"Destination" of newly designed arms - how broad o

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
11 June 2015 20:11
 

I’d like to start two new threads on our AHS forum. These are topics that have generated some level of controversy lately, but buried in other threads and thus somewhat scattered and difficult to track down, especially for newbies or those like me with limited search skills (the computer dyslexic community )

The topic of this thread is the pro’s and con’s, in the American context, and especially in designing new arms; of the intended scope of coverage of a given new coat of arms.  Options include:

 

* arms whose "destination" (who they apply to) is limited to the first person to adopt them;

 

* or to that living person and his immediate family & descendants bearing the same surname;

 

* or including living parents, siblings & their descendants bearing the same surname;

 

* or to all descendants of some earlier deceased ancestor —i.e. one’s Nth cousins, bearing that ancestor’s surname.

**This option includes how far back that ancestor might be, or in other words the value of N.

 

These options are not IIRC discussed, or at least constrained, in our Guidelines (other than addressing inheritance by all within the destination bearing the same surname); but all are used by different folks or families in our membership and others in this country, and are important to consider and address in the design process to avoid chasing squirrels down blind alleys and later having to back up and start over if our intent changes.

 

And to me at least (of course others may differ) neither topic is an either - or question; each discussion should focus on pro’s and con’s of different options, not just trashing options with which we may disagree.  In other words, not just "that’s really dumb" but "I prefer / don’t favor because…"

 

While this topic is aimed at the American context, our foreign members are of course welcome to contribute, especially but not only as to how well various approaches have worked in their own traditions.

 

NOTE: this current thread is NOT the place to address the other topic just posted as a separate thread, re: cadency or differencing within a given family vs. sharing the same arms by all members of the family.  Each topic merits a separate thread.

 

I’ll stop now and hope others will contribute their views.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
12 June 2015 12:19
 

Here is a giant chunk of marble. Maybe something nice can be carved from it (assuming no huge cracks running through):

"* arms whose "destination" (who they apply to) is limited to the first person to adopt them;"

 

Pros:

1. Each individual is allowed to adopt their own personal arms that are relevant to them without the risk of either inheriting arms that may be objectively trite (in the heraldic sense) or inheriting arms that they simply dislike

2. This practice may be in keeping with purported American values emphasizing individuality rather than inheritance and family connections

3. This practice may actually have the unexpected effect in the US of increasing awareness of and interest in heraldry since so many would prefer to have something representing themselves rather than something representing an ancestor

4. This also might have the unexpected effect of one developing a greater interest in their ancestry as they might be curious to discover the arms borne by their ancestors

5. Daughters, stepchildren, adopted children and children born out of wedlock will find full inclusion under this practice

 

Cons:

1. This is contrary to heraldry practiced in Europe, the British Isles and the Commonwealth Nations as well as most of those already practicing it in the US—correctly or incorrectly; and its only precedent can be found in European proto heraldry that goes back to decorative shields carried though history by individuals of the Norman Duchy, the Caliphate, the Danes, the Merovingians and Carolingians and even the unit-affiliated shields seen in the Roman Notitia Dignitatum (the latter probably even German, Persian or Balkan-inspired additions in the 3rd and 4th Century).

2. This would take a major (perhaps impractical) overhaul in re-education on heraldry in the US and would face never-ending resistance from traditionalists

 

"* or to that living person and his immediate family & descendants bearing the same surname;"

 

Pros:

1. This is in keeping with the British (and most-understood) practice already in existence. It has the weight of precedence behind it. And the US, being former colonies of Britain, France and Spain, might find this to be the cultural “path of least resistance”.

2. This keeps the arms affiliated with the “destination’s” surname; theoretically giving the name a greater sense of identity, strength and perpetuity.

3. Arms are often puns on a surname; and to have the original arms represent a changed surname defeats the purpose of the canted armorial design

 

Cons:

1. When one applies 20th and 21th Century morality and political/social realities, this practice could be called sexist as it favors men (who typically do not change their surnames in marriage). It could lead to marital disputes about whose name the children will have; except for those adopting the Spanish practice of hyphenating their surnames. Even then, the child will end up perpetuating one name or the other with their children.

