Clan_member_crest_badge_-_Clan_Maclean
Second Advising (27 March 1941)
At advising on 27th March 1941 :-
LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Aitchison).---These appeals raise a question of disputed succession to the principal arms of Maclean of Ardgour. They arise upon competing petitions presented in the Lyon Court by the heir male collateral and the senior heir female of line respectively, the question being -vi,hich of the claimants is entitled to bear the coat of arms undifferenced that belonged to the late Alexander John Hew Maclean of Ardgour, who died on 27th May 1930. Ardgour had no son. The senior heir of line is his eldest daughter, one of five heirs portioners, Catriona Louise Maclean of Ardgour. The heir male is a cousin of the late Ardgour twice removed, Lieutenant-Commander Henry Maclean Hugh of Windhover, Bursledon, Hampshire. The Lord Lyon has disallowed the claim of the heir male and preferred the female heir of line. [His Lordship here quoted the interlocutors pronounced by the Lord Lyon on 19th December 1938, supra., pp. 661-2 and 664, and continued]---The heir male appeals against both interlocutors, maintaining that as heir male he is head or representative of the family of Ardgour and is entitled as Maclean of Ardgour to matriculate the undifferenced arms matriculated by the late Ardgour in 1909. The petitions under appeal, although not formally conjoined, raise the[680] same question of armorial succession. The grant of supporters to both claimants is not challenged by either party.
The arms annulled and reduced by Lyon by the second interlocutor above quoted were granted to the appellant as heir male on 20th February 1933, nearly three years after Ardgour's death. They are not the arms borne by Ardgour, to which the appellant at that date had made no claim. The claim of the appellant to the arms of Ardgour emerged only after the dispute between the parties had arisen as to which of them was entitled to the hereditary chiefship of the Macleans of Ardgour. In the former appeal from Lyon this Court decided that chiefship or chieftaincy was not a legal status justiciable in a Court of Law, but had the character only of a social dignity without legal status, and the Court would no more determine it than it would a question of precedency. The right of succession to arms stands in a different Position. It is a right of property, recognised as such by subsisting statutory enactments, and it falls to be determined in accordance with the law of heraldic succession.
The arms of Maclean of Ardgour were first recorded in Lyon Register in the matriculation in favour of the late Maclean of Ardgour dated 20th July 1909 as follows Quarterly, first, Argent, a lion rampant Gules, armed and langued Azure; second, Azure, a, castle triple towered Argent, masoned Sable, windows portcullis and flags Gules; third, Or, a dexter hand couped fesswise holding a cross crosslet fitchée Azure ; fourth, Or, a galley, sails furled oars in saltire Sable, flagged Gules, in a sea in base Vert a salmon Argent; Above the shield is placed a, helmet befitting , his degree with a Mantling Gules doubled Argent and on a wreath of his liveries is set for CREST, a branch of laurel and of cypress in saltire surmounted of a battle axe in pale, all proper, and in in Escrol over the same the Motto 'ALTERA MERCES.' " There is no evidence of an original grant of arms although every matriculation proceeds on the assumption that a grant was made---but it is not disputed that the Macleans of Ardgour have borne arms from time immemorial. Five separate coats are known to exist, including the arms preserved on the family tombstone in the churchyard of Kilmore, which are assigned to the year 1672, and which are offered by Lyon to the appellant. Whether arms were ever conferred on Ardgour, or were simply assumed 'without authority as frequently happened both before and after the Act 1592, cap. 125, there is no means of knowing. No document of rant is known to exist, and the terms of a presumed grant cannot be supplied. The matriculation of 1909 is the only entry in Lyon Register, and, conform to the usual practice in matriculations, it does not disclose any destination. Thus there arises a pure question of heraldic law :-In the absence of a destination, is the descent of arms, where there is no heir male in the direct line, to the female heir of line or to the heir male collateral ? That. has long been regarded as it moot point in the law, which hitherto has remained undecided.
There are two competing theories of armorial succession. One, [681] which the appellant maintains, is that from the origin and the history of arms, and their nature and purpose -which is to distinguish families, the only inference to be drawn is that they pass to the heir male as the proper representer of the family. The other, which the respondent maintains, is that arms are simply heritable rights that began and grew with the feudal law, and that, where there is no known destination, they descend in accordance with the ordinary rules of feudal succession. An intermediate view was propounded by Lord Jeffrey in the case of Cuninghame v. Cunyngham. [(1849) 11 D. 1139, at p. 1151] He said :-"If I may be permitted to take a common sense view I should say that there is neither an inflexible rule nor a uniform practice in the matter. There may be cases in which the heir of line will exclude the heir male, and there may be cases where the converse will be held. In my opinion the common sense rule is, that the chief armorial dignities should follow the more substantial rights and dignities of the family. If the heir male succeed to the title and estates, I think it reasonable that he should also succeed to the armorial bearings of the head of the house. I would think it a very difficult proposition to establish that the heir of line, when denuded of everything else, was still entitled to retain the barren honours of heraldry. But I give no opinion upon that point."
The best solution of the problem thus presented would have been found in the practice of Lyon Court if a uniform practice had existed, which might have furnished a sure guide in determining the proper rule of succession.
Unfortunately, there has been no uniform practice. Destinations of arms are sometimes to the heir male, and sometimes to the heir of line, sometimes to descendants generally, in the older phrase to " posteritie." Where the destination is unknown, there has been no invariable rule of succession.
According to Sir James Balfour Paul in his report in the case of Stewart Mackenzie [1920 S. C. 764, at p. 776.] : " In practice, each case has been judged on its own merits." Different Lyons have expressed different views, and the same absence of unanimity is to be found in judicial opinions. In the Cuninghame I case, where it was unnecessary to decide the point as the succession was regulated by a private Act of Parliament, the Lord Ordinary (Robertson) inclined to the heir of line. In the Inner House, the Lord President (Boyle) and Lord Mackenzie declined to express an Opinion upon the succession at common law. Lord Fullerton would not commit himself to either view. Ile said (at p. 1150) :-" I am by no means prepared to assent to the proposition so broadly laid down by the advocator, that in every case in which the holder of such honours dies, leaving a collateral heir male, and a daughter or daughters, his heirs of line, the honours will go to the daughters and their descendants, and that the heir male will take only under a brisure or mark of cadency. Speaking with all due diffidence on such a mystery, I must say that the cases put and referred to by the advocator, do not by any means bear out that proposition. He has [682] put the case of a peerage going to a. female, the heir of line, or of the descent of a territorial possession on a female, the heir of line, and asks whether, in such circumstances, the heraldic distinction would not go to the heir of line, though a female to the exclusion of the heir male I think it is quite possible, that in such cases the Lyon Court would award those armorial distinctions to the heir of line ; and the cases referred to are instances of that being done and acquiesced in by the heir male. But to test the general principle so broadly laid down, one must vary the circumstances, and suppose that the peerage, or family territorial possession, went to the heir male. Could it be maintained, that in that case the Lyon Court was bound to award, and did in practice award, the armorial bearing to the heirs female, the heirs of line, and grant them only under a mark of cadency to the heir male, practically the representative of the family ? " In this passage Lord Fullerton indicates an opinion that is scarcely distinguishable from the common sense view of Lord Jeffrey that there is neither an inflexible rule nor a uniform practice, and that the determining consideration may be--- In whom are vested the substantial family rights and possessions ? Whose is the inheritance ?
Looked at historically, there call be, I think, no controversy, that ensigns armorial had their origin in feudalism as a military system. While the claim is made that they go back to a more remote civilisation -one very learned doctor even assigning their origin to the Garden of' Eden---arms in the accepted modern sense were introduced into Scot land at a date not earlier than the middle of the 12th, or the beginning of the 13th century. Whether the first ensigns armorial were awarded by the Prince to mark exploits in the field, or were simply assumed by leaders at their own hand as distinguishing marks on shield or banner, is a question for historians, but that they arose out of military adventure and achievement in stubborn times and the days of chivalry is, I think, now a generally accepted conclusion. In these early times of turbulence, and strife, the inheritance of arms would fall naturally to the heir male. The same was true of land held on feudal tenure. Originally, the feudal law excluded females from the succession. It was only as the law developed and the military character of feudalism came gradually to be modified, until finall ' v it disappeared, that the right of the nearer female to inherit in preference to the remoter male came to be established and the descent is-as recognised as being to the heir general. Keeping in view this evolution of the feudal law in land tenure, -which -was for long linked up with military service, the historical argument for the heir male from the military origin of arms loses its cogency, and can scarcely be said to lead anywhere, unless we are to assume that the law of arms remained static, and that it continued uninfluenced and unmodified by the widening conceptions of succession that came step by step to permeate and ultimately to prevail in the sphere of other heritable. An assumption of this kind seems to me to be at variance with the incontestable fact that, by the heraldic law of Scotland a -woman may now carry arms in her own right.
