In the Court of the Lord Lyon

[Downunder Kilt]

Totally agree, you obey the laws of the country you are in, you don't have to agree with them, but you should obey them. Here in Australia you can have an open bottle of liqour in your vehicle at any time, but I know in some of the states in the US, that doing just that is an invitation for a night in jail.
Hence, when I have travelled in the US I don't have a open bottle of liquor in my vehicle.

[BobsYourUncle]

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

From the article, it looks like the Lyon Court are willing to be reasonable in resolving the matter, and will allow the club to use up existing stocks of material bearing the offending coat of arms. It is also explained in the article that it is not simply the use of either the saltire or the lion rampant that offends, the offense occurs when either is placed on a shield and configured as a coat of arms. In a country that awards arms, this all makes perfect sense to me, and seems to be a sensible way of enforcing the law.

[Jack Daw]

The law is the law.

[Ancienne Alliance]

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.

[McClef]

The Law may well be the Law but it's one of the slowest applications of it I think I have seen.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The Law may well be the Law but it's one of the slowest applications of it I think I have seen.

So it would seem, but one has to remember that until someone filed a complaint with the court, Lyon was totally unaware of the offense against the Crown. Once the complaint was made however, Lyon acted with all proper speed.

[JerseyLawyer]

Bravo to the Lyon Court for defending Scotland's place as perhaps the only country where the heraldic tradition is protected by law.

Incidentally, in the "ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure" department, the "massive" fee for a new grant of arms (with crest, motto, and supporters) to a corporation is currently £3,724. Probably cheaper for the club in the long run if they'd simply applied for their own grant. Though, since they'll get to sell a new strip to their supporters, and get some free publicity, they might make money from this anyway.

[artificer]

Bravo to the Lyon Court for defending Scotland's place as perhaps the only country where the heraldic tradition is protected by law.

...Though, since they'll get to sell a new strip to their supporters, and get some free publicity, they might make money from this anyway.

Aye, If you're going to DO heraldry, I'm dead behind enforcing it. Otherwise, it's just fees paid to have any old goit steal it with no recourse for you.

If I were cynical (which I'm not , I'd bet the club were doing a happy-dance. With the possibility of selling off the original gear (as collector's items) and the NEED for new strip for next season... Well, it's practically a license to print money for a season.

"Come buy our silver service, The Last bearing our original crest... Sure to be a collector's item"

Not that I'm cynical.

[McClef]

So it would seem, but one has to remember that until someone filed a complaint with the court, Lyon was totally unaware of the offense against the Crown. Once the complaint was made however, Lyon acted with all proper speed.

I am sure they did.

The reason for my surprise was how long it took before somebody complained in the first place considering how many thousands must have seen the offending heraldry over 50 years.

If ignorance of the Law is no excuse are they not all accessories after the fact?

[Jock Scot]

I am sure they did.

The reason for my surprise was how long it took before somebody complained in the first place considering how many thousands must have seen the offending heraldry over 50 years.

If ignorance of the Law is no excuse are they not all accessories after the fact?

As I understand it, more than 50% of tax investigations by the Inland Revenue are started by information recieved from some unhappy third party, I should think this is probably how this case reached the "eye" of the Lord Lyon.