2. Being unregulated, this practice inevitably leads to the loss of control of the correct use of arms as it is unenforceable after the first generation. In the third generation, the American family tends to break apart and move all over the country in search of work. As there is no prime governing authority remaining in the family after the prime passes away (no "chieftain"), the reality is that successive generations will most-likely use the arms and bequeath them in any way that they see fit. Any directions or guidelines established by the armorial destination will probably (along with all other heirlooms and vital documents) end up in the care of a matriarchal distant cousin or perhaps with stepchild with whom other distant family members are not acquainted.

3. This de-emphasizes the theoretical truth that arms are borne by individuals and not by surnames.

4. Arms are always at risk of being altered by fickle descendants, thus defeating the purpose of keeping arms associated with a surname

 

"* or including living parents, siblings & their descendants bearing the same surname;"

 

Pros:

1. This helps ensure one’s arms (if they really like them) will remain in existence after passing away should the destination not produce heraldic heirs.

2. In the case of foreign grants of honorary arms, this option is available if the grantee’s father is not eligible to receive arms

3. This also carries all of the “pros” in the above scenario

 

Cons:

1. One’s living parents might prefer to design their own arms rather than have their offspring devise arms on their behalf.

2. This practice may result in siblings and parents wanting to be involved in the design process of the arms, which would produce a committee-developed design rife with compromises with which no one is entirely happy

3. Assumed arms will almost-certainly be altered by siblings, thus defeating the whole intent of the enterprise

4. This also carries all of the “cons” in the above scenario

 

*" or to all descendants of some earlier deceased ancestor—i.e. one’s Nth cousins, bearing that ancestor’s surname."

 

Pros

1. The arms are “older” and, hence, theoretically carry more weight and they command greater respect in the present.

2. The risk of the arms being altered by descendants is somewhat mitigated since they have been unaltered “for generations”

3. There is already a precedent for this in the Lord Lyon Court with grants to Scottish ancestors followed by matriculations.

4. Those with a relative domiciled in Scotland with a common ancestor of the same surname can have the relative petition for substantive arms granted to that ancestor and then have them matriculated—thus avoiding the adjective “honorary” from their foreign arms

6. This also carries all of the “pros” in the above scenario; except #2

 

Cons:

1. One might feel obliged to go through the trouble of tracking down and notifying all descendants of that common ancestor with the assumed arms and either: explain everything from the beginning and offer a full education at nauseam at the risk of being thought mad or (worse) be ignored; or lie and say that those truly were the arms of their ancestor.

2. This also carries all of the “cons” in the above scenario

 

"**This option includes how far back that ancestor might be, or in other words the value of N."

 

Pros

1. The older the arms are, the more weight they theoretically carry and the more respect they illicit

2. This also carries all of the “pros” in the above scenario

 

Cons:

1. In assuming arms east of the Mississippi and north of The Floridas, one can only go as far back as July 4, 1776. Anything before that should be the domain of the College of Arms (which doesn’t grant arms to deceased ancestors).

2. This also carries all of the “cons” in the above scenario

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 June 2015 14:08
 

Responding to Jeffry’s response seems the most effective way of moving the debate forward, even if the following may be a bit cumbersome with quotes within quotes. Nevertheless:

MMcC OPTION 1:

 

"* arms whose "destination" (who they apply to) is limited to the first person to adopt them;"


JJB;104415 wrote:

Pros:

1. Each individual is allowed to adopt their own personal arms that are relevant to them without the risk of either inheriting arms that may be objectively trite (in the heraldic sense) or inheriting arms that they simply dislike


This option is always available to anyone in any case; no one can force a person to use his/her father’s or grandfather’s arms, least of all in a country where heraldry is unregulated. I don’t think any change of existing usages is required for this to be possible.


Quote:

2. This practice may be in keeping with purported American values emphasizing individuality rather than inheritance and family connections

3. This practice may actually have the unexpected effect in the US of increasing awareness of and interest in heraldry since so many would prefer to have something representing themselves rather than something representing an ancestor

I know Jeffry is offering possible pros and cons, so my comment is a general one, not aimed at him: Oh good, just what we need, something that encourages our society to be even more all about "me."

Moreover, carried to its logical conclusion, by being repeated in every generation, heraldry loses the very thing that makes it distinctive, its hereditary nature, as Jeffry notes below.


