Badges

[Chris Green]

West Wiltshire District Council no longer exists.

High Peak Borough Council appears to use a version of its arms (that omits the fountain):





http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=High_Peak

The crest which features a piece of "Blue John" stone must surely be unique, but the fountain was substituted in the badge.

One can see where Tamworth Borough Council derived its badge:



http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Tamworth_(Staffordshire)

Sadly it uses neither badge nor arms these days:

[Ryan Shuflin]

... one writer participating in the discussion commented that “The fact that recent Lyons have allowed or disallowed badges is irrelevant because Lyon has no authority over them. Anyone, including post AFT barons, may assume badges at will, and if Lyon does elect to grant them, they have no greater authenticity than assumed ones."

No greater authenticity, but perhaps greater "snob value", if only in the view of the grantee.

Are granted Scottish badges hereditary? To judge from the wording of the patents, English badges (and the accompanying standards) appear to be hereditary, but Irish ones are generally restricted to the grantee for his lifetime.

I think the value of having a badge registered is protection, that is the ability to sue someone who uses it, or use it without be sued. The main job of a herald is to prevent the usurpation of arms.

[JMcMillan]

In a recent discussion in the Heraldry Society of Scotland forum I was reminded that Lord Lyon Balfour Paul wrote in Heraldry in Relation to Scottish History and Art, p.126: “What should be put on liveries is the badge which can be selected at the individual will of the owner.” I am of course aware that more recent Lords Lyon have lent the impression that they have assumed authority over the granting of badges [snip] Balfour Paul was quoted as an authoritative ( = knowledgeable) source.”

More than merely knowledgeable, but authoritative in that he was himself Lyon King of Arms. If, in the late 19th century, Lyon had no power to control badges (they "can be selected at the individual will of the owner"), we must ask whence subsequent Lyons obtained the authority to control them. The Court of Session (Scotland's highest courts) has repeatedly ruled that Lyon's powers are those and only those granted to him by statute, vouched for by institutional writers (i.e., a handful of authoritative commentators on Scottish law), upheld by decisions of higher courts, or long "continued and accepted practice." (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh [1911]; Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean [1941])

Control over badges is not addressed in any statute, nor in any judicial decision, nor in any institutional writer, and the very fact that Lyon King of Arms said that badges could be assumed at will is definitive evidence that granting or regulating them was not "continued and accepted practice" of Lyon Office at that time. And if it was not the continued and accepted practice at that time, then it could not suddenly become the continued and accepted practice by the unilateral act of a subsequent Lord Lyon.

[Michael F. McCartney]

But if by a succession of Lyons over many years? Every long-accepted custom was, at some point in history, an innovation.

[Chris Green]

In this day and age, assuming legal authority by "customary usage" is considered to be archaic. Lord Lyon's Office is I think the only heraldic authority that is an active court of law and LL himself is a qualified lawyer and a judge. But LL, despite being tough on unauthorised assumption and use of arms, titles etc., seems to turn a blind eye to his own assumption of powers unauthorised by law. He should be challenged to prove in court his right to regulate badges before he can claim long continued and accepted practice.

PS: Does anyone else find it worrying that LL, acting as a Government Department, can refuse someone arms, and subsequently, acting as a court of law try the same person for assuming those arms anyway? Administrative and judicial functions should surely be, and be seen to be, separate.

[JMcMillan]

But if by a succession of Lyons over many years? Every long-accepted custom was, at some point in history, an innovation.

Would you accept that a government official in any other sphere could abolish the rights of citizens merely by violating them long enough?

[Michael F. McCartney]

I wouldn't personally accept it, but Lord knows it's happened often enough over human history.

To my mind FWIW there's s difference between saying Lyon can grant some category of insignia, vs saying no one can use that category of insignia without benefit of heraldic clergy. If the category is "arms" then both are true. But badges seem to be debatable - are they included as armorial insignia, or are they (legally) just visual fluff?

There are clearly some badges which are heraldic elements under Lyon's authority - e.g. (or maybe i.e.) crests, with their attendant wreath or etc., used separately as badges; some in-between, like strap & buckle badges, in which the crest is clearly heraldic but the belt, standing alone, IMO isn't; and some clearly non-heraldic, like plant badges.

But saying a particular type of badge isn't under Lyon's exclusive jurisdiction, doesn't bar him from devising and granting unique badges as extra goodies in a grant - it only means he can't bar you from use of a badge already on record (as at least breach of copyright).

Same arguments would seem to apply to flags other than banners of arms.

But of course this is largely speculation unless & until an actual case is run though the appeals process and clearly decided by the Court of Session in other than mere dicta.

[JMcMillan]

But saying a particular type of badge isn't under Lyon's exclusive jurisdiction, doesn't bar him from devising and granting unique badges as extra goodies in a grant - it only means he can't bar you from use of a badge already on record (as at least breach of copyright).

Mike, this is simply flawed reasoning. Lyon is a public official. He doesn't get to define his own powers.

[Martin Goldstraw]

There is a school of thought amongst a large body of Scottish armigers and enthusiasts of Scottish heraldry that unless something has been sanctioned/approved/granted by the Lord Lyon it is somehow not permitted, of lesser value or even unlawful. I don't fully subscribe to this belief but I do have first hand experience of it. When, some years ago, Lyon decided that he would grant a pennon to mere armigers (those with no greater rank) there was a great rush to have them granted anew (for existing armigers) or added to new petitions for arms. I however, subscribe to the view that once arms have been granted (or in my case matriculated for use in Scotland) an armiger is free to use those arms however he/she wishes; since a pennon is simply a flag with ones lawful arms and motto I just went ahead and had one made up. There are those who think that I shouldn't have done so but since Lyon has stated that any armiger is permitted a pennon, I don't believe that I need any further authority to display my arms in such a way. I am often asked when my pennon was granted - it wasn't.

[Michael F. McCartney]

Joe - my reasoning may well be flawed - I wrote this while drugged up with some heavy-duty antibiotics and frankly I can't understand​ what I wrote (maybe I can blame FB Autocorrect? )

I have a faint recollection that Lyon's duties include correcting the rules when he finds them deficient, which if +/- correct, would sanction a bit of innovative "interpretation" of determining what is and isn't "heraldry" over which he exercises jurisdiction within Scotland. But I may be wrong!