58
of which is maintained by the Lord Lyon) or he has a Scottish connection. By contrast, see Lyon Innes' discussion of the acceptance of "honorary arms" of foreigners, at least to the extent that they are armes de petite noblesse. The discussion in the cases referred to in the footnote to this passage (footnote 2 at page 92) is apparently confined to foreign– domiciled applicants but who are capable of demonstrating they enjoy equivalent foreign tokens of rank. Otherwise, his discussion of foreign applicants presupposes they can show some Scottish connection, viz,
"Where the petitioner is a foreigner, eg an American citizen, or domiciled in another jurisdiction, and might have difficulty getting a Scottish grant of arms, he may indeed, if he cannot prove his pedigree back to some Scottish ancestry, word his petition to the Lord Lyon so as to obtain from his Lordship a grant of arms to that ancestor and his descendants." (Emphasis by underlining added.)
It may be that paragraph 5 of the Agreement was directed to addressing that jurisdictional issue. (I express no view on the vires of paragraph 5 or whether, as appears to be assumed, a want of jurisdiction –if that be the case– can be cured by the exercise of the Lord Lyon's discretion.) But the tenor of Lyon Innes' discussion in Scots Heraldry would be inimical to support for a secondary market of barony titles simply on the basis that persons with no Scottish domicile or no Scottish connection had the money and inclination to obtain one. Further, while no submissions were made as to how the requirement that the applicant be a "virtuous and well deserving person" was met, the de facto promotion of a secondary market in barony titles would appear to be out of step with the passage from Lyon Sellar's in Scots Heraldry at p 85 (quoted at para [14], above) that, in short, barony titles are conferred on
