Fred White;70201 wrote:

Obviously, almost no one who participates in this forum assents to this view, so what is the point of advancing it here?

I didn’t come here to advance any view.  You may note the subject area that the original post was placed: I’m intorducing a blog.  You don’t have to agree with all or any of it.

Kathy McClurg;70205 wrote:

Actually, Scotland just set up a national regristry under the National Archives of Scotland - A government authority for tartan registration that can be found here:

http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/

 

The Scottish Tartans Authority and several others have relinquished their registration roles and provided their databases to the Scotish Registry of Tartans.  I do not see a reference to the government organization on Tartans of Scotland, but they are a private company who may not want to give up their registry function even though the Scottish Register of Tartans Act established the office.  The Act can be read here:

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2008/pdf/asp_20080007_en.pdf

Yes, thank you Kathy.  That was the Bill that I was referring to.  George Lucky knows about this new national registry, I’m surprised he didn’t mention it.  Tartan was becoming so popular, and since it eminates from Scotland - as such - member McGrigger thought it high time that Scotland took an official interest in it.

Most HSS forumeers who have a registered tartan create an avatar of a mix of tartan and arms, I used one myself for years.

I think I’ve answered everyone’s questions so far.  If I’ve missed one, I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Greg;70213 wrote:

I think I’ve answered everyone’s questions so far.  If I’ve missed one, I’m sure you’ll let me know.

You have not answered several of mine, or responded to some of my other assertions.  Further, some of the answers you’ve given in this thread have not actually responded to the question asked.

P.S.  When you said you were asked to "sign on" to the tartan bill, what exactly do you mean?

Greg;70210 wrote:

I would have to say the Knights Templar with the red cross painted on surcoats and shileds and banners.  I f you have a noher example, tell us.

Supposing the criteria in this thread, I would consider Templar designs to be pseudo-heraldry, since it was not hereditary nor was there an authority in existence to enforce order.  What do you consider to be the first example of REAL heraldry?

Michael Swanson;70216 wrote:

Supposing the criteria in this thread, I would consider Templar designs to be pseudo-heraldry, since it was not hereditary nor was there an authority in existence to enforce order.  What do you consider to be the first example of REAL heraldry?

Pseudo-heraldry for Templar examples is fine as a discription.  If you don’t except that then I would have to say it first shows in Roman funeral flags depicting the deceased as a noble person. The early European designs reflected nobility and military status and heraldry as we know it sprung from there, as I’ve reported. The earliest that I’m aware of is the English Dering Roll ca 1275, followed by the Balioll Roll ca 1350.

Again, if you have another example, please share it with us.

Greg;70218 wrote:

Pseudo-heraldry for Templar examples is fine as a discription.  If you don’t except that then I would have to say it first shows in Roman funeral flags depicting the deceased as a noble person. The early European designs reflected nobility and military status and heraldry as we know it sprung from there, as I’ve reported. The earliest that I’m aware of is the English Dering Roll ca 1275, followed by the Balioll Roll ca 1350.

Again, if you have another example, please share it with us.

The advent of REAL heraldry occurred much later than these 12th and 13th rolls, for heraldry was largely chaotic and unregulated at that time.  These rolls contain examples of pseudo-heraldry, if we use the criteria set out earlier in this thread.  Until the mid-14th century, chaotic self-assumption was the only way to acquire arms.  It was not until the 16th century that any limits were placed on who could acquire arms—it was willy-nilly before then.  http://www.heraldica.org/topics/right.htm

So, what is the earliest example of REAL heraldry that you know of?  Your examples so far are all pseudo-heraldry by your criteria.

Greg;70213 wrote:

Yes, thank you Kathy.  That was the Bill that I was referring to.  George Lucky knows about this new national registry, I’m surprised he didn’t mention it.

Greg, this is the sort of thing I came to expect from you at HSS and I was one of the last hold outs for reasonable dialogue with you there frankly. In this post quoted above you take a shot at George after he clearly states in response to Kathy that he was unaware of that legislation and was therefore not up to date. Your assertion here that George knew about it before, but failed to mention it ascribes an un-seeming (sp?) motive to George and his post.

Frankly, this is the sort of garbage you unfortunately became noted for at HSS. When you disagreed with someone more often than not you could not answer questions reasonably, but answered in a mocking, antagonistic way. Often with an heir of self-ascribed superior knowledge and consideration of the subject matter just as you’ve done here several times. This is precisely the behavior that turned everyone that I spoke to about it at HSS off in a big way—it was not some sinister cabal set up for the sole purpose of destroying Greg as you asserted before it was your consistent uncharitable behavior Greg.

I’m all for heated, rigorous debate. But, unless I’m mistaken you’ve now taken personal shots at Joseph, David, George, and the HSS, which directly reflects on those who administer that board, in this thread—some of them on multiple posts. Now I’m sure I may get in trouble here, and for that mods I’m sorry, but Lord knows my anger is up over your general unfriendly attitude towards others and frankly Greg, I’m tired of it. Most all here know that I’ve been an ass in the past on occasion with some of my posts. I’ve tried hard as hell over the last year or so to grow up a bit and let my temper go out of my life in all ways including MBs, but your unwarranted personal shots at Joseph, David, George, and the HSS and its owners/operators are over the line!

Please state your point without popping them, or anyone. It does us all no good when you do that. Last thing this place needs is me acting like an ass again, but your attacks are pushing me in the direction of replying ‘in-kind’ towards you. So, please, just answer questions or opine without bringing others reputations and their motives in a post into disrepute.

P.S. It’s George Lucki, not ‘Lucky’. I’m sure this was an accidental typo, I just thought you should be made aware it is not ‘Lucky’.

Donnchadh;70225 wrote:

Greg, this is the sort of thing I came to expect from you at HSS and I was one of the last hold outs for reasonable dialogue with you there frankly. In this post quoted above you take a shot at George after he clearly states in response to Kathy that he was unaware of that legislation and was therefore not up to date. Your assertion here that George knew about it before, but failed to mention it ascribes an un-seeming (sp?) motive to George and his post.

Frankly, this is the sort of garbage you unfortunately became noted for at HSS. When you disagreed with someone more often than not you could not answer questions reasonably, but answered in a mocking, antagonistic way. Often with an heir of self-ascribed superior knowledge and consideration of the subject matter just as you’ve done here several times. This is precisely the behavior that turned everyone that I spoke to about it at HSS off in a big way—it was not some sinister cabal set up for the sole purpose of destroying Greg as you asserted before it was your consistent uncharitable behavior Greg.

 

I’m all for heated, rigorous debate. But, unless I’m mistaken you’ve now taken personal shots at Joseph, David, George, and the HSS, which directly reflects on those who administer that board, in this thread—some of them on multiple posts. Now I’m sure I may get in trouble here, and for that mods I’m sorry, but Lord knows my anger is up over your general unfriendly attitude towards others and frankly Greg, I’m tired of it. Most all here know that I’ve been an ass in the past on occasion with some of my posts. I’ve tried hard as hell over the last year or so to grow up a bit and let my temper go out of my life in all ways including MBs, but your unwarranted personal shots at Joseph, David, George, and the HSS and its owners/operators are over the line!

 

Please state your point without popping them, or anyone. It does us all no good when you do that. Last thing this place needs is me acting like an ass again, but your attacks are pushing me in the direction of replying ‘in-kind’ towards you. So, please, just answer questions or opine without bringing others reputations and their motives in a post into disrepute.

 

P.S. It’s George Lucki, not ‘Lucky’. I’m sure this was an accidental typo, I just thought you should be made aware it is not ‘Lucky’.

I really don’t know what to say to you: I think you’re wrong outright with respect to my relationships with those at the HSS: many of them were very good, some, not so good for the reasons I’ve pointed out.  And even Joseph aggrees woth me on that: shall I enlcude his post on that point?

I know what I’m talking about Dennis, it hits a nerve with some people, but I can’t help that.  I have been under personal attack from the same group for some time, for eactly the reasons I have given and their kanipshins are not going to sway my opinions.

The idea that I’ve taken pot-shots at George Lucki is wholly uncalled for: he and I are have been great friends for some time.  I was very surprised that he didn’t mention the tartan legislation at the time, and when I posted a reply to Kathy, I then noticed George’s additional post sayng that he had indeed forgotten.

I think you’re characterizations of me are not at all based on reality.  I don’t even know David: we may have conversed at the HSS forum but beyond that I have no other experience with him.

I would ask that you perhaps review your charges of what you belive to be ad-hominem and point them out to me.  Alex Maxwell Findalater himself told me that the moderators of the HSS forum were exercising a predjudice against me.  That fact is entirely what forced my decision to leave the society.  Up until the barange visa vi Brian Hamilton began their personal attacks on me I had a great relationship with everyone in the society, I just refused to bow down to being bullied.

Beyond that, I’m prepared to say that If I bug you that much, you certainly don’t have to engege me.  I’m not going to defend myself where none is needed.

I came here to simply announce a blog. Controversial subjects often rub people the wrong way, but that does not make them inaccurate: the affect that the baronage has had on the HSS, the Lord Lyon’s Office and the heraldry community at large (which is small anyway) came about outside of any of my doing.  And it causes controversy to this day: i.e. the affect this has on Irish heraldry.

Dennis you know nothing about me.  Those who have taken the time to truly engage me would argue with you on your characterizations of me and my motives.

Michael Swanson;70222 wrote:

The advent of REAL heraldry occurred much later than these 12th and 13th rolls, for heraldry was largely chaotic and unregulated at that time.  These rolls contain examples of pseudo-heraldry, if we use the criteria set out earlier in this thread.  Until the mid-14th century, chaotic self-assumption was the only way to acquire arms.  It was not until the 16th century that any limits were placed on who could acquire arms—it was willy-nilly before then.  http://www.heraldica.org/topics/right.htm

So, what is the earliest example of REAL heraldry that you know of?  Your examples so far are all pseudo-heraldry by your criteria.

You’re tryng to lead me somewhere and I’m not going. I’ve answered your question and asked you to provide your own example if you thought mine wasn’t good enough.

So, produce your example please.

Greg;70229 wrote:

You’re tryng to lead me somewhere and I’m not going. I’ve answered your question and asked you to provide your own example if you thought mine wasn’t good enough.

So, produce your example please.

If these are your examples of real heraldry, then I accept them as real heraldry.  But these examples were produced when anyone could assume arms and there were no limitations on assumption.  I just want you to be consistent, e.g., having an heraldic authority, or any heraldic laws, has nothing to do with heraldry being real.

Michael Swanson;70231 wrote:

If these are your examples of real heraldry, then I accept them as real heraldry.  But these examples were produced when anyone could assume arms and there were no limitations on assumption.  I just want you to be consistent, e.g., having an heraldic authority, or any heraldic laws, has nothing to do with heraldry being real.

The phrase ‘hoist with his own petard’ comes to mind.

David E. Cohen;70215 wrote:

You have not answered several of mine, or responded to some of my other assertions.  Further, some of the answers you’ve given in this thread have not actually responded to the question asked.

P.S.  When you said you were asked to "sign on" to the tartan bill, what exactly do you mean?

It’s very simple actually: a letter from MP McGrigger showed up at my door, completely unannounced, and the letter asked my opinion on the matter and to add anytihg that I might have thought to be hepful, and that is what I did.

There has been mention made by - somebody - that people submitted their names as interseted parties: I think my name was submitted perhaps by someone else or that MP McGirigger was otherwsie familiar with me and sent me his requset.

That’s what I mean.

Now, if you’ll ask me a direct question about heraldry, I’ll be happy to answer it, but I will not be led around by the nose.

Go ahead: your turn.

Greg;70212 wrote:

I didn’t come here to advance any view.  You may note the subject area that the original post was placed: I’m intorducing a blog.  You don’t have to agree with all or any of it.

I would say that you and your blog have been well introduced to American heraldists. You have achieved your goal. Mission accomplished!

Michael Swanson;70231 wrote:

If these are your examples of real heraldry, then I accept them as real heraldry.  But these examples were produced when anyone could assume arms and there were no limitations on assumption.  I just want you to be consistent, e.g., having an heraldic authority, or any heraldic laws, has nothing to do with heraldry being real.

I can appreciate your disagreeing with me on the subject of American heraldry as a quasi form of heraldry. "These examples" as you put them were recorded by an office of the sovereign so designated to represent personal heraldry at that time as a form of sovereign communication.  Remember: the designs came first, and then the sovereign representation.  In the US, the designs were borrowed form the English model. They have never received sovereign recognition, and the naming of an office to oversee the designs of military logos is hardly sovereign recognition: that office is simply a register of material that is based on the herladic design model, nothing more.  Nor do they include helm, mantling etc.  It’s a fantasy based on Sparta.

I see where you’re going with the ‘assumption of arms’ part of your argument, but heraldry - as recognized - by sovereigns enaged in it’s historical practice was at least 600 years old by the time the US declared our independence and as a result of heraldry’s popularity the framers adopted - assumed - heradlic like designs to represent the federal government to Europe, particularly England as a puch in the nose.  And I can assure you that political scientists and historians well versed in new American thinking will tell you that you’re dreaming if you think that "heraldry" as a practice would have been tolerated in this country.

The American psychie has had no room for heraldry ever since we broke away, and the lack of laws and official registers is a testiment to that fact.  And what other European countries have done with their -time of the crusades practice - is immaterial to that fact.

You guys can jump up -because you want to be included - but I’m sorry to tell you that you are definately in the minority and quite mistaken in the overall sense.

David Pritchard;70235 wrote:

I would say that you and your blog have been well introduced to American heraldists. You have achieved your goal. Mission accomplished!

Thank you David.  That’s the nicest thing that’s been said to me in three days.