Hamilton Vs Lyon

Acquiring armorial bearing, international heraldic authorities and assuming of arms.
Post Reply
User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Martin Goldstraw » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:39 am

Hamilton of Rockhall, Margaret v Lord Lyon King of Arms

A date has been set for a preliminary hearing in the legal challenge being mounted by the Hamiltons who maintain that the Lord Lyon has reneged on an agreement made by his predecessor in title.

It appears that there is to be a "debate" to take place on Friday 10 May 2019 at 10.00 a.m. before the Honourable Lady Wolffe.


The full note interlocutor can be found here: http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/hamilto ... may-19.pdf
Martin Goldstraw

----------
The Armorial Register
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Martin Goldstraw » Mon May 13, 2019 12:28 pm

Here is an update:
In the week before the case was due to be heard Counsel for both sides came to the conclusion that the one day booked for the hearing would not be sufficient to hear the case to its conclusion; thus Thursday 9th was also booked. However, come 4.00 pm on Friday Mrs Hamilton's QC, who had only been speaking for about two and a half hours was by no way finished resulting in a further day being necessary to finish the hearing. The case now returns to court on Tuesday 11th June.

As for the case itself there were no surprises and Mr. Hamilton felt that what their Counsel did have chance to say answered all of the points that Lyon's Counsel was attempting to address. I am informed that much of the time was taken up with Lyon's Counsel arguing that Margaret Hamilton, Baroness of Lag (in whose name the action is proceeding) had no interest to pursue this case. It was a very technical argument but later you will be able to read the report of the case.

Obviously, I have no feedback directly from the Lord Lyon, the statement received from Mr. Hamilton is perhaps therefore somewhat predictable. Mr. Hamilton stated: "The thing I find most surprising about this whole affair is that Lyon is taking so much effort to show that his word is not worth the paper it is written on (apologies to Sam Goldwyn). Not only is he reneging on the Agreement he had with us in 2008 but also reneging on the Menking Note (note still on Lyon's website). So much effort to trash your own reputation!"

Let is not forget that this remains as yet a "debate" to decide whether the matter can proceed to hear the substantive accusation that the Lord Lyon has reneged on an agreement made by his predecessor in title. It would appear that, at this stage, Lyon's tactic is to attempt to show that the Baroness of Lag has no commercial interest in the matter thus avoiding having to answer the substantive charge that he has reneged on an agreement.
Martin Goldstraw

----------
The Armorial Register
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:19 am

Anything newer.?
Mike~~
Fremont, California

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Martin Goldstraw » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:39 pm

Michael F. McCartney wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:19 am
Anything newer.?
The case has been heard. It is now in the mulling over stage (as I call it). The judge is considering the evidence and "mulling it over". I have no doubt that her judgement will be published at some point in the legal press.
Martin Goldstraw

----------
The Armorial Register
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:24 am

Thanks!
Mike~~
Fremont, California

Joseph Bryant
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:11 am

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Joseph Bryant » Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:43 am


User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 am

59 pages!!!
Bottom line appears to be Lyon wins...
Mike~~
Fremont, California

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Martin Goldstraw » Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:33 pm

Michael F. McCartney wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 am
59 pages!!!
Bottom line appears to be Lyon wins...
Indeed it does. It is interesting to note however that in a recently recorded talk to the Scottish Australian Heritage Council ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr7yCqLkZEA Lyon does not appear to be of the opinion that feudal baronies don't exist, he simply no longer feels it necessary to mention them or their ownership on Letters Patent. I paraphrase but you can check it out by following the link - he sates "We have this thing in Scotland called a feudal barony" I have ceased to recognise them in Letters patents "I am being sued". He goes on to state that "It is not that I mind people buying baronies and enjoying them" I just don't feel that I need to mention them on Letters Patent.
Martin Goldstraw

----------
The Armorial Register
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

User avatar
Michael F. McCartney
IHS Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Michael F. McCartney » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:31 pm

This strikes me as a useful public position for Dr Morrow's to take. It avoids any significant issue re: the ambiguous language in the Act, and narrows the issue to whether or not (and if so, how) the LP PR matriculation is worded.
Mike~~
Fremont, California

User avatar
Mark A. Henderson
AR Reg. & IHS Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:40 pm

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Mark A. Henderson » Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:57 am

Martin Goldstraw wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:33 pm
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 am
59 pages!!!
Bottom line appears to be Lyon wins...
Indeed it does. It is interesting to note however that in a recently recorded talk to the Scottish Australian Heritage Council ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr7yCqLkZEA Lyon does not appear to be of the opinion that feudal baronies don't exist, he simply no longer feels it necessary to mention them or their ownership on Letters Patent. I paraphrase but you can check it out by following the link - he sates "We have this thing in Scotland called a feudal barony" I have ceased to recognise them in Letters patents "I am being sued". He goes on to state that "It is not that I mind people buying baronies and enjoying them" I just don't feel that I need to mention them on Letters Patent.
Interesting speech. Thank you for sharing the link Martin. I wonder how the recent decision will affect the recent feudal barony purchasers.
Kindest regards,

Mark Anthony Henderson
Virtus et Victoria

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Martin Goldstraw » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:26 am

Mark A. Henderson wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:57 am

I wonder how the recent decision will affect the recent feudal barony purchasers.
I have no doubt that there will be some disappointment however, I suspect that the result will be that many foreign barons (a large percentage appear to be from the USA) will now consider that it isn't worth troubling Lyon for a grant of arms when they can simply assume them anyway. It is my belief that the reason they petitioned Lyon was so that they could have the fact recorded on Letters Patent issued by an officer of the Crown. Now that that is no longer an option why bother troubling the Lord Lyon. Being a baron was never about Lyon's approval, he doesn't have a say in whether a person is a baron or not, it is the conveyance that determines whether a person is a baron or not and none of that has changed; they never did need a piece of parchment from Lyon to become a baron.
Martin Goldstraw

----------
The Armorial Register
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

User avatar
Stephen J F Plowman
AR Registered
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Stephen J F Plowman » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:57 am

Martin Goldstraw wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:26 am
I have no doubt that there will be some disappointment however, I suspect that the result will be that many foreign barons (a large percentage appear to be from the USA) will now consider that it isn't worth troubling Lyon for a grant of arms when they can simply assume them anyway. It is my belief that the reason they petitioned Lyon was so that they could have the fact recorded on Letters Patent issued by an officer of the Crown. Now that that is no longer an option why bother troubling the Lord Lyon. Being a baron was never about Lyon's approval, he doesn't have a say in whether a person is a baron or not, it is the conveyance that determines whether a person is a baron or not and none of that has changed; they never did need a piece of parchment from Lyon to become a baron.
That said, having a Barony meant they fell under Lyon's jurisdiction for the purpose of getting granted "substantive" Arms.
Yours aye

Stephen


Image
www.heraldry-online.org.uk

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Hamilton Vs Lyon

Post by Martin Goldstraw » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:04 pm

Stephen J F Plowman wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:57 am


That said, having a Barony meant they fell under Lyon's jurisdiction for the purpose of getting granted "substantive" Arms.
They still will - he just won't mention that they have a barony. His announcement merely stated that from the 1st March 2018 it will be his intention to no longer make mention, in Letters Patent granting armorial bearings, of a petitioner’s ownership of a Feudal Barony and therefore status as Feudal Baron. Barons will still be able to petition for arms as they will still come under his jurisdiction.
Martin Goldstraw

----------
The Armorial Register
http://www.armorial-register.com

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Law/Lore of Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests