Post by Sean J MurphyI am going to top-post on this forest of obfuscation, to get through
which you would need not Ockham's Razor but a couple of chain saws. I
remain charged with ad hominem attacks, but no example is given on a
level with your disgraceful sneer against my 'credentials', based on
gossip fed you by Irish and other sources. You apologised for the slur
after I raised the issue several times, and I accepted the apology,
while pointing out that it was accompanied by new insult ('sink to the
same level').
As I have already indicated, I shall not (again) let you drag me into
such off-topic discussions--no matter how much you try to bait. You
can do better, as indeed we all can.
Post by Sean J MurphyMy original post posited that President Reagan was not
given a new grant of arms because he already possessed a set compiled by
Karlovsky,
That you did (without any supporting evidence other than imputed
motives, etc., etc.)--but you did more then that. You asserted in
that post and subsequently, directly and indirectly, that this was an
expression of a more general/universal rule in heraldry that it would
not be permissible to be granted arms if one already had arms
(although in this case self-assumed, outwith the jurisdiction, etc.,
etc., etc.).
Post by Sean J Murphyand I referred to the 2000 ruling in the Davison case, where
Chief Herald Brendan O Donoghue's rationale for nullifying both a 1985
grant and a 1989 confirmation of arms included a statement that the
former had been cancelled by the latter, in accordance with 'universal'
heraldic practice.
Yes, you did that in a subsequent reply to me. However, as I believe
I pointed out on that occasion it may simultaneously be the case that
the Chief Herald was acting within his discretion _and_ using a wrong
argument. For it most certainly is the case, that there is no such
"'universal' heraldic practice", as you call it. Period. I have
mentioned many examples, others have mentioned yet others, and I
certainly could add further. And yet, despite anything else to
substantiate your claim about such "'universal' heraldic practice",
you keep ignoring the examples mentioned by me and others.
Post by Sean J MurphyMr O Donoghue was and is not expert in heraldry,
being advised presumably by then Deputy and now Chief Herald Mr
Gillespie, and if they were wrong the record needs to be corrected.
Perhaps. I have not seen the actual records. It may, as I stated, be
the case that the Chief Herald was acting fully within his powers and
yet at the same time used an erroneous argument (for lack of a
better).
Post by Sean J MurphyI
have other concerns about the Davison ruling outlined in my web report,
and I certainly would not accept the implication that one need not worry
too much about ethics and due process when dealing with such a desperado
as this now sadly deceased associate of Terence MacCarthy('extraordinary
heraldic rendition' perhaps?).
As for other evidence, I have several times quoted the following post
from M-AR dated 14 December last, and if there has been a thorough
'I believe the attitude of the College of Arms is that where a right to
arms exists, no further grant will be made. Fox-Davies tells of
someone who attempted to obtain a grant, and then put forward his
brother for a grant in right of their father, in order to obtain a
second coat, but was told he would be specifically excluded from any
second grant. A recent Somerset Herald has confirmed to me that this
view prevails. However, where a right to pre-existing arms is only
uncovered after a grant, the position is less clear; I seem to recall
the College opining that the grant would supercede the inherited right,
although I am not persuaded that this is the case.' (End quote)
A couple of things needs to be clarified here.
First of all, while I have no reason whatever to doubt the validity of
what Mr. Andrews-Reading states here, we should probably be careful
to distinguish between a) a firmly established heraldic rule in a
country's heraldic practice (or in heraldry more generally for that
matter) and b) what Mr. Andrews-Reading recollects that he has heard
from a recent member of the College ("'I believe the attitude ... is",
"I seem to recall", etc.). Just to illustrate this: We have over the
last decade or so heard wildly different things here with regard to
whether the College of Arms still records non-British arms in their
registers, ranging from very detailed examples saying one thing and
very detailed examples to the contrary, and in several cases with
reference to what members of the College had done or replied to
members of the newsgroup. So, in order to use Mr. Andrews-Reading's
post as a point of departture for an understanding of a potential
(new) English heraldic practice, I would ideally like a little more
"meat" on this point--e.g., a reference to a decision in the Chapter
of the College, specific rejections/grants, etc.
Second, this example says _nothing_ of relevance to what you claimed
just yesterday ("I stand over my basic point, which is that whatever
about historic accumulation of different arms, an applicant who
approaches an heraldic
office looking for a brand new set of arms to add to one recently
acquired in another jurisdiction may not be favourably regarded.") or
what you have claimed more generally as a universal heraldic rule. Of
course, a granting authority (at least in England and Scotland) may
refuse to grant new arms to someone who already has arms--or anybody
else. That is obviously, legally and logically, not the same as that
this cannot be done, should not be done or is not permitted. If you
cannot see the difference, then I really do not know what to do ...
Thirdly, as regards the second issue, I am--as Mr. Andrews-Reading
seems to similarly believe--not convinced of postulated practice that
a "[new] grant would supercede the inherited right" (i.e. voiding the
prior right), at least not without that being explicitly stated in the
text of the new grant (cf. the similar point by Charles Drake).
Certainly, the established practice of both English heralds and
English armigers have been very, very different.
Best wishes,
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard