wrote:
>>
>> jdem...@easynet.co.uk (James Dempster) wrote:
>> >As to "honorary" honours. I don't consider a coat of arms to be an
>> >honour any more than a driving licence is an honour. In both cases you
>> >prove eligibility, pay the fees, and a quango issues the appropriate
>> >piece of paper.
>> >
>> >Given that attitude it is perfectly possible to give honorary versions
>> >of the same to people who are either not ordinarily eligible or by
>> >waiving the fees.
>>
>> I like your analogy with the driving license. But how do you pursue it? An
>> "honorary" driving license makes no sense. Either you are licensed to drive or
>> you aren't. Either you have arms or you don't.
No one has yet disproved my contention that for a Briton arms are no
more an honour than a driving licence but I'll let that pass.
On the foreign analogy - take honorary membership of a professional
body. It can either take place because the person is not ordinarily
eligible (rare but possible) or because the person concerned has has
the fees waived - usually because of distinction in the profession
concerned.
I pursue the analogy like this - a UK citizen obtains a driving
licence by proving eligibility (passing a test), paying the fee
(£13.50 currently if memory serves) and having the licence issued by
the DVLA. A grant of arms follows the same basic procedure - proof of
eligibility (genealogical), paying the fee (a lot more than £13.50
:-)) and then receiving a grant from the CoA.
In the UK, most non-EU licences are accepted as valid for a short time
(? 12 months). This would be the same as the LC's allowance of
occasional use of foreign arms by temporary visitors to Scotland, but
the UK driving test must be sat for more permanent driving (this was
certainly the case for a Swedish former colleage who had a Canadian
driving licence when he joined our company). This is the equivalent of
the LC requiring an armigerous person who becomes permanently resident
in Scotland to rematriculate (with appropriate differences) their
foreign arms in Scotland.
The CoA situation seems to be different. The equivalent of accepting
foreign driving licences at a level at which they can be used but are
somehow seen as second class, without a process equivalent to a full
Scottish rematriculation. Baron von Redlich had titles of nobility in
Hungary and Montenegro and his foreign arms as such would have been
acceptable for a Scottish rematriculation of substantive arms had such
been requested (Innes of Learney, 1956, 92n) yet he was only granted
honorary arms in England (same source).
>
>We have "honorary" driver licenses in Louisiana, but they are called
>"non-operators's license." Issued by the same agency etc, but used only
>for identification. Since the purpose of arms is graphic identification
>in the first palce, I agree y0ou either have arms or you don't...
>
Logically I would agree - and the Lyon Court does so too - a foreigner
can use their own arms (without rematriculation) if they are a
temporary visitor and can apply for a grant or rematriculation (no
matter their ancestry or nationality) if a permanent or long-term
resident. The CoA seems to have a different point of view - and
non-Britons are not allowed (apparently) to obtain substantive arms.
The can only receive "honorary" arms - even if - like Baron von
Redlich - they appear to be both noble and resident. It's a case for
the CoA. Their procedures are the ones which appear to be strange.
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.
Derek Howard
Stapleton Duke of Norfolk Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter
Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order Companion of the Most
Honourable Order of the Bath Commander of the Most Excellent Order of
the British Empire upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the
Military Cross Earl Marshal and Hereditary Marshal of England - or I
suppose the EM for short on this NG.
On this list, and apart from the EM and his predecessors, you could just
possibly have been refering to the Hon. Henry Bowes Howard Earl of
Berkshire, Deputy Earl Marshal (1720) or to or the late Algar Henry
Stafford Howard, Norroy and Ulster 1930-1944 :)
Derek Howard
Dr J.C. Horton
> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Dr J.C. Horton wrote:
>
> > ... but since "honorary" and "honourable" are not synonyms are there
> > any reasons why this shouldn't be the case? In the U.K.*, an honorary
> > degree does not confer (full) membership of a university; a
> > non-honorary one does.
> >
> > * In general - exact rules differ from university to university.
> I don't know about membership, but in Oxford the phrase 'honoris causa' is
> used instead of 'honorary', and they entitle the recipient to use the
> title of Dr and wear the gowns of a doctor.
"Dr" is essentially a courtesy title so not too much can be read into its use
one way or the other. (Having said which, I think some of the post-1992
universities do actually try to prevent their honorary doctors using it!)
Most of the pre-1992 universities have a clause in their rules for Convocation
to the effect that holders of substantive degrees (of the correct standing and
allowing for matters of finance) are members as of right. Individual holders
of honorary degrees, however, may join only with the permission of Convocation
itself. Here is the wording from Nottingham which I think is fairly typical:
"2. All Graduates of the University of such standing as shall be determined by
Convocation or who hold any teaching appointment in the University shall
register on such conditions as to fees as the Ordinances may prescribe
provided that a holder of an Honorary Degree shall not as such without the
consent of Convocation in each case be entitled to register."
This may not tell us too much about an honorary graduate in absolute terms but
it certainly tells us something about an honorary graduate in relative terms.
I would have to check Statutes and Ordinances to see whether honorary
graduates at Cambridge are members of Senate or not. My suspicion is that they
are not. Cambridge still publishes a list of everyone living who has ever
matriculated. (Simply to matriculate one day and go down the next will keep
one's name in it for life!) Honorary graduates do appear in this but their
degree is marked in italics.
Cambridge regulations are very clear on the academical dress of honorary
graduates. They wear the gown - both gowns in the case of doctors - but not
the hood. (Substantive graduates of the same degree are, of course, entitled
to the hood.)
Are honorary graduates at Oxford entitled to vote for the Chancellor or the
Professor of Poetry? Honorary doctors are no doubt allowed to wear the gimp
and scarlet gowns - a more telling point, however, might be whether they can
wear convocation habit.
Dr J.C. Horton
> "Dr J.C. Horton" wrote:
> >
> > Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S wrote:
> > > Excellent! This means that non-honorary arms are the honorable type
> > > (i.e., carry "gentility"), while honorary arms the non-honorable
> > > classification?
> >
> > ... but since "honorary" and "honourable" are not synonyms are there any reasons why
> > this shouldn't be the case? In the U.K.*, an honorary degree does not confer (full)
> > membership of a university; a non-honorary one does.
>
> O course they aren't. I merely pointed out that the phrase *not*
> containing the word "honor" was supposedly imbued with it, while the
> phrase that *does* contain the word honor is adamantly *not*. Struck me
> as kinda humourous, but YMMV.
Such "features" are not uncommon in the English language. "Cleave", for instance, is often
quoted as an example of a word being its own antonym.
Dr J.C. Horton
> Dr J.C. Horton <ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Excellent! This means that non-honorary arms are the honorable type
> > > (i.e., carry "gentility"), while honorary arms the non-honorable
> > > classification?
>
> > ... but since "honorary" and "honourable" are not synonyms are there any reasons why
> > this shouldn't be the case? In the U.K.*, an honorary degree does not confer (full)
> > membership of a university; a non-honorary one does.
>
> They are not synonyms, yet honorary degrees are confered to *honor* the recipient,
> and they are a mark of honor and distinction. The paradox is that, under one
> interpretation of the C of A's honorary grants at least, the difference between
> "honorary" grants and substantive grants is that, while substantive grants are
> an indication of gentility and honorable status, the "honorary" grants are not.
> Therefore, the "honorary" grants do not honor the recipient, and are not a mark
> of distinction.
>
> Imagine that honorary degrees differ from real degrees *only* in that they are
> *not* confered to people of any (academic) distinction. Wouldn't you find the
> word "honorary" a bit paradoxical?
What all this seems to suggest is that "honorary" is perhaps a bad choice of word in
"honorary coat of arms". Someone else has suggested "extraordinary". Would the concept of
an "honorary coat of arms" be more acceptable if called an "extraordinary coat of arms", I
wonder.
> I'm slightly surprised that university degrees confer membership in a university.
> I thought a degree was what you received upon *leaving* the university.
Leaving in what sense? Geographical or expulsion? Membership of a university - at least in
the U.K. - is not dependent on one's location. (Being admitted to a degree as a part of
being sent down would be an interesting idea!)
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<eir...@home.com> writes
>
>
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>>
>> In article <375DD51A...@uccb.ns.ca>, Barry Gabriel
>> <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> writes
>> >
>> >> [snip]granting arms to Americans of Scottish/Irish
>> >> descent, with no qualification as to "honorary" - while Garter, in
>> >> similar circumstances (e.g. some ancestral UK tie, apparently no
>> >> longer just "y" chromosome) grants only "honorary" arms. Why oh
>> >> why etc??
>> >
>> >If I read things correctly, Lyon can grant to anyone of male Scottish
>> >descent. A Scot is a Scot is a Scot, no matter where the "Scot" is
>> >born and Lyon claims heraldic jurisdiction over all of Scottish descent
>> >(though how Scottish is defined, I don't know).
>>
>> even resident in Scotland!!
>>
>Interesting. What reasoning does he use to claim jurisdiction\domain
>over over non-scots outside of Scotland??
Well in my case I was a UK subject, living in England who matriculated
his Irish arms in Scotland......
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> writes
>
>What all this seems to suggest is that "honorary" is perhaps a bad choice of
>word in
>"honorary coat of arms". Someone else has suggested "extraordinary". Would the
>concept of
>an "honorary coat of arms" be more acceptable if called an "extraordinary coat
>of arms", I
>wonder.
