Caledonian;89142 wrote:

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).

Anyone with an open mind.  I see.  Then allow me to rephrase my question (which, by the way, you never got around to answering):  Does anyone else with an open mind, besides yourself, consider the wording of the Act of 1672 ambiguous?

I also note that, beginning with post #6 and continuing to the current post, you have managed to change the subject of this thread from Lord Lyon and the Clan System to "I don’t think Lord Lyon should be allowed to collect fees, prosecute people, or do anything contrary to what I think he should be allowed to do."  I suggest either resume the original thread or end this.

With a sufficiently open mind, one might interpret the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution into protecting the right to bear heraldic arms rather than firearms. As one of my professors in graduate school put it, an open mind is a virtue as long as it’s only open at one end.

There are only two sides to every question until you find the answer. Then there’s just one side.

WBHenry;89150 wrote:

Anyone with an open mind.  I see.  Then allow me to rephrase my question (which, by the way, you never got around to answering):  Does anyone else with an open mind, besides yourself, consider the wording of the Act of 1672 ambiguous?

I also note that, beginning with post #6 and continuing to the current post, you have managed to change the subject of this thread from Lord Lyon and the Clan System to "I don’t think Lord Lyon should be allowed to collect fees, prosecute people, or do anything contrary to what I think he should be allowed to do."  I suggest either resume the original thread or end this.

I cannot answer for anyone other than myself, as to whether or not they agree with what I consider to be a just interpretation of the 1672 Act; that is for others to say themselves as they see fit.

It is clear however from the wording of the Acts of 1587 and 1592 that there were problems with heralds and officers of Lyon Court abusing the people, so that Acts against such abuse by the said heralds and officers of Lyon Court were passed:

Quote:

The Officers of Arms Act of 1587

Act for reformation of the extraordinary number and manifold abuses of officers of Arms (1587 cap. 46)

Our Sovereign Lord and their estates of Parliament Considering how of late years there is entered in the office of arms sundry extraordinary masseris and pursuivants and a very great number of messengers through importune suit of diverse parties in such a confused and uncertain manner that it is become doubtful who are admitted and how and who deprived or not or whether their cautioners be living or departed this life And seeing their was always in times of best government a certain number of officers of arms it is therefore thought expedient statute and ordained That in time coming their shall be only two hundred persons wearing and bearing our sovereign lord’s arms in the whole bounds of the realm of Scotland In which number Lyon king of arms and his brothers the ordinary heralds masseris and pursuivants shall be comprehended being in number XVII persons and the remaining to be divided amongst the remnant sheriffdoms of the realm

Quote:

The Lyon King of Arms Act of 1592

Act concerning the office of Lyon king of arms and his brother heralds (1592 cap. 127)

(3) ITEM In consideration of the great abuse of messengers and officers of arms within this realm which is for the most part are not qualified for using of the said office Being admitted by extraordinary and Inopportune suites By which abuse the lieges of this realm are heavily troubled and oppressed Therefore It is statute and ordained that the said king of arms be advised of the lords of counsel and session deprive and discharge all such officers and messengers of arms as he shall find unworthy of the office and take sicker souirtie of the remnant for their observation of their Injunctions in time coming With power to the said king of arms with advise of the said lords to enjoin further necessary Injunctions to the said messengers for keeping of good order in their offices ...

Furthermore it is clear from the wording of the 1672 Act that the purpose of it was to ensure that the rightful owners of coats of arms were protected from having their arms wrongfully usurped by others. It was not passed to create a racketeering scheme whereby the bearers of arms unique to themselves would be subject to extortion for the purpose of collecting considerable fees for recording their arms in Lyon Register, or disallowing them from bearing the said arms if they did not register them.

Joseph McMillan;89154 wrote:

With a sufficiently open mind, one might interpret the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution into protecting the right to bear heraldic arms rather than firearms. As one of my professors in graduate school put it, an open mind is a virtue as long as it’s only open at one end.

There are only two sides to every question until you find the answer. Then there’s just one side.

So you personally favor the 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?

Not the 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?

Caledonian;89156 wrote:

So you personally favor the 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?

Not the 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?

My preferences have nothing to do with it.  I have said before that heraldic regulation is an artifact of the absolutist era of the Tudors and Stuarts, which is a fact.

But it’s also a fact that there is a statute on the books in Scotland that deals with this, and that its plain language meaning tracks perfectly with the way it is interpreted.

There are all kinds of things that other countries regulate by law that I would oppose regulating here in the United States.  I wouldn’t regulate the private display of religious belief in public schools, as the French do.  That doesn’t empower me to reinterpret French law to say what it doesn’t say.  And in any case, it’s not up to me; it’s up to the French.

Same same with armorial law in Scotland.

Joseph McMillan;89160 wrote:

My preferences have nothing to do with it.  I have said before that heraldic regulation is an artifact of the absolutist era of the Tudors and Stuarts, which is a fact.

But it’s also a fact that there is a statute on the books in Scotland that deals with this, and that its plain language meaning tracks perfectly with the way it is interpreted.

 

There are all kinds of things that other countries regulate by law that I would oppose regulating here in the United States.  I wouldn’t regulate the private display of religious belief in public schools, as the French do.  That doesn’t empower me to reinterpret French law to say what it doesn’t say.  And in any case, it’s not up to me; it’s up to the French.

 

Same same with armorial law in Scotland.

I suppose that it simply boils down to a conflict in interpretation between the Anglo-Norman desire to impose restrictions and privileges vs. the Celtic/Gaelic insistence on freedom and liberties.

Caledonian;89161 wrote:

I suppose that it simply boils down to a conflict in interpretation between the Anglo-Norman desire to impose restrictions and privileges vs. the Celtic/Gaelic insistence on freedom and liberties.

Sho’ now.

Joseph McMillan;89165 wrote:

Sho’ now.

Indeed.

Michael F. McCartney;89030 wrote:

...I have my own views on the subject, largely but not 100% overlapping Joe’s; but in this present context—i.e. the AHS—IMO the main point is that "it ain’t us."...

sorry to chop up your post Mike, hope you take no offense.

but, in this case i’m not in 100% agrement. unless i’m mistaken—and i could be—there is, or at least was in the 1980s, an American citizen who was recognized as a valid clan chief. i think he was a Macintosh or something. but, the kicker is that he is also a chief of a native american indian tribe, which, unless i’m mistaken, also has some level of autonomous rule (Joe or smarter american/indian relations will have to clarify this). i remember reading this in a book on scottish clans and their heraldry. they even had a pic of him in both a kilt and a native american chief’s head dress.

so, in this case, at least, the idea of a scottish clan, or at least it’s chief, and its/his heraldry is in fact American so it is "us".

i also know that the legitimate claimant for the irish chiefship of Maguire is an American and prior to the MacCarthy Mor debacle his recognition was on path. now that Norry/Ulster King of Arms has recognized the legitimate MacCarthy Mor (an English citizen) i’ve heard that the American McGuire is seeking his recognition and grant of arms, which would also mean that as a chief of an Irish Name/Clan (not exactly the same, but…) his arms would also be "us" as he’s American.

so, while i generally agree with your statement, there are, as with most things in life, exceptions to this rule such as it is.

Donnchadh;89355 wrote:

. . .there is, or at least was in the 1980s, an American citizen who was recognized as a valid clan chief. i think he was a Macintosh or something. but, the kicker is that he is also a chief of a native american indian tribe . . .

Interesting. Perhaps you’re referring to a descendant of Lachlan Macintosh—a fascinating character in early Georgia history.

Donnchadh;89355 wrote:

sunless i’m mistaken—and i could be—there is, or at least was in the 1980s, an American citizen who was recognized as a valid clan chief. i think he was a Macintosh or something. but, the kicker is that he is also a chief of a native american indian tribe, which, unless i’m mistaken, also has some level of autonomous rule (Joe or smarter american/indian relations will have to clarify this). i remember reading this in a book on scottish clans and their heraldry. they even had a pic of him in both a kilt and a native american chief’s head dress.

The gentleman in question was Waldo McIntosh, who was the chief of some lineage of the Creek Nation and may well have been a descendant of the Lachlan McIntosh mentioned by Fred.  But he wasn’t recognized as the chief of any branch of Clan Mackintosh; the picture Denny’s talking about is in Sir Iain Moncreiffe’s The Highland Clans, and it shows Chief Waldo standing alongside The Mackintosh, the point being that these were two M[a]c[k]intosh chiefs, one Highland Scottish and one American Indian.

There have been and I assume still are American citizens who are the hereditary chiefs of real Highland clans—insofar as any clan has been "real" since the clan system was suppressed in the 18th century—and who bear the undifferenced arms of the name as approved by Lord Lyon.  But, as Mike McCartney points out, the question of chiefship is a Scottish matter, not an American one, even if the chief involved is an American citizen.

Joseph McMillan;89362 wrote:

The gentleman in question was Waldo McIntosh, who was the chief of some lineage of the Creek Nation and may well have been a descendant of the Lachlan McIntosh mentioned by Fred.  But he wasn’t recognized as the chief of any branch of Clan Mackintosh; the picture Denny’s talking about is in Sir Iain Moncreiffe’s The Highland Clans, and it shows Chief Waldo standing alongside The Mackintosh, the point being that these were two M[a]c[k]intosh chiefs, one Highland Scottish and one American Indian.

There have been and I assume still are American citizens who are the hereditary chiefs of real Highland clans—insofar as any clan has been "real" since the clan system was suppressed in the 18th century—and who bear the undifferenced arms of the name as approved by Lord Lyon.  But, as Mike McCartney points out, the question of chiefship is a Scottish matter, not an American one, even if the chief involved is an American citizen.

thanks for clarification.

perhaps i misunderstand the points then. let me say what i think was bieng said and my take and correct me where wrong.

it’s my understanding that the heraldry of a cheif granted by LL is for him and his descendants as cheif of his clan/name. so, while the chiefship isn’t an issue for us, wouldn’t the arms that are tied to that cheif be, if he is an American?

follow up…if the American were one of those chiefs who also held (and whose family didn’t sell off) one of those baronies and whose arms from LL were depicted with baronial cap (unlike new ones), wouldn’t that be appropriate in an American herladic context as it isn’t a coronet or noble title, but rather something different? so, if for make believe example, American ‘John MacDoe’ was confirmed as chief of MacDoe and Baron of MacDoeland and his arms depicted that couldn’t he reasonably display them with that cap and cape and whatever as it wasn’t a coronet of noble rank? not that this is real, but i wonder if someday that happened and that man came here if we would tell him, ‘hey no hat here’ like we do coronets of rank, as i don’t think those baronies carry with them any rank. perhaps i’m wrong.

It’s my understanding that Scottish Baronies are indeed regarded as titles of nobility, although certainly below that of any rank in the peerage.  I think the general idea is that they are roughly comparable to a continental European Baron.  Although the Lord Lyon no longer allows the baronial cap he does allow the helmet of a Baron, thus supporting the position that a feudal Scottish Baron is a nobleman.

Donnchadh;89371 wrote:

thanks for clarification.

follow up…if the American were one of those chiefs who also held (and whose family didn’t sell off) one of those baronies and whose arms from LL were depicted with baronial cap (unlike new ones), wouldn’t that be appropriate in an American herladic context as it isn’t a coronet or noble title, but rather something different? so, if for make believe example, American ‘John MacDoe’ was confirmed as chief of MacDoe and Baron of MacDoeland and his arms depicted that couldn’t he reasonably display them with that cap and cape and whatever as it wasn’t a coronet of noble rank? not that this is real, but i wonder if someday that happened and that man came here if we would tell him, ‘hey no hat here’ like we do coronets of rank, as i don’t think those baronies carry with them any rank. perhaps i’m wrong.

Donnchadh;89371 wrote:

thanks for clarification.

perhaps i misunderstand the points then. let me say what i think was bieng said and my take and correct me where wrong.

 

it’s my understanding that the heraldry of a cheif granted by LL is for him and his descendants as cheif of his clan/name. so, while the chiefship isn’t an issue for us, wouldn’t the arms that are tied to that cheif be, if he is an American?

 

follow up…if the American were one of those chiefs who also held (and whose family didn’t sell off) one of those baronies and whose arms from LL were depicted with baronial cap (unlike new ones), wouldn’t that be appropriate in an American herladic context as it isn’t a coronet or noble title, but rather something different? so, if for make believe example, American ‘John MacDoe’ was confirmed as chief of MacDoe and Baron of MacDoeland and his arms depicted that couldn’t he reasonably display them with that cap and cape and whatever as it wasn’t a coronet of noble rank? not that this is real, but i wonder if someday that happened and that man came here if we would tell him, ‘hey no hat here’ like we do coronets of rank, as i don’t think those baronies carry with them any rank. perhaps i’m wrong.

The same guideline would apply since he’s a US citizen. His Scottish nobility and his arms with all the accoutrements of being a Clan Chief & Baron would have absolutely no meaning in a US context.

His shield could remain the same but it would have, I imagine, a split personality. Whenever the arms are presented in a US context, they would be plain. Whenever in a Scottish/UK context, then with all the extra weight. In every other case, use whatever rules/guidelines apply.

cachambers007;89380 wrote:

It’s my understanding that Scottish Baronies are indeed regarded as titles of nobility, although certainly below that of any rank in the peerage. I think the general idea is that they are roughly comparable to a continental European Baron. Although the Lord Lyon no longer allows the baronial cap he does allow the helmet of a Baron, thus supporting the position that a feudal Scottish Baron is a nobleman.

The minor "barons by purchase" certainly propagated this notion over the last 60 years or so, but the language of the Lyon Acts of 1592 and 1672 doesn’t seem to support them.

Act of 1592:  "His Highness [the King] with advice of the said estates has given and granted and by this present act gives and grants full power and commission to Lyon King of Arms and his brother heralds to visit the whole arms of noblemen barons and gentlemen borne and used within this realm."

Act of 1672:  "Power and Commission is granted to the Lyon King of Armes or his Deputes to visit the whole Armes of Noblemen Barons and Gentlemen... charging all and sundry Prelates Noblemen Barons and Gentlemen who make use of any Arms or Signs armorial…  For which shall be paid to the Lyon the sum of twenty marks by every Prelate and Nobleman, and ten marks by every Knight and Baron, and Five marks by every other person bearing Arms… it is only allowed for Noblemen and Bishops to subscribe by their titles and that all others shall subscribe their Christened names or the initial letter therof with their surnames and may if they please adject the designations of their lands prefixing the word Of to the said designations."

The consistent distinction between noblemen and barons (and the listing of barons after knights in the schedule of fees in the 1672 act) indicates that the Scots Parliament did not consider non-peer barons to be noblemen in the 16th and 17th centuries.

It should also be noted that the category "feudal baron" or "minor baron" does not appear anywhere on the royal warrant of precedence for Scotland.