More on the "Kingdom of Biffeche" arms in Africa
wentwort...@mailinator.com
as a subject in rec.heraldry now and than, with detractors and
defenders. (Less often discussed is the Kingdom of Axim, Ghana,
claimed by the same American kings as run Biffeche.) The history is
set out on the kingdom's (presumably the king's) website at
http://www.kinghdomofbiffeche.net
Biffeche was an ancient African kingdom going back before the 16th
Century; whether it has been a real African kingdom since the first
selection of an American king in 1963, or just an elaborate private
arrangement between some poor Africans and some wealthy Americans, it
definitely has some interesting heraldic aspects. For starters, there
are defininitely some "nobles of Biffeche" endowed by the previous
king ("Edward I"), some of whom are local and some of whom are
European or American.
There is rather a large wealth difference between the foreign Biffeche
aristocrats and the local noble Biffecheoisie. For example, compare
these houses, both on the web:
A. The house of an American Biffeche aristocrat:
http://beta.zooomer.com/photos/34802@Z01/752595
B. A local's house in Biffeche:
http://beta.zooomer.com/photos/34802@Z01/752595
The Biffeche "royal family" themselves are one of America's most
wealthy and powerful families (Reisinger and Busch families, related
to Bernadottes) and they inherited various baronies and landed estates
in Europe, while the population of Biffeche seems to be among the
poorest in the world.
They reserve the right to "ennoble", and have done so (within the
"Biffeche system", of course...), and they also specifically reserve
the right to grant "Biffeche arms," but there's still no evidence (on
the web at least) of Biffeche ever having granted arms to anyone. Not
even to its own kings. There is a picture of Biffeche Baron Claver-
Faye, but no mention of his having arms. The same applies to various
local African Biffeche knights; in the pictures they wear various
orders and decorations for their accomplishments, but there is is no
mention or display of any arms The kingdom seems pretty uninterested
in heraldry and does not even display the kingdom's (or the king's)
arms on any of the webpages. However, as was covered extensively in
rec.heraldry, the Biffeche coins of 2006 have some heraldry on them.
Earlier coins or their descriptions seem elusive, including any from
the previous king in the 1960's and on.
The current king and his descendants do have elaborate arms, with a
few Biffeche references perhaps, but they are Scottish with feudal-
baron caps of maintenance, not gold-crowned helmets of kings.
(Discussed here recently)
The Kingdom of Biffeche arms are simply a blue crown on a white
background, with blue on the sides as a bordure.
Axim, Ghana, has its own long-standing "African" arms system, used
primarily as family identifiers for the prominent fishing families
there, but it is not shown on any web-page and I've never seen any
Axim arms. I assume they are "Ghanaian" graphic symbols but who
knows.
Hopefully, others who know some facts about Biffeche will be able to
add some information from time to time.
topk...@klassmaster.com
> The "Kingdom of Biffeche" (Senegal and Mauretania, Africa) has come up
> There is rather a large wealth difference between the foreign Biffeche
> aristocrats and the local noble Biffecheoisie. For example, compare
> these houses, both on the web:
>
> A. The house of an American Biffeche aristocrat:
> http://beta.zooomer.com/photos/34802@Z01/752595
>
> B. A local's house in Biffeche:
> http://beta.zooomer.com/photos/34802@Z01/752595
These links all have a problem working, The Biffeche kingdom link is
misspelled. It should be http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net
> ***
> The current king and his descendants do have elaborate arms, with a
> few Biffeche references perhaps, but they are Scottish with feudal-
> baron caps of maintenance, not gold-crowned helmets of kings.
> ***
That is because the king "Ronald I" of Biffeche is a member of the
Lamonts of Ascog of Bute, and inherited the lands, rents and barony of
Inneryne, Isle of Bute, from his father the late Walter Reisinger,
feudal Baron of Inneryne, and he is the Earl of Crawfurd-Lindsay in
Scotland. Famed Ascog Castle belonged to the Barons of Inneryne for
centuries. They also own some islands off of Bute. The Crown Prince
Christopher of Biffeche is both Baron of Baldoon and Baron of
Carstairs (of mental treatment fame in Scotland). Lord Lyon doubtless
knows all about Biffeche, but since Lord Lyon pretends no jurisdiction
over any African royal titles as far as I'm aware, he would not be in
the business of awarding or judging the arms of any African kingdoms.
It is quite evident, as I have pointed out, that the prince's arms
(not the king's) have as crest the Great White Leopard of Biffeche,
but that's just a crest device, which could be anything. The helmet
is in fact gold-crowned, in the crest, but not affronte with vertical
gold visor bars as for a kingdom. The arms of the son are differenced
by tincture, not debruised by label, from those of the father. Both
of them are popular in Biffeche, it would appear.
StephenP
Anthony Maxwell's forum from 2002. It would appear that the feudal
earldom was sold by baronytitles.com
The link quoted to the details of the sale no longer works.
Yours aye
Stephen
heral...@mail.ru
> Anthony Maxwell's forum from 2002. //snip//
> Yours aye
>
> Stephen
2002 - by this then, I presume that you mean the Heraldry Society of
Scotland's forum which was re housed by Mr. Maxwell without authority
and thus lost to the HSS?
Nicholas
topk...@klassmaster.com
wentwort...@mailinator.com wrote:
> ***
> There is rather a large wealth difference between the foreign Biffeche
> aristocrats and the local noble Biffecheoisie. For example, compare
> these houses, both on the web:
> A. The house of an American Biffeche aristocrat:
> http://beta.zooomer.com/photos/34802@Z01/752595
> B. A local's house in Biffeche:
> ***
"Zooomr" links require no "e"s. They should be:
http://beta.zooomr.com/photos/34802@Z01/752595
and
http://beta.zooomr.com/photos/34802@Z01/752583
tignarius
No Nicholas, not "re-housed" but secured for the future. And luckily I
did because at least half of the 'old' HSS forum has gone missing from
the HSS website. That is because I look after these things, whereas
some folk do not seem to care....!
The Reisinger children have as far as I know, have all been given
Scots feudal baronies which were all bought (or exchanged!) before the
'fateful day'. and as such where in the process of having arms
matriculated for them by their father, Ronnie Reisinger. At least two
of the feudals baronies were feudal earldoms but of course these do
not make them earls merely 'Holders of feudal earldoms' with the
'then' same heraldic rights of a feudal baron. I am not sure what the
final out-come of all the petitions was but back in mid 2004 the idea
was for all the children to have the same arms as their father but
with different field colours.
Ronnie's arms are; Azure, a winged unicorn rampant Argent, horned,
crined and unguled Or between two antique crowns of the Last, with a
crest: issuant from an antique crown a demi-griffin Or, and the motto:
HISTORIA FACEMUS. I believe there are five children three sons and two
daughters. The girls have probably got one green and one red fielded
coats. and two of the sons have black fielded coat differenced by one
having a gold winged unicorn and the other having a silver winged
unicorn. The third son clearly will inherit his father's arms. The
four 'younger?' children may have been granted crests of a blue
spotted demi 'great white leopard' rising from ancient crown.
As far as I understand the Reisinger family are not ancient European
aristocracy but part of Budweiser brewery barons who escaped Europe
just before WW2.
All the above may be rubbish but as far as I had been told, it was
correct back in mid 2004......
Anthony Maxwell
topk...@klassmaster.com
> ***
> The Reisinger children have as far as I know, have all been given
> Scots feudal baronies which were all bought (or exchanged!) before the
> 'fateful day'. and as such where in the process of having arms
> matriculated for them by their father, Ronnie Reisinger.
Thanks, that makes sense. His own non-disponed baronies and lordships
were inherited, I believe, and he is through one or more bloodlines a
Lamont of Ascog of Bute . His kingdom in Africa devolved upon him by
an Act of Succession of the prior king probably in 1997, acceptance by
his councils of elders, the relevant authorities, and perhaps the
acclamation of his subjects. (leaving aside the additional grace de
Dieu, will of Allah, protection of Great White Leopards, etc.)
> At least two
> of the feudals baronies were feudal earldoms but of course these do
> not make them earls merely 'Holders of feudal earldoms' with the
> 'then' same heraldic rights of a feudal baron.
That last point is wrong. A feudal earl in Scotland is of course an
earl. Just not a peer earl nor (former) Lord in Parliament. It is
customary to include the feudal earls of Scotland in the phrase "the
barony" with the feudal barons, but that is just for conversational
convenience and is of no technical import. There are not many
(formerly-)feudal earls (or countesses) left in Scotland and I know of
none in the rest of Europe. These distinctions mattered a greal deal
in the feudal era in which they were created, and they should not be
neglected now.
> I am not sure what the
> final out-come of all the petitions was but back in mid 2004 the idea
> was for all the children to have the same arms as their father but
> with different field colours.
That explains the mysterious differencing rather than cadency-
debruising that I mentioned earlier. Subtle are the ways of the Lord
Lyon.
> Ronnie's arms are ***
I trust that you know him well, to refer to him so familiarly as
"Ronnie"... Their arms are in Burke's webpages.
> As far as I understand the Reisinger family are not ancient European
> aristocracy but part of Budweiser brewery barons who escaped Europe
> just before WW2.
That would be the Busch family, not the Reisingers. Think "Anheuser-
Busch" (the world's largest brewery - larger than Guinness - maker of
Budweiser and related beers, and co-owners of Corona) for the brewery
people (many of whom are also German nobles, e.g., some of the name
von Gontard and Orlemunde). The baron/earl/king is also descended
from the Anheusers, according to Burke's. The Reisingers have been
wealthy (very wealthy) and powerful industrialists since the early
19th Century, and they gave some sort of museum to Harvard University.
Neither family "escaped Europe just before WW2"; they were in America
by the 1880's. Dunno where you got that. Apparently the family in
St. Louis, Missouri, USA, lives very much like lords, with palatial
mansions, vast estates, family trusts, sumptuous stables of Clydesdale
horses, foxhunts, etc. A famously huge house, "No. 1 Portland Place,"
was built as a Busch wedding present. As a sort of "folly" they keep
the preserved log-cabin of US President Ulysses Grant on their estate
grounds; and they own forests in Germany and of course a rich trove of
Scottish lands, islands and baronies.
tignarius
> tignarius wrote:
> > ***
> > The Reisinger children have as far as I know, have all been given
> > Scots feudal baronies which were all bought (or exchanged!) before the
> > 'fateful day'. and as such where in the process of having arms
> > matriculated for them by their father, Ronnie Reisinger.
>
> Thanks, that makes sense. His own non-disponed baronies and lordships
> were inherited, I believe, and he is through one or more bloodlines a
> Lamont of Ascog of Bute .
I do not know about this. I understood his father aquired the feudal
barony of Inneryne after he fled Czechoslavia. I do not know if it was
through marriage or whatever, but the family did not stay in the UK
long settling instead in the USA.
His kingdom in Africa devolved upon him by
> an Act of Succession of the prior king probably in 1997, acceptance by
> his councils of elders, the relevant authorities, and perhaps the
> acclamation of his subjects. (leaving aside the additional grace de
> Dieu, will of Allah, protection of Great White Leopards, etc.)
Let's face it. Ronnie is no more a king than you and I. Only the most
creepy sycophant is going to refer to him as a king! He has a
charitable interest in the region as did his predecessor the rest of
it, as he himself puts it "is a bit of fun".
>
> > At least two
> > of the feudals baronies were feudal earldoms but of course these do
> > not make them earls merely 'Holders of feudal earldoms' with the
> > 'then' same heraldic rights of a feudal baron.
>
> That last point is wrong. A feudal earl in Scotland is of course an
> earl. Just not a peer earl nor (former) Lord in Parliament. It is
> customary to include the feudal earls of Scotland in the phrase "the
> barony" with the feudal barons, but that is just for conversational
> convenience and is of no technical import. There are not many
> (formerly-)feudal earls (or countesses) left in Scotland and I know of
> none in the rest of Europe. These distinctions mattered a greal deal
> in the feudal era in which they were created, and they should not be
> neglected now.
No, you are quite wrong here. If feudal earldom are aquired by way of
commercial action then the owners is only a 'holder of the feudal
earldom' and this is as it is worded on their letters patents. There
are some owners feudal earldoms who have inherited the earldom since
ancient feudal times when they were given to their ancestors by the
king of Scots at the time and so they can be called 'Earls' but the
fact that all of those people are 'real' or 'peer' Earls anyway make
the point rather mute. As both the Reisinger feudal earldoms were
acquired by commercial transaction, neither confer an actual earldom.
>
> > I am not sure what the
> > final out-come of all the petitions was but back in mid 2004 the idea
> > was for all the children to have the same arms as their father but
> > with different field colours.
>
> That explains the mysterious differencing rather than cadency-
> debruising that I mentioned earlier. Subtle are the ways of the Lord
> Lyon.
The design was not the work of the Lord Lyon..... That I can assure
you!
>
> > Ronnie's arms are ***
>
> I trust that you know him well, to refer to him so familiarly as
> "Ronnie"... Their arms are in Burke's webpages.
By phone and email I was invited to call him Ronnie....
>
> > As far as I understand the Reisinger family are not ancient European
> > aristocracy but part of Budweiser brewery barons who escaped Europe
> > just before WW2.
>
> That would be the Busch family, not the Reisingers. Think "Anheuser-
> Busch" (the world's largest brewery - larger than Guinness - maker of
> Budweiser and related beers, and co-owners of Corona) for the brewery
> people (many of whom are also German nobles, e.g., some of the name
> von Gontard and Orlemunde). The baron/earl/king is also descended
> from the Anheusers, according to Burke's. The Reisingers have been
> wealthy (very wealthy) and powerful industrialists since the early
> 19th Century, and they gave some sort of museum to Harvard University.
> Neither family "escaped Europe just before WW2"; they were in America
> by the 1880's. Dunno where you got that. Apparently the family in
> St. Louis, Missouri, USA, lives very much like lords, with palatial
> mansions, vast estates, family trusts, sumptuous stables of Clydesdale
> horses, foxhunts, etc. A famously huge house, "No. 1 Portland Place,"
> was built as a Busch wedding present. As a sort of "folly" they keep
> the preserved log-cabin of US President Ulysses Grant on their estate
> grounds; and they own forests in Germany and of course a rich trove of
> Scottish lands, islands and baronies.
I known that all Ronnie's family bear the middle name Busch so I
assume they are married into the Busch family and I understand they
derive their wealth from the brewery. I have no idea of any of their
other genealogical links. All that know came from the man himself so
unless I have contorted the facts in my memory.... which I may have
done... it really is not that important to me!
Anthony Maxwell
topk...@klassmaster.com
> ***
> > > At least two
> > > of the feudals baronies were feudal earldoms but of course these do
> > > not make them earls merely 'Holders of feudal earldoms' with the
> > > 'then' same heraldic rights of a feudal baron.
> >
> > That last point is wrong. A feudal earl in Scotland is of course an
> > earl. Just not a peer earl nor (former) Lord in Parliament. It is
> > customary to include the feudal earls of Scotland in the phrase "the
> > barony" with the feudal barons, but that is just for conversational
> > convenience and is of no technical import. There are not many
> > (formerly-)feudal earls (or countesses) left in Scotland and I know of
> > none in the rest of Europe. These distinctions mattered a greal deal
> > in the feudal era in which they were created, and they should not be
> > neglected now.
>
>
> No, you are quite wrong here. If feudal earldom are aquired by way of
> commercial action then the owners is only a 'holder of the feudal
> earldom' and this is as it is worded on their letters patents. There
> are some owners feudal earldoms who have inherited the earldom since
> ancient feudal times when they were given to their ancestors by the
> king of Scots at the time and so they can be called 'Earls' but the
> fact that all of those people are 'real' or 'peer' Earls anyway make
> the point rather mute.
This is old territory. This is like a replay of all the mistaken
assertions about feudal baronies not being "real" baronies in
Scotland, etc. I usually do not like to make ad-hominem remarks, but
the vast majority of such commentators are English, who are fatally
wedded to the English system of nobility and peer baronies and can't
see (or can't stand) that Scotland works (or at least worked)
differently.
The few (formerly-)feudal earldoms in Scotland worked just like the
(formerly-)feudal baronies in Scotland. It made no difference
whatsoever to the title of dignity whether its caput had demised by
descent or was disponed by transfer, commercial or otherwise. In all
cases it was formally regranted of the crown, like an entirely new
creation. So that assertion:"if feudal earldom are acquired by
commercial action then the owner is only a 'holder of the feudal
earldom' " makes no sense because the commerciality of the transfer is
totally irrelevant. Totally. Willy Sturzenegger is the feudal Earl
of Arran (not "Earl Arran" of course), and is an earl, a feudal earl.
A feudal earl ranks higher than a feudal baron; that's why it's called
earl and not baron.
Anglo-nobility-philes simply abhor the idea that Scottish feudal law
allowed the purchaser of seignoral land to acquire a noble title
thereby. But it did.
The baseless assertion has been corrected and utterly refuted so many
dozens of times on scotsheraldry.com (and or rec.heraldry) that it
seems more efficient to direct newcomers to those discussions. See,
for example: http://scotsheraldry.com/Archive/ShowMessage.asp?ID=919
in which you started with the disclosure: "There is no such thing as a
feudal earl as far as I know." If you are still saying this after all
that has transpired then I have to give up disputing it here.
y Maxwell
Martin Goldstraw
> At least two
> of the feudals baronies were feudal earldoms but of course these do
> not make them earls merely 'Holders of feudal earldoms' with the
> 'then' same heraldic rights of a feudal baron.
> Anthony Maxwell
I believe that previous recognitions by Lyon have been in the form of
Holder of the Territorial Earldom, not Holder of the Feudal Earldom.
However, it is my understanding that last year Counsel acting for
Abigail Busch Reisinger succeeded (in a representation made to Lyon
Court) in obtaining recognition of her as Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-
Lindsay thus overturning a previous decision by Lyon to record her as
Abigail Busch Reisinger, holder of the Territorial Earldom of Crawfurd-
Lindsay.
It seems to me that this decision would perhaps allow others who have
been previously dissatisfied with their recognition as "Holder of the
Territorial Earldom of ....." to obtain a correction and be henceforth
recognised as Feudal Earl in the same way that Miss Reisinger is now
recognised as Feudal Countess.
http://www.burkes-peerage-books.com/mezzanine/record.aspx?rec=17
Regards,
Martin
Martin Goldstraw
I should have changed the topic of the above post back to "Scottish
Feudal Baronies, no, Earldoms again" I did not intend to post it under
the heading "Anthony Maxwell's forum"
Martin
Martin Goldstraw
>
> - Show quoted text -
Damn!!
There, done it.
Title changed.
Martin
topk...@klassmaster.com
Yes, thanks. Again I note the apparent "Great White Leopard of
Biffeche" in the crest.
barrassie
> The "Kingdom of Biffeche" (Senegal and Mauretania, Africa) has come up
> as a subject in rec.heraldry now and than, with detractors and
> defenders. (Less often discussed is the Kingdom of Axim, Ghana,
> claimed by the same American kings as run Biffeche.) The history is
I am unable to open the references to the houses of the nobles.
Charles MKH
topk...@klassmaster.com
Martin Goldstraw wrote:
>*** it is my understanding that last year Counsel acting for
> Abigail Busch Reisinger succeeded (in a representation made to Lyon
> Court) in obtaining recognition of her as Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-
> Lindsay thus overturning a previous decision by Lyon to record her as
> Abigail Busch Reisinger, holder of the Territorial Earldom of Crawfurd-
> Lindsay.
I think this means that I was wrong to say that Ronald is the
territorial or feudal Earl of Crawfurd-Lindsay, since this Abigail is
shewn by Burke's as being recognised by Lyon as Countess of Crawfurd-
Lindsay in her own right, and is the daughter, not the wife, of
Ronald. I was relying on the titles recited in the Biffeche "King and
Aristocracy" web-page. My error.
tignarius
> Holder of the Territorial Earldom, not Holder of the Feudal Earldom.
> However, it is my understanding that last year Counsel acting for
> Abigail Busch Reisinger succeeded (in a representation made to Lyon
> Court) in obtaining recognition of her as Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-
> Lindsay thus overturning a previous decision by Lyon to record her as
> Abigail Busch Reisinger, holder of the Territorial Earldom of Crawfurd-
> Lindsay.
>
> It seems to me that this decision would perhaps allow others who have
> been previously dissatisfied with their recognition as "Holder of the
> Territorial Earldom of ....." to obtain a correction and be henceforth
> recognised as Feudal Earl in the same way that Miss Reisinger is now
> recognised as Feudal Countess.
>
> http://www.burkes-peerage-books.com/mezzanine/record.aspx?rec=17
>
> Regards,
> Martin
It appears that this truely awful decision maybe true and Miss
Reisinger is now a feudal countess.... However Willy Sturzenegger is
still the 'holder of the feudal (or territorial) earldom of Arran' and
the legal decision in favour of Miss reisinger does not 'overturn' his
letters patent. Not that it would matter much to Willy as he calls
himself Lord Arran....!
tignarius
> .......I usually do not like to make ad-hominem remarks, but
> the vast majority of such commentators are English, who are fatally
> wedded to the English system of nobility and peer baronies and can't
> see (or can't stand) that Scotland works (or at least worked)
> differently.
>
> ...........So that assertion:"if feudal earldom are acquired by
> commercial action then the owner is only a 'holder of the feudal
> earldom' " makes no sense because the commerciality of the transfer is
> totally irrelevant. Totally. Willy Sturzenegger is the feudal Earl
> of Arran (not "Earl Arran" of course), and is an earl, a feudal earl.
> A feudal earl ranks higher than a feudal baron; that's why it's called
> earl and not baron.
>
> Anglo-nobility-philes simply abhor the idea that Scottish feudal law
> allowed the purchaser of seignoral land to acquire a noble title
> thereby. But it did.
Well here in Edinburgh.... Willy S. is still the 'holder of the
feudal (territorial) earldom of Arran and it does say so on his
letters patent which I have seen a copy of. So there! yar-boo-
sucks ;-)
Anthony Maxwell
tignarius
>
> Yes, thanks. Again I note the apparent "Great White Leopard of
> Biffeche" in the crest.- Hide quoted text -
However, the Lord Lyon has had the good sense to blazon the crest
without mention of GWL of B...
"On a wreath of the liveries issuant from an antique crown or a demi-
leopard arg. spotted az. armed and langued gu".
Anthony Maxwell
Guy Stair Sainty
topk...@klassmaster.com says...
>
>
>That would be the Busch family, not the Reisingers. Think "Anheuser-
>Busch" (the world's largest brewery - larger than Guinness - maker of
>Budweiser and related beers, and co-owners of Corona) for the brewery
>people (many of whom are also German nobles, e.g., some of the name
>von Gontard and Orlemunde). The baron/earl/king is also descended
>from the Anheusers, according to Burke's. The Reisingers have been
>wealthy (very wealthy) and powerful industrialists since the early
>19th Century, and they gave some sort of museum to Harvard University.
>Neither family "escaped Europe just before WW2"; they were in America
>by the 1880's. Dunno where you got that. Apparently the family in
>St. Louis, Missouri, USA, lives very much like lords, with palatial
>mansions, vast estates, family trusts, sumptuous stables of Clydesdale
>horses, foxhunts, etc. A famously huge house, "No. 1 Portland Place,"
>was built as a Busch wedding present. As a sort of "folly" they keep
>the preserved log-cabin of US President Ulysses Grant on their estate
>grounds; and they own forests in Germany and of course a rich trove of
>Scottish lands, islands and baronies.
>
Reisinger, hence the combination of the name. The late Augustus Busch,
father of the present head of the family, lived in an extraordinary castle like
house surrounded by a wild-life park in St Louis (I went there for lunch once,
some 26 or 7 years ago). The brewery is still under family control - they also
own the Busch gardens, of which there are several in the US and which are open
to the public. I am quite surprised at the pretensions of these Busch-Reisingers
(after whom the Harvard museum is named, that sits along side the Fogg), as the
rest of the family do not seem the type to look for nobiliary titles.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Jan Böhme
> The Biffeche "royal family" themselves are one of America's most
> wealthy and powerful families (Reisinger and Busch families, related
> to Bernadottes)
What relation do they have to what Bernadottes? The only American in-
law to a Bernadotte descending from the Swedish Kings that I was aware
of was Estelle Manville, daughter of Hiram Edward Manville and
Henrietta Estelle Romaine, who married Count Folke Bernadotte in 1928.
Jan Böhme
topk...@klassmaster.com
topk...@klassmaster.com wrote:
http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net
> wentwort...@mailinator.com wrote:
> > ***
> > There is rather a large wealth difference between the foreign Biffeche
> > aristocrats and the local noble Biffecheoisie. For example, compare
> > these houses, both on the web:
> > A. The house of an American Biffeche aristocrat:
A Zooomr search further discloses:
http://beta.zooomr.com/photos/35045@Z01/758560
Hard is the life of the poor struggling African aristocrat these
days...
topk...@klassmaster.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> as the
> rest of the family do not seem the type to look for nobiliary titles.
>
>
> --
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Only by marrying them...
topk...@klassmaster.com
topk...@klassmaster.com
Actually, the earlier (local) Biffeche kings may have got by rather
nicely too; see the fourth picture at http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net/history.htm
topk...@klassmaster.com
topk...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> topk...@klassmaster.com wrote:
http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net
> > wentwort...@mailinator.com wrote:
> > > ***
> > > There is rather a large wealth difference between the foreign Biffeche
> > > aristocrats and the local noble Biffecheoisie. For example, compare
> > > these houses, both on the web:
> > > A. The house of an American Biffeche aristocrat:
>
> A Zooomr search further discloses:
> http://beta.zooomr.com/photos/35045@Z01/758560
>
> Hard is the life of the poor struggling African aristocrat these
> days...
>
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=k&ll=38.54915300,-90.35460700&q=United%20States&spn=0.002123,0.005407
>
Actually, the earlier (local African) Biffeche kings may have got by
professor
people here have little life outside of big toys for big boys. They
may seldom have to work and money was probably given to them through 5
generations back and finally their greatest concern is will they take
the candy apple red or the sea blue Saleen S7 or Maybach 62 but some
of us actually care about the poor and sick. Some of us are rich and
some of us are poor, put we do respect mankind, give our money to the
church, pray to God, and make donations weekly to some humanitarian
group. We even fight and die for our fellow man.
To make the cute remark "Only the most creepy sycophant is going to
refer to him as a king!" also states that his 'subjects" in Africa are
toads? Because they make $20 a year and receive electricity, food,
medical cures and hope from King Ronald I they call him king. So you
call them "a self-seeking, servile flatterer; insignificant creepy
fawning parasite". I think not.
For you to know "Ronald" so well, I really do not believe you
understand him very well. "The end justifies the means." I do not know
him but respect his intentions. I expect cute remarks from my comments
but it merely shows civilized individuals on rec.heraldry the sick and
depraved condition that WRECK.HERALDRY finds itself.
Prof. Carl Edwin Lindgren
professor
doing it. What one does not seem to realize is that at times,
psychological help, in the way of hope, is about as important as food
and electricity. An example, which would you like better if you were
handicapped and in bed - i.e. food, water, and medical treatment or
food, water, medical treatment and hope in the way of a kind word? It
seems that King Ronald I is indeed a good King if he is aware that
without hope, all else is only temporal and without substance. A
transitory assistance will not bring the 'eternal' assistance that is
so needed by these people. Also by interjecting a bit of dispute into
the mix, he is able to create controversy which will produce interest
and perhaps more income for these poor people. I understand your point
from a merely heraldic/chivalric point but life is more than hobbies
and trinkets. The study of chivalry and heraldry can rise to a higher
good. ""The higher good is that as human beings we need to be
committed to some purpose that is greater than the satisfaction of our
own desires because if we're not, then there's no way to resolve any
dispute" (River Valley Business Report). Does this mean that you would
NOT help the people simply because the heraldry or chivalry is not
correct?
Prof. Carl Edwin Lindgren
> Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm- Hide quoted text -
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>I realize that this is a heraldic group (hobby) and as such most
>people here have little life outside of big toys for big boys. They
>may seldom have to work and money was probably given to them through 5
>generations back and finally their greatest concern is will they take
>the candy apple red or the sea blue Saleen S7 or Maybach 62 but some
>of us actually care about the poor and sick. Some of us are rich and
>some of us are poor, put we do respect mankind, give our money to the
>church, pray to God, and make donations weekly to some humanitarian
>group. We even fight and die for our fellow man.
This is the silliest, chipiest comment and I have no doubt bears no relation to
the reality as I am sure its author knows.
topk...@klassmaster.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> Augustus Busch's (founder of the Anheuser Busch brewery) son-in-law was a
> Reisinger, hence the combination of the name.
> ***
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
No, that would be his grandfather, Adolphus Busch, founder of the beer
brewing empire and at one point, monopolist of the American Diesel
engine industry. His tomb is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BuschMaus.jpg
It is not in the Kingdom of Biffeche.
The sequence of Busches running Anheuser-Busch is:
Adolphus Busch · August A. Busch, Sr. · Adolphus Busch III · August A.
"Gussie" Busch, Jr. · August A. Busch III · August A. Busch IV
(current). The Busches are armigers.
More distinguished, and at one point more influential, were the
Reisingers. They were industrial magnates and patrons of the arts,
and it was their art collection that formed the core of what is now
the Busch-Reisinger museum at Harvard. (The Reisingers were untainted
by association with beer.)
Hugo Reisinger's portrait painted by the Swedish painter Anders Zorn
can be seen at http://www.chinafineart.com/htmlimg/image-31540.htm
or at
http://www.staroilpainting.com/b_152_N.htm
Several Sargents, like "Nonchaloir (Repose), 1911", were given by the
Reisingers to the American "National Gallery" in Washington.
Armorially, the Reisingers use a winged unicorn, but it was apparently
mis-rendered by heraldic artists as a pegasus with a horn.
"Hugo Reisinger [1856-1914], Businessman and art collector, born in
Wiesbaden, Germany. He graduated from the high school in Wiesbaden and
became a sales manager for the Siemens Glass works in Dresden. After
his second sales trip to the USA (1882, 1884), he settled in New York
City as an importer and exporter. As he grew in wealth, he collected
contemporary German and American paintings to further cultural
relations between the two countries. His collection formed the core of
Harvard University's Busch-Reisinger Museum."
There's also an endowed "Curt Hugo Reisinger Professor of Slavic
Languages and Literatures" at Harvard.
In the Kingdom of Biffeche, http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net there is
no mention of the surnames "Reisinger" or "Busch" and the current king
is always referred to just as "Ronald". In the earlier thread, it
took a Derek Howard's sleuthing via Lord Lyon and Burke's just to
identify the family. To add all their feudal "of"s now is a bit of a
burden.
All the above courtesy of Google.
professor
characterized by aggressive, rough play or commission of fouls: a
chippy player; a chippy second period.
Carl--
topk...@klassmaster.com
> Abigail Busch Reisinger succeeded (in a representation made to Lyon
> Court) in obtaining recognition of her as Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-
> Lindsay
>
>
> Regards,
> Martin
I clicked on that link and found the Burke's web page for the young
Countess (not mention "Princess Royal of Biffeche"; see
http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net/king-ari2.htm with its "Table of
Precedence"). Isn't there an ambiguity in the blazon of the tinctures
of her arms? The summarised blazon in Burke's is:
"Arms: On an oval shield gu. a winged unicorn rampant between two
antique crowns or. Above the shield behind which is draped her feudo-
baronial mantle gu. doubled of silk arg., fur edged of miniver and
collar erm. and fastened on the right shoulder by five spherical
buttons or, is placed a chapeau gu. furred erm. "
So what tincture/metal/colour is this unicorn? Is it just the two
crowns that are "or", or is the unicorn also covered in that clause
and therefore is "or" too? This would be surprising if that were the
intent, since in all the other Scottish feudal arms of the Reisinger
family, the unicorn is "rampant arg., horned, crined and unguled or".
All they difference is the field tincture (excepting only one son
debruised by a label).
Perhaps the most likely explanation is mere typograpic error at
Burke's, or in the transmission to Burke's.
Second most likely is that the unicorn is deemed to be shewn proper
when its tincture is omitted. It has been said (without much
authority) that a unicorn proper means a unicorn argent.
T
topk...@klassmaster.com
topk...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> Martin Goldstraw wrote:
> >***
>(not mention "Princess Royal of Biffeche"; see
> http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net/king-ari2.htm with its "Table of
> Precedence").
Mentioning precedence: As "Princess Royal", Abigale may be below her
father Ronald "The King" in Biffeche "precedence", but as a Feudal
Countess of Crawfurd-Lindsay she now outranks her father the Feudal
Baron of Inneryne in Scotland, if that is his only title of honour
here. She is elbow-to-elbow with the Earls of Arran and of
Breadalbane now. ("of"s!)
Joseph McMillan
> topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> > Martin Goldstraw wrote:
> > >***
> >(not mention "Princess Royal of Biffeche"; see
> > Precedence").
>
> Mentioning precedence: As "Princess Royal", Abigale may be below her
> father Ronald "The King" in Biffeche "precedence", but as a Feudal
> Countess of Crawfurd-Lindsay she now outranks her father the Feudal
> Baron of Inneryne in Scotland, if that is his only title of honour
> here. She is elbow-to-elbow with the Earls of Arran and of
> Breadalbane now. ("of"s!)
Is there is difference in precedence among holders of Scottish feudal
dignities of different degrees? All I've ever seen on the Scottish
precedence list is a lumped-together category of "feudal barons,"
within which all of these folk are encompassed.
topk...@klassmaster.com
The existence of Scottish feudal earls was so little known in recent
years (pre-Willy) that the official tables of precedence might well
refer loosely to the "feudal barony" without distinguishing the earls
from the barons. I don't know. I am quite certain that when
originally granted or recognised by the Crown in the feudal era the
earldoms outranked the baronies, and that the title was earnestly
sought, valued and defended. The Crown was not very profligate in
handing them out. I don't know how many (formerly-)feudal earldoms
there are now, and I don't know whether anyone knows how many there
are. Just guessing, the majority were probably held as superiorities
by (and are now subsidiary titles of dignity of) Scottish peers.
A subtler question -- ignoring official tables of precendence -- is
this: Which, in the true system of Scottish nobility, ranks higher, a
(formerly-)feudal Earl or a (former) Lord of Parliament? That is,
could the highest of the Low Nobility -- the feudal Earls -- outrank
the lowest of the High Nobility -- the Lords of Parliament? A Lord of
Parliament in Scotland was reckoned pretty much like a peer Baron in
England. Historically, an earl or count was higher than a baron,
everywhere, I believe. In many cases the (formerly-)feudal earldoms
will be far older and have more distinguished histories than the
lordships. This is a grey area.
More radically, perhaps all earls are equal now, feudal or peer. Who
knows? The law has changed lately. Their remaining evanescent legal
rights are similar now. Perhaps the issue of feudal earldoms wasn't
anticipated at all when the tables of precedence were drawn up. How
low should one bow to the Earl of Arran when one meets him? (That is
a clearer example than that of the new Countess of Crawfurd-Lindsay,
clouded as the latter would be by her also being a Princess Royal in
an independent system, which might require a very low bow, if not a
kowtow.)
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
> Joseph McMillan wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 3:27 am, topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> > > topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> > > > Martin Goldstraw wrote:
> > > > >***
> > > >(not mention "Princess Royal of Biffeche"; see
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since feudal earldoms are feudal baronies, they are legally
indestructible and all the feudal earldoms ever erected continue to
exist (except where destroyed by some act of the crown). It would be
interesting to work out who holds these titles now. Of course, as
baronies they were indivisible from their caputs. This might throw up
some surprises since whoever owned the caput at 28 Nov 2004 now holds
the personal title of earl. Of course, in terms of jurisdiction, an
earldom was no different from a barony, and both were below a lordship
of regality in this sense. Even a territorial dukedom was below a
lordship of regality in terms of jurisdiction.
By the way, a feudal earl is a peer by law. For example, the Earldom
of Sutherland is a feudal title but the titleholders were summoned to
parliament in right of that title. This is a fact and there is no
possible reason for distinguishing the Earldom of Sutherland from any
other feudal earldom. Then, of course, we need to consider that the
Earldom of Sutherland is a feudal barony and the holders were summoned
to parliament as barons, not earls. Given this, all feudal barons are
legally peers as well and were equally entitled to a summons. This is
the law and it is really that simple; the fact that the government has
ignored the law does not alter it one jot.
I think I had better write off to Moss Bros and order some ermine
robes.
Graham
topk...@klassmaster.com
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
>***
> Of course, in terms of jurisdiction, an
> earldom was no different from a barony, and both were below a lordship
> of regality in this sense. Even a territorial dukedom was below a
> lordship of regality in terms of jurisdiction.
How many "territorial dukedoms" are there now in Scotland? (Leave
Lancaster out of this question.)
Martin Goldstraw
I don't think Lancaster has ever had the good fortune (or misfortune
depending on your point of view) to have been in Scotland.
Regards,
Martin
PS I have resisted replying to Graham's views on feudal barons being
peers and having a right to sit in Parliament as I am waiting for him
to be on the six o'clock news having made the attempt (and been
evicted).
Franz
You should perhaps right to Her Majesty the Queen about the matter.
The inclusion of feudal barons may well improve the vigour of the
House.
Franz
Have you considered writing to Her Majesty the Queen about the matter?
The inclusion of feudal barons may well improve vigour of the House.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
The Dukedom of Lennox was a territorial dukedom. It's the only one I
have come across (not that I have looked for any others) but the
existence of one proves that there can be others.
PS I am sure that a few feudal barons would invigorate the House.
Could anyone be worse than Tony Blair? Well, there you go then -
Graham for Prime Minister.
topk...@klassmaster.com
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
> ***
> > How many "territorial dukedoms" are there now in Scotland? (Leave
> > Lancaster out of this question.)
>
> The Dukedom of Lennox was a territorial dukedom. It's the only one I
> have come across (not that I have looked for any others) but the
> existence of one proves that there can be others.
"was"? or "is now"? It's been re-created so many times. Does the
current "peer duke" of Richmond, Gordon, Lennox and Aubigny hold
Lennox now
A. as a peerage duchy only, or
B. as a feudal duchy (freely alienable) only, or
C. two duchies, one peerage and the other feudal and freely alienable?
If B or C, how was Lennox affected by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure,
etc. Act?
In England, the feudal earldom of Arundel is said to be freely
alienable by the Earl Marshal independent of his peerage earldom of
Arundel. The castle may be the caput. The Property Act of 1928
(U.K.) is supposed to have preserved these as heritable, transferable
properties.
(Then there's always Lancaster. Perhaps Velde classes Elizabeth with
Willy as only "The Holder of the Territorial Duchy of
Lancaster" (defying the previous Duke, George VI, as to the title). It
is more deferential, and generous, to class the sovereigns (more with
Abigail, but for gender) as Dukes of Lancaster, as George VI
determined it.)
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
The territorial dukedom will still exist unless it was destroyed by
some act of the crown. I know that the Regality of Dalkeith was
dissolved from the Dukedom but I don't know what happened after that.
If the Dukedom survived then it would go with the lands/caput like any
other barony, so this would have to be traced. But it is quite
possible that the present Duke holds a personal title and a feudal one.
Guy Stair Sainty
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk says...
>
>On Feb 28, 1:30 pm, topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
>> gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> > The Dukedom of Lennox was a territorial dukedom. It's the only one I
>> > have come across (not that I have looked for any others) but the
>> > existence of one proves that there can be others.
>
>The territorial dukedom will still exist unless it was destroyed by
>some act of the crown. I know that the Regality of Dalkeith was
>dissolved from the Dukedom but I don't know what happened after that.
>If the Dukedom survived then it would go with the lands/caput like any
>other barony, so this would have to be traced. But it is quite
>possible that the present Duke holds a personal title and a feudal one.
>
But does the present duke of Richmond own the caput of the dukedom of Lenox? I
think not.
topk...@klassmaster.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> ***
> But does the present duke of Richmond own the caput of the dukedom of Lenox? I
> think not.
>
>
> --
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Interesting. What is the easy way to find out what the caput of Lenox
is? (Or, rather, was?) A big castle, or just a hearthstone or rock
post on some obscure farm somewhere? The person who was owner on the
Appointed Day might not know that he or she is now a Scottish duke (or
duchess). Such a person deserves some serious additaments....
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
The current Dukedom of Lennox is a new creation of 1675. The property
of the previous Dukes seems to have been dissipated (see CP Vol. VII,
p. 607, n. (b)). If the lands were not resigned back into the hands of
the king at some point and the proper legal steps taken to dissolve
the Dukedom, then it still exists. I am not sure how one would
dissolve the lands from the Dukedom, though it could be done
expressly, of course. The Earldom of Lennox seems to have been held by
the Bishop of Caithness before it was granted to the first Duke (CP,
Vol. VII, p. 603, n. (b) and RMS, IV, 2970), so the caput of the
Earldom would presumably have become the caput of the Dukedom. The
Dukedom was erected on 13 Dec 1591 (RMS, V, 294). The caput seems to
be Inchynnane per RMS, IV, 2972 (charter of novodamus) - 'ordinando
unicam sasisam apud messuagium de Inchynnane (tanquam locum
habitationis principlaem dicti comitatus'. Where is Inchynnane anyone?
I need to get over there quick and start squatting.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
RMS, IV, 294 says of the Dukedom 'ordinando palatium de ... fore
principale messuagium'. I wonder why the dots are there? Was the caput
not specified or is the word unreadable? Anyway, there MUST have been
a caput. I think if it was left blank then the caput would have
defaulted to the caput of the earldom (but perhaps not).
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
PS RMS, IV, 294 says 'tenend. dicto Esmo et heredibus masc. ejus de
corpore legit. procreatis, quibus deficientibus, regi reversuras' so
the territorial Dukedom of Lennox is held by the Queen (unless
destroyed), it seems.
Don Aitken
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The Dukedom was erected on 13 Dec 1591 (RMS, V, 294). The caput seems to
>be Inchynnane per RMS, IV, 2972 (charter of novodamus) - 'ordinando
>unicam sasisam apud messuagium de Inchynnane (tanquam locum
>habitationis principlaem dicti comitatus'. Where is Inchynnane anyone?
>I need to get over there quick and start squatting.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchinnan perhaps?
Surely that's the wrong side of the Clyde?
Possibly the present Lennox Castle, which was built in the 1830s by
John Kincaid, later Kincaid-Lennox "in order to establish his claim to
the lapsed title of Earl of Lennox", according to
http://strathkelvin.members.beeb.net/lennox_castle.htm
If that is right, the current possessor of the caput seems to be
Glasgow Celtic Football Club!
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
glu...@wp.pl
> On 1 Mar 2007 11:01:37 -0800, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"
>
> If that is right, the current possessor of the caput seems to be
> Glasgow Celtic Football Club!
>
If a corporate entity had purchased a Scottish feudal barony pre AFT
was the corporation or its CEO or major shareholder the baron? Was
there any prohibition against corporate ownership of a barony?
Is there anything to prevent a corporation from purchasing the dignity
of a baron post AFT?
Would it become for example: "The Much Honoured Amalgamated Widget
Industrial Enterprise LLC, Baron of Lower Rusty Tailings"?
Brian G. Hamilton.
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If the Dukedom survived then it would go with the lands/caput like any
> other barony, so this would have to be traced. But it is quite
> possible that the present Duke holds a personal title and a feudal one.-
Caput versus Conveyance
The notion that the ownership of some former caput of a barony carries
the present day ownership of the barony title must be challenged. I
challenge those who propound this theory to cite me an Act in defense
of their position. There is no such Act. When deciding what the law
is on any particular subject the first point of reference is the Acts
of Parliament. If there are no applicable Acts we look to case law,
then to Institutional Writers (Bankton, Erskine etc) after that we
pray in aid from more modern writers.
There is one applicable case, Duff v Earl of Buchan. This is a case
about the validity of an Instrument of Sasine taken at the Castle of
Banff after the Castle had been sold out of the barony. It went to
the House of Lords Judicial Committee. The defenders claimed that an
infeftment which was taken at the Castle of Banff in 1625 was invalid
due to the fact that by a previous charter the Castle was disjoined
from the barony. It is an observation in the course of the Opinion of
the House that I partly rely on to justify my position that the
ownership of the caput does not necessarily indicate ownership of the
barony:-
"It is the known right and prerogative of the crown to appoint one
particular place for taking sasine in lands, however discontiguous;
and the Castle of Banff having been appointed the place at which
sasine for the whole earldom of Buchan was to be taken, the
proprietor's aliening, and the crown's of course granting the said
land to another person without declaring the union to be dissolved,
did not defeat the effect of the prior appointment; ...."
>From this we learn that (a) that sasine had to be taken at the
nominated place and (b) even if the 'sasine place' was alienated
sasine had to continue to be taken there (unless presumably a new
place was nominated and (c) the union (barony) continued despite the
fact that the 'sasine place' (caput?) had been granted to another on a
crown charter and (d) that the whole lands remaining continue as a
barony unless there is a declaration from the crown that the union
(barony) is dissolved.
If anyone can cite case law that is against me I would be most
interested.
Brian G. Hamilton.
glu...@wp.pl
wrote:
Of course this particular judgement is of most value if a court were
to ever deal with an identical case. In other circumstances the
parties would make argument as to how the facts of a new case are
either similar or dissimilar to the new case. The court would also
undoubtedly wish to take notice of all of the cases in which the
ownership of the caput was accepted as proof of the ownership of the
barony and no issue was raised regarding the alienation of the caput
while holding on the barony. T
The buyer of such things must be wary - I imagine there will be folks
who will wish to sell 'baronial dignities' once attached to all manner
of things that were once part of baronies. If an unscrupulous seller
had title to the caput of a formerly feudal barony he might wish to
sell the baronial dignity that was once attached to the caput and in
another circumstance if he owned the baronial lands but not the caput
might wish to say that this did not matter and try to sell the
'baronial dignity' notwithstanding.
Wouldn't it be best - and most dignified if the trade in these titles
simply ended and the current barons simply retained these relics of
formerly feudal baronies as a souvenir? It would seem most respectful
to the sunset of a tradition to simply cease trade in such titles
before the trade becomes yet more convoluted.
George Lucki
topk...@klassmaster.com
glu...@wp.pl wrote:
> ***
> Wouldn't it be best - and most dignified if the trade in these titles
> simply ended and the current barons simply retained these relics of
> formerly feudal baronies as a souvenir? It would seem most respectful
> to the sunset of a tradition to simply cease trade in such titles
> before the trade becomes yet more convoluted.
>
>
> George Lucki
Best or not, ending "the trade" would have required millions of
pounds of government money
compensation to the former owners, and the Scottish parliament decided
against it.
Jan Böhme
> On Mar 1, 2:44 pm, Don Aitken <don-ait...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Mar 2007 11:01:37 -0800, "gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk"
>
> > If that is right, the current possessor of the caput seems to be
> > Glasgow Celtic Football Club!
>
> If a corporate entity had purchased a Scottish feudal barony pre AFT
> was the corporation or its CEO or major shareholder the baron? Was
> there any prohibition against corporate ownership of a barony?
Interesting question. I'm sure that several baronies are, in fact,
owned by corporations. One case where I've got the impression that
this is the case is the barony of Ury outside Stonehaven. At least the
land of the barony seems at present to be owned by "Ury Estate Ltd", a
company which has existed at least since the eighties.
> Is there anything to prevent a corporation from purchasing the dignity
> of a baron post AFT?
I suppose this hinges on the question whether corporations may possess
dignities at all. I'm sure I have no idea ehat a Scottish court would
resolve on that issue.
Jan Böhme
andor...@yahoo.com
Corporation may not be a baron, becouse this title were created for
phusical person who held the baronial jurisdiction, under the terms of
Crown Charters (of creation, erection,confirmation) - 'titumum,
honorem, ordinem et statum liberi baronem", and no any provision for
corporations. But corporative body may be a 'owner of a barony',
meant, to be a body who own a territorial entity called barony (of
course, before the AD).
glu...@wp.pl
>
> - Show quoted text -
Andrew,
Did that also apply in former times to corporate entities of the
Church - for example a RC diocese (a corporation sole of the Bishop)
or an abbey?
how does that apply to the post-AFT free floating baronial dignities
now that the feudal relationship is ended.
If I understand you correctly then any baron who chose to own his
barony via a corporation that actually owned the barony was thereby
deprived of the title, honour, etc.
George Lucki
andor...@yahoo.com
>
> - Показать цитируемый текст -
George,
No, I mean that no corporative body may be a 'baron' and may not be
styled as such. My post pert. just pre-AD times. I have no idea with a
real future of barony titles after the AD, I have just opinion, close
to your own. But I sure that no any corporative body eligible to
'title, honour, order and state of free baron'. I do not know any
event when an diocese held a barony and styled itself as a 'baron', it
is a nonsense. Baron is a title for physical person. The RC dioceses
probably are not corporative entities in its present sense, they are
virtual territorial entities (and were real, sometimes) erected in the
status of 'province of the Church' (or 'province of the Order, if
monks) and governed by Bishop-Ordinary (or Abby, if monastery). In
medieval France, in the event with exercising of secular jurisdiction,
a Vidam ( vice-dominus) were appointed by the ruling Bishop or his
Vicar-General.
Brian G. Hamilton.
>
> - Show quoted text -
It has long been Lyon's practice to regard the beneficial owner of the
barony (the estate) as the 'Baron of X' even although the barony may
have actually been owned by a trust. Where the barony has been owned
by a company and that company has one major shareholder Lyon has
recognised that majority shareholder as the baron. Post AFT the
'dignity of barony' is incorporeal heritable property' therefore any
corporation owning a barony prior to AFT now has a property right
which can be assigned to anyone the corporation wishes it to be
assigned to.
Brian G. Hamilton.
Jan Böhme
wrote:
> It has long been Lyon's practice to regard the beneficial owner of the
> barony (the estate) as the 'Baron of X' even although the barony may
> have actually been owned by a trust.
Interesting. This means that it at least has been possible to bypass
the rule against perpetuities and create de facto inherited baronies,
by setting up a trust and writing an equivalent of a remainder as a
charter for the trust.
> Where the barony has been owned
> by a company and that company has one major shareholder Lyon has
> recognised that majority shareholder as the baron.
And where there was no majority shareholder, but still one major
shareholder? Or when the company in question was a public company with
very dispersed ownership? What happened then?
> Post AFT the
> 'dignity of barony' is incorporeal heritable property' therefore any
> corporation owning a barony prior to AFT now has a property right
> which can be assigned to anyone the corporation wishes it to be
> assigned to.
Oh! This means effectively that a company who owns the barony of X can
_employ_ somebody with a well-bred manner who looks impressive in
Highland dress as Baron of X, doesn't it?
New career opportunities arise...
Jan Böhme
topk...@klassmaster.com
Again, is the Lyon Court's blazon of the winged unicorn AMBIGUOUS or
is it NOT AMBIGUOUS as to tinctures, in the arms of the Countess of
Crawfurd-Lindsay (and princess Royal of Biffeche)? All the
digressions failed to answer this simple blazoning question.
> Martin Goldstraw wrote:
> > On 22 Feb, 18:47, "tignarius" <tignar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >***
> > Abigail Busch Reisinger succeeded (in a representation made to Lyon
> > Court) in obtaining recognition of her as Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-
> > Lindsay.
Click this link to see the blazon sunmmary in Burke's Peerage web
pages:
http://www.burkes-peerage-books.com/mezzanine/record.aspx?rec=17
The Lord Lyon King of Arms' Court is supposed to make sure that all
heraldic blazons are unambiguous, and that a skilled heraldic artist
can shew the achievement of arms correctly from only the blazoning
description. As an artist I would find it UNCLEAR what colour the
unicorn should be. Is this only one's own ignorance or that of the
Lyon Court? Or a mistake by Burke's?
>***
> So what tincture/metal/colour is this unicorn? Is it just the two
> crowns that are "or", or is the unicorn also covered in that clause
> and therefore is "or" too? This would be surprising if that were the
> intent, since in all the other Scottish feudal arms of the Reisinger
> family, the unicorn is "rampant arg., horned, crined and unguled or".
> All they difference is the field tincture (excepting only one son
> debruised by a label).
>
> Perhaps the most likely explanation is mere typograpic error at
> Burke's, or in the transmission to Burke's.
>
> Second most likely is that the unicorn is deemed to be shewn proper
> when its tincture is omitted. It has been said (without much
> authority) that a unicorn proper means a unicorn argent.
P.S. Velde complains of the Latin: "Historia Facemus" It is not clear
how he wants "historia" declined nor "facemus" conjugated. Historiam?
Factibimus? I don't see the inchoative "historia" as accusatively
declined here. I surmise that it was intended to say "We habitually
do, or perform, engage in history" rather than "we (do now or will in
future) manufacture or write a history" or the like. It is Lord
Lyon's English translation that seems incorrect, with its nonexistent
"our" added superfluously.
The Biffechean "Princess Royalhood" of the countess of Crawfurd-
Lindsay is implied, but not explicitly stated in the "Table of
Precedence" (precedence in Biffeche, that is! Not Scotland.) at
http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net/king-ari2.htm
Her "royal blood" is deduced from her being the daughter of the king/
baron , based on this page.
glu...@wp.pl
Yes. For example, if a company were to assign the barony to someone
new each workday (Baron for a Day - maybe a theme for a new reality TV
show) then I presume each of them would want to line up to the Lyon
Court and get arms with additiments and perhaps forever be known as
representators of former baronial houses. Sheesh.
George Lucki
Jan Böhme
> > Oh! This means effectively that a company who owns the barony of X can
> > _employ_ somebody with a well-bred manner who looks impressive in
> > Highland dress as Baron of X, doesn't it?
>
> > New career opportunities arise...
> Yes. For example, if a company were to assign the barony to someone
> new each workday (Baron for a Day - maybe a theme for a new reality TV
> show) then I presume each of them would want to line up to the Lyon
> Court and get arms with additiments and perhaps forever be known as
> representators of former baronial houses. Sheesh.
Didn't think that far. But don't you think that the barons in question
would need to remain barons during Lyon's entire processing period for
this stunt to work?
Jan Böhme
glu...@wp.pl
I was wondering that - that's why I suggested they might line up for
blue caps as no longer in possession of their barony. :) Of course
Lord Lyon has quite wisely chosen to no longer grant additiments. This
is understandably upsetting to folks who want to make some money
trading in relics of Scottish feudal tradition. There is a court
action underway to try to force Lord Lyon to grant additiments to free
floating baronial dignities - whatever these are. If it is successful
then we'll potentially see all sorts of silliness.
George Lucki
andor...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 6, 2:40 am, "Jan Bohme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 Mar, 05:10, "glu...@wp.pl" <glu...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > > > Oh! This means effectively that a company who owns the barony of X can
> > > > _employ_ somebody with a well-bred manner who looks impressive in
> > > > Highland dress as Baron of X, doesn't it?
>
> > > > New career opportunities arise...
> > > Yes. For example, if a company were to assign the barony to someone
> > > new each workday (Baron for a Day - maybe a theme for a new reality TV
> > > show) then I presume each of them would want to line up to the Lyon
> > > Court and get arms with additiments and perhaps forever be known as
> > > representators of former baronial houses. Sheesh.
>
> > Didn't think that far. But don't you think that the barons in question
> > would need to remain barons during Lyon's entire processing period for
> > this stunt to work?
>
>
> I was wondering that - that's why I suggested they might line up for
> blue caps as no longer in possession of their barony. :) Of course
> Lord Lyon has quite wisely chosen to no longer grant additiments. This
> is understandably upsetting to folks who want to make some money
> trading in relics of Scottish feudal tradition. There is a court
> action underway to try to force Lord Lyon to grant additiments to free
> floating baronial dignities - whatever these are. If it is successful
> then we'll potentially see all sorts of silliness.
>
>
> - Показать цитируемый текст -
I absolutely agree with George. My strongest opinion: - No any
additament for a 'floating dignity' ( if it is really possible for a
'dignity' to be 'floating', in my personal opinion it is an silliest
rubbish). No any grant of additaments in future, becouse the baronial
feudal jurisdiction to which addtaments related was abolished.The
example shown with ' one day baron' is brilliant. But I sure that Lyon
have not any leagl possibility to deprive additaments of a baron who
has been already granted additaments, and therefore the additaments
will be distaned to his heirs (not to assignees, of course) in the
barony. It will be passed to his heirs under the provision of Letters
Patent. Heirs of the body is no question,of cource, but what about
'heirs of entail/talize provision' ( of strange blood)? I have no
idea.....
topk...@klassmaster.com
> >***
> > There is a court
> > action underway to try to force Lord Lyon to grant additiments to free
> > floating baronial dignities - whatever these are. If it is successful
> > then we'll potentially see all sorts of silliness.
> >
> > George Lucki-
>
> additament for a 'floating dignity' ( if it is really possible for a
> 'dignity' to be 'floating', in my personal opinion it is an silliest
> rubbish). No any grant of additaments in future, becouse the baronial
> feudal jurisdiction to which addtaments related was abolished.The
> example shown with ' one day baron' is brilliant. But I sure that Lyon
> have not any leagl possibility to deprive additaments of a baron who
> has been already granted additaments, and therefore the additaments
> will be distaned to his heirs (not to assignees, of course) in the
> barony. It will be passed to his heirs under the provision of Letters
> Patent. Heirs of the body is no question,of cource, but what about
> 'heirs of entail/talize provision' ( of strange blood)? I have no
> idea.....
That position, mantained continually here by AndOr (baron AndOr), is
without merit and is logically inconsistent. IF the baronial
additament of a red chapeau signifies "being in possession of the
feudal jurisdiction", THEN it became obsolete and invalid ON THE
APPOINTED DAY. Not only would successors to post-AFT baronial titles
not get any chapeaux, neither would the descendants of any pre-AFT
baron, and in fact Lord Lyon should on this theory have revoked all
the pre-existing chapeaux immediately on the Appointed Day.
Lyon seems wrong about the additaments (depending on the court's
willingness to allow him to defeat the intent of the statute, by
finding baronial additaments not to be a "privilege"). The future
heirs of pre-AFT barons should be entitled to use a BLUE chapeau
meaning "no longer in possession", and the title successors to the
barony (who will all be genuinely noble, by statute) should also be
entitled to the blue chapeau, since none of the above would be "in
possession" of a relevant caput or baronial jurisdiction despite
succeeding to the dignity or descending from a baron with
jurisdiction.
Fee-simple ownership of former barony lands as a basis for current and
future RED chapeaux meaning "in possession" could work, if Lord Lyon
wanted to make it work, but there is language in the statute that
could arguably preclude it.
The attempt by AndOr to "get into the door of the nobility by purchase
and slam it shut" so that his DESCENDANTS will be allowed noble
additaments while the (statutorily noble) successors to post-AFT title
are denied additaments, is without any legal basis. Simply repeating
his theory over and over again should give it no more weight.
andor...@yahoo.com
I sure you do not understand what you talking about.
- No, under the terms of Letters Patent additaments granted to baron,
his heirs and forever, since this is a document with perpetual
effect.
- Lyon has suspended his rules not because somebody has raised an
legal action against him, but because there is not any mechanism to
deprive additamnets of existed barons who were granted additaments
(and their heirs).
- I have before myself a letter signed by Lyon several month ago
where
he answered the question pertaining the future of additaments granted
before the AD. The position of Lord Lyon is that if granted
already,
it will continued under the Letters Patent provision, destined to
heirs (not to assignees).
- the former rule of granting of blue chapeau for ' not in possession
barons' is discontinued, and the same with other additaments, since
the jurisdiction was abolished. Additaments (already granted) will
represent a baron who held a barony before the AD, and his heirs (not
assignees) under the term of Letters Patent.
-Your assertions is just an opinion, it have no any legal basis and
conradicting with the Law and have no any support of the Lyon Court.
All abovementioned is a law and it is not my opinion, it is reality.
- some of your assertion are simply ridiculous , for example:
> >Fee-simple ownership of former barony lands as a basis for current and
> >future RED chapeaux meaning "in possession" could work, if Lord Lyon
> >wanted to make it work, but there is language in the statute that
> >could arguably preclude it.
It is an silliest and chipest assertion. It is an simple rubbish,
since the feudal tenure system was abolished and the so-called
'dignity of baron' have nothing to do with any land or property now,
by the Law. What 'former barony land' will legally do with 'a dignity
of baron' after the AD?
This is the end of story.
andor...@yahoo.com
> and slam it shut" so that his DESCENDANTS will be allowed noble
> additaments while the (statutorily noble) successors to post-AFT title
> are denied additaments, is without any legal basis.
I need not to "get into the door of the nobility by purchase ...",
like you, probably, if you mean that I hold a barony about 6 years,
becouse I have enough of dignities and honours, earned and ancestral.
And I never styled myself as
"Scottish baron' if you may see anything at all, since this 'dignity
of baron' was never earned, but simply came to me with a feudal barony
before the AD.
And this mentioned sort of title of nobility is so minor and so
problematical that I have no any wish to use it till everything will
be solved with Scottish baronial titles, by the Law, once and for all.
Or, much more possible, I will never use it. Let my heirs will enjoy
with this toy.
glu...@wp.pl
> That position, mantained continually here by AndOr (baron AndOr), is
> without merit and is logically inconsistent. IF the baronial
> additament of a red chapeau signifies "being in possession of the
> feudal jurisdiction", THEN it became obsolete and invalid ON THE
> APPOINTED DAY. Not only would successors to post-AFT baronial titles
> not get any chapeaux, neither would the descendants of any pre-AFT
> baron, and in fact Lord Lyon should on this theory have revoked all
> the pre-existing chapeaux immediately on the Appointed Day.
An interesting suggestion. Nonetheless the grant of the chapeaux
reflects the situation at the time the arms were petitioned - and the
arms stay as granted.
>
> Lyon seems wrong about the additaments (depending on the court's
> willingness to allow him to defeat the intent of the statute, by
> finding baronial additaments not to be a "privilege").
I am still unclear as to how the *statute* finds the additaments to be
a part of the baronail dignity.
The future
> heirs of pre-AFT barons should be entitled to use a BLUE chapeau
> meaning "no longer in possession", and the title successors to the
> barony (who will all be genuinely noble, by statute)
I am still having difficulty understanding how the Abolition of Feudal
Tenure makes anyone noble by statute. It has nothing to do with
ennobling anyone. I do understand the n otion of the ennobling fief -
where feudal tenure could 'ennoble' in a way, but without feudalism
that would become meaningless. The title and dignity such as it is was
preserved by statute - but surely that doesn't ennoble anyone who
purchases the magical talisman doodad of a free floating barony. I
stand to be corrected here - is Scottish nobility such a trivial thing
that purchasing an unregistered "free-floating once was attached to a
feudal property but no longer tangible and no longer feudal" bit of
property makes one a Scottish noble?
should also be
> entitled to the blue chapeau, since none of the above would be "in
> possession" of a relevant caput or baronial jurisdiction despite
> succeeding to the dignity or descending from a baron with
> jurisdiction.
>
> Fee-simple ownership of former barony lands as a basis for current and
> future RED chapeaux meaning "in possession" could work, if Lord Lyon
> wanted to make it work, but there is language in the statute that
> could arguably preclude it.
The land is just land now - not an ennobling fief - the feudal stais
have been abolished. If it is valuable property the owner might be
rich but what relevance would it have to feudal chapeau
>
> The attempt by AndOr to "get into the door of the nobility by purchase
> and slam it shut" so that his DESCENDANTS will be allowed noble
> additaments while the (statutorily noble) successors to post-AFT title
> are denied additaments, is without any legal basis. Simply repeating
> his theory over and over again should give it no more weight
I am in agreement here. From what I understand the additaments and
title will descend to the senior heir unless sold or reassigned. If
Andrew disposes of the barony then he loses the additaments that Lyon
once granted him.
George Lucki
Jan Böhme
> - I have before myself a letter signed by Lyon several month ago
> where
> he answered the question pertaining the future of additaments granted
> before the AD. The position of Lord Lyon is that if granted
> already,
> it will continued under the Letters Patent provision, destined to
> heirs (not to assignees).
If this really is Lyon's position, it is a lot more inconsistent than
I thought, and consequently should be considerably weaker before the
Court of Session. First, the heirs of a pre-AD feudal barony who have
come into possession of the dignity post-AD are _exactly_ the same
kind of ridiculous free floating barons as anyone who has obtained the
dignity of baron by gift or purchase post-AD. Second, pre-AD, the
heir of a feudal baron only was entitled to the additaments if he
actually succeeded to the feudal barony - which is impossible post-AD.
But worse still, the way I have understood Lyon's reasoning, he can't
determine who is ex-feudal baron post-AD, as this will not follow from
the Register of Saisines. How can he then be so sure that the heir of
a pre-AD feudal baron actually still is in possession of the dignity
post-AD?
Jan Böhme
Joseph McMillan
> On 8 Mar, 02:51, andor_a...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > - I have before myself a letter signed by Lyon several month ago
> > where
> > he answered the question pertaining the future of additaments granted
> > before the AD. The position of Lord Lyon is that if granted
> > already,
> > it will continued under the Letters Patent provision, destined to
> > heirs (not to assignees).
>
> If this really is Lyon's position, it is a lot more inconsistent than
> I thought, and consequently should be considerably weaker before the
> Court of Session. First, the heirs of a pre-AD feudal barony who have
> come into possession of the dignity post-AD are _exactly_ the same
> kind of ridiculous free floating barons as anyone who has obtained the
> dignity of baron by gift or purchase post-AD. Second, pre-AD, the
> heir of a feudal baron only was entitled to the additaments if he
> actually succeeded to the feudal barony - which is impossible post-AD.
I don't think this is impossible. The law says the barony survives,
as a dignity alone, and the letters patent granting the additaments
say "to him and his heirs in the barony." So I would say that the
heirs in the barony (i.e., the heirs to the dignity, which is all
that's left of the barony) have a judicially enforceable right to
continue using the additaments, no matter what happened to the land.
Ignoring the elephant under the bed, this is no different in principle
than succession to any other dignity that has heraldic insignia.
Indeed, it's not clear to me that any action by Lyon is necessary in
such a case since, as Andrew observes, the LPs are of perpetual
effect. As long as the family doesn't sell the dignity, and as long
as there's no need for a new matriculation of the arms (which, in the
case of an eldest son, for example, there wouldn't be), it seems to me
that everything is automatic.
> But worse still, the way I have understood Lyon's reasoning, he can't
> determine who is ex-feudal baron post-AD, as this will not follow from
> the Register of Saisines. How can he then be so sure that the heir of
> a pre-AD feudal baron actually still is in possession of the dignity
> post-AD?
Which is the elephant under the bed mentioned above.
Lyon might try to place the burden of proof on the petitioner--if it's
necessary to petition to inherit the additaments--to prove the
negative (that the dignity had not been sold), which is logically
untenable.
Or, if I'm correct that no action by Lyon is required for an heir to
the dignity to continue using the additaments, the burden could shift
to whoever thinks a particular person is using the additaments
illicitly--the fiscal, if Lyon wanted to go that far.
Joseph McMillan
andor...@yahoo.com
> But worse still, the way I have understood Lyon's reasoning, he can't
> determine who is ex-feudal baron post-AD, as this will not follow from
> the Register of Saisines. How can he then be so sure that the heir of
> a pre-AD feudal baron actually still is in possession of the dignity
> post-AD?
>
> Jan Böhme
Jan,
Very and very simple. The additaments is a part of the existed grant.
The Lyon rejected any his involvement in registering of any transfer
of a post-AD created 'floating dignity" ('floating dignity' sounds
like an silly rubbish, indeed), he considered that no any private
register would be a legal base for registration of so-called post-AD
"transfers". Therefore no any legal proof to be enough to show who is
a holder of the title, with exception of a General Register of Sasines
( closed for any post-AD baronial entry)and Public Register of all A.
& B. in Scotland, and Lyon's solution (that the additaments were
granted by Lyon personal decision, by his ministerial capacity), put
the end of this story. Therefore a trading-buying a post-AD 'floating
dignity' is almost the same with trading with English Lordships of the
Manor.
>First, the heirs of a pre-AD feudal barony who have
>come into possession of the dignity post-AD are _exactly_ the same
>kind of ridiculous free floating barons as anyone who has obtained the
>dignity of baron by gift or purchase post-AD.
Of course not. A heir of the baron who held a barony before the AD
(and on this base was granted additaments) will retain ancestral
additaments, do you find anything ridiculous in it? What about if the
direct heir of an German Burggraf, for example, retains a crown of his
ancestors in his coat of arms, what ridiculous in it? What ridiculous
if a Duke of Kassel-Hesse, even after 1815 (when it was not such a
institute as Electorship) used the title of Elector and all its
pertinent. It is a heraldical tradition. But if somebody, after the
abolishing the office of Burggraf will buy a papers formerly pertained
to this office, and thereafter put a crown over own shield, such a
game will be an buffoonery, no doubt.
George,
Again agree with you for 100 %. Just a problem with 'reassigned' and
'sold'. I personally do not believe in such a legal possibilities,
because there is no any legal official register for such a purposes,
and it was not invented any legal official procedure for such a
purposes. Of course, it is just my opinion, anybody may think
otherwise.
andor...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 8, 3:22 am, "Jan Bohme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
> I don't think this is impossible. The law says the barony survives,
> as a dignity alone, and the letters patent granting the additaments
> say "to him and his heirs in the barony." So I would say that the
> heirs in the barony (i.e., the heirs to the dignity, which is all
> that's left of the barony) have a judicially enforceable right to
> continue using the additaments, no matter what happened to the land.
> Ignoring the elephant under the bed, this is no different in principle
> than succession to any other dignity that has heraldic insignia.
>
> Indeed, it's not clear to me that any action by Lyon is necessary in
> such a case since, as Andrew observes, the LPs are of perpetual
> effect. As long as the family doesn't sell the dignity, and as long
> as there's no need for a new matriculation of the arms (which, in the
> case of an eldest son, for example, there wouldn't be), it seems to me
> that everything is automatic.
I agree with Joseph. It is the Law of Arms applying here. The
additaments will be legally passed with Letters Patent, by the
primogeniture. Of course this right is authomatical.
topk...@klassmaster.com
> > Lyon seems wrong about the additaments (depending on the court's
> > willingness to allow him to defeat the intent of the statute, by
> > finding baronial additaments not to be a "privilege").
>
> I am still unclear as to how the *statute* finds the additaments to be
> a part of the baronail dignity.
> George Lucki
The statute reads, in relevant part:
"Baronies and other dignities and offices
63 (1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental
to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in
this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office
(whether or not of feudal origin)
(2) ***any such dignity *** shall be transferable ***
(4) In this section*** "dignity" includes any quality or precedence
associated
with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity; ***"
So the "dignity of baron", which is "retained", is to include every
"quality or precedence associated with, and every heraldic privilege
incidental to," it. At a purely technical level, the cap of
maintenance (chapeau) was "a quality associated with" barony (as was
nobility) and the cap was arguably "a heraldic privilege incidental to
it". Lord Lyon is witholding the caps from transferees on theory that
the caps were not a "privilege" of barony but a purely discretionary
grant. I believe this to be fallacious. The caps had only the
significance and quality of barony, and were never used for anything
else. They were consistently awarded to all real feaudal barons who
applied, and denied to all others. They were the ONLY heraldic
privilege incidental to the dignity of barony. (One can get general
arms in Scotland merely for being a solicitor.) But even if they are
not preserved as a "privilege" in definition (4), they are still
preserved by the previous clause in definition (4) as a "quality
associated with" the dignity of barony.
If the court considers legislative intent and the recorded legislative
history, it will realise that the only meaning of "heraldic privilege
incidental to" barony is the additaments. A court, in interpreting a
statute, is under a duty to avoid construing it to be a nullity if
possible. To support Lord Lyon, the court will have to find that the
Scottish parliament intended to pass a vacuous nullity in deftinition
(4).
Someone has pointed out the duality of the logic of Lyon's
interpretation of the closing of the Register of Sasines. True, it
cannot be used by a purchaser any more to prove that he has the
barony; but, it also cannot be used in the negative, by blood heirs,
to show that they did NOT dispone, sell or transfer the barony to
someone else. (Transfer is EXPLICITLY preserved in the act.)
Far from opposing an official transfer register, Lord Lyon should be
craving it.
glu...@wp.pl
No. That is far too broad a reading.
Remember that the preceeding section (which doesn't get quoted nearly
enough in this discussion is
***62 Jurisdiction and prerogative of Lord Lyon
Nothing in this Act shall be taken to supersede or impair the
jurisdiction or prerogative of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.***
The Lord Lyon after all exercises considerable discretion in armorial
matters.
***63 (1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege
incidental to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but
nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity
or office (whether or not of feudal origin).
and (4) "dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with,
and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity***
These sub-sections need to be read together and they deal with the
transition from a feudal barony to a free floating dignity and appears
to deal with those who are barons on that day. That is fairly
straightforward and consistent with Lord Lyon's current posiition. It
does not oblige Lord Lyon to continue to grant armorial additaments to
new assignees (whoever they might be) post AFT. I also don't see how
it is Lord Lyon's problem to figure out who are the assignees of these
free floating dignities - that would seem up to the folks themselves.
63(2) which speaks of the transferability of the dignity does not
encompass additaments - as these were never transferrable - even when
the baronies were attached to the land (except to the senior heir
according to the Letters Patent but only if they came into possession
of the barony - which is now hard to prove). Any transfer to a
stranger required that person to humbly petition for new arms. There
is no reason to see why the transfer should suddenly be automatic. So
while the dignity including any incidental heraldic privilege was
preserved for the barons across the appointed day - they are
transferrable because the law didn't create a broader transferability
of the baronial dignity merely unlinked it from the land.
Am I misreading this?
topk...@klassmaster.com
> The "Kingdom of Biffeche" (Senegal and Mauretania, Africa) has come up
> as a subject in rec.heraldry now and than, with detractors and
> defenders. (Less often discussed is the Kingdom of Axim, Ghana,
> claimed by the same American kings as run Biffeche.) The history is
> set out on the kingdom's (presumably the king's) website at
> http://www.kinghdomofbiffeche.net
用中文是「比法市」王国。 (国王现在名叫“「罗纳德」第一个“。 他今年下令他的命令：正式中文名字是比法市王国。）
andor...@yahoo.com
> Someone has pointed out the duality of the logic of Lyon's
> interpretation of the closing of the Register of Sasines. True, it
> cannot be used by a purchaser any more to prove that he has the
> barony; but, it also cannot be used in the negative, by blood heirs,
> to show that they did NOT dispone, sell or transfer the barony to
> someone else. (Transfer is EXPLICITLY preserved in the act.)
> Far from opposing an official transfer register, Lord Lyon should be
> craving it.
Transfer? Preserved?? What the Act say about the procedure, if
'preserved'? The Act say nothing, the register is closed, the
procedure is not exist. The Act avoiding any suggestions, the Act did
not create any new official register, and therefore any 'procedure of
transfer' invented by twisted people is no more then a possibility to
earn money longer, now by the trading with the air. The only
possibility for such a transfers to become a legal and official it if
a Lyon will establish a register, but he will not do it until the
Court of Session opinion will be known (because several actions were
raised by somebody).
If will not an official Register, any so-called 'transfers' will be
invalid, and Lyon will not recognising it any way. Hypothetically, if
an "assignee' will come to the Lyon Court together with notary and
purchaser, approved that he have got full amount of money for the
"transfer" and show all the checks, in person and before the Lyon
"signed the assignation", supplied the Lyon Court with a petition for
new matriculation without additaments, returned the Letters Patent
with additaments to Lyon Court, paid the money for new matriculation,
and bla-bla-bla........nothing changing at all. There is not a legal
procedure and I afraid that Lyon will refuse any his involvement in
such a buffoonery.
Jan Böhme
> caps [...] were the ONLY heraldic
> privilege incidental to the dignity of barony. (One can get general
> arms in Scotland merely for being a solicitor.)
As a Scot. However, being a feudal baron enabled also the most alien
foreigner possible the right to petition for Arms before Lord Lyon.
This could also be a privilege intended by the drafters of the Act.
(Of course, Lyon will have nothing of either.)
Jan Böhme
glu...@wp.pl
> Transfer? Preserved?? What the Act say about the procedure, if
> 'preserved'? The Act say nothing, the register is closed, the
> procedure is not exist. The Act avoiding any suggestions, the Act did
> not create any new official register, and therefore any 'procedure of
> transfer' invented by twisted people is no more then a possibility to
> earn money longer, now by the trading with the air. The only
> possibility for such a transfers to become a legal and official it if
> a Lyon will establish a register, but he will not do it until the
> Court of Session opinion will be known (because several actions were
> raised by somebody).
Private transfers of the property called a 'baronial dignity' are
legal. There is no official register but that isn't an obstacle to the
legality of the transaction. It doesn't make it sensible. Beacuse the
thing being sold is intangible - the market for such things is open to
abuses but that is no one's problem except the purchaser. The
government has no interest in this whatsoever and is no longer in the
business of registering such things.
"When, by this Act, an estate held in barony ceases to exist as a
feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not attach
to the land; and on and after the appointed day any such dignity shall
be, and shall be transferable only as, incorporeal heritable property
(and shall not be an interest in land for the purposes of the Land
Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (c.33) or a right as respects which a
deed can be recorded in the Register of Sasines)".
Now my next question has to do with death taxes - I would imagine that
death taxes (and capital gains taxes if transferred while alive) would
be payable on this form of property. If a baronial dignity was worth
L60,000 to those who liked that sort of thing what death taxes would
have to be paid by the estate (of a moderate size)?
George Lucki
glu...@wp.pl
Actually I believe there is one heraldic perk of a free-floating
barony and that is the right to be styled 'Baron of X' on your letters
patent for a coat of arms - if it can be established that you are the
owner of the thing. Under those circumstances the Lord Lyon would
undoubtedly refer to the free-floating baron (makes me think of yogic
flyers or comic book heroes with the power to levitate or hot air
balloons) as a baron. Of course such a free-floating baron would have
no need for insignia of feudal office or feudal tenure.
George Lucki
andor...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 9, 5:28 am, "Jan Bohme" <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Mar, 02:14, topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
>
> > > caps [...] were the ONLY heraldic
> > > privilege incidental to the dignity of barony. (One can get general
> > > arms in Scotland merely for being a solicitor.)
>
> > As a Scot. However, being a feudal baron enabled also the most alien
> > foreigner possible the right to petition for Arms before Lord Lyon.
> > This could also be a privilege intended by the drafters of the Act.
>
> > (Of course, Lyon will have nothing of either.)
>
>
> Actually I believe there is one heraldic perk of a free-floating
> barony and that is the right to be styled 'Baron of X' on your letters
> patent for a coat of arms - if it can be established that you are the
> owner of the thing. Under those circumstances the Lord Lyon would
> undoubtedly refer to the free-floating baron (makes me think of yogic
> flyers or comic book heroes with the power to levitate or hot air
> balloons) as a baron. Of course such a free-floating baron would have
> no need for insignia of feudal office or feudal tenure.
> George Lucki
The only question how this 'free-floating dignity' may ennoble its
purchuser without a feudal office or feudal tenure....
Very and very enormous and deepest secret :)
topk...@klassmaster.com
topk...@klassmaster.com
topk...@klassmaster.com
> >
> > Someone has pointed out the duality of the logic of Lyon's
> > interpretation of the closing of the Register of Sasines. True, it
> > cannot be used by a purchaser any more to prove that he has the
> > barony; but, it also cannot be used in the negative, by blood heirs,
> > to show that they did NOT dispone, sell or transfer the barony to
> > someone else. (Transfer is EXPLICITLY preserved in the act.)
> > Far from opposing an official transfer register, Lord Lyon should be
> > craving it.
>
>
> Transfer? Preserved?? What the Act say about the procedure, if
"Baronies and other dignities and offices
63 (1) *** nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any
other dignity or office ***
(2) ***any such dignity *** shall be transferable ***
(4) In this section*** "dignity" includes any quality or precedence
associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity;
***"
Q.E.D.
topk...@klassmaster.com
Act for a purpose never intended. The clearly stated purpose was to
get rid of feudal superiorities (and their jurisdictions) which were
burdening lands in Scotland. They were a nuisance to maintain and
enforce. On the practical side, the superiorities were replaced by
recorded easements and "real burdens" on adjoining and nearby lands.
On the baronial dignity, title and legal rights side, everything else
was to be "retained". (Everything other than feudal superiorities and
jurisdictions, which were abolished.)
It was the specific intent of the Act NOT to harm the barons/earls
beyond the necessary loss of their superiorities. Every "quality" and
"privilege" and "dignity" is to continue as before, but the baronies
are to be "transferable" now as "incorporeal hereditaments. The Act
does not specify how these hereditaments are to be transferred.
There was no licence or intent in there for Lord Lyon to harm or in
any way downgrade the feudal baronies and earldoms of Scotland. The
Act says the opposite. His doing so, whether for reasons of his own
administrative convenience or some species of bloodline snobbery,
violate the recorded intention of the Act. He should continue "as
before", except that something other than the Register of Sasines must
be used to shew "transfers" and heirship. Refusing to continue
baronial heraldic additaments, as a policy, is obviously the opposite
of what the Act intended. The most he should be allowed to do (by the
courts of appeal) is to turn red chapeaus (perhaps ALL red chapeaus)
from red to blue, (blue means "no longer in possession") if he has no
will to preserve the red. (But even that might be prohibited by
definition (4) of the Act since the red is arguably a "quality" of an
"associated dignity" of barony.)
andor...@yahoo.com
topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
He should continue "as
> before", except that something other than the Register of Sasines must
> be used to shew "transfers" and heirship.
Ok, if it MUST be created why Lyon do not like to create a Register?
Do Lyon obliged to do it? Who will convinced him to do so? Court of
Session? House of Lords? I think nobody, like nobody may convinced him
to grant the additaments to purchaser of erroneously created post-AD
'floating dignity', becoue the additaments were the pertinent of a
feudal signor (now all formers who were granted already) who held a
feudal barony. All shuch armorial acts Lyon do on his ministerial
discretion, acting on behalf of the Crown as ultimate authirity to
exercise a Royal Prerogative Jure Honorum.
The additaments were never a 'privilege' attached to a 'dignity of
baron' , but it was ( if granted) a privilege of physical persons -
feudal barons (and their heirs, as provided by the Letters Patents),
it was an invention that Lyon made on behalf of the Crown, by his
power to create Laws of Arms. For example Charles II conferred the
armorial right upon Barons ( Lords) to use a coronet in their
parliamentary capacity, and the recent Act (which removed majority of
hereditary peers from their places and deprived their vote in
Parliament) did not abrogate the right of present Peers ( no longer
parliamentary members) and their heirs to use their coronets. Similar
situation with Scottish minor barons, but it is nothing to do with
acquirers of post-AD created "floating dignities'.
By the other hand, for example, do ''floating dignity' consist a
nobility as a 'privilege'? Of course no, since the state of minor
nobility of Scotland by 'feudal ennoblement' was an traditional
pertinent of a physical person who is (now was) a holder of feudal
barony (by traditional provision of feudal stairs), and not a
pertinent of a 'dignity of baron' itself. The last one(a' dignity of
baron') was another part of pertinent of a holder of a feudal barony.
The same with additaments.
Joseph McMillan
> The real legal issue with Lord Lyon is whether he is mis-using the AFT
> Act for a purpose never intended.
Or, alternatively, he may have looked at the issue in great detail and
concluded that the way he is proceeding (if we really know for sure
what that is) is both legally correct and ministerially prudent. He
may be mistaken--the Court of Session will probably decide that in the
end--but that doesn't mean he's acting in bad faith, as this and the
paragraph below imply.
> Every "quality" and
> "privilege" and "dignity" is to continue as before, but the baronies
> are to be "transferable" now as "incorporeal hereditaments. The Act
> does not specify how these hereditaments are to be transferred.
Actually it does. It specifies that they are transferable as
incorporeal heritable property, like any other kind of incorporeal
heritable property, of which there are many.