[683]
Sir George Mackenzie, the greatest of our heraldic writers, declares in his Science of Heraldry (at p. 2) that " arms did begin and grow with the feudal law." He discusses their transmission in relation to entails in a passage to which I shall more fully refer hereafter, and which seems to me to give strong support to the heir of line. In another part of his work, he says (at p. 70) that " no man can bear his mother's arms," but lie is there not dealing with transmission through an heiress who takes in her own right, which may raise a different question from the case where the female's use of arms is by courtesy only. Nisbet in his System of Heraldry does not discuss the question, but takes it for granted that, failing an heir male in the direct line, the inheritance falls to the heiress. Seton in his Law and Practice of Heraldry says (at p. 356): " In the absence of any very distinct authority on either side, it does not appear unreasonable to argue from analogy, and to adopt the guidance of the common law of Scotland which regulates the succession to lands and dignities . . . Although we originally entertained a pretty strong opinion in favour of the heir male we must candidly acknowledge an increasing tendency to the opposite conclusion. . . . The representation of an ancient family is regularly transmitted from father to son for many generations, but at length, through failure of direct male issue, a female becomes the heiress of line, while a remote collateral succeeds to the position of heir male. Is it contrary to reason and common sense to prefer the former in the succession to the principal heraldic honours ? " Stevenson [Heraldry in Scotland, ii, 353] agrees with Seton in this opinion, but both writers also show some favour to Lord Jeffrey's view that the armorial dignities go along with the more substantial family rights. Balfour Paul,[Heraldry , in Relation to 8cotfish History and Art, p. 75] while conceding the right of the heiress to bear her father's arms undifferenced, inclines in the matter of transmission to an opinion in favour of the heir male. This was also the view of Tait, Lyon-Depute, in his report to the Commissioners.[Printed in Heraldry in Scotland, by J. H. Stevenson, ii, 457.] Burnett's view is that " heritages of all kinds, including alle lands and honours, descend at common law to heirs of line, not heirs male." [The Red Book of Menteith Reviewed, p. 49]
In this state of conflicting opinion the question arises :-Is there any principle of universal application by reference to -which the descent of arms can be determined ? Family arms are admittedly feudal heritage. Is there anything inherent in them, or the purposes for which they are devised, that should exclude them from the ordinarily accepted rule of devolution, that heritable rights in the absence of a destination pass in the direct line to the heir in-ale, whom failing to the heir female of line ? The contentions of parties upon this issue, which was the main question argued, consisted largely of assertion and counter assertion buttressed on each side by obscure documents as to the meaning of which counsel were in violent disagreement, and [684]
which, in the absence of explanatory evidence, are for the most part, utterly unintelligible. So leaving the documents aside, the case for the appellant, if I understood it aright, was based on the considerations that were formulated by Lord Sands in the case of Stewart Mackenzie.[1920 S. C. 764, at p. 795]'These observations were not essential to the judgment, nor were they approved of in the House of Lords, but it is unnecessary to say that they are entitled to very great respect. Lord Sands favoured the view that the descent of arms is to the heir male. He regarded this as in accordance with heraldic principles. Were it otherwise he says (at p. 796), " undifferenced arms would be constantly jumping across from one family to another, and arms would altogether lose their distinctive character as family marks." I read this as meaning that, if transmission is permissible through the heiress of line, the undifferenced arms would readily pass out of the family, as the children of the heiress would belong to the family of her husband and would bear his name, and the family arms would thus become vested in someone who did not bear the family name. This is the main argument in favour of the heir male, but on the other hand there are certain other aspects of the matter to be considered. Lord Sands was thinking only of transmission through the heiress, and it is with reference to that that his observations must be read. The question whether the heiress can transmit the family arms undifferenced to her descendants, where the husband belongs to another family and has not become a member of the heiress's family by adoption or the assumption of her family name, is not necessarily the same question as whether the heiress has the sole right to bear the family arms undifferenced in her lifetime. Lyon has treated these as separate and distinct questions, and has declined to pronounce upon the question of transmission before it arises. That was a course which I think he was entitled to follow. Transmissibility may depend upon many circumstances which cannot now be foreseen.
The practice of entailing arms to the grantee and a specified line of heirs is not without some bearing upon the question. It is a common feature in entails of land to provide that the heiress shall marry someone who either bears the family name of the entailer, or who shall assume the family name and arms. The lawfulness of conditions of this kind has never been called in question and is recognised by all the heraldic writers. I quote this authoritative passage from Sir George Mackenzie [Science of Heraldry, p. 70]:--- It, is most ordinar in Scotland to tailye estates to the eldest heir-female, she marrying one who shall bear the name and arms of the disponer's family ; but whether the person who marries that heretrix or heiresse, as the English speak, may lawfully carry, the disponer's arms, according to the laws of Heraldry, wants not its scruple, seeing arma gentilitia which are presumed still to be granted to a man and his heirs, non transeunt ad extraneos ; else any man might give arms, as well as the Prince or heralds : Yet lawyers are very positive that their pactions are lawful, cl qui liberos non habet, [685] potest in alium transferre suum feudum ea Conditione, ut adoptatus nomen el arma et insignia feral ; and that because arms are given ' not only to reward the receiver's virtue, but to distinguish families, et quia adoptatus transit in familiam et agnationem adoptantis. Some lawyers do here distinguish betwixt him who is so assumed or adopted by one of his own predecessors or family (for these surely may bear the arms of the adopter), and those who were strangers before the adoption; and they conclude that these cannot have a right to the arms: And this is asserted by Hoppingius to be the common opinion of the best lawyers ; but I think it may be more justly distinguisht, whether the disposition be made to a daughter, she marrying one who shall bear the name and arms, for in that case certainly the children may bear the arms, for she was heiress herself; but if lands were disponed to a mere stranger, not upon condition that he should marry a daughter, but that he should bear the name and arms, it may be in that case asserted, that the receiver of the disposition cannot bear the arms, for that was not in the disponer's power to bestow, except the Prince consent."
Similarly Nisbet, [System of Heraldry, vol. ii, p. 34.] who is a heraldic writer of great authority, in dealing with the marshalling of arms, after affirming the general rule that children properly carry the arms of their father and riot of their mother for they are of the father's family, adds this important qualification :-" the descendants of a daughter cannot regularly carry the paternal arms of their mother, except they be heiresses, or be allowed by those of their mother's side, who have right to dispose of the arms by way of testament or disposition, or else they be allowed by the laws and customs of the country." And to this can be added the opinion of Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, King of Arms (circa 1586) [The Buik of Cotearmouris (MSS. 31.3.20. Denmiln Collections).] :---" a lassid cotearmor is callit the cote of ane gentilIwoman having lyflod weddit to ane man having na cotearmor. Hir sone may weir hir cotearmor with ane differens of armes durying his lyfe be the curtesie of the law of armes and his sone sall beir nane. Bot giff the gentillwoman be air or nixt of blude to the cotearmor or ellis being hir byrth of the blude royall then sall hir air here hir cotearmor."
The significance of these authoritative pronouncements lies in the recognition they give, that there is nothing in an heiress's bearing of arms in her own right that is repugnant to the conception of arms, or obnoxious to the principles of heraldry. Indeed they seem to go farther, for they recognise not only the heiress's right, but the right of the children of the heiress to bear their mother's arms, so that the right of the heiress is presented not as a mere courtesy, but as a legal right by succession and as such transmissible. That this is so, where there is a destination to heirs general, or a destination with a name and arms clause, whether in entail, marriage contract, or testament, appears to me to be incontrovertible. The question then is-What is [686] the position when there is no destination, and the matter is left to operation of the common law ?
If this question is looked at in the abstract as a pure matter of legal theory, there may exist a certain presumption that the succession is to the heir male, a presumption which arises from the doctrine of the law that females leave their own families and pass into the families of the husbands. whom they marry. But this preference for the heir male is only a presumption, and it can weigh to no decisive effect where to apply it would involve the severance of the family arms from the substantial family possessions. The principle of the peerage law, where the limitation of a peerage cannot be discovered, that it is presumed to descend to the heir male of the body of the original grantee, was formulated by the Committee of Privileges, influenced by considerations of political expediency that are alien to any question of heraldic succession. In a peerage it is possible to presume a desti. nation, because there must have been an original patent by which the dignity was conferred.. but in arms this cannot be assumed, because both before and after the Act of 1592 individuals frequently appropriated arms without the authority of grant or other sanction, and in the West Highlands habits of appropriation seem to have been developed to an uncommon degree. None the less, I incline to the view of Lord Sands that in strict theory the presumption is for the heir male ; at any rate to this extent, that if the judgment of Lyon were held to involve that the arms would transmit to a stranger, I would have been prepared to hold that the presumption could not be rebutted. But the preference of Catriona as senior heir of line does Dot involve this consequence.
