My newly registered arms

 
David Fofanoff
 
Avatar
 
 
David Fofanoff
Total Posts:  213
Joined  03-05-2011
 
 
 
19 December 2011 13:48
 

Interesting - how does one purchase a "Lord of the Manor" title in the UK? Does this mean you purchased the whole village property from the previous owner, or is this a granted honorific from the government?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 December 2011 14:44
 

David Fofanoff;90777 wrote:

Interesting - how does one purchase a "Lord of the Manor" title in the UK? Does this mean you purchased the whole village property from the previous owner, or is this a granted honorific from the government?


Neither of the above.

 

Manors were at one time the basic building block of English rural life.  The lord of the manor held the property either from the king or from another lord, and along with ownership he had the responsibility of governing the place, including the holding of manorial courts.  He also had various rights that varied from one manor to another, often based on custom, allowing him to regulate how the tenants used the land, or reserving to himself the right to hunt and fish on the lands, etc.

 

But two things have happened over the centuries to empty lordships of the manor of any real content.  One, the lords of the manors have gradually sold or leased out the actual land, so that many if not most manors now consist only of that bundle of rights and powers by which the original lords governed the manor.  Second, most of those rights and powers have been negated by the evolution of the modern state, so that there are no longer manorial courts to regulate the behavior of tenants or resolve disputes, for example.  All that’s left are things like fishing and mineral rights, and not all of these can be exercised—the situation varies from manor to manor.  And even these "manorial incidents" are slated to be curtailed even further in the next two years.

 

See http://www.landreg.gov.uk/upload/documents/pg022.html#4 for more of the mind-numbing detail.

 

In short:  these are vanity items and nothing more.  They are emphatically not honors from the British crown, and generally don’t have any land ownership still attached to them.

 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
19 December 2011 15:38
 

When the UK feudal system was being ended by law in 1922 and 1925 the Manors were divided into three parts, each of which could be sold independently. This included the Lordship or Seigniory that provides the title, the actual land itself that had directly belonged to the Lord of the Manor, since all of his tenant became freeholders, and the various land rights, sporting rights, royal franchises, etc.

Thus the title itself is an incorporeal hereditament, a virtual property, and is sold just like any other piece of property. Although the right to use the title of Lord of the Manor is supported in English law, it doesn’t count as a noble title, doesn’t grant the right to arms or additaments, and doesn’t have any official social precedence.

 

Illston on the Hill is purely the title with no land or rights. Assuming the sale of Goldingtons ever closes then it will include title, land, and rights, a piece of history from the 1200s preserved into the 21st century.

 


David Fofanoff;90777 wrote:

Interesting - how does one purchase a "Lord of the Manor" title in the UK? Does this mean you purchased the whole village property from the previous owner, or is this a granted honorific from the government?

 

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
20 December 2011 05:38
 

cachambers007;90789 wrote:

When the UK feudal system was being ended by law in 1922 and 1925 the Manors were divided into three parts, each of which could be sold independently. This included the Lordship or Seigniory that provides the title, the actual land itself that had directly belonged to the Lord of the Manor, since all of his tenant became freeholders, and the various land rights, sporting rights, royal franchises, etc.

Thus the title itself is an incorporeal hereditament, a virtual property, and is sold just like any other piece of property. Although the right to use the title of Lord of the Manor is supported in English law, it doesn’t count as a noble title, doesn’t grant the right to arms or additaments, and doesn’t have any official social precedence.

This is not my understanding at all. There was no provision for the "title", as you would have it, to survive as a separate incorporeal hereditament devoid of all rights or obligations. While a number of manors did survive the 1920s and they are indeed incorporeal hereditaments where they do still survive, there is no "title", only a style applied to the owner of the rights and obligations. If rights are sold separately (eg sporting or mineral) they do not carry the style with them. If all rights have been sold and all obligations discharged (eg there is no longer any ownership of any manorial court rolls) then there is no longer any manor to be the "lord" (note lower case) of.

The Law of Property Act 1922, as enacted, can be viewed at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1922/16/pdfs/ukpga_19220016_en.pdf. The Law of Property Act 1925, as enacted, can be viewed at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1925/20/pdfs/ukpga_19250020_en.pdf.

However, most English manors have now also vanished due to another legal logic, roughly as follows:

 

Under the Administration of Justice Act 1977, manorial courts (baron) and courts leet, except the court leet for the Manor of Laxton, have ceased to have any jurisdiction to hear and determine legal proceedings, but any such court may continue to sit and transact such other business, if any, as was customary for it immediately before 17 October 1977. (Section 23(1) of the Act the Lord Chancellor is empowered to make orders for enabling any jurisdiction appearing to him to have been formerly exercised by such a court to be exercised instead by the High Court, the Crown Court, a county court or a magistrates’ court. Section 23(1) also stipulates that, in the case of the courts specified in Schedule 4 Part III, the business that is to be treated as having been customary (apart from business relating to the appointment of officers of the court) is the business specified in relation to that court in column 2 of the schedule. This is very restrictive. There will be few other manors not in the Schedule with operative courts that had customary business immediately before October 1977, so most not in the Schedule will now be defunct.

 

Now we must consider the above alongside the authoritative encyclopedia, Halsbury’s Laws of England, which states that "the right to hold a court leet might be lost by disuse: Darell v Bridge ( 1748 ) 1 Wm Bl 46; Tottersall’s Case (1632) W Jo 283." And "The right to hold a court baron is not lost by non-user for a considerable number of years (R v Steward and Suitors of Havering atte Bower (1822) 5 B & Ald 691); but, if for lack of suitors a court cannot be held, the court baron is gone for ever and the manor with it (1 Watkins on Copyholds (4th Edn) 8; see Delacherois v Delacherois (1864) 11 HL Cas 62 at 79, HL, per Willes J)".

 

That leaves very few manors indeed!

 

Derek Howard

 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
20 December 2011 15:14
 

I’m in no mood to get into a long discussion about this. For some reason many members in this forum seem to have a great deal of antipathy towards Manorial Lordships so I have avoided discussion of them. I only replied on this thread because a direct question had been asked. I will however point out that the UK government has a different opinion about this than you do and I’m going to assume that they know what they are talking about. I have of course also read both the 1922 and 1925 laws. I offer the following excerpt from a guide put out by the Land Registry.

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/upload/documents/pg022.html

 

1 Introduction

 

Manors are of ancient origin dating from before Norman times. The extent of the manor was usually determined by the original grant from the Crown or superior lord. A manor was self-contained with its own customs and rights within its defined area.

 

There are three separate elements of manors that can affect Land Registry.

 

Lordship of the manor – whoever owns the lordship of the manor is entitled to refer to themselves as lord of that manor, for example, Lord of the manor of Keswick.

 

Manorial land – because a manor was a defined area it included the physical land within that area. Such land could either be freehold or leasehold.

 

Manorial rights – rights which were part and parcel of the manorial title and which were usually kept by the lord on disposal of parts of the manorial land, for example, the right to hunt, shoot or fish.

 

These elements may exist separately or be combined. The lordship title cannot be subdivided, but the manorial land and the manorial rights can be.

 

Confusion can be caused, as ‘manor’ can refer to either the lordship and/or the manorial land.

 
David Fofanoff
 
Avatar
 
 
David Fofanoff
Total Posts:  213
Joined  03-05-2011
 
 
 
20 December 2011 15:55
 

cachambers007;90856 wrote:

I’m in no mood to get into a long discussion about this. For some reason many members in this forum seem to have a great deal of antipathy towards Manorial Lordships so I have avoided discussion of them. I only replied on this thread because a direct question had been asked. I will however point out that the UK government has a different opinion about this than you do and I’m going to assume that they know what they are talking about. I have of course also read both the 1922 and 1925 laws. I offer the following excerpt from a guide put out by the Land Registry.

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/upload/documents/pg022.html

 

1 Introduction

 

Manors are of ancient origin dating from before Norman times. The extent of the manor was usually determined by the original grant from the Crown or superior lord. A manor was self-contained with its own customs and rights within its defined area.

 

There are three separate elements of manors that can affect Land Registry.

 

Lordship of the manor – whoever owns the lordship of the manor is entitled to refer to themselves as lord of that manor, for example, Lord of the manor of Keswick.

 

Manorial land – because a manor was a defined area it included the physical land within that area. Such land could either be freehold or leasehold.

 

Manorial rights – rights which were part and parcel of the manorial title and which were usually kept by the lord on disposal of parts of the manorial land, for example, the right to hunt, shoot or fish.

 

These elements may exist separately or be combined. The lordship title cannot be subdivided, but the manorial land and the manorial rights can be.

 

Confusion can be caused, as ‘manor’ can refer to either the lordship and/or the manorial land.


I agree with Chris here - while we can debate the heraldic rights, privileges, or other heraldry-focused elements regarding a "Lordship of a Manor" in the UK, I think it is inappropriate to conduct sparring on the legal legitimacy of the same in this forum. Leave that to other forums or the UK courts to decide.

 

Just my 2-cents.

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
20 December 2011 16:16
 

cachambers007;90856 wrote:

I’m in no mood to get into a long discussion about this. For some reason many members in this forum seem to have a great deal of antipathy towards Manorial Lordships so I have avoided discussion of them. I only replied on this thread because a direct question had been asked.

Nor do I intend a long discussion, we are in the wrong thread and folder for this subject. I don’t know to whom you refer in relation to antipathy. I have none, only a desire to see historical and legal issues clear. I am a resident of one of the existing manors listed in the 1977 Act and would not want to see it disappear.
Quote:

I will however point out that the UK government has a different opinion about this than you do and I’m going to assume that they know what they are talking about. I have of course also read both the 1922 and 1925 laws. I offer the following excerpt from a guide put out by the Land Registry.

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/upload/documents/pg022.html

 

1 Introduction

 

Manors are of ancient origin dating from before Norman times. The extent of the manor was usually determined by the original grant from the Crown or superior lord. A manor was self-contained with its own customs and rights within its defined area.

 

There are three separate elements of manors that can affect Land Registry.

 

Lordship of the manor – whoever owns the lordship of the manor is entitled to refer to themselves as lord of that manor, for example, Lord of the manor of Keswick.

 

Manorial land – because a manor was a defined area it included the physical land within that area. Such land could either be freehold or leasehold.

 

Manorial rights – rights which were part and parcel of the manorial title and which were usually kept by the lord on disposal of parts of the manorial land, for example, the right to hunt, shoot or fish.

 

These elements may exist separately or be combined. The lordship title cannot be subdivided, but the manorial land and the manorial rights can be.

 

Confusion can be caused, as ‘manor’ can refer to either the lordship and/or the manorial land.

None of the above runs counter to what I have said. "Lord of the manor" is a style used by the owner of a manorial lordship. A manorial lordship consists of one or both of the other elements. There is nothing there suggesting the first element can survive without any aspect of the others. I have merely pointed to the laws involved. You may well have a bona fide manor and be thinking of another - I cannot say without close examination of the title - but caveat emptor, for I have found more false ones than real ones on the market over the years. I merely mention this as others asked about buying them. Enough on this.

Derek Howard

 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
20 December 2011 18:17
 

I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the subject, and everyone seems to support the following point of the Land Registry Guide.


<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
There are three separate elements of manors that can affect Land Registry.

These elements may exist separately or be combined. The lordship title cannot be subdivided, but the manorial land and the manorial rights can be.
</div>


But if you read those lines and come to a different conclusion then there is certainly no point in debating any further. I will simply agree to disagree with you.


Derek Howard;90862 wrote:

None of the above runs counter to what I have said. "Lord of the manor" is a style used by the owner of a manorial lordship. A manorial lordship consists of one or both of the other elements. There is nothing there suggesting the first element can survive without any aspect of the others. I have merely pointed to the laws involved. You may well have a bona fide manor and be thinking of another - I cannot say without close examination of the title - but caveat emptor, for I have found more false ones than real ones on the market over the years. I merely mention this as others asked about buying them. Enough on this.

Derek Howard

 

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2011 05:16
 

Dear All,

Regarding the question of a truncated chevron, the chevron ecime.  My own arms has one of these, a charge which I believe is unique in British heraldry.  My arms are blazoned as follows: ‘Per chevron azure and gules a chevron ecime or supporting a castle triple towered argent port and windows of the second and issuant from base a mount of six coupeaux of the fourth’.  The chevron ecime was taken from earlier Tunesi arms.  The castle both reflect the tower as found in the old family arms and the Macleods in whose ancient clan lands Liongam is located in the Western Isles of Scotland.  The arms as blazoned above were granted by Lord Lyon to my late father in 1984 and subsequently matriculated by myself prior to my marriage in 2000.

 

The question of ‘dancetty’, as a line of partition or the edges of a ordinary such as a fess, chief, etc, is that it generally shows three deep indentations - anymore and it becomes by definition ‘indented’ and not ‘dancetty’.

 

John

 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
21 December 2011 07:06
 

Do you have any links to images of arms showing the chevron ecime?

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
21 December 2011 10:41
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
21 December 2011 15:09
 

With renewed discussion of the correctness of my blazon I was looking at the various renderings of my arms. I just noticed that the version done by Andrew Jamieson shows a standard version of Per-Fess Dancetty. It still has the standard 3 peaks, but starts halfway up the shield instead of towards the bottom of the shield as was done in the original American College of Heraldry version by David Wooten and Commander Valery Yegorov. Both versions can be seen in the member’s armorial under ChambersC.

It would seem that the conjecture that my original registration either has a somewhat inaccurate blazon or emblazonment might be true.

 

I’m actually quite happy with a standard emblazonment of Per Fess Dancetty and won’t seek to update the registered blazon.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
21 December 2011 17:40
 

Yes, you do have an inconsistency on your hands. Given the blazon, the Jamieson emblazonment is right. If the Yegorov emblazonment looks like what you intended for your arms, then the blazon is wrong. It would take some thought as to the best way to blazon what Yegorov drew—perhaps "per chevron ecime indented in chief?"—but it’s an arguably more interesting design than the simple "per fess dancetty…"

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2011 18:27
 

Chris,

The Jamieson rendition looks great and is correct.  The ACH rendition while attractive is incorrect.  IMO the ACH should issue you a new certificate with a correct rendition of your blazon (for free).  I am a loyal member of the ACH but they goofed up here and owe you a new certificate and correction in the newsletter.

 

I like your arms by the way.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
23 December 2011 02:33
 

Hello Chris,

Sorry not to have replied sooner but preparations for Christmas got in the away.  In event Ton has kindly posted my arms showing the chevron ecime in the 1st and 4th quarters.

 

All the best for Christmas and 2012.

 

John