The problem here is that the term "extraordinary" is already used in
heraldic circles in a different sense to what you are suggesting when we
talk about "Officers of Arms in Ordinary" and "Officers of Arms
Extraordinary", when "extraordinary" means "in addition to the normal
complement".
Barry Gabriel
> I wrote this on Monday and forgot to post it before I went away for a
> couple of days - I see the debate has moved on a little, but I think
> this is all still reasonably valid. JD
>
> [snip]
> >>
> >> I like your analogy with the driving license. But how do you pursue it? An
> >> "honorary" driving license makes no sense. Either you are licensed to drive or
> >> you aren't. Either you have arms or you don't.
>
> No one has yet disproved my contention that for a Briton arms are no
> more an honour than a driving licence but I'll let that pass.
Such a non sequetor...I have to comment. As a Briton, does your driver's license
descend to your off-spring? Mine doesn't, but I'm nor British either. Are things
that different over there? ;-) Neither have YOU proved that driver's licenses and
arms share such an ephemeral quality. Take your time.
[big snip]
BG
Anton Sherwood
: > I'm slightly surprised that university degrees confer membership in a
: > university.
: > I thought a degree was what you received upon *leaving* the university.
Dr J.C. Horton <ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> writes
: Leaving in what sense? Geographical or expulsion? Membership of a university
: - at least in the U.K. - is not dependent on one's location. (Being admitted
: to a degree as a part of being sent down would be an interesting idea!)
For an American, a degree generally ends any active association with
the university. Alumni as such have no role at all in governing it.
The degree is a credential, a certificate, not a membership.
Of course I'm a lowly BS from a state university, so maybe I'm all wet
with respect to doctorates from the top-tier schools.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
I'm a libertarian: I want to expand the gray area between the mandatory
(or subsidized) and the forbidden. Statists strive to contract it.
Francois R. Velde
>For an American, a degree generally ends any active association with
>the university. Alumni as such have no role at all in governing it.
>The degree is a credential, a certificate, not a membership.
>
>Of course I'm a lowly BS from a state university, so maybe I'm all wet
>with respect to doctorates from the top-tier schools.
I think what you said still applies.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>For an American, a degree generally ends any active association with
>the university. Alumni as such have no role at all in governing it.
>The degree is a credential, a certificate, not a membership.
>Of course I'm a lowly BS from a state university, so maybe I'm all wet
>with respect to doctorates from the top-tier schools.
I don't know of any exceptions to this practice. (You forgot the one
continuing active connection for which the school administrations
always hope -- or have you been spared the annual alumni fund appeal?)
Brian M. Scott
Derek Howard
> >How about trying these arguments for:
> >1) Noblesse is not the same as a noble title or title of nobility it is
> >a quality.
>
> Namely?...
My Shorter OED has many more definitions from the 16th century of
noblesse and nobility as qualities than it has as a term restricted to
the titled peerage. It was obviously in common usage at that time for a
much wider concept of character than the peerage. One other example,
from a grant, should surfice though there are various forms of wording:
"... men vertuous be by theire merytes and good Renowne rewarded not
alonly theire persons in this mortalle lyfe to brief and transitory but
also after them those that shalbe of their bodyes desendid to be in all
placys of honor with other nobles and gentilles accepted and taken by
certeyne enseignes and demonstrancys of honor and Nobless that is to
saye blason healme and Tymber to thende that by their ensamples other
may the more enforce themselves to have perseverance to use theire dayes
in feates of armes and werk vertuous to get the Renowne of auncyent
nobless in theire lignes and posterities [...] so that he is well worthy
in all placys of honor with other nobles and gentilles to be accepted
and taken by certeyne enseignes and demonstrauncys of honor and noblesse
that is to saye Armes.." Dethick, Norroy to Toke 1547. Noblesse is
clearly a quality along with honour while the nobles are refered to as a
status along with the gentry. Obviously those without the necessary
qualities would not qualify (should not have qualified) for arms. (The
gradual changing preambles to English grants is another subject).
> >2) Lyon does not grant nobility or membership of the Scottish noblesse -
> >he merely recognises it.
>
> That's not what Lyon says (or at least TI of L). He claims to grant it, and
> that's the crux of the problem.
We should differntiate between what is written in a book in the capacity
as a private individual and the texts of the legal acts entered into by
a Crown minister. Have I missed a text of one of his grants being posted
here?
> >3) Noblesse was not invented by TI of L. He was merely using terms that
> >were normal in nearly all 16th century and many early 17th century
> >grants in England, they may also have been common in Scotland at the
> >same time but I have not seen the texts of any Scottish grants prior to
> >the creation of the Lyon Register.
>
> The word "noble" may be used in a generic sense by English heralds to designate
> the grantee, as to say that he is worthy, honorable, esteemable, etc, etc.
> These are certainly "qualities" but they are not Lyon's or anyone else's to
> grant.
I agree and had not suggested they were. I had vaguely remembered that
he could "recognise" the noblesse, though without going to some trouble
I cannot readily find the quote. I may have been wrong.
Your pages of texts certainly suggest that he can "visite the haill
armes of noblemen baronis and gentlemen borne and vsit within this
realme And to distinguische and discerne thame with congruent
differences" so he certainly could in effect recognise the differences
between them and mark the arms accordingly. The preamble suggests the
intent was to distinguish between gentlemen of blood and those of noble
stock. It is only in the C17th that other concerns arise eg
distinguishing junior lines from the those of their chief.
> >4) Arms granted by the sovereign or by the delegated authority of a
> >sovereign were formerly and generally considered to be marks of nobility
> >or of noblesse.
>
> Arms were restricted in Scotland, in 1672, but it was not to the nobility, and
> the word "noblesse" does not appear. Moreover, there is no word before TI of L
> that Lyon grants noblesse, whatever that is. Either noblesse=nobility
My OED states it does but see above. Nobility can also be a quality and
does not always equal the status of titled nobility.
> in which
> case the theory is contradicted by the act of 1672, or noblesse is something
> else, in which case a definition is needed.
The Scottish restriction prior to 1672 is to "noblemen baronis and
gentlemen" (1592). There is of course no punctuation and though this
probably indicates 3 separate status it might also be read that the
latter 2 are subdivisions of the first. Either way, "to put inhibitioun
to all the commoun sort of people nocht worthie be the law of armes to
beir ony signes armoriallis" indicates a clear class division between
those above and below the threshold much along the same lines as
elsewhere in western Europe and at about the same level of society.
I agree this all changes in 1672 when the limitations are changed in
that LL "may give Armes to vertuous and well deserving Persones" it is
obvious that after 1672 arms could be as widely granted as to the
English "eminent persons". If noblesse is viewed as a quality to be
referred to then this need not be done away with by the 1672 reform,
therefore no contradiction.
The OED can be relied on for definitions.
> The idea that grants of arms are restricted to individuals possessing hereditary
> quality X, and that, by virtue of this restriction, arms are an indication of an
> individual possessing quality X, is the English theory of arms.
>It makes sense.
And a Scottish one - otherwise why the desire for gentlement to "be
distinguischit be thair armes quha ar gentlemen of blude be thair
antecessouris" (1592). Seems blood is hereditary to me.
> Lyon's theory is that his grants confer quality X on the grantee. That is
> founded on nothing.
The gist of my case is that but Scottish and English arms before the
mid-17th century were a recognition of noblesse as a quality. After the
Commonwealth and Restoration this changes and is dropped until TI of L.
As you argue he does not appear have the statutory authority nor the
judicial approval to grant nobility/noblesse. However, this leaves us
with the possibility that he was falling back on ancient and continuous
usage prior to the statutes and was merely resurrecting earlier 16th
century practice (possibly hoping that a couple of generations of this
practice if unchallenged would then be accepted and even stand up in
court?). This theory needs some evidence of 16th century Scottish
practice. The only 16th century Scottish grant text that I have is of
1567 by Sir Robert Forman of Luthrie, Lyon in favour of Lord Maxwell of
Herries but of course the grantee was already a peer and the the wording
did not need to reflect the kind of wording of contemporary English ones
cited above. If any one has access to an early Scottish grant text other
than to the peerage/ baronage I would love to see it published on this
NG.
As an aside, your web page on Lyon's powers appears to have a
discrepancy - does it derive from the originals? The Lyon King of Arms
Act of 1592 - Act concerning the office of lyoun king of armes and his
brether herauldis (1592 cap. 127). The Lyon King of Arms Act 1672 - Act
concerning the priviledges of the Office of Lyon King at Armes (1672
cap. 47) starts "Our Soveraigne Lord Considering that albeit by the 125
Act of the 12 Parliament holdin by his Maiesties grandfather in the yeir
1592 ..."
Is is cap.125 or 127?
Derek Howard
Brussels, Belgium
Dr J.C. Horton
> : Francois R. Velde wrote:
> : > I'm slightly surprised that university degrees confer membership in a
> : > university.
> : > I thought a degree was what you received upon *leaving* the university.
>
> Dr J.C. Horton <ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> writes
> : Leaving in what sense? Geographical or expulsion? Membership of a university
> : - at least in the U.K. - is not dependent on one's location. (Being admitted
> : to a degree as a part of being sent down would be an interesting idea!)
>
> For an American, a degree generally ends any active association with
> the university. Alumni as such have no role at all in governing it.
> The degree is a credential, a certificate, not a membership.
In that case, American practice is different. In a British university a degree is
a rank and graduates are by definition members of that university - such a
statement is generally included in the university's statutes indeed.
Francois R. Velde
> If noblesse is viewed as a quality to be
> referred to then this need not be done away with by the 1672 reform,
> therefore no contradiction.
Agreed; but if noblesse is viewed as a quality, Lyon cannot grant it.
Moreover, TI of L's language makes clear that he views "noblesse" not as
a quality but as a category of which he confers membership.
> The gist of my case is that but Scottish and English arms before the
> mid-17th century were a recognition of noblesse as a quality.
If you take "noblesse" as a rather vague word similar in meaning to
eminence, yes. As early as 1530 English kings of arms were empowered
to grant arms on the basis of lifestyle, income, educational achievement
(see the rather wry quote by Sir thomas Smith, 1584, on my Web page
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/england2.htm). If "noblesse"
is something that is acquired by earning an advanced university degree,
this is a little bit different from the dictionary meaning.
> After the
> Commonwealth and Restoration this changes and is dropped until TI of L.
> As you argue he does not appear have the statutory authority nor the
> judicial approval to grant nobility/noblesse. However, this leaves us
> with the possibility that he was falling back on ancient and continuous
> usage prior to the statutes and was merely resurrecting earlier 16th
> century practice (possibly hoping that a couple of generations of this
> practice if unchallenged would then be accepted and even stand up in
> court?).
But that is not what TI of L was doing. He claimed to be *granting*
membership into "the noblesse of Scotland", not recognizing a personal
(albeit hereditary) quality called "noblesse". I find your interpretation,
which is the same as the English view of arms, plausible and consistent
with evidence. On the other hand, I can find no evidence outside of
TI of L's writings for the existence of something called "the noblesse
of Scotland". It is certainly unknown to modern Scottish Law.
> This theory needs some evidence of 16th century Scottish
> practice.
Surely TI of L was the best-placed person in the world to offer that
evidence. I can't say I have read his complete works, but I've not
seen him offer any so far. Instead, he presents a 19th c. Spanish
grant of arms as proof that Lyon can grant "noblesse"...
> Is is cap.125 or 127?
I'll check.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Klaus Kristiansen
----------
I artiklen <375EFB1A...@home.com>, "Ld. W. Baldwin,MD-S"
<eir...@home.com> skrev:
>
>
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>>
>> and, of course, LL will even matriculate arms for non-Scots who are not
>> even resident in Scotland!!
>>
>Interesting. What reasoning does he use to claim jurisdiction\domain
>over over non-scots outside of Scotland??
He does not claim jurisdiction. He enters arms in the public register
at the armiger's request. The question is why would a nonresident
nonscot pay to have his arms entered in the Scottish register?
Klaus O K
Anton Sherwood
: >For an American, a degree generally ends any active association with
: >the university. Alumni as such have no role at all in governing it.
: >The degree is a credential, a certificate, not a membership.
: >Of course I'm a lowly BS from a state university, so maybe I'm all wet
: >with respect to doctorates from the top-tier schools.
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> writes
: I don't know of any exceptions to this practice. (You forgot the one
: continuing active connection for which the school administrations
: always hope -- or have you been spared the annual alumni fund appeal?)
They may have given up the hunt: I've moved ten times since graduating.
I should have mentioned that alumni may have privileges like use of
the library. Fat lot of good that does me, two thousand miles away!
Francois R. Velde
University of Chicago graduation ceremonies (called "convocation"). The
University confirmed that it will not confer any honorary degree on the
President. According the their spokesman, they did the same when Elizabeth II
visited in 1959; when it was suggested that she receive an honorary law degree,
they said they'd be happy to consider it and asked to see a list of scholarly
publications.
Some places like their honorary degrees to be substantive...
ObHeraldry:
The university, founded in 1890 by John Rockefeller, bears " argent a phenix
gules in flames or, on a chief of the second an open book of the first inscribed
'crescat scientia vita excolatur' " although the field gules is often rendered a
color they call maroon, which is also the color of the hoods.
The arms can be seen at
http://www2.uchicago.edu/adm-spec-events/Convocation/uc_shield.gif
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Michael F McCartney
registered by Lyon" or words to that effect. And I will add,
"...pay BIG BUCKS..."
I suppose the answer (or rather answers) are as varied as the
petitioners. We have several posting & lurking around r.h
(loitering? :) who have done just that; perhaps they could share
their reasons! As speculation, however, and in no particular
order, the reasons might include status, admiration for Scottish
heraldic practice and/or artwork, family origins (either proven or
traditional), emotional/spiritual ties, plans (definite or
speculative) to perhaps visit or settle there, a mild interest and
too much spare cash burning a hole in one's pocket, an interest in
heraldry and a desire to "do it up proper" etc etc. If I had time
& money to burn, I'd probably do it just for the exercise!
