Use/Display of Personal Arms?

 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
16 September 2011 02:43
 

I have a signet ring of my Crest, and just recently got a hat with my Arms done by Cafe Press.  I also have a coffee mug done with them.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6152354602_dc61691fd6_b.jpg

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
16 September 2011 03:15
 

Kenneth Mansfield;81980 wrote:

That is one of two listings for Mansfield in Burke’s that doesn’t at least give a location. It would make sense (going by blazon alone) that there is some relationship to the Dukes of Norfolk, given that the only difference is the cotices, but I don’t know anything about this family. The listing simply reads:

The arms Gules a bend cotised between six crosses-crosslet fitchée Argent (or Or) appear to have first appeared attributed to an unspecified Mansfield in a 16th century copy of Fenwick’s roll (a 15th century roll) and in 2 other 16th century mss at the College of Arms without further details according to DBA. So, subject to an error being shown in the mss, it is probably safe to display as Mansfield, even though it shouts Howard. Any possible relationships between the two, whether familial or feudal, will need some digging. However, I note that in the church at Denton in Earsham Hundred, Norfolk there is or was a memorial to Le Grys impaling Mansfylde dated 1567 (Farrer: Church Heraldry of Norfolk, vol 1, 1887, p 7 http://www.archive.org/stream/churchheraldryn01farrgoog#page/n24/mode/2upwhich indicates that the mss are likely to be correct and also that the family was near the heartland of Howard of Norfolk influence.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
16 September 2011 07:55
 

Michael F. McCartney;87729 wrote:

In another thread—recent but well before the latest entry in this thread—IIRC we discussed (debated) what might be appropriate, or not, as American "best practices" in the context of ethnic festivities such as Scottish games.  I don’t have anything to add to what I said there.


I imagine that would have been an interesting debate. I’ll have to see if I can locate the thread. It would be entertaining to see what sort of biases are behind the opinions expressed on the subject.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
16 September 2011 20:18
 

As I recall, the biases were quite evident—mine were anyway.  I just couldn’t see the need to rehash it all again.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
16 September 2011 20:33
 

Michael F. McCartney;87744 wrote:

As I recall, the biases were quite evident—mine were anyway.  I just couldn’t see the need to rehash it all again.


I haven’t found the thread you are referring to, but it sounds like an interesting read.

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
17 September 2011 08:27
 

Caledonian;87723 wrote:

As an American Scot, I tend to use heraldry in much the same way that British Scots would. Here are some examples:

my cap badge:

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5483920890_158e7210d3.jpg

 

dress sporran:

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5463433433_140f517077.jpg

 

powder horn:

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5483922352_8762f87512.jpg

 

A couple of commercially produced items:

 

http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/crest badges/Akinscufflinks.jpg

 

http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/crest badges/Akinspocketwatch.jpg


[highlight]Cute little items for sale , but someone who has no right to use chief’s badge should stop advertising himself at the presence of decent American Scots !!![/highlight]

 

http://www.scots-titles.com/archives/249

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
17 September 2011 08:44
 

Aquilo;87751 wrote:

[highlight]Cute little items for sale , but someone who has no right to use chief’s badge should stop advertising himself at the presence of decent American Scots !!![/highlight]

http://www.scots-titles.com/archives/249


What you presume to characterise as "decency" is little more than ignorance (however as you are Polish and living in Egypt, your ignorannce of such matters is perhaps a bit more understandable):

 

Introduction to the Law of Scotland, 9th edition, 1987, p. 25:

 

“The Lord Lyon King of Arms has jurisdiction, subject to appeal to the Court of Session and the House of Lords, in questions of heraldry, and the right to bear arms. (Hunter v. Weston (1882) 9 R 492, Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (1920) S.C. 764, affd. 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 39.) He has no jurisdiction to determine rights of precedence (Royal College of Surgeons v. Royal College of Physicians, 1911 S.C. 1054.), nor to decide a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship. (Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, 1938 S.L.T. 49; and see 1941 S.C. 613.)”

 

This was determined in part by the case of Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, in which Lord Wark stated: “I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan….The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the Lyon Court….in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms….But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief. For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself. Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did not desire to acknowledge.”

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
17 September 2011 10:07
 

OK. Let it be… let my ignorance of such matters be an excuse to tell you what I think .I’m familiar with ‘your case’ thanks to the scots-titles.com website and I chose to believe the arguments presented there by people familiar with all aspects of law , Scottish history and rules of chieftainship at large. And now -think logically- if Polish living in such remote place like Egypt can’t be fooled by your forged documents and faked genealogy , what about everybody else who is knowledgeable enough to legally dismiss the illegitimate claim ??

I refuse to discuss this case any further .

The only thing I want to tell you as a woman and a mother , that in my opinion you are seriously harming your own son , setting him an a path of lie and delusion ,scarring his young mind with ideas of fascism ...and this part is very, very scary.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
17 September 2011 10:31
 

Aquilo;87753 wrote:

OK. Let it be… let my ignorance of such matters be an excuse to tell you what I think .I’m familiar with ‘your case’ thanks to the scots-titles.com website and I chose to believe the arguments presented there by people familiar with all aspects of law , Scottish history and rules of chieftainship at large. And now -think logically- if Polish living in such remote place like Egypt can’t be fooled by your forged documents and faked genealogy , what about everybody else who is knowledgeable enough to legally dismiss the illegitimate claim ??

I refuse to discuss this case any further .

The only thing I want to tell you as a woman and a mother , that in my opinion you are seriously harming your own son , setting him an a path of lie and delusion ,scarring his young mind with ideas of fascism ...and this part is very, very scary.


For some strange reason the Scottish heritage community, and indeed the heraldic community, is fraught with a great deal of pettiness, jealousy, and insecurity, as if there isn’t enough "Scottishness" (or heraldry) to go around. Those who identify themselves with either or both of these communities act as if they fear that their own slice of the proverbial pie may be made smaller if they have to share it with others. Of course this is completely ridiculous. A person either is or is not a Scot by virtue of their bloodline, their DNA, their ancestry. It makes no difference where they were born or where they live, how much of what they are is determined by their ancestors, and how much of what their children are is determined by who they have chosen to be their partner as parents of those children. As for our children’s children and generations beyond that, we can only hope that the values we aspire to impart in our descendants will be heeded.

 

Irrespective of this, there is a great deal of ignorance even within the Scottish heritage community about what constitutes a clan and who has jurisdiction in regard to determining clan leadership. For answers to these questions, we must rely on what legal precedents there are touching on these issues.

 

As regards what a clan is in the sense of the Scots heritage tradition, this was determined in a court of law in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:

 

P.220) (Q.) "In your view, what does the word "clan" mean? (A.) It has a general meaning of family, ordinary meaning of family, but there is a peculiar sense in which it is used for this quasi-feudal organisation in the Highlands, or you might say feudal organisation. (Q.) But its primary meaning, I think, is family? (A.) Yes. (Q.)In your view, did the clans in fact consist either of persons linked by blood or persons linked by reason of place of dwelling in a territory? (A.) That is the defination of the Act of Parliament. (Reference Acts 1587 & Act of 11 Sept, 1593 A.P.S., IV, p. 40) (Q.) Do you see a reference there to the pretence of blood or place of dwelling? (A.)Yes. (Q.)Are those familiar terms? (A.) Quite familiar. Pretence means claim….(Q.) So that in your view do you get this dual element entering into the composition of the clan, blood-relation and place of dwelling? (A.) Oh, yes, you have both.

 

Evidence of the Very Rev. Lachlan Maclean Watt, LL.D., Bard of the Clan MacLean Association: (P. 517) (Q.) (Referred to Mackenzie’s "Works," II, 574, 618: (Q.)Do you deduce that Sir G. Mackenzie considered that from a heraldic point of view the "head of the clan" the "chief of the clan" or the "representer of the family" all meant the same thing? (A.) I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of "Head of a Family" and "Head of a Clan." He was a Highlander and he knew that clan means a family. Clan and family mean exactly the same thing."

 

The 1587 Act of Parliament referred to above was "for the quieting and keeping in obedience of the disordered subjects, inhabitants of the borders, highlands and isles," which was directed at "the captains, chiefs and chieftains of all clans, as well on the highlands as on the borders, and the principals of the branches of the said clans….which clans dwell upon the lands of diverse landlords and depend upon the directions of the said captains, chiefs and chieftains (by pretence of blood or place of their dwelling).” Thus the word clan is used to describe both Highland and Lowland families. As Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw put it, the "belief that clans are Highland and families are Lowland….is really a development of the Victorian era."

 

As far as who has jurisdiction in determining the leadership of a clan, this too was settled in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean, wherein Lord Wark clearly stated:

 

“I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan….The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the Lyon Court….in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms….But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief. For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself. Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did not desire to acknowledge.”

 

Therefore we see that the determination of clan leadership is entirely a matter decided upon within the clan itself, as it cannot be determine otherwise, neither by the Lord Lyon, nor by any judge of a court of law.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
17 September 2011 11:24
 

I believe I’ve mentioned this before but the chalice that I use has my coat of arms on it. At the time I was ordained I was given an old chalice that had been used by a priest in the 1920s. His name and date of ordination was engraved on the underside of the base. Instead of doing a similar engraving of my name, etc. after I had the chalice refurbished I had my coat of arms (shield only) engraved on the upper side of the base of the chalice. This marks it as mine without erasing the memory of the priest who also used it.

As an added significance after my father passed away my mother gave me his wedding ring. I was able to have it attached to the underside of the chalice base directly beneath where the coat of arms is engraved.

 
Richard G.
 
Avatar
 
 
Richard G.
Total Posts:  451
Joined  26-07-2011
 
 
 
17 September 2011 22:15
 

gselvester;87756 wrote:

I believe I’ve mentioned this before but the chalice that I use has my coat of arms on it. At the time I was ordained I was given an old chalice that had been used by a priest in the 1920s. His name and date of ordination was engraved on the underside of the base. Instead of doing a similar engraving of my name, etc. after I had the chalice refurbished I had my coat of arms (shield only) engraved on the upper side of the base of the chalice. This marks it as mine without erasing the memory of the priest who also used it.

As an added significance after my father passed away my mother gave me his wedding ring. I was able to have it attached to the underside of the chalice base directly beneath where the coat of arms is engraved.


What a gracious and loving gesture. Thank you Father for sharing this.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
19 September 2011 01:17
 

Question to moderators—do the same rules we set for arms in the Members Roll, also apply to avatars?

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 September 2011 11:57
 

gselvester;87756 wrote:

I believe I’ve mentioned this before but the chalice that I use has my coat of arms on it. At the time I was ordained I was given an old chalice that had been used by a priest in the 1920s. His name and date of ordination was engraved on the underside of the base. Instead of doing a similar engraving of my name, etc. after I had the chalice refurbished I had my coat of arms (shield only) engraved on the upper side of the base of the chalice. This marks it as mine without erasing the memory of the priest who also used it.

As an added significance after my father passed away my mother gave me his wedding ring. I was able to have it attached to the underside of the chalice base directly beneath where the coat of arms is engraved.


now that is awesome Fr. the whole enchilada!

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 September 2011 11:59
 

Michael F. McCartney;87786 wrote:

Question to moderators—do the same rules we set for arms in the Members Roll, also apply to avatars?


yes, let me know too. i understand what Michael is asking and i agree with asking it as imo it should apply. but, i also want to know as i’ve used both a pic of me and my dog and am now using my competitive/traveling football team’s helmet and fan-wear decal as my avatar and i don’t want to be out of compliance (as i think the one is) either even if mine aren’t breaking heraldic rules we’ve set forth. let me know here or PM. either way.

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
19 September 2011 21:35
 

gselvester;87756 wrote:

I believe I’ve mentioned this before but the chalice that I use has my coat of arms on it. At the time I was ordained I was given an old chalice that had been used by a priest in the 1920s. His name and date of ordination was engraved on the underside of the base. Instead of doing a similar engraving of my name, etc. after I had the chalice refurbished I had my coat of arms (shield only) engraved on the upper side of the base of the chalice. This marks it as mine without erasing the memory of the priest who also used it.

As an added significance after my father passed away my mother gave me his wedding ring. I was able to have it attached to the underside of the chalice base directly beneath where the coat of arms is engraved.


Brilliant!