Main Page | Report Page

 

  Hobby Forum Index » Heraldry » Swiss millionaire asks judges to give him Earl of...

Author Message
Turenne...
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:35 pm
 
Willi Ernst Sturzenegger has appealed to the Court of Session to be
recognised, formally, as the territorial Earl of Arran and be
addressed with all due dignity.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/swiss-millionaire-asks-judges-to-give-him-earl-of-arran-title-1.1050127

Richard Lichten
 
Turenne...
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:06 am
 
On 25 Aug, 13:12, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:

As is often the case with newspaper articles there is an element which
may mislead the reader.

You're right. There is a basic misunderstanding on the part of The
Herald as to Mr Sturzenegger's motives in this matter. I understand
that Mr S is already using the title though I'm not sure of the style
of his arms.

Does a feudal earldom of Arran exist?

Richard
 
Guy2
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:22 am
 
On Aug 25, 12:41 pm, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
I understand that a feudal earldom of Arran does exist and that Mr. S
has been previously recognised by Malcolm Innes of Erdingight (have I
spelt that right?) as the holder of said earldom.

[Edingight is pronounced "eddingeet"]
======In addition to what Edward writes, the Letters Patent states in big
bold red letters, "Willi Ernst Sturzenegger of Arran[;] Holder of the
Territorial Earldom of Arran." The LP also depicts a
standard:...."which Crest is depicted thrice upon a Standard four
yards in length of four tracts Gules and Or, split at the end, having
Azure a St. Andrew's Cross Argent in the hoist with the Motto "Semper
Sint In Flores" in letters Or on two transverse bands Vert, which
chapeau, mantle, and standard are destined to the Petitioner and his
heirs in the said territorial Earldom of Arran...." The staff is
crowned with a cap of maintenance Argent doubled Ermine.

--Guy Power
 
Edward Stewart...
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:49 am
 
On 26 Aug, 12:33, Graham Milne <grahammilne... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 26 Aug, 08:30, "B G. Hamilton." <bghrockh... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

Wrong! //snip for brevity//

I challenge you to explain how feudal barons, being
peers of the realm and entitled to sit in parliament as lords of
parliament, ever lost that privilege in law.

Graham, surely you are challenging the wrong person? Even if Mr.
Hamilton could provide an answer he is not in a position to accept or
reject your evidence other than in a private capacity and that's no
different than the rest of us. Your challenge would be of more benefit
to you personally and others in general if it were directed to The
Committee of Privileges of The House of Lords; though I suspect that
their response would be that it is for you to prove your right rather
than them to disprove it. You have rehearsed your evidence on this
forum often enough - isn't it now time to put up or shut up?

I predict that your answer may well be that you don't want to make the
lawyers any fatter than they already are but really, without a proper
legal challenge your assertions, whether we on this forum agree with
them or not, are worthless.

I'll put 50p into your fighting fund. Good luck.

Edward
 
Graham Milne...
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:47 am
 
On 26 Aug, 16:49, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 26 Aug, 12:33, Graham Milne <grahammilne... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

On 26 Aug, 08:30, "B G. Hamilton." <bghrockh... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

Wrong! //snip for brevity//
I challenge you to explain how feudal barons, being
peers of the realm and entitled to sit in parliament as lords of
parliament, ever lost that privilege in law.

Graham, surely you are challenging the wrong person? Even if Mr.
Hamilton could provide an answer he is not in a position to accept or
reject your evidence other than in a private capacity and that's no
different than the rest of us. Your challenge would be of more benefit
to you personally and others in general if it were directed to The
Committee of Privileges of The House of Lords; though I suspect that
their response would be that it is for you to prove your right rather
than them to disprove it. You have rehearsed your evidence on this
forum often enough - isn't it now time to put up or shut up?

I predict that your answer may well be that you don't want to make the
lawyers any fatter than they already are but really, without a proper
legal challenge your assertions, whether we on this forum agree with
them or not, are worthless.

I'll put 50p into your fighting fund. Good luck.

Edward

Thank you. That's one quarter of a Big Mac. I look forward to eating
it in due course.

I will respnd more seriously in a bit.
 
B G. Hamilton....
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:54 am
 
On 26 Aug, 16:49, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 26 Aug, 12:33, Graham Milne <grahammilne... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

On 26 Aug, 08:30, "B G. Hamilton." <bghrockh... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

Wrong! //snip for brevity//
I challenge you to explain how feudal barons, being
peers of the realm and entitled to sit in parliament as lords of
parliament, ever lost that privilege in law.

Graham, surely you are challenging the wrong person? Even if Mr.
Hamilton could provide an answer he is not in a position to accept or
reject your evidence other than in a private capacity and that's no
different than the rest of us. Your challenge would be of more benefit
to you personally and others in general if it were directed to The
Committee of Privileges of The House of Lords; though I suspect that
their response would be that it is for you to prove your right rather
than them to disprove it. You have rehearsed your evidence on this
forum often enough - isn't it now time to put up or shut up?

I predict that your answer may well be that you don't want to make the
lawyers any fatter than they already are but really, without a proper
legal challenge your assertions, whether we on this forum agree with
them or not, are worthless.

I'll put 50p into your fighting fund. Good luck.

Edward

Edward,

I'll make up your ten bob to a pound to give the lad a start.

Now let us return to the real world for just a minute or two and then
we can return to Graham's fantacy land. Just suppose that Graham had
his argument accepted; how long do you think it would be before the
forces of democracy made sure that people who had purchased barony
titles did not thereby have a right to legislate?

Perhaps it could be made a test of mental stability; "Do you think the
feudal barons should sit in Parliament" Answer "No" "OK then, you seem
to be alright" Answer "Yes" "I am very sorry but you are not ready for
release yet".

Regards,

BGH
 
jetlounge smith...
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:14 am
 
On Aug 25, 2:22 pm, guy <ghp95... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 25, 12:41 pm, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

I understand that a feudal earldom of Arran does exist and that Mr. S
has been previously recognised by Malcolm Innes of Erdingight (have I
spelt that right?) as the holder of said earldom.

[Edingight  is pronounced "eddingeet"]
======> In addition to what Edward writes, the Letters Patent states in big
bold red letters, "Willi Ernst Sturzenegger of Arran[;] Holder of the
Territorial Earldom of Arran."  The LP also depicts a
standard:...."which Crest is depicted thrice upon a Standard four
yards in length of four tracts Gules and Or, split at the end, having
Azure a St. Andrew's Cross Argent in the hoist with the Motto "Semper
Sint In Flores" in letters Or on two transverse bands Vert, which
chapeau, mantle, and standard are destined to the Petitioner and his
heirs in the said territorial Earldom of Arran...."  The staff is
crowned with a cap of maintenance Argent doubled Ermine.

--Guy Power


It appears that (the holder of an earldom), does not an earl make.

The heraldic question then is: would this person receive the proper
additaments if he applied as is . . . .
 
Outis...
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:28 am
 
On Aug 26, 8:14 pm, jetlounge smith <jetloun... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 25, 2:22 pm, guy <ghp95... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:



On Aug 25, 12:41 pm, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

I understand that a feudal earldom of Arran does exist and that Mr. S
has been previously recognised by Malcolm Innes of Erdingight (have I
spelt that right?) as the holder of said earldom.

[Edingight  is pronounced "eddingeet"]
======> > In addition to what Edward writes, the Letters Patent states in big
bold red letters, "Willi Ernst Sturzenegger of Arran[;] Holder of the
Territorial Earldom of Arran."  The LP also depicts a
standard:...."which Crest is depicted thrice upon a Standard four
yards in length of four tracts Gules and Or, split at the end, having
Azure a St. Andrew's Cross Argent in the hoist with the Motto "Semper
Sint In Flores" in letters Or on two transverse bands Vert, which
chapeau, mantle, and standard are destined to the Petitioner and his
heirs in the said territorial Earldom of Arran...."  The staff is
crowned with a cap of maintenance Argent doubled Ermine.

--Guy Power

It appears that (the holder of an earldom), does not an earl make.

The heraldic question then is: would this person receive the proper
additaments if he applied as is . . . .

I for one look forward to seeing a Barons' revolt and the subsequent
march on Westminster. Do bring your banners and mantles! The Swiss
can get bonus point by coming in a landsknecht outfit.

-- o
 
Graham Milne...
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:52 pm
 
On 26 Aug, 18:54, "B G. Hamilton." <bghrockh... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 26 Aug, 16:49, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:





On 26 Aug, 12:33, Graham Milne <grahammilne... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

On 26 Aug, 08:30, "B G. Hamilton." <bghrockh... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

Wrong! //snip for brevity//
I challenge you to explain how feudal barons, being
peers of the realm and entitled to sit in parliament as lords of
parliament, ever lost that privilege in law.

Graham, surely you are challenging the wrong person? Even if Mr.
Hamilton could provide an answer he is not in a position to accept or
reject your evidence other than in a private capacity and that's no
different than the rest of us. Your challenge would be of more benefit
to you personally and others in general if it were directed to The
Committee of Privileges of The House of Lords; though I suspect that
their response would be that it is for you to prove your right rather
than them to disprove it. You have rehearsed your evidence on this
forum often enough - isn't it now time to put up or shut up?

I predict that your answer may well be that you don't want to make the
lawyers any fatter than they already are but really, without a proper
legal challenge your assertions, whether we on this forum agree with
them or not, are worthless.

I'll put 50p into your fighting fund. Good luck.

Edward

Edward,

I'll make up your ten bob to a pound to give the lad a start.

Now let us return to the real world for just a minute or two and then
we can return to Graham's fantacy land.  Just suppose that Graham had
his argument accepted; how long do you think it would be before the
forces of democracy made sure that people who had purchased barony
titles did not thereby have a right to legislate?

Perhaps it could be made a test of mental stability; "Do you think the
feudal barons should sit in Parliament" Answer "No" "OK then, you seem
to be alright" Answer "Yes" "I am very sorry but you are not ready for
release yet".

Regards,

BGH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am only concerned with the law. If people don't like the law then
they should argue for it to be changed or openly rebel against it if
it is tyrannical; they should not interpret it in a dishonest,
underhand way. That is what is happening. Are you really under the
impression that I want the country to be ruled by feudal barons, who
are just a bunch of honest, upright people who value the history and
traditions of their own country? Er, cripes! Perhaps I was right after
all. I don't suppose you have noticed how this country has steadily
gone to the dogs ever since the passing of the Great Reform Bill of
1832? Democracy means giving power to the mob, the lowest common
denominator (or, as they say, two wolves and a lamb deciding on what
to have for dinner). Just look at the dregs who have crawled out of
the woodwork to run this country. One thing I have got and that is
eyes to see. I can recognize a civilization in terminal decline when I
see it. So perhaps people who look to and value and wish to emulate
the great glories of our past are not a bad thing after all. You see,
history to me is a serious subject.
 
Turenne...
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:11 pm
 
On 26 Aug, 23:52, Graham Milne <grahammilne... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 26 Aug, 18:54, "B G. Hamilton." <bghrockh... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:





On 26 Aug, 16:49, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On 26 Aug, 12:33, Graham Milne <grahammilne... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

On 26 Aug, 08:30, "B G. Hamilton." <bghrockh... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:

Wrong! //snip for brevity//
I challenge you to explain how feudal barons, being
peers of the realm and entitled to sit in parliament as lords of
parliament, ever lost that privilege in law.

Graham, surely you are challenging the wrong person? Even if Mr.
Hamilton could provide an answer he is not in a position to accept or
reject your evidence other than in a private capacity and that's no
different than the rest of us. Your challenge would be of more benefit
to you personally and others in general if it were directed to The
Committee of Privileges of The House of Lords; though I suspect that
their response would be that it is for you to prove your right rather
than them to disprove it. You have rehearsed your evidence on this
forum often enough - isn't it now time to put up or shut up?

I predict that your answer may well be that you don't want to make the
lawyers any fatter than they already are but really, without a proper
legal challenge your assertions, whether we on this forum agree with
them or not, are worthless.

I'll put 50p into your fighting fund. Good luck.

Edward

Edward,

I'll make up your ten bob to a pound to give the lad a start.

Now let us return to the real world for just a minute or two and then
we can return to Graham's fantacy land.  Just suppose that Graham had
his argument accepted; how long do you think it would be before the
forces of democracy made sure that people who had purchased barony
titles did not thereby have a right to legislate?

Perhaps it could be made a test of mental stability; "Do you think the
feudal barons should sit in Parliament" Answer "No" "OK then, you seem
to be alright" Answer "Yes" "I am very sorry but you are not ready for
release yet".

Regards,

BGH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am only concerned with the law. If people don't like the law then
they should argue for it to be changed or openly rebel against it if
it is tyrannical; they should not interpret it in a dishonest,
underhand way. That is what is happening. Are you really under the
impression that I want the country to be ruled by feudal barons, who
are just a bunch of honest, upright people who value the history and
traditions of their own country? Er, cripes! Perhaps I was right after
all. I don't suppose you have noticed how this country has steadily
gone to the dogs ever since the passing of the Great Reform Bill of
1832? Democracy means giving power to the mob, the lowest common
denominator (or, as they say, two wolves and a lamb deciding on what
to have for dinner). Just look at the dregs who have crawled out of
the woodwork to run this country. One thing I have got and that is
eyes to see. I can recognize a civilization in terminal decline when I
see it. So perhaps people who look to and value and wish to emulate
the great glories of our past are not a bad thing after all. You see,
history to me is a serious subject.

Oh dear Graham. I strongly suggest that you take a Valium and get over
yourself!

Pace the rubbish that you've just spouted (above), your contention
that feudal baronies are peerage titles is just plain wrong. What is
strange is the fact that this is the first time that you or anyone
else has ever made this assertion. Even the most diehard supporters of
the rights and privileges of feudal barons wouldn't go so far as to
say that they were peerages!

Richard L
 
Graham Milne...
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:31 am
 
On 27 Aug, 14:50, "Nicholas... at (no spam) gmail.com" <nicholas... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 27, 9:34 am, Joseph McMillan <mcmillan... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On Aug 25, 3:41 pm, Edward Stewart <rha_stew... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

I understand that a feudal earldom of Arran does exist and that Mr. S
has been previously recognised by Malcolm Innes of Erdingight (have I
spelt that right?) as the holder of said earldom.

This is true, but what Lyon Sellar maintains is that the possession of
this earldom does not make one an earl.  His reasoning is available in
his note on the case, to which Brian Hamilton posted the link.
Without re-reading the note, I recall his reasoning to be as follows:

1.  There was a time when one became an earl (in the peerage sense) by
virtue of the possession of a feudal earldom.
2.  This system gradually lapsed with the invention of personal
peerages and had all but ended by the beginning of the 17th century.
3.  After that, there were cases in which lands already belonging to a
man were sometimes erected into feudal earldoms concurrently with the
owner's being granted a personal peerage, but it wasn't the ownership
of the land that made the owner an earl.  Rather it was the fact that
the owner was an earl that made them an earldom.
4.  These latter-day "feudal earldoms" were legally baronies under a
different name.

The trouble with his argument is that several people have been
recognized as Earls of Feudal Earldoms since Sellar's ascension. The
only difference I can see in these cases is that the titles mentioned
were not identical to any peerage title I know of.

In addition, I would add although Lyon Sellar did not, the Abolition
of Feudal Tenure Act did not provide for the survival of the dignity
of feudal earl, but only of baron.  Under the statute, Mr.
Sturzenegger is either a baron or nothing.

Joseph McMillan

A Feudal Earldom is worth more then a Feudal Barony, which means if
all Feudal Earldoms were demoted to Baronies of a Feudal Earldom the
Scots Parliament owes Feudal Earls an awful lot of money.

Which means your contention may technically be correct, but as soon as
the Scots Parlaiment realizes this and totes up the costs they'll
change the law, and probably make it retroactive.

There's also a jurisdictional issue. IIRC The Scots Parliament was
specifically banned from messing with the honors system. Which means
their acts cannot alter the dignity of a Feudal Earl's title.

Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If they cannot alter the dignity of a feudal earl, surely the same
applies to feudal barons as well?
 
StephenP...
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:43 am
 
Graham

As I think it has been said before, even if you 100% convince the
users of rec.h of the correctness of your position it means very
little. There may be a warm glow from the knowledge you are correct
and the perceived official wisdom is not. It is the perceived
official wisdom that needs a formal challenge not rec.h.

Stephen
 
Graham Milne...
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:04 am
 
On 27 Aug, 15:43, StephenP <plow... at (no spam) uk2.net> wrote:
Quote:
Graham

As I think it has been said before, even if you 100% convince the
users of rec.h of the correctness of your position it means very
little.  There may be a warm glow from the knowledge you are correct
and the perceived official wisdom is not.  It is the perceived
official wisdom that needs a formal challenge not rec.h.

Stephen

Persuading rec.h means very little? You have a very low opinion of
your fellow forumeers. But surely the truth is an end in its own
right? Did Einstien work to be famous and nothing else? No, he worked
for the advancement of knowledge and the good of humanity. Think of me
as Einstein Mark 2.
 
Graham Milne...
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:09 am
 
On 27 Aug, 15:43, StephenP <plow... at (no spam) uk2.net> wrote:
Quote:
Graham

As I think it has been said before, even if you 100% convince the
users of rec.h of the correctness of your position it means very
little.  There may be a warm glow from the knowledge you are correct
and the perceived official wisdom is not.  It is the perceived
official wisdom that needs a formal challenge not rec.h.

Stephen

PS I think we can summarize the position quite simply like this:

1. The owner of a feudal barony is a baron.
2. The owner of a feudal earldom is an earl.

Er... that's it. Do you think the Court of Session will actually get
to realizing this simple point in the maze of all the rubbish (aka
'legal arguments') that will be flung in their direction?
 
Outis...
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:09 am
 
On Aug 27, 4:43 pm, StephenP <plow... at (no spam) uk2.net> wrote:
Quote:
Graham

As I think it has been said before, even if you 100% convince the
users of rec.h of the correctness of your position it means very
little.  There may be a warm glow from the knowledge you are correct
and the perceived official wisdom is not.  It is the perceived
official wisdom that needs a formal challenge not rec.h.

Stephen

If he couldn't talk about things like this here, where should he go
instead?

I wouldn't wish anyone to be sent to the loony house for talking
nonsense in court.

-- o
 
 
Page 1 of 5    Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:49 pm