In the Court of the Lord Lyon

[CameronCat]

Hi all,

This one's a little off my platter but I thought others would find it interesting.

From today's Scotsman newspaper...

Lion Rampant bites back over badge
Published Date: 08 October 2010
By Craig Brown

"A small Highland League football team faces a massive bill after a centuries-old heraldic court ordered it to change its Lion Rampant logo or face legal action - despite having used the emblem for 50 years."

Full story at this link: http://tinyurl.com/2dzwksw

They say at the end that "these things are usually worked out" but I still find it encouraging that heraldic rights are noted, observed and enforced.

Your opinions?

Peace
JT

[denmcdough]

IMHO, I think it's ridiculous, really. Anyway, it truly doesn't irk me one way or the other. The world will still spin no matter what happens.

[Cygnus]

Like the OP, I'm glad to see some action being taken; not because I have anything against the football team in question (or football in general) but because it shows that centuries of tradition are being preserved and upheld by Lyon Court. Turning a blind eye to all illegal uses of arms only promotes future illegal use by others as well as devaluing the legitimate use by those who have properly registered armorial bearings.

And the argument that the team has been using the logo for over 50 years really doesn't hold any water - the laws governing the use of arms have been around for over 400 years.

[piperdbh]

Good for Lyon.

[Andy Proffitt]

Pure silliness. But, if you read the article, it's only about money.

[cessna152towser]

I think it is right that the Lyon Court should crack down on unauthorised use of arms.
Otherwise the right to the status of arms which has often been earned through hard work and entrepreneurhip would be diminished.

[macwilkin]

for the Lyon Court in its efforts to preserve tradition.

T.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Usually things only come to the "attention" of the Lord Lyon when someone refuses, point blank, to obey the law. Something that "denmcdough" and others may not be aware of is that it is an actual offense under the laws of Scotland to use any heraldic device that has not been sanctioned by the government. It is exactly the same as trespassing on the legal rights of a copyright holder, and the courts take a dim view of it.

While it is easy to be dismissive and say, "oh come on, it's only a harmless bit of design," the foundation for the prosecution is based on the accused having defrauded the government out of the statutory fees it collects on each and every grant of heraldic devices, badges included. So why is it necessary to collect statutory fees, at all?

Think of a grant of an heraldic devise in the same terms you would a building permit. You apply for a building permit, pay a fee, and then put up your shed. Why pay a fee? Why not simply put up the shed and be done with it? Here's why: Because the fee guarantees that the shed is built to a standard, and that it is placed on your land, not your neighbors. If you don't apply for the permit, and the building department finds out about it, your shed can be ordered torn down.

The function of the office of the Lord Lyon is exactly the same: (1) to maintain standards [would it really be appropriate for a club to use a swastika as a badge?] and (2) to make sure that the design doesn't accidentally-- or on purpose-- copy someone else's design. Now if someone uses a badge without the authority to do so, then it is up to the the Lord Lyon to insure that (a) the badge falls within the guidelines of his office, (b) that it does not trespass on the (intellectual) property rights of others, and (c) that all applicable fees due the government are paid.

As far as "massive fees" are concerned, these are generally encountered only if the defendant in the case wishes to challenge the law. The penalties assessed by the court are a paltry few hundred pounds. Broadly speaking this sort of case comes before the Lyon Court (the Lord Lyon being a sitting judge in the law courts of Scotland) on a somewhat regular basis -- often the arms used by a school -- and are resolved with little or no hassle on either side of the bench.

[cessna152towser]

Here here MoR, we don't always see eye to eye but for once I find myself in wholehearted agreement with your post, couldn't have expressed this so well myself.

[Chas]

IMHO, I think it's ridiculous, really. Anyway, it truly doesn't irk me one way or the other. The world will still spin no matter what happens.

Pure silliness. But, if you read the article, it's only about money.

The Law is the Law - whether we like it or not. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which laws we will obey and which we will ignore.

If a person doesn't like a particular law, they can either leave the country (so they are no longer subject to the law), or they can try and rally support to get the law changed. They might have to become a citizen first.

Regards

Chas