--
Michael F McCartney, Fremont Calif USA
REPLY TO: m...@sns.com
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<kal...@get2net.dk> writes
the pretty certificate fits so nicely into my colour scheme......:-))
>
>Klaus O K
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan HonFHS FSA(Scot)
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
Tel: 0181-871 4659
E-mail: herald...@kwtelecom.com
Web site: http://www.kwtelecom.com/hmedia/
Klaus Kristiansen
----------
I artiklen <ZJe$sFA0P$X3E...@londwill.demon.co.uk>, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> skrev:
>In article <375FA003...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk>, Dr J.C. Horton
><ccz...@hermes.nottingham.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>What all this seems to suggest is that "honorary" is perhaps a bad choice of
>>word in
>>"honorary coat of arms". Someone else has suggested "extraordinary". Would the
>>concept of
>>an "honorary coat of arms" be more acceptable if called an "extraordinary coat
>>of arms", I
>>wonder.
>
>The problem here is that the term "extraordinary" is already used in
>heraldic circles in a different sense to what you are suggesting when we
>talk about "Officers of Arms in Ordinary" and "Officers of Arms
>Extraordinary", when "extraordinary" means "in addition to the normal
>complement".
Ordinary has two other specificly heraldic meanings (Papworth is an ordinary
and so is a pale). Why can't extraordinary have two?
Klaus O K
Klaus Kristiansen
----------
I artiklen <37608617...@news.enteract.com>, velde@heraldica_nospam.org
(Francois R. Velde) skrev:
>das...@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) wrote:
>>For an American, a degree generally ends any active association with
>>the university. Alumni as such have no role at all in governing it.
>>The degree is a credential, a certificate, not a membership.
>>
>>Of course I'm a lowly BS from a state university, so maybe I'm all wet
>>with respect to doctorates from the top-tier schools.
>
>I think what you said still applies.
A doctorate from the U of Copenagen gives the doctor the right to lecture
at the university. Not to get get paid for it, but to hold lectures.
In the Danish system Doctor (Dr. Phil., Dr. Scient., Dr. Jur. etc. etc.)
is a higher degree than Ph.D. I don't think the English system has an
equivalent.
Klaus O K
Barry Gabriel
> Klaus asks, "why would a nonscot nonresident pay to have his arms
> registered by Lyon" or words to that effect. And I will add,
> "...pay BIG BUCKS..."
>
> I suppose the answer (or rather answers) are as varied as the
> petitioners. We have several posting & lurking around r.h
> (loitering? :) who have done just that; perhaps they could share
> their reasons! As speculation, however, and in no particular
> order, the reasons might include status, admiration for Scottish
> heraldic practice and/or artwork, family origins (either proven or
> traditional), emotional/spiritual ties, plans (definite or
> speculative) to perhaps visit or settle there, a mild interest and
> too much spare cash burning a hole in one's pocket, an interest in
> heraldry and a desire to "do it up proper" etc etc. If I had time
> & money to burn, I'd probably do it just for the exercise!
You forgot the most important reason...pretensions to nobility.
BG
Francois R. Velde
>A doctorate from the U of Copenagen gives the doctor the right to lecture
>at the university. Not to get get paid for it, but to hold lectures.
Is the university required to provide the doctor with a classroom, list his
course in the catalog, arrange for students to register, and give credit for the
course to students who take it successfully?
Klaus Kristiansen
----------
I artiklen <3763c5a3...@news.enteract.com>, velde@heraldica_nospam.org
(Francois R. Velde) skrev:
>"Klaus Kristiansen" <kal...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>>A doctorate from the U of Copenagen gives the doctor the right to lecture
>>at the university. Not to get get paid for it, but to hold lectures.
>
>Is the university required to provide the doctor with a classroom, list his
>course in the catalog, arrange for students to register, and give credit for the
>course to students who take it successfully?
I'm sorry, I don't know.
Klaus O K
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<kal...@get2net.dk> writes
>
To be nit-picky, a pale is an Honourable Ordinary (note correct use of
capital letters!)
> Why can't extraordinary have two?
>
>Klaus O K
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan HonFHS FSA(Scot)
Simon Kershaw
> Is the university required to provide the doctor with a classroom, list
> his course in the catalog, arrange for students to register, and give
> credit for the course to students who take it successfully?
Why should what lectures you attend have any bearing on your degree?
register for lectures -- huh? Credit -- what's money got to do with it?
In other words -- don't assume that one university system applies
everywhere. Not a mistake I would have thought you would have made,
Francois. E.g., at Oxford, any undergraduate can go to whatever
lectures they like, and miss whatever lectures they like. Only two
things are important if you want to get a degree. First, keeping your
college happy so that they don't throw you out; this will typically
involve keeping your tutor happy, which broadly speaking means getting
some work done for them. And making sure you don't owe them any money
at the end of your three years. Second, passing 'mods' at the end of
the first year, and 'schools' at the end of the third year. If
attending some lectures helps you do that -- fine; if not, that's fine
too. Some lecturers consequently play to empty theatres -- serves em
right for being so boring!
I believe Cambridge operates a similar system, except that
undergraduates there (here?) are also examined at the end of their
second year, so probably get to do less punting.
--
simon
si...@kershaw.org.ukzzz
Cambridge, England
pete
Simon Kershaw wrote in message
<1dtb7xe.za...@modem-96.neodymium.dialup.pol.co.uk>...
>...at Oxford, any undergraduate can go to whatever
>lectures they like, and miss whatever lectures they like. Only two
>things are important if you want to get a degree. First, keeping your
>Second, passing 'mods' at the end of
>the first year, and 'schools' at the end of the third year. If
>attending some lectures helps you do that -- fine; if not, that's fine
>too. Some lecturers consequently play to empty theatres -- serves em
>right for being so boring!
Some old-fashioned (lazy) Oxford dons deliberately make their initial
lecture(s) as boring as possible precisely to make sure that the lecture
theatre is empty. That way they don't have to deliver the rest of the
lecture course. Shades of Edward Gibbon "I spent fourteen months at
Magdalen College, they proved the fourteen months the most idle and
unprofitable of my life." Mind you, he also said, in connection with his
kinsman, Bluemantle Pursuivant, that a coat of arms is "the most useless of
all coats".
To be fair to Oxford, in arts subjects the basis of the teaching is the
tutorial system, teaching 1-1 or 1-2, and discussing at least one essay a
week from every undergraduate. This can be a much more intensive and
successful teaching method than lectures to a hall. It is for that reason
that the lecture series becomes irrelevant. But it does allow quirky,
off-topic lectures to flourish as well.
Neil Crockford
<kal...@get2net.dk> writes
>
>----------
>I artiklen <3763c5a3...@news.enteract.com>, velde@heraldica_nospam.org
>(Francois R. Velde) skrev:
>
>
>>"Klaus Kristiansen" <kal...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>>>A doctorate from the U of Copenagen gives the doctor the right to lecture
>>>at the university. Not to get get paid for it, but to hold lectures.
>>
>>course in the catalog, arrange for students to register, and give credit for
>the
>>course to students who take it successfully?
>
>
granting similar rights to Masters of Arts at Oxford. He required his
college to provide him with a room in which, year after year, he gave a
set of lectures on military history, unconnected with any degree course,
to which very few people ever came.
--
Neil Crockford
Andrew Yong
> In the Danish system Doctor (Dr. Phil., Dr. Scient., Dr. Jur. etc. etc.)
> is a higher degree than Ph.D. I don't think the English system has an
> equivalent.
In the Oxford system DD (divinity), DCL (civil law), DLitt (letters) DM
(medicine - not all medical 'doctors' are full DMs in England), doctor of
canon law, all rank above DPhil.
andrew
--------------------------------------
Andre...@Christ-Church.Oxford.AC.UK or @chch.ox.ac.uk
Francois R. Velde
>Francois R. Velde <velde@heraldica_nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> his course in the catalog, arrange for students to register, and give
>> credit for the course to students who take it successfully?
>
Maybe it's an American concept that the degree you receive should bear a
relationship with the courses for which you sign up.
>register for lectures -- huh? Credit -- what's money got to do with it?
Nothing. "Credit" means that successful completion of the course can be counted
toward the requirement of the degree. A degree may requires a certain number of
classes of a certain type to be taken (you must take N courses taken from a list
of P courses). Actual attendance isn't the issue (I've never held a roll-call
of students in my classes), but receiving a satisfactory grade for the course
is; as you say, attending lectures may or may not be useful for that purpose.
At Oxford and Cambridge, the degrees do depend on successful completion of some
exams. Do the exams taken at various stages have any relationship with the
courses taken? If I spend a year studying minor Latin poets, am I quizzed on
algebraic topology?
My question was simply: is the right to lecture at Copenagen a substantive
right? If the University isn't even obliged to provide a room for the doctor,
it doesn't sound like it's much of a right.
Simon Kershaw
> To be fair to Oxford, in arts subjects the basis of the teaching is the
> tutorial system, teaching 1-1 or 1-2, and discussing at least one essay a
In my experience the tutorial system was very important in the sciences
too (physics in my case), but I never wrote a single essay. Lectures
and lab work were more important than for the arts.
