I want to jump in SOOO bad, but this is getting off topic. :wink:

Yes, Kenneth, it’s getting way, way off topic, and I congratulate you on your discretion. There has been a call for Board Review of this thread and so, until such time as that has been accomplished, it will be locked.

This thread has been re-opened. Please keep your comments on topic and appropriate.

The point of departure, to reiterate, was the question of whether or not it might be worthwhile to solicit feedback from the College of Arms on their perception of what the law of arms in the original 13 colonies was and where matters were left at the dissolution of our union with the Crown. By extension, the question would be—I think—what that leaves us as a basis for developing an American law of arms.

How about I send an email to one of my friends in England?  He’s very involved with heraldry but doesn’t work directly with the College of Arms.

I would also think David P. might have a few friends over there as well that he could solicit input from.

Can’t hurt to ask.

Andrew J Vidal;56628 wrote:

How about I send an email to one of my friends in England?  He’s very involved with heraldry but doesn’t work directly with the College of Arms.

I would also think David P. might have a few friends over there as well that he could solicit input from.

 

Can’t hurt to ask.

I, for one, would be grateful for any such efforts on the Society’s behalf. I think it would be informative and not in any way limiting. This is not a zero-sum game.

I’ve hear back from my good friend Roland.  His reply is below.

"Dear Andrew,

How good to hear from you.

With reference to your ‘side note’. One of our members, Adrian Barham, has just helped with the publication of a book entitled ‘The Laws of Arms in England, France and Scotland’. He might be worth consulting. His e-mail adderss is a.a.barham@rocketmail.com

The basic problem is that ONLY Scotland has an enforceable Law of Arms. The Lord Lyon has to be a lawyer so he can adjudicate on such issues and his decisions have legal binding. The same is not the case in England. True, a grant of arms is a legal document, but anyone can ‘borrow’ or ‘use’ the arms granted to me with absolute impunity, even though I paid to acquire them ! I think it would be very hard to establish a method of enforcement in the USA. However, consult Adrian !

All best wishes,

Roland Symons, secretary the White Lion Society"

I don’t feel I have the knowledge to skillfully draft an email to the gentleman listed above, but I would be happy help make the initial contact to get the ball rolling.

Andrew J Vidal;56936 wrote:

The basic problem is that ONLY Scotland has an enforceable Law of Arms. The Lord Lyon has to be a lawyer so he can adjudicate on such issues and his decisions have legal binding. The same is not the case in England. True, a grant of arms is a legal document, but anyone can ‘borrow’ or ‘use’ the arms granted to me with absolute impunity, even though I paid to acquire them ! I think it would be very hard to establish a method of enforcement in the USA.

This really begs for contemplation.

My first thought when I read that was why bother with the COA if they can’t garuntee the safety of their arms?

I’m going to be replying to the email, and I plan on asking why His Grace isn’t ensuring the protection of the arms that are in his jurisdiction as Earl Marshall.

If the English are just as vulnerable to Bucket Shops, what is the purpose of paying the very large sum to the Heralds other than the beautiful artwork and seals?

If I can, I’ll even reach out to Robert Noel and get his input.  This information really blows my whole idea of English heraldry right out of the water.

I have been having a conversation with a few people off list about laws of arms and degrees of enforcement, and I had a rare moment of clarity.

My lightning bolt produced this thought: Where arms are associated with social status (or perceived social status), protection is needed most.  Where arms are not associated with social status, protection is needed least.

A similar relation applies to name/ss# theft.  This kind of identity theft can result in huge financial gains and loss, hence laws are needed and enforced.  If identity theft resulted in little financial gain or loss, then laws would not be needed as much.

Mike’s rule 1. Legal protection against armorial usurpation is needed to the degree that there is something of significant value to gain or lose from usurpation.

Mike’s rule 2. Enforcement of existing laws of arms diminish in proportion to the gain or loss of social status (or perceived social status) associated with arms (or someone else’s arms).

As the English law of arms diminishes in enforcement, the import of using it as a model or legal basis for an American law of arms diminishes, since there is nothing important at stake in England and America.

Andrew J Vidal;56999 wrote:

If the English are just as vulnerable to Bucket Shops, what is the purpose of paying the very large sum to the Heralds other than the beautiful artwork and seals?

Well, if you accept George Lucki’s not unreasonable argument that a grant of arms creates a tangible link between the sovereign and the armiger which meaningfully informs subsequent family tradition, then there is a bit more to it than beautiful artwork and seals, but I can’t help reacting to your friend’s disclosure with a certain amount of cynicism. If the English government doesn’t think enough is at stake in armorial usurpation to bother actively discouraging usurpers, I don’t think there is any way any of the levels of American government ever will.

Andrew J Vidal;56999 wrote:

My first thought when I read that was why bother with the COA if they can’t garuntee the safety of their arms?

I’m going to be replying to the email, and I plan on asking why His Grace isn’t ensuring the protection of the arms that are in his jurisdiction as Earl Marshall.

 

If the English are just as vulnerable to Bucket Shops, what is the purpose of paying the very large sum to the Heralds other than the beautiful artwork and seals?

 

If I can, I’ll even reach out to Robert Noel and get his input.  This information really blows my whole idea of English heraldry right out of the water.

I can’t dissagree with Andrew’s concern about the lack of any official enforcement in England; it does seem to be entirely up to the individual armiger himself to take action nowadays. Scotland is of course another place altogether.

The following extract may help to focus the minds of those who seek to take liberties and remind those of us with English arms that we do have some remedy in law (at least against those who transgress in England).

[Extract from]

The Court of Chivalry

By GH Gilbert [1st published The Coat of arms Volume XIV No 197 Spring

2002]

Quote:

//................. If you discover your arms being used by some other people then you can take the following steps. Approach the person involved, (with caution, they may turn nasty or abusive). Explain that they are using your arms and they must stop immediately. If they refuse then telephone the local County Court and ask them to supply you with the forms required to initiate a Prohibitory Injunction. Write to the person using your arms and tell them that you are taking legal action, keep a copy of the letter which you send by recorded delivery. Complete the court forms, if you have any difficulty the courts are very helpful, that is their job to help you. A summons

will be issued and a hearing date given. When you attend take with you your letters patent and witness statements in support. On the form it is important to ask for costs, include telephone costs and time taken to initiate the proceedings. Also ask for damages, you may wish to tell the judge that you leave the amount to the court’s decision.

 

The cost to issue a prohibitive injunction is usually £120 so make sure you put this in your claim for costs. It saves all this if you can get the person using your arms to stop doing so and telling him you are taking proceedings will help concentrate his mind to "settle out of court". Get a written statement from the person using your arms that he has agreed to cease since it is not unknown that he may continue in the future.

 

 

It involves identifying those that abuse and flout the laws of arms, not easy but we should be aware of our rights and that we are surrounded by many who do not respect the laws.

 

 

The Court of Chivalry has already established that it is not lawful to use another’s arms and it is now case law. "

There is a later article in the autumn 2003 edition of the same periodical this time by Professor Mark Watson-Gandy, a barrister and Junior Counsel to the Crown, which is most informative and although I have no intention of recounting the whole he addresses the question "Should sleeping Courts lie?"
Quote:

The question has been asked as to whether the College of Arms could refuse to allow the court of chivalry to be reawakened from its present sleep.

The answer is plainly "no". In fact the only real bar (as it ever has been) to the Court of chivalry becoming active again is the absence of litigants bringing proceedings. It is unlikely the College of Arms could block proceedings even if it were minded to do so. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, an unwarranted refusal to allow a case to proceed would merely expose the Earl Marshal to a claim that he is acting in breach of article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights

The remainder of the article sets out precisely how a person should petition the Court of Chivalry for redress and explains that the enforcement of any order of the Court would be by way of proceedings for contempt of court in the High Court.

Personally, I would rather take the advice of GH Gilbert and take redress in the County Court; I am not convinced that the Court of Chivalry has any stamina left in this modern world.

Yours aye,

Martin

With regard to Roland Symons, who is quoted above, he and I have been friends for several years.  Indeed he came in from Bath to London to see me and we spent a long day together just over a month ago.

With regard to Roland’s quoted comments, I think the points should be made that:

1.  Roland is not a lawyer (he is a retired history teacher with an extensive knowledge of heraldry, and a skillful artist, although he would modestly deny the latter two).

2. Roland would never purport to speak for the College of Arms.

3.  I very much doubt that Roland would purport to speak even for the White Lion Society, of which he is long-standing secretary.  I am not sure how he would react to the posting of what, I suspect, is no more than his personal, casual opinion on this website.  I hope he was advised his communication was going to be used this way.

As to legal remedies, does anyone know of any actual instance in which a Prohibitory Injunction was obtained from a County Court on a matter of infringement of arms?

For the record, my feeling is similar to Roland’s.  If you truly want my arms that bad, go ahead and steal them.  I can’t see how it really damages me.  Didn’t someone once say that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery?

Tom McIntyre

Tom

Roland and I have shared a friendship for four or five years now.  As a matter of fact, he graciously emblazoned my arms for me as a Christmas gift.

If any member of this society took his opinion to be that of the College of Arms or that of the White Lion Society, they are mistaken.  I have asked Roland if he would be able to pose this question to the other members of the WLS (of which I am also a member), possibly in an upcoming issue of the Newsletter.

Below is a copy of what I sent to Roland:

"Dear Roland

I’ll be dispatching a check this week to cover my dues and then some.  I’ll make sure to go over the required amount to cover any transfer rates.

On a side note, I have a question to post to you and all members of the WLS.  One of the goals of the American Heraldry Society is to obtain, on some level, legal recognition and protection for the arms that we have assumed/inherited.  One of our main sticking points is where would our "Law of Arms" begin?  Would we pick up and tweak the English LoA’s since the original 13 colonies were under the British Crown?  Was the English LoA even applicable to the colonies pre revolution?  Also, since America is a combination of "colonies", how would we incorporate the LoA of those nations if they had one (such as Spain)?

This seems to be something we can’t come to an agreement on, or even a path forward, and I was hoping the learned gentlemen and ladies of the WLS would have some ideas."

I will also inform Roland that I have shared his input with the members of this society, although I’m quite sure that he was aware that I would be doing that.