Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

sandmountainslim

Compatriots,
The College of Arms located in London England is in possession of the
personal
effects of James IV, King of Scots and my maternal ancestor, these items which include a sword, turquoise ring and
dagger were removed from his body after his death
at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513, whereas the English in years
following the
battle abused, disrespected and eventually lost the corpse of the
Scottish King, it
is only fitting that the personal effects taken from the body be
returned to
Scotland where they belong. Please consider joining me in requesting
that the above mentioned items be removed from the College of Arms and
returned to Scotland, these items have been "War Trophies" for far too
long,
the contact link for the College of Arms is below. Thank You
Deo Vindice
WP

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Enquiries.htm

_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

sandmountainslim · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:33 am Post subject:

Compatriots,
I wanted to share with you the response that I as well as my associates Dr Christopher Cummins of ScotWatch and Paul Greene of Scottish Resistance recieved from the College of Arms on this issue, Very typical English arrogance and in my opinion distortion of facts.
Deo Vindice
WP

> Dear Messrs Potter and Greene, and Dr Cummins,
> >
> > Thank you for your respective messages to the
> > College of Arms, which
> > have come to me as officer in waiting on duty to
> > receive public
> > enquiries at the time of their arrival. I see that
> > at least two of you
> > have discussed your approach to us on the Scottish
> > Resistance website.
> >
> > Your request is an interesting one, but I do not
> > think we can accede
> > to it. In fact, for reasons set out below, I
> > personally think it would
> > be entirely wrong for us to accede to it.
> >
> > As an initial point I must state that it is by no
> > means certain that
> > the items that we hold really were the possessions
> > of James IV, the
> > King of Scots slain at Flodden; historians of
> > weaponry are very
> > doubtful that they really date back that far, and
> > they may have very
> > little historical value. The Scottish people would
> > have probably
> > little reason to be grateful if we were to offload
> > this cache of
> > dubious material on them.
> >
> > However, let us assume for the sake of argument that
> > they are genuine.
> > I am firmly of the belief that there can be no legal
> > basis for a claim
> > to restitution of these artefacts. Even the precepts
> > of international
> > law relating to the restitution of illegally
> > exported cultural
> > property and war booty (the application of which in
> > the case of
> > England and Scotland, legally one and the same
> > country) place a limit
> > on the extent to which they can be backdated,
> > reflecting the fact that
> > customs and expectations change over time. At the
> > time of Flodden
> > there was no legal or moral prohibition against the
> > taking of items
> > from a defeated enemy, and I am sure that when
> > victorious the Scots
> > took plenty of baubles from defeated Englishmen. The
> > English do not
> > call for these back now - and would not even if we
> > were two separate
> > countries.
> >
> > Furthermore, under present rules restitution of
> > illegal exports and
> > war booty is made to the present-day heirs of the
> > original legal owner
> > of the property. The present day heir of James IV is
> > not the 'Scottish
> > people' but Queen Elizabeth II. Consider what would
> > have happened if
> > these items had been returned to the keeping of the
> > dead king's heir
> > and successor. They would now - unless lost, sold or
> > given away in the
> > intervening centuries - be part of the Royal
> > collections and as such
> > in the ownership of Her Majesty the Queen. So, even
> > if the items said
> > to have belonged to James IV were illegal war booty,
> > restitution would
> > properly be made to the Queen. Since the College of
> > Arms is part of
> > the Royal Household it is not clear how much
> > practical effect this
> > would have.
> >
> > Finally, even if you regard questions of legal
> > ownership as
> > irrelevant, the criterion on which restitution must
> > proceed is one of
> > historical appropriateness - that of restoring an
> > object to its proper
> > historical context. From a historical and
> > archaeological point of view
> > it is highly doubtful that the correct historical
> > context for these
> > items (even if genuine) is now Scotland. They were
> > worn by the King of
> > Scots in one of the most famous battles in the
> > history of the wars
> > between England and Scotland. He was famously
> > defeated and killed by
> > the Duke of Norfolk, who then - in accordance with
> > the accepted
> > customs of the era - removed these items from the
> > body of his foe and
> > took them back to England (where, in 1681, they were
> > given into the
> > guardianship of the College of Arms, a body under
> > the direct
> > supervision of successive Dukes of Norfolk as Earls
> > Marshal). The
> > removal of the objects to England, in other words,
> > was part and parcel
> > of their history, specifically part and parcel of
> > their historical use
> > at the battle of Flodden. Sending them back to
> > Scotland would in fact
> > be ripping them out of their correct historical
> > context, just as
> > surely as if someone were to seize the Crown Jewels
> > and take them to
> > America - though admittedly rather less significant.
> >
> > For these reasons I strongly believe that we will
> > not, and indeed
> > should not, accede to your request. As stated at the
> > outset, however,
> > I do not think the Scots are really missing out on
> > very much - the
> > artefacts were probably not those of the king.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Clive Cheesman
> > Rouge Dragon Pursuivant
> > College of Arms
> > Queen Victoria Street
> > London
> > EC4V 4BT
_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

SLG · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:17 pm Post subject:

What can you say to that response? If he is so sure that they are not the effects of James IV, then he shouldn't have any problems passing them on to those for whom they will have symbolic value whether real or not.

His argument regarding their historical context being that of legitimate 'war booty' is also flawed. To use his example of the Crown Jewels being stolen and taken to America, surely that would then become part of their 'historical context' and would legitimately be kept in the US. There were a couple of recent cases where Scottish museums returned an artifact to native Americans and another to (I think) Australian aboriginals. In the times these artifacts were taken, it was deemed legitimate by those westerners that took them. Have we not learnt a bit more respect since then?

sandmountainslim · Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:33 am Post subject:

Could I ask you Compatriots to consider signing my petition for the return of the goods? I would appreciate.
Deo Vindice
WP

http://www.petitiononline.com/6232222/petition.html
_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

Abieuan · Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject:

I tried to sign, sandmountain' but was unable:

http version unsupported

sandmountainslim · Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:19 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:25 am Post subject:

I think you misunderstand Mr. Cheesman's rather tongue-in-cheek response.
He is saying to you that if the property in question is the former property of King James of Scotland, who exactly are you to demand the return of someone else's property? Unless you happen to be a rightful owner of the property of the late King James you are simply being an annoying pest. He is also saying to you that the materials you point to were recovered on the field of battle by a private person, albeit a member of the English aristocracy. Whatever those materials might be or might have been, where exactly is the evidence they ever belonged to King James? Finally he is saying to you that the problem faced by many people who have far better and more recent claims to the return of property unlawfully taken (think of Jewish refugees who can get up and say they saw that painting hanging in their father's living room) face almost insurmountable problems proving identity of ownership. And I guess he is also hinting, but he really doesn't come right out and say it,
when you screw around with the bull you get the horn, an aphorism pretty much as true today as it was back then. So if you got your behind kicked and your pockets picked, that's just the way things often happen when someone is trying his level best to kill you.
In sum, Scots are generally regarded around the world as an educated and fairly intelligent people; lets not go around trying to upset that perception shall we?
RFM

wisnaeme · Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:13 am Post subject:

Erm.Actually,there are laws in statute pertaining to that situation and possession is not 9/10ths of the law.If ownership of said property can be proven beyond doubt then a person or persons in illegal possession of said stolen property or their heirs can be charge with resetting.I believe that there is no duration of time limit imposed on the charge of resetting,theft is theft.The difficulty is in proving that you have rightful ownership and the cost of recovery through the court system can be very prohibitive indeed.Delaying tatics by the defendent's legal representatives can take years and probably would.

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:48 am Post subject:

You all appear to be ignoring the fact that they would be in the possession of the Crown anyway and if they weren't taken into the care of the College of Arms would probably have been sold off by now.

Abieuan · Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:28 am Post subject:

To Mr. Wisname;
Like it or not the law presumes ownership of goods in the possessor. If you think about it a moment, how could it be otherwise? Are you prepared to prove that you are the owner of , let us say a ring you have on your hand or the shirt on your back? And who should have the right to challenge your possession except one who claims to in fact be the rightful owner? Having made the claim of right to ownership and possession against the one who now possesses, the burden of proof clearly must be on the challenger. Who is now prepared to come forward and say as against the rest of the world they are entitled to King Jame's property? Some wild-eyed petitioners?
To Mr. Aventian:
Note that Mr. Cheesman is saying that the Crown of England presently holds possession of this property through the donation of another person. While you are absolutely right that theft, for instance, never confers ownership no matter how often the property is transferred,, it still remains only the right of the true owner to make claim to it. No person can rightfully say they are entitled to take your property because you did not rightfully acquire it yourself. Which presents the obvious and perhaps unpalatable fact that Scotland is still a part of the British Empire, devolution of some power to the Scots people not withstanding. Should Mr. Cheesman really consider a demand to return some property that may or may not have belonged to King James from one place in the English realm to another place, albeit somewhat further north? I don't think so. It would be wonderful if Scotland was its own sovereign country, but unless I have overlooked something that just ain't so.
RFM

Aventinian · Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: