SHARP CRITICISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26637, 6 December 1947, Page 6

SHARP CRITICISM

CENTENNIAL SHIELD “A PIECE OF IGNORANT BUFFOONERY ” HERALDRY DEFENDED The Otago centennial shield of arms has come in for further criticism from the Lord Lyon, King of Arms, Edinburgh, who in a lengthy letter to Dr Morris N. Watt, of Dunedin, strenuously defends heraldry and answers a letter that appeared in the Daily Times, signed “Alan Laing.” . “If one is going to use heraldry at all in Scotland, one is obliged to use it correctly,” the Lord Lyon writes, “ and elsewhere the person who does not use it correctly is merely holding himself out as foolish. Heraldic absurdities may be appropriate in the pages of ‘ Comic Cuts or the cartoonist, but to reduce deliberately centennial celebrations and public decoration to that level is indefensible and a waste of public money. Moreover, it is just as easy to do the thing right as to do it wrong.” The Lord Lyon replies at length to Mr Laing, who in his letter to the Daily Times expressed the hope that the Lord Lyon’s criticisms would not be taken too seriously. “The art of heraldry was a very serious affair in its day,” Mr Laing wrote, “ but that day is long past, and a combination of the Scottish Royal Standard with the ancient flag of Scotland, the' white cross of St. Andrew on a blue background, however improper they may be in the very pedantic and out-of-date heraldic sense, represent a rather wonderful tradition.” Heraldry Not Pedantic In his reply, His Lordship states: “Mr Alan Laing is quite wrong in assuming that the Laws of Arms in Scotland are not a serious matter. They are not only of great practical and business importance to the numerous corporate bodies which have invested £6O or £9O in a coat of arms which in the law of Scotland is a piece of incorporal real estate, but rights under the Law of Arms have in several cases, indeed in quite recent years, been the subject of litigation and appeals in which the litigants have expended costs amounting to, it is said, over £7OOO.

“ Heraldry is not in the least pedantic or out of date,” he adds, “and precisely the same principles and designs have, as part of the Laws of Arms, been employed in connection with Scottish military units’ flashes during the recent war, and what Mr Laing describes as ‘a rather wonderful tradition ’ is still part of the living and functioning Law of Scotland, one in which not only families but corporate bodies and municipal corporations have a traditional and a business interest.” The correct use of the Scottish Royal Banner is also referred to by the Lord Lyon. In the second half of his letter, Mr Laing stated that the predecessor of the present Lord Lyon had attempted during the 1930’s to-prevent loyal Scottish subjects of the King from flying the Scottish Royal Standard on appropriate national occasions, “ basing his opinion on pedantic heraldic tradition. This has been done, to my own personal knowledge, for half a century and longer before my time,” Mr Laing wrote. “As may be readily imagined, in a country which takes pride in, amongst other things, having been a monarchy for over 1000 years continuously (unlike our English neighbours who were Republicans under Oliver Cromwell!) this attempt was not successful.” Flying of Scottish Flags “Mr Laing’s second paragraph is an inaccurate presentation of a ‘ ramp ’ on the part of certain decorationmongers, who in the early part of the present century started selling socalled ‘ Scottish standards,’ and a few disloyal and ignorant people started a campaign to argue that what Mr Laing rightly calls the Scottish Royal Standard (or rather the Royal Banner), had never been the King of Scots’ banner at all and was the Scottish national flag which, as every intelligent person knows, is, as truly recorded, the blue flag with St. Andrew's cross.” The Lord Lyon adds that the Secretary of State explained in Parliament on July 6, 1933, that it was the registered. Royal Arms of the Kings of Scotland, and being so registered, it could not be lawfully used without incurring the statutory penalties which existed for the protection not only of this but other coats-of-arms. In September, 1934, a Royal Warrant was issued permitting the use of this flag “by loyal subjects as a mark of loyalty” in a decorative display, but the warrant did not alter its legal character or the circumstances in which it was displayed as a cognisance, coat-of-arms or part of another coat-of-arms.

' Scotland was naturally proud of its ancient Royal Arms, His Lordship continues, and only on rare occasions were people found flying the tressured lion flag where St, Andrew’s cross or individually registered ensigns should be flown. “The warrant of 1934,” he adds, “ in no way authorised such usage as the unwarrantable and' absurd combination of St. Andrew’s cross and a red lion upon an impaled escutcheon, which is a piece of ignorant buffoonery and not a piece of ‘ rather wonderful tradition.’ “ One quite understands that New Zealanders of Scottish connection will wish to see both St. Andrew’s cross and the tressured lion rampant during the celebrations,” the Lord Lyon states, “and under the Royal Warrant of 1934 there is no reason why they should - not see the latter duly displayed in appropriate ways, but there is no excuse for using the tressured lion flag on occasions where some other flag is the specific one which a loyal subject could be displayings or for improperly incorporating it with other arms.”