Heraldry & Nobility in the UK .. oops!
Richard A. Williams
The web site Sebastian quoted is fascinating. On this page is a list of
editors of the article posted on the site:
http://www.knightlyorders.org/site.html
But on this page, shock and gasp! look what I found! .....
http://www.knightlyorders.org/uksmom.html
" In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession of
arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the Court
of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
Good heavens! I thought the CoA explicitly stated that conferment of
Arms does NOT grant any rank or privilege of nobility!? Tsk tsk tsk, how
did this slip past former Garter, Sir Conrad Swan, K.C.V.O. I wonder? Of
course, I do recall from things written here before that Petite Nobless
is deemed to have been granted with Arms by Lyon.
Richard.
Barry Gabriel
Richard A. Williams wrote:
> OK, of Heraldry in Great Britain .......
[snip]
>
>
> But on this page, shock and gasp! look what I found! .....
>
> http://www.knightlyorders.org/uksmom.html
>
> " In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession of
> arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the Court
> of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
Who said the above and when? I tend not to believe everything I read.
BG
Francois R. Velde
>http://www.knightlyorders.org/uksmom.html
>
>" In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession of
>arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the Court
>of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
In Britain, nobility is restricted to peers. That would restrict the potential
applicants to the SMOM much more than in other European countries where the
concept of nobility results in a wider class. So, for the purposes of the
order's nobility criteria, the order has decided on its own definition for
Britain.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Andrew Yong
news:393AC4D4...@sirius.com...
> " In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession of
> arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the Court
> of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
That's purely for the purposes of the Order. In England nobility is a
legally defined concept restricted to peers and peeresses.
andrew
Richard A. Williams
that former Garter and several nobles of England, are on their editorial
team.
Richard.
Barry Gabriel wrote:
> Richard A. Williams wrote:
>
> > OK, of Heraldry in Great Britain .......
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >
> > But on this page, shock and gasp! look what I found! .....
> >
> > http://www.knightlyorders.org/uksmom.html
> >
> > " In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession of
> > arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the Court
> > of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
>
Barry Gabriel
"Richard A. Williams" wrote:
> Follow the link .... that's where it's written, and they claim, as I said,
> that former Garter and several nobles of England, are on their editorial
> team.
What I've seen seems to deal with members of the SMOM, not anyone else, and
their need for "porrfs of nobility" in the 16 quarterings need for their highr
ranks.
BG
Barry Gabriel
Barry Gabriel wrote:
that should be "proofs of nobility" and "needed for their higher ranks".
BG
>
>
> BG
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>
>
>"Richard A. Williams" wrote:
>
>> Follow the link .... that's where it's written, and they claim, as I said,
>> that former Garter and several nobles of England, are on their editorial
>> team.
>
>What I've seen seems to deal with members of the SMOM, not anyone else, and
>their need for "porrfs of nobility" in the 16 quarterings need for their highr
>ranks.
British rules on require, for honor and devotion, either 4 quarterings or
300 years of paternal line nobility (or legitimate arms).
Guy Stair Sainty
Stair...@msn.com
www.ChivalricOrders.org
Guy Stair Sainty
>>
>>" In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession of
>>arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the Court
>>of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
>
>applicants to the SMOM much more than in other European countries where the
>concept of nobility results in a wider class. So, for the purposes of the
>order's nobility criteria, the order has decided on its own definition for
>Britain.
The Order decided this a long time ago, and I have given here in the past a
long list of persons admitted to the Order without being descended from
a peer. However, the difference between the pre-reformation Order and
the 19th century British Association was that, as in every European
Priory (and now Association), it had its own officers in each Langue
whose'job was to determine the validity of a candidate's proofs. We know
that such proofs would typically show the postulant's arms, but there
is nno doubt that the determination as to their status was made on whether
they matched what those charged with determining this considered "gentle"
rather than noble. Even in the pre-reformation Order this was considered
the equivalence of nobility.
The requirement to prove more than patrilineal descent, however, was
new at the beginning of the 16th century. From the 13th century it had
been necessary only to prove Knightly descent. The intermarriages
in Spain between Christians and Moors (and Jews), however, had led
the Spanish Military Orders to intorduce requirements showing that
the four grandparents of a candidate were baptised - to eliminate
the risk of anyone joining who might have close relations on the Moorish
side in the ongoing wars to drive them out of Spain. These quickly
became proofs also of nobility in each quarter and this was adopted
by the Spanish Langue of the Order of St John. Soon it was imitated
elsewhere and gradually, as the ranks of the lesser nobility swelled,
these requirements became more stringent. the Order of St john in fact
allows patrilineal descent as sole requirement (for up to 450 years in
some associations) as an alternate to 16 or 4 quarterings, with the
single exception of the French and Belgian Associations, which still
require four quarterings. The French association is now debating whether
they can consider the conferral of Napoleonic titles "ennoblement"
since the quarterings must be more than 200 years in each line and
2008 is the bicentenary of the establishment of the Napoleonic nobility.
When the British knights established their new Association, they decided
that as armigerous status was considered by the heralds to be granted
as evidence of gentility, that proof of a right to arms was therefore the
sole and sufficient qualification (limited by the requirement for
antiquity of the grant). The problem has been that this has given discretion
as to determining the nobiliary status of a andidate to members of the
College of heralds, who have not alwaus exercised it wisely, having as
they do a direct pecuniary interest in the matter.
Furthermore, as I have shown elsewhere, it has led to the anomolous
situation where some candidates are self-evidentrly qualified, but
who for some reason could not prove their right to arms. The best known
case is that of Lord Strickland, the sometime Prime minister of Malta
who had a major dispute with Pius XI in the 1920s, and who when he was
invited to join was found not to have any right to arms, even though his
ancestor had carried the standard of St George at the Battle of Agincourt.
The Stricklands had been one of the most consistently Catholic recusant
families, and in their northern fastness had avoided the visitations of
the heralds. There are many other examples - as also the case of Scottish
peers of ancient creation, or Baronies by writ, who have inherited a title
through a female line but in the male line were not noble, is another anomaly.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Follow the link .... that's where it's written, and they claim, as I said,
>that former Garter and several nobles of England, are on their editorial
>team.
>
>
>Barry Gabriel wrote:
>
>> Richard A. Williams wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > But on this page, shock and gasp! look what I found! .....
>> >
>> >
>> > " In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession of
>> > arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the Court
>> > of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
>>
The author of this page, Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, is an
interesting case. he is Slains Pursuivant (the private pursuivant of the
Earl of Erroll) and an authority on British heraldry. He is also a
leading supporter of the Castro Constantinian Order and a former
Delegate for Scotland of the SMOM. Interestingly, he entered the SMOM as a
Knight of Grace and Devotion, and switched to Honor and Devotion - although
the scottish grant to his father's father's brother was made only in 1929.
His other three quarters were of more ancient origin. The rules have now
been altered so that proof of 4 quarterings requires the candidate to be
born noble. Nonetheless, he is a proponent of the arms makes noble
view, although I am sure he understands also the limitations and that it
is not exclusively a proof (he himself gave me the Strickland case as
an example).
It is the careless use of the word noble with which one might quarrel, as
clearly what is actually meant is gentility, qualified by the view that
in Britain this has been viewed as equivalent (although not necessarily
equal or the same as) to continental nobility.
Barry Gabriel
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >
> >Barry Gabriel wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >> Who said the above and when? I tend not to believe everything I read.
>
> The author of this page, Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, is an
> interesting case. he is Slains Pursuivant (the private pursuivant of the
> Earl of Erroll) and an authority on British heraldry.
[snip]
>
>
> It is the careless use of the word noble with which one might quarrel, as
> clearly what is actually meant is gentility, qualified by the view that
> in Britain this has been viewed as equivalent (although not necessarily
> equal or the same as) to continental nobility.
Well put. The term noble gets bandied about a bit too loosely around here.
BG
Michael F. McCartney
>Well put. The term noble gets bandied about a bit too loosely around here.
>BG
Too loosely? I think, rather the opposite - too many folks trying to put too
much precision (or perhaps too many precisely incompatible versions of
precision) on a word that has meant any number of things over the centuries.
Simple test - or simpleton's test, perhaps! - if the OED has more than one
definition, the word by definition isn't precise!
Now if you'd said "The term noble gets bandied about a bit too often around
here" I could buy that!
Michael Fannin McCartney
Fremont, California
Barry Gabriel
"Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
> re: "nobility" & "gentility" (was SMOM proofs):
> >Well put. The term noble gets bandied about a bit too loosely around here.
> >BG
>
> Too loosely? I think, rather the opposite - too many folks trying to put too
> much precision (or perhaps too many precisely incompatible versions of
> precision) on a word that has meant any number of things over the centuries.
> Simple test - or simpleton's test, perhaps! - if the OED has more than one
> definition, the word by definition isn't precise!
Michael...you're much smarter than that. You know my feelings re arms = nobility
according to Innes, nobility being conferred because one belongs to certain
organizations, etc. Too loosely? Yes. Spare me the OED argument...it doesn't
wash.
>
>
> Now if you'd said "The term noble gets bandied about a bit too often around
> here" I could buy that!
We agree on something at least.
BG
Michael F. McCartney
Can't argue with that!
> You know my feelings re arms = nobility
>according to Innes, nobility being conferred because one belongs to certain
>organizations, etc. Too loosely? Yes.
We agree overall, but for somewhat different reasons. My quibble isn't with
Innes' use of "nobility" (petite noblesse) - it may make me smile to myself,
but the history of the word "noble" is broad enough to include Innes' useage,
tho' perhaps only in a far corner. He refers to French etc useage of the term,
& I suspect he deliberately chose it to (among other things) emphasize that
whatever the Scots tradition was, it wasn't English - be that tradition
linguistic, heraldic, social, or whatever. If that is true, then there is an
element of polemic and nostalgia which is best digested with large doses of
sodium chloride.
Its the "confer" part that grates (did he actually use that word, or only
imply it so strongly one can't help reading it in?) - recognize or acknowledge
or document (verb) OK but not to create out of whole cloth. Lyon has the sole
right (absent infringement on a prior grant) to "confer" whatever arms he deems
appropriate (if any) to the petitioner; and is supposed to exercise that right
on behalf of "virtuous and well-deserving persons" which gives him some
interpretive latitude. If we equate "virtuous and well-deserving" with the
medieval concept of "gentility" or "petite noblesse" - as Lyon does - then his
concept of arms as "tessere nobilitas" or tolens of nobility/gentility has a
certain connection. But to claim he "confers" nobility (petite noblesse) IMO
has the cart before the horse; the petitioner must first achieve the state of
being virtutous & well-deserving, which Lyon (upon petition) then IMO
acknowledges (or perhaps ratifies, tho' that's a bit strong) by granting arms.
His grant is the effect, not the cause; he doesn't have the Midas touch, merely
(we hope) the ability to distinguish gold from pyrites.
Of course to a republican, this is all rather like "how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin" vs. "how many pins will I need for X many angels to dance
on" i.e. "huh?" (or to translate, "eh??") Or maybe salvation by faith vs.
salvation by grace...wake me up when the preacher's finished.
> Spare me the OED argument...it
>doesn't >wash.
We can agree to disagree - to me, its the only remotely objective part of the
whole subject! (Because written by scholars as a record of the variety of
useages of a given word, over time & space, with AFAIK no heraldic or
nobiliary - or republican, for that matter - axe to grind.) We can argue re:
the (un)coolness or (in)appropriateness of Innes' etymological archealogy -
actually, we'd probably agree on that point - but in fairness to the deceased
duffer, frowning at his picking an obscure or perhaps obsolete, but still
historical useage, is still not the same as saying he made the whole thing up
out of whole cloth!
>> Now if you'd said "The term noble gets bandied about a bit too often around
>> here" I could buy that!
>
>We agree on something at least.
>BG
Hallelujah! (or is that Alleluia? uh-oh, something else to disagree about!)
Barry Gabriel
"Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
> >Michael...you're much smarter than that. ...
>
> Can't argue with that!
>
> > You know my feelings re arms = nobility
> >according to Innes, nobility being conferred because one belongs to certain
> >organizations, etc. Too loosely? Yes.
>
> We agree overall, but for somewhat different reasons. My quibble isn't with
> Innes' use of "nobility" (petite noblesse) - it may make me smile to myself,
> but the history of the word "noble" is broad enough to include Innes' useage,
> tho' perhaps only in a far corner. He refers to French etc useage of the term,
> & I suspect he deliberately chose it to (among other things) emphasize that
> whatever the Scots tradition was, it wasn't English - be that tradition
> linguistic, heraldic, social, or whatever. If that is true, then there is an
> element of polemic and nostalgia which is best digested with large doses of
> sodium chloride.
>
> Its the "confer" part that grates (did he actually use that word, or only
> imply it so strongly one can't help reading it in?) -
[snip]
Without going down this path once again, Innes did use the term "confer" or words
of that sort when he spoke of nobility, after which in good Scottish legalistic
fashion he tried to explain himself and what he meant. All in all IMO, Innes was
(reverting to the vernacular of my youth) fulla crap when he spoke about his
ability to confer nobility via a grant of arms.
BG
Francois R. Velde
suum:
>[...] He refers to French etc useage of the term,
>& I suspect he deliberately chose it to (among other things) emphasize that
Of course, the French usage has nothing to do with Innes's conceptions. Arms
were never a fief, nor ennobling, nor did heralds ever ennoble, nor were arms
ever "tokens of nobility", nor was nobility anything but a status acquired at
birth or by explicit act of the sovereign.
>Its the "confer" part that grates (did he actually use that word, or only
>imply it so strongly one can't help reading it in?)
The latter. He calls arms a "ennobling fief" and he says that Lyon grants arms.
Ergo Lyon ennobles, although he may not say so in so many words. The editors of
the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia of Scottish Law fell for this, since they say
that a grant of arms is an "ennoblement" (never mind that nowhere do they say
what noblesse is).
>[...] If we equate "virtuous and well-deserving" with the
>medieval concept of "gentility" or "petite noblesse" - as Lyon does - then his
>concept of arms as "tessere nobilitas" or tolens of nobility/gentility has a
>certain connection. [...]
But that concept is *English* (and not medieval).
Michael F. McCartney
>Without going down this path once again, Innes did use the term "confer" or
>words
>of that sort when he spoke of nobility, after which in good Scottish
>legalistic
>fashion he tried to explain himself and what he meant. All in all IMO, Innes
>was
>(reverting to the vernacular of my youth) fulla crap when he spoke about his
>ability to confer nobility via a grant of arms.
>BG
Well, he would probably prefer "high quality organic fertilizer" but yeah, he
was...
I suppose my kinder/gentler approach to TIoL reflects the level of cosmic
importance I place on the subject of nobility (low) and my overall appreciation
for his role in promoting heraldry in general & Scottish in particular (high).
Too bad Sir Tam lived pre-Internet; if he'd had to defend his thesis here
before he published it, he might not have gone so far out on a limb once he
made it into print!
Michael F. McCartney
-with, of course, his feet planted firmly in the clouds...
(gee, now I'm starting to sound like Barry...)
You pointed out that Stair's Memorial Encyclopedia etc. has bought into Innes'
theories; if he (postumously) garners enough disciples in print, he wins!
"Facts? I don't need no stinkin' facts!!"
Francois R. Velde
> Francois - good points all, but of supreme irrelevance to a herald on crusade!
> -with, of course, his feet planted firmly in the clouds...
> (gee, now I'm starting to sound like Barry...)
Are you the herald on a crusade? You're the one who seems to be willing to
buy Innes if his concept of nobility is non-English and corresponds to
"gentility". But both can't be true at the same time.
> You pointed out that Stair's Memorial Encyclopedia etc. has bought into Innes'
> theories; if he (postumously) garners enough disciples in print, he wins!
True, though logic doesn't. (Never mind the lack of historical validity:
what does it mean to "ennoble"? The word "nobility" isn't in the index.
The editors just copied Innes to fill the chapter on heraldry, without
giving it much thought.)
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Michael F. McCartney
>buy Innes if his concept of nobility is non-English and corresponds to
>"gentility". But both can't be true at the same time.
Me, on crusade? Naah, maybe a cruise...lotsa good food & limited
responsibilities, that's my ticket. Obviously I was referring to Innes. And
re: buying his nobiliary theories: naah, just wondow-shopping; if I like the
rest of his goods (which I generally do) I can tolerate a wee bit nonsense on
an issue that really isn't all that important to me. I don't have to convert
to [name your least-favorite exotic religion] to enjoy eating [name the
correspondng cuisine].
And re: the possible incompatibility of fake-French noblesse and ersatz-English
gentility, why, Sir Tam was just an early practitioner of fusion cuisine.
Mexican-Japanese has been big out here on occasion...if I can swallow - and
enjoy! - enchiladas and sushi at the same meal, a little bit of Innes'
nobiliary nonsense (or at least excess) isn't enough to choke on so long as the
genealogy is sound & the artwork is good.
Of course I went to school at UCLA, where "kosher" meant serving matzos with
the bacon and eggs, so whaddaya expect? (and with a major in political science
- almost as much of an oxymoron as military intelligence, which I also did as
"post-graduate" work in the University of South Vietnam. With these as
academic credentials, you expect logic??)
Seriously, if noblesse/gentility still had any serious social and political
meaning (really oppressively serious, not just who gets invited to tea-parties)
maybe I could get a bit more worked up about it. One doesn't sharpen the
guillotines for the SCA...
Clan MacLeod Society - Sally Smith
Michael F. McCartney <dmccar...@cs.com> wrote:
>Mexican-Japanese has been big out here on occasion...if I can swallow - and
>enjoy! - enchiladas and sushi at the same meal, a little bit of Innes'
Egad, Mike, you're making me hungry... hey, I went to this excellent
Afghani restaurant last week which serves good pizza too, let me know
if you want the particulars.
(Desperately trying to stay on-topic, she mentions that she got into
this same discussion with M Velde last month, with same results.)
Sally
--
Sally Smith, webmaster for the Clan MacLeod Societies, mac...@best.com
http://www.clan-macleod.com
Disclaimer: unless stated, the above posting is entirely my own opinion
C. S. T. Mackie in Acadia Park
If I may interject a question on a related topic: can anyone shed some light
on the Lord Lyon's refusal to matriculate Canadian arms, based on their not
having "the same 'noble' character as do Scottish Arms." [Lyon Clerk, in a
letter dated 21 March 2000]?
Yours truly
C. Mackie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael F. McCartney
>If I may interject a question on a related topic: can anyone shed some light
>on the Lord Lyon's refusal to matriculate Canadian arms, based on their not
>having "the same 'noble' character as do Scottish Arms." [Lyon Clerk, in a
>letter dated 21 March 2000]?
First we've heard of it AFAIK.
(1) If the letter's not too long, would you post it here for all to see? While
we may have initial reactions (see below for my huf-n-puf) its fairer to react
to Innes' verbatim text rather than a summary.
(2) I could see it if this policy applies only to arms granted to a family
association rather than to individuals - that would be Mr. Watt's fault for
limiting extended destinations to descendants of the same grandfather & only
allowing corporate grants to an association for anything broader. Arms of an
association aren't the individual arms of the members, unless the association
is structured as a mere holding company for the family's arms - but then why
bother with an association at all, why not just extend the grant to the whole
family?
(3) Playing word games with English "honorary" grants is one thing - petty, but
at least there is some logic to it (not the "noblesse" nonsense, but rather
anything to tweak John Bull's nose; & besides Garter should have seen it coming
& sidestepped the issue); but this seems bizarre. Time for QE II to have a few
blunt words with her northernmost "servitor" - either she devolved her armorial
authority to the GG or she didn't; & if she did LL is throwing it back in her
face.
(4) Also - of more direct interest to those of us who are not Crown subjects -
he's reinforcing the popular picture of heraldry as a petty, pettifogging and
prissy pasttime of petite prigs.
(you can read "noblesse" after "petite" but I couldn't make it alliterate).
Given the overwhelmingly left political leanings of the Scottish electorate,
its also likely to qualify Innes for the next set of Darwin awards.
Having I trust expressed my feelings in the most delicate terms possible under
the circumstances, I eagerly await the full text of Innes' letter, and devoutly
hope that after reading it I will have to eat my words.
Guy Stair Sainty
dmccar...@cs.com says...
The Crown seems to have shown little interest in the claims to particular
authority by the Heralds both north and south of the border for centuries.
No statutory regulation has been forthcoming, and hence both north and south
the claims made for their jurisdiction, etc, have largely been unchallenged
except in a handful of Scottish court cases, when the extensive claims of
the Lyon Court have been usually questioned or limited, as Francois has
shown earlier.
The Heralds have taken this negative view of almost all modern foreign
heraldic jurisdictions; they have for long refused to accept Spanish grants
and refer always to their inquiries made of officials at the Spanish
Embassy, who reply that they have never heard of any cronistas, or that
cronistas have no right to grant arms. The British heralds then conveniently
forget that they have no right to "grant" nobility or gentility, and not
only claim that their grants of arms are in fact recognition of that status
but now make the more extensive claim. Spanish Cronistas in confirming arms,
are confirming arms that have been assumed but designed by themselves.
The justification for this limitation by the Lord Lyon Court is presumably
based either on the text of the statute which established the office
of Chief herald, or on a view by LL that as the Canadian government has
halted the grant of any distinctions of rank or title, and that it somehow
does not "recognize" any such distinctions, these do not exist. A similar
distinction is made by the College of Arms in respect of grants made by
the Chief herald of Ireland, on the basis that the irish Constitution
does not recognize titles.
I suspect, however, that the real reason is that in all the above cases these
authorities provide the service of granting or confirming arms at a much lower
and thus more competitive cost. The reasoning then goes that if someone who
has paid for a grant or confirmation from one of these authorities wants, for
some reason, to register these arms at the College or matriculate them in
Scotland, that they would be willing to pay, and therefore might as well be
made to pay the full fee for a grant, rather than the reduced fee for mere
registration /matriculation. They lose some customers, presumably, but I
suspect they have calculated that those who pay up more than compensate for
the revenue lost.
Should, God forbid, some future Scottish National Assembly, seek to outlaw
the use of titles by Scots, and refuse to recognize their use north of
the border on public documents, I wonder if Lord Lyon will then decide
that he has no function to fulfill on the basis that he can no longer
grant "noble" arms. Or, if the Assembly seeks to suppress the office
altogether out of some misplaced egalitarianism, whether he will simply
"go private."
C. S. T. Mackie in Acadia Park
Firstly, you must excuse my ignorance of acronyms: what does Mr McCartney
mean when he writes "AFAIK"? Secondly, in response to Mr McCartney's
request, the letter from the Lyon Clerk (not the Lord Lyon) ran like this: "I
have your letter of 13 March and note all you write. I can understand your
confusion, but I should point out that when Sir Thomas Innes was writing his
works [referring specifically to pp. 73 to 74 of Scots Heraldry...], the
Canadian Heraldic Authority had not been established and he had not therefore
considered the position of Arms granted in Canada. He was considering the
recording of foreign Arms which emanated from heraldic authorities then in
existence, and it is [the] case that the Lord Lyon only authorises the
matriculation of Arms which have the same "noble" character as do Scottish
Arms. Sir Thomas was not considering the status of Canadian Arms. As I
indicated in my earlier letter, I was not yet sure whether the laws of Arms
and status of Canadian Arms had been firmly established as the Authority is
so new." Thirdly, in my much-less-informed opinion, Mr Sainty's last
suggestion as to why the Lord Lyon does not recognise Canadian arms seems to
be nearest to the truth.
Francois R. Velde
> The justification for this limitation by the Lord Lyon Court is presumably
> based either on the text of the statute which established the office
As that statute almost certainly does not say that the Chief Herald of Canada
grants "noblesse", Lyon would then be able to say that Canadian arms are not
noble. Such an argument would reek of bad faith, of course, since Lyon's
own power to "ennoble" is founded on no statute whatsoever.
> I suspect, however, that the real reason is that in all the above cases these
> authorities provide the service of granting or confirming arms at a much lower
> and thus more competitive cost. [...]
> They lose some customers, presumably, but I
> suspect they have calculated that those who pay up more than compensate for
> the revenue lost.
I'm dubious that such considerations come into play. Lord Lyon gets paid his
salary no matter how many grants he makes, the fees go to the Treasury. And
when was the last time a civil servant in any country engaged in such
revenue-maximizing calculations when he did not profit from it?
An alternative explanation is that the "nobiliary" character of Scottish arms
is sui generis, a characteristic of Scottish heraldry only, and the "Armorial
Noblesse of Scotland" is "a living survival of the old mediaeval realms" to
quote Innes. (Never mind that the "armorial noblesse" did not exist in
medieval Scotland.)
It's rather amusing that Innes rejected Spanish grants, since he used a
Spanish grant as linch-pin of his "demonstration" that Scottish grants of
arms are diplomas of nobility (article in the Juridical Review, 1939).