If the matter be looked at from a common sense point of view, I would ask this question---Why should the heir male collateral who does not possess a single rood of the ancestral lands, and who has no connection with Ardgour other than descent from a common ancestor, be preferred to the daughter of the house and senior heir of line, -who as laird of Ardgour stands possessed of the baronial estate which has been the family inheritance for at least four centuries ? To this question I can find no satisfactory answer. In the case of not a few of the noble houses of Scotland, including some of the most eminent, the descent has been through the female line, and the purity of the arms is as likely to be preserved where they pass in the direct as in the collateral line ; indeed the cases are very few in which the simplicity of the original arms has been preserved. The arms may be quartered, or combined in other ways, whether they go to the heir male or to the heir of line, and there are many instances on record in which heirs male have adopted the arms of their wives in preference to their own. In any event, the question of transmission through the heir of line is not raised at this juncture. If in strict theory there is a, presumption in favour of the heir male it is, I think, sufficiently displaced by the possession by Catriona of the baronial estate, which is the chief family inheritance, in her own right. The present value [687] of the estate is irrelevant to the issue. Even apart from a territorial possession, I am not satisfied that the long descent of the arms in the direct line might not itself be sufficient to displace the presumption, where to give effect to it would involve the arms passing out of the direct line. The idea that a woman cannot represent an armigerous family appears to me to be a mediaeval notion, appropriate perhaps to ages of savagery, but having no relation to the realities of the modern world. I can see therefore no ground to preclude the Court from affirming that Catriona, as the inheritor of the ancient barony with which the family history is bound up, should be regarded as the representer of the family during her lifetime, and as senior heir of line entitled to the undifferenced family arms. This conclusion is, in my opinion, not contrary to the weight of heraldic authority, and is in harmony with the view of Lord Jeffrey, and 1 think also of Lord Fullerton in the case of Cuninghame.[Cuninghame v. Cunyngham, (1849) 11 D. 1139, at p. 1150.] The question whether the arms will afterwards pass to the descendants of Catriona without their bearing the family surname does not now arise, and is reserved. My conclusion is that Lyon was entitled to prefer the claim of Catriona, and we would need to have very clear ground before differing from his judgment. I am prepared, therefore, to find that Catriona, is entitled to bear and use the undifferenced arms of her father the late Ardgour as these were matriculated by him in 1909, and that not merely as a courtesy, but of right, and that no one can be heard to challenge her right or usurp her title.
There is one matter only upon which I entertain a doubt. Lyon has treated the sisters of Catriona as having the same quality of legal right as herself in the family arms. This, no doubt, is in conformity with the heraldic principle that heirs-portioners take equally without differences. While this is not open to dispute where the right of the heirs-portioners is a courtesy merely, it is by no means certain that the same rule obtains where the arms descend to the senior heir of line as matter of legal right. In such a case, I think the correct rule is that the senior heir of line has an indivisible right to the arms, agreeably to the doctrine of Stair that, though heirs-portioners succeed equally, " yet rights indivisible fall to the eldest alone " without prejudice to the courtesy rights of the younger sisters. This, however, raises a question between the heirsportioners -which is not hujus loci.
Upon the whole matter I am for affirming the judgments of the Lord Lyon and refusing the appeals.
At advising on 27th March 1941 :-
LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Aitchison).---These appeals raise a question of disputed succession to the principal arms of Maclean of Ardgour. They arise upon competing petitions presented in the Lyon Court by the heir male collateral and the senior heir female of line respectively, the question being -vi,hich of the claimants is entitled to bear the coat of arms undifferenced that belonged to the late Alexander John Hew Maclean of Ardgour, who died on 27th May 1930. Ardgour had no son. The senior heir of line is his eldest daughter, one of five heirs portioners, Catriona Louise Maclean of Ardgour. The heir male is a cousin of the late Ardgour twice removed, Lieutenant-Commander Henry Maclean Hugh of Windhover, Bursledon, Hampshire. The Lord Lyon has disallowed the claim of the heir male and preferred the female heir of line. [His Lordship here quoted the interlocutors pronounced by the Lord Lyon on 19th December 1938, supra., pp. 661-2 and 664, and continued]---The heir male appeals against both interlocutors, maintaining that as heir male he is head or representative of the family of Ardgour and is entitled as Maclean of Ardgour to matriculate the undifferenced arms matriculated by the late Ardgour in 1909. The petitions under appeal, although not formally conjoined, raise the[680] same question of armorial succession. The grant of supporters to both claimants is not challenged by either party.
The arms annulled and reduced by Lyon by the second interlocutor above quoted were granted to the appellant as heir male on 20th February 1933, nearly three years after Ardgour's death. They are not the arms borne by Ardgour, to which the appellant at that date had made no claim. The claim of the appellant to the arms of Ardgour emerged only after the dispute between the parties had arisen as to which of them was entitled to the hereditary chiefship of the Macleans of Ardgour. In the former appeal from Lyon this Court decided that chiefship or chieftaincy was not a legal status justiciable in a Court of Law, but had the character only of a social dignity without legal status, and the Court would no more determine it than it would a question of precedency. The right of succession to arms stands in a different Position. It is a right of property, recognised as such by subsisting statutory enactments, and it falls to be determined in accordance with the law of heraldic succession.
The arms of Maclean of Ardgour were first recorded in Lyon Register in the matriculation in favour of the late Maclean of Ardgour dated 20th July 1909 as follows Quarterly, first, Argent, a lion rampant Gules, armed and langued Azure; second, Azure, a, castle triple towered Argent, masoned Sable, windows portcullis and flags Gules; third, Or, a dexter hand couped fesswise holding a cross crosslet fitchée Azure ; fourth, Or, a galley, sails furled oars in saltire Sable, flagged Gules, in a sea in base Vert a salmon Argent; Above the shield is placed a, helmet befitting , his degree with a Mantling Gules doubled Argent and on a wreath of his liveries is set for CREST, a branch of laurel and of cypress in saltire surmounted of a battle axe in pale, all proper, and in in Escrol over the same the Motto 'ALTERA MERCES.' " There is no evidence of an original grant of arms although every matriculation proceeds on the assumption that a grant was made---but it is not disputed that the Macleans of Ardgour have borne arms from time immemorial. Five separate coats are known to exist, including the arms preserved on the family tombstone in the churchyard of Kilmore, which are assigned to the year 1672, and which are offered by Lyon to the appellant. Whether arms were ever conferred on Ardgour, or were simply assumed 'without authority as frequently happened both before and after the Act 1592, cap. 125, there is no means of knowing. No document of rant is known to exist, and the terms of a presumed grant cannot be supplied. The matriculation of 1909 is the only entry in Lyon Register, and, conform to the usual practice in matriculations, it does not disclose any destination. Thus there arises a pure question of heraldic law :-In the absence of a destination, is the descent of arms, where there is no heir male in the direct line, to the female heir of line or to the heir male collateral ? That. has long been regarded as it moot point in the law, which hitherto has remained undecided.
There are two competing theories of armorial succession. One, [681] which the appellant maintains, is that from the origin and the history of arms, and their nature and purpose -which is to distinguish families, the only inference to be drawn is that they pass to the heir male as the proper representer of the family. The other, which the respondent maintains, is that arms are simply heritable rights that began and grew with the feudal law, and that, where there is no known destination, they descend in accordance with the ordinary rules of feudal succession. An intermediate view was propounded by Lord Jeffrey in the case of Cuninghame v. Cunyngham. [(1849) 11 D. 1139, at p. 1151] He said :-"If I may be permitted to take a common sense view I should say that there is neither an inflexible rule nor a uniform practice in the matter. There may be cases in which the heir of line will exclude the heir male, and there may be cases where the converse will be held. In my opinion the common sense rule is, that the chief armorial dignities should follow the more substantial rights and dignities of the family. If the heir male succeed to the title and estates, I think it reasonable that he should also succeed to the armorial bearings of the head of the house. I would think it a very difficult proposition to establish that the heir of line, when denuded of everything else, was still entitled to retain the barren honours of heraldry. But I give no opinion upon that point."
The best solution of the problem thus presented would have been found in the practice of Lyon Court if a uniform practice had existed, which might have furnished a sure guide in determining the proper rule of succession.
Unfortunately, there has been no uniform practice. Destinations of arms are sometimes to the heir male, and sometimes to the heir of line, sometimes to descendants generally, in the older phrase to " posteritie." Where the destination is unknown, there has been no invariable rule of succession.
According to Sir James Balfour Paul in his report in the case of Stewart Mackenzie [1920 S. C. 764, at p. 776.] : " In practice, each case has been judged on its own merits." Different Lyons have expressed different views, and the same absence of unanimity is to be found in judicial opinions. In the Cuninghame I case, where it was unnecessary to decide the point as the succession was regulated by a private Act of Parliament, the Lord Ordinary (Robertson) inclined to the heir of line. In the Inner House, the Lord President (Boyle) and Lord Mackenzie declined to express an Opinion upon the succession at common law. Lord Fullerton would not commit himself to either view. Ile said (at p. 1150) :-" I am by no means prepared to assent to the proposition so broadly laid down by the advocator, that in every case in which the holder of such honours dies, leaving a collateral heir male, and a daughter or daughters, his heirs of line, the honours will go to the daughters and their descendants, and that the heir male will take only under a brisure or mark of cadency. Speaking with all due diffidence on such a mystery, I must say that the cases put and referred to by the advocator, do not by any means bear out that proposition. He has [682] put the case of a peerage going to a. female, the heir of line, or of the descent of a territorial possession on a female, the heir of line, and asks whether, in such circumstances, the heraldic distinction would not go to the heir of line, though a female to the exclusion of the heir male I think it is quite possible, that in such cases the Lyon Court would award those armorial distinctions to the heir of line ; and the cases referred to are instances of that being done and acquiesced in by the heir male. But to test the general principle so broadly laid down, one must vary the circumstances, and suppose that the peerage, or family territorial possession, went to the heir male. Could it be maintained, that in that case the Lyon Court was bound to award, and did in practice award, the armorial bearing to the heirs female, the heirs of line, and grant them only under a mark of cadency to the heir male, practically the representative of the family ? " In this passage Lord Fullerton indicates an opinion that is scarcely distinguishable from the common sense view of Lord Jeffrey that there is neither an inflexible rule nor a uniform practice, and that the determining consideration may be--- In whom are vested the substantial family rights and possessions ? Whose is the inheritance ?
Looked at historically, there call be, I think, no controversy, that ensigns armorial had their origin in feudalism as a military system. While the claim is made that they go back to a more remote civilisation -one very learned doctor even assigning their origin to the Garden of' Eden---arms in the accepted modern sense were introduced into Scot land at a date not earlier than the middle of the 12th, or the beginning of the 13th century. Whether the first ensigns armorial were awarded by the Prince to mark exploits in the field, or were simply assumed by leaders at their own hand as distinguishing marks on shield or banner, is a question for historians, but that they arose out of military adventure and achievement in stubborn times and the days of chivalry is, I think, now a generally accepted conclusion. In these early times of turbulence, and strife, the inheritance of arms would fall naturally to the heir male. The same was true of land held on feudal tenure. Originally, the feudal law excluded females from the succession. It was only as the law developed and the military character of feudalism came gradually to be modified, until finall ' v it disappeared, that the right of the nearer female to inherit in preference to the remoter male came to be established and the descent is-as recognised as being to the heir general. Keeping in view this evolution of the feudal law in land tenure, -which -was for long linked up with military service, the historical argument for the heir male from the military origin of arms loses its cogency, and can scarcely be said to lead anywhere, unless we are to assume that the law of arms remained static, and that it continued uninfluenced and unmodified by the widening conceptions of succession that came step by step to permeate and ultimately to prevail in the sphere of other heritable. An assumption of this kind seems to me to be at variance with the incontestable fact that, by the heraldic law of Scotland a -woman may now carry arms in her own right.
[683]
Sir George Mackenzie, the greatest of our heraldic writers, declares in his Science of Heraldry (at p. 2) that " arms did begin and grow with the feudal law." He discusses their transmission in relation to entails in a passage to which I shall more fully refer hereafter, and which seems to me to give strong support to the heir of line. In another part of his work, he says (at p. 70) that " no man can bear his mother's arms," but lie is there not dealing with transmission through an heiress who takes in her own right, which may raise a different question from the case where the female's use of arms is by courtesy only. Nisbet in his System of Heraldry does not discuss the question, but takes it for granted that, failing an heir male in the direct line, the inheritance falls to the heiress. Seton in his Law and Practice of Heraldry says (at p. 356): " In the absence of any very distinct authority on either side, it does not appear unreasonable to argue from analogy, and to adopt the guidance of the common law of Scotland which regulates the succession to lands and dignities . . . Although we originally entertained a pretty strong opinion in favour of the heir male we must candidly acknowledge an increasing tendency to the opposite conclusion. . . . The representation of an ancient family is regularly transmitted from father to son for many generations, but at length, through failure of direct male issue, a female becomes the heiress of line, while a remote collateral succeeds to the position of heir male. Is it contrary to reason and common sense to prefer the former in the succession to the principal heraldic honours ? " Stevenson [Heraldry in Scotland, ii, 353] agrees with Seton in this opinion, but both writers also show some favour to Lord Jeffrey's view that the armorial dignities go along with the more substantial family rights. Balfour Paul,[Heraldry , in Relation to 8cotfish History and Art, p. 75] while conceding the right of the heiress to bear her father's arms undifferenced, inclines in the matter of transmission to an opinion in favour of the heir male. This was also the view of Tait, Lyon-Depute, in his report to the Commissioners.[Printed in Heraldry in Scotland, by J. H. Stevenson, ii, 457.] Burnett's view is that " heritages of all kinds, including alle lands and honours, descend at common law to heirs of line, not heirs male." [The Red Book of Menteith Reviewed, p. 49]
In this state of conflicting opinion the question arises :-Is there any principle of universal application by reference to -which the descent of arms can be determined ? Family arms are admittedly feudal heritage. Is there anything inherent in them, or the purposes for which they are devised, that should exclude them from the ordinarily accepted rule of devolution, that heritable rights in the absence of a destination pass in the direct line to the heir in-ale, whom failing to the heir female of line ? The contentions of parties upon this issue, which was the main question argued, consisted largely of assertion and counter assertion buttressed on each side by obscure documents as to the meaning of which counsel were in violent disagreement, and [684]
which, in the absence of explanatory evidence, are for the most part, utterly unintelligible. So leaving the documents aside, the case for the appellant, if I understood it aright, was based on the considerations that were formulated by Lord Sands in the case of Stewart Mackenzie.[1920 S. C. 764, at p. 795]'These observations were not essential to the judgment, nor were they approved of in the House of Lords, but it is unnecessary to say that they are entitled to very great respect. Lord Sands favoured the view that the descent of arms is to the heir male. He regarded this as in accordance with heraldic principles. Were it otherwise he says (at p. 796), " undifferenced arms would be constantly jumping across from one family to another, and arms would altogether lose their distinctive character as family marks." I read this as meaning that, if transmission is permissible through the heiress of line, the undifferenced arms would readily pass out of the family, as the children of the heiress would belong to the family of her husband and would bear his name, and the family arms would thus become vested in someone who did not bear the family name. This is the main argument in favour of the heir male, but on the other hand there are certain other aspects of the matter to be considered. Lord Sands was thinking only of transmission through the heiress, and it is with reference to that that his observations must be read. The question whether the heiress can transmit the family arms undifferenced to her descendants, where the husband belongs to another family and has not become a member of the heiress's family by adoption or the assumption of her family name, is not necessarily the same question as whether the heiress has the sole right to bear the family arms undifferenced in her lifetime. Lyon has treated these as separate and distinct questions, and has declined to pronounce upon the question of transmission before it arises. That was a course which I think he was entitled to follow. Transmissibility may depend upon many circumstances which cannot now be foreseen.
The practice of entailing arms to the grantee and a specified line of heirs is not without some bearing upon the question. It is a common feature in entails of land to provide that the heiress shall marry someone who either bears the family name of the entailer, or who shall assume the family name and arms. The lawfulness of conditions of this kind has never been called in question and is recognised by all the heraldic writers. I quote this authoritative passage from Sir George Mackenzie [Science of Heraldry, p. 70]:--- It, is most ordinar in Scotland to tailye estates to the eldest heir-female, she marrying one who shall bear the name and arms of the disponer's family ; but whether the person who marries that heretrix or heiresse, as the English speak, may lawfully carry, the disponer's arms, according to the laws of Heraldry, wants not its scruple, seeing arma gentilitia which are presumed still to be granted to a man and his heirs, non transeunt ad extraneos ; else any man might give arms, as well as the Prince or heralds : Yet lawyers are very positive that their pactions are lawful, cl qui liberos non habet, [685] potest in alium transferre suum feudum ea Conditione, ut adoptatus nomen el arma et insignia feral ; and that because arms are given ' not only to reward the receiver's virtue, but to distinguish families, et quia adoptatus transit in familiam et agnationem adoptantis. Some lawyers do here distinguish betwixt him who is so assumed or adopted by one of his own predecessors or family (for these surely may bear the arms of the adopter), and those who were strangers before the adoption; and they conclude that these cannot have a right to the arms: And this is asserted by Hoppingius to be the common opinion of the best lawyers ; but I think it may be more justly distinguisht, whether the disposition be made to a daughter, she marrying one who shall bear the name and arms, for in that case certainly the children may bear the arms, for she was heiress herself; but if lands were disponed to a mere stranger, not upon condition that he should marry a daughter, but that he should bear the name and arms, it may be in that case asserted, that the receiver of the disposition cannot bear the arms, for that was not in the disponer's power to bestow, except the Prince consent."
Similarly Nisbet, [System of Heraldry, vol. ii, p. 34.] who is a heraldic writer of great authority, in dealing with the marshalling of arms, after affirming the general rule that children properly carry the arms of their father and riot of their mother for they are of the father's family, adds this important qualification :-" the descendants of a daughter cannot regularly carry the paternal arms of their mother, except they be heiresses, or be allowed by those of their mother's side, who have right to dispose of the arms by way of testament or disposition, or else they be allowed by the laws and customs of the country." And to this can be added the opinion of Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, King of Arms (circa 1586) [The Buik of Cotearmouris (MSS. 31.3.20. Denmiln Collections).] :---" a lassid cotearmor is callit the cote of ane gentilIwoman having lyflod weddit to ane man having na cotearmor. Hir sone may weir hir cotearmor with ane differens of armes durying his lyfe be the curtesie of the law of armes and his sone sall beir nane. Bot giff the gentillwoman be air or nixt of blude to the cotearmor or ellis being hir byrth of the blude royall then sall hir air here hir cotearmor."
The significance of these authoritative pronouncements lies in the recognition they give, that there is nothing in an heiress's bearing of arms in her own right that is repugnant to the conception of arms, or obnoxious to the principles of heraldry. Indeed they seem to go farther, for they recognise not only the heiress's right, but the right of the children of the heiress to bear their mother's arms, so that the right of the heiress is presented not as a mere courtesy, but as a legal right by succession and as such transmissible. That this is so, where there is a destination to heirs general, or a destination with a name and arms clause, whether in entail, marriage contract, or testament, appears to me to be incontrovertible. The question then is-What is [686] the position when there is no destination, and the matter is left to operation of the common law ?
If this question is looked at in the abstract as a pure matter of legal theory, there may exist a certain presumption that the succession is to the heir male, a presumption which arises from the doctrine of the law that females leave their own families and pass into the families of the husbands. whom they marry. But this preference for the heir male is only a presumption, and it can weigh to no decisive effect where to apply it would involve the severance of the family arms from the substantial family possessions. The principle of the peerage law, where the limitation of a peerage cannot be discovered, that it is presumed to descend to the heir male of the body of the original grantee, was formulated by the Committee of Privileges, influenced by considerations of political expediency that are alien to any question of heraldic succession. In a peerage it is possible to presume a desti. nation, because there must have been an original patent by which the dignity was conferred.. but in arms this cannot be assumed, because both before and after the Act of 1592 individuals frequently appropriated arms without the authority of grant or other sanction, and in the West Highlands habits of appropriation seem to have been developed to an uncommon degree. None the less, I incline to the view of Lord Sands that in strict theory the presumption is for the heir male ; at any rate to this extent, that if the judgment of Lyon were held to involve that the arms would transmit to a stranger, I would have been prepared to hold that the presumption could not be rebutted. But the preference of Catriona as senior heir of line does Dot involve this consequence.
If the matter be looked at from a common sense point of view, I would ask this question---Why should the heir male collateral who does not possess a single rood of the ancestral lands, and who has no connection with Ardgour other than descent from a common ancestor, be preferred to the daughter of the house and senior heir of line, -who as laird of Ardgour stands possessed of the baronial estate which has been the family inheritance for at least four centuries ? To this question I can find no satisfactory answer. In the case of not a few of the noble houses of Scotland, including some of the most eminent, the descent has been through the female line, and the purity of the arms is as likely to be preserved where they pass in the direct as in the collateral line ; indeed the cases are very few in which the simplicity of the original arms has been preserved. The arms may be quartered, or combined in other ways, whether they go to the heir male or to the heir of line, and there are many instances on record in which heirs male have adopted the arms of their wives in preference to their own. In any event, the question of transmission through the heir of line is not raised at this juncture. If in strict theory there is a, presumption in favour of the heir male it is, I think, sufficiently displaced by the possession by Catriona of the baronial estate, which is the chief family inheritance, in her own right. The present value [687] of the estate is irrelevant to the issue. Even apart from a territorial possession, I am not satisfied that the long descent of the arms in the direct line might not itself be sufficient to displace the presumption, where to give effect to it would involve the arms passing out of the direct line. The idea that a woman cannot represent an armigerous family appears to me to be a mediaeval notion, appropriate perhaps to ages of savagery, but having no relation to the realities of the modern world. I can see therefore no ground to preclude the Court from affirming that Catriona, as the inheritor of the ancient barony with which the family history is bound up, should be regarded as the representer of the family during her lifetime, and as senior heir of line entitled to the undifferenced family arms. This conclusion is, in my opinion, not contrary to the weight of heraldic authority, and is in harmony with the view of Lord Jeffrey, and 1 think also of Lord Fullerton in the case of Cuninghame.[Cuninghame v. Cunyngham, (1849) 11 D. 1139, at p. 1150.] The question whether the arms will afterwards pass to the descendants of Catriona without their bearing the family surname does not now arise, and is reserved. My conclusion is that Lyon was entitled to prefer the claim of Catriona, and we would need to have very clear ground before differing from his judgment. I am prepared, therefore, to find that Catriona, is entitled to bear and use the undifferenced arms of her father the late Ardgour as these were matriculated by him in 1909, and that not merely as a courtesy, but of right, and that no one can be heard to challenge her right or usurp her title.
There is one matter only upon which I entertain a doubt. Lyon has treated the sisters of Catriona as having the same quality of legal right as herself in the family arms. This, no doubt, is in conformity with the heraldic principle that heirs-portioners take equally without differences. While this is not open to dispute where the right of the heirs-portioners is a courtesy merely, it is by no means certain that the same rule obtains where the arms descend to the senior heir of line as matter of legal right. In such a case, I think the correct rule is that the senior heir of line has an indivisible right to the arms, agreeably to the doctrine of Stair that, though heirs-portioners succeed equally, " yet rights indivisible fall to the eldest alone " without prejudice to the courtesy rights of the younger sisters. This, however, raises a question between the heirsportioners -which is not hujus loci.
Upon the whole matter I am for affirming the judgments of the Lord Lyon and refusing the appeals.
|
| Clan_member_crest_badge_-_Clan_Maclean |
Segundo asesoramiento (27 de marzo de 1941.-
En el asesoramiento del 27 de marzo de 1941: -
LORD
JUSTICE-SECREK (Aitchison) .--- Estas apelaciones plantean una cuestión de
sucesión disputada a las armas principales de Maclean de Ardgour. Surgen de las
peticiones en competencia presentadas en el Tribunal de Lyon por el heredero
colateral masculino y la heredera mayor de línea respectivamente, la pregunta
es -vi, que los demandantes tienen derecho a llevar el escudo de armas
indiferente que perteneció al difunto Alexander John Hew Maclean de Ardgour,
quien murió el 27 de mayo de 1930. Ardgour no tenía hijo. El heredero de línea
es su hija mayor, una de las cinco herederas, Catriona Louise Maclean de
Ardgour. El heredero es primo del difunto Ardgour dos veces removido, el
teniente comandante Henry Maclean Hugh de Windhover, Bursledon, Hampshire. Lord
Lyon ha rechazado el reclamo del heredero masculino y ha preferido a la
heredera de línea. [Su señoría aquí citó a los interlocutores pronunciados por
Lord Lyon el 19 de diciembre de 1938, supra., Pp. 661-2 y 664, y continuó] ---
El heredero apela contra ambos interlocutores, manteniendo que como heredero
varón él es la cabeza o representante de la familia de Ardgour y tiene derecho
como Maclean de Ardgour a matricular los brazos no diferenciados matriculados
por el difunto Ardgour en 1909. Las peticiones en apelación, aunque no
formalmente unidas, plantean [680] la misma cuestión de sucesión de armadura.
