Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Michael Merrigan

Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 11 mai 2006 12:30:25

Greetings from the Genealogical Society of Ireland http://www.familyhistory.ie

A Chairde,

The Society is pleased to advise readers that the text of the Genealogy
& Heraldry Bill, 2006 and its Explanatory Memorandum are now uploaded
to the website of the Irish Houses of Parliament - the Oireachtas on
http://www.oireachtas.ie

The Society's Press Release and the Background to the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill are available on the Society's website
http://www.familyhistory.ie

The Bill was published today by Senator Brendan Ryan and entered on the
Order Paper for Seanad Eireann (Irish Senate) for Thursday 11th May
2006.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
Hon. Secretary
Genealogical Society of Ireland
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 12 mai 2006 10:27:27

Sorry folks it seems that some readers had a difficulty in finding the
text of the Bill on the Irish Parliamentary website. This should make
it easier
http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?Do ... tID=59&m=l

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Martin Goldstraw

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Martin Goldstraw » 12 mai 2006 10:57:16

Michael Merrigan wrote:
Sorry folks it seems that some readers had a difficulty in finding the
text of the Bill on the Irish Parliamentary website. This should make
it easier
http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?Do ... tID=59&m=l

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

It seems to me to be a well thought out Bill which will address many of
the anomalies of recent times. I particularly like the way in which it
proposes to deal with the void recent grants have fallen into by
retrospectively recognising all previous grants (will this include the
McCarthy ones I wonder?) and I think that they are making an excellent
attempt to spell out to applicants what will be accepted and what will
not. They will not for example record any feudal baronies or manorial
lordships, nor will they record any orders of chivalry - they are after
all a republic.

I do wonder if the attempt to bring Irish Chiefs back into the fold
will cause delays through fierce discussion but I note that although
the Bill is prepared to record that a person is a Gaelic Chief on
letters patent such a record will not give any official recognition to
any status and Chiefs can not refer to their letters patent as
authentication of their title (no doubt they will anyway).

I am immensely impressed by the promise of a 60 day turnaround from
receipt of application to action - If the Bill has the desired effect
they are going to need more than a few "agents" to deal with the
backlog!

As to the appointment of agents, this is the one aspect of the Bill
that disappoints me the most. I had hoped that we would see the
introduction of heralds and/or pursuivants which would in my view have
enhanced the Office of The Chief Herald and add much needed colour, but
then again if one puts oneself into the mindset of a republic it is
possible to understand why there is no reference to the appointment of
heralds or pursuivants to carry out this work and instead there is
reference to "agents". It is a pity really especially as the author of
the Bill goes to great lengths to point out how heraldry remains
important to Ireland and hints at the traditions so enjoyed by the
nation.

Taken as a whole though the Bill is a welcome one.

Martin Goldstraw
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

Guy Stair Sainty

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Guy Stair Sainty » 12 mai 2006 11:04:33

In article <1147426047.247971.299890@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Michael
Merrigan says...
Sorry folks it seems that some readers had a difficulty in finding the
text of the Bill on the Irish Parliamentary website. This should make
it easier
http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?Do ... tID=59&m=l

It seems very sensible; I was struck by the exclusion of titles, orders, etc;
what are the present regulations in regard to the use of Orders - for example,
are government officials required to seek authorization to accept a foreign
Order, and if they do so, and previously to this act, had arms, could they have
used their insignia with their arms?

If there is a procedure for authorization it seems strange that persons properly
authorised could not use the insignia. If there is no procedure, and no
prohibition, does this mean that anyone can accept and wear anything they
please, but not use it with their arms? What about the Irish military?

In regard to the Gaelic Chiefs, is any provision made for the means by which
such successions can be determined?


--
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

Joseph McMillan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Joseph McMillan » 12 mai 2006 14:39:38

Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
It seems very sensible; I was struck by the exclusion of titles, orders, etc;
what are the present regulations in regard to the use of Orders - for example,
are government officials required to seek authorization to accept a foreign
Order, and if they do so, and previously to this act, had arms, could they have
used their insignia with their arms?

If there is a procedure for authorization it seems strange that persons properly
authorised could not use the insignia. If there is no procedure, and no
prohibition, does this mean that anyone can accept and wear anything they
please, but not use it with their arms? What about the Irish military?

As I read the bill, there is nothing that regulates how people display
their arms once granted. I would take it that an Irish grantee could
have his arms privately emblazoned with whatever orders and decorations
he was entitled to. The only restrictions in this area are on the CHI
himself. He can't mention orders of chivalry or depict any insignia
that are inconsistent with the nature of a democratic republican state.
Presumably any decoration conferred by the Republic would not be
considered undemocratic or unrepublican, so there would seem to be no
objection to depicting the Military Medal for Gallantry or the Garda's
Scott Medal for Valour. (Anyway, since the Republic has no orders of
chivalry, refusing to depict them on LPs would be exactly equivalent to
the English and Scottish practice of not depicting foreign honors on
LPs.)
In regard to the Gaelic Chiefs, is any provision made for the means by which
such successions can be determined?

Yes. The the claimant must provide "full and complete documentary

evidence" that he is
"the senior male descendant of the last recorded inaugurated Gaelic
Chief or Chieftain of the Name" and the Chief herald must "duly
investigate" the evidence and be "satisfied that the ancestry of the
applicant as lodged is factually correct."

Knowingly submitting false information is punishable by a 2,000 euro
fine, 6 months in jail, or both.

The grantee is prohibited from citing the designation as a Gaelic chief
as "conferring or confirming any ancient Gaelic title or any rights,
privileges or prerogatives formerly or historically or traditionally
associated with such hereditary designations." (In other words, you
may or may not be the MacCarthy Mor, but you definitely aren't Prince
of Desmond, you can't confer titles of nobility, and you can't run an
order of chivalry.)

Joseph McMillan

Guy Stair Sainty

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Guy Stair Sainty » 12 mai 2006 15:05:52

In article <1147441178.373035.247930@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Joseph
McMillan says...

Guy Stair Sainty wrote:


In regard to the Gaelic Chiefs, is any provision made for the means by which
such successions can be determined?

Yes. The the claimant must provide "full and complete documentary
evidence" that he is
"the senior male descendant of the last recorded inaugurated Gaelic
Chief or Chieftain of the Name" and the Chief herald must "duly
investigate" the evidence and be "satisfied that the ancestry of the
applicant as lodged is factually correct."

"last recorded inaugurated" would seem to be open to some potential dispute;
recorded where and inaugurated by whom?


--
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 12 mai 2006 17:35:12

"Martin Goldstraw" <heraldryadict@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147427836.677595.114810@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I do wonder if the attempt to bring Irish Chiefs back into the fold
will cause delays through fierce discussion but I note that although
the Bill is prepared to record that a person is a Gaelic Chief on
letters patent such a record will not give any official recognition to
any status and Chiefs can not refer to their letters patent as
authentication of their title (no doubt they will anyway).

The problem in the past, at least from the perspective of an outsiders
vantage point is what should have been primarily the statement of a
genealogical fact - who is the senior heir of a particular lineage had
become wrapped up in something else. It is not a title of nobility and
certainly the notion fo a Chief is not the same in Irealnd as in Scotland.
What pleases me is that there is some recognition of pre-English traditions
and elsewhere some recognition of the symbols of septs - without trying to
recreate something that was not there (silliness such as pre-chivalric
orders of knighthood lain dormant for centuries). Any heraldic or
genealogical office can perhaps be defrauded by a determined false claimant.
This Bill does seem to address issues that would take away incentive to
defraud by limiting what addditiments and titles and postnominals might be
used by folks.

I am immensely impressed by the promise of a 60 day turnaround from
receipt of application to action - If the Bill has the desired effect
they are going to need more than a few "agents" to deal with the
backlog!

As to the appointment of agents, this is the one aspect of the Bill
that disappoints me the most. I had hoped that we would see the
introduction of heralds and/or pursuivants which would in my view have
enhanced the Office of The Chief Herald and add much needed colour, but
then again if one puts oneself into the mindset of a republic it is
possible to understand why there is no reference to the appointment of
heralds or pursuivants to carry out this work and instead there is
reference to "agents". It is a pity really especially as the author of
the Bill goes to great lengths to point out how heraldry remains
important to Ireland and hints at the traditions so enjoyed by the
nation.

I actually like this innovation for a republic while in the monarchy in
which I live I think the existence of officers of arms is tradition that is
worthy of being continued. For me it is a question of where armorial
initiative rests. In a British monarchical tradition it rests with the
Crown. One might petition the crown but ultimately arms flow from the Crown.
In a republic it would seem appropriate that the initiative comes from the
citizen who engages an agent to assist in the registration process of the
arms they hope to bear. The accountability measures in the bill like the
turnaround time seem also to emphasize that there is accountability of the
part of the heraldic authority back to the prospective armiger.

Now there is nothing to stop some pomp being introduced if the heraldic
community wishes, but the devisal and registration of arms will be more in
the nature of a service provided. In terms of colour - if more arms are
registered and displayed then we'll see more heraldic colour in Ireland.

Kind regards, George Lucki

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 12 mai 2006 17:40:51

"Guy Stair Sainty" <guy@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:e41mjh021uh@drn.newsguy.com...
In article <1147426047.247971.299890@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Michael
Merrigan says...

Sorry folks it seems that some readers had a difficulty in finding the
text of the Bill on the Irish Parliamentary website. This should make
it easier
http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?Do ... tID=59&m=l

It seems very sensible; I was struck by the exclusion of titles, orders,
etc;
what are the present regulations in regard to the use of Orders - for
example,
are government officials required to seek authorization to accept a
foreign
Order, and if they do so, and previously to this act, had arms, could they
have
used their insignia with their arms?

If there is a procedure for authorization it seems strange that persons
properly
authorised could not use the insignia. If there is no procedure, and no
prohibition, does this mean that anyone can accept and wear anything they
please, but not use it with their arms? What about the Irish military?

In regard to the Gaelic Chiefs, is any provision made for the means by
which
such successions can be determined?

Interesting points. I would assume that what people do privately in terms of

their own library paintings, etc. is up to them, but the heraldic authority
would not register orders of chivalry, noble titles (except in restricted
circumstances) and the like along with new grants. This seeems reasonable.
Ireland has no state orders. One of the pleasing things about this bill is
that Ireland could have heraldic honours. It is important for any society to
have a way of recognizing those who make significant contributions.

In terms of Gaelic Chiefs I imagine that successions can only be based on
the surviving genealogical records. If these do not identify clearly who the
successor id I would presume that a Chief remains undetermined.

Kind regards, George Lucki

Sean J Murphy

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Sean J Murphy » 12 mai 2006 23:26:51

Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
In article <1147441178.373035.247930@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Joseph
McMillan says...


Guy Stair Sainty wrote:


In regard to the Gaelic Chiefs, is any provision made for the means by which
such successions can be determined?


Yes. The the claimant must provide "full and complete documentary
evidence" that he is
"the senior male descendant of the last recorded inaugurated Gaelic
Chief or Chieftain of the Name" and the Chief herald must "duly
investigate" the evidence and be "satisfied that the ancestry of the
applicant as lodged is factually correct."


"last recorded inaugurated" would seem to be open to some potential dispute;
recorded where and inaugurated by whom?


Recognition of chiefs will indeed be one of the more difficult elements
of the proposed bill. Taking 1603 as the year when the last independent
Gaelic polities fell under English control, I find that there usually
are identifiable heads of the principal septs, as recorded in Gaelic
pedigrees, annals, English state papers and other sources (see the
sources list in my 'Twilight of the Chiefs', pages 221-39). An example
of such a clearly identifiable head is Brian Óg MacDermot, died 1636,
whose successor today is unchallenged. However, there are other cases
where there was no identifiable head at the time of the collapse of the
Gaelic order, for example, after the death of Donal MacCarthy Mór in
1597 his natural son Donal MacCarthy and his son-in-law Florence
MacCarthy Reagh both claimed succession (there is no need to go into
detail here as to how Terence MacCarthy in our time fabricated his claim
to the chiefship). To complicate matters further, there are still other
cases where the English supported or opposed 'Tanistry' candidates as
suited their interests, and as late as 1612 the O'Doyne case was still
in the courts (see 'The O'Doyne Manuscript', Irish Manuscripts
Commission, Dublin 1983).

In relation to the proposals concerning recognition of chiefs in the
bill, I have to say that I consider it doubtful whether the Office of
the Chief Herald has the capacity or interest to devote the thousands of
hours research necessary to examine seriously claims to chiefship (I
totted up over 3,000 hours on my efforts). Again, consider the flip
comment of the Chief Herald who terminated the procedure of courtesy
recognition in 2003, leaving bogus and questionable chiefs in place and
undermining the status of genuine claimants: 'If someone wants to call
himself Sultan of Dundrum, what about it?'. I need not labour the point
that the present Chief Herald put his signature to Terence MacCarthy's
certificate of chiefship in 1992. Of course, I am very willing to be
proved wrong in this admittedly pessimistic assessment.

Sean Murphy
A Register of Irish Chiefs
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... gister.htm

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 13 mai 2006 00:50:00

"Sean J Murphy" <sjbmurphy@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote in message
news:MY79g.9099$j7.305469@news.indigo.ie...
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
In article <1147441178.373035.247930@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph
McMillan says...


Guy Stair Sainty wrote:


In regard to the Gaelic Chiefs, is any provision made for the means by
which
such successions can be determined?


Yes. The the claimant must provide "full and complete documentary
evidence" that he is
"the senior male descendant of the last recorded inaugurated Gaelic
Chief or Chieftain of the Name" and the Chief herald must "duly
investigate" the evidence and be "satisfied that the ancestry of the
applicant as lodged is factually correct."


"last recorded inaugurated" would seem to be open to some potential
dispute;
recorded where and inaugurated by whom?


Recognition of chiefs will indeed be one of the more difficult elements of
the proposed bill. Taking 1603 as the year when the last independent
Gaelic polities fell under English control, I find that there usually are
identifiable heads of the principal septs, as recorded in Gaelic
pedigrees, annals, English state papers and other sources (see the sources
list in my 'Twilight of the Chiefs', pages 221-39). An example of such a
clearly identifiable head is Brian Óg MacDermot, died 1636, whose
successor today is unchallenged. However, there are other cases where
there was no identifiable head at the time of the collapse of the Gaelic
order, for example, after the death of Donal MacCarthy Mór in 1597 his
natural son Donal MacCarthy and his son-in-law Florence MacCarthy Reagh
both claimed succession (there is no need to go into detail here as to how
Terence MacCarthy in our time fabricated his claim to the chiefship). To
complicate matters further, there are still other cases where the English
supported or opposed 'Tanistry' candidates as suited their interests, and
as late as 1612 the O'Doyne case was still in the courts (see 'The O'Doyne
Manuscript', Irish Manuscripts Commission, Dublin 1983).

This sort of situation creates some difficulty. In some cases it would seem
that it would not be possible to determine who was the senior heir of such a
chiefship - or there would remain some doubt if a less than perfect standard
for genealogical proof were to be set.

In relation to the proposals concerning recognition of chiefs in the bill,
I have to say that I consider it doubtful whether the Office of the Chief
Herald has the capacity or interest to devote the thousands of hours
research necessary to examine seriously claims to chiefship (I totted up
over 3,000 hours on my efforts). Again, consider the flip comment of the
Chief Herald who terminated the procedure of courtesy recognition in 2003,
leaving bogus and questionable chiefs in place and undermining the status
of genuine claimants: 'If someone wants to call himself Sultan of Dundrum,
what about it?'. I need not labour the point that the present Chief Herald
put his signature to Terence MacCarthy's certificate of chiefship in 1992.
Of course, I am very willing to be proved wrong in this admittedly
pessimistic assessment.

I have no doubt that for each of us there is someone who could put something
over on us. Genealogical fraud can occur. I was pleased to see this bill
remove some incentive to do so and create mechanisms whereby errors (or
frauds) could be corrected. It appears that there is no real way at present
to even review let alone undo some of the other unfortunate Irish grants
made in the past. There appear to be three other approaches possible - the
first would be a void - that is to not recognize any claims to chiefship
including those that would seem to you to be clear and simply declare that
any and all claims to chiefship are a private matter and in the eyes of the
state any claims are neither verified nor disproven. My concern is that
this would lead to various claims being advanced and supported by
genealogists and others who had been duped or are willing to turn a blind
eye to weaknesses in the claim of a paying customer. We know from
discussions here that even completely silly claims are capable of
maintaining something of a following.
The second and third alternatives would be to validate claims of chiefship
through some mechanism - and this would mean either returning to the earlier
system of recgnition which had few safeguards or allow the private sector -
professional genealogists malke this verification (rather than the Chief
Herald) and having the Herald simply enter the proof as accepted by a
professional geneaologist. There are problems with these alternatives when
compared with the proposed solution of building in disincentives and
consequences to fraud on the one hand and accountability mechaisms on the
other.

If the system that had been in place had failed it would be important to ask
whether this was a case of the foolishness on the part of an official or the
insufficiency of the safeguards put in place. I believe it is likely the
latter.

Kind regrads, George Lucki

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 16 mai 2006 18:05:23

A Chairde,

I have received a number of private requests for clarification on the
position of "Irish fuedal baronies" in respect of the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006.

Section 16 (7) is very clear on the point.

FOR THE TEXT OF THE BILL & MEMORANDUM see
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?Do ... &&CatID=59

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mai 2006 19:42:14

I have received a number of private requests for clarification on the
position of "Irish fuedal baronies" in respect of the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006.

Section 16 (7) is very clear on the point.

FOR THE TEXT OF THE BILL & MEMORANDUM see
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?Do ... &&CatID=59

Kindest regards


Dear Michael

These feudal barony people are so eager to believe that even hot
blackletter applied direct to their forehead by the devil himself would
prove insufficient to disabuse them.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 19 mai 2006 19:19:28

Well, Sir Crispin - it all adds to the debate on this initiative and
hopefully, this will provide an opportunity for anyone with an interest
in Irish genealogy, heraldry or vexillology to contribute to the debate
in a respectful and open manner.

Whether, people agree or disagree with the contents and general
objectives of the Bill - this is an opportunity for all to put their
points forward in a genuine attempt to resolve the mess created by
Section 13 of the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997.

Kindest regards from a wet & windy Dublin, Ireland.

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 mai 2006 02:48:27

Michael Merrigan wrote:

Whether, people agree or disagree with the contents and general
objectives of the Bill - this is an opportunity for all to put their
points forward in a genuine attempt to resolve the mess created by
Section 13 of the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997.

Mr. Merrigan,

When will the proposed bill be presented and debated?

Regards,
--Guy Power

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 20 mai 2006 07:59:06

Guy, a Chara,

The Order for Second Stage has been placed on the Order Paper on the
11th May 2006 and therefore, it is in a queue (not too long) behind
Bills sent to the Seanad (Senate) from Dáil Éireann (Lower House).
By the end of next week I should have some further information that I
will, of course, post here.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 20 mai 2006 14:11:43

Just a quick point. A feudal barony is property and the owner of such
property is legally entitled to describe themselves as 'Baron of x'; it
is a matter of simple fact that they are 'Baron of x'. To deprive
someone of the peaceful enjoyment of their property by refusing to
describe them as a baron in any document, including a grant of arms, is
a breach of their fundamental human right to such peaceful enjoyment.

Jan Böhme

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 20 mai 2006 15:05:00

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk skrev:

Just a quick point. A feudal barony is property

Yes.

and the owner of such
property is legally entitled to describe themselves as 'Baron of x';

Argguably, yes. However, whether any authorities are obliged to take
any account of this description is an entirely different thing. A bona
fide Olympic swimming champion is of course legally entitled to
describe himself as as such, and it would certainly be both pertinent
and useful to do so on many occasions. However, the authorities are
under no obligation to include this information in the passport, or in
any kinds of public registers, including records of grants of arms.

Why would it be different for feudal baronies?

Jan Böhme

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 20 mai 2006 15:28:05

Jan Böhme wrote:
graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk skrev:

Just a quick point. A feudal barony is property

Yes.

and the owner of such
property is legally entitled to describe themselves as 'Baron of x';

Argguably, yes. However, whether any authorities are obliged to take
any account of this description is an entirely different thing. A bona
fide Olympic swimming champion is of course legally entitled to
describe himself as as such, and it would certainly be both pertinent
and useful to do so on many occasions. However, the authorities are
under no obligation to include this information in the passport, or in
any kinds of public registers, including records of grants of arms.

Why would it be different for feudal baronies?

Jan Böhme

I think the answer is that a barony is a title and people are known by
the title and their name, such as Mr. John Smith. A swimming award is
not a title. Mr. John Smith may be an Olympic swimming champion but
that does not alter his title. In some cases a person's title does
change as a result of an award. For instance when someone is awarded a
doctorate of medicine they become Doctor John Smith.

Derek Howard

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 20 mai 2006 17:05:21

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
Just a quick point. A feudal barony is property and the owner of such
property is legally entitled to describe themselves as 'Baron of x'; it
is a matter of simple fact that they are 'Baron of x'. To deprive
someone of the peaceful enjoyment of their property by refusing to
describe them as a baron in any document, including a grant of arms, is
a breach of their fundamental human right to such peaceful enjoyment.

Just a quick point. There are no Irish feudal baronies. All feudal
tenures were abolished in the 17th century as Milne well knows.
See <http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm>
and
<http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/tenuresact.htm>.

Generally the same arguments apply to Irish feudal baronies as apply to
English ones and we have all seen over the last year Milne's failed
attempts to prove their existence.

As usual it would seem he is seeking what he has termed "a nice
argument". He would be better off studying real history rather than
expounding his unfounded theories. If I were to call myself
"householder" the style would be neither a title nor a property even
were I to hold a house. If I were not to hold a house it would be a
deliberately misleading nonsense at the very least.

Derek Howard

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 20 mai 2006 17:26:17

Derek Howard wrote:

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
Just a quick point. A feudal barony is property and the owner of such
property is legally entitled to describe themselves as 'Baron of x'; it
is a matter of simple fact that they are 'Baron of x'. To deprive
someone of the peaceful enjoyment of their property by refusing to
describe them as a baron in any document, including a grant of arms, is
a breach of their fundamental human right to such peaceful enjoyment.

Just a quick point. There are no Irish feudal baronies. All feudal
tenures were abolished in the 17th century as Milne well knows.
See <http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm
and
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... resact.htm>.

Generally the same arguments apply to Irish feudal baronies as apply to
English ones and we have all seen over the last year Milne's failed
attempts to prove their existence.

As usual it would seem he is seeking what he has termed "a nice
argument". He would be better off studying real history rather than
expounding his unfounded theories. If I were to call myself
"householder" the style would be neither a title nor a property even
were I to hold a house. If I were not to hold a house it would be a
deliberately misleading nonsense at the very least.

Derek Howard

The Tenures Abolition Act specifically preserved feudal baronial
titles, as Mr. Howard well knows and as has been established in this
forum. All Mr. Howard's arguments to the contrary have been proved
baseless. The Act states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any
title of honour, feudal or other, by which any person hath or might
have right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their
title of honour, or sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging
to them as Peers'.

PS Mr. Howard, I specifically wrote to the Matron of the mental
institution at which you are detained and asked that they remove your
internet access in the public interest. I shall have to write to them
again it seems - or are you nipping down to an Internet cafe while out
on day release?

Jan Böhme

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 20 mai 2006 17:36:50

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk skrev:

Jan Böhme wrote:

A bona
fide Olympic swimming champion is of course legally entitled to
describe himself as as such, and it would certainly be both pertinent
and useful to do so on many occasions. However, the authorities are
under no obligation to include this information in the passport, or in
any kinds of public registers, including records of grants of arms.

Why would it be different for feudal baronies?

I think the answer is that a barony is a title and people are known by
the title and their name, such as Mr. John Smith.

Ah, but a barony isn't a title in and by itself. It is a property which
may, given the proper legal environment, confer a title. Now, if I
bought a Scottish barony, this would not enable me to add the title of
"baron" onto my Swedish passport. Even if I bought a Swedish barony
(there is only one, which never has been up for sale) this wouldn't be
enough either, for two reasons. The first is that there are no barons
recognised in Sweden. The titled caregory that often enough
colloquially are called "barons" in Sweden are properly called
"friherrar". And the second is that the mere possession of a barony
doesn't make one a "friherre" in Swedish law.

Thus, as possession of a barony isn't universally accepted as
conferring the title of baron without special legislation stating that
this is the case. Quite irrespective of the question whether feudal
baronies still exist in Ireland, the Rebublic may well, even if they
should exist, resolve that titles of nobility in general, or titles
derived by the possession of feudal baronies, are not officially
recognised, and are not to be entered in any kind of public records.

Jan Böhme

Jan Böhme

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 20 mai 2006 18:07:57

Jan Böhme wrote:
graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk skrev:

Jan Böhme wrote:

A bona
fide Olympic swimming champion is of course legally entitled to
describe himself as as such, and it would certainly be both pertinent
and useful to do so on many occasions. However, the authorities are
under no obligation to include this information in the passport, or in
any kinds of public registers, including records of grants of arms.

Why would it be different for feudal baronies?

I think the answer is that a barony is a title and people are known by
the title and their name, such as Mr. John Smith.

Ah, but a barony isn't a title in and by itself. It is a property which
may, given the proper legal environment, confer a title. Now, if I
bought a Scottish barony, this would not enable me to add the title of
"baron" onto my Swedish passport. Even if I bought a Swedish barony
(there is only one, which never has been up for sale) this wouldn't be
enough either, for two reasons. The first is that there are no barons
recognised in Sweden. The titled caregory that often enough
colloquially are called "barons" in Sweden are properly called
"friherrar". And the second is that the mere possession of a barony
doesn't make one a "friherre" in Swedish law.

Thus, as possession of a barony isn't universally accepted as
conferring the title of baron without special legislation stating that
this is the case. Quite irrespective of the question whether feudal
baronies still exist in Ireland, the Rebublic may well, even if they
should exist, resolve that titles of nobility in general, or titles
derived by the possession of feudal baronies, are not officially
recognised, and are not to be entered in any kind of public records.

Jan Böhme

Jan Böhme

You say that the Republic may 'resolve' not to recognize baronial
titles but that is the whole point; that is whether they have the power
to resolve not to recognize certain property rights given their human
rights obligations under EU law. The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property. I think
it is questionable whether the Republic can legally remove that right,
in fact I would say that they do not have that right. EU human rights
laws have been implemented precisely to prevent this sort of situation,
that is where governments/majorities seek to remove the rights of a
minority without proper justification. In other words, if the Republic
could argue that removing the right to the title of baron (or to be
described as a baron in certain important public documents e.g. grants
of arms) was a matter of over-riding public interest then such an
argument could (and deserves to) succeed. However, there is no
over-riding public interest in this case; it is usually just a question
of envy and spite. In short, it is no skin off their noses.

Derek Howard

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 20 mai 2006 18:58:25

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
Derek Howard wrote:

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
Just a quick point. A feudal barony is property and the owner of such
property is legally entitled to describe themselves as 'Baron of x'; it
is a matter of simple fact that they are 'Baron of x'. To deprive
someone of the peaceful enjoyment of their property by refusing to
describe them as a baron in any document, including a grant of arms, is
a breach of their fundamental human right to such peaceful enjoyment.

Just a quick point. There are no Irish feudal baronies. All feudal
tenures were abolished in the 17th century as Milne well knows.
See <http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm
and
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... resact.htm>.

Generally the same arguments apply to Irish feudal baronies as apply to
English ones and we have all seen over the last year Milne's failed
attempts to prove their existence.

As usual it would seem he is seeking what he has termed "a nice
argument". He would be better off studying real history rather than
expounding his unfounded theories. If I were to call myself
"householder" the style would be neither a title nor a property even
were I to hold a house. If I were not to hold a house it would be a
deliberately misleading nonsense at the very least.

Derek Howard

The Tenures Abolition Act specifically preserved feudal baronial
titles, as Mr. Howard well knows and as has been established in this
forum. All Mr. Howard's arguments to the contrary have been proved
baseless. The Act states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any
title of honour, feudal or other, by which any person hath or might
have right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their
title of honour, or sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging
to them as Peers'.
snip


We have been through this ad nauseam. The holding of a feudal
territorial barony was no more a title of honour in Ireland than in
England. Another major consideration in this case is that there is no
more any Irish House of Lords for any person to have a right to sit in.
Add to that a host of Irish Land Laws in the 19th century and the
situation is such that it is absurd to claim their continued existence.
If Milne thinks they exist he should identify one and prove its current
existence. Of course he will not.

Milne's other comments show the paucity of his arguments.

Meanwhile, the Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006 is to be applauded.
There are many good reasons, not least that the establishment of
property rights is provided for and the proposed arrangements for
grants will require that the rights be spelled out in the certificates
or grants. The attempts by a tiny clique of people, mostly having
bought Scots baronies, to claim a host of rights based on thin air is
unfortunate. It is very wise to be precise and implement statute before
the disputes arise. Likewise I like the suggesions for providing
retrospective confirmation of grants made since 1943. Well done the
draughtsperson(s).

Derek Howard

Jan Böhme

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 20 mai 2006 19:38:12

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk skrev:

Jan Böhme wrote:

You say that the Republic may 'resolve' not to recognize baronial
titles but that is the whole point; that is whether they have the power
to resolve not to recognize certain property rights given their human
rights obligations under EU law.

I don't thnk that the right to a title is recognised niether by EU law
or by the European Convention of Human Rights.

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Jan Böhme

Charles Ellson

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Charles Ellson » 20 mai 2006 20:50:10

On 20 May 2006 11:38:12 -0700, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk skrev:

Jan Böhme wrote:

You say that the Republic may 'resolve' not to recognize baronial
titles but that is the whole point; that is whether they have the power
to resolve not to recognize certain property rights given their human
rights obligations under EU law.

I don't thnk that the right to a title is recognised niether by EU law
or by the European Convention of Human Rights.

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't subject to Swedish law ? Many rights in the

British Isles (and ISTR various other parts of the world) are attached
to land rather than individuals, thus requiring ownership or
occupation of the particular land for the rights to be enjoyed.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

GSI.Secretary@familyhisto

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av GSI.Secretary@familyhisto » 21 mai 2006 03:49:40

Charles, a Chara,

Ireland has a written constitution wherein rights of the individual
citizen are protected, the position in your "British Isles" may be
otherwise, but such is not the concern of the Genealogy & Heraldry
Bill, 2006.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Charles Ellson

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Charles Ellson » 21 mai 2006 05:59:41

On 20 May 2006 19:49:40 -0700, "GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie"
<GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
<snip><missing context restored>

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't subject to Swedish law ? Many rights in the
British Isles (and ISTR various other parts of the world) are attached
to land rather than individuals, thus requiring ownership or
occupation of the particular land for the rights to be enjoyed.
Charles, a Chara,

Ireland has a written constitution wherein rights of the individual
citizen are protected, the position in your "British Isles" may be
otherwise, but such is not the concern of the Genealogy & Heraldry
Bill, 2006.

As in other countries which have one, the Constitution is not by

itself the entire law but a set of requirements with which laws must
accord otherwise they (or sometimes the constitution) might need to be
amended to match. The "British Isles" is a geographical entity (for
which no-one has so far been desperate to devise a sensible
alternative) containing several jurisdictions with a large number of
parallel laws, Irish Law being largely a development from English Law
with IMU a number of UK enactments still used for domestic purposes
presumably because they aren't broken and don't need fixing. The
Constitution might protect various rights of individuals in a general
manner but it is normal for the specific protection to be provided by
the legal system, which in Ireland is the Irish legal system not the
Swedish legal system. The title rights described above (if correct)
appear to have parallels in the jurisdictions immediately neighbouring
Ireland thus indicating a commonality in the group of large islands
off the NW coast of the European mainland but not it seems with at
least one part of Scandinavia.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Jan Böhme

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Jan Böhme » 21 mai 2006 10:17:04

Charles Ellson skrev:

On 20 May 2006 11:38:12 -0700, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't subject to Swedish law ?

My point in bringing Sweden up was of course to illustrate point there
are countries in the world where Briitsh (and in this case, actually
only Scottish) law does not apply.

One of these countries is Sweden. Another is Ireland.

The fact that Irish law for obvious historical reasons _in general_ has
more points in common with British law than Swedish law has, is neither
here nor there when it comes to a single legal issue.

Jan Böhme

Joseph McMillan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Joseph McMillan » 21 mai 2006 11:48:55

Charles Ellson wrote:
The title rights described above (if correct)

That's a big "if." The title rights described above, to the extent
that they assert the continuing existence of titles based on feudal
land tenure in England, are *not* correct, as Derek Howard and others
have repeatedly explained in many previous discussion of this matter on
r.h.

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 21 mai 2006 12:20:53

Jan Böhme wrote:
Charles Ellson skrev:

On 20 May 2006 11:38:12 -0700, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't subject to Swedish law ?

My point in bringing Sweden up was of course to illustrate point there
are countries in the world where Briitsh (and in this case, actually
only Scottish) law does not apply.

One of these countries is Sweden. Another is Ireland.

The fact that Irish law for obvious historical reasons _in general_ has
more points in common with British law than Swedish law has, is neither
here nor there when it comes to a single legal issue.

Jan Böhme

We are not talking about Irish law or Swedish law, we are talking about
EU law, that is human rights under EU law and specifically the right to
enjoyment of property. EU law might not protect titles as such but it
does protect property rights, so if a title is a form of property right
then it is protected.

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 21 mai 2006 12:25:36

Derek Howard wrote:
graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
Derek Howard wrote:

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
Just a quick point. A feudal barony is property and the owner of such
property is legally entitled to describe themselves as 'Baron of x'; it
is a matter of simple fact that they are 'Baron of x'. To deprive
someone of the peaceful enjoyment of their property by refusing to
describe them as a baron in any document, including a grant of arms, is
a breach of their fundamental human right to such peaceful enjoyment.

Just a quick point. There are no Irish feudal baronies. All feudal
tenures were abolished in the 17th century as Milne well knows.
See <http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm
and
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... resact.htm>.

Generally the same arguments apply to Irish feudal baronies as apply to
English ones and we have all seen over the last year Milne's failed
attempts to prove their existence.

As usual it would seem he is seeking what he has termed "a nice
argument". He would be better off studying real history rather than
expounding his unfounded theories. If I were to call myself
"householder" the style would be neither a title nor a property even
were I to hold a house. If I were not to hold a house it would be a
deliberately misleading nonsense at the very least.

Derek Howard

The Tenures Abolition Act specifically preserved feudal baronial
titles, as Mr. Howard well knows and as has been established in this
forum. All Mr. Howard's arguments to the contrary have been proved
baseless. The Act states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any
title of honour, feudal or other, by which any person hath or might
have right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their
title of honour, or sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging
to them as Peers'.
snip

We have been through this ad nauseam. The holding of a feudal
territorial barony was no more a title of honour in Ireland than in
England. Another major consideration in this case is that there is no
more any Irish House of Lords for any person to have a right to sit in.
Add to that a host of Irish Land Laws in the 19th century and the
situation is such that it is absurd to claim their continued existence.
If Milne thinks they exist he should identify one and prove its current
existence. Of course he will not.

Milne's other comments show the paucity of his arguments.

Meanwhile, the Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006 is to be applauded.
There are many good reasons, not least that the establishment of
property rights is provided for and the proposed arrangements for
grants will require that the rights be spelled out in the certificates
or grants. The attempts by a tiny clique of people, mostly having
bought Scots baronies, to claim a host of rights based on thin air is
unfortunate. It is very wise to be precise and implement statute before
the disputes arise. Likewise I like the suggesions for providing
retrospective confirmation of grants made since 1943. Well done the
draughtsperson(s).

Derek Howard

The Tenures Abolition Act specifically preserved feudal baronial
titles, as Mr. Howard well knows and as has been established in this
forum. All Mr. Howard's arguments to the contrary have been proved
baseless. The Act states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any
title of honour, feudal or other, by which any person hath or might
have right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their
title of honour, or sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging
to them as Peers'.

In the Berkeley Case Lord St. Leonards specifically referred to feudal
baronial titles as titles of honour when he stated that 'the title of
Honor was itself saved although the tenure was destroyed'. In addition,
the Attorney-General, the Government's solicitor, quoted Lord Hale
referring to a 'feudal title of honour' (VIII, HLC, 34), with reference
to the Earldom of Arundel and the Barony of Berkeley. In addition,
authoritative sources, such as Sanders 'English Baronies' (p. viii)
refer to feudal baronies as honours. If you want an actual example,
there is, of course, the famous 'Honour of Clare'. It is also worth
asking the question as to why the government lawyers who drafted the
Tenures Abolition Act of 1660, who presumably knew what they were
talking about, should draft a clause referring to 'any title of honour,
feudal or other' if there was no such thing as a feudal title of honour.

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 mai 2006 12:42:03

gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:

The Tenures Abolition Act specifically preserved feudal baronial
titles, as Mr. Howard well knows and as has been established in this

forum. All Mr. Howard's arguments to the contrary have been proved
baseless. The Act states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any
title of honour, feudal or other, by which any person hath or might
have right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their
title of honour, or sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging
to them as Peers'. >

Actually, I thought it had been accepted by most here that this was a
saving clause designed to preserve the rights of sitting and future
peers only.

Sean Murphy
Irish 'Feudal Titles'
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... titles.htm

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 21 mai 2006 15:07:27

sjbmurphy@eircom.net wrote:
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:

The Tenures Abolition Act specifically preserved feudal baronial
titles, as Mr. Howard well knows and as has been established in this
forum. All Mr. Howard's arguments to the contrary have been proved
baseless. The Act states that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any
title of honour, feudal or other, by which any person hath or might
have right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their
title of honour, or sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging
to them as Peers'.

Actually, I thought it had been accepted by most here that this was a
saving clause designed to preserve the rights of sitting and future
peers only.

Sean Murphy
Irish 'Feudal Titles'
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... titles.htm

What made you think that - other than wishful thinking?

Section 11 specifically refers to 'any title of honour, feudal or
other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in the Lords
House of Parliament'. There are no words in the Act restricting the
operation of section 11 to existing members of the House of Lords, who,
of course, held personal, not feudal, titles.

Note, in this context, that the Berkeley Case of 1861 was raised under
section 11 of the Act, in other words on the basis that section 11
preserved feudal baronial titles. Now if section 11 was intended to
relate only to existing members of the House of Lords at the time of
the Act (1660) then the Committee of Pivileges of the House of Lords
would have simply dismissed the case on this basis. The fact that they
did not do so proves conclusively that the Committee agreed that
section 11 did cover the holders of feudal titles who might have a
right to a seat in the House of Lords by virtue of holding such a title.

Charles Ellson

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Charles Ellson » 21 mai 2006 18:09:44

On 21 May 2006 02:17:04 -0700, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

Charles Ellson skrev:

On 20 May 2006 11:38:12 -0700, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't subject to Swedish law ?

My point in bringing Sweden up was of course to illustrate point there
are countries in the world where Briitsh (and in this case, actually
only Scottish) law does not apply.

One of these countries is Sweden. Another is Ireland.

The fact that Irish law for obvious historical reasons _in general_ has
more points in common with British law than Swedish law has, is neither
here nor there when it comes to a single legal issue.

ITYM English Law, there is no British Law. The commonality is very

relevant as decisions lacking a domestic reference point can
eventually involve consideration of case law from other jurisdictions
which share relevant legal principles.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Charles Ellson » 21 mai 2006 18:38:02

On 21 May 2006 04:20:53 -0700, "graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk"
<graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Jan Böhme wrote:
Charles Ellson skrev:

On 20 May 2006 11:38:12 -0700, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't subject to Swedish law ?

My point in bringing Sweden up was of course to illustrate point there
are countries in the world where Briitsh (and in this case, actually
only Scottish) law does not apply.

One of these countries is Sweden. Another is Ireland.

The fact that Irish law for obvious historical reasons _in general_ has
more points in common with British law than Swedish law has, is neither
here nor there when it comes to a single legal issue.

Jan Böhme

We are not talking about Irish law or Swedish law, we are talking about
EU law, that is human rights under EU law and specifically the right to
enjoyment of property. EU law might not protect titles as such but it
does protect property rights,

That isn't EU law, that is domestic law based upon the European

Convention on Human Rights which was originated by members of the
Council of Europe (which remains the guardian of the Convention)
before the (smaller) EU even existed. See:
<http://www.coe.int/>

so if a title is a form of property right then it is protected.

That IMU is generally correct but other subsidiary matters associated

with the title might themselves not be protected by HR legislation if
they infringe others' fundamental rights.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

GSI.Secretary@familyhisto

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av GSI.Secretary@familyhisto » 22 mai 2006 01:17:20

A Chairde,

Once again, it must be remembered that the point of the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006 is to amend an Irish legislative position in
respect of the State's delivery of heraldic and related services.

I have been contacted privately by e-mail by a number of individuals
seeking to have included in the Bill some mention of fuedal baronies
and manorial lordships to facilitate recognition of such in Irish law.
However, it must be said that all those who made contact with me on
this issue were domiciled outside the State and Northern Ireland and
each claimed that having an "Irish fuedal barony" or an "Irish Manorial
Lordship" proved that they had a "sustained" connection with Ireland
requiring due recognition.

Irish law does not recognise the existence of feudal baronies, manorial
lordships or "Terentine" lordships - in fact, the concepts of
"monarchy" and "royalty" and thus "nobility" have not survived the
enactment by the People of Ireland of Bunreacht na hÉireann
(Constitution of Ireland) on July 1st 1937 - so why should anyone argue
that minor titles of nobility survived as "property" rights?

It is not nor can it ever be the objective of the Genealogy & Heraldry
Bill, 2006, to provide a legislative haven for the gullible or for the
unfortunate victims of some chiefly scam through recognition or
recording of these legally worthless titles. In respect of such
European Law has not the competence nor the power to direct sovereign
member states to do otherwise than their domestic circumstances dictate
or desire. Persons disagreeing with this situation are free to waste
their monies for a second time - first being the purchase of these
titles and secondly on bringing a test case in the Irish courts.

Citing English or Scottish law or custom is not relevent to the Irish
legislative position in respect of matters covered by the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006. No Irish parliamentarian would entertain the
notion of feudal baronies and the like being recognised in this Bill.
It's a non-starter - the case is closed.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Charles Ellson

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Charles Ellson » 22 mai 2006 02:20:05

On 21 May 2006 17:17:20 -0700, "GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie"
<GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie> wrote:

<snip>
Citing English or Scottish law or custom is not relevent to the Irish
legislative position in respect of matters covered by the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006.

It's only a Bill at present. No country is exempt from producing Acts

with holes in them which if necessary might be plugged by borrowing
something from another legal system as is normal practice with Common
Law systems. If you have a trawl through Supreme Court law reports you
will find many case references from other countries just as other
Common Law courts will borrow from Irish cases where appropriate. The
same considerations are possibly applicable in the case of the Bill if
any of the legislators foresee a problem lacking an immediate
reference point in domestic law, hopefully producing the necessary
amendments.

No Irish parliamentarian would entertain the
notion of feudal baronies and the like being recognised in this Bill.

I'm not saying they would but if the final Act has the practical

effect of taking away something (not necessarily obvious at present,
with no culpability inferred on the efforts of those who produce the
Act) of benefit to someone then there is scope for that someone
"getting legal" if it might be worth their while to do so.

It's a non-starter - the case is closed.

We will see.

--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 22 mai 2006 06:52:22

<graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1148210453.820374.280070@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Jan Böhme wrote:
Charles Ellson skrev:

On 20 May 2006 11:38:12 -0700, "Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

The right to the title of baron is a
right flowing from the ownership of certain types of property.

It obviously isn't in Sweden. Why need it then be so in the Republic of
Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't subject to Swedish law ?

My point in bringing Sweden up was of course to illustrate point there
are countries in the world where Briitsh (and in this case, actually
only Scottish) law does not apply.

One of these countries is Sweden. Another is Ireland.

The fact that Irish law for obvious historical reasons _in general_ has
more points in common with British law than Swedish law has, is neither
here nor there when it comes to a single legal issue.

Jan Böhme

We are not talking about Irish law or Swedish law, we are talking about
EU law, that is human rights under EU law and specifically the right to
enjoyment of property. EU law might not protect titles as such but it
does protect property rights, so if a title is a form of property right
then it is protected.

------------
Aren't we always in such matters speaking of Irish law and Irish acceptance
of the EU human rights provisions either by treaty or domestic legislation
incorporating its provisions?
I think it is important to remember that Ireland is a republic and that
feudal superiority of any sort is ended. As far as I know no titles survive
in Ireland except by courtesy and as a form of property perhaps (I am
speaking of Peerage titles rather than the forms of feudal superiority) but
there is certainly no requirement on the part of the state to list these
'properties' on a variety of documents. Certainly the property is not
diminished by its non-inclusion on a document. In terms of heraldic
additiments I will leave the question of arms granted while Ireland was
under UK occupation and look only to new grants, registations or
certifications - there is certainly no requirement on the part of the
republic to grant, register or certify new arms with ANY nobillary
additiments of any kind whatsoever or any requirement to make new grants in
a manner conistent with former British practices or with what postulated
pre-conquest practices might have been. It would seem free to develop its
own new rules taht are quite different from English practice.
One of the important aspects of the proposed bill is that it develops a
republican statutory basis for the devisal and registration of arms that is
distinct from the former basis and does not depend on any notion of the
survival of a royal perogative of arms within the republic. Seperately from
any recognition of historical arms granted by the English College (or other
foreign jurisidictions) including those currently borne by the heirs of the
owners of Irish feudal superiorities my own preference would be to limit the
use of such doodads in newly devised arms - even if the new arms are for the
hithertofore non-armigerous claimants of ancient dignities.
Returning to the Human Rights issue - it is of course silly to presume that
the abolition of feudal land holding prior to the establishment of the
republic binds it to recognize any present day heraldic perks to the
purchasers of such bundles of paper. Equality of treatment of all citizens
in the devisal of new arms discriminates against no one. Really though it is
about maintaining a trade in 'bundles of paper' whose value rises if a
heraldic authority or government office of any sort can be seen as
'certifying' some feudal title or property.

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 mai 2006 12:45:18

GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie wrote:
I have been contacted privately by e-mail by a number of individuals
seeking to have included in the Bill some mention of fuedal baronies
and manorial lordships to facilitate recognition of such in Irish law.
However, it must be said that all those who made contact with me on
this issue were domiciled outside the State and Northern Ireland and
each claimed that having an "Irish fuedal barony" or an "Irish Manorial
Lordship" proved that they had a "sustained" connection with Ireland
requiring due recognition.

Irish law does not recognise the existence of feudal baronies, manorial
lordships or "Terentine" lordships - in fact, the concepts of
"monarchy" and "royalty" and thus "nobility" have not survived the
enactment by the People of Ireland of Bunreacht na hÉireann
(Constitution of Ireland) on July 1st 1937 - so why should anyone argue
that minor titles of nobility survived as "property" rights?

Dear Mr Merrigan,

I was surprised to read that manorial lordships are not recognised by
Irish law. You say the 1937 Constitution removed legal status from
titles of nobility, but of course manorial lordships were not titles -
they were just a form of property (albeit by 1937 one seldom of any
real economic value). I wouldn't have expected the parliamentary
draftsmen to be deceived by the phrases 'lord of the manor' or
'manorial lordship' - they would have known perfectly well that in the
manorial context lord just meant owner.

So I was wondering - did the 1937 Constitution end the legal existence
of manorial lordships by some explicit reference to them, or was their
de-recognition a result of subsequent interpretation of a more
broadly-worded provision?

Regards,

Matt Tompkins

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 22 mai 2006 12:55:45

GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie wrote:
A Chairde,

Once again, it must be remembered that the point of the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006 is to amend an Irish legislative position in
respect of the State's delivery of heraldic and related services.

I have been contacted privately by e-mail by a number of individuals
seeking to have included in the Bill some mention of fuedal baronies
and manorial lordships to facilitate recognition of such in Irish law.
However, it must be said that all those who made contact with me on
this issue were domiciled outside the State and Northern Ireland and
each claimed that having an "Irish fuedal barony" or an "Irish Manorial
Lordship" proved that they had a "sustained" connection with Ireland
requiring due recognition.

Irish law does not recognise the existence of feudal baronies, manorial
lordships or "Terentine" lordships - in fact, the concepts of
"monarchy" and "royalty" and thus "nobility" have not survived the
enactment by the People of Ireland of Bunreacht na hÉireann
(Constitution of Ireland) on July 1st 1937 - so why should anyone argue
that minor titles of nobility survived as "property" rights?

It is not nor can it ever be the objective of the Genealogy & Heraldry
Bill, 2006, to provide a legislative haven for the gullible or for the
unfortunate victims of some chiefly scam through recognition or
recording of these legally worthless titles. In respect of such
European Law has not the competence nor the power to direct sovereign
member states to do otherwise than their domestic circumstances dictate
or desire. Persons disagreeing with this situation are free to waste
their monies for a second time - first being the purchase of these
titles and secondly on bringing a test case in the Irish courts.

Citing English or Scottish law or custom is not relevent to the Irish
legislative position in respect of matters covered by the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006. No Irish parliamentarian would entertain the
notion of feudal baronies and the like being recognised in this Bill.
It's a non-starter - the case is closed.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Your statement that 'It's a non-starter - the case is closed' is
exactly the sort of heavy-handed (i.e. bullying) tactic used to deprive
minorities of their rights that EU human rights legislation is designed
to prevent. Frankly, the Irsh government can pass any law it likes but
the courts will over-rule Irish laws where they conflict with EU human
rights legislation. Feudal baronies are a form of property, the title
of baron derived from holding a feudal barony is a property right. EU
human rights legislation guarantees enjoyment of property. You may not
like it but that's tough. Whether such a title is deemed to confer
nobility is a separate question; my view is that a state can say that
it does not (but the title remains). It is interesting that a so-called
modern democratic state seeks to ride roughshod over people's rights in
such a manner whereas in 1660 (1662 in Ireland I think) the legislators
under a so-called tyrannical monarchy took careful steps to protect
people's rights in respect of feudal baronies in the Tenures Abolition
Act, even though they would probably have preferred not to. That's
progress (but then so is the moral collapse of modern society). I
wonder if the two (democracy and moral collapse) are related, as they
say in Private Eye? Perhaps you would be better off with a king (and
his feudal barons)? In short, if the law is passed in its current form
it will be over-ruled and the Irish government will have gained nothing
other than to expose its own ignorance and vindictiveness. There is
still a chance to do the right thing - but bullies only learn the hard
way.

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 mai 2006 15:19:44

If the feudal baronies are property, how is this property being
diminished by not being mentioned in a coat of arms certificate? If I
owned a house or a PhD degree, how would my rights be diminished by not
being mentioned on my driver's licence, or a coat od arms LP, or any
other unrelated document? Or viceversa, if I owned a coat of arms, the
government would certainly not be obliged to print it on my driver's
licence... I just cannot see how anybody could reasonably expect that
such a claim would even be considered by the European human rights
court. JJ

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 22 mai 2006 16:45:24

j.jaroslav@centrum.cz wrote:
If the feudal baronies are property, how is this property being
diminished by not being mentioned in a coat of arms certificate? If I
owned a house or a PhD degree, how would my rights be diminished by not
being mentioned on my driver's licence, or a coat od arms LP, or any
other unrelated document? Or viceversa, if I owned a coat of arms, the
government would certainly not be obliged to print it on my driver's
licence... I just cannot see how anybody could reasonably expect that
such a claim would even be considered by the European human rights
court. JJ

People pay large sums of money to buy feudal baronies and the principle
reason is the right to call themselves and be acknowldged as legally
being 'Baron of x'. Whether you like it or not this happens and it is a
perfectly legal acquisition of property. How can you argue in these
circumstances that refusing to acknowldge someone's correct title and
form of address in a public document does not diminish their enjoyment
of that property? You may not think this an important matter but it is
precisely when people begin to think that the rights of other are
unimportant (or that their view of what is important is more valid)
that abuses of other people's rights happen.

Charles Ellson

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Charles Ellson » 22 mai 2006 23:18:09

On Mon, 22 May 2006 05:52:22 GMT, "George Lucki"
<georgelucki@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
We are not talking about Irish law or Swedish law, we are talking about
EU law, that is human rights under EU law and specifically the right to
enjoyment of property. EU law might not protect titles as such but it
does protect property rights, so if a title is a form of property right
then it is protected.

It is NOT "EU law", the European Convention on Human Rights is a

product of the Council of Europe, a body which pre-dates the European
Union and has more members. It becomes a matter of domestic law of any
country which formally incorporates the Convention into internal
legislation (as IMU Ireland put into operation on 30 Dec 2003); if a
government misbehaves it becomes a matter to be enforced by the
Council of Europe court system in the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg, [see:-]
http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/ ... the+Court/

not the EU court system in the Court of justice of the European
Communities in Luxembourg. [see:-]
http://www.curia.europa.eu/en/instit/pr ... ex_cje.htm

You are possibly being confused by prospective EU members being
required to conform to the Convention before joining, but that is so
that the EU itself remains in accord to the Convention.
<snip>
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 23 mai 2006 00:31:05

"Charles Ellson" <charles@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ac4725ch42kbc9k21qnphklk6hkbnio9c@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 May 2006 05:52:22 GMT, "George Lucki"
georgelucki@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
We are not talking about Irish law or Swedish law, we are talking about
EU law, that is human rights under EU law and specifically the right to
enjoyment of property. EU law might not protect titles as such but it
does protect property rights, so if a title is a form of property right
then it is protected.

It is NOT "EU law", the European Convention on Human Rights is a
product of the Council of Europe, a body which pre-dates the European
Union and has more members. It becomes a matter of domestic law of any
country which formally incorporates the Convention into internal
legislation (as IMU Ireland put into operation on 30 Dec 2003); if a
government misbehaves it becomes a matter to be enforced by the
Council of Europe court system in the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg, [see:-]
http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/ ... the+Court/

not the EU court system in the Court of justice of the European
Communities in Luxembourg. [see:-]
http://www.curia.europa.eu/en/instit/pr ... ex_cje.htm

You are possibly being confused by prospective EU members being
required to conform to the Convention before joining, but that is so
that the EU itself remains in accord to the Convention.
snip
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

If you check the original message you will find the quote actually belongs
to Graham Milne not myself and my retort to the quoted statement follows
after the separator. (sometimes my newsreader does not introduce > marks
which is a nuisance for all.)

Kind regards, George Lucki

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 23 mai 2006 02:02:28

Matt, a Chara,

The enactment of the 1937 Constitution did not "abolish" monarchy,
royalty, nobility or any titles of nobility or honour emanating from
the British monarchy. It simply brought in a new constitutional
framework, in which, such did not exist - in other words, such concepts
did not survive the enactment of the Constitution by the People on July
1st 1937.

In the post 1937 constitutional framework, property means buildings,
land or goods etc. and in the case of land, with or without incorporeal
hereditaments. The latter is taken to mean rents, ways, commonage
rights, franchises etc.

Therefore the basis for any incorporeal hereditaments is the ownership
of the title deed to the real estate.

Unfortunately for those who may have purchased "feudal baronies" or
"manorial lordships" with a topographical reference to a placename in
Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title of "baron" or "lord"
have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as "feudal baronies"
and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish context.

"Caveat Emptor"

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 23 mai 2006 02:19:06

"Michael Merrigan" <GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie> wrote in message
news:1148346148.078851.255870@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Matt, a Chara,

The enactment of the 1937 Constitution did not "abolish" monarchy,
royalty, nobility or any titles of nobility or honour emanating from
the British monarchy. It simply brought in a new constitutional
framework, in which, such did not exist - in other words, such concepts
did not survive the enactment of the Constitution by the People on July
1st 1937.

In the post 1937 constitutional framework, property means buildings,
land or goods etc. and in the case of land, with or without incorporeal
hereditaments. The latter is taken to mean rents, ways, commonage
rights, franchises etc.

Therefore the basis for any incorporeal hereditaments is the ownership
of the title deed to the real estate.

Unfortunately for those who may have purchased "feudal baronies" or
"manorial lordships" with a topographical reference to a placename in
Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title of "baron" or "lord"
have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as "feudal baronies"
and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish context.

"Caveat Emptor"

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie


Maybe someone will claim these somehow survived under UK law but then they
should look to the UK rather than Ireland for any recognition of such
lordships or baronies. Graham this your cue. :)
George Lucki

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 mai 2006 18:22:54

Michael Merrigan wrote:
Matt, a Chara,

The enactment of the 1937 Constitution did not "abolish" monarchy,
royalty, nobility or any titles of nobility or honour emanating from
the British monarchy. It simply brought in a new constitutional
framework, in which, such did not exist - in other words, such concepts
did not survive the enactment of the Constitution by the People on July
1st 1937.

Unfortunately for those who may have purchased "feudal baronies" or
"manorial lordships" with a topographical reference to a placename in
Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title of "baron" or "lord"
have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as "feudal baronies"
and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish context.


Dear Michael,

Thank you for that explanation. I've had a look among the Irish law
books in our library and it certainly seems clear that Irish manors
have little modern relevance - are mere paper titles, even - but
I'm not wholly convinced that they don't exist (becoming irrelevant
and ceasing to exist are not the same thing - look at John Prescott,
for example).

I have just been reading with interest the Irish Law Reform
Commission's 2004 consultation paper on Reform and Modernisation of
Land and Conveyancing Law, which touches obliquely on the matter of
Irish manors (and also the Commission's consequent 2005 Report on the
same subject, containing a draft Land and Conveyancing Bill which
apparently may be laid before parliament this year ).

I'm not sure that the Law Commission would be as certain as you that
the Constitution brought the existence of manors to an end. The
consultation paper and report both contain passing comments that manors
are 'a feudal concept no longer relevant to Ireland' - but
unfortunately they don't make it clear whether that is because manors
no longer exist, or because they exist but have no relevance. The
paper contains an interesting, if brief, outline of the history of
manors in Ireland which outlines how they had lost their economic and
legal importance by the end of the nineteenth century, but does not
actually say that they have ceased to exist. The implication seems to
be that they have not done so - that they have merely become
irrelevant.

The principal author of the consultation paper and report was Prof. JCW
Wylie, and the paper's historical outline is closely based on his
standard textbook Irish Land Law, especially pp. 59-60. That goes into
the decline of Irish manors in more detail but also carefully avoids
making any clear statement either way as to their continued existence -
which rather suggests that the paper's phrasing ('no longer
relevant to Ireland') was carefully chosen for its imprecision on the
point.

Interestingly the consultation paper does contain explicit statements
that feudal tenure still exists in Ireland, and recommends its
abolition 'in so far as it survives' (the draft bill includes a
provision to that effect). Here the Commission seems to have been
focussing primarily on abolishing the feudal concept that all land is
held from the State (in independent Ireland the successor to the
Crown), but it does seem to expect this also to effect the abolition of
intermediate feudal tenures, which presumably includes manors.

Regards,

Matt Tompkins

PS Both the consultation paper and the report and draft bill can be
found on the internet, at
http://www.lawreform.ie/files/Consultat ... %20Law.pdf
and
http://www.lawreform.ie/Report%20on%20R ... %20Law.pdf

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 mai 2006 18:44:55

George Lucki wrote:
Unfortunately for those who may have purchased "feudal baronies" or
"manorial lordships" with a topographical reference to a placename in
Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title of "baron" or "lord"
have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as "feudal baronies"
and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish context.

Maybe someone will claim these somehow survived under UK law but then they
should look to the UK rather than Ireland for any recognition of such
lordships or baronies. Graham this your cue. :)
George Lucki


It would certainly be foolish to make such a claim, because in the
context of land law (and the law of manors is a sub-category of land
law) there is no such thing as UK law. Someone might however suppose
that because manors survive under English law they may also survive in
Ireland.

This would not be an unreasonable supposition. Everyone knows that
current English law does not apply in Ireland, but that does not mean
some aspects of the law in both countries may not be similar - and as
regards land law the differences between them are small compared to the
gulf that separates English land law from that in any continental
country. Even the differences between English and Scottish land law
are greater! The fact is that Irish land law originated in the English
common law, and is still very similar to it (though since independence
they have been diverging steadily). Many land law statutes passed by
the English parliament applied in Ireland, and others were replicated
by equivalent acts of the pre-independence Irish parliament. Those
acts, and the basic English common law which they modified, are still
law in Ireland unless they have been modified by post-independence
legislation. The Irish Law Reform Commission's 2004 consultation
paper which I mentioned in my other posting says:

"It is remarkable that much of our current law stems from the
introduction of the Norman feudal system of land ownership. That system
was imposed on England and Wales following the Norman Conquest
beginning in the 11th century and was introduced to Ireland from the
late 12th century. Its imposition on Ireland was a long drawn-out
affair, and it was not until the early 17th century that the native
Irish "Brehon" system was finally displaced. Nevertheless, this
imposition of the feudal system resulted in Irish land law and
conveyancing law acquiring numerous fundamental features, many of which
remain of significance in the 21st century."

Among other aspects of land law, the law of manors was essentially the
same in Ireland as in England. Nineteenth century English acts
affecting English manors also applied to Irish ones, and are still law
in Ireland today (from the same paper: "The Copyhold Acts, enacted at
Westminster, provided for commutation of manorial rights and
enfranchisement of copyhold tenants and applied expressly to Ireland.
Yet it may be significant that the Copyhold Act 1894, which
consolidated the earlier Acts, expressly did not apply to Ireland. That
Act repealed all the earlier Acts, but, because it did not apply to
Ireland, it would appear that the earlier Acts remained on the Irish
statute book and still do!").

However there were never as many manors in Ireland as in England, many
of the manors which had been created in the medieval period faded away
subsequently, and those which survived lost their economic and legal
importance at an earlier date than in England, partly because copyhold
died out as a tenure before the nineteenth century. Even their court
jurisdiction was transferred to the petty sessions by an 1859 act. But
their lack of relevance did not mean that they ceased to exist, just as
English manors have not ceased to exist merely because copyhold tenure
has been abolished and manor courts have fallen into desuetude. So far
as I know no modern legislation has ended their existence (what would
be the point? - they are just meaningless relics of the past, paper
titles with no current relevance), and the assertion that their
existence is inconsistent with the constitution is based on the
supposition that ownership of a manor is a title of nobility or honour
emanating from the British monarchy - it is not, it is a landed
property interest (a valueless, meaningless one, certainly, but an
interest in land nevertheless). In the technical jargon it is a
corporeal hereditament (or used to be - in England 20th century
legislation has converted it to an incorporeal one).

(It would be otiose to try and draw a distinction between manors and
manorial lordships, and to suggest that the one exists but the other
does not - they are the same thing. If a manor exists, then it has
an owner, or in manorial jargon a lord).

Incidentally, I don't want to get drawn into the debate about feudal
baronies, concerning which I hold no views, but it may be of interest
to the proponents in the battle that although the Tenures Abolition Act
1660 did not apply to Ireland, an equivalent act was passed by the
Irish parliament - the Tenures Abolition Act (Ireland) 1662, which is
still in force in Ireland today (though perhaps not for much longer -
the Law Reform Commission's draft bill provides for its repeal!).

Regards,

Matt Tompkins

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 23 mai 2006 19:49:01

Matt, a Chara,

Firstly, many thanks for your very informative and detailed posting.
This is certainly the type of contribution this debate needs as
everyone can benefit from a posting with refences and sources.

Secondly, I do take your point on the issue of continued existence or
not of Irish manors and indeed, it appears that the Law Reform
Commission and others avoided making a direct statement on this point
because, in fact, such manors are meaningless or irrevelant in the
Irish context.

Thirdly, I hope that others reading your posts will understand and
fully appreciate that nobody here in Ireland could with any
justification advocate the inclusion of "feudal baronies" or "manorial
lordships" on Letters Patent granting Arms as proposed under the
Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006.

Finally, it is always useful for contributors to this debate to
realise, as you and others clearly do, that the object of the Bill is
to provide a legislative framework for heraldry in a republic and for
the delivery by that republic of heraldic services to its citizens and
its Diaspora. To do this we cannot attempt to replicate the English or
Scottish heraldic administrations here because of our republican
tradition and our Constitution. No offence is meant to anyone by this
stance - it's simply the practical manner in which to proceed here in
Ireland.

By the way, views or comments on other Sections of the Bill are always
most welcome.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Sean J Murphy

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Sean J Murphy » 23 mai 2006 20:40:39

mllt1@le.ac.uk wrote:
.. . . . .
Incidentally, I don't want to get drawn into the debate about feudal
baronies, concerning which I hold no views, but it may be of interest
to the proponents in the battle that although the Tenures Abolition Act
1660 did not apply to Ireland, an equivalent act was passed by the
Irish parliament - the Tenures Abolition Act (Ireland) 1662, which is
still in force in Ireland today (though perhaps not for much longer -
the Law Reform Commission's draft bill provides for its repeal!).


We have dealt with this here before, and courtesy of Derek Howard, the
full text of the 1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act is at
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... resact.htm Here again
is my summary of the Irish act: The act declared that the Court of Wards
and Liveries, and feudal tenures, that is, tenures by knight's service
of the King or otherwise, in capite or by socage in capite of the King,
were 'more burdensome to the Kingdom than beneficial to the King'.
Accordingly, these and other feudalities specified were to be abolished,
and the act was made retrospective to 1641. In particular, all tenures
of honours, manors, etc, were turned into 'free and common socage', that
is, shorn of feudal burdens and converted into property to be owned,
leased and so on in accordance with common and statute law.

The Irish and English acts contain a proviso exempting a title of honour
by which any person might have the right to sit in the House of Lords,
and the privileges belonging to them as peers. Again, this is clearly a
saving clause, not an extension of a right of sitting in the Lords to
modern purchasers of debatable feudal titles! Unlike the Scottish
Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act of 2000, the Irish act did not
specifically exempt feudal titles or manorial lordships. Finally, the
1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act is among those being retained under the
Statute Law Revision (Pre-Union) Bill 2006, although as indicated, this
may only be for the time being.

Sean Murphy
Irish 'Feudal Titles'
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... titles.htm

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 mai 2006 23:11:02

mllt1@le.ac.uk wrote:
However there were never as many manors in Ireland as in England, many
of the manors which had been created in the medieval period faded away
subsequently, and those which survived lost their economic and legal
importance at an earlier date than in England, partly because copyhold
died out as a tenure before the nineteenth century. Even their court
jurisdiction was transferred to the petty sessions by an 1859 act. But
their lack of relevance did not mean that they ceased to exist, just as
English manors have not ceased to exist merely because copyhold tenure
has been abolished and manor courts have fallen into desuetude.

Dear Matthew

How is one to assert rights to the ransom strips, common lands, etc
forming the staple of the English manorial lordship when confronted by
Irish rustics brandishing their land registration maps while insulting
the memory of ones grandpater?

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 mai 2006 23:28:49

mllt1@le.ac.uk wrote:
Interestingly the consultation paper does contain explicit statements
that feudal tenure still exists in Ireland, and recommends its
abolition 'in so far as it survives' (the draft bill includes a
provision to that effect). Here the Commission seems to have been
focussing primarily on abolishing the feudal concept that all land is
held from the State (in independent Ireland the successor to the
Crown), but it does seem to expect this also to effect the abolition of
intermediate feudal tenures, which presumably includes manors.

Dear Matthew

Lest Mr. Milne and his ship of fools head in our direction I must
quickly state that it is my understanding that these residual feudal
tenures relate to properties held by the Anglican Church of Ireland by
frankalmoign, an ecclesiastical tenure that did survive the Tenures
Abolition Act 1662.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt

Gjest

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 mai 2006 11:32:30

sir_crispin_gaylord@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
How is one to assert rights to the ransom strips, common lands, etc
forming the staple of the English manorial lordship when confronted by
Irish rustics brandishing their land registration maps while insulting
the memory of ones grandpater?

talking softly but carrying a big shillelagh?

Y'r ob'dient sarvant etc etc,

Matt

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 26 mai 2006 19:15:58

sir_crispin_gaylord@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
mllt1@le.ac.uk wrote:
Interestingly the consultation paper does contain explicit statements
that feudal tenure still exists in Ireland, and recommends its
abolition 'in so far as it survives' (the draft bill includes a
provision to that effect). Here the Commission seems to have been
focussing primarily on abolishing the feudal concept that all land is
held from the State (in independent Ireland the successor to the
Crown), but it does seem to expect this also to effect the abolition of
intermediate feudal tenures, which presumably includes manors.

Dear Matthew

Lest Mr. Milne and his ship of fools head in our direction I must
quickly state that it is my understanding that these residual feudal
tenures relate to properties held by the Anglican Church of Ireland by
frankalmoign, an ecclesiastical tenure that did survive the Tenures
Abolition Act 1662.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt? You are patently a nutter (the name is a bit
of a giveaway old chap).

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 26 mai 2006 19:19:22

Michael Merrigan wrote:

Thirdly, I hope that others reading your posts will understand and
fully appreciate that nobody here in Ireland could with any
justification advocate the inclusion of "feudal baronies" or "manorial
lordships" on Letters Patent granting Arms as proposed under the
Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006.

Now you are admitting that it is a matter of pure prejudice i.e. it is
your OPINION that it can't be justified. They should lock you up and
keep you well away from interfering in other people's lives. You will
grow a small black moustache and start goose-stepping soon.

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 27 mai 2006 17:31:01

Mr. Milne,

Despite many contributors making exactly the same point, it appears
that you cannot or won't accept the fact that those who have purchased
"feudal baronies" or "manorial lordships" with a topographical
reference to a place in Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title
of "baron" or "lord" have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as
"feudal baronies" and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish
context.

Attacking persons in this newsgroup over this issue is like the man who
bought a vehicle from a dodgy dealership and when he drove it on the
highway the engine fell out, but instead of going back to the
dealership to demand his money back, he stood on the side of the
highway ranting and raving - hurling abuse at passing motorists and
waving his Purchase Agreement at all and sundry blaming everybody else
for his own choice of dealership.

"Caveat Emptor"

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 27 mai 2006 23:07:48

Michael Merrigan wrote:
Matt, a Chara,

The enactment of the 1937 Constitution did not "abolish" monarchy,
royalty, nobility or any titles of nobility or honour emanating from
the British monarchy. It simply brought in a new constitutional
framework, in which, such did not exist - in other words, such concepts
did not survive the enactment of the Constitution by the People on July
1st 1937.


Michael,
Givem our recent interaction, I should perhaps start by
saying that the position you set out above is in accord with my own
private preferences. However, my private preferences aside, there is a
large body of opinion that the above is incorrect. In this other
viewpoint, the Irish Head of State until 1948 was King George VI as
"King of Ireland". This position is very prevalent on the web, e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_head ... _1936-1949

If this other viewpoint is correct, then of course your argument above
is incorrect.


In the post 1937 constitutional framework, property means buildings,
land or goods etc. and in the case of land, with or without incorporeal
hereditaments. The latter is taken to mean rents, ways, commonage
rights, franchises etc.

Therefore the basis for any incorporeal hereditaments is the ownership
of the title deed to the real estate.

Unfortunately for those who may have purchased "feudal baronies" or
"manorial lordships" with a topographical reference to a placename in
Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title of "baron" or "lord"
have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as "feudal baronies"
and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish context.

An aspect of this which needs to be emphasised out is that in many
Irish cases the "barony" being "sold" is in fact nothing else than a
topographical reference to the name of a former adminstrative unit!
i.e. there is often evidence **at all** of a "barony" as a historical
feudal entity, or of any ownership of same. How people can literally
"buy" such rubbish has always escaped me.

Regards,
The Chief

"Caveat Emptor"

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 27 mai 2006 23:50:36

Michael Merrigan wrote:
Mr. Milne,

Despite many contributors making exactly the same point, it appears
that you cannot or won't accept the fact that those who have purchased
"feudal baronies" or "manorial lordships" with a topographical
reference to a place in Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title
of "baron" or "lord" have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as
"feudal baronies" and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish
context.

Attacking persons in this newsgroup over this issue is like the man who
bought a vehicle from a dodgy dealership and when he drove it on the
highway the engine fell out, but instead of going back to the
dealership to demand his money back, he stood on the side of the
highway ranting and raving - hurling abuse at passing motorists and
waving his Purchase Agreement at all and sundry blaming everybody else
for his own choice of dealership.

"Caveat Emptor"

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Wrong. I am sure that there are quite a number of people who have
purchased non-existent Irish feudal baronies or lordships. On the other
hand it is a fact that there were numerous real feudal baronies created
in Ireland (see Burke's 'Extinct Peerage') and that while baronial
tenure seems to have been abolished in 1662 baronial titles were
specifically preserved. They therefore continue to exist in law, though
you are desperately trying to avoid the fact. They are property which
carries certain rights, one of which is the title of baron; in fact, in
my view, the property consists of the right to the title of baron.
Frankly, I couldn't give a stuff whether these things are legally
'property' or 'possessions' or whether it is EU law or a European
convention that protects property (or possessions), what concerns me is
there is a clear attempt to ride roughshod over the rights of a
minority and that unless the law/convention on human rights isn't worth
the paper it is written on this attempt will prove fruitless. If you
are so sure that feudal baronies don't exist then what harm can there
be putting a saving clause in your precious act (like they did in
1662)? In addition, given that feudal baronies most certainly did exist
in the past in Ireland perhaps you could inform us how and when they
were abolished? And if I seem rather het up it is because I resent
people trying to bully others for the sake of political correctness and
their precious republic. What you need is a good old-fashioned King who
can tell you where to get off.

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 28 mai 2006 14:24:45

A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

Yes, I see the points made, however, a Supreme Court judgement made the
point that the concept of monarchy did not survive the enactment of the
1937 Constitution. In fact, in many ways the External Relations Act had
reduced the king to the position of a higher civil servant.

The powers vested in the king by the Oireachtas were very limited and
the reference to the changeover from Edward VIII to George VI was only
to give effect to the operation of those limited powers under the
External Relations Act, 1936

But interestingly enough the President and all references to the office
are "in the State" so again, though George VI was King of Ireland (in
accordance with the 1927 Act) he didn't take precedence over all other
persons in the State - the President of Ireland did - Article 12.1 of
the Constitution.

In respect of the bills enacted by the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) it
was the President and not the king who signed these into law - Article
13.3.1 & 2.

A Thaoisigh (Chief), the position of the monarchy in the period 1937 to
1949 has been much debated, however, the constitutional position was
clear enough that Ireland was in fact a republic in all but name.
However, as you are aware - there is no mention of either the republic
or the monarchy in the Constitution. The removal of monarchy from the
constitutional law of the land in 1937 by default, if you like.

Regarding the consideration of Irish legislation now the concepts of
royalty, monarchy and nobility are non-existent in the Irish context.
However, I'll leave the debate on the twelve year period between the
enactment of the Constitution to the Declaration of the Republic in
1949 to others as it has, as you are aware, been debated by lawyers for
years.

A Thaoisigh, regarding feudal baronies and manorial lordships - I fully
agree with you. Put simply, "Caveat Emptor" ..

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 28 mai 2006 16:52:27

A Thaoisigh, a Chara

Regarding the Wikipedia piece on the King of Ireland the following
statements are incorrect and misleading.

(TEXT)
For example, the British cabinet could no longer advise the King on
matters pertinent to the Irish Free State but the king, through his
governor general (after 1937, through the President of Ireland) took
the advice of his Irish prime ministers.
(END TEXT)

The position of Governor General was made increasingly redundant
between 1932 and the enactment of the Constitution in 1937 by various
amendments to the Free State Constitution and, of course, by de
Valera's attitude to the office.

The President of Ireland did not have any function whatsoever as
advisor to the king or as an official conduit between the Irish Prime
Minister and the king. This statement in Wikipedia is entirely
incorrect.

(TEXT)
The position of King of Ireland ceased with the passage of the Republic
of Ireland Act, which came into force in April 1949. This act, as the
name suggested, declared the state to be a republic.
(END TEXT)

The above statement is misleading as it ignores the fact that
legislation was first passed by the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament)
declaring Ireland to be a republic, to which, the British Parliament
reacted by passing the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949 to officially and
legislatively recognise in British law the fact that Ireland had left
the Commonwealth and declared itself to be a republic. This British
legislation also declared that the twenty-six counties of the southern
part of the island of Ireland were no longer part of his majesty's
dominions.

In many ways this was little more than legislative housekeeping by the
British, however, unfortunately from a heraldic point of view, it did
not change the Royal Arms to reflect the new reality. I am sure that
some Northern Irish or Welsh contributors would have opinions on a
possible new design for the British Royal Arms - I'll leave that to
them.

On the above heraldic point, a small diplomatic incident happened on
the first visit by President Mary Robinson to Buckingham Palace where,
it was reported, British officials objected to the use of the Irish
Presidential Standard on her car. In their opinion the flag or Arms -
azure a harp strigned or - was the personal property of the British
monarch as it forms part of the British Royal Arms.

The Arms of Ireland were granted by the Chief Herald of Ireland in 1945
and indeed, the Arms of Northern Ireland were granted by the Ulster
King of Arms on August 2nd 1924, the former has no legal protection
whilst the latter may enjoy such under English law.

Maybe, with the new and very positive relationship between Dublin and
London and especially, with the devolved administrations in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland that time is right for the
change in the design of the British Royal Arms.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 28 mai 2006 17:30:05

Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

Yes, I see the points made, however, a Supreme Court judgement made the
point that the concept of monarchy did not survive the enactment of the
1937 Constitution.

Are you sure - can you provide a reference? I myself seem to remember
rulings along the lines that the consitution is inherently republican,
but I can't find any online.

Of course, there is a Supreme Court judgement that the royal
prerogative did not survive the enactment of the **1922 consitution,**
and so did not exist to be captured by the 1937 consitution, which is
not quite the same as what you say above. [These rulings were the ones
that some, including yourself, say undermine the validity of Irish
grants of arms since 1943, a point which was already debated here at
some length].

[As another aside, while your proposed heraldry bill addresses a
possible, but far from certain, defect in Irish grants post 1943, I
note that it is entirely silent on the certain problem with post 1921
grants by the Ulster King of Arms. I believe that these grants were
accepted as being Irish, but of course they were made directly under
the royal prerogative, which the Supreme Court has ruled did not
exist.]

In fact, in many ways the External Relations Act had
reduced the king to the position of a higher civil servant.

The powers vested in the king by the Oireachtas were very limited and
the reference to the changeover from Edward VIII to George VI was only
to give effect to the operation of those limited powers under the
External Relations Act, 1936.

Not quite. The part that the supporters of the "king" theory, if we may
call it that, seize on is:
"His said Majesty shall, for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section
of this section and all other (if any) purposes, cease to be king, and
the king for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if His
said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried
would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát
Eireann."
i.e. it says explicitly that G VI is sucessor as king, "under the law
of Saorstát Eireann."

But interestingly enough the President and all references to the office
are "in the State" so again, though George VI was King of Ireland (in
accordance with the 1927 Act)

I would disagree with the statement that "George VI was King of
Ireland" - I think it is another Wikipedia error of fact. The "1927
Act" you refer to [the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927], was
not an Irish act, but an act of the British parliament. As such, it was
**not** Irish law, and could not be so as the 1922 consitution was very
explicit (in two places) that only the Dail could legislate for
Ireland. There was no Irish law creating or mentioning a tile of "King
of Ireland."



he didn't take precedence over all other
persons in the State - the President of Ireland did - Article 12.1 of
the Constitution.

In respect of the bills enacted by the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) it
was the President and not the king who signed these into law - Article
13.3.1 & 2.

A Thaoisigh (Chief), the position of the monarchy in the period 1937 to
1949 has been much debated, however, the constitutional position was
clear enough that Ireland was in fact a republic in all but name.

Indeed. Actually, this was also a reason for my separate posting
regarding the US position. Dev was much influenced by US practice (he
was a US citizen), and may have been mindful that the US was also not
explicitly termed a republic, etc.

However, as you are aware - there is no mention of either the republic
or the monarchy in the Constitution. The removal of monarchy from the
constitutional law of the land in 1937 by default, if you like.

Regarding the consideration of Irish legislation now the concepts of
royalty, monarchy and nobility are non-existent in the Irish context.
However, I'll leave the debate on the twelve year period between the
enactment of the Constitution to the Declaration of the Republic in
1949 to others as it has, as you are aware, been debated by lawyers for
years.

A Thaoisigh, regarding feudal baronies and manorial lordships - I fully
agree with you. Put simply, "Caveat Emptor" ..

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Regards,
The Chief

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 28 mai 2006 18:55:01

Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara

Regarding the Wikipedia piece on the King of Ireland the following
statements are incorrect and misleading.

(TEXT)
For example, the British cabinet could no longer advise the King on
matters pertinent to the Irish Free State but the king, through his
governor general (after 1937, through the President of Ireland) took
the advice of his Irish prime ministers.
(END TEXT)

The position of Governor General was made increasingly redundant
between 1932 and the enactment of the Constitution in 1937 by various
amendments to the Free State Constitution and, of course, by de
Valera's attitude to the office.

The President of Ireland did not have any function whatsoever as
advisor to the king or as an official conduit between the Irish Prime
Minister and the king. This statement in Wikipedia is entirely
incorrect.

(TEXT)
The position of King of Ireland ceased with the passage of the Republic
of Ireland Act, which came into force in April 1949. This act, as the
name suggested, declared the state to be a republic.
(END TEXT)

The above statement is misleading as it ignores the fact that
legislation was first passed by the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament)
declaring Ireland to be a republic, to which, the British Parliament
reacted by passing the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949 to officially and
legislatively recognise in British law the fact that Ireland had left
the Commonwealth and declared itself to be a republic. This British
legislation also declared that the twenty-six counties of the southern
part of the island of Ireland were no longer part of his majesty's
dominions.



The Wikipedia articles on Ireland - there are quite a few - make me
seethe. They are littered with inaccuracies and mistakes, and are
written very explicitly from an obnoxious British historical and legal
interpretation. So, I would encourage you do do some editing, but the
articles are very consistent so the work required would be extensive .
One basic problem is that this "British" point of view is built in at
the very top level, which cannot be edited - i.e. main headings for
Ireland tend to include "Republic of" in the main titles.

In many ways this was little more than legislative housekeeping by the
British, however, unfortunately from a heraldic point of view, it did
not change the Royal Arms to reflect the new reality. I am sure that
some Northern Irish or Welsh contributors would have opinions on a
possible new design for the British Royal Arms - I'll leave that to
them.

On the above heraldic point, a small diplomatic incident happened on
the first visit by President Mary Robinson to Buckingham Palace where,
it was reported, British officials objected to the use of the Irish
Presidential Standard on her car. In their opinion the flag or Arms -
azure a harp strigned or - was the personal property of the British
monarch as it forms part of the British Royal Arms.

Well, it is actually far worse than that. Apparently, Mrs
Mountbatten-Windsor and her government do not recognize the existence
of such a thing as a "President of Ireland." Consequently, they never
use this title, but always write or refer to "President xy" where xy is
the name of the current president. I also believe thay they also avoid
referring to the "Goverenment of Ireland," for what it is worth.


The Arms of Ireland were granted by the Chief Herald of Ireland in 1945
and indeed, the Arms of Northern Ireland were granted by the Ulster
King of Arms on August 2nd 1924, the former has no legal protection
whilst the latter may enjoy such under English law.

Maybe, with the new and very positive relationship between Dublin and
London and especially, with the devolved administrations in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland that time is right for the
change in the design of the British Royal Arms.

As you say, people talk of a "positive" relationship, but how many know
that the British will not even refer to our president by her title, or
to our government by its formal style? Perhaps this should be aired in
the media.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan

Regards,
The Chief

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 28 mai 2006 19:15:01

A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

You raise many interesting points, however, it was the 1937 and not the
1922 Constitution that royal prerogatives did not survive - Webb v
Ireland (1988) I.R. 353. Mr. Justice Walsh in the Supreme Court held
that the Constitution swept away the old regime i.e. royalty, monarchy,
nobility etc.

This is upheld by Article 6 of the Constitution which is an assertion
of the popular sovereignty of the People of Ireland - and as such, an
entirely new legal framework was created.

Article 15.2.1 is an important assertion of the sole and exclusive
power to make laws for Ireland rests with the Oireachtas (Irish
Parliament).

The position of the king according to the External Relations Act, 1936,
was in relation to his position under the 1922 Constitution of the
Irish Free State.

The 1927 Act was indeed Westminster legislation - however, it is
interesting to note that it was the Irish who pushed for this measure
to remove the possibility of a British Prime Minister advising the king
on Irish matters. The king in future would be advised by the Irish
government alone on such matters. In many ways it brought us back to a
situation very similar to the period 1783 to 1801 i.e. king and Irish
parliament making laws for Ireland etc. removing Westminster.

There was no need for Ireland to pass its own legislation for it to
accept certain provisions of The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act,
1927 as the king was already included in the Irish Free State
Constitution - he just had a new title.

An amendment in 1933 to the Constitution of the Irish Free State
abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council - again, even prior
to the 1937 Constitution removing elements of the old regime from the
Irish legal framework.

It was also interesting to note that Winston S. Churchill was very much
against the British accepting the fact that the Irish People had given
unto themselves the 1937 Constitution - he maintained that it was a
breach of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6th 1921.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 28 mai 2006 23:14:04

Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

You raise many interesting points, however, it was the 1937 and not the
1922 Constitution that royal prerogatives did not survive - Webb v
Ireland (1988) I.R. 353. Mr. Justice Walsh in the Supreme Court held
that the Constitution swept away the old regime i.e. royalty, monarchy,
nobility etc.

We have disagreed before over which Constitution was the relevant one
with regard to the non-existence of royal prerogative powers. I firmly
believe you are mistaken and are misconstruing the 1988 Webb decision.
The 1988 Webb judgement is available online at
http://www.ucc.ie/law/irlii/cases/3139p_82.htm
Can you quote from that document where "Mr. Justice Walsh in the
Supreme Court held that the Constitution swept away the old regime i.e.
royalty, monarchy, nobility etc."? I am afraid I just don't see it.

What I do see there is the following (from the CJ, a majority
concuring):

"That applying the decision of this Court in Byrne v Ireland [1972] IR
241 with regard to the question of a State immunity from suit that the
former royal prerogative of treasure trove as contained in the common
law was not carried into our law by the Constitution of Saorstát
Éireann in 1922 and was not carried into our law by virtue of the
Constitution."

And most particularly:

"I agree with the view reached by the learned trial judge in this case
that on the authority of Byrne v. Ireland no royal prerogative in
existence prior to the enactment of the Constitution of 1922 was by
virtue of the provisions of that Constitution vested in the Irish Free
State. I agree with the judgment of Walsh J in Byrne v. Ireland which
was expressly concurred in by a majority of the court that the
provisions of Article 2 of the Constitution of 1922 declaring the Irish
Free State to be a Sovereign State and the provisions of Article 51 of
the same Constitution expressly vesting in the King certain executive
functions, being the executive functions of the Irish Free State, are
inconsistent with the transference to that State of any royal
prerogative. As is also set out in the decision in Byrne v. Ireland it
must follow from this conclusion that the royal prerogatives were not
prerogatives exercisable in Saorstát Éireann imme diately before 11
December 1936 and were therefore not captured by Article 49.1 of the
Constitution."

As you can see from the above quotes, the logic of the Supreme Court
majority in this and the previous Walsh case is absolutely explicit: it
is that the royal prerogative did not survive the enactment of the
**1922** constitution of the Irish Free State. Indeed they had to reach
back to 1922 to reach this conclusion, as the 1937 constitution
explicitly allows for prerogative powers, viz:
"Article 49
1. All powers, functions, rights and prerogatives whatsoever
exercisable in or in respect of Saorstát Éireann immediately before
the 11th day of December, 1936, whether in virtue of the Constitution
then in force or otherwise, by the authority in which the executive
power of Saorstát Éireann was then vested are hereby declared to
belong to the people."

i.e. an attempt to declare prerogative powers unconstitutional based on
the 1937 constitution would be doomed to failure, as they are
explicitly provided for. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled (twice) that
there simply were no royal prerogative powers to be transferred under
Art. 49, Sect. 1.


This is upheld by Article 6 of the Constitution which is an assertion
of the popular sovereignty of the People of Ireland - and as such, an
entirely new legal framework was created.

I am afraid I have to disagree. The sovereignity of the people was
already explicitly there in the 1922 consitution, viz:

"Article 2.
All powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive, and
judicial, in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland..."

So, not an entirely new legal framework.


Article 15.2.1 is an important assertion of the sole and exclusive
power to make laws for Ireland rests with the Oireachtas (Irish
Parliament).


But yet again, this was not at all new. The "sole and exclusive"
wording was also right there in the 1922 Constitution, viz
"Article 12.
.....The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the peace, order
and good government of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) is
vested in the Oireachtas."

This clause is the basis for my earlier statement that only the
Oireachtas could legislate for Ireland post 1921, and British laws did
not apply.



The position of the king according to the External Relations Act, 1936,
was in relation to his position under the 1922 Constitution of the
Irish Free State.

The 1927 Act was indeed Westminster legislation - however, it is
interesting to note that it was the Irish who pushed for this measure
to remove the possibility of a British Prime Minister advising the king
on Irish matters. The king in future would be advised by the Irish
government alone on such matters. In many ways it brought us back to a
situation very similar to the period 1783 to 1801 i.e. king and Irish
parliament making laws for Ireland etc. removing Westminster.

Much of this was indeed pushed for by the Irish delegation - in
particular by 1926 the royal title and the then name of the UK were
obviously outdated and needed to be changed. However, Desmond
FitzGerald, the then Irish minister for External Affairs, returned from
the 1926 conference which agreed these changes, and assured the Dail
that any change in the King's titles in Ireland required **Irish**
legislation. That Westminister could not legislate for Ireland had
already been conceeded - as shown above, it was explicitly in the 1922
Constitution, which was also enacted as British law. Of course, no
such Irish legislation was ever passed - presumably on the grounds that
they did not want any explicit Irish grant of a title to the British
king.


There was no need for Ireland to pass its own legislation for it to
accept certain provisions of The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act,
1927 as the king was already included in the Irish Free State
Constitution - he just had a new title.

As I just pointed out, this is in some ways directly contrary to the
then Irish constitutional and legal position, and what the then
responsible minister told the Dail in 1926. That in practice they
simply adopted the revised British titles is as I have just mentioned,
probably because they did not want an explicit Irish grant, and because
the revision was superior to the previous version. Indeed, there was a
long discussion in the Dail in 1922, when the then constitution was
being drafted, as to where/what the "King" was actually king of. It is
nowhere defined, and in the end that was the way it was left! (i.e. no
reference to King of UK or Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc, in the
1922 Consitution)


An amendment in 1933 to the Constitution of the Irish Free State
abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council - again, even prior
to the 1937 Constitution removing elements of the old regime from the
Irish legal framework.

Having grown up myself with the 1937 constitution, I was quite
surprised when I first read the 1922 version. It was very forward
looking in many respects - very much a republican document with a king
in the veneer.
Getting back to the Wikipedia assertion that there was a "King of
Ireland" until 1949, I would also point out that the Irish Supreme
Court rulings directly imply that the King ceased to be King in Ireland
in 1936. The 1971 Byrne ruling was to the effect that the King only
existed because of, and only had such specific powers as were granted
in the 1922 Constitution - once the king was entirely removed from the
constitution, as happened in 1936, then it would seem to directly
follow that there was no King.

It was also interesting to note that Winston S. Churchill was very much
against the British accepting the fact that the Irish People had given
unto themselves the 1937 Constitution - he maintained that it was a
breach of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6th 1921.

That is true, but hardly surprising. He was an out and out
ultra-imperialist.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Regards,
The Chief

GSI.Secretary@familyhisto

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av GSI.Secretary@familyhisto » 29 mai 2006 00:20:58

A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

It is clear that the commentaries published on the Webb case seem at
odds with the text and yes, I accept the point raised in relation to
the 1922 Constitution. Indeed, I agree with you that it was in many
respects a far reaching document.

I have just re-read a piece in Butterworths - "The Irish Legal System"
by Byrne & McCutcheon - it appears that several parts of the decision
in the Webb case - give rise to the conflicting commentaries published.
"The Webb decision indicates, therefore, that while the Constitution
swept away the old regime......" - the Constitution here meaning the
1937 Constitution. This may well be the source of the belief that this
decision indicated that the concepts of "royalty", "monarchy" and
"nobility" as part of the "old regime" were likewise swept away by the
enactment of the Constitution.

I agree with the other points you raised and was quite interested in
your take on the issue of the 1927 Act - clearly the Teachtaí Dála
(Members of Parliament) didn't want to involve themselves in such
legislation as it would be seen as re-enacting the 1541 provision which
created the title of "King of Ireland" for Henry VIII.

Anyway, a Thaoisigh, I think we won't solve this one here, however,
given that the thread is on the Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, I
would like to hear your views on the provisions proposed by the Bill.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 29 mai 2006 01:19:31

Michael Merrigan wrote:
Sorry folks it seems that some readers had a difficulty in finding the
text of the Bill on the Irish Parliamentary website. This should make
it easier
http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?Do ... tID=59&m=l

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Michael,
Here are some, hopefully constructive, suggestions and
comments:

1) Please correct the unhistorical assertion that the former "Ulster's
Office" was transferred to Irish control by the "British Government."
Ulster's was a "Crown Office" and as such did not belong to the British
Government any more or less than to the Irish. With the decision to
wind up Ulster's Office there was a need for agreement with the British
as to how to divide/allocate the records, which were for all of
Ireland, and such an agreement was indeed reached. However, I would
assert that it is quite incorrect to portray this process as the
British Government handing over control, etc.

2) I would suggest that the mention of feudal baronies, etc, in the
text of the bill may backfire. I agree with those who believe that
feudal baronies were simply abolished centuries ago, yet here is a bill
in 2006 referring to them in a context and wording that suggests that
they do indeed still exist. A very bad idea, which may actually
strengthen the case of the "feudalists."

3) What is to be the position with regard to the 1922-1943 grants by
Ulster? As I have set out separately, several Irish Supreme Court
decisions explicitly state that the royal prerogative did not survive
the enactment of the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State. Yet, as
we all know, Ulster's grants were explicitly made on the basis of this
(non-existent) royal prerogative.

4) Perhaps most importantly, what of enforcement powers,
justiciability, etc.? When the GO was on a non-statutory basis, the
lack of any such powers and justiciability was reasonable. However,
once you set up a statutory organization that is no longer so.

5) At one or two points there is reference to offences. But I don't see
any penalties for these offences - did I miss this?

6) In general, there is way too much detail in this bill and a lack of
general principles and establishment of powers. Much of the detail
simply should not be included in primary legislation. Instead it could
be specified that the CH publish all rules and regulations in the Iris
Oifigiuil, or if you wish to retain some control, specify that all
rules and regulations must be laid before the Dail for approval. Some
examples of the unnecessary level of detail:
a) The oft repeated deadline of 60 days for action by the CH. What is
fundamental about 60 days, as opposed to 50 or 70? Nothing. Legislating
such deadlines is certain to lead to problems when the deadline is
missed (as it will - what of complicated questions, illness, etc.)
b). Specific comments are made on some types of augmentation of arms
(supporters, crest coronets and crowns), but not others (pavilions,
hats of maintenance, cloaks, form and orientation of helm, chapeau,
etc. etc.). It is wrong in principle to legislate on some but not
others.

7) Another major flaw is that some of the clauses seem to reflect
purely personal, subjective opinion and preferences, and attempt to
make such the law of the land. Again, this is objectionable in
principle. An example of this is the clause on crest coronets and
crowns. The language here reflects the personal opinions of Mr Merrigan
as expressed on rec.heraldry some time ago. Yet, these opinions are
indeed purely personal - as demonstrated in the discussion on
rec.heraldry at the time, such coronets or crowns have no uniform
meaning or implication, nobiliary or otherwise, in European heraldry. I
can't see why a particular (British) interpretation, which seems to
be to the fore in Mr Merrigan's mind, should inform Irish legislation
in this area. To continue on these lines we would have to legislate
particular interpretations for all the historic charges used in
heraldry. That would be ridiculous.

8) Speaking of language, some constructions are open to ridicule. For
example, there is reference to the "democratic republican nature of
the State." We all know that democratic republics are in fact
communist dictatorships. More generally, this sort of language should
be avoided.

9) What of military heraldry - army colours, the coats of arms of naval
ships etc. No reference to any of this.

10) Instead of saying that government departments, county councils,
etc. can made use of the Chief Herald in designing arms, it should be
stated that they **must** make use of the Chief Herald.

Overall, I welcome any move to strengthen the status and practice of
heraldry in Ireland, but this bill requires substantial revision and
further thought. In particular, I believe that the Scottish position
should be studied in some detail, and a move made towards such a
system.

Regards,
The Chief

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 29 mai 2006 02:13:33

A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

I most certainly welcome your comments and of course, this Bill will be
open to amendment during its various stages following debate etc.

The detail contained in the Bill was designed to meet the highest
standards of service delivery by the proposed Office of Arms, including
turnaround schedules etc. The present system has no such control and
indeed, nothing is published in Iris Oifigiúil to indicate grants made
or rescinded etc. The level of detail is no greater than that provided
for in other legislation dealing with registration of whatever by the
State.

It was necessary to provide a sound legislative basis for the State's
delivery of heraldic services as we are, in fact, "establishing" an
Office of Arms.

The 1922 to 1943 grants made by Ulster are covered by Section 14 (2) -
the problem of retrospection only arises in respect of grants made by
the Chief Herald of Ireland and are covered by Section 21.

The military and naval Arms are covered by Section 18 and the colours
etc under Section 25 (2) and Section 25 (3). Also see the Third
Schedule. They are also included in Section 36 (5).

Offences & Penalties are covered by Section 40.

Your points in no. 7 - are simply wrong - this is not a personal view
as this newsgroup has noted many times before that some grants to
individuals made by the Chief Herald have included items that are
clearly incompatible with a republic whether in the text of the Letters
Patent (feudal baronies etc) or in the Arms themselves. You'll note
Section 19 (3), (5) and (6) in respect of crowns or coronets - only
given where appropriate.

As for substantial amendment - well that will be up to the Senators, in
the meantime, I strongly believe that the publication of the Bill has
provided a clear basis for the development of a sound legislative
framework for the delivery by the State of heraldic services.

It has also given all with an interest in Irish genealogy and heraldry
an opportunity to have a constructive and open debate on the future of
such in Ireland.

Again, thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 29 mai 2006 04:33:08

"The Chief" <The_Chieftain@att.net> wrote in message
news:1148861971.060085.20140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Sorry folks it seems that some readers had a difficulty in finding the
text of the Bill on the Irish Parliamentary website. This should make
it easier
http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?Do ... tID=59&m=l

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Michael,
Here are some, hopefully constructive, suggestions and
comments:

1) Please correct the unhistorical assertion that the former "Ulster's
Office" was transferred to Irish control by the "British Government."
Ulster's was a "Crown Office" and as such did not belong to the British
Government any more or less than to the Irish. With the decision to
wind up Ulster's Office there was a need for agreement with the British
as to how to divide/allocate the records, which were for all of
Ireland, and such an agreement was indeed reached. However, I would
assert that it is quite incorrect to portray this process as the
British Government handing over control, etc.

Chief,
You make some excellent observations. I'll add my two cents worth.

2) I would suggest that the mention of feudal baronies, etc, in the
text of the bill may backfire. I agree with those who believe that
feudal baronies were simply abolished centuries ago, yet here is a bill
in 2006 referring to them in a context and wording that suggests that
they do indeed still exist. A very bad idea, which may actually
strengthen the case of the "feudalists."

I don't believe that Irish feudal baronies have survived any more than
English baronies. I don't believe that trade in them by silly people will
stop and welcome that there won't be any heraldic recognition of this. Your
point nonetheless is a good observation.

3) What is to be the position with regard to the 1922-1943 grants by
Ulster? As I have set out separately, several Irish Supreme Court
decisions explicitly state that the royal prerogative did not survive
the enactment of the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State. Yet, as
we all know, Ulster's grants were explicitly made on the basis of this
(non-existent) royal prerogative.

In the period after 1922 and more particularly after 1937 I would see the
grants of arms made by the Ulster office as 'foreign grants' incorporated
into the Irish register - the authority for such grants is not clear but it
is easier to incorporate now retrospectively the grants of this foreign
office than those made by the Genealogical Office. The former were made on
the basis of the "English and Imperial" royal perogative which may not have
existed within Irish law but existed under the authority given to the
College of Arms by its sovereign. Even though this perogative may not have
survived it was asserted by an office of the Royal Household of the English
King. These historical grants need to be incorporated into Irish law and the
bill seems to do this. They will become now as though historical Irish
grants. Similarly the post 1943 GO grants are incorporated (after review)
into the Irish register.

4) Perhaps most importantly, what of enforcement powers,
justiciability, etc.? When the GO was on a non-statutory basis, the
lack of any such powers and justiciability was reasonable. However,
once you set up a statutory organization that is no longer so.

Isn't there a general mechanism for prosecuting the whole range of
non-criminal statutory offenses?

5) At one or two points there is reference to offences. But I don't see
any penalties for these offences - did I miss this?

It's there. 2000 Euros and six months.

6) In general, there is way too much detail in this bill and a lack of
general principles and establishment of powers. Much of the detail
simply should not be included in primary legislation. Instead it could
be specified that the CH publish all rules and regulations in the Iris
Oifigiuil, or if you wish to retain some control, specify that all
rules and regulations must be laid before the Dail for approval. Some
examples of the unnecessary level of detail:
a) The oft repeated deadline of 60 days for action by the CH. What is
fundamental about 60 days, as opposed to 50 or 70? Nothing. Legislating
such deadlines is certain to lead to problems when the deadline is
missed (as it will - what of complicated questions, illness, etc.)
b). Specific comments are made on some types of augmentation of arms
(supporters, crest coronets and crowns), but not others (pavilions,
hats of maintenance, cloaks, form and orientation of helm, chapeau,
etc. etc.). It is wrong in principle to legislate on some but not
others.

I've had similar discussions with colleagues - how much detail should be
included? Perhaps more? I like the accountability that comes from clearer
statutory specification. Some might occur through delegation such as the
Chief Herald subject to the approval of the... may make regulations, etc.
The framers of the bill have struck a reasonable balance overall.

7) Another major flaw is that some of the clauses seem to reflect
purely personal, subjective opinion and preferences, and attempt to
make such the law of the land. Again, this is objectionable in
principle. An example of this is the clause on crest coronets and
crowns. The language here reflects the personal opinions of Mr Merrigan
as expressed on rec.heraldry some time ago. Yet, these opinions are
indeed purely personal - as demonstrated in the discussion on
rec.heraldry at the time, such coronets or crowns have no uniform
meaning or implication, nobiliary or otherwise, in European heraldry. I
can't see why a particular (British) interpretation, which seems to
be to the fore in Mr Merrigan's mind, should inform Irish legislation
in this area. To continue on these lines we would have to legislate
particular interpretations for all the historic charges used in
heraldry. That would be ridiculous.

I'm in agreement here - the basic crest coronet has a completely
non-nobillary tradition. On reflection this section might restrict from
creating a grammar of new coronets. Canada for example has developed a whole
range of coronets with provincial flowers, loyalist symbols, ethnic symbols,
etc. None have any nobillary significance. I think it is the attributed
meaning that needs legislating rather than the device itself.

8) Speaking of language, some constructions are open to ridicule. For
example, there is reference to the "democratic republican nature of
the State." We all know that democratic republics are in fact
communist dictatorships. More generally, this sort of language should
be avoided.

I'm not sure I see your point. The reference is to Irish constitutional
order rather than that of Belarus.
9) What of military heraldry - army colours, the coats of arms of naval
ships etc. No reference to any of this.

In general there is - what isn't specifically mentioned and probably should
are military and police badges. These require a particular degree of
protection.

10) Instead of saying that government departments, county councils,
etc. can made use of the Chief Herald in designing arms, it should be
stated that they **must** make use of the Chief Herald.

Interesting observation - these groups are susceptible to 'design by
committee' which can lead to less than pleasing heraldic composition. I'm
content with either approach.

Overall, I welcome any move to strengthen the status and practice of
heraldry in Ireland, but this bill requires substantial revision and
further thought. In particular, I believe that the Scottish position
should be studied in some detail, and a move made towards such a
system.

I'm quite pleased with the bill overall - although the discussion that is
ocurring can strengthen the bill. I'm not sure that the Scottish position is
particularly well-suited to Ireland - Lyon is both a minister and a judge
for example. Scotland has a strong (idiosyncratic) view of personal arms
rather than familial ones. The Scottish system is rooted in the exercise of
a royal perogative rather than a republican statute, etc. On the other hand
the protection afforded to arms and the prohibition on non-registered arms
are worthy of consideration (after a lengthy period of transition).

George Lucki

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 29 mai 2006 07:39:21

Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

I most certainly welcome your comments and of course, this Bill will be
open to amendment during its various stages following debate etc.

The detail contained in the Bill was designed to meet the highest
standards of service delivery by the proposed Office of Arms, including
turnaround schedules etc. The present system has no such control and
indeed, nothing is published in Iris Oifigiúil to indicate grants made
or rescinded etc. The level of detail is no greater than that provided
for in other legislation dealing with registration of whatever by the
State.

It was necessary to provide a sound legislative basis for the State's
delivery of heraldic services as we are, in fact, "establishing" an
Office of Arms.

The 1922 to 1943 grants made by Ulster are covered by Section 14 (2) -
the problem of retrospection only arises in respect of grants made by
the Chief Herald of Ireland and are covered by Section 21.

Now that you mention it, I guess I am confused by the interaction of
Sect. 14 and 21. Under 14(2) the previous registers of Arms made by
Ulster's Office and the GO are specifically said to be included in the
new "Register of Arms", yet under 21(1) the arms granted by the GO are
subject to reregistration. If they are included under 14, then why 21,
or if you have 21, why include the GO grants in 14(2)?

And why does "the problem of retrospection only arises in respect of
grants made by the Chief Herald of Ireland"? Isn't this avoiding the
issue of the non-existence of the royal prerogative from 1922, not just
1937?


The military and naval Arms are covered by Section 18 and the colours
etc under Section 25 (2) and Section 25 (3). Also see the Third
Schedule. They are also included in Section 36 (5).

I can see that they are included in a general sense, and that the
military are referenced in 36(5). However, in for both historical and
legal reasons I think it would be useful to explicitly mention
military heraldry in the Bill. (Though perhaps I could be accused of
inconsistency, in that I am wanting to add further details, I think
this is a matter of principle - the bill should mention primary
application areas with some specifics).

Offences & Penalties are covered by Section 40.

My apologies, I misread - I somehow did not see the penalties on the
next page. However, the offences mainly (wholly?) relate to misuse of
falsification of records. What of the classic and fundamental issue
with regard to officially granted arms - the issue of using anothers
arms without permission. Is this prohibited? What penalties are
attached?


Your points in no. 7 - are simply wrong - this is not a personal view
as this newsgroup has noted many times before that some grants to
individuals made by the Chief Herald have included items that are
clearly incompatible with a republic whether in the text of the Letters
Patent (feudal baronies etc) or in the Arms themselves.

In the above formulation, I would agree with what you say in the first
part. I am not so sure on the second, i.e. that the arms themselves can
be objectionable. In general charges or the components of arms have no
fixed meaning, and even if they did, that meaning can be redefined (or
stated to have no particular meaning) in Ireland. [As for being a
personal view, well, you discussed this point before, and here it is in
the Bill, whereas many other similar issues are not].

You'll note
Section 19 (3), (5) and (6) in respect of crowns or coronets - only
given where appropriate.

But what is appropriate? The Bill calls for a judgement without clear
agreement on what that basis of the judgement will be or what the
judgement entails. That we have disagreed on this previously, despite
obviously both having "republican" credentials shows that appeals do
"democratic, republican" principles are not sufficient to resolve
issues such as this.

I am also still of the strong opinion that these clauses are an example
of the "particularism" which is very prevalent in the Bill. Again, why
single out crowns and coronets for mention? What of baronial robes,
caps of maintenance, chapeau, various helms, visors and mantling, etc?

Would it not be better to instead set ot a general principal? e.g. "No
component of Irish arms shall be construed as conferring or or awarding
nobility...." (Not that they would/could anyway). I will leave to
tomorrow to comment on foreign arms and foreign honours.

As for substantial amendment - well that will be up to the Senators, in
the meantime, I strongly believe that the publication of the Bill has
provided a clear basis for the development of a sound legislative
framework for the delivery by the State of heraldic services.

I should say that I think the bill is a substantial start, with much to
commend. The reason I call for sustantial amendment is, again, that I
would much prefer to see the Bill set out statements of general
principle, rather try to deal piecemeal with particular cases (at a
minimum, the details should flow from general principles). Just my
particular opinion.

It has also given all with an interest in Irish genealogy and heraldry
an opportunity to have a constructive and open debate on the future of
such in Ireland.

Again, thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

In my earlier post I forgot some of my initial reactions from some
weeks back, will add in tomorrow.

Regards,
The Chief

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 29 mai 2006 08:22:04

George Lucki wrote:
"The Chief" <The_Chieftain@att.net> wrote in message


Chief,
You make some excellent observations. I'll add my two cents worth.

3) What is to be the position with regard to the 1922-1943 grants by
Ulster? As I have set out separately, several Irish Supreme Court
decisions explicitly state that the royal prerogative did not survive
the enactment of the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State. Yet, as
we all know, Ulster's grants were explicitly made on the basis of this
(non-existent) royal prerogative.

In the period after 1922 and more particularly after 1937 I would see the
grants of arms made by the Ulster office as 'foreign grants' incorporated
into the Irish register - the authority for such grants is not clear but it
is easier to incorporate now retrospectively the grants of this foreign
office than those made by the Genealogical Office. The former were made on
the basis of the "English and Imperial" royal perogative which may not have
existed within Irish law but existed under the authority given to the
College of Arms by its sovereign.

Dear George,
I can see where you are coming from, and indeed to the
likes of me, the British Monarch was always essentially foreign.
However, Ulster's was supposedly an "Irish" office. Despite Derek
Howard's arguments regarding the supposed authority of the English Earl
Marshal, Ulster was not a member of the English College of Arms, or
derive his authority directly from England, qua "England". Instead, he
was the senior member of the Irish Viceregal Court, and was appointed
under the Irish Great Seal, fully exercising the royal prerogative of
arms in Ireland (while it existed). But in any case, irrespective of
the "foreign" or otherwise source of authority, surely the "bottom
line" from an Irish perspective is whether these grants are to be
considered as effective under Irish law? i.e. this is really all an
Irish Bill has to consider.


Even though this perogative may not have
survived it was asserted by an office of the Royal Household of the English
King. These historical grants need to be incorporated into Irish law and the
bill seems to do this. They will become now as though historical Irish
grants. Similarly the post 1943 GO grants are incorporated (after review)
into the Irish register.

But as I have stated separetely to Michael, I don't understand the
distinction. If Ulster's grants get a free pass, then why not also the
GO's? Or if the GO grants are subject to review, then why not Ulster's
also? [Things were very chaotic and irregular towards the end there
too....].


4) Perhaps most importantly, what of enforcement powers,
justiciability, etc.? When the GO was on a non-statutory basis, the
lack of any such powers and justiciability was reasonable. However,
once you set up a statutory organization that is no longer so.

Isn't there a general mechanism for prosecuting the whole range of
non-criminal statutory offenses?

I was thinking of what powers there will be to prevent the use of
officially granted arms by others. Will this be an offence? - not I
think under the current Bill. Which courts will have the authority to
try issues associated with arms? Historically, such questions were not
justiciable in ordinary courts. Will the Chief Herald have any power to
prevent the display of non-officially granted arms?


5) At one or two points there is reference to offences. But I don't see
any penalties for these offences - did I miss this?

It's there. 2000 Euros and six months.

Yes, I missed this.


6) In general, there is way too much detail in this bill and a lack of
general principles and establishment of powers. Much of the detail
simply should not be included in primary legislation. Instead it could
be specified that the CH publish all rules and regulations in the Iris
Oifigiuil, or if you wish to retain some control, specify that all
rules and regulations must be laid before the Dail for approval. Some
examples of the unnecessary level of detail:
a) The oft repeated deadline of 60 days for action by the CH. What is
fundamental about 60 days, as opposed to 50 or 70? Nothing. Legislating
such deadlines is certain to lead to problems when the deadline is
missed (as it will - what of complicated questions, illness, etc.)
b). Specific comments are made on some types of augmentation of arms
(supporters, crest coronets and crowns), but not others (pavilions,
hats of maintenance, cloaks, form and orientation of helm, chapeau,
etc. etc.). It is wrong in principle to legislate on some but not
others.

I've had similar discussions with colleagues - how much detail should be
included? Perhaps more? I like the accountability that comes from clearer
statutory specification. Some might occur through delegation such as the
Chief Herald subject to the approval of the... may make regulations, etc.
The framers of the bill have struck a reasonable balance overall.

I am afraid I would still disagree. What are needed first and foremost
are general principles, from which the details can then be derived. The
current Bill is hevily influlenced by an attempt to respond to some
particular recent problems, but the list of issues dealt with is far
from exhaustive, and the approach taken (e.g. coronets, etc.), is often
debateable).

7) Another major flaw is that some of the clauses seem to reflect
purely personal, subjective opinion and preferences, and attempt to
make such the law of the land. Again, this is objectionable in
principle. An example of this is the clause on crest coronets and
crowns. The language here reflects the personal opinions of Mr Merrigan
as expressed on rec.heraldry some time ago. Yet, these opinions are
indeed purely personal - as demonstrated in the discussion on
rec.heraldry at the time, such coronets or crowns have no uniform
meaning or implication, nobiliary or otherwise, in European heraldry. I
can't see why a particular (British) interpretation, which seems to
be to the fore in Mr Merrigan's mind, should inform Irish legislation
in this area. To continue on these lines we would have to legislate
particular interpretations for all the historic charges used in
heraldry. That would be ridiculous.

I'm in agreement here - the basic crest coronet has a completely
non-nobillary tradition. On reflection this section might restrict from
creating a grammar of new coronets. Canada for example has developed a whole
range of coronets with provincial flowers, loyalist symbols, ethnic symbols,
etc. None have any nobillary significance. I think it is the attributed
meaning that needs legislating rather than the device itself.

Precisely.


8) Speaking of language, some constructions are open to ridicule. For
example, there is reference to the "democratic republican nature of
the State." We all know that democratic republics are in fact
communist dictatorships. More generally, this sort of language should
be avoided.

I'm not sure I see your point. The reference is to Irish constitutional
order rather than that of Belarus.

Perhaps I am showing my age, but if you say democratic republic to me,
a little light goes on and the words "East Germany" appear. Not the
sort of association one wants to make in Irish Bills, but perhaps I am
in a small minority on that.


9) What of military heraldry - army colours, the coats of arms of naval
ships etc. No reference to any of this.

In general there is - what isn't specifically mentioned and probably should
are military and police badges. These require a particular degree of
protection.

As I said to Mr Merrigan, the military is indeed included in the
general scope of "government departments" etc, and I never meant to
imply otherwise, but for historical reasons I think they merit specific
mention.


Overall, I welcome any move to strengthen the status and practice of
heraldry in Ireland, but this bill requires substantial revision and
further thought. In particular, I believe that the Scottish position
should be studied in some detail, and a move made towards such a
system.

I'm quite pleased with the bill overall - although the discussion that is
ocurring can strengthen the bill. I'm not sure that the Scottish position is
particularly well-suited to Ireland - Lyon is both a minister and a judge
for example. Scotland has a strong (idiosyncratic) view of personal arms
rather than familial ones. The Scottish system is rooted in the exercise of
a royal perogative rather than a republican statute, etc. On the other hand
the protection afforded to arms and the prohibition on non-registered arms
are worthy of consideration (after a lengthy period of transition).

More than anything else, Scotland has a "system" of heraldry, with
published, well undestood rules and regulations - love it or loathe it.
By contrast, Ireland has no "system" at all, or none that is properly
published or regulated. I can't see how the latter approach can be
maintained under a statutory system, as proposed in this Bill, hence
the need to move towards a Scottish model (whose main powers also
exisit by statute, not by prerogative).


George Lucki

Regards,
The Chief

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 29 mai 2006 10:49:46

A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

In your earlier posting you said:-

1) Please correct the unhistorical assertion that the former "Ulster's
Office" was transferred to Irish control by the "British Government."
Ulster's was a "Crown Office" and as such did not belong to the British
Government any more or less than to the Irish. With the decision to
wind up Ulster's Office there was a need for agreement with the British
as to how to divide/allocate the records, which were for all of
Ireland, and such an agreement was indeed reached. However, I would
assert that it is quite incorrect to portray this process as the
British Government handing over control, etc.

A closer reading of Section 12 (1) will show that its not the former
Ulster's Office that is transferred only the "records and property" of
that Office.

Indeed, the transfer was negotiated between the Department of External
Affairs in Dublin and the Dominions Office in London. The text of the
agreement was drawn up by the Dominions Office and sent to the Prime
Minister, Winston S. Churchill, MP, for approval in London whilst the
Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), Eamon de Valera, TD, gave his
approval in Dublin. The British High Commissioner (Ambassador) in
Dublin was also involved meeting de Valera on the issue etc.

The transfer of the "records and property" was an inter-governmental
matter as indicated in the Bill.

So there is nothing "unhistoric" in Section 12 (1)

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Andrew Chaplin

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Andrew Chaplin » 29 mai 2006 12:22:49

"Sean J Murphy" <sjbmurphy@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote in message
news:UyJcg.9462$j7.306200@news.indigo.ie...
We have dealt with this here before, and courtesy of Derek Howard,
the
full text of the 1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act is at
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... resact.htm Here
again
is my summary of the Irish act: The act declared that the Court of
Wards
and Liveries, and feudal tenures, that is, tenures by knight's
service
of the King or otherwise, in capite or by socage in capite of the
King,
were 'more burdensome to the Kingdom than beneficial to the King'.
Accordingly, these and other feudalities specified were to be
abolished,
and the act was made retrospective to 1641. In particular, all
tenures
of honours, manors, etc, were turned into 'free and common socage',
that
is, shorn of feudal burdens and converted into property to be owned,
leased and so on in accordance with common and statute law.