> week from every undergraduate. This can be a much more intensive and
> successful teaching method than lectures to a hall. It is for that reason
> that the lecture series becomes irrelevant. But it does allow quirky,
> off-topic lectures to flourish as well.
Indeed. Including Portcullis Pursuivant;s lectures on heraldry in my
day. (Michael Maclagan -- grandson of an Archbishop of York, just to
mix several threads in here! -- was not only Portcullis, and later
Richmond, but also senior fellow of Trinity College.
Klaus Kristiansen
----------
I artiklen <376415c3...@news.enteract.com>, velde@heraldica_nospam.org
(Francois R. Velde) skrev:
>My question was simply: is the right to lecture at Copenagen a substantive
>right? If the University isn't even obliged to provide a room for the doctor,
>it doesn't sound like it's much of a right.
My guess would be that they much supply a room, but that is all. Actually
my
statement that they are nor required to pay you was also a guess. No doubt
the right was substantive when it was introduced. The university was
founded
in 1479, and for quite some time after that date a platform to speak from
was
no trivial thing.
Klaus O K
Simon Kershaw
> >Why should what lectures you attend have any bearing on your degree?
>
> Maybe it's an American concept that the degree you receive should bear a
> relationship with the courses for which you sign up.
My response was slightly -- but not entirely -- tongue in cheek. The
serious point is that a 'course' does not necessarily mean 'lectures'.
There are other ways of learning too. Oxford and Cambridge, and no
doubt some other places, work on the principle that an undergraduate is
sensible enough to be able to learn in the way that suits them best.
That may involve reading, or day-dreaming, or going to lectures, or some
combination thereof, or something else entirely. Undergraduates are
considered to be quite able to decide whether a particular lecture, or
any lecture, is of any use to them or not.
>
> >register for lectures -- huh? Credit -- what's money got to do with it?
>
> Nothing. "Credit" means that successful completion of the course can be
> counted toward the requirement of the degree. A degree may requires a
> certain number of classes of a certain type to be taken (you must take N
> courses taken from a list of P courses). Actual attendance isn't the
> issue (I've never held a roll-call of students in my classes), but
> receiving a satisfactory grade for the course is; as you say, attending
> lectures may or may not be useful for that purpose.
Sorry, my question was sarcastic and deliberately obtuse. Some
universities work this way in Britain too. Oxford and Cambridge require
you to pass your finals and the only thing you have to do up till then
is not get sent down (i.e. expelled) or otherwise prevented from taking
finals ('schools' at Oxford, 'tripos' at Cambridge).
> At Oxford and Cambridge, the degrees do depend on successful completion of
> some exams. Do the exams taken at various stages have any relationship
> with the courses taken? If I spend a year studying minor Latin poets, am
> I quizzed on algebraic topology?
No, but this is nothing necessarily to do with lectures. One may be
entered for the examinations of any honour school one chooses, IIRC, but
as a general rule undergarduates do rather tend to choose the honour
school of the subject which they have been studying. Note also that, in
general, there is no concept of taking 'major' and 'minor' courses
(which I gather tends to happen in the USA, and also happens in a few
places here too) -- one chooses an honour school, and studies a subject
within it. I read physics, which meant I studied in the honour school
of Natural Sciences, and all the exams I took were in physics and
nothing else. This honour school also requires satisfactory attendance
and assessment at lab work, so there is some aspect of continuous
assessment.
> My question was simply: is the right to lecture at Copenagen a substantive
> right? If the University isn't even obliged to provide a room for the
> doctor, it doesn't sound like it's much of a right.
IIRC, in general, honour schools arrange courses of lectures, and
individual dons put on their own lectures if they wish. Many lectures
take place in college lecture rooms, rather than in university premises.
I am not aware of a rule preventing anyone from lecturing on whatever
they wish. Those more familiar with senior members of the university
than I am would be better placed to answer this off-topic question
(getting on for 20 years since I was at Oxford, and although I work in
Cambridge I have no connection with the upstart University here).
Dr J.C. Horton
> In the Danish system Doctor (Dr. Phil., Dr. Scient., Dr. Jur. etc. etc.)
> is a higher degree than Ph.D. I don't think the English system has an
> equivalent.
Both varieties of doctorate exist in the U.K. The lower doctorate, until
recently, was exclusively that in philosophy (Ph.D. - a few universities use the
abbreviation D.Phil.). Some universities have now introduced things such as the
degree of D.B.A. (say) which is not described as a Ph.D although it does seem to
be a lower doctorate too. This seems especially to be the case where there is a
taught element.
The usual higher doctorates are in divinity, (civil) law, medicine, music,
science and letters.