Quote:

4. This also might have the unexpected effect of one developing a greater interest in their ancestry as they might be curious to discover the arms borne by their ancestors

Not seeing this; please explain? Mike’s description of this approach is that the arms are born and die with their first bearer, isn’t it?


Quote:

5. Daughters, stepchildren, adopted children and children born out of wedlock will find full inclusion under this practice

They’re already included, for the most part, in our existing AHS guidelines.


Quote:

Cons:

1. This is contrary to heraldry practiced in Europe, the British Isles and the Commonwealth Nations as well as most of those already practicing it in the US…. [etc]

Precisely. Limiting a coat of arms to the first adopter of the arms makes it un-heraldry.

MMcC OPTION 2:

 

"* or to that living person and his immediate family & descendants bearing the same surname;"


Quote:

Pros:

1. This is in keeping with the British (and most-understood) practice already in existence. It has the weight of precedence behind it. And the US, being former colonies of Britain, France and Spain, might find this to be the cultural “path of least resistance”.

Not just these, but heraldic practice generally, of whatever origin, except arguably Portuguese.


Quote:

2. This keeps the arms affiliated with the “destination’s” surname; theoretically giving the name a greater sense of identity, strength and perpetuity.

3. Arms are often puns on a surname; and to have the original arms represent a changed surname defeats the purpose of the canted armorial design

We have come to use "surname" as a surrogate for "male line," but arms often descended in the male line without respect to surname, even if they were originally canting. I find myself torn as to what is genuinely traditional; essentially and historically, one uses the arms of the lineage with which one most closely identifies. I need to think more about this, but on the whole I think the solution we struck on for the Guidelines is probably the most generally acceptable compromise.


Quote:

Cons:

1. When one applies 20th and 21th Century morality and political/social realities, this practice could be called sexist as it favors men (who typically do not change their surnames in marriage). It could lead to marital disputes about whose name the children will have; except for those adopting the Spanish practice of hyphenating their surnames. Even then, the child will end up perpetuating one name or the other with their children.

But heraldry won’t drive the social practice one way or the other. There are already many couples who hyphenate names, or give their children the name of the mother vs. the father. Moreover, this practice has deep heraldic roots in the practice of changes of names and arms to perpetuate what the couple concerned saw as the more important lineage. Most monarchs eventually sought to regulate this practice by requiring royal consent to anything other than the patrilineal descent of both names and arms, but there are many examples from the late medieval/early modern period in which people did this without official approval. For example, as I showed in the talk I gave at the AHS meeting last year, the well-known Custis family of Virginia was originally named Cliffe and continued to bear the arms of Cliffe even after adopting the surname of Custis, then subsequently shifted to a version of the arms of Parke while keeping the surname of Custis (or perhaps implicitly Parke Custis, since they gave all their children Parke as a middle name).

Again, I think this is adequately covered in the AHS Guidelines, which provide more flexibility than people sometimes realize on a quick reading.


Quote:

2. Being unregulated, this practice inevitably leads to the loss of control of the correct use of arms as it is unenforceable after the first generation. In the third generation, the American family tends to break apart and move all over the country in search of work. As there is no prime governing authority remaining in the family after the prime passes away (no "chieftain"), the reality is that successive generations will most-likely use the arms and bequeath them in any way that they see fit. Any directions or guidelines established by the armorial destination will probably (along with all other heirlooms and vital documents) end up in the care of a matriarchal distant cousin or perhaps with stepchild with whom other distant family members are not acquainted.

I don’t see this as a serious issue. It’s no different than the way we’ve used heraldry in this country for the last 350 years. Successive generations who care about genealogy and such things eventually rediscover the arms, and those who care about heraldry figure out how to use them correctly.


Quote:

3. This de-emphasizes the theoretical truth that arms are borne by individuals and not by surnames.

This is NOT the truth, not even theoretically, no matter what Arthur Fox-Davies and his ilk may have claimed. Arms belong to lineages, not to individuals and not to surnames. This is explicitly acknowledged in the Oxford Guide to Heraldry (one of the co-authors of which is the present Garter King of Arms). His predecessor as Garter actively deprecated the use of cadency marks in most cases. Even in Scots heraldry, where differencing for cadency is still enforced, the distinction between a grant and a matriculation reflects the legal principle that all descendants in the male line have an enforceable property right in the basic arms; Lyon has no discretion for refusing a matriculation to someone who can prove legitimate male-line descent, particularly if he bears the same surname as the original grantee or matriculant.


Quote:

4. Arms are always at risk of being altered by fickle descendants, thus defeating the purpose of keeping arms associated with a surname

Always a problem with any system of hereditary arms, but again if it’s not hereditary, it’s not heraldry. (Speaking in terms of systems, not one-off exceptions.)

MMcC OPTION 3:

 

"* or including living parents, siblings & their descendants bearing the same surname;"


Quote:

Cons:

1. One’s living parents might prefer to design their own arms rather than have their offspring devise arms on their behalf.

Absolutely. I find the idea of devising arms for living parents, other than with their participation/consent, rather bizarre.


Quote:

2. This practice may result in siblings and parents wanting to be involved in the design process of the arms, which would produce a committee-developed design rife with compromises with which no one is entirely happy

Perhaps, but it doesn’t have to. I designed arms for my father-in-law, with which he was delighted even though not involved in the process, as was my brother-in-law who inherits them. Anyway, even a collectively developed design guided by someone who knows about heraldry doesn’t have to be a disaster—provided said knowledgeable person doesn’t simply impose whatever he or she happens to like without taking into account the concerns of the rest of the family.


Quote:

3. Assumed arms will almost-certainly be altered by siblings, thus defeating the whole intent of the enterprise

"Almost certainly" seems an overstatement; in any case, this risk can be mitigated by consultation. And if they do alter them, then we’re back to differencing for cadency, which although not mandatory has always been available as a valid heraldic alternative, provided that the differencing is not so extreme as to destroy the visual identity of the arms.

MMcc OPTION 4

 

*" or to all descendants of some earlier deceased ancestor—i.e. one’s Nth cousins, bearing that ancestor’s surname."


Quote:

Pros

1. The arms are “older” and, hence, theoretically carry more weight and they command greater respect in the present.

Not really, and anyone who claims they are is being disingenuous, if not worse.


Quote:

2. The risk of the arms being altered by descendants is somewhat mitigated since they have been unaltered “for generations”

Only if the designer/adopter is being worse than disingenuous about the point of origin.


Quote:

3. There is already a precedent for this in the Lord Lyon Court with grants to Scottish ancestors followed by matriculations.

Yes, but also in the English and Irish systems, with some limitations. The English and Irish heralds don’t actually make posthumous grants, but they do make grants "to John Doe and the other descendants of his grandfather James Doe," "other descendants" being understood as those in the legitimate male line. The NEHGS Committee on Heraldry will record arms on this same basis, going no further back than the applicant’s grandfather. (This is why my arms were recorded with the NEHGS by me and my father’s first cousin—it allowed us to capture one more generation than I could have done by myself.)


Quote:

4. Those with a relative domiciled in Scotland with a common ancestor of the same surname can have the relative petition for substantive arms granted to that ancestor and then have them matriculated—thus avoiding the adjective “honorary” from their foreign arms

The Lyon Court website says this but omits that the same course is available to anyone descended from a subject of the Scottish/British crown, whether they have cousins now living in Scotland or not.


Quote:

1. One might feel obliged to go through the trouble of tracking down and notifying all descendants of that common ancestor with the assumed arms and either: explain everything from the beginning and offer a full education at nauseam at the risk of being thought mad or (worse) be ignored; or lie and say that those truly were the arms of their ancestor.

One might. I didn’t. The arms are out there to be found, as is the genealogy, and those who are interested can fend for themselves.

 

MMcC COMMENT ON OPTION 4

 

"**This option includes how far back that ancestor might be, or in other words the value of N."


Quote:

Pros

1. The older the arms are, the more weight they theoretically carry and the more respect they illicit

Not really; see above.


Quote:

Cons:

1. In assuming arms east of the Mississippi and north of The Floridas, one can only go as far back as July 4, 1776. Anything before that should be the domain of the College of Arms (which doesn’t grant arms to deceased ancestors).

I don’t see why we should humor the English kings of arms in their extravagant claims. While colonists in the 13 colonies certainly could apply for grants of arms from the English heralds, few actually did so, and there was never any provision for the English heralds to enforce heraldic jurisdiction outside the realm of England proper. It is an interesting argument as to whether it was unlawful for a colonist to assume arms unilaterally. (For that matter, it is an interesting experiment to try pinning down someone on exactly when and how it became unlawful to assume arms unilaterally in England itself.) In any case, the colonists did not behave as if they thought armorial assumption was illegal or inappropriate.

On the other hand, I think going back that far to assume arms for the purpose of an extended destination is on the rather extravagant side. It seems to me that outside the specific context of Lord Lyon’s established and regulated practice, 2 or 3 generations (a common grandfather or great-grandfather) is as far as one should stretch. I would propose that the matter be driven by what the assumer(s) of the arms consider to be a genuine, living sense of family identity. In my family’s case, we frequently used to visit great-aunts and great-uncles, and some of my second cousins are actually closer to my brother and me (in terms of family identity) than some first cousins. For us, going back to my great-grandfather would make sense as defining the family group. For others, the situation might be different.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
12 June 2015 14:58
 

My quote: "4. This also might have the unexpected effect of one developing a greater interest in their ancestry as they might be curious to discover the arms borne by their ancestors"


Joseph McMillan;104416 wrote:

Not seeing this; please explain? Mike’s description of this approach is that the arms are born and die with their first bearer, isn’t it?


Yes. Here’s what I meant (for example): Let’s say the arms I currently use feature a wagon wheel as a charge. I know that the distinct arms my father bore featured three barrels on a field and those of my mother featured three mushrooms on a field. My Grandparents had arms of something else. I would be curious to know what my earlier ancestors thought to put on their shields. That would lead to my doing research to discover what they were. That was it.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 June 2015 00:39
 

Two quick general clarifications of my intended reading of the options I presented (though others commenting are free to interpret or expand differently):

First, a general clarification to all of the options I suggested, I was thinking of a preliminary step before getting into actually designing new arms.  To me at any rate this implied new arms for those who don’t already have arms.  If one’s parents or earlier ancestors already have arms which the would-be designer is entitled to inherit but just doesn’t care for, that’s outside the topic as I saw it (but as noted, feel free to address your views on that possibility, but as an additional option, not one of my initial set.)

 

If other ancestors bore arms which the new designer is not entitled to inherit, they may suggest elements to include in some way in the new arms, but that’s a different topic.  (At some point, that might merit a different thread on possible approaches to creating new designs, but only peripherally related to this thread.)

 

Second, as a general observation re: heraldry generally, but relevant here as well, I don’t equate "same surname" as necessarily tied to gender.  It may be or have been the case in many times and places, but not the American here and now.  Wives often, or even usually, follow the older custom, but here and now she is legally free to retain her maiden name; and her husband is free to take her name if he wishes; or they can hyphenate.  They are free to exercise these options in naming their children; and when the kids reach some level of maturity they each have equal freedom, absent intent to defraud, to pick their own surname(s).  To me these choices are part of the background against which arms are designed.  Others may differ, but to me that’s a different thread than this one.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
16 June 2015 02:44
 

Just a quick note on Lyon Court practice.

Because I’m an only child and have no children of my own, my arms were granted with an extended destination to the descendants of my grandfather. This meant that I had to prove that he was my grandfather and my position in the family descended from him.

 

Two things to note - this is not a grant to my grandfather - it is to me, but with an extended destination, so my surviving aunt and uncle and my cousins could apply for rematriculations (as being within the destination) but my grandfather is not made armigerous.

 

I asked at the time whether I had to go down the route of applying in my grandfather’s name and then rematriculating but was told that this was neither necessary nor Lyon Court policy. If a petitioner is personally considered to be both eligible and within Lyon’s jurisdiction a grant will be made to that person and a desire to bring in cousins dealt with by means of an appropriate extended destination. Only if the petitioner is not within Lyon’s jurisdiction but the ancestor would have been (including anyone resident in the pre-1783 American Colonies) would the grant be made in the name of the ancestor (creating a Scottish "property") to which inheritance rights could be asserted through rematriculation.

