SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 2004-08 > 1092959080


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: [SoG] Coats of Arms
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:44:40 +0100
References: <3c14f7e04c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <003701c48616$e272e6c0$0300000a@gateway>
In-Reply-To: <003701c48616$e272e6c0$0300000a@gateway>


In message of 19 Aug, "Chris Watts" <> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [SoG] Coats of Arms
>
>
> | On the question of "rights", this is another ball-park. There are
> | certainly rules, as in the rules of cricket. If you wish to play
> | the heraldic game, then you will get further if you play by the
> | rules. But rules does not imply legal rights; Scotland apart, I do
> | not know of any heraldic authority that has any powers in a
> | functioning law-court.

> If I recall correctly the last case in the Court of Chivary (I think
> that is its name)

It is popularly name was the Court of Chivalry though its ancient title
was the Court of the Constable and Marshal (or Marshal and Constable?).

> in England was in the mid-1950s

1954

> when Manchester
> Corporation won a case concering the misuse of its coat of Arms.
> Although there have been no more recent cases, I believe that it is
> still open for business.

Oh good. I was hoping that someone would come back on that one.

In my view that case was a put-up job. I think it was completely
artificial in order to provide a legal underpinning to the works of the
College of Arms.

I happen to have a transcript of the proceedings and the notable thing
is that it records that previous cases before the Court of Chivalry
were kicked out on appeal to a higher court. So, by such judgements,
the Court of Chivalry was nullified and hence it went out of existence
around 1750.

Then this case appeared. It discussed the older cases, Lord Goddard
(the Surrogate judge for the duke of Norfolk and who happened to be the
then lord chief justice) even made some remarks that he would assume
jurisdiction but was not certain that an appeal to a higher court would
back him up.

Goddard in his judgement said that no further cases should be heard by
the Court without permission by the duke (the Marshal and survivor of the
Court of the Marshal and Constable) and preferably only after some
statute laws had been passed by Parliament to regulate the activities of
the Court.

Curiously the defendants then paid their £100 damages and did not
appeal. My view is that they should have appealed in order to establish
what on earth the law actually was and probably also to reverse
Goddard's judgement. The lack of any appeal leads me to suspect that
the whole thing was a put-up job.

One concern was what sanction held if the defendant simply ignored the
judgement of the Court. Goddard clearly said that he did not know what
the Court could then do as he could see no powers available to it. So
why did the defendant pay up?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

This thread: