Guys, This is no longer fun. Mr. Akins, I am sorry, but I have yet to see any great contributions re: American Heraldry to offset the really long discussion about Scottish Law, custom, etc… bladda bladda bladda…
As soon as I send this, it’s the IGNORE button for good Mr. Akins!
Caledonian;89111 wrote:
Actually it only forbids those who registered arms in Lyon Register from using any arms other than the coat of arms that Lord Lyon has on record for them to use. In other words, it prevented someone back in 1672 from having one coat of arms recorded in Lyon Register, and then going off and using some other coat of arms than what Lyon had recorded.
That is one seriously convoluted interpretation. I think any reasonable person understands "whosoevir shall use any other Armes" to mean whosoever shall use arms other than those matriculated in the register.
"And it is Statute and Ordained with consent forsaid that the said Register shall be respected as the true and unrepeallable rule of <i>all Armes and Bearings in Scotland… </i>
By what circumlocution do you limit the rest of the paragraph to only those arms which were actually registered?
EDIT: It would appear that Mr. Mansfield beat me to that one.
In Procurator-fiscal of the Lyon Court v. Murray of Touchadam (1776), the Court of Session ruled that Lord Lyon could not impose a fine for the use of arms that were proven to have been in use prior to the establishment of Lyon Register, provided that they were used in good faith, but that he could require that the arms be matriculated in the Register and charge the usual fees for the matriculation. The reasoning did not turn on any doubt as to the applicabilty of the Act of 1672 but on the inability of Lyon to prove that the arms had not been matriculated given gaps in the early records.
This would clearly not cover someone who invented new arms today.
Kenneth Mansfield;89118 wrote:
That is one seriously convoluted interpretation. I think any reasonable person understands "whosoevir shall use any other Armes" to mean whosoever shall use arms other than those matriculated in the register.
Let’s go back to the Act of 1672 and see what it says:
Quote:
"Therefore His Majesty….Doth hereby Statute and Ordain that….all and sundry [Prelates] Noblemen Barons and Gentlemen who make use of any Arms or Signs armorial within the space of one year after the said publication to bring or send an account of what Arms or Signs armorial they are accustomed to use….to be delivered either to….the Lyon Clerk at his office in Edinburgh to the effect that the Lyon King of Arms….may matriculate the same in his Books and Registers…And that whosoever shall use any other Arms any manner of way after the expiring of year and day from the date of the Proclamation to be issued hereupon in manner foresaid shall pay One Hundred pounds money total quantities to the Lyon and shall likewise escheat to his Majesty all the moveable Goods and Gear upon which the said Arms are engraved or otherwise represented."
I think it is clear that this is a stipulation against registered armigers using any arms other than the ones recorded in Lyon register, and is not an injunction against using unrecorded arms assumed after the registration period.
Joseph McMillan;89124 wrote:
In Procurator-fiscal of the Lyon Court v. Murray of Touchadam (1776), the Court of Session ruled that Lord Lyon could not impose a fine for the use of arms that were proven to have been in use prior to the establishment of Lyon Register, provided that they were used in good faith, but that he could require that the arms be matriculated in the Register and charge the usual fees for the matriculation. The reasoning did not turn on any doubt as to the applicabilty of the Act of 1672 but on the inability of Lyon to prove that the arms had not been matriculated given gaps in the early records.
This would clearly not cover someone who invented new arms today.
Since the registration period was for only a "year and a day" after the publication of the Act, one would have to effect time-travel in order for someone living today to comply with the Act in respect to arms not recorded at that time. Furthermore, the Act of 1672 does not seem to make any provisions for future registrations after the close of the "year and a day" registration period.
Ok…so now I am confused. You have an interpreted the Scottish Laws concerning Arms to a way that you like them. You seem to be the only one that reads the Acts that way…but that is neither here nor there.
What is the purpose of your argument?
Well English is not my first language but when I read this 1672 bit it is clear to me that this is a point in time where new rules are implemented and anyone who does something contrary to the rule because the rule was not yet in force when they started to do it gets one year to make it right. And it is further clear to me that the rule is from the proclamation point in effect and that there are no exceptions for those who do the wrong thing after the proclamation date.
Terry;89128 wrote:
Ok…so now I am confused. You have an interpreted the Scottish Laws concerning Arms to a way that you like them. You seem to be the only one that reads the Acts that way…but that is neither here nor there.
What is the purpose of your argument?
The purpose of my argument it to show that the wording of the 1672 Lord Lyon Act is clearly ambiguous and open to interpretations other than the one which the procurator fiscal of the Lyon Court appears to use as justification for harassment, extortion, and threatening with prosecution anyone making use of arms in Scotland that are not recorded in Lyon Register
I find your selection of terms quite interesting: coercion, intimidation, harrasment, extortion, threats, censorship, etc. Could it be that the procurator fiscal is simply enforcing a law that is currently on the books in Scotland? The good people of Scotland do not appear to have a problem with traditional understanding of what the law says. Why do you, here in the United States?
WBHenry;89134 wrote:
I find your selection of terms quite interesting: coercion, intimidation, harrasment, extortion, threats, censorship, etc. Could it be that the procurator fiscal is simply enforcing a law that is currently on the books in Scotland? The good people of Scotland do not appear to have a problem with traditional understanding of what the law says. Why do you, here in the United States?
Perhaps it stems from my Ulster-Scots background; I am, after all, a descendant of numerous ancestors who openly defied the British rule of law by engaging in rebellion against the Crown during the Revolutionary War.
I believe the procurator fiscal is taking advantage of the ambiguity in the wording of the Act of 1672 as a justification for extortion.
Does anyone else, besides yourself, consider the wording of the Act of 1672 ambiguous? And by "extortion," I assume you mean the legally established fees set by Lord Lyon for registering arms for people who are entitled to them? Or the legal penalties for ignoring the law?
WBHenry;89137 wrote:
Does anyone else, besides yourself, consider the wording of the Act of 1672 ambiguous? And by "extortion," I assume you mean the legally established fees set by Lord Lyon for registering arms for people who are entitled to them? Or the legal penalties for ignoring the law?
Anyone with an open mind would consider the wording of the 1672 Act ambiguous because it is obviously open to different interpretations. The interpretation that Lyon Court and the procurator fiscal choose to follow allows them to bully people into paying considerable sums of money to the Court of the Lord Lyon for recording their arms in Lyon Register under threat of prosecution if they use said arms without doing so. To me that is extortion, even if it is sanctioned by the Crown (which makes it worse, since people ordinarily have legal recourse when threatened by racketeers, gangsters and other criminals; something they don’t have when threatened by their own governments).
Caledonian;89127 wrote:
Since the registration period was for only a "year and a day" after the publication of the Act, one would have to effect time-travel in order for someone living today to comply with the Act in respect to arms not recorded at that time. Furthermore, the Act of 1672 does not seem to make any provisions for future registrations after the close of the "year and a day" registration period.
Of course it does. That’s the law that authorizes Lyon to grant new arms to virtuous and well-deserving people. The law is that you can use arms that are matriculated in the register. If you are a junior heir to arms in the register, you can matriculate them with due differences. If you discover old arms to which you would be entitled that pre-date the register, you can have those matriculated and use them. Otherwise, you can apply for a grant and allow Lyon to decide whether you are V & WD.
Any other use of armorial bearings in Scotland is illegal. It’s all quite clear.
Joseph McMillan;89143 wrote:
Of course it does. That’s the law that authorizes Lyon to grant new arms to virtuous and well-deserving people. The law is that you can use arms that are matriculated in the register. If you are a junior heir to arms in the register, you can matriculate them with due differences. If you discover old arms to which you would be entitled that pre-date the register, you can have those matriculated and use them. Otherwise, you can apply for a grant and allow Lyon to decide whether you are V & WD.
Any other use of armorial bearings in Scotland is illegal. It’s all quite clear.
I disagree. As I stated in another thread, there are two possible interpretations of the 1672 Act:
On the one hand you have an interpretation that affords the procurator fiscal the ability to threaten people with prosecution if they bear arms without paying a considerable fee to Lyon Court to register them.
On the other hand you have a very different interpretation that would only allow the procurator fiscal to prosecute people in Lyon Court if they bear someone else’s arms, and would not require people to register arms, but would allow them the option of doing so if they wish to protect their arms through Lyon Court from wrongful usurption by others.
The first interpretation smacks of racketeering, extortion and governmental corruption. The second interpretation is one which respects and protects an individual’s rights without making undue demands of them or restricting their natural freedoms.