 

There are (of course) a small number of situations where exceptions might be made to this rule, but they are very rare.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
19 June 2015 12:38
 

Michael F. McCartney;104422 wrote:

Wives often, or even usually, follow the older custom, but here and now she is legally free to retain her maiden name; and her husband is free to take her name if he wishes; or they can hyphenate.  They are free to exercise these options in naming their children;


Can I cite Fox-Davies as a proponent as well? smile

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
20 June 2015 04:53
 

Beats me!—what relevant did he have to say? wink

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
22 June 2015 12:32
 

Michael F. McCartney;104454 wrote:

Beats me!—what relevant did he have to say? wink


Perhaps nothing; but he hyphenated his name so perhaps his actions were sometimes better than his words. (I was actually just tossing that one in the open with the secret hope that one might point out a discrepancy with his method of or reasoning behind his hyphenation). No takers though.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
22 June 2015 17:32
 

JJB;104458 wrote:

Perhaps nothing; but he hyphenated his name so perhaps his actions were sometimes better than his words. (I was actually just tossing that one in the open with the secret hope that one might point out a discrepancy with his method of or reasoning behind his hyphenation). No takers though.


Most English hyphenated names (at that time, at least) were not matters of individual whim, but the result of name-and-arms provisions of wills, prenuptial agreements, and the like. Fox-Davies’s own case is something of an oddity; he changed his name from Davies to Fox-Davies by deed poll (unilateral declaration, in essence) when he was 19, but then his father followed up some years later by changing the name for the whole family by royal license.

 

But I don’t see how this can be cited as either consistent or inconsistent with F-D’s position on "one man, one arms," which was the only context in which his name previously appears in this thread. In 1890, when he changed his name by deed poll, neither the Davies nor Fox families possessed a coat of arms that could conceivably have been affected by the change.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 June 2015 02:06
 

Harking back to Joe’s earlier post (#3 above, most of which I would second), his closing comments expressed the view that an extended destination shouldn’t go back more than 2 or 3 generations (descendants of a shared grandfather or great grandfather) with a qualifier that there should be a genuine shared family identity—my paraphrase since my cell phone won’t let me cut & paste.  I take his qualifier as suggesting 3 generations as a max, with less (a narrower destination) where there is no real connection.

Joe can confirm, clarify or correct if I’ve read him wrong; won’t be the first time!

 

I can see his point, but disagree with his suggested upper limit, especially when (as in his case) the arms would be equally appropriate for descendants of a more distant ancestor.  His thorough explanation of his exemplary arms notes two key elements—the water in base and the Indian war club in the crest—which hark back a couple of generations before the named memorialized ancestor who settled by a creek in former Indian territory; thus the arms could quite properly pertain to all McMillan descendants of that earlier ancestor.  And he notes three elements—the voided stars in chief, the motto, and an alternate meaning for the water in base—that could as easily signify his first immigrant McMillan ancestor and all of his descendants.  Joe even notes that he chose which ancestor to memorialize based on the restriction in an earlier registry (NEHGS) to two generations, stretching back a third generation by including an elder cousin as co-registrant. (When I registered with NEHGS, I just altered the form to include my great-great grandfather, at that time my earliest known ancestor, and each intervening generation—don’t know if they were thrilled or even noticed, but they did cash my check. wink

 

Those of us with Scottish, Irish or Scotch-Irish roots often design arms in the Scottish tradition of ‘indeterminate cadency" based on the main themes of the arms of the chief or other prominent family of the same name.  Others of various roots may base their arms on a cant of the name, or visual references to the old world home town, or the life and achievements of our original immigrant or other notable ancestor, or some mix of these approaches (e.g. Joe’s mix of Clan and geographical allusions).  Depending on what else we may or may not include, the symbolism may well be relevant to an extended family broader than two or three generations back.

 

Even if there are also visual references to oneself or more immediate ancestors, it may (or may not) be possible for more distant cousins to share the basic design by deleting or swapping those more recent elements without fatally wounding the shared unifying elements of the arms.

 

These are concerns and possibilities which IMO should be considered early in the design process.  If your intent / desire / hope is to create a symbol that identifies and unites a broader range of extended family, there is IMO no convincing necessity to artificially limit your armorial family to a smaller range.  I’d rather use the arms as a tool to extend and solidify my broader family—that’s my goal; and narrower arms that don’t support that goal, even if beautifully designed and executed, are of limited utility.