The Irish and English acts contain a proviso exempting a title of
honour
by which any person might have the right to sit in the House of
Lords,
and the privileges belonging to them as peers. Again, this is
clearly a
saving clause, not an extension of a right of sitting in the Lords
to
modern purchasers of debatable feudal titles! Unlike the Scottish
Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act of 2000, the Irish act did not
specifically exempt feudal titles or manorial lordships. Finally,
the
1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act is among those being retained under
the
Statute Law Revision (Pre-Union) Bill 2006, although as indicated,
this
may only be for the time being.

Once the Bill is referred to committee (assuming the Seanad and Dáil
work something like a Westminster parliament) will you submit a brief
and request to appear?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 29 mai 2006 15:49:02

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Mr. Milne,

Despite many contributors making exactly the same point, it appears
that you cannot or won't accept the fact that those who have purchased
"feudal baronies" or "manorial lordships" with a topographical
reference to a place in Ireland for the purpose of acquiring the title
of "baron" or "lord" have simply purchased worthless pieces of paper as
"feudal baronies" and "manorial lordships" are meaningless in the Irish
context.

Attacking persons in this newsgroup over this issue is like the man who
bought a vehicle from a dodgy dealership and when he drove it on the
highway the engine fell out, but instead of going back to the
dealership to demand his money back, he stood on the side of the
highway ranting and raving - hurling abuse at passing motorists and
waving his Purchase Agreement at all and sundry blaming everybody else
for his own choice of dealership.

"Caveat Emptor"

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Wrong. I am sure that there are quite a number of people who have
purchased non-existent Irish feudal baronies or lordships. On the other
hand it is a fact that there were numerous real feudal baronies created
in Ireland (see Burke's 'Extinct Peerage') and that while baronial
tenure seems to have been abolished in 1662 baronial titles were
specifically preserved. They therefore continue to exist in law, though
you are desperately trying to avoid the fact. They are property which
carries certain rights, one of which is the title of baron; in fact, in
my view, the property consists of the right to the title of baron.
Frankly, I couldn't give a stuff whether these things are legally
'property' or 'possessions' or whether it is EU law or a European
convention that protects property (or possessions), what concerns me is
there is a clear attempt to ride roughshod over the rights of a
minority and that unless the law/convention on human rights isn't worth
the paper it is written on this attempt will prove fruitless. If you
are so sure that feudal baronies don't exist then what harm can there
be putting a saving clause in your precious act (like they did in
1662)? In addition, given that feudal baronies most certainly did exist
in the past in Ireland perhaps you could inform us how and when they
were abolished? And if I seem rather het up it is because I resent
people trying to bully others for the sake of political correctness and
their precious republic. What you need is a good old-fashioned King who
can tell you where to get off.

I hope readers of this forum will note that Mr. Merrigan has refused to
answer the question as to when Irish feudal baronies ceased to exist.
Mr. Merrigan's approach is clearly to avoid the issues he doesn't like
or has already made up his mind about. In my view such a person should
have no input in the law-making process and, in fact, in this country
local councillors have been given legal advice to the effect that they
are barred from discusing or voting on issues about which they have
already made up their minds.

George Lucki

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av George Lucki » 29 mai 2006 16:46:19

"The Chief" <The_Chieftain@att.net> wrote in message
news:1148887324.628304.318340@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
George Lucki wrote:
"The Chief" <The_Chieftain@att.net> wrote in message
3) What is to be the position with regard to the 1922-1943 grants by
Ulster? As I have set out separately, several Irish Supreme Court
decisions explicitly state that the royal prerogative did not survive
the enactment of the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State. Yet, as
we all know, Ulster's grants were explicitly made on the basis of this
(non-existent) royal prerogative.

In the period after 1922 and more particularly after 1937 I would see the
grants of arms made by the Ulster office as 'foreign grants' incorporated
into the Irish register - the authority for such grants is not clear but
it
is easier to incorporate now retrospectively the grants of this foreign
office than those made by the Genealogical Office. The former were made
on
the basis of the "English and Imperial" royal perogative which may not
have
existed within Irish law but existed under the authority given to the
College of Arms by its sovereign.

Dear George,
I can see where you are coming from, and indeed to the
likes of me, the British Monarch was always essentially foreign.
However, Ulster's was supposedly an "Irish" office. Despite Derek
Howard's arguments regarding the supposed authority of the English Earl
Marshal, Ulster was not a member of the English College of Arms, or
derive his authority directly from England, qua "England". Instead, he
was the senior member of the Irish Viceregal Court, and was appointed
under the Irish Great Seal, fully exercising the royal prerogative of
arms in Ireland (while it existed). But in any case, irrespective of
the "foreign" or otherwise source of authority, surely the "bottom
line" from an Irish perspective is whether these grants are to be
considered as effective under Irish law? i.e. this is really all an
Irish Bill has to consider.

I have understood that the English perspective on Irish matters was
different than the Irish one in the period 1922-1937 and 1937- . The Ulster
office was perhaps an Irish one from the English perspective but I would
suggest that it was really still a creature of the UK (Irish) monarchy and
so I do believe as you do that these grants as well as the earlier pre-1922
Ulster grants need to be incorporated into the renewed Irish register and
the bill seems to make provision for this. These do not need to be reviewed
as they were consistent with the traditions of the monarchy they served and
are a part of the history of Ireland's lengthy occupation.
The issue as I understand with the post 1943 grants is that they were made
under strictly Irish authority and that the basis for these grants may have
been faulty in Irish law based upon a notion of the survival of a royal
perogative that may not have survived the transition to the Republic. These
registrations need to be included in the renewed ragister and the bill also
makes provision for this through retrospective conformation (elgitmation
after the fact - to the extent that legitimation may have been necessary).
There additionally needs in my mind to be a review of these to ensure
compatability with the republican principles of Ireland and removal of
faulty grants based upon a variety of assumed and controversial titles.

4) Perhaps most importantly, what of enforcement powers,
justiciability, etc.? When the GO was on a non-statutory basis, the
lack of any such powers and justiciability was reasonable. However,
once you set up a statutory organization that is no longer so.

Isn't there a general mechanism for prosecuting the whole range of
non-criminal statutory offenses?

I was thinking of what powers there will be to prevent the use of
officially granted arms by others. Will this be an offence? - not I
think under the current Bill. Which courts will have the authority to
try issues associated with arms? Historically, such questions were not
justiciable in ordinary courts. Will the Chief Herald have any power to
prevent the display of non-officially granted arms?

I think that with a statutory basis for the office you now create a clear
basis for deciding matters related to arms before the ordinary courts. With
non-official arms - my guess is that in Ireland there are many non-official
arms and while the arms registered by the herald are copyright and hence
enjoy a measure of protection I would urge the inclusion of non-official
arms within the register by encouragement rather than threat of punishment.
I would prefer to see the development of a heraldic culture where good arms
replace bad through education and example.

8) Speaking of language, some constructions are open to ridicule. For
example, there is reference to the "democratic republican nature of
the State." We all know that democratic republics are in fact
communist dictatorships. More generally, this sort of language should
be avoided.

I'm not sure I see your point. The reference is to Irish constitutional
order rather than that of Belarus.

Perhaps I am showing my age, but if you say democratic republic to me,
a little light goes on and the words "East Germany" appear. Not the
sort of association one wants to make in Irish Bills, but perhaps I am
in a small minority on that.

I understand what you say. I spent quite some time behind the iron curtain
and am well aware of the broad double-speak of those regimes. I think it is
time to retake these terms and make sure we use them correctly.

Overall, I welcome any move to strengthen the status and practice of
heraldry in Ireland, but this bill requires substantial revision and
further thought. In particular, I believe that the Scottish position
should be studied in some detail, and a move made towards such a
system.

I'm quite pleased with the bill overall - although the discussion that is
ocurring can strengthen the bill. I'm not sure that the Scottish position
is
particularly well-suited to Ireland - Lyon is both a minister and a judge
for example. Scotland has a strong (idiosyncratic) view of personal arms
rather than familial ones. The Scottish system is rooted in the exercise
of
a royal perogative rather than a republican statute, etc. On the other
hand
the protection afforded to arms and the prohibition on non-registered
arms
are worthy of consideration (after a lengthy period of transition).

More than anything else, Scotland has a "system" of heraldry, with
published, well undestood rules and regulations - love it or loathe it.
By contrast, Ireland has no "system" at all, or none that is properly
published or regulated. I can't see how the latter approach can be
maintained under a statutory system, as proposed in this Bill, hence
the need to move towards a Scottish model (whose main powers also
exisit by statute, not by prerogative).


I'm not sure I'd agree, Scots heraldry does have a degree of specification
but there is much that was invented simply by the creativity of several
forceful heralds who simply asserted new traditions. We are in agreement
that there is a need for some "system" and the proposed bill does create a
basis for such a system - the question in discussion is the style of framing
such a system in legislation (and we both seem to agree that it should be in
legislation).

One matter we haven't seen discussed on rec.heraldry is the bill's forceful
attack on the role of bucket shops who promote a perverse and damaging 'arms
of the name X' pseudo-heraldry through the establishment of heraldic agents
who will hopefully displace bucket shops as facilitators of official and
affordable heraldry.

Kind regards, George Lucki

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 29 mai 2006 17:39:28

Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

In your earlier posting you said:-

1) Please correct the unhistorical assertion that the former "Ulster's
Office" was transferred to Irish control by the "British Government."
Ulster's was a "Crown Office" and as such did not belong to the British
Government any more or less than to the Irish. With the decision to
wind up Ulster's Office there was a need for agreement with the British
as to how to divide/allocate the records, which were for all of
Ireland, and such an agreement was indeed reached. However, I would
assert that it is quite incorrect to portray this process as the
British Government handing over control, etc.

A closer reading of Section 12 (1) will show that its not the former
Ulster's Office that is transferred only the "records and property" of
that Office.

Indeed, the transfer was negotiated between the Department of External
Affairs in Dublin and the Dominions Office in London. The text of the
agreement was drawn up by the Dominions Office and sent to the Prime
Minister, Winston S. Churchill, MP, for approval in London whilst the
Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), Eamon de Valera, TD, gave his
approval in Dublin. The British High Commissioner (Ambassador) in
Dublin was also involved meeting de Valera on the issue etc.

The transfer of the "records and property" was an inter-governmental
matter as indicated in the Bill.

So there is nothing "unhistoric" in Section 12 (1)

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

I am aware that the disposal of the "records and property" was
negotiated between the governments, that is not the issue. The issue is
whether it is correct to describe this as
"the transfer to the State of the records and property of the Office of
Ulster King of Arms by the government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland."
This wording implies, even if it does not say so directly, that the
records were the property of the UK government, who then transferred
them to Ireland. I don't belive that is correct, and
my point is that the transfer was technically somewhat different.
Ulster's was a Crown Office, and as such was a part of the royal
household in Ireland, **not** a department of the UK Government. Now,
with the position in 1943, given that the office was not going to
continue, was that the records and property needed to be disposed of.
This disposal was indeed negotiated between what the British would at
that point have still termed His Majesties two responsible governments
concerned in the matter, and presumably the Crown agreed to their
advice as to the disposal of **Crown** property. Now, whether the
actual wording of the documents concerned reflect this position, or
even whether the negotiators (in the middle of WWII) were aware or
cared about these fine distinctions is unknown to me. So, should we
care? Only to the extent that this is a Bill, which may become the law
of the land. As such, we (you) should be very careful in stating
"facts" - the actual legal position could have been different, or
capable of a different interpretation, from what you see (or think you
see) in the actual transfer agreement. I would suggest that you can
cover all interpretations by a change of wording to something like:

"the records and property of the former Crown Office known as the
Office of Ulster King of Arms, which came under State control from x of
Y, 1943.

Regards,
The Chief

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 29 mai 2006 18:51:51

Michael Merrigan wrote:
Greetings from the Genealogical Society of Ireland http://www.familyhistory.ie

A Chairde,

The Society is pleased to advise readers that the text of the Genealogy
& Heraldry Bill, 2006 and its Explanatory Memorandum are now uploaded
to the website of the Irish Houses of Parliament - the Oireachtas on
http://www.oireachtas.ie

The Society's Press Release and the Background to the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill are available on the Society's website
http://www.familyhistory.ie

The Bill was published today by Senator Brendan Ryan and entered on the
Order Paper for Seanad Eireann (Irish Senate) for Thursday 11th May
2006.

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
Hon. Secretary
Genealogical Society of Ireland
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Dear Michael,
As I mentioned yesterday, there were one or two other
proposed sections in the Bill which caught my eye, but which I
neglected to mention:

16(6). Priomh Aralt na hEireann shall not permit the use of titles of
nobility or membership of orders of chivalry or any title other than
professional or occupational or other designations permitted by this
Act to be entered on Letters Patent or Certificates granting arms to 20
individuals under this section.

My first comment here is that there is explicit constitutional
provision for citizens to accept foreign honours and titles, subject to
government approval (Art 40.2.2). Quite a few people have been granted
leave under these provisions, mainly with respect to British and Papal
awards [indeed, it is somewhat astonishing that Ireland appears to be
more liberal with British titles than, say, Canada!]. However, the
proposed clause would seem to try to claw back this right to use these
honours and titles that has been explicitly granted by the
constitution. I am not a lawyer, but I could imagine a legal challenge
to this. (I believe Guy Sainty made the same point earlier).
Second, are you throwing the baby out with the bath water with regard
to common historical usage? Take the late(?) Michael Egan. When he
became a Bailiff Grand Cross of Obedience of the Order of Malta his
Irish arms were modified to include the historical charge associated
with this position - a chief of the arms of the order. Would this
practice, dating back many centuries, Europe wide, now be prohibited?
That would be a tragedy.

So, why not at least limit titles/honours to those recognized under
Art. 40.2.2? That would still leave the question of what to do with
those associated with membership in an historically valid order with
long standing ties to Ireland - could some form of words not be
generated which could capture these, which rejecting the bogus?

16(8) Priomh Aralt na hEireann shall permit the ecclesiastical title
and the religious office of the applicant to be depicted and entered
on the Letters Patent for Grants of Arms to senior representatives of
religious congregations and religious orders on the island of Ireland.

What is a "senior representative"? What is the cutoff? Are simple
priests, ministers and religious no longer to be so described on grants
of arms? A rather astonishing limitation to me, particularly when the
Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian traditions all provide and specify
appropriate heraldic symbols for these "non-senior" religious.


20. (6) Priomh Aralt na hEireann shall not make provision for the
registration or confirmation of foreign Arms whether granted by state
or official or private heraldic officers or adopted or assumed by
individuals or bodies corporate or institutions.

I find this shocking. My wife was originally non-Irish, but became an
Irish citizen by marriage. Why on earth should she be prohibited from
registering her ancestral family emblem in Ireland? Is she not supposed
to use these in Ireland? How can our children properly inherit these,
if they can't be be registered? Given the explosion in the number of
non-native Irish now living in Ireland, there must be a substantial
number of people with foreign arms. Why on earth are they all to be
prohibited from registering these? Remember, the registration is of new
**Irish arms,** not some validation of foreign arms or claims.


Regards,
The Chief

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 29 mai 2006 20:51:15

A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

You have made very sound points regarding these Sections and indeed,
others have privately contacted me on the very same issues. I believe
that some Senators will have amendments proposed on these points,
especially, in relation to Section 16 (6).

The points raised concerned, for example, Irish citizens who received
Honorary Knighthoods from foreign monarchs or indeed, Papal Honours or
awards from other republics. I believe that this Section 16 (6) will be
amended with possibly some safeguard as provided for in Section 19 (6).

Section 16 (8) - the term "senior representative" was simply to cover
all religious congregations including religious orders. It does not
exclusively apply to the various Christian denominations. As there are
many levels within each church or religious organisational structure -
the term "senior representative" allows for the continuance of the
present practice but with some latitude.

Section 20 (6) - this has been a difficult one and indeed, I do take on
board the point you made about a spouse of an Irish citizen etc. The
reason for this provision was to prevent a conflict between heraldic
authorities over jurisdication and the possible inclusion of "bogus
arms" or Arms which were cancelled or rescinded in another jurisdiction
etc.

A Thaoisigh, one this point of a foreign born spouse of an Irish
national, they can still apply for a Grant of Arms under Section 15 -
whether they actually take out Irish citizenship or not. Indeed, in the
example you give, a new Grant of Arms could be made that would, very
possibly, contain elements of the design of the foreign grant.

The issue of inheritance of foreign Arms would be subject to the
practice and laws of the jurisdiction concerned, however, it is open to
the example you gave, for such persons on marriage to obtain an
entirely new Grant representing the union of both parties etc.

Another example offered privately may also be of interest to the
newsgroup for comment. What about a person from Northern Ireland who is
entitled to Irish citizenship and holds an Irish passport and who is
offered a seat in the British House of Lords (Life Peer) and this
person desires a Grant of Arms from the Chief Herald of Ireland? This
situation, I believe, was also the basis of comment and suggested
amendment of Section 16 (6).

Again, a Thaoisigh, thanks for these points.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk » 30 mai 2006 00:17:46

Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

You have made very sound points regarding these Sections and indeed,
others have privately contacted me on the very same issues. I believe
that some Senators will have amendments proposed on these points,
especially, in relation to Section 16 (6).

The points raised concerned, for example, Irish citizens who received
Honorary Knighthoods from foreign monarchs or indeed, Papal Honours or
awards from other republics. I believe that this Section 16 (6) will be
amended with possibly some safeguard as provided for in Section 19 (6).

Section 16 (8) - the term "senior representative" was simply to cover
all religious congregations including religious orders. It does not
exclusively apply to the various Christian denominations. As there are
many levels within each church or religious organisational structure -
the term "senior representative" allows for the continuance of the
present practice but with some latitude.

Section 20 (6) - this has been a difficult one and indeed, I do take on
board the point you made about a spouse of an Irish citizen etc. The
reason for this provision was to prevent a conflict between heraldic
authorities over jurisdication and the possible inclusion of "bogus
arms" or Arms which were cancelled or rescinded in another jurisdiction
etc.

A Thaoisigh, one this point of a foreign born spouse of an Irish
national, they can still apply for a Grant of Arms under Section 15 -
whether they actually take out Irish citizenship or not. Indeed, in the
example you give, a new Grant of Arms could be made that would, very
possibly, contain elements of the design of the foreign grant.

The issue of inheritance of foreign Arms would be subject to the
practice and laws of the jurisdiction concerned, however, it is open to
the example you gave, for such persons on marriage to obtain an
entirely new Grant representing the union of both parties etc.

Another example offered privately may also be of interest to the
newsgroup for comment. What about a person from Northern Ireland who is
entitled to Irish citizenship and holds an Irish passport and who is
offered a seat in the British House of Lords (Life Peer) and this
person desires a Grant of Arms from the Chief Herald of Ireland? This
situation, I believe, was also the basis of comment and suggested
amendment of Section 16 (6).

Again, a Thaoisigh, thanks for these points.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

I hope readers of this forum will note that Mr. Merrigan has refused to

answer the question as to when Irish feudal baronies ceased to exist.
Mr. Merrigan's approach is clearly to avoid the issues he doesn't like
or has already made up his mind about. In my view such a person should
have no input in the law-making process and, in fact, in this country
local councillors have been given legal advice to the effect that they
are barred from discusing or voting on issues about which they have
already made up their minds.

The Chief

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av The Chief » 30 mai 2006 04:27:30

The Chief wrote:
Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

In your earlier posting you said:-

1) Please correct the unhistorical assertion that the former "Ulster's
Office" was transferred to Irish control by the "British Government."
Ulster's was a "Crown Office" and as such did not belong to the British
Government any more or less than to the Irish. With the decision to
wind up Ulster's Office there was a need for agreement with the British
as to how to divide/allocate the records, which were for all of
Ireland, and such an agreement was indeed reached. However, I would
assert that it is quite incorrect to portray this process as the
British Government handing over control, etc.

A closer reading of Section 12 (1) will show that its not the former
Ulster's Office that is transferred only the "records and property" of
that Office.

Indeed, the transfer was negotiated between the Department of External
Affairs in Dublin and the Dominions Office in London. The text of the
agreement was drawn up by the Dominions Office and sent to the Prime
Minister, Winston S. Churchill, MP, for approval in London whilst the
Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), Eamon de Valera, TD, gave his
approval in Dublin. The British High Commissioner (Ambassador) in
Dublin was also involved meeting de Valera on the issue etc.

The transfer of the "records and property" was an inter-governmental
matter as indicated in the Bill.

So there is nothing "unhistoric" in Section 12 (1)

Kindest regards,

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

I am aware that the disposal of the "records and property" was
negotiated between the governments, that is not the issue. The issue is
whether it is correct to describe this as
"the transfer to the State of the records and property of the Office of
Ulster King of Arms by the government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland."
This wording implies, even if it does not say so directly, that the
records were the property of the UK government, who then transferred
them to Ireland. I don't belive that is correct, and
my point is that the transfer was technically somewhat different.
Ulster's was a Crown Office, and as such was a part of the royal
household in Ireland, **not** a department of the UK Government. Now,
with the position in 1943, given that the office was not going to
continue, was that the records and property needed to be disposed of.
This disposal was indeed negotiated between what the British would at
that point have still termed His Majesties two responsible governments
concerned in the matter, and presumably the Crown agreed to their
advice as to the disposal of **Crown** property. Now, whether the
actual wording of the documents concerned reflect this position, or
even whether the negotiators (in the middle of WWII) were aware or
cared about these fine distinctions is unknown to me. So, should we
care? Only to the extent that this is a Bill, which may become the law
of the land. As such, we (you) should be very careful in stating
"facts" - the actual legal position could have been different, or
capable of a different interpretation, from what you see (or think you
see) in the actual transfer agreement. I would suggest that you can
cover all interpretations by a change of wording to something like:

"the records and property of the former Crown Office known as the
Office of Ulster King of Arms, which came under State control from x of
Y, 1943.

Regards,
The Chief

Michael,
I just reread the relevant sections of the book "Royal Roots
- Republican Inheritance" by Susan Hood, 2002, on the 'Survival of the
Office of Arms," and I believe my original objection stands. Again,
the issue is not the fact that there were negotiations with the British
regarding the transfer, but the statement in the current bill that the
records and peoperty were transferred by "the government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," implying both ownership
and control by the latter. This would be ironic, because the material
in Hood's book shows the British Government in the 1920s telling both
the Irish Government and the six county regime that Ulster's Office was
**not** under British ministerial control, but was a royal office.
Further, the book shows that the British later realised that what
ministerial control there was was in fact Irish - that ministerial
countersignatures on warrants were being provided by Irish Free State
ministers, and that the seal employed was that of the IFS. In general,
the book supports my contention that this was a Crown office, to which
the Irish Goverment had as much intrinsic claim as the British.

Regards,
The Chief

Sean J Murphy

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Sean J Murphy » 30 mai 2006 08:28:03

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"Sean J Murphy" <sjbmurphy@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote in message
news:UyJcg.9462$j7.306200@news.indigo.ie...

We have dealt with this here before, and courtesy of Derek Howard,

the

full text of the 1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act is at
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... resact.htm Here

again

is my summary of the Irish act: The act declared that the Court of

Wards

and Liveries, and feudal tenures, that is, tenures by knight's

service

of the King or otherwise, in capite or by socage in capite of the

King,

were 'more burdensome to the Kingdom than beneficial to the King'.
Accordingly, these and other feudalities specified were to be

abolished,

and the act was made retrospective to 1641. In particular, all

tenures

of honours, manors, etc, were turned into 'free and common socage',

that

is, shorn of feudal burdens and converted into property to be owned,
leased and so on in accordance with common and statute law.

The Irish and English acts contain a proviso exempting a title of

honour

by which any person might have the right to sit in the House of

Lords,

and the privileges belonging to them as peers. Again, this is

clearly a

saving clause, not an extension of a right of sitting in the Lords

to

modern purchasers of debatable feudal titles! Unlike the Scottish
Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act of 2000, the Irish act did not
specifically exempt feudal titles or manorial lordships. Finally,

the

1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act is among those being retained under

the

Statute Law Revision (Pre-Union) Bill 2006, although as indicated,

this

may only be for the time being.


Once the Bill is referred to committee (assuming the Seanad and Dáil
work something like a Westminster parliament) will you submit a brief
and request to appear?

Well, you know what they say, only a fool acts as his own lawyer. But
then, those willing to part with large wads of cash to my learned
friends are perhaps not too bright either. As I was indicating, it is
very interesting that in the course of the most extensive ever (if I am
not mistaken) Irish spring cleaning of British legislation, it was
deemed prudent to hold on to the 1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act. This
re-examination of ancient statutes will perhaps help to attune the minds
of Irish legislators to some of the frankly archaic concepts inherent in
passing a Genealogy and Heraldry Bill, not least the treatment of
titles and the prerogatives problem. This legislative rationalisation is
being co-ordinated by the Office of the Attorney General, and for
details again see http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/pre_ind_project.html

Sean Murphy

Michael Merrigan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Michael Merrigan » 30 mai 2006 11:49:40

A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

I have noted the points made and indeed, I've also re-read Hood on the
issue, however, the following points are clear.

1. The records and property of Ulster's Office were transferred to
the Irish Government by the British Government following negotiations
conducted between the Irish Dept. of External Affairs and the British
Dominions Office.

2. Ulster's Office as a Crown Office was not part of the deal as it
continued by linking it to Norroy King of Arms - remember the Letters
Patent where to the holder of the office i.e. the person as a "Royal
Appointee".

3. The last point about the counter-signatures on certain warrants
was clearly to facilitate a situation where there was a possible
cross-over between a traditional function held by Ulster and a
legislative position of the Irish Free State i.e. in certain
circumstances surrounding inheritance laws and the right of succession
to real estate (and Arms) etc. for certain persons domiciled within the
Irish Free State.

Whether Ulster's Office (i.e. the "holder" not the records, chairs &
desks etc) was a Crown Office is not in doubt, however, the
inter-governmental agreement concerned the records & property *** only
*** and this situation is correctrly stated in Section 12 (1) in
accordance with normal usage in such circumstances.

The fact that it was a Crown Office (Royal Appointee) was confirmed by
the British insisting on the title of the office being retained and
linked to Norroy. Therefore, its position as a "Crown Office" was
purely a British matter - the Irish Government got the records and the
property etc.

Anyway, a Thaoisigh, I have taken notes of all the points raised here
and in the previous postings by you and others - for which I am most
grateful for the time that you and others put in to this newsgroup
debate. We didn't always agree - but that is not the issue -
constructive points on the Bill are always welcome. I am now going to
collate the points raised for consideration during the various stages
of the Bill.

I will always welcome further points of comment on the Bill via the
Society's website http://www.familyhistory.ie or contact me directly by
e-mail.

Again, many thanks.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Andrew Chaplin

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Andrew Chaplin » 30 mai 2006 12:27:48

"Sean J Murphy" <sjbmurphy@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote in message
news:5uSeg.9709$j7.306789@news.indigo.ie...

Well, you know what they say, only a fool acts as his own lawyer.
But
then, those willing to part with large wads of cash to my learned
friends are perhaps not too bright either. As I was indicating, it
is
very interesting that in the course of the most extensive ever (if I
am
not mistaken) Irish spring cleaning of British legislation, it was
deemed prudent to hold on to the 1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act.
This
re-examination of ancient statutes will perhaps help to attune the
minds
of Irish legislators to some of the frankly archaic concepts
inherent in
passing a Genealogy and Heraldry Bill, not least the treatment of
titles and the prerogatives problem. This legislative
rationalisation is
being co-ordinated by the Office of the Attorney General, and for
details again see
http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/pre_ind_project.html


I am a procedural clerk and get to see a lot of witnesses before
committee (it's my job to git 'em there). While lawyers are perhaps
more accustomed to presenting briefs, lots of the best arguments come
from enthusiasts and academics. You certainly seem enthusiastic and
the media describe you as an academic, so perhaps a brief from you
would be well received.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Sean J Murphy

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Sean J Murphy » 31 mai 2006 09:35:59

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"Sean J Murphy" <sjbmurphy@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote in message
news:5uSeg.9709$j7.306789@news.indigo.ie...


Well, you know what they say, only a fool acts as his own lawyer.

But

then, those willing to part with large wads of cash to my learned
friends are perhaps not too bright either. As I was indicating, it

is

very interesting that in the course of the most extensive ever (if I

am

not mistaken) Irish spring cleaning of British legislation, it was
deemed prudent to hold on to the 1662 Irish Tenures Abolition Act.

This

re-examination of ancient statutes will perhaps help to attune the

minds

of Irish legislators to some of the frankly archaic concepts

inherent in

passing a Genealogy and Heraldry Bill, not least the treatment of
titles and the prerogatives problem. This legislative

rationalisation is

being co-ordinated by the Office of the Attorney General, and for
details again see

http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/pre_ind_project.html

I am a procedural clerk and get to see a lot of witnesses before
committee (it's my job to git 'em there). While lawyers are perhaps
more accustomed to presenting briefs, lots of the best arguments come
from enthusiasts and academics. You certainly seem enthusiastic and
the media describe you as an academic, so perhaps a brief from you
would be well received.

If you are referrring to the spring cleaning of old legislation project,
I would consider that a matter more for legal heads (I may suggest
digitising the old pre-1800 Irish statutes for historical research
purposes). As for the Genealogy and Heraldry Bill, I am indeed in the
process of making submissions. I favour a more minimalist approach,
suspecting the capacities of the relevant state officials for reasons I
need not repeat, but certainly not wishing to be seen as someone who
helped thwart the legislation. While officials have no difficulty
allocating resources to and turning out for prestigious conferences and
beanos, I find most of them bereft of real knowledge and true interest
in the subjects of heraldry and genealogy. Again, the National Library
authorities have remained deaf to requests to implement former
Director/Chief Herald Donlon's 1996 plan to fit out a dedicated
genealogy (to which I would add heraldry and local studies) reference
and research room. Indeed, the run-down State Heraldry Museum in Kildare
Street, Dublin, was simply evicted to make way for a Samuel Beckett
Exhibition in April. One hopes that the Museum will be re-opened and
properly refurbished without delay, perhaps with a new display case
commemorating the MacCarthy Mór affair ;-)

Sean Murphy
An Irish Arms Crisis
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy ... crisis.htm

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Patrick Cracroft-Brennan » 07 jun 2006 23:20:46

On 21 May 2006 17:17:20 -0700, "GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie"
<GSI.Secretary@familyhistory.ie> wrote:

A Chairde,

Once again, it must be remembered that the point of the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006 is to amend an Irish legislative position in
respect of the State's delivery of heraldic and related services.

I have been contacted privately by e-mail by a number of individuals
seeking to have included in the Bill some mention of fuedal baronies
and manorial lordships to facilitate recognition of such in Irish law.
However, it must be said that all those who made contact with me on
this issue were domiciled outside the State and Northern Ireland and
each claimed that having an "Irish fuedal barony" or an "Irish Manorial
Lordship" proved that they had a "sustained" connection with Ireland
requiring due recognition.

Irish law does not recognise the existence of feudal baronies, manorial
lordships or "Terentine" lordships - in fact, the concepts of
"monarchy" and "royalty" and thus "nobility" have not survived the
enactment by the People of Ireland of Bunreacht na hÉireann
(Constitution of Ireland) on July 1st 1937 - so why should anyone argue
that minor titles of nobility survived as "property" rights?

It is not nor can it ever be the objective of the Genealogy & Heraldry
Bill, 2006, to provide a legislative haven for the gullible or for the
unfortunate victims of some chiefly scam through recognition or
recording of these legally worthless titles. In respect of such
European Law has not the competence nor the power to direct sovereign
member states to do otherwise than their domestic circumstances dictate
or desire. Persons disagreeing with this situation are free to waste
their monies for a second time - first being the purchase of these
titles and secondly on bringing a test case in the Irish courts.

Citing English or Scottish law or custom is not relevent to the Irish
legislative position in respect of matters covered by the Genealogy &
Heraldry Bill, 2006. No Irish parliamentarian would entertain the
notion of feudal baronies and the like being recognised in this Bill.
It's a non-starter - the case is closed.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

Well said, Mr Merrigan!!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Patrick Cracroft-Brennan » 07 jun 2006 23:45:16

On 22 May 2006 08:45:24 -0700, "graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk"
<graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:

j.jaroslav@centrum.cz wrote:
If the feudal baronies are property, how is this property being
diminished by not being mentioned in a coat of arms certificate? If I
owned a house or a PhD degree, how would my rights be diminished by not
being mentioned on my driver's licence, or a coat od arms LP, or any
other unrelated document? Or viceversa, if I owned a coat of arms, the
government would certainly not be obliged to print it on my driver's
licence... I just cannot see how anybody could reasonably expect that
such a claim would even be considered by the European human rights
court. JJ

People pay large sums of money to buy feudal baronies and the principle
reason is the right to call themselves and be acknowldged as legally
being 'Baron of x'.

This is a non sequiter. People paid large amounts of money for
McCarthy's bogus titles - but they were still bogus titles and no
amount of money made them anything else! You are mixing value with
validity.

Whether you like it or not this happens and it is a
perfectly legal acquisition of property. How can you argue in these
circumstances that refusing to acknowldge someone's correct title and
form of address in a public document does not diminish their enjoyment
of that property?

If the so-called property is non-existent, bogus and utterly without
any true value in the first place, why on earth should it be included
in a public document?

You may not think this an important matter but it is
precisely when people begin to think that the rights of other are
unimportant (or that their view of what is important is more valid)
that abuses of other people's rights happen.

How can you have rights in something that doesn't exist, i.e. a feudal
honour?

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av Patrick Cracroft-Brennan » 08 jun 2006 00:02:22

On 29 May 2006 16:17:46 -0700, "graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk"
<graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

You have made very sound points regarding these Sections and indeed,
others have privately contacted me on the very same issues. I believe
that some Senators will have amendments proposed on these points,
especially, in relation to Section 16 (6).

The points raised concerned, for example, Irish citizens who received
Honorary Knighthoods from foreign monarchs or indeed, Papal Honours or
awards from other republics. I believe that this Section 16 (6) will be
amended with possibly some safeguard as provided for in Section 19 (6).

Section 16 (8) - the term "senior representative" was simply to cover
all religious congregations including religious orders. It does not
exclusively apply to the various Christian denominations. As there are
many levels within each church or religious organisational structure -
the term "senior representative" allows for the continuance of the
present practice but with some latitude.

Section 20 (6) - this has been a difficult one and indeed, I do take on
board the point you made about a spouse of an Irish citizen etc. The
reason for this provision was to prevent a conflict between heraldic
authorities over jurisdication and the possible inclusion of "bogus
arms" or Arms which were cancelled or rescinded in another jurisdiction
etc.

A Thaoisigh, one this point of a foreign born spouse of an Irish
national, they can still apply for a Grant of Arms under Section 15 -
whether they actually take out Irish citizenship or not. Indeed, in the
example you give, a new Grant of Arms could be made that would, very
possibly, contain elements of the design of the foreign grant.

The issue of inheritance of foreign Arms would be subject to the
practice and laws of the jurisdiction concerned, however, it is open to
the example you gave, for such persons on marriage to obtain an
entirely new Grant representing the union of both parties etc.

Another example offered privately may also be of interest to the
newsgroup for comment. What about a person from Northern Ireland who is
entitled to Irish citizenship and holds an Irish passport and who is
offered a seat in the British House of Lords (Life Peer) and this
person desires a Grant of Arms from the Chief Herald of Ireland? This
situation, I believe, was also the basis of comment and suggested
amendment of Section 16 (6).

Again, a Thaoisigh, thanks for these points.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

I hope readers of this forum will note that Mr. Merrigan has refused to

answer the question as to when Irish feudal baronies ceased to exist.
Mr. Merrigan's approach is clearly to avoid the issues he doesn't like
or has already made up his mind about. In my view such a person should
have no input in the law-making process and, in fact, in this country
local councillors have been given legal advice to the effect that they
are barred from discusing or voting on issues about which they have
already made up their minds.

I would assume that Mr Merrigan has had the sense to ignore any
posting by Mr Milne - who himself has already made up his mind on a
particualr issue!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

barrassie

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av barrassie » 12 jun 2006 12:19:40

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
On 29 May 2006 16:17:46 -0700, "graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk"
graham@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Michael Merrigan wrote:
A Thaoisigh, a Chara,

You have made very sound points regarding these Sections and indeed,
others have privately contacted me on the very same issues. I believe
that some Senators will have amendments proposed on these points,
especially, in relation to Section 16 (6).

The points raised concerned, for example, Irish citizens who received
Honorary Knighthoods from foreign monarchs or indeed, Papal Honours or
awards from other republics. I believe that this Section 16 (6) will be
amended with possibly some safeguard as provided for in Section 19 (6).

Section 16 (8) - the term "senior representative" was simply to cover
all religious congregations including religious orders. It does not
exclusively apply to the various Christian denominations. As there are
many levels within each church or religious organisational structure -
the term "senior representative" allows for the continuance of the
present practice but with some latitude.

Section 20 (6) - this has been a difficult one and indeed, I do take on
board the point you made about a spouse of an Irish citizen etc. The
reason for this provision was to prevent a conflict between heraldic
authorities over jurisdication and the possible inclusion of "bogus
arms" or Arms which were cancelled or rescinded in another jurisdiction
etc.

A Thaoisigh, one this point of a foreign born spouse of an Irish
national, they can still apply for a Grant of Arms under Section 15 -
whether they actually take out Irish citizenship or not. Indeed, in the
example you give, a new Grant of Arms could be made that would, very
possibly, contain elements of the design of the foreign grant.

The issue of inheritance of foreign Arms would be subject to the
practice and laws of the jurisdiction concerned, however, it is open to
the example you gave, for such persons on marriage to obtain an
entirely new Grant representing the union of both parties etc.

Another example offered privately may also be of interest to the
newsgroup for comment. What about a person from Northern Ireland who is
entitled to Irish citizenship and holds an Irish passport and who is
offered a seat in the British House of Lords (Life Peer) and this
person desires a Grant of Arms from the Chief Herald of Ireland? This
situation, I believe, was also the basis of comment and suggested
amendment of Section 16 (6).

Again, a Thaoisigh, thanks for these points.

Kindest regards

Michael Merrigan
http://www.familyhistory.ie

I hope readers of this forum will note that Mr. Merrigan has refused to

answer the question as to when Irish feudal baronies ceased to exist.
Mr. Merrigan's approach is clearly to avoid the issues he doesn't like
or has already made up his mind about. In my view such a person should
have no input in the law-making process and, in fact, in this country
local councillors have been given legal advice to the effect that they
are barred from discusing or voting on issues about which they have
already made up their minds.

I would assume that Mr Merrigan has had the sense to ignore any
posting by Mr Milne - who himself has already made up his mind on a
particualr issue!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

barrassie

Re: Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006

Legg inn av barrassie » 12 jun 2006 12:27:57

What happens to Armorial bearings already recorded by the Chief Herald
of Ireland, which originated outside the State?
As an Irish resident of second generation I recorded my Scottish Arms
in 1974 with territorial designation, how will these be affected by the
new bill if it is passed into law.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»