Joseph McMillan
Tim Powys-Lybbe
U have heard it said that Scots arms are incorporeal heritable property
and they may only be transferred by inheritance (correct me if I'm
wrong, of course). Ub rhis respect, baronies seem to be transferable by
other means as well, so are no quite incorporeal heritable property.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Joseph McMillan
> In message of 9 Mar, "Joseph McMillan" <mcmillan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 5:26 pm, topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> > > The real legal issue with Lord Lyon is whether he is mis-using the AFT
> > > Act for a purpose never intended.
>
> > Or, alternatively, he may have looked at the issue in great detail and
> > concluded that the way he is proceeding (if we really know for sure
> > what that is) is both legally correct and ministerially prudent. He
> > may be mistaken--the Court of Session will probably decide that in the
> > end--but that doesn't mean he's acting in bad faith, as this and the
> > paragraph below imply.
>
> > > Every "quality" and
> > > "privilege" and "dignity" is to continue as before, but the baronies
> > > are to be "transferable" now as "incorporeal hereditaments. The Act
> > > does not specify how these hereditaments are to be transferred.
>
> > Actually it does. It specifies that they are transferable as
> > incorporeal heritable property, like any other kind of incorporeal
> > heritable property, of which there are many.
>
> U have heard it said that Scots arms are incorporeal heritable property
> and they may only be transferred by inheritance (correct me if I'm
> wrong, of course). Ub rhis respect, baronies seem to be transferable by
> other means as well, so are no quite incorporeal heritable property.
>
incorporeal heritable property *are* transferable--bonds and
securities over land (like mortgages), rents, fishing rights, rights
of way, etc., so when the act says the dignity is transferable as
incorporeal heritable property, it obviously means it's transferable
like the other forms of incorporeal heritable property that are
transferable.
Joseph McMillan
topk...@klassmaster.com
>***
> By the other hand, for example, do ''floating dignity' consist a
> nobility as a 'privilege'? Of course no,
How often must one quote the same statutory languge? Again:
"Baronies and other dignities and offices
63 (1) *** nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any
other dignity or office ***
(2) ***any such dignity *** shall be transferable ***
(4) In this section*** "dignity" includes any quality or precedence
associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity;
***"
Look at definition (4): "any quality or precedence associated with
*** a dignity" and (1) "the dignity of baron". Nobility was "a
quality" "associated with" "the dignity of baron". That was just a
fact in Scotland. Feudal nobility could simply be purchased, once the
need for "permission" was dropped.
More than that, nobility could almost ALWAYS be purchased in the
feudal system all over Europe pre-circa-1600. The later bloodline-
only system took over in England and much of the Continent, but not in
Scotland. The Act (unwisely from the bloodline snob's point of view)
preserved both the nobility and the free transferability. Strange,
crazy perhaps, but true. This chafes the snobby man who wants his
children to be born "better" and "nobler" than other children,
especially the children of vulgar self-made businessmen who buy
titles.
> since the state of minor
> nobility of Scotland by 'feudal ennoblement' was an traditional
> pertinent of a physical person who is (now was) a holder of feudal
> barony (by traditional provision of feudal stairs), and not a
> pertinent of a 'dignity of baron' itself. The last one(a' dignity of
> baron') was another part of pertinent of a holder of a feudal barony.
> The same with additaments.
This theory says that the the barons lost something more than feudal
superiority and jurisdiction. The Act (and Report) say the opposite:
everything else, every quality, precedence, right and heraldic
privilege were to be "retained".
topk...@klassmaster.com
> On Mar 9, 5:26 pm, topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> > The real legal issue with Lord Lyon is whether he is mis-using the AFT
> > Act for a purpose never intended.
>
> Or, alternatively, he may have looked at the issue in great detail and
> concluded that the way he is proceeding (if we really know for sure
> what that is) is both legally correct and ministerially prudent. He
> may be mistaken--the Court of Session will probably decide that in the
> end--but that doesn't mean he's acting in bad faith, as this and the
> paragraph below imply.
> Joseph McMillan
I hope that this is correct. I have not heard him opine on the barony
in person, in private. His public acts (the now-withdrawn
regulations, his position in litigation on additaments and transfers)
do not appear to be consistent with the statutory protection afforded
to the barons and earls by the AFT Act. Under his interpretation, the
barony (which includes future successors) has been downgraded by the
Act, which was not its intent beyond the necessary loss of feudal
superiorities and feudal jurisdictions.
If someone has copies of or links to Lord Lyon's defences and
justifications of his stance, or his briefs in Court and position-
papers, please post them.
glu...@wp.pl
> Joseph McMillan wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 5:26 pm, topkl...@klassmaster.com wrote:
> > > The real legal issue with Lord Lyon is whether he is mis-using the AFT
> > > Act for a purpose never intended.
>
> > Or, alternatively, he may have looked at the issue in great detail and
> > concluded that the way he is proceeding (if we really know for sure
> > what that is) is both legally correct and ministerially prudent. He
> > may be mistaken--the Court of Session will probably decide that in the
> > end--but that doesn't mean he's acting in bad faith, as this and the
> > paragraph below imply.
> > ***
> > Joseph McMillan
>
> I hope that this is correct. I have not heard him opine on the barony
> in person, in private. His public acts (the now-withdrawn
> regulations, his position in litigation on additaments and transfers)
> do not appear to be consistent with the statutory protection afforded
> to the barons and earls by the AFT Act. Under his interpretation, the
> barony (which includes future successors) has been downgraded by the
> Act, which was not its intent beyond the necessary loss of feudal
> superiorities and feudal jurisdictions.
I've not read anything to suggest that the Lord Lyon has 'downgraded'
baronial dignity in the slightest. in fact I believe he has in at
least one case accepted evidence he has found sufficient to recognize
the private transfer of a baronial dignity to another person
(suggesting that this can be done if there is excellent provenance).
He further refers to the new owner of the baronial dignity as the
baroness of X. Nothing has changed that was not altered by the Act -
no downgrade here.
What he has apparently been reluctant to do is to assign a red chapeau
and mantle to the new owner. Given that these were insignia of which
there is no possible use given the absence of the fief and
jurisdiction he has simply stopped issuing these insignia. I
understand that the feudal mantle and chapeau are misunderstood by
some as insignia of rank like a peer's coronet rather than insignia of
a feudal holding and office. Actually it would not surprise me in the
slighest if a court would come to some oddly construed understanding
of heraldic practice - this is quite an arcane area.
George Lucki
glu...@wp.pl
Why don't you quote the preceeding section?
62 Jurisdiction and prerogative of Lord Lyon
Nothing in this Act shall be taken to supersede or impair the
jurisdiction or prerogative of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.
George Lucki
glu...@wp.pl
> *** a dignity" and (1) "the dignity of baron". Nobility was "a
> quality" "associated with" "the dignity of baron". That was just a
> fact in Scotland. Feudal nobility could simply be purchased, once the
> need for "permission" was dropped.
This has been raised here before along with the very real question of
whether anything other than the fiction of ennobling fief existed
after the Crown lost interest in the transfer of feudal superiorities.
It is probably worth a dissertation to examine whetehr anything of a
substantial nobility was attached to the barony after this point.
> More than that, nobility could almost ALWAYS be purchased in the
> feudal system all over Europe pre-circa-1600. The later bloodline-
> only system took over in England and much of the Continent, but not in
> Scotland. The Act (unwisely from the bloodline snob's point of view)
> preserved both the nobility and the free transferability. Strange,
> crazy perhaps, but true. This chafes the snobby man who wants his
> children to be born "better" and "nobler" than other children,
> especially the children of vulgar self-made businessmen who buy
> titles.
Bloodline snobbery? So really this is a conspiracy of the 'well-born
Scots' to preserve for their children 'better than birth' against the
desires of self-made businessmen to purchase 'better than birth' for
their children. I hear a call to arms - to protect the rights of the
'vulgar self-made' to purchase titles and gain heraldic doodads that
allow them to believe that they or their children are nobler or better
than? Sheesh.
George Lucki
topk...@klassmaster.com
> Bloodline snobbery? So really this is a conspiracy of the 'well-born
> Scots' to preserve for their children 'better than birth' against the
> desires of self-made businessmen to purchase 'better than birth' for
> their children.
Spot on! Talk to some of the peers and old barony. Or consider the
"nobility is blood" (post-AFT) view earnestly and conveniently
propounded here by AndOr. If Lord Lyon appears at the pub, ask him
his view.
> I hear a call to arms - to protect the rights of the
> 'vulgar self-made' to purchase titles and gain heraldic doodads that
> allow them to believe that they or their children are nobler or better
> than? Sheesh.
>
> George Lucki
Why else would someone want a noble title at all nowadays? (Aside
from the special legal non-superiority baronial rights that continue
after AFT that we discussed earlier), Why would one like being
called the baron or earl of X in Scotland? Why have extra lordly
additaments in your arms? Why have arms at all? All these things are
valued, and by quite a few people. E.g., Hyacinth. They want to look
up, and look down, at others -- not drab equality. (An otherwise
intelligent friend of mine cried more at Diana's wedding than at her
own.) A lot of people make a living off of it. What's new?
Brian G. Hamilton.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arms are indeed property, of that there is no doubt, however they are
not 'heritable' property. They cannot be sold or gifted and can only
pass down a chain of ownership which is pre-determined by the
succession clause in the grant of arms. The 'dignity of baron' on the
other hand is heritable property and can be disposed of in the normal
way that any other heritable property is disposed of.
Brian G. Hamilton.
topk...@klassmaster.com
glu...@wp.pl wrote:
> ***
> I've not read anything to suggest that the Lord Lyon has 'downgraded'
> baronial dignity in the slightest.
> What he has apparently been reluctant to do is to assign a red chapeau
> and mantle to the new owner.
Before, the barons got baronial chapeaux; after, they didn't. That's
a downgrade.
> Given that these were insignia of which
> there is no possible use given the absence of the fief and
> jurisdiction he has simply stopped issuing these insignia.
The old logic of feudal fiefdom was abolished and supplanted by the
specific terms of the Act. The Act has been quoted over four times in
this thread alone. Every dignity, quality, precedence and right is to
be preserved. Although Lord Lyon's jurisdiction is not diminished, he
is still obliged to obey and execute the statute. By instituting a
policy of witholding of baronial chapeaux from barons after the
Appointed Day, he violated the Act. The AFT was intended, planned,
designed and draughted to have no effect on Scottish baronial arms.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Arms are indeed property, of that there is no doubt, however they are
> not 'heritable' property. They cannot be sold or gifted and can only
> pass down a chain of ownership which is pre-determined by the
> succession clause in the grant of arms. The 'dignity of baron' on the
> other hand is heritable property and can be disposed of in the normal
> way that any other heritable property is disposed of.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think that this is an incorrect construction. The expression
heritable property used to refer to property which would automatically
find it's heir under the rules of the feudal system. Similarly the
lairds, or more correctly freeholders of a parish, were called the
heritors. Some property is not heritable, for example the right to a
pension - that is a property right and could theoretically be assigned
to another person, but the right would cease on the death of the
person whose life is pensioned, thus making it not heritable.
Under the feudal rules, property went to the eldest son, who was the
heir, so did a peerage and so did the arms. This automatic
destination could be altered by a tailzie, and Lord Lyon would
invariably effect the tailzie in repect of the arms.
Mackenzie calls arms "Marks of hereditary honour" (p 1); Nisbet talks
of "Our armorial bearings, as hereditary marks of honour" (p 4); Seton
concurs quoting these two authorities: Innes of Learney notes "the
development of armory, as a branch of Civil Law, and as a highly
specialised branch of the law of heritable property" (p 1) and again
"A coat of arms like a peerage, baronetcy, or right of salmon-fishing,
became a recognised form of 'incorporeal heritable property'....",
here quoting four authorities.
On this construction, which I believe to be correct, arms were
heritable, albeit incorporeal.
Brian G. Hamilton.
Alex,
It is not my intention to divert this thread into a discussion on the
law of property and succession but with respect I think you are
confusing the words 'heritable' and 'inheritable'. Heritable property
is property, including rights in and over property, which is land
based. Also with respect you are slightly wrong about the inheritance
rules on succession (pre the 1964 Succession Act). Property is
divided between moveable property and heritable property. Moveable is
just what it implies but also includes the right to rent already
owed. The right to rent due in the future is heritable. A further
division (under our old law) is made between feuda antiqua and feuda
nova, the first being that which is inherited and the second that
which has been purchased during the lifetime of the testator. We
describe these as fees of heritage and fees of conquest and leads to
important differences in the former law of succession. It is a
general rule that heritage always descends but conquest ascends once
before it follows the ordinary rules.
For the purposes of our discussion on arms it must be maintained that
arms are not 'heritable' property for if they were they would be
treated under the law of succession as any other property. Alex, if
you are so minded you can leave me your house which is heritable
property but you cannot leave me your arms. However, if you were a
feudal baron, either pre or post AFT, you could leave me the dignity
of baron.
If you take issue with me I could always submit this posting to one of
my professors of conveyancing and see how many marks out of ten he
awards me.
Regards,
Brian G. Hamilton.
Derek Howard
I have missed out on most of this debate from having a real life and
am just catching up. Much has been said here but several of the
protagonists also joined in a thread on the HSS forum last year, where
I made a few points which appear not to have been raised in the
current debate but which perhaps deserve a wider audience. Perhaps a
little arrogant on my part to suggest the Scottish Law Commission and
the Scottish Parliament had it all wrong as they grasped for a simple
answer to a complex question they had not fully in vestigated but
nevertheless ... [I hope those participated in last year's HSS thread
will forgive me the repetition].
1. What is a dignity?
In England at least (and in modern practice this seems to equate to UK
practice) a dignity derives from the Crown. The monarch enjoys the
sole right of conferring all titles of honour, *dignities* and
precedence [4 Co Inst 361, 363; 1 Bl Com (14th Edn) 271]. The King is
the fountain of all honour and dignity [Prince's Case (1606) 8 Co Rep
1a at 18b.], and no subject can acquire a new title or dignity except
by grant from the Crown, unless it be conferred by Act of Parliament,
or acquired by marriage (in the case of a female), or obtained by
prescription, which, however, presupposes a lost grant. [Halsbury:
Laws of England, 831].
The Crown itself is a dignity as are the Great Officers of State.
