Convening of the Court of Chivalry

[Hooligan]

Dad es Per el Coletx Rexhital d'Armeux Talossan

Oyez, oyez!

TANDI QE l'útzil es la zesplega dels armeux personais grantevent par Sieu Maxhestà el Regeu da Talossa trans l'axhençù da sieu Uficieir Rexhital la Hamilta Regeu d'Armeux c'e'n privilexhù es non c'e'n drept, es

TANDI QE la privilexhù à tirh es à zesplegarh acestilor armeux isch reservat àls citaxhiéns del Regipäts Talossan qissen þonor isch stimat, respectat, es açeitat sanc ingen quesziun par lors paírs es el popul, es

TANDI QE c'e uschedat qe Iustì Carlüs Canun, par sieux dideux, tent ceavastat, spurcat, vaitat, es avandunat sieu statüs þonoresc, nun

PER ACESTILOR RAZIUNS es par acestilor schegnhen, qe c'estadra säpescu qe in accordançéu cün la vöglha es la zireziun da Sieu Maxhestà Regeu Ian, 'n Cort da Cavalería nun isch cunventat sub va mha à zesterminarh el svipour dels armeux qi füvent grantat àð Iustì Carlüs Canun dürant els Þonors dal Ziua dal Monarc'hà in l'anneu 2008, es

OCSÀ qe c'estadra säpescu qe el Cort da Cavalería, cunventat perventüra, rendarha sieu zeciziun es recomenda à Sieu Maxhestà osprei 'n pieriot da tres ziuas per la reçeiziun es la circümspicença d'ingen adaco'art dad amici curiae sub aicì.

Rouge Lobster Herald
Hamilta Regeu d'Armeux

---

From and for The Royal Talossan College of Arms

Oyez, oyez!

WHEREAS the use and display of personal arms granted by His Majesty the King of Talossa through the agency of His Royal Officer the Squirrel King of Arms is a privilege and not a right, and

WHEREAS the privilege to hold and display said arms is reserved to citizens of the Kingdom of Talossa whose honour is revered, respected, and unquestioned by their peers and the citizenry as a whole, and

WHEREAS it is alleged that Iustì Carlüs Canun has by his actions tarnished, besmirched, ruined, and abandoned his honourable status, now

THEREFORE by these presents be it known that in accordance with the wish and direction of His Majesty King John, a Court of Chivalry is now convened under my hand to determine the disposition of arms granted to the said Iustì Carlüs Canun during the 2008 Monarchy Day Honours, and

FURTHERMORE be it known that the said Court of Chivalry, hereby convened, shall render its decision and recommendation to His Majesty after a period of three days of receiving and weighing any public comment from amici curiae hereunder.

Rouge Lobster Herald
Squirrel King of Arms

[Eðo Grischun]

I ask that this Court recognise me as an amicus curiae and permit me to make comment.

[Hooligan]

S:reu Grischun is so recognized, and the Cort further opens its doors, and indicates that it will stand on no necessity for recognition, to any and all who wish to make any statements concerning the case before it.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Your Majesty King John, Your Honor The Squirrel King of Arms,

I rise to speak both as an honourable citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa, as a Justice of the Cort pu Inalt, and as the Dean of the College of Arms. I also rise as a member of the human race.

The former knight Iusti Canun was my friend. We would often chat as I struggled to learn the Talossan language, among other banal matters unrelated to his crimes. Iusti Canun had opportunities to dissociate himself in as honorable a fashion as he could have to spare his friends and fellow citizens the tarnish his crimes bring.

Iusti Canun has not acted honourably. He knew he was going to prison for a very long sentence. He disappeared from active status the day before he commenced a 25 year sentence. That fact alone should qualify him to be stripped of any honour or award of arms. He knew. His shame became, by extension, our shame. An honourable person should, despite any personal discomfort, at least tell his "friends" to not look for him or expect to see him. We didn't need the gruesome details. Our kingdom, however, deserved to at least have a chance to brace itself for the fallout.

Talossa is not the real victim, however. Iusti Canun violated in the most base fashion imaginable an innocent who will forever bear the horror and the stain. Iusti Canun deserves no pity and will get none from me. He ruined his life, but he destroyed the life of his victims. An honourable man does not harm another with intention.

A grant of Arms is awarded to honourable men and women. Iusti Canun is not honourable. He is a disgrace.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to this Court of Chivalry.

I now sit among my peers and trust in the judgment of this Court.

Dr. Txec dal Nordselva
The Kingsbridge Pursuivant and Dean of the College of Arms

[Hooligan]

The Cort thanks the Honourable Justice of el Cort pü Inalt for his testimony.

The Cort further wishes to establish guidelines for the introduction of such testimony. Each amicus curiae is asked to limit his or her contribution to a single posting to this thread. The post may be updated by its creator at any time, but no subsequent posting shall be made by each contributor after once having his or her audience with the Cort. The Cort imposes this restriction as a (probably needless) preventative measure against the thread becoming a debate between contributors. Along those same lines, all posters are requested (as D:r dal Nordselva has done) to direct their comments to the Cort, and not to any prior contributors.

RLH
SKA

[Hooligan]

The Cort indicates that one day remains for the presentation of commentary by any amici curiae, after which time the Cort shall render its decision and recommendation.

RLH
SKA

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Your Majesty, Your Honour The Squirrel King of Arms and members of this Court of Chivalry,

I. Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, ChRTB, Justice of el Cort pü Inalt and citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa would like to offer my testimony to this Honourable Court.

I would like to open my address with a quote from Nicholas Sparks, in The Rescue, in which he says - "You're going to come across people in your life who will say all the right words at all the right times. But in the end, it's always their actions you should judge them by. It's actions, not words, that matter."

This quote can be aptly applied to Iustì Carlüs Canun.

Those of us that "knew" Iustì Carlüs Canun, knew him to be a honourable man, but ultimately the man we knew was merely words on the internet. Words which constructed a man who was a upstanding member of the Talossan community and indeed the community in which he physically resided. Words which painted a person whom one could wholly rely on and trust. Words which made us believe that when he disappeared from Talossa it was for reasons far removed from the startling truth. Iustì Carlüs Canun knew all the the right words at all the right times. His words in Talossa were honourable.

Outside of the words which he typed to members of this august community, Iustì Carlüs Canun was engaged in actions which targeted the most vulnerable members of our society. Actions which will change irrevocably the lives of those whose journey on this planet had only just begun, who's innocence was so cruelly taken away and left deep scars that will never, ever heal. The heinous nature of these actions is reflected in the 25 years he must serve, not seeing freedom till 2040. One can only hope this does a small part in bringing justice and healing to his victims. His actions in the outside world were dishonourable.

Thus, this Court should not judge Iustì Carlüs Canun by his words to us in Talossa, but by his actions. He has by his own actions brought dishonour, shame and disgrace upon himself. A man who bears these virtues has no place bearing Arms which symbolise a upstanding, honourable, trustworthy citizen of our Kingdom. Those who joyfully bear Arms in this Kingdom should feel a sense of pride when displaying their arms and not shame in sharing such a honour with a person who committed crimes which has truly shocked this nation to its very core.

Judge on actions, not words.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my testimonial.

[Eðo Grischun]

I am of a different opinion from most on this issue, I imagine.

Firstly, I would like to point out that I have found no evidence of Coats of Arms ever being revoked or rescinded or stripped from any person in history. Granted, my research has been rudimentary and I am open to being corrected. Still, various searches have failed to yield a result.

Courts of Chivalry in days gone by, from what I gather, were never convened for a hearing such as this. The cases heard were normally those of dispute. For instance, when someone claimed another person was displaying Arms that resembled their own. In such cases, Courts of Chivalry judged as a sort of arbitration body. The closest modern likeness would be to describe the old Courts of Chivalry as todays Copyright courts hearing cases of intellectual property infringement.

Arguments so far have been on the subject of honour, but, when it comes to Arms, I believe the argument is nothing about honour and more about property.

Before I argue further, lets preface the following by stating that Canun has already had his honour stripped by being de-knighted. Incidentally, he has also suffered multiple counts of loss of office.

But,

Arms do not get granted to knights.

Arms are not given out on the basis of honour.

Arms are granted to Citizens of the Gentry and, I argue, once granted become the property of that gentry member. They are, and have historically been, both in a Talosan sense and an extra Talossan sense, a mark of identification. A symbol. An emblem. And, ultimately, property.

Arms are granted to citizens with no qualification other than being a citizen.

Honour has never entered into the equation. That's what knighthoods, etc, are for.

So if the Arms were never granted on the basis of honour, then can they actually be removed on the basis of lack of honour?

My argument to this Court is that the Arms of Canun are his property, granted to him on the sole virtue of ordinary citizenship, and cannot be taken from him. They are his until such a day as he is not a citizen.

Another thing to think about here is that Arms are hereditary. Further solidifying the point that Arms are property.

At most, I would argue, the College can only revoke the accessories and motto related to knighthood attached to the ordinary Coat of Arms, but not the actual ordinary Arms.

I believe the ultimate questions the College will answer within this Court is as follows:

Are Ordinary Coats of Arms, granted to the gentry, the property of the recipient or an honorific symbol bestowed upon the recipient?

And, if found to be property, can we seize the property while that citizen is still listed as a citizen?

I thank the Court for hearing my argument.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

My Lord,

S:reu Grischun raises important questions about the nature of arms and the possibility of revoking them. My thoughts on those issues are incomplete, but as time is running short there is one historical point I wish to bring to the Cort's attention.

There is indeed some precedent for revocation of arms within the English heraldic tradition, but that is only, to my knowledge, as the result of a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder eliminates the attainted person's right to bear arms, as a consequence of the general elimination of their civil rights (including the right to own other forms of property, or to transmit property by inheritance). Attainder was generally imposed for high treason, and generally followed by execution. One notable example is Sir Henry Vane, who was attainted and executed for his cooperation with the Commonwealth government after the Restoration of Charles II. When his son Christopher Vane was created Baron Barnard, he was given the right to bear his father's arms as a new grant, as he could not have inherited them from his father (the attainder never having been reversed).

Bills of attainder are, of course, prohibited as legislative acts by the Organic Law. It seems to me that one question that must be answered in this case is whether it falls within the purview of this court to impose the consequences of attainder as to heraldic bearings, though the court has no jurisdiction over the other normal consequences of attainder.

[Trotxâ]

Your Majesty, Squirrel King at Arms, Fellow Heralds and Pursuivants, and concerned Talossans -

I rise to suggest one possibility for resolving this question. I thank the Court for entertaining this late entry, which was unavoidably delayed.

Senator Grishun makes a solid point about arms being the personal property of the armiger. This point has been made historically - once granted, arms are not taken back without a bill of attainder. By law, we can't pass bills of attainder.

We should remember that this crisis of honor is only unique for Talossa - things like this have unfortunately happened before in armorial monarchies over the past thousand years. We can look to history for background and context as a guide to action.

The technical heraldic term for what can happen next is "Abatement". Parker defined Abatements as "marks of disgrace attached to arms on account of some dishonourable act of the bearer". Abatements can be a charged topic (no pun intended) amongst heralds, but the practice could be useful in this case.

A few sources can provide background about this heraldic detail:

• Levin from the SCA notes,
  

  Abatements appear in both the theory and the practice of heraldry in the fourteenth century. The first mention of abatements in a manual of heraldry was made by Iohannes de Bado Aureo, who wrote his Tractatus de Armis at the request of Anne, Richard II's queen. Iohannes wrote that if a person was to break his promise, showed cowardice, or acted in a grossly unworthy manner, he was to be brought on trial, and, if he was found guilty, his coat of arms were to be displayed upside down, or reversed. This is the first, and direst, abatement.

  
  
  • The authors of internationalheraldry.com describe abatements as a "heraldic fiction", but then go on to detail several historical abatements. They admit that we have "traces of real historical abatements. One was the entire reversal of the escutcheon in the ceremony of degradation following an attainder for high treason..."
  • Boutell & Fox-Davies are dismissive of abatements, saying "Heraldry can give expression only to what conveys honor", but they ignore several examples from history, like the arms of Amery of Pavy abated by order of Edward III for his treachery.
  • Regarding historical examples, Levin of the SCA notes that:
    

    Since coats of arms are visible displays of hereditary honor, as later scholars have noted, it seems highly unlikely that many examples of abated arms would exist, and, indeed, aside from the various examples of reversed arms that are out there, no other abated arms from the Middle Ages can be shown to have been displayed.

    I take this to mean that nobody would spend a florin on creating arms with an abatement, so we don't have historical samples to show.
  • Guillim provides the most detail, including this description of an abatement that could apply in this case:
    

    He beareth Or, an Eschocheon reversed, Sanguine. This is that other abatement that occupieth the middle point of the Eschocheon, and is given unto him that discourteously intreateth either Maid or Widow against their will...

  
  Yes, certain scholars debate the existence of abatements, and others posit that abatements only apply to bastards. However, the historical record is clear. If nothing else, traitors wore their arms inverted or reversed on the way to their execution. Even in the event that the armiger remained alive, he would not add to his troubles by displaying abated arms.
  
  This leads to a proposal for King and College to consider: that the grant of arms to Iustì Carlüs Canun Per bend sable and azure a sabre bendwise sinister argent hilted or, blade edge to base be amended to be Per bend sable and azure a sabre bendwise sinister argent hilted or, blade edge to base abated over all with an Inescutcheon reversed, Sanguine. The use of the Sanguine stain is intentional.
  
  Canun can keep the arms His Majesty granted on Monarchy Day 2008, but he would have to display them as abated if he chose to display them at all. The record will record an updated grant with the abatement. The dark maroon shield in the middle of his arms should be a hint to all Talossans that something is not right.
  
  I thank the worthies here assembled for their time.
  
  Sir Trotxâ Betiñéir, UrN
  Jaune Sabre Herald
  Squirrel King at Arms Emeritus

[Hooligan]

Dad es Per el Coletx Rexhital d'Armeux Talossan

AVETZ EL MEMINIßEU àls amici curiae qi tiennent comtribuçat à'ceasta araßada, es

OSPREI QE la circümspicença dü, es

CUNCUPISCHENTÍU à mamtenençarh l'itägrità da Sieu Maxhestà el Regeu da Talossa, com'eschemplat par sieux granteux rexhitais dels armeux àls citaxhiéns d'acest regipäts,

EL CORT DA CAVALERÍA PREDIÇA PERVENTÜRA:

PIRMEIS, qe Iustì Carlüs Canun, trans dideux unþonoreschti es vrätsmint uncunschençavais, tent avandunat ingen revindic àl statüs þonoresc par qe els armeux q'o apoarta füvent grantat, es

DOUALAISET, qe per aceasta raziun els armeux dad Iustì Carlüs Canun serent abatats, la zescriuziun d'acestilor amendada com'acest:

Par el band civlaineu es azür ün sabeir in band sinistrà heltat d'or, trenc'hant àl baseu
abatat över dtoct par üna tarc'ha da din renverçada, Sangün.

Els Fuliénsen, Taimpreirs, es Araldours del Coletx d'Armeux, par la xhußiun d'acest Cort, sint zirecteschti à cauçarh toct i zescriuziuns es zesplegas d'acestilor armeux, in l'armourial del Regipäts es quálsepläts d'alter, àð estarh modifiçadas d'ospreimint.

Tischind prediçat com'acest, el Cort da Cavalería isch perventüra astelat sine die.

---

From and for The Royal Talossan College of Arms

WITH GRATITUDE to the amici curiae who have contributed to this session, and

UPON due consideration, and

DESIROUS of maintaining the integrity of His Majesty the King of Talossa, as exemplified by royal grants of arms to citizens of this Kingdom,

THE COURT OF CHIVALRY HEREBY RULES:

FIRST, that Iustì Carlüs Canun has, through dishonourable and indeed unconscionable actions, abandoned any claim to the honourable status by which the arms he bears were granted, and

SECOND, that the arms of Iustì Carlüs Canun therefore shall be abated, the blazon thereof being amended thus:

Per bend sable and azure a sabre bendwise sinister argent hilted or, blade edge to base
abated overall by an Inescutcheon reversed, Sanguine.

The Fellows, Pursuivants, and Heralds of the College of Arms are by the order of this Court directed to cause all blazons and emblazons of the said arms, in the armorial of the Kingdom and elsewhere, to be modified accordingly.

Having thus ruled, the Court of Chivalry is hereby adjourned sine die.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Your Majesty, Your Honor the Squirrel King of Arms,

The College has begun the abatement as this Cort has ordered.

[Hooligan]

Kingsbridge:

Your prompt attention to this matter is most appreciated. Furthermore, your attention (and that of the other members of the College) to the other business of the College of Arms during my unfortunate absences, is to your credit, and serves well His Majesty our sovereign.

With gratitude,
Rouge Lobster