Celtic Crest

[Sketraw]

Thanks for the correction John. I took a look around at some heraldy site to see if I could get the answer. Check out the Harden site. I may have read it wrong.

Frank

Hi Frank, I know Mark Harden of Cowdeknowes very well, yes he seems to say that he is armigerous but he is not, as he is the heir to his fathers arms Barry Harden of Cowdenknowes (hence the three point label on his arms). However he is the Feudal Baron of Cowdenknowes and may well be able to wear feathers in his bunnet.

[Highland Logan]

Thanks for the clearification John.

Frank

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hi Frank, I know Mark Harden of Cowdeknowes very well, yes he seems to say that he is armigerous but he is not, as he is the heir to his fathers arms Barry Harden of Cowdenknowes (hence the three point label on his arms). However he is the Feudal Baron of Cowdenknowes and may well be able to wear feathers in his bunnet.

Since the Abolition of Feudalism Act (Scotland) 2000 about the only perks left to the Baronage are their two eagle feathers, their two pipers, and a plethora of flags, banners, and standards. It seems that it is very much the custom among the peerage and baronage to regard all younger sons (and presumably) daughters as de facto armigers, and to further accord them a single eagle's feather. I've no idea where this came from, but the words "The Ilk" were muttered within earshot...

That said, it is entirely inappropriate for anyone other than a chieftain or feudal baron to display two eagle feathers as those are the distinctive and sole right of the baron or chieftain. The reasoning behind this is that there can only be one baron or chieftain at any given moment. Heirs, both apparent and presumptive, must wait until they accede to the barony or chieftainship before displaying both feathers.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Since the Abolition of Feudalism Act (Scotland) 2000 about the only perks left to the Baronage are their two eagle feathers, their two pipers, and a plethora of flags, banners, and standards. It seems that it is very much the custom among the peerage and baronage to regard all younger sons (and presumably) daughters as de facto armigers, and to further accord them a single eagle's feather. I've no idea where this came from, but the words "The Ilk" were muttered within earshot...

That said, it is entirely inappropriate for anyone other than a chieftain or feudal baron to display two eagle feathers as those are the distinctive and sole right of the baron or chieftain. The reasoning behind this is that there can only be one baron or chieftain at any given moment. Heirs, both apparent and presumptive, must wait until they accede to the barony or chieftainship before displaying both feathers.

Mark Harden has ascended to the barony, though. His dad stepped aside and passed the title on to his son -- at least this is my understanding from speaking with Mark (who lives relatively close to me, so I get to see him at many functions).

M

[Sketraw]

Mark Harden has ascended to the barony, though. His dad stepped aside and passed the title on to his son -- at least this is my understanding from speaking with Mark (who lives relatively close to me, so I get to see him at many functions).

M

Quite correct Mat as far as the Barony is concerned but his father is still the owner of the arms, as the arms were granted to him and he is still alive. Mark cant use them undifferenced until he snuffs it. So he uses the arms of his father by courtesy differenced by a three point label.

Hi Scott, Chieftains can wear 2 feathers but not Feudal Barons, I know some do as they try to legitimise the wearing of 2 feathers by saying most Chieftains were historicaly Laird or Feudal Barons which is quite true, however unless they have been recognised by Lyon as a Chieftain they are not suppose to.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hi Scott, Chieftains can wear 2 feathers but not Feudal Barons, I know some do as they try to legitimise the wearing of 2 feathers by saying most Chieftains were historicaly Laird or Feudal Barons which is quite true, however unless they have been recognised by Lyon as a Chieftain they are not suppose to.

Aw, try selling that at a meeting of the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland! I'm not sure Lyon has ever pronounced on this matter-- it's the sort of mess I think he would want to avoid. That said, the Baron of Yeochrie seems to sport a pair of feathers as did (or so I am told) his predecessor... hmm.

[Sketraw]

Aw, try selling that at a meeting of the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland!

True again Scott, but the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland is not an authority and was put together, as you well know, because of the abolition of feudal tenure in 2004, to try and keep an historic record of baronies as they would no longer be recorded in the register of sasines.

Lyon Court only makes mention of Chieftain's wearing 2 feathers:

i.e. Heads of large branches of a Clan and Officially Recognised as such by the Lord Lyon King of Arms. Chieftains may wear either their own personal Crest within a plain circlet inscribed with the Motto, as for a Chief, but with TWO small eagle’s feathers instead of the Chief’s three. If the Chieftain is also a Peer, he may add the appropriate coronet of rank on top of the circlet.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

True again Scott, but the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland is not an authority and was put together, as you well know, because of the abolition of feudal tenure in 2004, to try and keep an historic record of baronies as they would no longer be recorded in the register of sasines.

John, I think the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland has been kicking around for at least twenty years. The barons were specifically exempted from abolition although their feudal entitlements (as opposed to their heraldic entitlements) were extinguished. At some later date, possibly 2004, Lord Lyon Blair took it upon himself to extinguish all baronial rights, in clear contravention of the Act itself. This resulted in a number of learned gentlemen of the law challenging the Lyon on this point and resulted in the Lyon reversing his prior decision not to recognize feudal barons.

I know that there has been a suggestion that the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland should maintain some sort of record of baronies as these are no longer recorded in the register of sasines, but I do not know if they have gone forward with this or not.

[Sketraw]

Scott, Lyon will no longer recognise feudal Barons as he can no longer check the validity via sasines. It may be worth looking at this from The Burkes Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms Newsletter which outlines the Lord Lyons Ruling.

Click here to view the PDF

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Scott, Lyon will no longer recognise feudal Barons as he can no longer check the validity via sasines. It may be worth looking at this from The Burkes Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms Newsletter which outlines the Lord Lyons Ruling.

Click here to view the PDF

John, That is the point Lyon reversed himself on. Several barons were recognized in Letters Patent after Blair's published "deadline".

The argument re: checking validity really doesn't hold much water as virtually every barony ever created is to be found in the pages of the sasines. Chain of title would be more difficult to prove, but not necessarily impossible.

I believe that "Burkes" is owned by Preston of Preston Grange, and that there was some discussion about forming a "Burkes Barons Club" to act as some sort of "register", but I really don't have all the details.

I am sure the whole matter will be revisited by Lord Lyon Blair's replacement.