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.https://www.armorial-register.com/heraldic-artist-grujic.htm
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: https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/www.armorial-register.com
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.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE A FRAUD VICTIM
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!”
The deeper questions for Martin Goldstraw
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 http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006c/HSS-AGM.pdf).
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
“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
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 http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006d/halibut-1.pdf. Enjoy it. Others
Interesting yes? Well?
www. notice no url .com