clan crest motif marketing idea

[Bugbear]

Paul, I am sorry to say that your assessment of Scots Law and the Scottish Law Courts and their jurisdiction is flat out wrong.

Actually, there is a law* to prevent one usurping the heraldic rights of others, and while the jurisdiction of that law may be limited to the geographic entity of Scotland, it none the less exists. Were one to flaunt the law in Scotland one could very well find oneself hauled before the Court of the Lord Lyon and not only fined, but the offending article would be taken away and defaced.

Now it is true that the offense can only occur if the design (in this instance salmon buttons) is so similar to that of the badge of Argyll that, to the average man, they would appear to be the same. If the attitude of the salmon (the posture in which it is depicted) is different (leaping, as opposed to stretched out as though being served on a platter) then one could probably successfully argue that no offense has been committed, and in all likelihood the Court would agree. But that final decision would be up to the Court, who has absolute jurisdiction in these matters.

You may think it nonsense in London, but it is the law in Scotland.

*Statute 1596, cap. 125, and 1672, cap. 47, and 1669, cap. 95 clearly spell out the authority and jurisdiction of the Court of the Lord Lyon.

That begs the question... If the Duke of Argyll or MacLean of Duart has my buttons and me hauled before the Court of the Lord Lyon, then the Court of the Lord Lyon decides, "you have to be kidding, those aren't salmon buttons they are clearly catfish." What, if anything happens to the Duke of Argyll or MacLean of Duart?

Just for reference, I am used to the U.S. way of things.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Good question Ted, and I'm not 100% sure I can give you the definitive answer, but I'll try.

The basic process works something like this:

1. Argyll would complain to the Lyon.
2. Lyon would instruct the Procurator Fiscal of the Court to advise you of the complaint.
3. If you took remedial action (bought new buttons) the matter would end here.
4. If you objected to the complaint you would be brought to court and Lyon, in his capacity as a judge in the Scottish courts, would listen to both sides (you and Argyll) and view all the evidence.
5. If Lyon decides in your favour (which he obviously would, being partial to catfish) then you can keep your buttons.
6. (this is the part I'm not totally clear on) Lyon may instruct Argyll to re-imburse any direct legal expenses you have incurred as a result of having to appear in court in the matter of Catfish v. Salmon. (If you lost, Lyon would confiscate your buttons, might impose a fine, and could require you to pay Argyll's court costs, which would be astronomical since lawyers tend to charge Dukes more than they charge Dustmen. )

The important thing to remember is that Lyon does nothing until someone brings a complaint to his attention. Once a complaint is filed, then it is his duty to proceed pretty much in the manner outlined above.

If I have erred in describing the process, I'd appreciate it if someone more learned in the law would correct me.

[Bugbear]

Interesting.

Although, recalling another post on heraldry, it is my understanding that Lyon could go as far as to take away Argyll's grant of the salmon badge, for example, if Argyll started complaining to Lyon about every fish he sees.

"No more salmon for you, Argyll!" whack!! That's assuming the Lyon uses a gavel.

[OC Richard]

"No more salmon for you, Argyll!" whack!!

This punishment was actually caught on film!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s

[Brian K]

The important thing to remember is that Lyon does nothing until someone brings a complaint to his attention. Once a complaint is filed, then it is his duty to proceed pretty much in the manner outlined above.

Scott,

Let me start by saying that I tend to enjoy the way you answer questions as thoroughly and as entertainingly as possible. Whenever heraldry comes up I learn something from you.

As regards your response to Ted, I think the snippet above is the nub of it.

Lacking evidence to the contrary, I will assume the Duke is a reasonable man. It seems likely to me that if he encounters Sandy or Ted wearing a lovely jacket or doublet with salmons for buttons, and in a situation where neither of them are attempting to pass themselves off as something or someone they are not (I do find it quite difficult to believe that either Sandy or Ted would do anything so base), he might simply say something like "Oh, look...our buttons nearly match. You certainly have good taste, my dear chap!" Were he to find a less honorable fellow trying to pass himself off as a scion of the house of Argyll, his response would likely, and rightly, be quite different.

While intent and ignorance are not always taken into account in matters of criminal law, heraldry is somewhat murky - at least for the uninitiated - and a bit more latitude might be granted to those who transgress unintentionally.

Of course, I have seen a picture of the Duke somewhere in this forum wearing bright pink kilt hose ! Who knows what someone who would do that might be capable of?

Regards,

Brian

[Brian K]

This punishment was actually caught on film!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s

Thanks, Richard, I needed that!

[Bugbear]

... Of course, I have seen a picture of the Duke somewhere in this forum wearing bright pink kilt hose ! Who knows what someone who would do that might be capable of? ...

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I've never felt any desire to have salmon buttons, though, I suppose they would go well with pink hose.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So has anyone actually been prosecuted in the Court of Lord Lyon for the unlawful bearing of arms within living memory?

Yes, although most cases are settled before they come before the Court. The most recent case that comes to my mind took place a few years ago when a bus company was prosecuted for displaying the Royal Arms on the side of it's coaches and refused, in the first instance, to comply with the order to remove them. As I recall George Way of Plean was Procurator Fiscal at the time and prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. What is overlooked by many when facing the Court of the Lord Lyon is that their offense is not only a breach of heraldic law, but also an evasion of the taxes levied by the Crown on each grant of arms made (referred to as a "statutory fee").

Because the offense is an offense against the Crown, Lyon has the authority to prosecute regardless of where the offender may reside. I'm sure it would come as a shock to someone in the South of England to receive a summons to appear in a Scottish court on what is, in effect, a criminal matter. But it can, and has happened.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

While intent and ignorance are not always taken into account in matters of criminal law, heraldry is somewhat murky - at least for the uninitiated - and a bit more latitude might be granted to those who transgress unintentionally.

Oh, absolutely. All heraldic authorities understand that 99 & 44/100% of all heraldic faux pas are unintentional and usually the result of enthusiasm getting a wee bit ahead of knowledge.

Where the line is drawn is when the individual is either engaging in a fraudulent or deceitful practice (like Mr. Aikens and his tombstone shenanigans in Scotland) or when (in the case of the Lord Lyon) someone willfully flaunts the authority of the Crown.

(And thank you for kind words!)

Scott

[BoldHighlander]

Of course, I have seen a picture of the Duke somewhere in this forum wearing bright pink kilt hose ! Who knows what someone who would do that might be capable of?