The Armorial Register: Buyer Beware!

Sometimes transactions go south because there are bad actors involved who are trying to scam people, e.g. when you register your Coat of Arms in Martin Goldstraw’s so-called “Armorial Register”. Martin highly recommends a certain mr Ljubodrag from Serbia.

We are indeed fortunate to have the outstanding heraldic artist Ljubodrag (LG if you have trouble pronouncing it) as one of our recommended artists. Using primarily modern electronic vector techniques to create his artwork, he pays special attention to producing high quality works that do not fall behind more traditional heraldic techniques.

What Martin does not mention is that this individual is financially unreliable, to say the least. Here is what Trustpilot says:

I registered my armorial bearings with the AR i think back in 2014/15 generally (…) some of the artists they employ and highlight on their site can be rather eccentric. Ljubodrag Grujic a serbian artist can be rather unreliable, just be sure you don’t part with any money for a commission unless he agrees to a legal agreement to fulfil the commission otherwise like myself you may find yourself out of pocket.

Laird Sky:

Martin’s attraction to such swindlers is not easy to explain, a psychologist reported to DB. It is an elusive and mysterious phenomenon from a strictly scientific point of view. If you read the literature, it is very meagre on the psychology of the con artist.

Illegal use of royal crown

The Armorial Register’s diploma’s feature the Royal coronet, in order to give the impression that the Armorial Register has a Royal Warrant. Everyone who falsely represents that goods are made by a person holding a Royal Warrant, or for the service of His Majesty, a member of the Royal Family or a public department is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. This includes Goldstraw. He is definitely not Royal Warrant Holder, but falsely gives the impression that he is.

Fraud victims should take these six steps:

  • Gather all information pertaining to the fraud.
  • Report the incident to local police.
  • Report the incident on their website.
  • Report the incident to the financial institution where the money was sent.
  • If the fraud took place on social media, a classified ad website or a dating website, report the incident directly to the social media site or website.
  • Identity fraud victims should place flags on all their accounts and report to both credit bureaus.

One thought on “The Armorial Register: Buyer Beware!

  1. The deeper questions for Martin Goldstraw

    Hi Martin,

    You haven’t answered some ‘days old’ simple questions, so I found these
    to be an appropirate follow-up:

    On the strength of what I’ve learned of the Baronage operation and on
    what I’ve learned by reading the comments of others, and finding that
    after a long period of your posts popping up almost everyday my
    questions to you remain unanswered, probably unanswerable, I am
    prompted to ask you some deeper questions about your anti-Baronage
    motivation. Whether your deplorable conduct deserves condemnation we
    can all judge after reading your answers to these nine questions.

    1. What exactly is your business relationship with Brian Hamilton?

    2. How much did you pay to Brian Hamilton for the now meaningless
    superiority on which you base the addition to your name?

    3. How much of your meretricious attack on the Baronage website is
    motivated by the Baronage PDF file which explains why French feudal
    titles tied to lands are being transferred in France via French
    notaries and with the help of French lawyers (despite the opposition of
    Internet commentators who insist it is not really happening because
    they say it can’t happen)? The fact that these transfers occur implies
    to all who read of them that to the now landless Scottish feudal titles
    there may be alternatives in France that are still tied to land — is
    this the reason for your attacks?

    4. Why did you and Brian Hamilton attack Eleanor as the “mouthpiece” of
    the Baronage editor? Were you, despite your obvious intellectual
    limitations in this area, dimly aware that the eloquence and elegance
    of the way she writes when she is not angry made your prose look
    inferior, and is that why you assumed that she, being a woman, must
    have a ghost writer?

    5. What motivated the artificial and totally unwarranted attack on the
    Baronage editor made in your PDF file? It certainly wasn’t, as you
    pretended, any criticism of your Armorial Register, for the only
    comment about that on the Baronage pages I’ve seen was that its start
    had been controversial. That was hardly a dishonest criticism — look
    at the relevant threads here! And then, when you’ve done that, look at
    the censure motion describing the harm you have done to the reputation
    of the HSS (now online at
    While you are doing that, note how your dishonesty about the charitable
    donations is nailed, and note also that everyone who reads that censure
    motion will recognise that everything else you wrote then is just a
    smear based on a lie, just as your charges about the Baronage website
    selling titles is a smear based on a lie.

    6. Back in May you gave Eleanor Murray a hostile reception when she
    posted a note of an editorial discussion in which a hypothetical
    situation had been advanced as a basis for a possible article. She
    wrote —

    “The Lord Lyon makes a statement. He says that his office is so ancient
    it can be claimed to be as old as heraldry itself. He says that
    although his ancient powers were handed down orally, he has had
    statutory authority since at least the 16th century. He says that is a
    long time for an office to build its history, and that the last sixty
    years are a very small part of it. He then says that baronial
    additaments appear to belong only to this very small part, the last
    sixty years, and that he has been unable to find any consistent
    tradition of their use prior to the writings of his predecessor Sir
    Thomas Innes of Learney. He says he has examined scores of bookplates
    printed for known feudal barons in the 18th and 19th centuries and
    found no capes. He says it is the same with armorial porcelain. He says
    the chapeau does appear from time to time, but its use seems haphazard.
    Accordingly, he says, he finds that the award of baronial additaments
    by his recent predecessors, although obviously lawful, is not part of
    the centuries old tradition of Scottish heraldry and was seemingly
    invented by Sir Thomas. Accordingly, he says, he intends to revert to
    true tradition and not to award the chapeau and cape automatically to
    anyone merely on the ground of the inheritance or purchase of the
    dignity of a feudal baron. The editor then suggested that a reply to
    this hypothetical statement should make an interesting article, but in
    the discussion that followed no one could produce a credible line for
    the article to take, and as no one has volunteered since to write the
    article the idea has been allowed to die.”

    Isn’t it true that the decision published by the Lord Lyon only a
    couple of days later showed this “hypothetical situation” to be an
    absolutely accurate prediction of his views, an indication that the
    Baronage analyses can be trusted — and thus an extra reason why the
    Baronage website and its editor must be attacked and their reputation

    7. Was it because you were so blinded by your determination to pull
    Baronage down that you chased after the will o’ the wisp Colonel Baron
    Za-Za (despite all the obvious clues that were provoking laughter among
    the HSS readers), certain he was an international fraudster, until Alex
    Maxwell Findlater blew his whistle and alerted you? How did you then
    have the nerve to claim that you had discovered the Colonel Baron to be
    fictitious? You didn’t discover anything, but why not? Were you so
    determined to damage the Baronage operation that you couldn’t see past
    the end of your nose?

    8. Your most recent post as I write these questions appears to welcome
    the fact that now you “can speak freely”. Were the constraints you thus
    imply you have suffered, the same constraints that prevented you, when
    charging the Baronage website with selling bogus titles, from admitting
    that the Baronage pages state clearly that Baronage does not sell
    titles, and that all the relevant Baronage pages carry the warning that
    no money for a title deal should be handed over before a lawyer has
    been retained?

    9. Why, in your mendacious campaign against an operation your business
    partner obviously considers a potential threat, did you not declare
    your business relationship with him and thus reveal you had a secret

    You have been trying to destroy the reputation of a company we all know
    has fought against the traffickers of bogus arms, histories and titles
    for twelve years. I and others think you’ve destroyed your own. I’ve
    today learned that your style of smear, smear, smear has provoked Wim
    Forbes into writing a Swiftian parody of your humbug which you can now
    find at Enjoy it. Others

    Interesting yes? Well?

    www. notice no url .com


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s