Quote:
Dear Mr. Hickman:
2º.-I have seen the website of "American Heraldry Asociation", and I think
that is a private interprise, for these reason its register has not valor.
Only in this asociation, but you can not practise legal action again other
people using your coat of arms, because you haven´t legal public document
(like notarial act) that justify you are using this coat of arms.
Moving away from the specific interpretation of Stephen Hickman’s arms it is interesting to see this 2nd excuse since the entire "D" section of the HSS website’ "Scottish Arms" was also lifted and included in his list of armigers beginning with "D". These were all arms that were either granted by or matriculated with the Lord Lyon. They thus all had "legal public document"(s) justifying their use though admittedly not all had such documents in Spanish jurisdiction.
One of the arms so lifted were those of Peter Drummond Murray of Mastrick which arms are as Hispano-Scottish as is possible to get and contain claims such as would not have been allowed by either country without verification of their authenticity.
The arms of Drummond Murray of Mastrick were (to quote the HSS website):
Quote:
Matriculated: Courtof the Lord Lyon, 1st July 1970. Register, Volume LIII folio 4.
Recorded at The Ministry of Justice, Madrid, Spain, on 4th November 1968, with a count’s coronet and imperial eagle supporter to be borne by all members of the family "sus descendientes."
The arms concerned (Lyon Matriculation) also have
Quote:
Supporter: The shield is placed in front of the Imperial Eagles (videlicet: -a double-headed eagle displayed Sable, beaked and membered Or, imperially crowned Proper, supporting in its dexter claw a sword and sceptre Proper and in its sinister a globe Azure banded and crossed Or) which Imperial Eagles were borne by and inherited from his maternal ancestors the Princes and Counts of Ramirez de Arellano who were granted these supporters by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and are limited to the heirs male of his body, failing whom, the heirs of his body bearing the name and arms of Drummond-Murray of Mastrick.
I personally find it interesting that one of the reasons why the author of the website gives for being able to include arms without permission is that they are not "official" when one of those included was not only recorded at the ministry of justice but included the Imperial Eagle supporter which I am sure would have caused some considerable investigation to be done before it was allowed.
I do not know if Mr Drummond Murray has made representations regarding his arms but (if he has) it would be interesting to see if he received such a response.
James
PS - Sorry for any incoherence, I’m still a bit jet-lagged after flying in from Newark yesterday morning. I’m working on the stay up 36 hours and drink a bottle of Hermitage jet-lag cure 
James Dempster;50494 wrote:
Moving away from the specific interpretation of Stephen Hickman’s arms it is interesting to see this 2nd excuse since the entire "D" section of the HSS website’ "Scottish Arms" was also lifted and included in his list of armigers beginning with "D". These were all arms that were either granted by or matriculated with the Lord Lyon. They thus all had "legal public document"(s) justifying their use though admittedly not all had such documents in Spanish jurisdiction.
One of the arms so lifted were those of Peter Drummond Murray of Mastrick which arms are as Hispano-Scottish as is possible to get and contain claims such as would not have been allowed by either country without verification of their authenticity.
I did not know this. How very interesting! It seems that Mr. K. will say anything. :rolleyes:
Quote:
PS - Sorry for any incoherence, I’m still a bit jet-lagged after flying in from Newark yesterday morning. I’m working on the stay up 36 hours and drink a bottle of Hermitage jet-lag cure
James Dempster;50494 wrote:
I personally find it interesting that one of the reasons why the author of the website [Mr. K] gives for being able to include arms without permission is that they are not "official" ....
I think Mr. K is wrong on this point. All arms (well, at least emblazons) have copyright protection. The fact that the arms may not be registered with a recognized heraldic authority is irrelevant.
eploy;50501 wrote:
I think Mr. K is wrong on this point. All arms (well, at least emblazons) have copyright protection. The fact that the arms may not be registered with a recognized heraldic authority is irrelevant.
I think this shows that coursework in American heraldry (if there is ever such a thing) must include laws and traditions in multiple countries as well as a trans/international perspective. Knowing only Spanish (or only Scottish, or only South African, etc.) heraldic tradition does not cut it.
Stephen—your letter to Mr. K is interesting, but I believe the citation to the 2nd Amendment is not supported by either the history or current interpretation of this constitutional provision. It would perhaps be nice if it were true…but you won’t find anything supporting that reading in any legal decisions or serious scholarship. If there is any arguable constitutional support for the right to bear arms, it would have to fall under the (IIRC) 10th amendment’s reservation of rights not specifically assigned to the Federal government, to to various states and to the people.
My apologies. I was in error.
Could we tone down allegations of "getting away with unscrupulous practices"? At this point, he’s withdrawn what we originally objected to (use of our emblazonments without permission). Beyond that, I think we have to put a lot down to errors, ignorance, and problems in translation. It seems to me that a calmer, more temperate approach is called for at this point.
Again, my apologies. Again, I was in error.
Joseph, I have deleted the offending phrase.