From 10-25-2012
Kathy McClurg;104289 wrote:
Remember always that heraldry is not meant to be a one-off per person event. It is the establishment of a family tradition which hopefully will pass through generations.
Archives are a mixed blessing—like a spouse who never forgets anything one has ever said or done
Joseph McMillan;104274 wrote:
Inheritance is actually an inaccurate term in any case, although we use it all the time. Because strictly speaking something can only be inherited when the current owner dies, while arms are owned by multiple generations simultaneously.
I had understood arms specifically as only belonging (as a possession) to the oldest living senior of the line and born by all living descendants only "by courtesy" until actually "inherited." Is this not accurate in most regions where heraldry was used?
Supporting this idea, for example, is that only the actual armiger is typically allowed to use the seal of his arms (which passes on death, correct me if I’m wrong). I suppose there would be plenty of exceptions where co-existing descendants DID own their own seals, but I’m just thinking in general terms here (armigers without seals withstanding).
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;104292 wrote:
I had understood arms specifically as only belonging (as a possession) to the oldest living senior of the line and born by all living descendants only "by courtesy" until actually "inherited." Is this not accurate in most regions where heraldry was used?
Supporting this idea, for example, is that only the actual armiger is typically allowed to use the seal of his arms (which passes on death, correct me if I’m wrong). I suppose there would be plenty of exceptions where co-existing descendants DID own their own seals, but I’m just thinking in general terms here (armigers without seals withstanding).
Your understanding is correct with regard to the original usage of heraldic arms, but this has no longer been the way arms have been used for a very long time now. In at least one heraldic jurisdiction, Scotland, only the chief of the name and arms can use the pure undifferenced arms, not even by courtesy of the chief. Elsewhere every descendant may in his or her own right - not as a courtesy.
I think it is safe to say that this thread has strayed away from the original topic. And as such, no one is presenting anything systematic.
mghofer;104314 wrote:
I think it is safe to say that this thread has strayed away from the original topic. And as such, no one is presenting anything systematic.
Here’s a systematic possibility: when using the term "heraldry" by itself we can almost invariably assume reference to originally European "hereditary" types.
When speaking of the sigils and totems of Japanese, Native-American or any other non-European forms which arose separately, we could at the very least prefix the word "heraldry" with the region/culture’s name for clarity (ie. Japanese heraldry).
We can of course agree to disagree as to whether or not such forms of sigilism merit the term heraldry at all.
In the context of this forum, Jeff’s suggestion works for me.
(FWIW the Encyclopedia Britannica [15th Edn, 1991] does this with Japanese heraldry, which they see as real heraldry; but not with other non-European traditions, which they call semi-heraldic. We can all agree they have it half right, even if we can’t agree on which half
Michael F. McCartney;104316 wrote:
In the context of this forum, Jeff’s suggestion works for me.
(FWIW the Encyclopedia Britannica [15th Edn, 1991] does this with Japanese heraldry, which they see as real heraldry; but not with other non-European traditions, which they call semi-heraldic. We can all agree they have it half right, even if we can’t agree on which half
I would agree that the Japanese Mon are a "semi-heraldic" system.
I do not know of any other non-European system I would identify as even semi-heraldic, much less true heraldry.
Stating this clearly takes nothing away from these other non-heraldic systems of group identification - they are simply different traditions from ours.