Michael F. McCartney;104179 wrote:

Of course HM could reverse this policy if that was Her (or her ministers’) pleasure;

It would be an interesting debate as to how far the Queen’s prerogative power extends to the regulation of heraldry in Scotland, given that Lyon operates under statute.

Quote:

but I also suspect that the English CoA hasn’t complained & isn’t all that upset by this policy, at least re: British foreign honorees, who then must come to them for a British grant of arms.

Well, "must" here would have to be defined.  They must in the sense that there is no other source to get a "British" grant of arms if they want one, but there is no requirement for them to have arms at all, and, if they are Americans, having received a British honor doesn’t negate their right to adopt arms of their own choosing like any other American.

My assumption (bad choice of words in this context) is that Lyon serves at HM pleasure, and if She is sufficiently not pleased, she could give him the sack - however unlikely that might be!  Or is it that as a civil servant of sorts, a declawed Lyon could ask his union rep to file a grievance against HM?  Hmmm ... :(

I think we’ve wandered a bit off the topic of the thread - my apologies.

Michael F. McCartney;104181 wrote:

My assumption (bad choice of words in this context) is that Lyon serves at HM pleasure, and if She is sufficiently not pleased, she could give him the sack - however unlikely that might be!  Or is it that as a civil servant of sorts, a declawed Lyon could ask his union rep to file a grievance against HM?  Hmmm ... :(

I think we’ve wandered a bit off the topic of the thread - my apologies.

Well, still slightly off topic, but quite a few of the stall plates in S:t George’s Windsor are foreign arms, and I really can’t imagine that they have been granted by the College of Arms, but perhaps the rules are different for royalty?

Dear All,

As referred to in the last couple of posts or so there is no compunction for those honoured by HM The Queen whether subjects of the Crown or not to petition either the Earl Marshal in England or the Lord Lyon in Scotland for a grant of arms if appointed to a particular order.  The only caveat being that Knights of the Garter and of the Thistle and other Knights Grand Cross would be expected to be armigerous, either by inheritance or by grant at the time of appointment or shortly thereafter.  Certainly all those appointed to honours via the two honours lists (New Year and Birthday Honours), together with the supplementary lists that appear on occasion would qualify for a grant of arms from either London or Edinburgh, likewise every officer of HM Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve would qualify if they so petitioned.  The receipt of an honour from the hands of the Sovereign or the receipt of the Queen’s Commission as an officer in any of three armed services, likewise any civilian counterpart confirms the Sovereign’s approbation which can be further confirmed by a grant of arms if so desired.  Certainly there is bar to a foreign recipient of a Crown honour adopting their own arms where no official or ‘State’ authority exists and displaying its insignia therewith.  As arms are not generally displayed overtly at investitures or other gatherings of orders of chivalry I believe the question posed by Mike does not ordinarily apply.  The question of stall plates if ever used by honorary Knights Grand Crosses of the various orders, again, does not generally apply as space is at a premium within most if not all of the chapels of the orders concerned.  Certainly for some orders (both the Bath and the St Michael & St George) which presently come to mind where there is a ‘waiting list’ amongst the Knights Grand Cross to put up their banners, crests and stall plates.

As to the question of the extra foreign knights, notably of the Garter, as they are in the main members of Royal Houses and as such would be accorded official recognition for their stall plates to placed in St George’s Chapel within Windsor Castle.

As ever

John

Michael F. McCartney;104181 wrote:

My assumption (bad choice of words in this context) is that Lyon serves at HM pleasure, and if She is sufficiently not pleased, she could give him the sack - however unlikely that might be! Or is it that as a civil servant of sorts, a declawed Lyon could ask his union rep to file a grievance against HM? Hmmm .

Lyon is a judge, and I don’t think the Queen can just fire a judge because she doesn’t like his judgments.  Sort of a big constitutional issue at stake there.

Plus, his powers derive from statute, which by definition means that they are no longer controllable as a matter of royal prerogative.  Innes of Learney even contended that George V could not lawfully urge the non-prosecution of Scots who displayed the Scottish royal banner—George V’s own arms, in other words—because that was an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the operation of the justice system.

That’s why I say it would be an interesting debate.

Re: Learney’s disagreement with the then-King—who actually won that argument?

It does seem that the rules for foreign royals are a special case - requiring the Emperor of Japan or whatever to humbly petition the Earl Marshal etc. would not be cool.  But in the context of our off-topic exchange, I was thinking of less exalted folk

Without taking sides, there still seems to be a difference between Liongam’s last post and Joe’s conversation with Lyon Clerk, as to whether a British honour award of some medal or order to àn American would be sufficient for a grant of arms in Scotland.

As to display at functions of an order, I had the pleasure of attending (only as a guest) a ceremony of the Order of St John in the Episcopal cathedral in San Francisco some years back; and there were a numbers of armorial flags of the various officers of the Order carried down the aisle and posted during the ceremony.  My understanding was that all of these were arms, honorary or otherwise, properly granted or confirmed by the CoA, or at least OK’d by Garter et al.

Dear Michael,

I do not believe that I am at a variance with Joe in respect of his conversation with Lyon Clerk and as you yourself have mentioned Lord Lyon only makes substantive grants to individuals who are either Scots by birth or by proven descent or if needs be via a cadet matriculation when not a subject of the Crown as there is no concept of honorary arms from Lyon’s viewpoint.  As I mentioned, generally ‘less exalted folk’ as you say who are not subjects of the Crown would not ordinarily be appointed to the two great national orders of the Garter and the Thistle and most if not all foreign extra knights/dames are heads of Royal Houses.  Again, those appointed as honorary Knights Grand Cross and Knights Commanders and their female equivalents to the other British and Commonwealth Orders of Chivalry would not ordinarily display their arms within the chapels of the several orders,  as stated before for want of space.

Presently there are a number of living honorary Knights Grand Cross and Knights/Dame Commanders of British Orders who are citizens of the USA amongst whom are:

George H.W. Bush, GCB* (Civil) 1993

Murray Perahia, KBE** (Civil) 2004

Steven Spielburg, KBE (Civil) 2001

Alan Greenspan, KBE (Civil) 2002

Richard Lugar,KBE (Civil) 2013

John Warner, KBE (Civil) 2009

General Wesley Clark, KBE (Military) 2000

James D. Watson, KBE (Civil) 2001

Raymond Sackler, KBE (Civil) 1995

General Tommy Franks, KBE (Military) 2004

Bill Gates, KBE (Civil) 2004

General Colin Powell, KBE (Military) 1993

Angelina Jolie, DCMG*** 2014

* GCB - Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath.

** KBE - Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

*** DCMG - Dame Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George.

In addition to the above named individuals there are, of course,  undoubtedly a great number of American citizens who have honorary appointments as Companions, Commanders, Officers and Members of the various British Orders.  Here it is interesting to note that although a British Order of Chivalry (although not a State Order) all appointments to the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem as gazetted in the London Gazette from time to time are deemed to be substantive appointments whether one is a subject of the Crown or not.  At one time appointments to the order if one were a foreign national having no allegiance to the Crown, whether in the Crown’s capacity within the British or one of the Commonwealth Realms or being a non-Christian such appointments were considered ‘honorary’ as Associates in whatever grade they were appointed to that individual wore their insignia with the black ribbon of the order with a central white stripe.  This has not pertained for many years now.

Regarding the display of heraldry at the various services of the British Orders.  With most it is the heraldry in situ seen around the various chapels, viz the knight’s banner, crest and stall plate.  Some of the chapels are quite small to be able to admit banners and crests, but allow space for a stall plate only.  The two that come to mind are the chapels of the Royal Victorian Order at the Savoy Chapel off of London’s Strand and the chapel of the British Empire in the crypt of St Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London.  The St Michael & St George in St Paul’s Cathedral has a side chapel that allows for stall plates and some banners to be displayed, whilst the Garter (St George’s Chapel, Windsor), the Thistle (St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh) and the Bath (Westminster Abbey) all show the full panoply of the banners, crests and stall plates (although the Thistle Chapel is somewhat cramped) of the Knights/Ladies and Knights/Dames Grand Cross.

During the annual services for both the Garter and Thistle there is not a lot of heraldry to be seen in the processions save for the tabards of the heralds attending.  Likewise, the occasional services (every few years or so) for the Bath, St Michael & St George and the British Empire are not heavily heraldic in content.  There is some heraldry on display during the annual service of the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor in the crypt of St Paul’s Cathedral which also has its chapel located there.  But the order that strangely enough trumps them all on the heraldic front is the Order of St John in that all of the Priories of the Order (which includes the Priory of the United States) hold in the main several investitures during a year as well as the St John’s Day Service in June where heraldry is always to the fore by the carrying of the Priory’s banner, the Prior’s and other Priory officers’ banners, plus those of any Bailiffs/Dames Grand Cross in attendance.

As a member of the Ceremonial Staff of the Priory of England and the Islands I generally attend around six ceremonies in the course of a year which includes four investitures, the St John’s Day Service at St Paul’s Cathedral and the Priory Visitation to one of the English Catherdals.  So saying, I have had the honour of carrying at least once the banner of the Priory of the United States at a service in the Priory Church at Clerkenwell.

With regard to the personal heraldry of members of the Order of St John.  There is a ruling I believe that arms should be verified as ‘official’ by an officer of arms in ordinary (a member of the College of Arms, Lord Lyon or the Chief Herald of Canada).  Each priory appoints a genealogist to have an oversight of such arms and I would imagine those priories with no heraldic authority outside of Canada would obtain advice from either the College of Arms or Lyon Court all according to the member’s ancestry.  If a member has no British or Commonwealth ancestry whatsoever he/she is qualified to petition for a grant of honorary arms by virtue an appointment in whatever grade within the Order.  All Knights/Dames are appointed in the first instance as Knights/Dames of Grace they can thereafter request to be reclassified as Knights/Dames of Justice if they bear ‘official’ arms.  If not in possession of official arms I would imagine that most Knights/Dames are more than happy to petition for arms in order to reclassify in the category ‘of Justice’ if they so wish or on appointment/promotion as a Bailiff/Dame Grand Cross.

With every good wish

John

Thanks for such a complete response!

The St John ceremony / service I attended was IIRC an investiture of Serving Brothers and maybe some in higher grades.  Quite impressive and lots of heraldry - banners of various component organizations and personal banners of several officers of the Order.  Also IIRC a representative or two from the SMOM, as guests; don’t recall if they also had banners, but the badges on their mantles had four fleurs de lis instead of the lions & unicorns between the arms of the Maltese cross.

Quite a show for a country boy!

This is not an assumption document, but merely something I made on the computer for personal use. The badge, crest, and shield were rendered by Professor Ljubodrag Grujic for me. The rest was done by me on the computer.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r190/howiedunnet/heraldry/Henderson Arms Letter LJ Crest and Arms.png

Nice!

Excellent!  :cool:

Joseph McMillan;104178 wrote:

I would have imagined so as well, but when she was in New York last year Lyon Clerk answered "no" when asked whether receiving an honor from the British crown would qualify a foreigner for a grant of Scottish arms.  I was a bit surprised.

That is correct.  Receiving an honor from the British crown *would not* make a foreign honoree eligible for a grant of Scottish arms.  It would, however, make that same foreign honoree eligible for an honorary grant through the College of Arms.

The apparent reason behind this unequal treatment is because only Garter King of Arms exercises ‘imperial’ jurisdiction.  Lord Lyon’s jurisdiction is limited to Scotland per the Lord Lyon Acts of 1672 and 1867 and recent Lord Lyons have been hesitant to step on the toes of the English Kings of Arms.  I know this because I have approached two recent LLs for a matriculation of my South African arms or alternatively a grant of new arms by virtue of my membership in the Venerable Order of St. John (VOStJ).  I was rejected both times.

On the plus side, when a friend and I approached the Genealogist of the VOStJ, Windsor Herald William Hunt at the College of Arms, he told us that so long as we were not violating the heraldic laws of our country (of course America has no laws for private heraldry) that there would be no impediment for an American VOStJ member from displaying his or her insignia from South African or even assumed arms.  Of course, Windsor Herald also added that we would need an honorary grant from the College of Arms to be reclassified from a Knight of Grace to a Knight of Justice should either one of us ever make it to the Knightly level.  Until then, the use of assumed arms by Americans is apparently accepted (or probably more like ‘tolerated’) at least within the VOStJ.

eploy;104624 wrote:

The apparent reason behind this unequal treatment is because only Garter King of Arms exercises ‘imperial’ jurisdiction.  Lord Lyon’s jurisdiction is limited to Scotland per the Lord Lyon Acts of 1672 and 1867 and recent Lord Lyons have been hesitant to step on the toes of the English Kings of Arms.

"Why" doesn’t really matter, but I’d be skeptical that this is the reason.  Recent Lord Lyons have continued to make some very public grants of arms to residents of other realms (e.g., Australians), which is what Garter supposedly claims he can’t do.  I argue that the whole imperial realm thing lapsed with the separation of the crowns, recognized in the 1930s.  As one Australian scholar observed, if there is no imperial crown, there can be no imperial crown servants and no imperial jurisdiction.

Quote:

On the plus side, when a friend and I approached the Genealogist of the VOStJ, Windsor Herald William Hunt at the College of Arms, he told us that so long as we were not violating the heraldic laws of our country (of course America has no laws for private heraldry) that there would be no impediment for an American VOStJ member from displaying his or her insignia from South African or even assumed arms.  Of course, Windsor Herald also added that we would need an honorary grant from the College of Arms to be reclassified from a Knight of Grace to a Knight of Justice should either one of us ever make it to the Knightly level.  Until then, the use of assumed arms by Americans is apparently accepted (or probably more like ‘tolerated’) at least within the VOStJ.

This is good news, but it appears to be at odds with the order’s published regulation.  A revision to the regs would be very welcome.

Joseph McMillan;104625 wrote:

"Why" doesn’t really matter, but I’d be skeptical that this is the reason.  Recent Lord Lyons have continued to make some very public grants of arms to residents of other realms (e.g., Australians), which is what Garter supposedly claims he can’t do.  I argue that the whole imperial realm thing lapsed with the separation of the crowns, recognized in the 1930s.  As one Australian scholar observed, if there is no imperial crown, there can be no imperial crown servants and no imperial jurisdiction.

Thank you Joseph.  Yes, the explanation I gave is really my own.  Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that point.  I agree the whole ‘imperial realm’ argument should have lapsed decades ago, but Garter still seems to take it seriously.  To a remotely interested outsider like myself, it seems odd that Scotland and England should be equal partners in the United Kingdom and yet Scotland’s heraldic authority remains inferior in terms of worldwide reach vis-a-vis its English counterpart.

Joseph McMillan;104625 wrote:

This is good news, but it appears to be at odds with the order’s published regulation.  A revision to the regs would be very welcome.

Agreed.  It’s totally at odds, but this is what Windsor Herald relayed to me.  Separately, the Secretary-General of the VOStJ also relayed to my friend a similar opinion and said that he did not need to issue a license to American members wishing to suspend their VOStJ insignia from their shields.  This totally flies in the face of the VOStJ’s statutes and regulations.  Yes, I think a revision of the statutes and regulations would be nice, but I doubt if the powers that be will address the matter anytime soon.  At the very least it means that in the interim the statutes and regulations will not be enforced very strictly at least with regard to the heraldic aspects of the Order for those below the rank of Knight.  For those wishing to get reclassified as a Knight of Justice or for the grade of Bailiff Grand Cross where augmentations are possible (i.e., Arms of the Order in chief and supporters), a formal grant from the College of Arms will still be necessary.

Quote:

Separately, the Secretary-General of the VOStJ also relayed to my friend a similar opinion and said that he did not need to issue a license to American members wishing to suspend their VOStJ insignia from their shields.

This is interesting.  The previous Secretary-General, Rear Admiral Andrew Gough, wrote to me in a letter from 2004:
Quote:

Thank you for your letter of 11 October 2004 regarding a licence to exercise the heraldic privilege of a Serving Brother in the Order of St John.  I have consulted with the Genealogist of the Order and I am pleased to confirm that it would be in order for you to suspend from your Armorial Bearings the ribbon and Badge of the Order as is appropriate for a Serving Brother.  I trust this meets with your satisfaction and I am pleased to be able to provide the licence you request.