The Heraldry Society of Scotland

Navigation: Main Page » Computer / Recreational / Science / Society / Television

Recreational Groups Forum Index » Heraldry » The Heraldry Society of Scotland

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Author

Message

Greg

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:17 am

Guest

I'd like to introduce you all #4 in the series of articles at The
Luminary Press.com http://theluminarypress.blogspot.com/

This one features The Heraldry Society of Scotland in what can only be
described as a situation that some wish had never developed and is
still with them today.

All photos and other graphics can be viewed at the blog. Ths
information is all traceable through provided documents and online.

**********************************************

The Heraldry Society of Scotland

The society was founded in 1977 with an eye toward a scholarly study
group for Scottish heraldry. Enthusiasts from anywhere were
encouraged to join. This organization followed the American College
of Heraldry in 1972. The "heraldic community", being of those
enthusiasts only has always been small relative to other fields as
heraldry is a very arcane subject with different rules applying to any
country that recognizes it: the United States not being among them.
With the advent of the internet and due to a very interesting case of
fraud, the tone at the Heraldry Society of Scotland became decidedly
ugly.

In 1999, Irish journalist Sean Murphy uncovered a very interesting
case of a fraudulent claim, made by one Terrance MacCarthy who had
submitted a false genealogical pedigree. His claim was presented to
the Chief Herald of Ireland who indeed granted MacCarthy the title of
the MacCarthy Mor (the great), Prince of Desmond. Wherewith MacCarthy
formulated another fraud in the organization he called Niadh Nask:
http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/niadhnask.htm

Other experts rendered opinions on the Niadh Nask as well:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/niadh.htm

The controversy became so big that it made Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niadh_Nask

You can read here about alleged "ancient Niadh Nask artwork"
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/exlibris/1997/09/msg00221.html

You can read Sean's Article on Terrance MacCarthy here
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm

Now, to most, this Terrance MaCarthy episode will not seem to be such
a big deal, although it did involve some rather big names. The
American College of Heraldry and its publisher Gryfon Press were taken
by this as well. It was a very big and embarrassing situation for
many around the world. Not the least of which were members of The
Herladry Society of Scotland. The timing for all of this could not
have been worse for the society. A number of is membership had paid
up to $5,000 for "a coat of arms" and submitted all manner of material
to the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland who had sanctioned
MaCarthy's fraud. The Chief Herald to this day has no legal authority
to grant arms, so he rather offers "certificates of arms", the same
way that The American College of Heraldry does for a much lower fee
that carries with it an equal amount of inauthenticity.

The Herladry Society of Scotland for its part during this period had
entered into the internet with an old idea that was being resurrected
and modernized: the over the counter purchase of ancient long ago
shelved Scottish baronies. A "barony", a title, came from the old
feudal system of land tenure. Barons owned their land, wherewith they
either petitioned the crown for "erection into a barony", or when a
baron decided: or the decision having been made for him... sold the land
and the property with the stationary title of baron becoming the
heritable property of the new purchaser.

Barons at one time exercised their own court systems and attended
parliament. After centuries of Scottish history, and culminating in
the 19th century, the Baron became a relic of the past and fell into
disuse, though the title of baron still remained. A Scottish baron,
although a legally recognized, was then, as it is today, nothing more
than a purchased vanity title that can sell for upwards of $200,000.

In the 1940s, the then Lord Lyon King of all Arms and Bearings in
Scotland: Sir Thomas Innes of Learny, a terrible romantic, but
otherwise a very good officer of the crown and brilliant writer, took
the title of Baron off its old shelf and made a few decisions, within
his jurisdictional rights, concerning the representations of a Baron's
coat of arms. These decisions in no way effected the non-status of a
baron, but the idea of what was known as additaments were now
available to new barons as well as older surviving long held family
titles. The baron (the lowest in the line) was now on par with peers
of the realm from a descriptive drawing perspective. However in the
year 2000, right on the heels of the MaCarthy Mor hoax. Scotland
decided that feudal tenure - from which the new (rather useless)
barony claimed its pride, should be abolished. This meant of course
that any value left clinging to these titles has effectively been
washed away by statute.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=13&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1683963&ActiveTextDocId=1683966&filesize=8961

A dispute naturally followed: any future or past over the counter
sales of any barony in Scotland was now literally just a piece of
paper. Not unlike a US vanity license plate: you pay for the privilege
of having the government sanction your little message to the world on
a piece of tin and screw it to your car. And for an additional cost,
you can choose from a host of pretty pictures to put on it as well.
So, the buyers of these baronies were now left holding a bag of what?
And what would become of the barony market?

The plot thickens.

A number of members of The Heraldry Society of Scotland were also -
new barons, known as "paper barons". Not only had they purchased a
vanity Barony title, but they each had gotten a real fancy coat of
arms, for another few thousand dollars: just a rich man's toy to be
sure. And, with The Heraldry Society of Scotland's new web site, they
now had a place to display these arms and direct others... potential
society members, who pay up front fees and yearly dues to be members.
However, given the new statute of Abolition of Feudal Tenure, a new
controversy erupted in the society immediately: was the new "paper
baronage" really just - reaching, and were they in danger of being
seen as just another version of MacCarthy Morism? Those who were
still stinging from the MacCarthy Mor scandal did not want any undue
attention drawn to the society that might come back to haunt them.

Thee chief defender of the Scottish baronage and member of The
Heraldry Society of Scotland was and is Brian Gregory Hamilton: BGH as
he sometimes signs himself. He is known in the legal sector as "The
Raider of the Lost Titles". The 'legal sect' refers to his various
difficulties in court over the years for trying to extract money and
evict elderly people for not paying him a surcharge that emanated from
a very antiquated and arcane rule connected to feudalism, for which
Brian Hamilton received non other than a parliamentary censure:

S1M-123# Michael Russell: Lanarkshire Eviction Threat--That the
Parliament condemns the actions of Mr Brian Hamilton, the so called
'Raider of the Lost Titles', whose present attempt to evict Mr and Mrs
Baxter of Auchenheath, Lanarkshire on 23 September, because of a
feudal title which was vulnerable to challenge, typifies the suffering
caused by leasehold casualties and other anomalies of the feudal
system and calls upon the Scottish Ministers to take early action to
prevent yet more misery for ordinary people who are blameless but
often defenceless in the face of such opportunistic use of the archaic
land laws.
Supported by: Tricia Marwick, Alasdair Morgan, Mr Adam Ingram, Robin
Harper, Irene McGugan, Richard Lochhead, Alex Neil, Mr Kenneth Gibson,
Andrew Wilson, Ms Sandra White, Linda Fabiani, Fergus Ewing

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/bb-99/ab-10-14f.htm

And then other meetings advise that Brian G Hamilton is not really a
pillar of the community.

Col 33 Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): Over the past few
years there has been great concern about the activities of people such
as Brian Hamilton, the raider of the lost titles. I am sure that Mr
Wallace will wish to confirm that the proposed bill on the abolition
on feudal tenure will not cover the activities of Mr Hamilton.

Tricia Marwick: It cannot have escaped the minister's attention that a
great number of people in rural as well as urban Scotland are
concerned and affected by the activities of people such as Brian
Hamilton. Will the minister assure the committee that, within the term
of office of this Administration, we will have legislation to tackle
leasehold casualties?

Brian Hamilton has been at this kind of thing for some time:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1996/nov/06/land-ownership-scotland

Brian Hamilton sold the new paper baronies and land superiorites to
members of The Heraldry Society of Scotland and with - new membership
- his group began to heavily influence not only the mission of the
society but all discourse surrounding Scottish Heraldry. One of his
chief defenders, Martin Goldstraw, actually went to court to change
his name to Martin Goldstraw of Whitecairnes (his superiority that he
aquired from Hamilton) in a move to force the Lord Lyon to include
what now only "appeared" to be a Territorial Designation in Lyon's
official grant. Lyon refused. Goldstraw later filed an appeal and
submitted a rather dubious address in Scotland, when he is not only an
English citizen by birth (who's only tie to Scotland is through a
family member), but Goldstraw's primary residence in Shropshire
England.

[ Insert letter ]

This letter was sent to me by Mr. Goldsrtaw's sidekick, John Duncan,
now webmaster of The Heraldry Society of Scotland. Mr. Goldstraw is
one of Mr. Hamilton's chief promoters as well.

In 2003 when Brian Hamilton was compiling his team that would be used
to force the Lord Lyon into the submission of this cabal, Mr. Hamilton
had enough security in the paper baronial political force of The
Herladry Society of Scotland to send this email to the webmaster:

From: Brian Hamilton BGHRockhall@btinternet.com
Date: 31 March 2003 23:32
To: webmaster@heraldry-scotland.co.uk
Subject: The lord Lyon and Feudal Baronies

Dear Web-Master,

I write to you in confidence for some advice. I would like to enter
the
thread on barony titles; I would intend to cover a lot of ground so
my
submission would be quite lengthy. I would also intend to solicit
financial support from the baronage for an action in the Court of
Session against the Lord Lyon. Always supposing my language is
moderate
would you feel obliged to censor such a submission?

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Barry Harden, the "Baron" of Cowdenknows. Was instrumental in
leading the charge of the new barony at The Heraldry Society of
Scotland and who even saw himself as able to "bestow citizenship" on
average people at gatherings. These barons had flags and banners, and
this (class of nobility) formed quite a group: and the quality of a
man they say, is often judged by the company he keeps. Note the
inclusion of Mr. Rommily Squire, then Committee Chairman of The
Heraldry Society of Scotland, who boasted 'his work as a heraldic
artist' in Lyon's court, but who in fact hadn't done anything of the
kind in some fifteen years. These picture appeared on Barry Harden's
"Baron of Cowdenknows" web site and where suddenly removed when it was
coming clear what these pictures really say about the Heraldry Society
of Scotland.

[insert pictures with captions]

At the height of this insurrection some of the most enlightening and
intelligent discussion was taking place on The Heraldry Society of
Scotland web forum, that continues to this very day:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AiphuPycByNsJ%3Anewsgroups.derkeiler.com%2Fpdf%2FArchive%2FRec%2Frec.heraldry%2F2007-04%2Fmsg00287.pdf+anthony+maxwell+brian+hamilton&hl=en&gl=us

2007 rec.heraldry.com, Anthony Maxwell (former society webmaster) and
Brian Hamilton have an exchange with respect to the Baronage as a
subject of forum discussion, note the use by Brian Hamilton of society
governance influence.

On Apr 16, 10:12 am, "Brian G. Hamilton."
bghrockh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

"Just so there is no ambiguity and that everyone understands
what I am saying. Mr. Maxwell you are a liar (you already have my
lawyers contact details). It was your refusal to carry out the
instructions given to you by the HSS committee that was the reseaon
you
were removed as the Society's web-master. It was your personal
censorship of the Forum that divided the membership. Your continued
attempts to bring the Society, and in particular the Society's web
-master,
into dis-repute is noted by all.
Twice you closed the Forum down in an attempt to stop me
bringing to the attention of the membership your authoritarian
conduct. I
am pleased to have played my part in your downfall."

Anthony Maxwell wrote:

"I and every member of the then HSS committee knows full well that
they
subscribed to the censorship of certain topics on the old HSS forum
and it is noted in the Minutes of the Committee meetings on several
occasions. The fact that the topics not allowed on the forum covered
your seedy business Mr Hamilton was deliberate as the topic caused
several people, lead not surprisingly by yourself, to attack the
office of the Lord Lyon and Lord Lyon Robin Blair personally. It was
these attacks and yours in particular which brought the HSS into
disrepute. This all happened in the summer of 2002, which was two full
years before my removal from the position of HSS webmaster from which,
of course, the HSS claim I had 'tendered my resignation' which I
myself dispute.
In the unlikely event of your being elected to the HSS Committee, you
will I am sure, be able to take the Minutes of the HSS Committee home
with you and read and confirm what I am saying is the truth.
I twice closed down the HSS forum in 2002 because you 'spammed' the
forum constantly with your attacks on the Lord Lyon which was nothing
to do with my conduct but everything to do with the way you behaved! I
then had to introduce registration to keep you off the forum so the
true heraldic enthusiasts could enjoy their debates without your
malicious posts. As always Mr Hamilton, you twist the truth to suit
you ever more desperate needs.
Calling me a liar Mr Hamilton, I know is just another one of your
disreputable practices. I won't drawn, thank you. I will not add
further to this thread which was started merely to inform the HSS
members that their bulletin board was down and has now been hijacked
by Mr Hamilton to insult and offend. The nature of the man is plain
for all to see.

Anthony Maxwell"

Anthony Maxwell suffered a great deal of abuse form these people and
fought to keep the society out of the barony business.

In that exchange, along with all of the evidence put into this
article, it is very clear that there is no doubt that a conspiracy has
been taking place to wrest control of The Heraldry Society of Scotland
from a fair and impartial study group of heraldic enthusiasts into a
rather convoluted and very self-centered gathering place that is only
interested in its members self-promotion. Members of this group still
occupy positions of authority and The Heraldry Society of Scotland's
own web forum now includes a section on "The Scottish Baronage", where
one should be forewarned, only gentile encouragement is allowed.

Martin Goldstraw for his part appealed Lord Lyon's decision to the
higher Court of Sessions, an opinion drawn by Lord Uist, in which he
ruled, using the laws of The International Human Rights Commission and
the 'respect for a person's name' to rule in favor of Goldstraw
forcing Lord Lyon to use Martin Goldstraw's new legal name of Martin
Goldstraw of Whitecairnes on any document produced by Lyon's court.
This new legal precedent effectively says that, if any person
possesses an intentionally unusual name, say, "Box of Corn Flakes Lord
of all he Surveys", The Lord Lyon King of all Arms and Bearings in
Scotland is now bound by the ruling to use that name in a grant of
arms or other significant document and enter it as such in registers
that come from a century's old tradition.

It seems then that Terrance MacCarthy's example didn't fall far from
the tree. The Herladry Society of Scotland, to this day, has not
(publicly) acknowledged any wrong doing on their part for allowing
this. Nor have they or any member of its governing board offered an
apology to those people who were hurt and embarrassed by this
clandestine group operating so insidiously under an umbrella held up
by otherwise good people and the using of The Heraldry Society of
Scotland's name in their design.

