In 1552 Edward VI created the first herald charged with actually
regulating Irish heraldry. The Ulster Kings of Arms recognized all
previously existing heraldry on the island as real heraldry, not
psuedo-heraldry, but insisted that all future heraldry be registered
with them.

Nick,

On Sep 21, 1:01 pm, Nick B II <nicholas... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

In 1552 Edward VI created the first herald charged with actually
regulating Irish heraldry. The Ulster Kings of Arms recognized all
previously existing heraldry on the island as real heraldry, not
psuedo-heraldry, but insisted that all future heraldry be registered
with them.

Nick,

Interesting.  I hadn't thought about the timelines before, but this
happens to be within 35 years of the first English grants of arms
connected with the settlement of North America, those to Sir Walter
Raleigh's proposed city of "Ralegh" and to his associates in the
colonization scheme.

Of course, this was not the first appearance of European heraldry in
what is now the United States; that would have occurred with the first
arrival of Spanish explorers in Florida--Hernando de Soto is recorded
as having erected a pillar with the Spanish royal arms on the shores
of Tampa Bay in 1539, and Ponce de Leon very likely did the same when
he explored the area near present-day Jacksonville in 1513-21.

Joseph McMillan

If the relevant heraldic authority, acting on behalf of the state and
within its powers, accepted these titles as valid in law then they are
valid in law.

Here again is the text of the letter sent by Chief Herald Begley to
Terence MacCarthy on 16 June 1988:

'Dear MacCarthy Mór,
This is by way of a reply to your letter of June 7th 1988. First allow
me to congratulate you on your new publication ‘One Thousand Royal and
Noble Ancestors of the House of MacCarthy Mór’.
Now to the matter of the Gaelic feudal lordships which, as you say,

are
cited in the St Ledger Tract of 1588. Such incorporeal hereditaments,
whatever their precise nature,

would, I believe,

come under the term
‘property’ for legal purposes.

Accordingly, under our Constitution you
have the right to beneficial disposal of such property,

irrespective of
whatever I might say or think.

Although no register of such property
exists here

we have nonetheless an interest in your proposed course of
activities.

Having considered the matter we do not propose to stand in
the way of your disposal of the aforementioned hereditaments.

Yours sincerely, Donal F Begley, Chief Herald of Ireland.'
(End quote)

The import of this letter is that an Irish state official was approving
MacCarthy's disposal of titles, <snip

Hey . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6745e97c84.jpg

You want to start something? . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/abf0a75c6b.jpg

Images courtesy ofhttp://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=124516/start=1920.html

Sean Murphy

Edward,
 You don't know me, you know nothing about me
and are therefore unqulaified to make a judgement.

On Sep 16, 5:58 am, "gra... at (no spam) gmilne.demon.co.uk"

gra... at (no spam) gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:

If the relevant heraldic authority, acting on behalf of the state and
within its powers, accepted these titles as valid in law then they are
valid in law.

Sorry; I should have noticed that Graham had it right in the first
place.  We don't agree all that often and should therefore relish the
occasions when we do.

The key passage here is "within its powers."  The Chief Herald of
Ireland was not acting within his powers by recognizing the titles.
His recognition was therefore invalid in law, which is why it was
subsequently declared null and void.

Joseph McMillan

Perhaps we need to be more forensic about the Chief Herald's 1988
letter? I give you the following for the sake of argument:

On Sep 17, 11:10 am, Sean J Murphy wrote:

Here again is the text of the letter sent by Chief Herald Begley to
Terence MacCarthy on 16 June 1988:

'Dear MacCarthy Mór,
This is by way of a reply to your letter of June 7th 1988. First allow
me to congratulate you on your new publication ‘One Thousand Royal and
Noble Ancestors of the House of MacCarthy Mór’.
Now to the matter of the Gaelic feudal lordships which, as you say,

This seems to be the CH making it clear this is MacCarthy’s claim.

are
cited in the St Ledger Tract of 1588. Such incorporeal hereditaments,
whatever their precise nature,

This is a caveat that the precise nature of the claim is not accepted
still less supported. The last phrase raises questions about the
alleged nature of such hereditaments.

would, I believe,

This is a caveat making the following into a _personal_ opinion and
not the opinion of the office of Chief Herald.

come under the term
‘property’ for legal purposes.

The CH indicates that incorporeal hereditaments are property, no more.

Accordingly, under our Constitution you
have the right to beneficial disposal of such property,

This is a statement of fact and does not relate to accepting or
supporting any claim. See Art 40.3.2 and Art.43 of the Constutution.

irrespective of
whatever I might say or think.

An implied caveat that the CH had other thoughts on the subject. Also
and importantly indicating that his opinions did not have any bearing
on the legal issue of a right to sell incorporeal property.

Although no register of such property
exists here

The CH made clear he has no way of checking the claim and the CH does
not maintain a register. Anyone reading the letter should be warned by
this.

we have nonetheless an interest in your proposed course of
activities.

The CH wants to hear more about the follow up. This cannot be read in
the same way as holding an interest in a property. It might perhaps be
read in the same manner as the police having an interest in a
criminal.

Having considered the matter we do not propose to stand in
the way of your disposal of the aforementioned hereditaments.

However, the CH and his office have no policing role in Irish
heraldry, let alone the selling of fraudulent property. Begley knew he
could not have stood in anybody's way.

Yours sincerely, Donal F Begley, Chief Herald of Ireland.'
(End quote)

The import of this letter is that an Irish state official was approving
MacCarthy's disposal of titles, <snip

I am not quite convinced. The worst that can be said about this letter
is that it indicates the CH may have had an idea things were not quite
right and sought to appease a client by turning a blind eye ("nothing
to do with me, gov") rather than immediately reporting TMcC to the
police (but then was this letter not before the crimes so no crime had
been committed). I do not see it as approving what went on.

Derek Howard

On Sep 22, 5:58 am, Sean J Murphy <sjbmur... at (no spam) SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:

Hey . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6745e97c84.jpg

You want to start something? . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/abf0a75c6b.jpg

Images courtesy ofhttp://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=124516/start=1920.html

Sean Murphy

Is this character an Irishman?  An American living in Ireland?  An
American who thinks he's Irish?  or a failed gameshow host?

Perhaps we need to be more forensic about the Chief Herald's 1988
letter? I give you the following for the sake of argument:

On Sep 17, 11:10 am, Sean J Murphy wrote:

Here again is the text of the letter sent by Chief Herald Begley to
Terence MacCarthy on 16 June 1988:

'Dear MacCarthy Mór,
This is by way of a reply to your letter of June 7th 1988. First allow
me to congratulate you on your new publication ‘One Thousand Royal and
Noble Ancestors of the House of MacCarthy Mór’.
Now to the matter of the Gaelic feudal lordships which, as you say,


This seems to be the CH making it clear this is MacCarthy’s claim.


are
cited in the St Ledger Tract of 1588. Such incorporeal hereditaments,
whatever their precise nature,


This is a caveat that the precise nature of the claim is not accepted
still less supported. The last phrase raises questions about the
alleged nature of such hereditaments.


would, I believe,


This is a caveat making the following into a _personal_ opinion and
not the opinion of the office of Chief Herald.


come under the term
‘property’ for legal purposes.


The CH indicates that incorporeal hereditaments are property, no more.


Accordingly, under our Constitution you
have the right to beneficial disposal of such property,


This is a statement of fact and does not relate to accepting or
supporting any claim. See Art 40.3.2 and Art.43 of the Constutution.


irrespective of
whatever I might say or think.


An implied caveat that the CH had other thoughts on the subject. Also
and importantly indicating that his opinions did not have any bearing
on the legal issue of a right to sell incorporeal property.


Although no register of such property
exists here


The CH made clear he has no way of checking the claim and the CH does
not maintain a register. Anyone reading the letter should be warned by
this.


we have nonetheless an interest in your proposed course of
activities.


The CH wants to hear more about the follow up. This cannot be read in
the same way as holding an interest in a property. It might perhaps be
read in the same manner as the police having an interest in a
criminal.


Having considered the matter we do not propose to stand in
the way of your disposal of the aforementioned hereditaments.


However, the CH and his office have no policing role in Irish
heraldry, let alone the selling of fraudulent property. Begley knew he
could not have stood in anybody's way.


Yours sincerely, Donal F Begley, Chief Herald of Ireland.'
(End quote)

The import of this letter is that an Irish state official was approving
MacCarthy's disposal of titles, <snip


I am not quite convinced. The worst that can be said about this letter
is that it indicates the CH may have had an idea things were not quite
right and sought to appease a client by turning a blind eye ("nothing
to do with me, gov") rather than immediately reporting TMcC to the
police (but then was this letter not before the crimes so no crime had
been committed). I do not see it as approving what went on.

On 22 Sep, 18:31, Greg <scoti... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:



Edward,
 You don't know me, you know nothing about me
and are therefore unqulaified to make a judgement.

Greg,
Of course I don't know you. My observations and judgements on your
behaviour are based entirely on how you represent yourself in your
writings and are entirely restricted to that alone. My observations
stand as self evident.

Regards,
Edward

On Sep 22, 5:58 am, Sean J Murphy <sjbmur... at (no spam) SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:

Hey . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6745e97c84.jpg

You want to start something? . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/abf0a75c6b.jpg

Images courtesy ofhttp://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=124516/start=1920.html

Sean Murphy


Is this character an Irishman? An American living in Ireland? An
American who thinks he's Irish? or a failed gameshow host?

On 22 Sep, 18:34, Greg <scoti... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

On Sep 22, 5:58 am, Sean J Murphy <sjbmur... at (no spam) SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:


Hey . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6745e97c84.jpg

You want to start something? . . .

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/abf0a75c6b.jpg

Images courtesy ofhttp://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=124516/start=1920.html

Sean Murphy

Is this character an Irishman? An American living in Ireland? An
American who thinks he's Irish? or a failed gameshow host?


Whoever he is, with all that weaponry I apologize for anything I may
have said ever!