35
Correspondence anent the Disputed Wording
[62] Mr Lindsay noted the correspondence anent the introduction of Disputed Wording. By letter dated 23 October 2017 addressed to Dr Michael Yellowlees of Lindsays Solicitors, the defender advised that he had reconsidered the wording relating to feudal baronies contained in Letters Patent. He further advised that he had decided that from 1 January 2018:
- (i) any application based on the ownership of a barony will no longer make any reference to the Deed of Assignation transferring the barony; and
- (ii) the Letters Patent will simply state the petitioner "being within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon, King of Arms–he assigns Armorial Bearings".
The effect of the Disputed Wording, which is to omit the assignation clause, will mean that there is no longer any express statement in the Letters Patent that the Lord Lyon officially recognises the petitioner as baron of the barony in question. This is, Mr Lindsay submitted, a breach of the obligation to do so which is imposed by paragraph 4(i) of the Agreement. The Letters Patent are the only document in which such official recognition can be given by the defender. As the defender has failed to aver any relevant defence to the Disputed Wording being a breach of the obligations imposed upon him by paragraph 4(i) of the Agreement, the The Disputed Wording breaches Menking.
[63] In his note of argument, Mr Lindsay had argued that the Disputed Wording was contrary to the terms of his judicial decision in Menking, in which the defender set out how his jurisdiction to make a grant of arms would be mentioned in Letters Patent. (The import of Menking is summarised above, at paras [26] and [27].) The pursuer relied in particular on the proposed wording of recognition thereby introduced, namely, "By Deed of Assignation