Barry Gabriel
"Francois R. Velde" wrote:
> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <Guy_m...@newsguy.com> os suum:
> > The justification for this limitation by the Lord Lyon Court is presumably
> > based either on the text of the statute which established the office
> > of Chief herald [...]
>
> As that statute almost certainly does not say that the Chief Herald of Canada
> grants "noblesse", Lyon would then be able to say that Canadian arms are not
> noble. Such an argument would reek of bad faith, of course, since Lyon's
> own power to "ennoble" is founded on no statute whatsoever.
Quite so. The CHA is very clear on the fact that its arms do not grant nobility
(nor noblesse, or anything else of that nature), an honest statement which has so
far eluded Lyon.
[snip]
BG
Richard A. Williams
> <snip>Should, God forbid, some future Scottish National Assembly, seek to outlaw
> the use of titles by Scots, and refuse to recognize their use north of
> the border on public documents, I wonder if Lord Lyon will then decide
> that he has no function to fulfill on the basis that he can no longer
> grant "noble" arms. Or, if the Assembly seeks to suppress the office
> altogether out of some misplaced egalitarianism, whether he will simply
> "go private."
I should have thought that since Lyon get's his Fons frm the Crown, and this aspect
is technically independant of the Assembly, they'd had to first become a Republic.
In the instance that they abolished the office of Lyon, his Fons would also have
been extinguished. So, unless the Monarchy opposed the change and remained
technically extant, Lyon could not "go it alone" ... right?
My premise of disagreement that he could do so is therefore based on the
pre-condition that the House of Windsor would accepted such a constitutional change
and renounced their claim to the Scotts throne. And for once, I actually think they
would resign themselves to it if the Scottish people went through the democratic
motions and chose it.
Richard.
Michael F. McCartney
>Quite so. The CHA is very clear on the fact that its arms do not grant
>nobility
>(nor noblesse, or anything else of that nature), an honest statement which
>has so >far eluded Lyon.
CHA does, however, say that arms are an honor of sorts - which should be good
enough to meet the Scots law test of "virtuous and well-deserving" but
apparently isn't. Who's next - the Irish Chief Herald? Mr. Brownell? Don
Vicente? Garter & co.?
In the vernacular appropriate to Lyon, he seems to have coughed up a fur-ball
here.
(Ooooh - new abatement for a foolish feline fetialis - a roundel vair, or
perhaps ermine - maybe both varieties, in case we need to make multiple
"awards" for successive faux pas, which is a jamb voided.)
One possible "out" here - since IIRC the letter cited was from Lyon Clerk
rather than Sir M himself, there's at least some room for plausible
deniability!
Michael F. McCartney
Know; other frequent ones are IIRC (If I Recall Correctly - i.e. I think I read
this somewhere, but I'm covering my butt in case someone proves me wrong); &
IMO (In My Opinion) or IMHO - H for Humble, which is likely an oxymoron given
the human ego).
RE: Lyon & the Scottish Parliament (none of this namby-pamby "Assembly" stuff!)
- the authorizing legislation IIRC makes Lyon's judicial role subject to the
Scottish courts & thus the new parliament, but specifically reserves to the
Crown Lyon's ministerial functions. Whether that's good or bad, I leave for
others for the moment.
Michael F. McCartney
>Spanish grant as linch-pin of his "demonstration" that Scottish grants of
>arms are diplomas of nobility (article in the Juridical Review, 1939).
But unless Lyon has made a recent about-face, he HAS repeatedly accepted
Spanish "certifications" for matriculation - including several rec.heraldry
(ir)regulars. Perhaps Innes pere's having made a big to-do about Spanish
"grants" deters Innes fils from giving Don V. the same boot he apparently is
now giving to Dr. Watt.
Barry Gabriel
"Michael F. McCartney" wrote:
> (snip)
> >Quite so. The CHA is very clear on the fact that its arms do not grant
> >nobility
> >(nor noblesse, or anything else of that nature), an honest statement which
> >has so >far eluded Lyon.
> >BG
>
> CHA does, however, say that arms are an honor of sorts - which should be good
> enough to meet the Scots law test of "virtuous and well-deserving" but
> apparently isn't.
The CHA is also quite clear that arms are an hono(u)r, but they do not grant
nobility. If I read the earlier posting correctly re "the Canadian Heraldic
Authority had not been established and he had not therefore considered the
position of Arms granted in Canada. He was considering the recording of foreign
Arms which emanated from heraldic authorities then in existence, and it is [the]
case that the Lord Lyon only authorises the matriculation of Arms which have the
same "noble" character as do Scottish Arms. Sir Thomas was not considering the
status of Canadian Arms. As I indicated in my earlier letter, I was not yet sure
whether the laws of Arms and status of Canadian Arms had been firmly established
as the Authority is so new." the situation seems rather vague. It seems to me
that Lyon doesn't quite know what to do yet about Canadian arms as their status of
"noble" character has not yet been determined. As both grants of arms descend
from the same crown, one would think that a recognition of sorts would be
automatic, but such is obviously not the case.
> Who's next - the Irish Chief Herald? Mr. Brownell? Don
> Vicente? Garter & co.?
Apparenty all the above are in the same situation as the CHA as far as Lyon is
concerned.
>
> In the vernacular appropriate to Lyon, he seems to have coughed up a fur-ball
> here.
> (Ooooh - new abatement for a foolish feline fetialis - a roundel vair, or
> perhaps ermine - maybe both varieties, in case we need to make multiple
> "awards" for successive faux pas, which is a jamb voided.)
This I like...however, Lyon is unlikely to require an abatement on his own arms
;-)
BG
Guy Stair Sainty
The Guardian has recently trumpeted the results of a poll that purportedly show
that only a minority wishes to retain the Royal family. The question asked was
not whether Britain should remain a Monarchy (which in another poll still got
over 70% in favor), and this alone demonstrates the importance of the actual
question asked.
Exactly how the end of the Monarchy would be accomplished is always going to be
a problem for the still minority republican movement.
To have a referendum on the issue would first require an act of parliament, and
almost certainly of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. To
be "constitutional" such a proposal should have to be included in a party
manifesto and an election would have to be fought on that manifesto. A majority
government could, theoretically, simply introduce a Bill into the Commons
without having put the republican proposal into its manifesto, but it could
probably not be forced through the Lords under the Parliament Act. The creation
of a large number of peers could enable the Bill to pass, and probably the
Crown would have to consent to such a large scale creation - but once these
peers were created they would be set there and such an inevitably radical group
might not go along with whatever plans this "republican" government had for a
successor system to the Monarchy.
Obviously there would have to be a campaign on the issue. The Parliamentary
campaign could be fought under existing rules of financing, but what about the
referendum campaign? A government financed pro-republican campaign would have a
huge advantage over a privately financed "keep the monarchy" campaign, and such
inequity would certainly produce a skewed result which could possibly be
challenged in the European Courts. If the campaign was obviously skewed in
favor of the republicans, it is likely that a (possibly) defeated pro-monarchy
minority might refuse to accept the results, with a consequent breakdown of
civil order. What part if any would the Royal Family play in such a campaign?
Would they sit behind closed doors or get out and campaign for the Monarchist
cause? If they did not campaign for their own cause they would risk losing by
default, because even their supporters might be disappointed, but if they
campaigned for the retention of the monarchy, the Crown would find it far
harder to continue to claim the political neutrality which is its central role
in the constitution. Meanwhile, the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland
would almost certainly resume their violent campaigns, fearing the possible
break up of the United Kingdom.
This problem was what was faced by the Portuguese and Spanish royal families
from the end of the 19th century, with the result that the Portuguese King and
Crown prince were assassinated in 1908 and the Monarchy itself was finished in
a coup in 1910. In Spain the ebb and flow of republican parties led first to the
Primo de Rivera dictatorship of the 1920s and then the elections which gave
municipalities a pro-republican majority (but not the nation as a whole) in
1931. To avoid civil war the King simply suspended the exercise of the royal
powers and he and his family left the country (whereupon a republic was
declared by the victorious pro-republican parties). Portugal then had 14 years
of inept government with dozens of changes of presidents and, eventually, a 50
year dictatorship. Spain had a short-lived and hopelessly compromised republic
followed by a terrible civil war and then 36 years of dictatorship before the
Monarchy was restored. Was this an experience a happy one for either country? I
do not imagine that many would argue that it was.
Italy had a similar experience from the moment it achieved unification as one
state, with a republican minority, but a powerful one that had contributed
considerably to the unification movement, and was dissatisfied with the
constitutional monarchy option. The rise of the radical left, in sympathy with
comparable movements (such as the anarchist-syndicalists of Spain) in the
Iberian peninsular, was given a boost by the success of the Russian revolution,
leading in turn to the Mussolini coup. The Italian King was faced with a choice
of civil war, and his deposition, or accepting the dictatorship that led to the
disastrous intervention in World War II.
In the end Italy became a republic following a referendum, but a referendum that
was clearly biased with the deliberate disenfranchisement of a large group whose
inclinations were pro-monarchy (Italian prisoners of war, and the military),
multiple fraud at the ballot box, and a government whose pro-republican
sympathies were promoted shamelessly. The Italian King, Victor Emmanuel III, had
contributed considerably to this defeat by not immediately abdicating to his son
and heir, Umberto II, in 1943, as the latter had
distanced himself as much as possible from the Mussolini regime since adulthood
and could legitimately claim even more than many of the Italian political
leadership not to be too overtly compromised by fascism. If Umberto had
succeeded in 1943, it is much more probable that he would have consolidated the
popularity of the royal family. For Umberto there was never going to be any
question of him stirring up a potential civil war, and once he had left the
country the field was open for the rewriting of history and blame for the
events of 1922-43 to be laid firmly at the door of the exiled Savoy Monarchy
rather than with the Parliamentarians who had allowed the constitutional system
to break down. Even today the heir of the dynasty cannot return to his country,
while Mussolini’s children and grandchildren suffered no penalties whatsoever
(indeed, I recall in 1970 when a student in Italy being invited to a dinner at
the Rome Military club, where many of Italy’s active military leadership were
present, at which Romano Mussolini was the guest speaker!). The Italian
republic has enjoyed 54 successively incompetent governments, violent terrorist
movements, and increasing alienation between the regions.
The Iberian and Italian experiences should make any republican hesitate before
promoting this cause in the belief that the establishment of a republic should
follow public polls that indicated a majority opposed to the continuation of
the Monarchy. Polls are fickle, and such radical changes should be embarked
upon with the greatest caution and certainly not on the basis of some
politicized (by the question) opinion poll. Whatever the result of any election
fought on this issue, Britain would never be the same again, the constitution
would be destabilized for years to come with the consequent destabilization of
government and, inevitably, of the economy.
Guy Stair Sainty
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Guy Stair Sainty <Guy_m...@newsguy.com> os suum:
>> The justification for this limitation by the Lord Lyon Court is presumably
>> based either on the text of the statute which established the office
>> of Chief herald [...]
>
>
>Spanish grant as linch-pin of his "demonstration" that Scottish grants of
>arms are diplomas of nobility (article in the Juridical Review, 1939).
I may be wrong about this and that it is only the College which rejects
Spanish grants - probably on a revenue consideration basis.
I am not wholly convinced that such considerations do not enter into the
LL's considerations. After all, the present political consensus is unlikely
to be in favor of the retention of this post if its net costs amount to a
charge to the tax payer. I would think that being self-financing, especially
in the present climate where every part of government is under costs
scrutiny, may be a priority today, particularly for the kind of politically
incorrect body such as the Lord Lyon Court.
Bryan J. Maloney
<Guy_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> The Iberian and Italian experiences should make any republican hesitate
before
> promoting this cause in the belief that the establishment of a republic
should
> follow public polls that indicated a majority opposed to the continuation of
The greatest weakness and strength of British government is its simple
stodginess.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<cs...@my-deja.com> writes
>Dear ladies and gentlemen
>
>If I may interject a question on a related topic: can anyone shed some light
>on the Lord Lyon's refusal to matriculate Canadian arms, based on their not
>having "the same 'noble' character as do Scottish Arms." [Lyon Clerk, in a
>letter dated 21 March 2000]?
Oh dear..we're back to this old saw again.
I know from my own experience that Lyon will matriculate Irish and
English grants. As far as I am aware he will not accept certificates
from Spain. So I am a tad confused to now hear that he will nat accept
grants from the CHA.
So I suppose we get back to this noblesse/gentry question again.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan HonFHS FSA(Scot)
Managing Director - Heraldic Media Limited
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
Tel: 020 8670 3302
Fax: 0870 0522631
E-mail: hme...@kwtelecom.com
Web site: http://hello.to/heraldry
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<Guy_m...@newsguy.com> writes
[snip]
>The justification for this limitation by the Lord Lyon Court is presumably
>based either on the text of the statute which established the office
>of Chief herald, or on a view by LL that as the Canadian government has
>halted the grant of any distinctions of rank or title, and that it somehow
>does not "recognize" any such distinctions, these do not exist. A similar
>distinction is made by the College of Arms in respect of grants made by
>the Chief herald of Ireland, on the basis that the irish Constitution
>does not recognize titles.
Not so....the College of Arms accepted my Irish grant on the basis that
I was an "eminent person" anyway and would have been eligible for an
English grant had I chosen to petition for one.
sebastia...@blackfriars.oxford.ac.uk
>I know from my own experience that Lyon will matriculate Irish and
>English grants. As far as I am aware he will not accept certificates
>from Spain. So I am a tad confused to now hear that he will nat
>accept grants from the CHA.
The Lord Lyon King of Arms will sign interlocutors allowing the Lyon
Clerk to matriculate Armorial Bearings in the Public Register of All
Arms and Bearings in Scotland based solely upon the evidence of a
Spanish Armorial Certificate.
The Chief Herald of Ireland will not register Armorial Bearing
certified by the Spanish Chroniclers of Arms merely because the
practice of registering Arms not emanating from the Irish Heraldic
Authority was entirely abandoned earlier this year at the insistence of
Brendan O Donoghue, the of Chief Herald and Director of the National
Library of Ireland.
Dr. Fergus Gillespie, the Deputy Chief Herald, expressed to me earlier
this April in Dublin that although thhe Irish Heraldic Authority will
not register Armorial Bearings, the mere possession of a Spanish
Armorial Certificate by one of Irish descent, paternal or maternal,
will entitle one to petition for a Grant of Armorial Bearings.
Further, Mr. Scott MacMillan, one of the Consulting Heralds at the
Irish Heraldic Authority, told me that his Office cannot Grant Arms
based upon the evidence of an Armorial Certificate issued by te junior
Chronicler of Arms, the Marquis de La Floresta, due to the fact that
his Certificates are counter-signed by the President of the Regional
Council of Castile-Leon, rather than the sub-secretary of the Spanish
Ministry of Justice. Mr. MacMillan's logic is that, as an Office of
the Irish State, they are only qualified to recognize the documents of
another state, rather than Certificates issued by regional or local
governments within that state.
Given that the junior Chronicler's appointment in 1992 was more regular
than that of the senior herald with regards to the Royal Decree of the
29th of April of 1915 and to the Decree of the Ministry of Justice of
the 13th of April of 1951, as well as the fact that he is a much
younger man and will undoubtedly be active for much longer than the
senior herald, I have written to the Deputy Chief Herald urging him to
reconsider his Office's position on this matter, especially since the
Junta de Castilla y Leon had the authority to appoint a Chronicler of
Arms based upon the Royal Decree 3036/1982, Annex I, epigraph B,
article 3.1.
You may read more at my websites "Heralds and Kings of Arms in
Twentieth Century Spain"
(http://dons.usfca.edu/nelsse00/spanish_heraldry.html) and "Spanish
Armorial Certificates From the Fifteenth to the Twentieth Centuries"
(http://dons.usfca.edu/nelsse00/spanish_certificates.html).
SEBASTIAN ALEC NELSON
sebastia...@blackfriars.oxford.ac.uk
http://dons.usfca.edu/nelsse00/index.html
Michael F. McCartney
>Spanish grants - probably on a revenue consideration basis.
We have recent examples of rec.heraldry readers' successfully matriculating
Spanish certifications in Scotland - in the past the speculation was
"professional; courtesy" between heralds but this apparently does not now
extend across the pond. :(
>I am not wholly convinced that [$$$] considerations do not enter into the
>LL's considerations. After all, the present political consensus is unlikely
>to be in favor of the retention of this post if its net costs amount to a
>charge to the tax payer. I would think that being self-financing, especially
>in the present climate where every part of government is under costs
>scrutiny, may be a priority today, particularly for the kind of politically
>incorrect body such as the Lord Lyon Court.
>Guy Stair Sainty
Obviously a grant garners more gelt than a matriculation, for (what appears
from the outside) roughly the same cost of production; but then the bulk of
those matriculating arms granted/certified/recorded elsewhere are likely not
eligible for a Scottish grant, and/or unlikely to ever be able to afford one.
There is a reason why (in the US at least) an automobile dealer will usually
sell several related brands e.g. Chrysler & Plymouth, or Ford and Lincoln -
they make more money in the long run with a broader customer base, even though
the selling price of their top-line & base-line models is far different.
If maximizing profit is the objective, Lyon could use a simpler/cheaper
document for matriculations than for grants (which would be sad) or perhaps
take a lesson from the scorned Dr. Watt and separate the actual registration
fees (that go to the treasury) from the "overhead" cost of the artwork, & offer
different levels of plain-to-fancy documents priced to cover costs (i.e.
revenue-neutral, or perhaps build in 5% "profit"). That would likely increase
both volume and net revenue to the treasury - once he gets past this noblesse
furball, at any rate.
The political bonus is a larger body of (presumably happy) "customers" which
should translate into greater political support.
The likely alternative is increasingly higher fees charged to a shrinking
customer base - rather like certain pricey British cars, which eventually had
to join up with bigger companies offering a broader range of models (and
prices) in order to survive.
FWIW...
Derek Howard
>
> >I may be wrong about this and that it is only the College which rejects
> >Spanish grants - probably on a revenue consideration basis.
>
> We have recent examples of rec.heraldry readers' successfully matriculating
> Spanish certifications in Scotland - in the past the speculation was
> "professional; courtesy" between heralds but this apparently does not now
> extend across the pond. :(
Lyon is legally constrained in any case to grant only to virtuous and
well deserving people. The Spanish certificates of arms do not imply any
examination of a person's virtue or qualities (forget nobility). Lyon
must decide whether the Candian grants do. English grants are restricted
by the Earl Marshal to "eminent" people and so presumably equate in a
way to Scots arms. The CHA site states that "Any individual can apply
for a coat of arms. They are granted in recognition of public service or
contributions to the nation". I would have thought that public service
and contribution to the nation equated to virtue, well deserving and
possibly eminence. What is needed is a Canadian to test the system and
seek judicial review or a court appeal if LL fails to matriculate.
However, the Irish Chief Herald will grant to any citizen, resident or
connected person. There is clearly no serious selection on these values
now even if there was in the past. I therefore understand why LL should
not now automatically matriculate all Irish grants , South African
registrations or Spanish certificates without checking the value of the
grantee. Undoubtedly LL would matriculate Spanish grants and other
grants and I would suspect would so matriculate where the grantee would
be entitled to a grant were he to be a Scotsman (or possibly an eminent
Englishman).
<snip>
> Obviously a grant garners more gelt than a matriculation, for (what appears
> from the outside) roughly the same cost of production; but then the bulk of
> those matriculating arms granted/certified/recorded elsewhere are likely not
> eligible for a Scottish grant, and/or unlikely to ever be able to afford one.
> There is a reason why (in the US at least) an automobile dealer will usually
> sell several related brands e.g. Chrysler & Plymouth, or Ford and Lincoln -
> they make more money in the long run with a broader customer base, even though
> the selling price of their top-line & base-line models is far different.
I agree. Rover are selling very well at a slightly reduced price tag.
Blame BMW for bad marketing during their tenure.
> If maximizing profit is the objective, Lyon could use a simpler/cheaper
> document for matriculations than for grants (which would be sad) or perhaps
> take a lesson from the scorned Dr. Watt and separate the actual registration
> fees (that go to the treasury) from the "overhead" cost of the artwork, & offer
> different levels of plain-to-fancy documents priced to cover costs (i.e.
> revenue-neutral, or perhaps build in 5% "profit"). That would likely increase
> both volume and net revenue to the treasury - once he gets past this noblesse
> furball, at any rate.
As I have argued before the "noblesse" question is more of a problem for
those that suppose it to mean something than for those that like me
believe it is meaningless and does not go outside Lyon's authority as it
neither grants title nor implies status - just virtue.
> The political bonus is a larger body of (presumably happy) "customers" which
> should translate into greater political support.
Indeed that I am sure when Garter speaks to new peers he has this at the
back of his mind.
> The likely alternative is increasingly higher fees charged to a shrinking
> customer base - rather like certain pricey British cars, which eventually had
> to join up with bigger companies offering a broader range of models (and
> prices) in order to survive.
I too think the long term future should be in allowing the fees to
reduce slowly in real terms over the years and thereby expand the
customer base. In a democratic society where a large proportion of the
population attend university and thereby qualify as "eminent" it should
be the long term (unachievable) goal that all families eventually have
arms. Popularisation will enable survival. The difficulties are of
maintaining quality and individuality in arms and in the documentation
especially with limited supplies of good artists and scrivenors. The use
of pre-printed forms and computer generated illustration would solve
that for those who do not wish to invest in a nice piece of hand painted
vellum or parchment. It has moved in this direction in other spheres
ofactivity. Even the CoA offers lithographed headed documents as an
alternative to hand painted headings (the arms of the College, Earl
Marshal etc).
Derek Howard
Francois R. Velde
>As I have argued before the "noblesse" question is more of a problem for
>those that suppose it to mean something than for those that like me
>believe it is meaningless and does not go outside Lyon's authority as it
>neither grants title nor implies status - just virtue.
The first category includes Innes of Learney and his followers, the second
includes me. Of course, they don't see any problem, and I do, precisely because
Innes made people believe that the term meant something.
I agree with you that, under Lyon's statutory obligations, he is supposed to
exercise discrimination when granting arms, and therefore there is no reason to
expect him to treat any other jurisdiction's grants on an automatic basis,
unless he is willing to treat a grant of arms by a foreign jurisdiction as
sufficient in itself to ascertain the person's credentials. But it has nothing
to do with the "nobility" of the arms. It seems to me Lyon Clerk's letter as
quoted would have been far more acceptable if some term like "selectiveness" had
been used.
In the end, however, Lyon is judge of what "well deserving" means, and he could
very well decide that "well deserving" means "willing to fork out the price of a
grant".
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Derek Howard
<snip>
> In the end, however, Lyon is judge of what "well deserving" means, and he could
> very well decide that "well deserving" means "willing to fork out the price of a
> grant".
In which case he could be challenged by judicial review on the grounds
of such a decision not being "reasonable".
Derek Howard
Francois R. Velde
And we all know how much respect Lyon has for his superior courts.
Derek Howard
>
> In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Derek Howard <dho...@skynet.be> os suum:
> >Francois R. Velde wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> In the end, however, Lyon is judge of what "well deserving" means, and he could
> >> very well decide that "well deserving" means "willing to fork out the price of a
> >> grant".
> >
> >In which case he could be challenged by judicial review on the grounds
> >of such a decision not being "reasonable".
>
> And we all know how much respect Lyon has for his superior courts.
But surely that was the last LL - perhaps the present one would take a
more reasonable line. Though he is to some extent bound by his
predecessor's stance, given that he is now exposed to a Scottish
Parliament on one side and does not have any axe to grind on his own
account he might take a more reasonable line if pushed.
Derek Howard
Francois R. Velde
Fair enough.
lali...@my-deja.com
This is because to two authorities have juristiction over different
countries England and Scotland.
In Scotland if you have a coat of arms issued by Lord Lyon King of Arma
you are noble.
In England a coat of arms issued by the COA does not make you noble.
You need a peerages given by the Queen.
In article <393AC4D4...@sirius.com>,
r...@bladeborn.com wrote:
> OK, of Heraldry in Great Britain .......
>
> The web site Sebastian quoted is fascinating. On this page is a list
of
> editors of the article posted on the site:
>
> http://www.knightlyorders.org/site.html
>
> But on this page, shock and gasp! look what I found! .....
>
> http://www.knightlyorders.org/uksmom.html
>
> " In the United Kingdom nobility is defined as the lawful possession
of
> arms which must have been on record in the College of Arms or the
Court
> of the Lord Lyon for the period demanded by the statutes."
>
> Good heavens! I thought the CoA explicitly stated that conferment of
> Arms does NOT grant any rank or privilege of nobility!? Tsk tsk tsk,
how
> did this slip past former Garter, Sir Conrad Swan, K.C.V.O. I wonder?
Of
> course, I do recall from things written here before that Petite
Nobless
> is deemed to have been granted with Arms by Lyon.
>
> Richard.