Diplomatic agents of the Crown also hold a dignity [Halsbury, 879] and
there are no doubt a large number of other officers of the Crown who
are so covered (not least Kings of Arms and heralds).
Crown grants of the *style* lord mayor, deputy lord mayor, and right
honourable would be considered dignities [Halsbury, 95]
Established Church offices can be dignities, for instance:
Archbishops, bishops, archdeacons and offices in a cathedral of
collegiate church are all dignities [Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction
Measure 1963] as are chancellors of bishops, deans, etc. "Reverend"
however is not a dignity if used of a non-conformist minister,
dignities are only appropriate to the holy orders of the Church of
England [Halsbury, 1404]
Local government officers could be offices of dignity - prior to 1974
these included sheriffs, high stewards, honorary recorders, honorary
freemen and honorary aldermen. A town mayor is an office of dignity.
This was preserved by the Local Government Act 1972. Borough Charters
granted by the Crown may provide for the appointment of offices of
dignity by the corporation. The power to appoint may now be vested in
a successor parish or community council or charter trustees [Halsbury,
96].
Coats of arms are *not* themselves dignities, though they have been
judged by the Court of Chivalry to behave "in the nature of" dignities
[Manchester case, 1954] which is subtly different.
Peerages are dignities [Halsbury, 906] and this is and has been for
centuries specified in the terms of the letters patent of creation.
This was the case in both England and Scotland since at t-least the
16th century.
And so we could go on. The evidence seems to be that there must be a
specified grant of the status of a dignity from the Crown. This grant,
usually in the form of letters patent may be specific to an individual
or include his heirs or be a generic one or allow for devolution of
the granting of dignities.
On the other hand a lordship of a manor (even if able to hold a court)
is definitely *not* a title of dignity [Halsbury, 696]. It was a form
of property holding containing some jurisdiction but confers no rank,
precedence, and there is no dignity of manorial lordship and no honour
from the Crown conferred by this property holding or jurisdiction.
Now, what is or was the Scottish position with regard to territorial
barons?
Lord Lyon Innes of Learney's views are contained in his 1945 paper on
"The robes of the feudal baronage of Scotland" [PSAS, 79, 111-163].
The paper can be criticised on a number of points but nevertheless is
a fount of information. On p 113 he draws attention to the Crown
Charter of 6 May 1590, erecting the barony of Spynie, as including the
wording a "Titulum, Honorem, Ordinem et Statum liberi Baronis" - the
title, honour and estate. Innes makes great play of the explicit
demonstration of what was conferred on the fief. Indeed, he is
critical in his footnotes of a previous author for failing to see the
distinction between this 1590 grant and that of the "dignity of a frie
Lorde and Baron" conferred by the Cardross charter of 10 June 1610
which he equated with the 1593 Spynie peerage erection. The difference
was clearly important to Innes though he was making a different
point.
No dignity was granted in those days. The wording for grants of a
barony we were told is that the lands are erected into a free barony,
nothing about a dignity being granted: "et quas omnes terras etc rex
incorporavit in unam liberam baroniam de Ogilvy, et ordinavit quod
castrum de Findlater principale messuagium esset, et castrum de Ogilvy
nominaretur." (RMS iii, 166, 22 May 1517).
The feudal barony did *not* include in its royal charter any mention
of dignity, unlike both the Scottish and English peerage experience.
I asked HSS forumeers: Did the Scottish experience follow English
practice and require a specific grant from the Crown as seems to be
the case from the 1610 Cardross example above? If so, when, if ever,
did territorial baronies become legally dignities? When, if at all,
was the first Crown grant of a territorial barony as a dignity? I was
answered that the Crown has *never* granted a barony as a dignity.
2. Could the Scottish Parliament create a new form of dignity? Could
it define a dignity and determine what such a dignity contained?
Under the Scotland Act 1998, Section 29(1), an Act of the Scottish
Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside
the legislative competence of the Parliament. Under Section 29(2)(b) a
matter is outside the competence of Parliament if it relates to
reserved matters.
Schedule 5, paragraph 1 of the Act reserves the Crown to Westminster.
It therefore cannot be determined by the Scottish Parliament. However,
under paragraph 2(1) the Crown's prerogative and other executive
functions are not reserved nor are functions exercisable by any person
acting on behalf of the Crown (therefore these matters may be
addressed by the Scottish Parliament). Nevertheless, para 2(2)
specifies that 2(1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of
"honours and dignities" - which continue therefore to be reserved to
Westminster and are *not* passed to the Scottish Parliament. The SP
therefore has *no* powers to create a dignity (nor to abolish one, nor
to determine what a dignity shall or shall not consist of). The issue
of dignities should not even have been mentioned in the AFT.
Apparently it is there because of a misunderstanding by the Law
Commission report as to the nature of constitutional reserved
matters.
The original proposal was S. 57 of the draft Bill authored by the Law
Commission. S. 57 of this draft became S. 63 of the Act without any
change.
The then Lord Lyon submitted written comments on the Scots Law
Commission discussion paper no 93 "Property Law - Abolition of the
Feudal System" (1991). These were taken on board in the SLC Report on
Abolition of the Feudal System (SCOT LAW COM No 168) of 1999, (as were
the comments of the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland). It is not
clear what his observations were precisely. The Report refers at para
2.41 to
"The surviving rights or privileges of barons (which can all be
covered by the term "the dignity of baron")."
And refers to note 51, which merely leads to clause 57 of the draft
Bill.
However, the SLC considered the competence of the Scottish Parliament
but took the view that
"it would be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to deal
with feudal baronies. The only reserved matter which might be relevant
is that specified in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 5 to the
Scotland Act 1998. This comes under the heading "The Constitution" and
it reserves, among other "aspects of the constitution"
"the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency".
It cannot, in our view, reasonably be argued that feudal baronies are
an "aspect of the constitution" coming under the heading of "the
Crown". Barons of this type have no constitutional position. They are
not members of the House of Lords. They are an aspect of the feudal
system of land tenure. Feudal baronies go with land which can be
bought and sold in the ordinary way. Anyone can buy a barony".
The SLC failed to realise that, as they were not specifically and
individually created dignities, the only reasons Scottish feudal
baronies could have been considered dignities are the generic ones of
being tenants in chief of the Crown or of holding a judicial franchise
from the Crown. The arguments for the former are not very convincing
for, inter alia, in similar situations English lords of manors and the
anciently existing but no longer extant English territorial or feudal
barons were not considered dignities (nor titles of honour). It is
most likely that the supposed status as dignities derived from the
judicial franchise. With the demise of the royal judicial franchise
(the alleged continuing rights to hold customary courts for ceremonial
purposes are not a royal franchise and such ceremonials can be acted
out by anyone) and with the cessation as tenants in chief of the
Crown, there is no more any basis for any dignity in any former
Scottish feudal barony. So while the AFT Act refers to a lack of
effect on the dignity, there is none left on which to peg the style of
baron. The style of baron merely refers to the holder of a barony. The
AFT does not and could not allow for any continuity of "title" or
"honour" - as granted in the Spyvie case cited above.
At para 2.44 the SLC Report it went on:
"The Queen's prerogative functions are not in general reserved by
paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 5 but this does not apply to the
prerogative functions in relation to honours and dignities. In so far
as such functions are reserved by paragraph 1 they remain reserved. It
is this mention of honours and dignities in an exception to an
exception to a reservation which might be thought to give rise to a
doubt as to the competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, the
Queen has no prerogative functions in relation to feudal baronies.
There is no exercise of the Royal prerogative involved. Any function
of the Crown in relation to baronies of this kind is as paramount
feudal superior".
In this the Report was much mistaken for this would only be so if the
only role of an FB was as a tenant in chief or "paramount feudal
superior". In fact as we have seen, the Crown individually granted
title and honour, and the judicial franchise was most likely
responsible for them being considered dignities. The Crown therefore
did have prerogative fuinctions in relation to FBs.
The SLC Report continues: "The Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that
the reservation of those aspects of the constitution coming under the
heading of "the Crown" does not include
"the ultimate superiority of the Crown or the superiority of the
Prince and Steward of Scotland".
"In our view the Scottish Parliament could, if it wished, abolish
feudal baronies altogether as part of a reform of the feudal system of
land tenure. If that is so then it is even more clear that it can take
baronies out of the system of land tenure and land registration, while
allowing the dignity of baron, derived from the former connection with
the Crown as feudal superior, to continue as a floating dignity".
While the Scottish Parliament can quite rightly legislate on land
tenure - a devolved power, the Crown's prerogative with regard to
honours and dignities - reserved powers -was of course involved in the
creation of feudal baronies. They derive from creation by Royal
charter and cannot be otherwise created or conjured out of the air. We
have seen that the barony of Spynie was given "Titulum, Honorem,
Ordinem et Statum liberi Baronis". They are what the charters grant,
no more no less unless amended. The fact that they could be bought and
sold is irrelevant to this point.
The argument that barons have no part in the constitution and are
therefore not covered by the reservation of powers because of a mere
heading for the section is meaningless. The same "Constitution"
heading in the 1998 Act importantly also covers the reservation
regarding the Lord Lyon as far as his powers of granting arms goes -
an aspect of Crown prerogative (Schedule 5, I, 2(2) of the Scotland
Act) but not of the LL in his judicial capacity - a "constitutional"
role. (important in respect of the claims regarding rights to arms and
additaments that the Scottish Parliament can have no say regarding
grants of Scottish arms).
And to further argue that there is a different form of "dignity" than
that granted (or not) by the prerogative of the Crown, and that this
new form can be given a different definition - "rights and privileges"
which the SP can then have a say in, is poor legal thinking.
It is as if the SLC thought of calling them "aspects of reserved Crown
prerogative" but adding "nevertheless we will consider the any one of
three essential words in the term as being microscopically different
to common English understanding so that we can get round the
reservation to the evil English parliament at Westminster of the right
to tinker with these aspects". Sorry, this won't wash.
As I see it, either barons were dignities as understood in the
reserved powers and which are Crown prerogative, or they do not
dignities at all. It is not possible for the AFT to have created a new
dignity nor to have made such an "incorporeal heritable property".
There can be no" statutory protection afforded to the barons and earls
by the AFT Act" as someone has put it.
Luckily, however, we can ignore the shoddy thinking in the Report, as
it is only the wording of the Scotland Act 1998 and the AFT which
legally actually count in court.
The SLC Report assumed that feudal barons were entitled to the usual
baronial additaments:-
2.31 line 10 "If the holder is granted armorial bearings by the Lord
Lyon (which is entirely a matter for the Lord Lyon's administrative
discretion) and if a prima facie title to the barony is established
there is a right to relevant baronial additaments to the coat of
arms".
In the notes to S.57 the Draft Bill (which later became the S.63 of
the Act unaltered):-
"Subsection (4) .... and that the reference to "dignity" includes
matters of heraldry and precedence incidental to a dignity, such as
the addition of baronial additaments to a coat of arms."
But as we have seen, the Scottish Parliament can have no say
whatsoever in Lyon's job of granting arms, that being a reserved
power. They cannot determine what constitutes a dignity and cannot
determine that heraldry and heraldic additaments are matters of
dignity, so when they picked up the SLC Report and transformed the
draft suggestions into law they were going beyond their competence and
those clauses of the AFT can be considered to have no effect. The SLC
were certainly wrong to assume that feudal barons per se had the right
to arms and that the dignity of baron included a right to baronial
additaments.
Though there may have been no intention to derogate from the dignity
of Baron, but only to separate the dignity from the land nor was there
any intention to alter or derogate from a Baron's entitlement (i) to
call themselves baron, or (ii) to the precedence or (ii) the right to
the heraldic additaments to which a Baron was entitled pre the
appointed day, this was all put to nil by the very reference to
"dignity" which we have seen was *not* formerly attached to the
territorial possession but appears to have been attached to the
former, but now abolished, surviving criminal or civil jurisdiction of
barony courts.
Now that the territory has been separated, any "honour" which was
attached to the territorial barony in the Crown grants has also fallen
by the wayside.
The SLC and SP may not have intended to alter other aspects of the
baronage as they considered themselves under threat of litigation and,
as is standard with Government proposals, took a risk assessment, not
that the Government would lose a case, but that the costs to the
taxpayer, the time, resources and effort required would greatly outway
the benefit to the taxpayer. However, their actions abolishing the
jurisdictions and separating the land has been to remove the last
vestiges giving support to the concept of honour, dignity, nobility,
etc.. This applies to all former territorial baronies without
exception, whether they have been bought recently or not, whether they
have been conveyed since or before the Appointed Day. The right to be
called Baron disappears with the barony. There is nothing left to
convey. There are no associated rights left.
Those who claim that the person was raised to baronial status are
wrong, it was the lands that were erected into a barony. The owner of
these lands by virtue of ownership was considered a feudal baron. In
continental baronial grants under the ancien régime when land was
raised to baronial status, the question of title and status of the
individual and that of the land were clearly dealt with separately in
the same document.
Attempts to claim dignity by citing the AFT cannot get round the SP
lacking the authority to create a new form of, or alter a dignity
whether with or without land, and whether intentionally or
accidentally.
The only counter argument which I felt interesting was by Joseph
McMillan - that, citing the Oxford Companion to Law definition of
"dignity" as "the right to bear a title of honour or of nobility" and
Blackstone's Commentaries listing dignities are one of the ten sorts
of incorporeal hereditaments in English law and thus a type of real
property. Joseph pointed to the use by the AFT refers to the "dignity
of baron" (not "of barony"), using the equivalent Scots legal
terminology "incorporeal heritable property" to argue that the dignity
of baron - that is, the right to bear the title of baron - is a
property right held by prescription. It was however subsequently
pointed out that for prescription to operate in regards to Scottish
heritable (land based) property there has to be a deed recorded on the
public register together with ten years concurrent possession and that
recorded deed has to be ex-facia valid.
However, as I argue the AFT in this respect is fundamentaly wrong (not
the first time statute will have been proved in error) and therefore
void (under the 1998 Act) the corollary must be that we cannot rely on
the AFT to provide a statutory determination that there is such a
thing as a "dignity of baron". I contend that there is now at least no
longer any such dignity, if there ever was. I note that none of the
protagonists on this group claiming the existence of a post-AFT
dignity consider the Scotland Act.
Derek Howard