La concesión de partidarios a ambos demandantes no es cuestionada por ninguna
de las partes.
Las
armas anuladas y reducidas por Lyon por el segundo interlocutor antes citado
fueron otorgadas al recurrente como heredero el 20 de febrero de 1933, casi
tres años después de la muerte de Ardgour. No son las armas que lleva Ardgour,
a las que el recurrente en esa fecha no había presentado ningún reclamo. El
reclamo del apelante a las armas de Ardgour surgió solo después de que surgió
la disputa entre las partes sobre cuál de ellas tenía derecho a la jefatura
hereditaria de los Macleans de Ardgour. En la antigua apelación de Lyon, este
Tribunal decidió que la jefatura o la jefatura no era un estatus legal
justiciable en un Tribunal de Justicia, sino que tenía el carácter de una
dignidad social sin estatus legal, y el Tribunal no lo determinaría más de lo que
sería cuestión de precedencia. El derecho de sucesión a las armas se encuentra
en una posición diferente. Es un derecho de propiedad, reconocido como tal por
las disposiciones legales vigentes, y debe determinarse de acuerdo con la ley
de sucesión heráldica.
Los
brazos de Maclean de Ardgour se registraron por primera vez en el Registro de
Lyon en la matriculación a favor del fallecido Maclean de Ardgour, de fecha 20
de julio de 1909, de la siguiente manera trimestral, primero, Argent, un león
rampante Gules, Azure armado y languidecido; segundo, Azure, un castillo
argentino de tres torres, Sable albañil, ventanas y banderas de Gules; tercero,
O, una mano diestra golpeada en sentido contrario sosteniendo una cruz cruzada
fitchée Azure; cuarto, O, una galera, navega remos enrollados en saltire Sable,
bandera de Gules, en un mar en la base Vert un salmón Argent; Por encima del
escudo se coloca un casco apropiado, su grado con un Mantling Gules dobló a
Argent y en una corona de sus libreas se establece para CREST, una rama de
laurel y ciprés en saltire coronado de un hacha de batalla en pálido, todo
correcto, y en Escrol sobre el mismo lema 'ALTERA MERCES'. "No hay
evidencia de una concesión original de armas, aunque cada matriculación se
realiza bajo el supuesto de que se hizo una concesión, pero no se discute que
los Macleans de Ardgour han tenido armas desde tiempos inmemoriales. Se sabe
que existen cinco capas separadas , incluidas las armas conservadas en la
lápida familiar en el cementerio de la iglesia de Kilmore, que se asignaron al
año 1672, y que Lyon ofreció al recurrente. Si las armas fueron conferidas
alguna vez a Ardgour, o simplemente se asumieron 'sin autoridad con tanta
frecuencia sucedió tanto antes como después de la Ley 1592, cap. 125, no hay forma
de saberlo. No se sabe que exista ningún documento de despotricar, y los
términos de una presunta donación no se pueden suministrar. La matrícula de
1909 es la única entrada en Lyon Regístrese y, conforme a la práctica habitual
en las matriculaciones, no revela ningún destino. Por lo tanto, surge una
pregunta pura de la ley heráldica: -En ausencia de un destino, es el descenso
de armas, donde no hay heredero e en la línea directa, al heredero de la línea
o al heredero colateral masculino? Ese. ha sido considerado como un punto
discutible en la ley, que hasta ahora ha permanecido indeciso.
Hay
dos teorías competitivas de sucesión de armaduras. Una, [681] que sostiene el
recurrente, es que desde el origen y la historia de las armas, y su naturaleza
y propósito, que es distinguir a las familias, la única inferencia que debe
extraerse es que pasan al heredero masculino como el propio Representante de la
familia. El otro, que el demandado sostiene, es que las armas son simplemente
derechos heredables que comenzaron y crecieron con la ley feudal, y que, donde
no hay un destino conocido, descienden de acuerdo con las reglas ordinarias de
sucesión feudal. Lord Jeffrey propuso una visión intermedia en el caso de
Cuninghame v. Cunyngham. [(1849) 11 D. 1139, en la pág. 1151] Él dijo: -
"Si se me permite tener una opinión de sentido común, debería decir que no
hay una regla inflexible ni una práctica uniforme en el asunto. Puede haber
casos en los que el heredero de línea excluirá al heredero masculino, y puede
haber casos donde se llevará a cabo lo contrario. En mi opinión, la regla del
sentido común es que las principales dignidades de armadura deben seguir los
derechos y dignidades más sustanciales de la familia. , Creo que es razonable
que él también tenga éxito con las armaduras del jefe de la casa. Creo que es
una propuesta muy difícil establecer que el heredero de la línea, cuando se le
deniega todo lo demás, todavía tenía derecho a retener a los estériles honores
de heráldica. Pero no doy opinión sobre ese punto ".
La
mejor solución del problema así presentado se habría encontrado en la práctica
de la Corte de
Lyon si hubiera existido una práctica uniforme, que podría haber proporcionado
una guía segura para determinar la regla de sucesión adecuada.
Desafortunadamente, no ha habido una práctica uniforme. Los destinos de las
armas son a veces para el heredero masculino, y otras para el heredero de la
línea, a veces para los descendientes en general, en la frase más antigua de
"posteridad". Donde se desconoce el destino, no ha habido una regla
invariable de sucesión.
Según
Sir James Balfour Paul en su informe en el caso de Stewart Mackenzie [1920 S.
C. 764, p. 776.]: "En la práctica, cada caso ha sido juzgado por sus
propios méritos". Diferentes Lyon han expresado diferentes puntos de
vista, y la misma ausencia de unanimidad se encuentra en las opiniones
judiciales. En el caso de Cuninghame I, donde era innecesario decidir el punto
ya que la sucesión estaba regulada por una ley privada del Parlamento, Lord
Ordinary (Robertson) se inclinaba por el heredero de la línea. En la Casa Interior , el
Lord Presidente (Boyle) y Lord Mackenzie se negaron a expresar una Opinión
sobre la sucesión en el common law. Lord Fullerton no se comprometería a
ninguna de las dos vistas. Ile dijo (en la p. 1150): "De ninguna manera
estoy dispuesto a aceptar la proposición tan ampliamente establecida por el
defensor, que en todos los casos en que muere el titular de tales honores,
dejando un heredero colateral masculino, y una hija o hijas, sus herederos de
línea, los honores irán a las hijas y sus descendientes, y que el heredero solo
tomará bajo un brisure o marca de cadencia. Hablando con toda la debida duda
sobre tal misterio, debo decir que los casos planteados y mencionados por el
defensor, de ninguna manera confirman esa proposición. Él [682] ha presentado
el caso de una nobleza dirigida a una mujer, heredera de línea o del descenso
de un territorio posesión sobre una mujer, el heredero de la línea, y pregunta
si, en tales circunstancias, la distinción heráldica no iría al heredero de la
línea, aunque una mujer con exclusión del heredero masculino, creo que es muy
posible, que en tal En los casos, el Tribunal de Lyon otorgaría esas
distinciones de armadura al heredero de línea; y el ca Las referencias a las
que se hace referencia son instancias de que el heredero sea hecho y aceptado.
Pero para probar el principio general tan ampliamente establecido, uno debe
variar las circunstancias y suponer que la nobleza, o la posesión territorial
familiar, fue al heredero varón. ¿Podría sostenerse que, en ese caso, la Corte de Lyon estaba
obligada a otorgar, y en la práctica otorgó, la armadura a los herederos
femeninos, los herederos de línea, y les otorgó solo bajo una marca de cadencia
al heredero masculino, prácticamente el representante de la familia? "En
este pasaje, Lord Fullerton indica una opinión que apenas se distingue de la
visión de sentido común de Lord Jeffrey de que no hay una regla inflexible ni
una práctica uniforme, y que la consideración determinante puede ser --- ¿En
quién están investidos la familia sustancial? derechos y posesiones? ¿De quién
es la herencia?
Visto
desde el punto de vista histórico, creo que no habrá controversia alguna, que
las armaduras militares tengan su origen en el feudalismo como sistema militar.
Si bien se afirma que regresan a una civilización más remota, un médico muy
erudito que incluso asignó su origen al Jardín del Edén, las armas en el
sentido moderno aceptado se introdujeron en la tierra escocesa en una fecha no
anterior a la mediados del siglo XII o principios del siglo XIII. Si los
príncipes con armadura fueron premiados por el Príncipe para marcar las hazañas
en el campo, o simplemente si los líderes asumieron por sí mismos como marcas
distintivas en el escudo o la pancarta, es una pregunta para los historiadores,
pero que surgieron de la aventura militar y El logro en tiempos difíciles y los
días de caballería es, creo, ahora una conclusión generalmente aceptada. En
estos primeros tiempos de turbulencia y conflictos, la herencia de las armas
recaería naturalmente en el heredero masculino. Lo mismo era cierto para las
tierras en posesión feudal. Originalmente, la ley feudal excluía a las mujeres
de la sucesión. Fue solo a medida que la ley se desarrolló y el carácter
militar del feudalismo se modificó gradualmente, hasta que finalmente
desapareció, que el derecho de la hembra más cercana a heredar con preferencia
al macho más remoto llegó a establecerse y el descenso es- tan reconocido como
ser para el heredero general. Teniendo en cuenta esta evolución de la ley
feudal en la tenencia de la tierra, que durante mucho tiempo estuvo vinculada
con el servicio militar, el argumento histórico para el heredero del origen
militar de las armas pierde su fuerza y apenas se puede decir que conduzca a ningún lado , a
menos que supongamos que la ley de armas permaneció estática, y que continuó
sin influenciarse ni modificarse por las concepciones cada vez más amplias de
sucesión que llegaron paso a paso para penetrar y finalmente prevalecer en la
esfera de otros heredables. Una suposición de este tipo me parece estar en
desacuerdo con el hecho incontestable de que, según la ley heráldica de
Escocia, una mujer ahora puede llevar armas por derecho propio.
[683]
Sir
George Mackenzie, el más grande de nuestros escritores heráldicos, declara en
su Ciencia de la Heráldica
(en la p. 2) que "las armas comenzaron y crecieron con la ley
feudal". Discute su transmisión en relación con las implicaciones en un
pasaje al que me referiré más completamente a continuación, y que me parece que
da un fuerte apoyo al heredero de la línea. En otra parte de su trabajo, dice
(en la pág. 70) que "ningún hombre puede soportar los brazos de su
madre", pero mentira es que no se trata de la transmisión a través de una
heredera que toma por derecho propio, lo que puede plantear una pregunta
diferente del caso donde el uso de armas por parte de la mujer es solo por
cortesía. Nisbet en su Sistema de Heráldica no discute la cuestión, pero da por
sentado que, al fallar un heredero en la línea directa, la herencia recae en la
heredera. Seton en su Ley y práctica de la heráldica dice (en la p. 356):
"En ausencia de una autoridad muy distinta en ambos lados, no parece
irrazonable argumentar por analogía y adoptar la guía del derecho
consuetudinario de Escocia que regula la sucesión de tierras y dignidades ...
Aunque originalmente teníamos una opinión bastante fuerte a favor del heredero,
debemos reconocer con franqueza una tendencia creciente a la conclusión opuesta
... La representación de una familia antigua se transmite regularmente de padre
a hijo por muchas generaciones, pero al final, a través del fracaso del
problema masculino directo, una mujer se convierte en la heredera de la línea,
mientras que una garantía remota tiene éxito a la posición de heredero
masculino. ¿Es contrario a la razón y al sentido común preferir el primero? en
la sucesión a los principales honores heráldicos? "Stevenson [Heráldica en
Escocia, ii, 353] está de acuerdo con Seton en esta opinión, pero ambos
escritores también muestran algún favor a la opinión de Lord Jeffrey de que la
armadura Las dignidades riales van junto con los derechos familiares más
importantes. Balfour Paul, [Heráldica, en relación con la historia y el arte de
8cotfish, p. 75] al tiempo que reconoce el derecho de la heredera a llevar los
brazos de su padre sin diferenciar, se inclina en el tema de la transmisión a
una opinión a favor del heredero. Esta fue también la opinión de Tait,
Lyon-Depute, en su informe a los Comisionados. [Impreso en Heráldica en
Escocia, por JH Stevenson, ii, 457.] La opinión de Burnett es que
"herencias de todo tipo, incluidos todos los honores y honores ,
desciendan en derecho consuetudinario a herederos de línea, no herederos
varones ". [El Libro Rojo de Menteith revisado, p. 49]
En
este estado de opinión conflictiva, surge la pregunta: ¿Existe algún principio
de aplicación universal en referencia a qué se puede determinar el descenso de
armas? Las armas familiares son sin duda herencia feudal. ¿Hay algo inherente
en ellos, o los propósitos para los que fueron diseñados, que debería
excluirlos de la regla de devolución comúnmente aceptada, que los derechos
heredables en ausencia de un destino pasan en línea directa al heredero en la
cerveza, a quien fallando al heredero hembra de línea? Las disputas de las
partes sobre este tema, que era la pregunta principal argumentada, consistía en
gran parte en la afirmación y contraafirmación respaldada en cada lado por
documentos oscuros sobre el significado de qué abogado estaba en desacuerdo
violento, y [684]
que,
en ausencia de evidencia explicativa, son en su mayor parte, completamente
ininteligibles. Dejando a un lado los documentos, el caso del apelante, si lo
entendí bien, se basó en las consideraciones formuladas por Lord Sands en el caso
de Stewart Mackenzie. [1920 S. C. 764, p. 795] 'Estas observaciones no fueron
esenciales para el juicio, ni fueron aprobadas en la Cámara de los Lores, pero
es innecesario decir que tienen derecho a un gran respeto. Lord Sands favoreció
la opinión de que el descenso de armas es para el heredero masculino. Él
consideraba esto de acuerdo con los principios heráldicos. Si dijera lo
contrario (en la pág. 796), "los brazos no diferenciados estarían saltando
constantemente de una familia a otra, y los brazos perderían por completo su
carácter distintivo como marcas familiares". Leí esto como que significa
que, si la transmisión se permite a través de la heredera de la línea, los
brazos no diferenciados pasarían fácilmente de la familia, ya que los hijos de
la heredera pertenecerían a la familia de su esposo y llevarían su nombre, y el
las armas familiares se convertirían en alguien que no lleva el apellido. Este
es el argumento principal a favor del heredero masculino, pero, por otro lado,
hay ciertos otros aspectos del asunto a considerar. Lord Sands solo pensaba en
la transmisión a través de la heredera, y es con referencia a eso que deben
leerse sus observaciones. La pregunta de si la heredera puede transmitir los
brazos de la familia sin distinción a sus descendientes, donde el esposo
pertenece a otra familia y no se ha convertido en miembro de la familia de la
heredera por adopción o por la asunción del nombre de su familia, no es
necesariamente la misma pregunta que si la heredera tiene el derecho exclusivo de
llevar los brazos de la familia sin diferencia en su vida. Lyon los ha tratado
como preguntas separadas y distintas, y se ha negado a pronunciarse sobre la
cuestión de la transmisión antes de que surja. Ese fue un curso que creo que
tenía derecho a seguir. La transmisibilidad puede depender de muchas
circunstancias que ahora no se pueden prever.
La
práctica de imponer armas al concesionario y una línea específica de herederos
no deja de tener alguna relación con la cuestión. Una característica común en
las tierras implica que la heredera se case con alguien que lleve el apellido
de la persona involucrada o que asuma el apellido y las armas. La legalidad de
las condiciones de este tipo nunca ha sido cuestionada y es reconocida por
todos los escritores heráldicos. Cito este pasaje autorizado de Sir George
Mackenzie [Science of Heraldry, p. 70]: --- Es lo más ordinario en Escocia el
traspaso de fincas a la heredera mayor, se casa con una que llevará el nombre y
las armas de la familia del dispone; pero si la persona que se casa con
heretrix o heiresse, como hablan los ingleses, puede portar legalmente, los
brazos del disponer, de acuerdo con las leyes de la Heráldica , no quiere su
escrúpulo, viendo arma gentilitia que se presume aún se le otorgará a un hombre
y sus herederos, no transeunt ad extraneos; de lo contrario, cualquier hombre
podría dar armas, así como el Príncipe o los heraldos: Sin embargo, los
abogados están muy seguros de que sus pacciones son legales, cl qui liberos non
habet, [685] potest in alium transferre suum feudum ea Conditione, ut adoptatus
nomen el arma et insignia salvaje; y eso porque las armas se dan 'no solo para
recompensar la virtud del receptor, sino para distinguir a las familias, y quia
adoptatus transit in familiam et agnationem adoptantis. Algunos abogados
distinguen aquí entre él, quien es asumido o adoptado por uno de sus propios
predecesores o familiares (ya que estos seguramente pueden tener los brazos del
adoptante), y aquellos que eran extraños antes de la adopción; y concluyen que
estos no pueden tener derecho a las armas: y Hoppingius afirma que esta es la
opinión común de los mejores abogados; pero creo que puede ser más justamente
distinguible, ya sea que se haga la disposición de una hija, que se case con
alguien que llevará el nombre y las armas, porque en ese caso ciertamente los
niños pueden llevar los brazos, porque ella misma era la heredera; pero si las
tierras se pusieran a disposición de un simple extraño, no con la condición de
que se casara con una hija, sino que él llevara el nombre y las armas, en ese
caso puede afirmarse que el receptor de la disposición no puede llevar las
armas, porque eso no estaba en poder de otorgar, salvo el consentimiento del
Príncipe ".
Del
mismo modo Nisbet, [Sistema de Heráldica, vol. ii, p. 34.] quien es un escritor
heráldico de gran autoridad, en el manejo de la concentración de armas, después
de afirmar la regla general de que los niños llevan adecuadamente los brazos de
su padre y los disturbios de su madre porque son de la familia del padre,
agrega este importante calificación: "los descendientes de una hija no pueden
llevar regularmente los brazos paternos de su madre, excepto que sean
herederas, o que los del lado de su madre les permitan, que tienen derecho a
deshacerse de los brazos a modo de testamento o disposición, o de lo contrario,
serán permitidos por las leyes y costumbres del país ". Y a esto se le
puede agregar la opinión de Sir David Lindsay del Monte, Rey de Armas
(alrededor de 1586) [El Buik de Cotearmouris (MSS. 31.3.20. Colecciones
Denmiln).]: --- "una armadura láser es callit la cote de una gentil mujer que
se ha casado con un hombre que tiene una armadura. Su hijo puede usar su
armadura con diferentes armas durante su vida, es la cortesía de la ley de
armas y su única arma. o nada de blude para la armadura de cotear o ellis
siendo hir byrth de la blude royall luego sall hir aire aquí hir cotearmor
".
La
importancia de estos pronunciamientos autoritarios radica en el reconocimiento
que dan, de que no hay nada en el porte de armas de una heredera por derecho
propio que sea repugnante a la concepción de las armas, u odioso a los
principios de la heráldica. De hecho, parecen ir más allá, ya que reconocen no
solo el derecho de la heredera, sino también el derecho de los hijos de la
heredera a llevar los brazos de su madre, de modo que el derecho de la heredera
no se presenta como una mera cortesía, sino como un acto legal. derecho por
sucesión y como tal transmisible. Que esto es así, donde hay un destino para
los herederos generales, o un destino con un nombre y una cláusula de armas, ya
sea en un contrato de matrimonio o testamento, me parece incontrovertible. La
pregunta entonces es: ¿Cuál es la posición [686] cuando no hay un destino y el
asunto se deja a la ley común?
Si
esta cuestión se considera en abstracto como una cuestión pura de teoría
jurídica, puede existir una cierta presunción de que la sucesión es para el
heredero masculino, una presunción que surge de la doctrina de la ley de que
las mujeres dejan a sus propias familias y pasan en las familias de los
maridos. con quien se casan Pero esta preferencia por el heredero masculino es
solo una presunción, y no puede tener un efecto decisivo donde aplicarla
implicaría la separación de los brazos familiares de las posesiones familiares
sustanciales. El principio de la ley de nobleza, donde no se puede descubrir la
limitación de una nobleza, que se presume que desciende al heredero masculino
del cuerpo del concesionario original, fue formulado por el Comité de
Privilegios, influenciado por consideraciones de conveniencia política que son
ajenos a cualquier cuestión de sucesión heráldica. En una nobleza es posible
presumir un desti. nación, porque debe haber habido una patente original por la
cual se confirió la dignidad ... pero en armas esto no se puede suponer, porque
antes y después de la Ley
de 1592 los individuos frecuentemente se apropiaron de armas sin la autoridad
de concesión u otra sanción, y en Los hábitos de apropiación de West Highlands
parecen haberse desarrollado en un grado poco común. No obstante, me inclino a
la opinión de Lord Sands de que, en teoría estricta, la presunción es para el
heredero masculino; en cualquier caso hasta este punto, que si se juzgara que
el juicio de Lyon implica que las armas se transmitirán a un extraño, habría
estado preparado para sostener que la presunción no podría ser refutada. Pero
la preferencia de Catriona como heredera principal de línea no implica esta
consecuencia.
Si
se analiza el asunto desde un punto de vista de sentido común, haría esta
pregunta: ¿por qué el heredero colateral masculino que no posee una sola cría
de las tierras ancestrales y que no tiene ninguna conexión con Ardgour que no
sea descendencia? de un antepasado común, preferiría a la hija de la casa y
heredera principal de la línea, que como laird de Ardgour se encuentra poseído
de la herencia baronial que ha sido la herencia familiar durante al menos
cuatro siglos. A esta pregunta no puedo encontrar una respuesta satisfactoria.
En el caso de no pocas de las casas nobles de Escocia, incluidas algunas de las
más eminentes, el descenso ha sido a través de la línea femenina, y la pureza
de las armas es tan probable que se conserve donde pasan en directo como en la
línea colateral; de hecho, son muy pocos los casos en que se ha conservado la
simplicidad de las armas originales. Los brazos se pueden descuartizar o
combinar de otras formas, ya sea que vayan al heredero varón o al heredero de
línea, y hay muchos casos registrados en los que sus herederos hombres han
adoptado los brazos de sus esposas en lugar de los suyos. En cualquier caso, la
cuestión de la transmisión a través del heredero de la línea no se plantea en
este momento. Si, en teoría estricta, existe una presunción a favor del
heredero, creo que está suficientemente desplazada por la posesión por parte de
Catriona de la herencia baronial, que es la principal herencia familiar, por
derecho propio. El valor presente [687] del patrimonio es irrelevante para el
problema. Incluso aparte de una posesión territorial, no estoy satisfecho de
que el largo descenso de los brazos en la línea directa podría no ser
suficiente para desplazar la presunción, donde su aplicación implicaría que las
armas salgan de la línea directa. La idea de que una mujer no puede representar
a una familia armada me parece una noción medieval, apropiada quizás para
épocas de salvajismo, pero que no tiene relación con las realidades del mundo
moderno. Por lo tanto, no veo ningún motivo para impedir que el Tribunal afirme
que Catriona, como heredera de la antigua baronía con la que está ligada la
historia familiar, debe ser considerada como la representante de la familia
durante su vida, y como heredera principal de la línea. derecho a los brazos
familiares indiferenciados. Esta conclusión, en mi opinión, no es contraria al
peso de la autoridad heráldica, y está en armonía con la opinión de Lord
Jeffrey, y también pienso en Lord Fullerton en el caso de Cuninghame.
[Cuninghame v. Cunyngham, (1849) 11 D. 1139, en la pág. 1150.] La cuestión de
si las armas pasarán luego a los descendientes de Catriona sin que lleven el
apellido de la familia ahora no surge y está reservada. Mi conclusión es que
Lyon tenía derecho a preferir el reclamo de Catriona, y necesitaríamos tener un
terreno muy claro antes de diferir de su juicio. Estoy preparado, por lo tanto,
para encontrar que Catriona tiene derecho a usar y usar los brazos indiferentes
de su padre Ardgour, ya que estos fueron matriculados por él en 1909, y eso no
solo como cortesía, sino de derecho, y que no Uno puede ser escuchado para
desafiar su derecho o usurpar su título.
Solo
hay una cuestión sobre la que tengo dudas. Lyon ha tratado a las hermanas de
Catriona por tener la misma calidad de derecho legal que ella en los brazos de
la familia. Esto, sin duda, está en conformidad con el principio heráldico que
los herederos-porciones toman igualmente sin diferencias. Si bien esto no está
abierto a disputas donde el derecho de los herederos-porciones es meramente una
cortesía, de ninguna manera es seguro que la misma regla se obtenga donde los
brazos descienden al heredero mayor de la línea como una cuestión de derecho
legal. En tal caso, creo que la regla correcta es que el heredero de línea
tiene un derecho indivisible a las armas, de acuerdo con la doctrina de la
escalera de que, aunque los herederos tienen éxito por igual, "sin
embargo, los derechos indivisibles caen solo en el mayor". sin perjuicio
de los derechos de cortesía de las hermanas menores. Esto, sin embargo, plantea
una pregunta entre los herederos, que no es hujus loci.
Sobre
todo, estoy a favor de afirmar los juicios del Lord Lyon y rechazar las
apelaciones.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario