My understanding is, if we are wearing our own personal crest then we are allowed to wear a single eagle feather. If we are wearing the clans buckle and strap we do not, as that is the crest of our chief.
harold cannon;92002 wrote:
My understanding is, if we are wearing our own personal crest then we are allowed to wear a single eagle feather. If we are wearing the clans buckle and strap we do not, as that is the crest of our chief.
I have a letter from the late Don Pottinger in which he tells me that I can wear a feather under either badge, mine or my chief’s. See the second paragraph in the below image:
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9158/jidpottinger1981.jpg
Then again ... do what YOUR chief requires!
Cheers,
—Guy
Thank you Guy!
I must be mistaken then. It wouldn’t be the first time though! LOL!!!
May we please see a copy of the notes on wearing a clansmen’s crest badge that is spoken of in the letter?
harold cannon;92015 wrote:
...
May we please see a copy of the notes on wearing a clansmen’s crest badge that is spoken of in the letter?...
There was no internet back then [Al Gore hadn’t yet invented it ;D] or Google, so he sent a hardcopy. The same information is available at Lyon Court’s website.
Cheers,
—Guy
eploy;91999 wrote:
I understand that Scottish gentlemen (i.e., armigers) are also entired to wear 1 eagle feather on their bonnet under their clan badge, and that Chieftains are entitled to 2 eagle feathers, and that Chiefs are entitled to 3 eagle feathers. I guess your private Spanish certification now entitles you to wear 1 feather on your bonnet, correct? Congratulations! :D
I might point out, however, that only Native Americans who are enrolled in federally recognized tribes can possess eagle feathers or parts in the United States.
It may be worth pointing out that the present Lord Lyon declines to give a view on this subject, apparently based on the premise that the regulation of their use is solely the business of the wildlife protection authorities and not a matter for heralds. I think David Pope and I were sitting at the same table at a dinner a while back at which Mr. Sellar resolutely refused to take this particular bait.
There is always the option of hand painted imitation golden eagle feathers. There are a few companies that make them so realistic that they have fooled U.S. fish and wildlife officers.
Hate to be a Johnny-come-lately, but I’d be extremely interested in the PDF describing the process for registering arms with Castille-Leon, if someone has it.
Or better yet, with a similar Aragonese representative since that’s where we’re from.
I’m only vaguely interested in the legalities of it, it’s more about an emotional connection to distant ancestors for me.
Joseph McMillan;92052 wrote:
It may be worth pointing out that the present Lord Lyon declines to give a view on this subject, apparently based on the premise that the regulation of their use is solely the business of the wildlife protection authorities and not a matter for heralds. I think David Pope and I were sitting at the same table at a dinner a while back at which Mr. Sellar resolutely refused to take this particular bait.
That sounds right. As I remember, Lyon was unwilling to opine on several contentious issues that night…:)
Mark Olivo;92687 wrote:
Or better yet, with a similar Aragonese representative since that’s where we’re from.
Alas, there is no such officer or office in Aragon.
harold cannon;91972 wrote:
I just got word that my arms are now recognised by the clan. Below is the email.
Dear Harold,
The Cronista de Armas de Castile y Leon, acting with the authority of the government of Castile and Leon in Spain, has lawful authority to grant and record arms within the Kingdom of Spain,
So great. On the one hand we have the Consejo de Estado (Council of State) saying explicitly that the Cronista de Armas de Castilla y Leon does not have any authority over personal arms and Scott MacMillan saying that he does. I’m betting the Council of State knows a bit more about Spanish law than Scott does.
What a travesty.
Michael Y. Medvedev;92848 wrote:
Alas, there is no such officer or office in Aragon.
Nor, with respect to personal heraldry, in Castile and Leon, either. Or anywhere else in Spain.
Joseph McMillan;92849 wrote:
I’m betting the Council of State knows a bit more about Spanish law than Scott does.
Well, excuse me for being that boring, but it is still not about the Consejo and Scott; it is about the Consejo and the Junta, who both are expected to be versed in the matter. And, after all, the Junta’s relevant acts remain formally unabolished. The rest has been already discussed. - No, I do not advise anyone to invest in the C&L affaire which appeared ill-supported both legally and politically. But my irritation as to what I believe to be the Council’s bias still makes me writing this 
... As to preferring a State declaration to a private opinion, it is reasonable but still has its risks, has not it.
Michael Y. Medvedev;92864 wrote:
Well, excuse me for being that boring, but it is still not about the Consejo and Scott; it is about the Consejo and the Junta, who both are expected to be versed in the matter. And, after all, the Junta’s relevant acts remain formally unabolished. The rest has been already discussed. - No, I do not advise anyone to invest in the C&L affaire which appeared ill-supported both legally and politically. But my irritation as to what I believe to be the Council’s bias still makes me writing this
... As to preferring a State declaration to a private opinion, it is reasonable but still has its risks, has not it.
Certainly. And if the private opinion came from a distinterested person (i.e., not La Floresta himself) learned in the law of Spain, then perhaps my view would be altered.
As for the act of the Junta: in the United States, there are all sorts of laws still formally on the books that various courts have ruled invalid for constitutional reasons. It is not necessary for these statutes to be formally repealed for them to be without force. The act of the Junta of C&L granting a power that it was not within the authority of the Junta to grant should be viewed in the same way—as without force.
Still, if it satisfies SM, then one can (tongue firmly in chief) join the clan parade. Legally here (US) it makes no difference (or in science-speak, the delta = zero)
