GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2003-05 > 1051979571


From: "CWatters" <>
Subject: Re: Unlicensed Armorial Crests
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 16:32:51 GMT
References: <3EB12BDF.5FC7BE65@lightage.demon.co.uk> <3oq2bv85s42fq36jpbp4o8021jj5oud8hb@4ax.com> <5ev2bvggba0cssiush6kdsjd19klvlr0os@4ax.com>


This site is your best bet...

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk

This page ...
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/about/12.htm

..says...
The most recent case was Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of
Varieties (1954), when a theatre was successfully sued for illegal display
of the arms belonging to the corporation.



"James Dempster" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 20:03:15 +0100, Don Aitken <>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 01 May 2003 15:14:55 +0100, derek wilcox
> ><> wrote:
> >
> >>Back in 1898 a chap was prosecutted for not having a license to wear a
> >>ring with an armorial crest on it. Apparently the license was one guniea
> >>a year.
> >>
> >>Can someone shed some more light on this please?
> >>
> >There used to be a tax on the *display* of armorial bearings in
> >certain ways, most notably on carriages. This was not abolished until,
> >I think, the 1920s; up till then you had to pay to have your CoA on
> >your Rolls-Royce.
> >
> >Note two things:
> >1. The liability to the tax did not depend in any way on the validity
> >of the arms displayed, or the displayer's entitlement to use them -
> >real and fake were treated exactly the same.
> >2. Because the tax was on display, and only certain form of it, I
> >seriously doubt that wearing a ring would be covered. Could the story
> >have got slightly garbled in transmission? I hasten to add that I
> >don't know the exact terms of the statute; if you really want to know,
> >you'd have to look at the relevant Finance Acts.
>
> Between 1841 and 1851 the rates were as follows.
>
> Persons using armorial bearings and keeping a taxable carriage 2 8/-
>
> Persons not keeping such a carriage but chargeable with window duty 1
> 4/-
>
> Persons not included as above 12/-
>
> My source is the Aberdeen Almanack for each of those years.
>
> The rules on taxable carriages take up a page of small print. Only
> houses with 8 or more windows (including fanlights or glass doors)
> were taxable, though there were various exemptions.
>
> The point that the validity of the arms was not checked is correct,
> but the rules seem to make no mention of any methods of display being
> exempted.
>
> James
> James Dempster ()
>
> You know you've had a good night
> when you wake up
> and someone's outlining you in chalk.


This thread: