* A Welcome and a note on Genetically Modified Parliament
* Letters to the Editor (1) The Royal Arms in Scotland
* Letters to the Editor (2) Shakespeare in Love
* The Ancestry of Robert the Bruce
* Heraldic Badges
* What's in a Name?
* The View from Maastricht
* Sara Donati and Rosina Lippi
* Princess Sam
* Scams ~ The Lairds of Overscaig
* Looking Around: The Burlington Arcade
* Heirloom & Howard
* Pegasus Armorie
* Our Sponsors and Advertisers
WELCOME ~ and a note on Genetically Modified Parliament
The primary purpose of this newsletter is to link regular Baronage readers to those articles in the magazine that might interest them, so in it you will find mention of the art, symbolism and meaning of heraldry, and, from time to time, of the history, politics, warfare, books, cinema and other entertainment to which heraldry has thematic links.
There has recently been a higher proportion than had been expected of its content examining constitutional politics. This has been owed to revolutionary events at Westminster, where New Labour's Roundheads seek to follow Oliver Cromwell, and in Brussels, where an unelected group has sought to follow Napoleon Bonaparte, and in Scotland, where our famous intolerance is again about to erupt, this time in pursuit of the chimera of "independence". We regret that these sad events will continue to justify adverse comment.
Westminster and Brussels have just been linked in a very curious manner. Our objections to the Genetically Modified Parliament are based on the British Government's determination to ensure that it may act without restraint, that it will be unaccountable to anyone other than at five-yearly intervals to a bribed and bamboozled electorate. The current power of the House of Lords, although weaker than we should wish, does tend to curb dictatorial excesses with the exercise of common sense, especially when it is obvious that the Government is acting against the wishes of the majority of the people, and it applies this limited power by asking the relevant minister to think again. This independent action is based for the greater part on the hereditary peers whose sensible independence of Government patronage has prompted the Government decision to remove them from Parliament. And yet, and yet ........... we have now heard the Prime Minister, in the light of the Brussels corruption scandal that has removed the entire European Commission from its luxurious offices, insisting on the very accountability for the replacement Commission that he refuses to accept for his own Government.
However, welcome to you all. We have enjoyed reading the requests for subscription as they have flowed in. We had expected to span the globe from Alaska to New Zealand, but unexpected posts have arrived from Japan and Yugoslavia and Russia. Your names, too, prompt interest, some very unusual, others redolent of early history, of battlefields and executions ~ Howard, Grosvenor, Cecil, Stewart, Graham and Wallace, for example.
The new system appears to be working satisfactorily. For the remainder of this year we shall publish a new contents page at three-monthly intervals, with additional articles added at monthly intervals and notified to readers in the newsletters.
Many of the early articles have been removed, but others that have a continuing interest are retained and appear in the new mini-index we have introduced and which can be accessed from the Home Page by a click on the narrow blue bar beneath the five square icons.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (1) The Royal Arms in Scotland
The note on the lawful display of arms in the last issue of The Feudal Herald prompted the Secretary of a clan society to write for guidance on the use of the Scottish Royal Banner ~
>> "What is lawful?" is a question that frequently comes before our Board of Directors in regard to the display of the "Rampant Lion of Scotland". Many of our members wish to hoist it over their tents during local festivals and highland games. There is a feeling among some, however, that this banner is reserved for the monarch or a duly appointed representative. Therefore it should only be displayed legally when they are present at some specific location in the UK.
This has led some to state simply that those laws don't extend to us in America, so we should hoist it as we damn well please!
There's a certain justification in such thought, yet we would prefer our Members to recognise the law. <<
The Baronage Editor replied ~
>> This is a continuing problem which could and should be solved within the Laws of Heraldry and within the Laws of Scotland. Those clansmen who believe that as they live in the United States, a separate legal jurisdiction, they need not observe the Laws of Scotland, are probably correct where American Law (although based on British Law) differs from the Laws of Scotland. But, and surely this is a huge "but" - where is the rationale in the continuation of a tradition (in this case, heraldry and clan loyalty) if any aspect that is disliked is arbitrarily discarded as inconvenient? It is then no longer a tradition, and societies such as yours lose their purpose and become redundant.
In respect of the "Ruddy Lion ramping in his field of tressured gold" ~ it may be flown as a banner when the sovereign is present. (It is often described as a square standard, but it is obviously a banner. A standard shows the rallying point and may be flown without the presence of its owner but in the presence of the owner's representative. A banner is normally flown only where its owner is present, although the Royal Banner may be flown also by a few specified high-ranking Officers of State such as the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord High Commissioner, and the Lord Lyon King of Arms.)
I have discussed this problem in the past, primarily in connection with the widespread sale of miniature banners waved by Scottish crowds at sporting events. It is this sale and use that has fostered the erroneous belief that the banner bears the arms of Scotland. It does not. The arms of the Scottish nation are Azure a saltire Argent. ..Or a lion rampant within a double tressure flory counter-flory Gules will only ever be "the Royal Arms of Scotland" and are thus the personal arms of the Scottish monarch recorded as such in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in 1672 (Lyon Register, volume 1, folio 14). <<
An article on this controversy, together with a proposed solution, will appear in the April issue of the Baronage magazine.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (2) Shakespeare in Love
The message was quite terse, really ~
>> There is nothing whatever here about SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.
And you call yourself the Feudal Herald Newsletter?!!! Must we beg? <<
But at that point the film had not yet arrived at our local cinema.
When it did, we went the first night, admired it enormously, swore that it would win the "Best Screenplay" Oscar, and hoped its star would do as well. Dame Judy Dench, playing Elizabeth in an authentic mask of make-up that froze her face and corseted her expression, acted with her eyes alone and, with only eight minutes onscreen, stole the "Best Supporting Actress" award. And its star, Gwyneth Paltrow (of significant interest to genealogists who know the Paltrowitch rabbinical dynasty) did do as well, winning the "Best Actress" award for the difficult task of playing a comedy with very realistic seriousness.
Shakespeare did well, too, and the two screenwriters who worked with him deserved the praise of their professional colleagues.
We were especially impressed by the authenticity of the social background and the easy movement from the bawdy inns to the royal court which identified the flexibility of Shakespeare's own easy movement between the classes. There had been an exchange in one of the Compuserve fora on this aspect of Shakespeare's life, begun by a post that claimed ~
>> Shakespeare never made it, probably never expected to make it, to a rank as high as even the minor nobility. He attained the rank (after years of effort) of "gentleman." <<
....... and brought this reply ~
>> Young Will did expect to make it, growing up in expectation of his recognition as a gentleman. The facts, briefly, are these:
Arms are the "ensigns of nobility" and, in Shakespeare's day, as during the preceding centuries, the specific rank of gentleman (i.e. excluding the generic use of the term) was the lowest rank in the nobility. (The association of the term "nobility" as exclusively belonging to the peerage is comparatively recent and almost wholly anglocentric.) A patent of nobility is uncommon in the British Isles. We used to issue them in Scotland to nobles about to travel abroad, to ensure they be "received and treated in all places and among all nobles as nobles in the noblesse of Scotland" (a clause still used in a Scottish grant of arms), but it is a practice more usual in continental Europe. In the British Isles then, as in Scotland still, the grant of arms was itself the grantee's patent of nobility.
Which brings us to the critical point.
Will's father, John Shakespeare, was a merchant who was appointed a Justice of the Peace and, in 1568, the Bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon. At that time he had preliminary discussions with Clarenceux King of Arms, Robert Cook, on the preliminary sketches for a grant of arms, and in 1596 the grant was made. The long wait is usually ascribed to some financial difficulties, for a grant was then finalised only after very substantial fees had been paid. So Will, from the age of four, grew up knowing that his father had in principle been recognised as of a rank equivalent to that of his (Will's) maternal grandfather, Robert Arden of Wilmcote. Thus in 1596, when his father's fortunes had turned and when Will himself was prosperous, he could account himself as having been born a gentleman, born an English nobleman.
In 1586 Sir John Ferne, in "The Glorie of Generositie", states specifically that Bailiffs of "ancient boroughs and incorporated towns" held "offices of dignity and worship" meriting a grant of arms - so in this Tudor period of phrenetic social climbing it would have been impossible for Will to be other than very conscious of his impending noble status. Moreover, for the scrambling social climbers the difference between acquiring gentility by a grant of arms and being born gentle was immense. Further divisions were attempted later by an insistence that although a grant of arms made its grantee armigerous, "three generations of coat armour" were required to make a gentleman. This and similar distinctions were incorporated into the requirements for certain orders of chivalry and various societies, but in law the definition remained simple "Why, if he hath no arms, then he is no gentleman" - and if he has, he is, and Will's father was. <<
This brought forward quotations from various books purporting to show the errors in this reply, but these were treated severely ~
>> >> According to the Oxford History of Tudor and Stuart Britain, ....... <<
Yes, some of the Oxford histories do have to be treated with caution, especially as they are written by 20th century academics steeped in their specialist period and disinclined to recognise definitions laid down in previous centuries. As I wrote, there was in Tudor times, in response to the new men, a move to introduce new distinctions. "Gentlemen" had been used as a generic term for all who were noble, and it was also the lowest rank of the nobility. One distinction was to insist that three generations of coat armour were necessary for a man to be born a gentleman. Another was to insist that the lowest ranks of esquire and gentleman did not belong to the nobility. A little later the peerage families claimed that they alone were the nobility, that the baronets and knights were excluded. New money (assisted by the importunate and dishonest rogues in the College of Arms - I speak of Tudor times) was devastating the social structure, and as old barriers were swept aside, new barriers were devised to replace them. But the law was unchanged. Arms were the ensigns of nobility.
>> So I guess our disagreement is on this word: "gentleman." <<
To be precise, the disagreement, rather wider than our little discussion (for I am commonly questioned on it), is on whether the rank of gentleman legally belongs to the nobility. You, following modern writers, say it does not. I, following the ancient laws of the realm, and Shakespeare's contemporaries (and modern Scots law), say that it does. The distinctions made by the writers you quote, Harrison and Thomson, are uninformed (albeit widely quoted).
That arms are the ensigns of nobility has been recognised in the laws of England and of Scotland (as in many other countries without the same continuity) from the Middle Ages. High ranking members of the peerage have stressed this to be so. And today, Her Majesty's personal representative in Scotland, who is a High Court judge (i.e. of the Court of Session) and a member of the Privy Council, on the scrolls he signs on her behalf, continues to insist that an armigerous Scot is a noble.
>> ...... the ranks went like this: you had the titular nobility, dukes, earls, viscounts and barons. Then you had the knights and the baronets. "BELOW THE RANKS OF THE NOBILITY [I'm quoting here with my own heavy-handed emphasis] you came to 'mere gentlemen.'" <<
Well, what more can I say? There have been marquesses in England since 1385 (sandwiched between dukes and earls), but Harrison omits them. He lists his ranks in descending order and then, in the next sentence, adds "knights and the baronets" with the implication that they rank in that order ~ which they do not. "Below the ranks of the nobility," he continues ....... but fails to distinguish between nobiles majores (the peers) and the nobiles minores (baronets, knights banneret, knights, esquires and gentlemen).
Underlying your argument there appears to be an assumption that a nobleman was superior to a gentleman. This is an error. Gentility is not of the same nature as nobility. A gentleman is a noble, but a noble is not necessarily a gentleman. It is said of Louis XIV that when his nurse asked him to make her son a gentleman, he replied that only God could do that, but that he would make him a nobleman. This is probably apocryphal, but the principle is valid. Any man could be made a noble (after all, the word initially was applied to men who were born free) by his prince, but only birth could make a gentleman. Hence the use of the term "a gentleman of coat armour" implies that one such is not ipso facto a gentleman by birth. The distinction of gentlemen born of three generations of coat armour shows how important birth then was. (James VI and I, in his creation of baronets, insisted that candidates must have three generations of coat armour on their father's side, so that, trusting their mothers, he could be fairly sure they would be gentlemen by birth.) We find a similar distinction implied at Agincourt, where Henry (who could make any man a mere noble), announced that whosoever shed his blood with him would be his brother, be he never so vile that day would gentle his condition (and this was not just Shakespeare's imagination, for in a later crackdown on the unlawful use of arms the law specifically excused from the necessity of documentary proof those who fought with the king at Agincourt). Fit nobilis, nascitur generosus ~ unless your prince is King of England and a battle might be lost.
So ~ John Shakespeare was a gentleman of coat armour. William was born a gentleman and, as a gentleman, belonged to the lowest rank of the English nobility (classified as nobiles minores). The books you quote are of little value in these matters. It is necessary to return to original sources.
A contemporary of Shakespeare, Camden, who was Clarenceux King of Arms when he died in 1623, always used "noble" for the recipient in the letters patent he granted. Moreover, and I stress that he was of Shakespeare's time, in his "Britannia" (dedicated to William Cecil, the equivalent then of a twentieth century Prime Minister) he wrote -
"nobiles minores sunt equites aurati, armigeri et qui vulgo generosi, et gentle men vocantur"
which I think I can fairly translate as
"the lesser nobility are knights, esquires and those commonly called generosi or gentlemen."
In conclusion, I quote from an English herald of the 18th century, Joseph Edmondson, who deplored the widespread use in England of "noble" for "peer" (a practice owed, according to Sir James Lawrence, to the realisation by so many newly-created peers that they were not gentlemen). After listing ancient authorities on the superiority of gentlemen over noblemen, he continues ~
"More might be adduced to elucidate the subject ; what hath been already offered sufficiently shews that Adel, Edel, Nobilis and Gentlemen, have one and the same signification ; that the title of gentleman was very anciently in high esteem ; and that the rank and degree of the Ordo Equestris of the Sacred Roman Empire, die freye vom Adel, die freye Adeliche Reichs Ritterscheft, the free Gentlemen of the Empire, or however the persons composing that body may be therwise styled, is truly honourable, respectable and noble." (A Complete Body of Heraldry, London, 1780)
A Gentleman is a nobleman. That is the law. Arms are the ensigns of nobility. That is the law. Harrison is a sloppy writer and Thomson merely follows the common usage of his readers. <<
But that was not the end. There was yet another appeal based on modern writings against the contemporary works. It brought one final response ~
>> William Camden, scholar, antiquary and historian, Headmaster of Westminster School (which means and meant much), appointed as Clarenceux King of Arms to clean up the reputation earned by Tudor heralds in the College of Arms, was born 13 years before William Shakespeare and died seven years after him. He was thus a London-based contemporary. As Clarenceux he was an authority in the matters we have been discussing, one that ranked immediately after the Monarch, the Earl Marshal, and Garter King of Arms. His dicta on rank and precedence would then have a similar weight to, for example, the official statements of Madeleine Albright on American foreign policy today.
In the first edition of "Britannia" (1586) he wrote (as I quoted earlier):
"nobiles minores sunt equites aurati, armigeri et qui vulgo generosi, et gentle men vocantur"
....... and that was still so in the sixth and last edition published in 1607. (And you hold that the English disagreed with him throughout those 21 years and six editions? !!!!!)
His definition is explicit and unambiguous, upholds the ancient laws, and supports what I have argued to be the understanding of gentility and nobility in Shakespeare's day. <<
....... which continued with a postscript ~
>> The quotations you gave were manifestly mistaken in their content and comprehension, and the Oxford Universal Dictionary you now introduce owes the definition you quote to Samuel Johnson (who died in 1784). He was the first lexicographer to define a gentleman as not noble but, as Boswell clearly demonstrated, he was no authority on such subjects as nobility and gentility. Neither are those lexicographers who blindly follow him.
I suggested earlier the advantages of original sources in studying Shakespeare's time. I commend to you two books from the Tudor years: "The Boke of Noblenes" ("translated out of Laten into Frenche and now in Englisshe by me John Larke"); and "The Boke of St Albans" by Juliana Berners, sister of Richard, Lord Berners (which specifically defines nobilitas minores as "knights, esquires and gentlemen" - there being no baronets then, and knights banneret having gone out of fashion).
As in your "lifetime of studying Shakespeare" you will most certainly have studied Camden's "Britannia" and formed your doubtless 20th-century opinion of his merit, I wonder how close that opinion is to Edmund Spenser's:
Camden the nourice of Antiquitie,
And lanterne unto late succeeding Age
To see the light of simple veritie,
Buried in ruines, through the great outrage
Of her own people, led with warlike rage.
Camden, though Time all Monuments obscure,
Yet thy just labours ever shall endure.
Or do you yet persist in your belief that 20th-century writers and students of Shakespeare know more of Tudor life than the most educated of his contemporaries? <<
We thought this correspondence worth quoting extensively for two reasons. The first, obviously, is that the change of meanings of words down the centuries is often unrecognised, and that when changed meanings are not identified there is confusion. Here the confusion caused the correspondent to believe that Shakespeare applied the twentieth-century understanding of nobility to his own time. The second is that Shakespeare's position in society is misunderstood by many of his readers and has helped to foster much of the doubt sometimes expressed about the true authorship of his plays.
THE ANCESTRY OF ROBERT THE BRUCE
The more intriguing descent of King Robert I, the Bruce, that from Normandy and Flanders, will be published in two parts in the next issue of the magazine. In the current issue we have just published the descent from the ancient Princes of Galloway and the Earls of Carrick.
This first article of a series briefly explains the origins of heraldic badges and describes the Scottish clan "crest-badges".
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
Newspapers have reported, under the headline of BADGE OF BASTARDY, the opinion of "a distinguished constitutional lawyer called Edward Iwi" that if the Duke of York was to bear the surname of Windsor, "his mother's maiden name", he would appear to be illegitimate. Prince Andrew would be, according to this eccentric commentator, "the first legitimate child to be so born".
The Prime Minister at the time, Harold Macmillan, had responded correctly that members of the Royal Family had no surnames, but apparently the "distinguished constitutional lawyer" was unable to understand that a family name, such as Windsor, or indeed such as Plantagenet, is not necessarily used as a surname. (A few of our readers may remember Katherine Hepburn, his queen, risibly addressing Richard Lionheart as "Dickie Plantagenet". Richard I was certainly of the House of Plantagenet, but he was Richard Coeur de Lion; the use of Plantagenet as an hereditary surname began long afterwards.)
Amid the confusion a turbulent priest announced from the pulpit of his cathedral that "he did not like the thought of any legitimate child being deprived of his father's family name, 'a right and privilege', he said, possessed by every other legitimate child." (The Plantagenets showed less restraint in such matters than did the Prime Minister.) If that bishop had looked around the benches of the House of Lords, he would have seen many who bore a maternal ancestor's surname, perhaps because they had inherited a title through the female line, or because of a "name and arms" clause in some testament, or because they were now, through a female descent, chief of a clan. The 28th Hereditary Lord High Constable of Scotland today is one such, and any distinguished constitutional lawyers questioning in his presence his legitimacy (and thus his right to his inheritance) would, we trust, be granted the same hospitality his forebears would have accorded them.
But what nonsense such people write! If Prince Andrew, as was suggested, had been given the name of Mountbatten instead of Windsor, he would have borne the maiden name of Prince Philip's mother, not that of his father, Prince Andrew of Greece, who did not have a surname. So did Prince Philip also carry the "badge of bastardy"?!!! (And the paternal grandfather of Prince Andrew of Greece was King Christian IX of Denmark, of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck-Glucksburg.)
THE VIEW FROM MAASTRICHT
As William Forbes writes again from Maastricht, this time on the perceived absurdity of the nation states of Western Europe sharing a common defence and foreign policy, we become involved directly in a Balkan war. What will this mean to the British servicemen who have to fight there, knowing that the British Government has closed all our military hospitals, and that two months ago the Health Ministers acknowledged that Britain's civilian hospitals were so full they could not even cope with an influenza epidemic?
SARA DONATI AND ROSINA LIPPI
Bookpost last year commended INTO THE WILDERNESS, Sara Donati's scintillating novel of the birth of modern America, and we are delighted to confirm that its sequel is planned for publication this year.
But this note is to congratulate her for the award of the PEN/Hemingway Prize to her alter ego, Rosina Lippi, for HOMESTEAD.
No press release could do this book justice but, for what it's worth, here is the official news ~
>> "A heartbreakingly beautiful piece of work," Dorothy Allison said of HOMESTEAD.
The New Yorker wrote, "By the time you finish the first of these linked stories, you can hardly bear to have it end." Tracing the lives of three clans in the remote village of Rosenau, high in the Austrian Alps, over a span of seven decades, HOMESTEAD is a story that gathers force and complexity as Lippi unfolds the grand passions that animate the human heart.
The paperback will be available in April From Mariner/Houghton Mifflin. <<
Accusations that the heroine of William Dennenberg's book ROYAL FLUSH is freely based on "Princess Di" have been denied in the interview we shall publish in the April issue of the Baronage magazine. Until then readers are invited to judge for themselves.
SCAMS - THE LAIRDS OF OVERSCAIG
Following our exposure of Halbert's dishonest marketing, one of our readers has sent us the text of an advertisement currently on the Web.
Hi. My name is Ted Lancaster. I live in the heart of the English Midlands and I am the very proud owner of a tiny piece of the Sutherland Highlands in Bonnie Scotland.
I have a beautiful framed certificate to prove my title which confers upon me the right to call myself Laird of Overscaig.
The wee sum that I paid for this little plot is helping to preserve and conserve one of the world's most outstanding areas of natural beauty - The Sutherland Highlands.
There are many of us Lairds. Many of us are concerned that this most beautiful area should be protected and conserved. We are thrilled to be known as Lairds of Overscaig. We would like to welcome many more Lairds to our number from all parts of the world.
Please join us. Become a Laird of Overscaig and help to conserve Bonnie Scotland.
Each tiny plot is just one square foot. The cost of this priceless little treasure is just £12:00. The equivalent of U.S.A.$20:00.
For this tiny sum you can become Laird of Overscaig.
This title will be conferred and demonstrated with a beautiful Certificate of Ownership.
You will be owner of a tiny piece of the Scottish Highlands, one of the most outstandingly beautiful places on earth.
As a Laird you will also have the opportunity to introduce more Lairds, for which you will receive a commission.
Most importantly of all, you can be justly proud that you are helping to protect, preserve and conserve for all future generations, Scotland's finest - The Sutherland Highlands.
To become a Laird of Overscaig simply click on the link below -
YES, I want to become a Scottish Laird
Obviously, there is no need to inform readers of this newsletter that a claim to the title of Laird based on a piece of paper recording the ownership of one square foot of Scotland is utter nonsense. That is not why we reproduce the text here. Rather, it is the extraordinary shamelessness of the invitation to earn commissions by the recruitment of other victims that justifies its exposure on the Internet's equivalent of the mercat cross.
LOOKING AROUND: The Burlington Arcade
The magazine features occasional articles on shopping areas of genuine historical interest to ancestor-hunting tourists in the British Isles. One such is the famous Burlington Arcade, of which we have featured a description for several months. This has recently been updated with details of the new attractions there.
HEIRLOOM & HOWARD
A few of those who respond to our invitation to read the Heirloom & Howard catalogues forget to add their postal address, thinking perhaps that these are online catalogues. They are, of course, printed catalogues with illustrations of armorial porcelain and heraldic antiques printed in full colour in the traditional way.
In addition to their stock of porcelain and antiques, identified and connected to the families that once owned these rare items, Heirloom & Howard have a fine collection of prints featuring old houses and castles and the ancestors (your ancestors ?) who once lived in them. Enquiries are welcomed.
We continue to receive a large number of letters beginning - "Please send me a picture of my coat of arms." These show the widespread influence of the bucketshop heralds who have seemingly persuaded thousands of punters that coats of arms belong to family names.
Pegasus will supply pictures of arms that we are willing to certify as having been borne by named individuals (and those individuals are named on the picture), but Pegasus Armorie is not in the fraudulent business of supplying "arms for names" with the implication that the arms supplied may be lawfully used by the buyer as his or her own.
However, there is undoubtedly a market demand for armorial display. The colours and shapes of heraldry have been so long in our history that they are sunk deeply into our subconscious minds. We respond accordingly to their beauty.
And so Pegasus has begun to produce a series of illustrations that will be suitable for framing and hanging on the walls of bedrooms, halls, studies, libraries, etc. Initially these will be appropriate for Scottish names, and in each case they will feature the badge of the clansmen of that name surrounded by the arms of the families whose daughters have been the ancestors of the present chief of the name. An example will be uploaded with the April issue of the magazine.
Additionally, Pegasus Armorie is to work with the Baronage Press to establish an online Register of Scottish Clans. Members of Clans who request that their name be recorded and pay the artists' fees will receive a high-resolution printed certificate embossed with the seal of The British Baronage. An example of one of these has been uploaded (but it is a large picture and may need a minute to download). It illustrates the crest-badge of Clan Stewart set against the scenery near the old Stewart Castle of Gloume. The cloth inside the strap-and-buckle and behind the crest is an old Stewart tartan. (The picture downloaded will be, of course, at low resolution, and unsuitable for printing.)
OUR SPONSORS AND ADVERTISERS
The Baronage Press magazine and this newsletter rely on the support of our Sponsors and Advertisers to fund research and editorial operations. We rely also on our readers in their turn to support our Sponsors and Advertisers on all occasions it is possible to do so.
In brief, support for our Sponsors and Advertisers supports the services we supply to our readers free of charge.
And if you enjoy your visits to the Baronage website, do please tell your friends and colleagues, or forward this newsletter to them.
If you did not receive this free newsletter directly as e-mail, then you may subscribe to future issues by sending an e-mail message to:
The message title is of no importance.
The first line of the message text must be: "subscribe feudalherald" (without the quotation marks) followed with your first and last names. For example, if your name is John Smith, your message would read:
subscribe feudalherald John Smith
(Note the use of lower case.) Nothing else should be included in the message text.
To cancel a subscription, send an e-mail to:
The message title is of no importance.
The text of the message must be exactly:
"signoff feudalherald" (without the quotation marks) followed with your first and last names.
Messages to firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com are read only by a computer. Any text other than that given here will be ignored.
Please copy this subscription information and pass it to any friend or colleague you believe might wish to have a free subscription to The Feudal Herald.
We have learned that some of the later browsers do not send text entered into the response space provided on the web pages. From these browsers we receive only the header. Browsers that do not provide a letter form when the "submit" button is clicked usually do send the text exactly as it has been entered. If, however, your browser pops up its own letter form you should copy and paste your text into the space provided on the browser's own form. A subject heading is not essential, so if you are pressed for one you may just click again on "send" and the browser will insert a "No Subject" heading.