Only one thing applies to The Herladry Society of Scotland my friend:
"caveat emptor".

ArtyO

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:59 am

Guest

Interesting blog article Greg...more interested though in what others
have to say about it :)

Ever Yours;

Captain Chledowski

StephenP

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:43 am

Guest

On 10 July, 01:59, ArtyO <chledow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Interesting blog article Greg...more interested though in what others
have to say about it :)

Ever Yours;

Captain Chledowski

I have to admit I do not have the energy to wade through the whole
"article", there are only so many times I can read "Herladry" before I
switch off.

I think it is fair to say that Greg has "issues" with a few
individuals and that he sees his blog as a means to put forward his
conspiracy theories & his fixation on Scottish feudal baronies. It
will interesting to see if he permits any contradictory comments to be
posted on his blog.

There may also be a copyright issue with some of the photographs.

Yours aye

Stephen

aetonyevans@googlemail.co

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:07 am

Guest

On Jul 10, 1:17 am, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

This article demonstrates two things: (1) Greg has issues with a few
individuals; and (2) because one or two of these individuals are
involved with Scots baronies, he also has issues with them. It might
be easier if he just came out with it and said 'I do not like X person
because...', but instead we get a confused treatise.

For what it is worth, I believe the following can be said in response:
(1) Greg is confusing issues. The MacCarthy Mor hoax was a claim to
an ancient Irish title which was patently false and based on a
manipulated pedigree. This has no connection whatsoever with Scots
baronies, which are genuine dignities created by the Crown.
(2) Greg claims that a Scots barony is nothing more than a vanity
title. It also happens to be an important part of Scottish history,
which a number of people have preserved, including the lawyers who
wrote the Abolition of Feudal Tenure, etc (Scotland) Act 2000. A
number of academics cite the significance of baronies in Scotland's
social history.
(3) Greg claims that Scots baronies claim their pride from feudal
tenure. Scots baronies actually claim their pride from the fact they
were created by the Crown; a historical fact that cannot be altered.
(4) Greg talks about “the non-status of a baron”. The baron has a
status, or precedence, preserved by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure,
etc (Scotland) Act 2000 and documented in authoritative Scots legal
texts, such as the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, and the Lyon Court
Book of Precedence.
(5) Greg claims “any value left clinging to these titles has
effectively been washed away by statute”. What he says here is
dishonest as it contradicts statute. The Abolition of Feudal Tenure,
etc (Scotland) Act 2000 clearly states ‘“dignity” includes any quality
or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental
to, a dignity’ (Section 63(4)). While it has been held that the only
heraldic privileges incidental to the dignity of baron are a baronial
helm and flags of certain proportions, the precedence of Scots barons
is clearly documented in authoritative legal texts and is preserved.
(6) Barons are not known as paper barons, but as Barons. Does the
Crown recognize them as 'Paper Baron of X'? No. I am aware of people
Greg calls paper barons owning significant or important landholdings
in Scotland, such as castles, so a piece of paper is not all they
own. Similarly it is incorrect for Greg to put the word Baron in
speech marks when referring to, for example, the Baron of
Cowdenknowes. The Baron of Cowdenknowes, like other Scots barons, is
a Baron and his status in genuine. Greg only brings himself down to a
shameful level by treating a Crown dignity in this way by questioning
it. Presumably the Baron of Cowdenknowes has been recognized by the
Lord Lyon as a Baron, so he is a Baron. If Lord Lyon does not need to
use speech marks, neither does Greg or any other respectable
individual or gentleman.
(7) The HSS did not bring itself into disrepute by criticising Lord
Lyon Blair. Lord Lyon Blair brought himself into disrepute by
attempting to ignore the intentions and effects of an Act of the
Scottish Parliament to suit his own personal agenda. The Abolition of
Feudal Tenure, etc (Scotland) Act 2000 specifically preserved barony
titles and provided for their transfer, but the Lord Lyon Blair tried
to ignore this. This was dishonest of a judge and it was only
appropriate that he retired early. Such actions put the monarchy in
danger, as they go against the foundations of our constitutional
monarchy, which accepts that the monarch is the figurehead but that
the parliamentary legislature holds political and legal power. Lord
Lyon Blair acted contrary to that principle. He may well have been
honourable in respect of how he carried out his office otherwise, but
on this one issue he was misguided to act contrary to the will of the
law. Much of the criticism that has ensued has followed directly from
his actions and embarassing court cases would have been avoided had he
not acted in this way. This is all just personal opinion, but I do
not think that the Lord Lyon can hide behind his office in the modern
day. Just as Mr Brian Hamilton must face the music for his actions in
respect of feudal land tenure, so should Lyon Blair for his judicial
decisions. In effect, Lord Lyon Blair was overturned by the
compromise agreement, which shows that he got the law wrong. And
getting the law wrong means that your decisions will be overturned and
that people will criticize your legal decisions.

It is the Crown Charters that provide for the transfer of baronies and
state that the said grants cannot be revoked.

aetonyevans@googlemail.co

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:23 am

Guest

It may well be that in his own mind the Lord Lyon Blair thought he was
making the only legal decision he could legitimately. In this sense
he can only be criticized for a lack of imagination rather than any
dishonest intention, but he has been quoted in the press using
discriminatory language about barons, which does not suggest
impartiality. I apologize if the situation is other than I interpret
it, but it does seem inevitable that anyone acting against the will of
the law, especially a law that causes no one any additional harm, will
face criticism.

Greg

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:02 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 00:43, StephenP <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:

Quote:

On 10 July, 01:59, ArtyO <chledow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting blog article Greg...more interested though in what others
have to say about it :)

Ever Yours;

Captain Chledowski

I have to admit I do not have the energy to wade through the whole
"article", there are only so many times I can read "Herladry" before I
switch off.

I think it is fair to say that Greg has "issues" with a few
individuals and that he sees his blog as a means to put forward his
conspiracy theories & his fixation on Scottish feudal baronies. It
will interesting to see if he permits any contradictory comments to be
posted on his blog.

There may also be a copyright issue with some of the photographs.

Yours aye

Stephen

I guess then Stephen Plowman that you have the same issues as most of
us. Here's what you said on the subject in this forum, which would
make you one of my supporters.

****************************************************

Stephen Plowman posted on rec.heraldry: On 8 Feb, 18:36,
JSF <fergu...@look.ca> wrote:

Quote:

So … let’s put forward the proposition: That the very material
difference between the value of an average (perfect) Scots barony and
an average (perfect) English manor is based primarily on heraldic
recognition, not legal rights, attaching to the property.
Regards, Scott

It would appear to be a sad fact that vanity has played a significant
part in the attraction of the Scottish Feudal barony. The right to
Scottish Arms with chapeau, mantle and, perhaps, a Territorial
Designation being the focus of attention.

***********************************************************

What I did was put together an acurate chronology of (the sad fact) so
that people can see how The Heraldry Society of Scotland was engaged
in duplicitious support of the sham. BY not putting a stop to it from
the beginning and allowing these people to become part of the
governing body of the society, they did then encoueage their
behavior.

Your lack of knowledge with respect to copyright is funny.

Perhaps you might want to read rather than criticize. I don't think
you'll find a misspelling in the published article - which you didn't
read obviously.

StephenP

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:04 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 01:17, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

The Herladry Society of Scotland for its part during this period had
entered into the internet with an old idea that was being resurrected
and modernized: the over the counter purchase of ancient long ago
shelved Scottish baronies. A "barony", a title, came from the old
feudal system of land tenure. Barons owned their land, wherewith they
either petitioned the crown for "erection into a barony", or when a
baron decided: or the decision having been made for him... sold the land
and the property with the stationary title of baron becoming the
heritable property of the new purchaser.

Greg

Where is your "proof" that the HSS as a Society was involved in the
sale of Baronies? Are you seriously suggesting that Anthony Maxwell,
as the Society's first(?) webmaster, set up the website with that
goal?

Greg

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:30 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 02:23, "aetonyev...@googlemail.com"
<aetonyev...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I would argue two points with you Tony.

1, These is nothing dishonest in my article at all. I backed
everything up and have just shown in my post to Stephen Plowman that
support for my views does come from about everywhere. I think that
you're just tryng to read too much into it with respect to my views on
(some) baronies and the way thaey have manipulated.

2, I have never said anyting against the idea that baronies were
transferable. I would challenge you to find that. The Scottish
Baronies are indeed a part of historical maintenence, however that
upkeep has been abused in the wasy I point out in my article. Lord
Blair, in my view, acted in resonse to what was happening to his
authority as a result of the ridiculous appeals made by the Rubber
Indians to satisfy (what they wanted) as recognition. Alex Maxwell
Findalter, John Gaylor, and many others thought that what these guys
were up to was embarrassing for the society and Lyon Blair as well.

It was because of the building pressure fomr this nonsense that Brian
G Hamilton recused himslef from membership, as "he didn't want to give
the impression of a conflict of intrest" - my ass - he still got
himself suspended from the HSS forum.

My problem is that The Heraldry Society of Scotland allowed these
thugs to operate with impunity, irrespective of lodged and valid
complaints, coupled with outright discrimination upon those with
dissenting views.

These barons (are known) as "paper barons". Their type of chicanery
is what brings the Scottish Baronage into the same sphere as the
MacCarthy Mor hoax. (They're faking), and The Heraldry Scociety of
Scotland has given them a venue from which to do it.

So, no, it's not just a few people - it's The Heraldry Society of
Scotland.

StephenP

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:32 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 16:02, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

Greg

I am quite happy to stand by my post. As one interested in history &
tradition it saddens me when I see some who appear more interested in
the “trappings” than the historical side of a barony.

The sale of Baronies has been legal for centuries; the Scottish side
of my family sold their barony in the 17th century. Being a feudal
baron, like being a freemason, does not necessarily make a person a
"bad man". The action of that individual defines that. It should be
noted that the HSS has a number of Scottish feudal barons, some by
purchase but many by inheritance. I do not think that should disbar
them from holding office within the Society. I would be surprised if
there were ever more than one or two members of the committee who also
happened to be a baron. As far as I am aware there is only one
individual who acts as a “broker” for the sale of baronies and he has
never held office within the HSS.

As for copyright, do you have permission from the owner of the
photographs to reproduce them on your blog?

I am delighted that you have now corrected the spelling on your
blog.

Greg

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:37 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 08:04, StephenP <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:

Quote:

On 10 July, 01:17, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

The Herladry Society of Scotland for its part during this period had
entered into the internet with an old idea that was being resurrected
and modernized: the over the counter purchase of ancient long ago
shelved Scottish baronies. A "barony", a title, came from the old
feudal system of land tenure. Barons owned their land, wherewith they
either petitioned the crown for "erection into a barony", or when a
baron decided: or the decision having been made for him... sold the land
and the property with the stationary title of baron becoming the
heritable property of the new purchaser.

Greg

Where is your "proof" that the HSS as a Society was involved in the
sale of Baronies? Are you seriously suggesting that Anthony Maxwell,
as the Society's first(?) webmaster, set up the website with that
goal?

Thaaat's riiight, turn a known factual series of events back onto the
person that made the greatest fight - aginst it and was run out for
it.

Please don't insult my intelligence Stephen.

Just admit that you agree, like your own words say you do. (You may
curse the ground I walk on), but you agree that the society was
operating as front for these jokers and you know it.

StephenP

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:00 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 16:37, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

Just admit that you agree, like your own words say you do. (You may
curse the ground I walk on), but you agree that the society was
operating as front for these jokers and you know it.

Greg

There is a world of difference between being saddened by the motives
of some of those who bought a feudal barony and claiming the HSS was
involved with the market. You have not provided one jot of evidence
to support that claim.

aetonyevans@googlemail.co

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:19 pm

Guest

On Jul 10, 4:30 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

Lord Blair, in my view, acted in resonse to what was happening to his
authority as a result of the ridiculous appeals made by the Rubber
Indians to satisfy (what they wanted) as recognition. Alex Maxwell
Findalter, John Gaylor, and many others thought that what these guys
were up to was embarrassing for the society and Lyon Blair as well.

I agree with your first point, Greg, but this second one is not right
as it was a policy announcement that came from the Lord Lyon after the
Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act that started all this off. In other
words, as Lord Lyon Blair made the first move it could not have been
in response to anyone's appeals. Lyon Blair appeared to completely
fly in the face of the spirit of the legislation by saying he would
not recognize barons any longer and that the heirs of old barons would
lose their additaments after a single generation. This was completely
contrary to the Act. This is what brought him criticism and this is
why there were appeals. Had he not got that so wrong there would have
been none of this. It was an attempt at abolition of transfers by the
back door, but contrary to legislation, which is why the move was
flawed legally.

Quote:

These barons (are known) as "paper barons". Their type of chicanery
is what brings the Scottish Baronage into the same sphere as the
MacCarthy Mor hoax. (They're faking), and The Heraldry Scociety of
Scotland has given them a venue from which to do it.

What is their type of chicanery? Seeking legal justice against
someone going against the spirit of the law?

What are they faking? I am not aware of any claiming to be personally
appointed or hereditary peers. Individuals that do so deserve what
they get. I am not aware of any faking their pedigrees. I know they
call themselves barons, but they are. You often acuse them of being
fakes, but fake what? If their titles are genuine, so are they. Your
credibility goes when you start calling them fake. Even Lord
Bradford, a peer of the realm and a expert commentator on fake titles,
acknowledges that a Scottish barony is "a genuine British title".
That is why the MacCarthy Mor titles are completely different, as they
were bogus (that is made-up), so you are making an unsubstantiated and
frivilous connection, which can only be being done to discredit
genuine people maliciously. Yes, there have been some barons who have
been bad eggs or in trouble with the law, as there have been peers and
old baronial families the same, but that doesn't mean everyone should
be tarnished with the same brush.

aetonyevans@googlemail.co

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:32 pm

Guest

On Jul 10, 5:19 pm, "aetonyev...@googlemail.com"

Quote:

What are they faking? I am not aware of any claiming to be personally
appointed or hereditary peers. Individuals that do so deserve what
they get. I am not aware of any faking their pedigrees. I know they
call themselves barons, but they are. You often acuse them of being
fakes, but fake what? If their titles are genuine, so are they. Your
credibility goes when you start calling them fake. Even Lord
Bradford, a peer of the realm and a expert commentator on fake titles,
acknowledges that a Scottish barony is "a genuine British title".
That is why the MacCarthy Mor titles are completely different, as they
were bogus (that is made-up), so you are making an unsubstantiated and
frivilous connection, which can only be being done to discredit
genuine people maliciously. Yes, there have been some barons who have
been bad eggs or in trouble with the law, as there have been peers and
old baronial families the same, but that doesn't mean everyone should
be tarnished with the same brush.

Make that 'an' expert and 'frivolous'. I think the language of this
forum must be contagious.

Greg

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:38 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 09:00, StephenP <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:

Quote:

On 10 July, 16:37, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Just admit that you agree, like your own words say you do. (You may
curse the ground I walk on), but you agree that the society was
operating as front for these jokers and you know it.

Greg

There is a world of difference between being saddened by the motives
of some of those who bought a feudal barony and claiming the HSS was
involved with the market. You have not provided one jot of evidence
to support that claim.

I supplied all the evidence necessary to prove that - The Heraldry
Socirty of Scotland, by ommision, allowed itself to be used as a front
for this market, through the likes of Brian Hamilton and his cronies
who are pictured in my article. And, there was indeed a conspiracy to
keep quiet those who disagreed with that fact from having any say-so
in disolving that relationship, and I proved that too. Harden's own
son has admitteed that Barry Harden acted like a rather pompus and
confused individual, the behavior of which can clearly be seen.

You know it, I know it and many others know it as well. So I would
suggest that your denial here is of course just anther example of the
enabling that has been going on in The Heraldry Society of Scotland
for years.

And, as is always the case with articles like this, the opponents of
the facts are always the ones who trun the subejct - into- the
writer. This of course has always been shown to be thee measure of
success and accuracy.

Like I said, success is measured by one's enemies.

aetonyevans@googlemail.co

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:05 pm

Guest

On Jul 10, 5:38 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

Harden's own son has admitteed that Barry Harden acted like a rather pompus
and confused individual, the behavior of which can clearly be seen.

I have to admit that I do not know any of the personalities you have
been referring to, Greg, so maybe as you claim this Harden's son said
his father has acted pompously and perhaps he has. I can't and don't
vouch for the characters, but I will stand up for the law. I'm not
sure fora are the right place for character assassination though.
Isn't that better placed in the pub or amongst friends?

aetonyevans@googlemail.co

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:10 pm

Guest

After all, criticisms of former Lyon Blair would not be rearing their
head had you not brought this subject up once again. I would happily
lay it all to rest now that the current Lord Lyon has made his policy
clear, which we should respect since this respects the law also.

Greg

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:38 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 09:19, "aetonyev...@googlemail.com"
<aetonyev...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 10, 4:30 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Lord Blair, in my view, acted in resonse to what was happening to his
authority as a result of the ridiculous appeals made by the Rubber
Indians to satisfy (what they wanted) as recognition. Alex Maxwell
Findalter, John Gaylor, and many others thought that what these guys
were up to was embarrassing for the society and Lyon Blair as well.

I agree with your first point, Greg, but this second one is not right
as it was a policy announcement that came from the Lord Lyon after the
Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act that started all this off. In other
words, as Lord Lyon Blair made the first move it could not have been
in response to anyone's appeals. Lyon Blair appeared to completely
fly in the face of the spirit of the legislation by saying he would
not recognize barons any longer and that the heirs of old barons would
lose their additaments after a single generation. This was completely
contrary to the Act. This is what brought him criticism and this is
why there were appeals. Had he not got that so wrong there would have
been none of this. It was an attempt at abolition of transfers by the
back door, but contrary to legislation, which is why the move was
flawed legally.

These barons (are known) as "paper barons". Their type of chicanery
is what brings the Scottish Baronage into the same sphere as the
MacCarthy Mor hoax. (They're faking), and The Heraldry Scociety of
Scotland has given them a venue from which to do it.

What is their type of chicanery? Seeking legal justice against
someone going against the spirit of the law?

What are they faking? I am not aware of any claiming to be personally
appointed or hereditary peers. Individuals that do so deserve what
they get. I am not aware of any faking their pedigrees. I know they
call themselves barons, but they are. You often acuse them of being
fakes, but fake what? If their titles are genuine, so are they. Your
credibility goes when you start calling them fake. Even Lord
Bradford, a peer of the realm and a expert commentator on fake titles,
acknowledges that a Scottish barony is "a genuine British title".
That is why the MacCarthy Mor titles are completely different, as they
were bogus (that is made-up), so you are making an unsubstantiated and
frivilous connection, which can only be being done to discredit
genuine people maliciously.Yes, there have been some barons who have
been bad eggs or in trouble with the law, as there have been peers and
old baronial families the same, but that doesn't mean everyone should
be tarnished with the same brush.

Well, I think first that you are perhaps trying to mix up my points
with repsect to members of and The Heraldry Soceity itself. We had a
private email discussion about that, and I took time to clear up your
misunderstanding.

You are right, it was AFT that started this entire thing as I know
it. Lyon Blair however could read the handwriting on the wall, as you
agree, and made a move well within his jurisdiction, to head this
thing off at the pass as he is quite familiar with Brian G Hamilton
and his gaggle who do not act with the spirit of Lyon's
responsibilities, but rather continually seek to usurp Lyon's proper
usage of his own office. As I said many times, I learned that
traditionally held baronies of older familes still recieve
additaments, and even supporteers I think... Up until that barony
passes from the - in family, heritable positon - back into the open
market. I would argue however that these (other barons and holders of
superiroities) did not act within the spirit of the law at all, but
rather strictly in the spirit of their own self interest.

Look what you said yourself about it just a few minutes agao:

"Yes, there have been some barons who have

Quote:

been bad eggs or in trouble with the law, as there have been peers and
old baronial families the same, but that doesn't mean everyone should
be tarnished with the same brush."

Those bad eggs had a malicious effect on Lord Lyon and The Heraldry
Society of Scotland and acted - maliciously - against people who
disagreed with their tactics - that is exactly my point.

It was their actions that led directly to Lyon Sellars ruling on a
baron's heraldic display now only including a different helm. The
point there being, that even the College of Arms has, for esthetic
purposes alone, allowed a gent's helm to face affronte to match the
crest: gent's never had that privilage, so who's really going to
notice "a helm"?

What do you think might have ocurred if (those Barons and Hamilton)
had just left well enough alone and repected Lyon's authority and not
acted like pompus idiots in the first place? I dare say that there
would have been only very little, if any, disagreement on the subject.

These guys buy and do wioth theri baronies the same way some people in
England by life peerages with the deceptiv idea of qualifying for
positions in parliament. It's all just another (legal) version of a
hoax. BTW, did Terrance MaCarthy do any time, or was he just run out
of town?

These (bad eggs) set everyone up. -- They -- act malicisiously. --
They -- conspire to thwart the legal system.

You understand? (They have allowed and even encouraged the broad
brush to applied), and the (real baronage) has done nothing to out a
stop to it. The Heraldry Society of Scotland did nothing. The Office
of the Chief Herald of Ireland has done - nothing.

So, I really fail to see your point in this issue. I can understnad
your willingness to defend what I refer to as (real barons), who
observe the law and the traditions and respect those who act within
the confines of propriety. I have a great deal of respect for them as
well. Maybe your attention, and theirs would be better aimed at
bringing to heel those that act against them. That, to me seems to be
the best thing to do: expose - these nuts - for who they are. Shun -
them -, make - them - stand resonsible for - their - actions - get -
them - to apologize publicly the way they enthusiastically attack
others.

That's how you put a stop to it.

And BTW, don't worry about misspelling. My mind moves fater than my
fingers all the time, and I get herladry, teh, nad, and other little
troublsome things constantly. But on these forums I don't let it
bother me. People misspell thing allot.

StephenP

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:40 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 17:38, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

How does Barry Harden's behaviour fit in all this? He was not an
officer of the HSS. Another red herring me thinks.

Come on Greg just name those committee members you believe were either
a "barony broker" themselves &/or operated the HSS for the benefit of
a "barony broker". Either put up or shut up.

aetonyevans@googlemail.co

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:25 pm

Guest

On Jul 10, 6:38 pm, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

You are right, it was AFT that started this entire thing as I know
it. Lyon Blair however could read the handwriting on the wall, as you
agree, and made a move well within his jurisdiction, to head this
thing off at the pass

It was most definitely not within a Lord Lyon's jursidiction to ignore
or overrule an Act of Parliament.

Greg

Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:29 pm

Guest

On 10 July, 10:40, StephenP <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:

Quote:

On 10 July, 17:38, Greg <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:

I supplied all the evidence necessary to prove that - The Heraldry
Socirty of Scotland, by ommision, allowed itself to be used as a front
for this market, through the likes of Brian Hamilton and his cronies
who are pictured in my article. And, there was indeed a conspiracy to
keep quiet those who disagreed with that fact from having any say-so
in disolving that relationship, and I proved that too. Harden's own
son has admitteed that Barry Harden acted like a rather pompus and
confused individual, the behavior of which can clearly be seen.

You know it, I know it and many others know it as well. So I would
suggest that your denial here is of course just anther example of the
enabling that has been going on in The Heraldry Society of Scotland
for years.

How does Barry Harden's behaviour fit in all this? He was not an
officer of the HSS. Another red herring me thinks.

Come on Greg just name those committee members you believe were either
a "barony broker" themselves &/or operated the HSS for the benefit of
a "barony broker". Either put up or shut up.

Oh please.

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next All times are GMT The time now is Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:38 am Recreational Groups Forum Index