As mentioned in an earlier posting, 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 )

This thread is re:  the pro’s and con’s, in the American context, and especially in designing new arms,

of cadency or differencing within a given family vs. sharing the same arms by all members of the family.

And the pro’s and con’s of various kinds of cadency / differencing.

Our Guidelines address this topic briefly from an historical perspecive, but allow for both options. Whether or not to difference, and if so how, are decisions that need to be considered and addressed early in the design process to avoid chasing squirrels downstream.

Tto me at least (of course others may differ) this topic is not an either/or question with only one answer.  There are a number of examples at each end of the spectrum and some in between, both among our American members and registered users, and others in this country. Hopefully this discussion should focus on pro’s and con’s of different options, not on trashing those opinions with whom we may disagree.. Not just I like / I dislike without addressing why.

While this thread 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.

I’m also starting another thread on the question of "destination" - i.e.should newly designed arms be limited to one individual, or his/her immediate family and descendants, or various ranges of extended family sharing common descent from a deceased ancestor.  That’s NOT the topic here, please!

I’ll leave it at this point for now, for others to share their views on the subject of this thread..

Cadency/Differencing Arms

Pros

1. Cadency/differencing underscores the point that arms are held by an individual and not by families.

2. Cadency/differencing makes a clear distinction between who is the heraldic heir of the family and who is part of a “cadet” branch. This might make it more-likely that those bearing cadency marks on their arms will remain in contact with the heraldic heir (the “chieftain”) for arbitration on heraldic disputes within the family—rather than flapping around with their own ideas.

3. Differencing a shield allows a divorced spouse to continue to bear the ex’s arms if they want, further removing doubt to claims of any heraldic heirs of that previous marriage

4. Cadency/Differencing is technically correct heraldry

Cons

1. Although cadency is technically correct, many heraldic authorities tend to concede (or rather imply) that its execution is so exhaustively tedious that it is the acceptable common practice to ignore it

2. In reality, without a strong central family figure, like a chieftain or heraldic entail, or third-party authority to arbitrate, the disciplined practice of cadency could be expected to fall apart by the third or fourth generation after the arms are assumed.

3. Cadency/Differencing marks can spoil the shield design, possibly leading cadet branches of the family to seek out their own arms

4. It is always possible that the latest heraldic heir might be a low-life dunce or a decent person who is completely disinterested in heraldry. In these cases, those bearing differenced arms with cadency marks may find themselves still obliged to keep track of the status of the arms.

Un-differenced Arms passed to all

Pros

1. Family heraldry is simplified and there is no confusion on what the arms should look like

2. Heraldic enthusiasts in the family can carry on traditions while those disinterested in heraldry will not necessarily hurt the family’s practice of heraldry on the whole

Cons

1. There is possibly greater risk of usurpation of arms by distant cousins, children of an armiger’s widow’s third husband or strangers with like surnames.

2. The use and bequeathal of arms becomes less disciplined

3. There is no heraldic “leadership” within the family bearing the un-differenced arms to act as heraldic mediator, etc.

4. The extended family might be more likely to lose touch after a few generations

Prescribed Cadency/Differencing Marks

Pros

1. They are a pedant’s dream come true

2. There is no ambiguity on what is correct

3. The style of the arms remains essentially unchanged aside from the “decals” added to them

Cons

1. They are a dabbler’s nightmare come true

2. Clutter; so many additions might start to resemble confirmed “kills” annotated on the shield in the form of charms

3. Individualism is not taken into consideration

Arbitrary differencing to arms

Pros

1. A shield design can retain its simplicity and boldness without “decals” added

2. One can expect to have some limited license on the type of differencing

Cons

1. People can get carried away and make too many changes or be tempted to go back and change it again after a period of time

2. After so many generations, the arms may be virtually unrecognizable from those of the greater part of the family

3. There is the off chance that the differenced arms may come close to resembling the arms of someone of another family

4. There is no codification of this and so everything is left to the taste and knowledge of the individual

JJB;104417 wrote:

Cadency/Differencing Arms

Pros

1. Cadency/differencing underscores the point that arms are held by an individual and not by families.

2. Cadency/differencing makes a clear distinction between who is the heraldic heir of the family and who is part of a “cadet” branch. This might make it more-likely that those bearing cadency marks on their arms will remain in contact with the heraldic heir (the “chieftain”) for arbitration on heraldic disputes within the family—rather than flapping around with their own ideas.

The above is completely untrue in the German context.  The fight between the different family branches over the Electorate of Saxony all with the same arms underscores the point.  While this is true in the British context, the difference is not really one of a pro or con, but merely of style.  Which brings us back to the orignial question: How does this play in the American context?

Good point. Instead of "...not by families." I should have said, "not by surnames". The remark was really directed at bucket shop marketing. I should have made that more clear.

To your point regarding English Heraldry vs. German Heraldry, etc.—what about the American context?, and so on…

For what it’s worth, my opinion is that Americans who are at a loss on how they should assume and regard their arms might wish to follow the heraldic customs of the culture with which they most-closely identify. If one mid-westerner feels more German-American, then he/she may prefer to follow German customs. Scottish Americans might follow Scottish customs—not necessarily via Lyon Court, of course (apparently not an option anyway), but perhaps by doing things with greater adherence to the way Lyon Court might do it. I’m not married to this notion, but the path seems reasonable for anyone who is an American and who is torn on what should be heraldically "correct" as an American. And the AHS Guidelines (clearly a lot of work went into them), a great resource, seem to offer enough leeway for this or for people to essentially do as they please within the confines of good taste and precedence.

As far as historical precedence goes regarding what I said on following one’s genealogical identity, perhaps Joseph M. or someone might be able to say whether there is something to it or not. I would expect that during the colonial period, the Hudson patroons or any burgher Germanics throughout New York and the other colonies followed their own traditions; to say nothing of the French colonists in the Old Northwest or the Spanish Dons throughout (I haven’t looked into any of this, though it’s reasonable assumption).

JJB;104441 wrote:

Scottish Americans might follow Scottish customs—not necessarily via Lyon Court, of course (apparently not an option anyway)

I’m not sure why you consider that Lyon Court is not an option for Scottish Americans. It very much *is* an option should a Scottish American wish it. However, Lyon grants only to those considered in his jurisdiction. That means that he will not grant to a US citizen as such. However there are several ways round this that are used more or less.

The most common is to obtain a grant in the name of a Scottish ancestor who was resident for at least part of their life in Scotland. This ancestor is considered to be within Lyon’s jurisdiction and once they are armigerous, the US citizen can rematriculate suitably differenced arms. The caveat here is that the ancestor should (almost invariably) be of the same surname. It’s no good picking one great-great grandmother at random because she happened to be Scottish, if she’s your mother’s mother’s mother’s mother, and you are of a completely different surname.

Probably number two is to obtain a grant in the name of an ancestor resident on what was then British territory (outside England, Wales, Ireland, and possibly these days Canada). That would include the 13 colonies before 1783. Thereafter the process would follow what I mentioned in the first paragraph.

Third, probably rarest, is to be long term resident in Scotland, or to acquire significant property in Scotland (usually considered to be a habitable house, or land of sufficient area to be able to build such a house). This brings the US citizen directly under Lyon’s jurisdiction. The acquisition of a "feudal barony" also used to be considered sufficient. I’m not sure if this is the case today, now that they are no longer an interest in land but are simply "paper" baronies.

In all cases, of course, the simplest thing is to ask Lyon Court. They are very friendly, and can tell you officially what is current practice.

James

In the American context, I think we can all agree (boy, is that a long shot!) that there is no rigid rule for or against cadency or differencing, so it’s essentially a judgement call case by case.  I believe there are cogent arguments either way, depending largely on just what one intends or hopes the arms will express or accomplish.  I’ll lay out my views in a separate posting for the edification and delight (or not) of those who bother to read them.

Within some commonsense broad sidebars, there’s likewise no rigid rule here for or against any particular system of cadency or differencing for those who may choose to use them.  Those sidebars, as I see them, would largely concern clarity and avoidance of confusion for the viewer.

* First, the design of the new arms, before and after applying one’s chosen cadency or differencing between family members, must be sufficiently unique so as to not infringe on existing or historical arms, especially those of persons or families bearing the same surname.

* Second, if the chosen system of cadency or differencing is borrowed from or closely resembles that of another country—e.g. the English cadency marks or the Scottish system of borders—it should be applied consistent with that traditional system so as to avoid confusion or misunderstanding.

* Third, if some new system is created within the family, it should not unduly disturb or undermine whatever is the common thread visually uniting the family.

Within these broad sidebars, the choice of old or newly designed systems are at the family’s option.

My views only; others may express differing concerns, suggestions, or priorities.

The bigger issue of which European heraldic custom (if any) that Americans should follow is an interesting one in its own right.  On the question of differencing for cadency, however, I would make three specific points and a general comment:

1.  The notion that English heraldry conscientiously uses differencing is a myth (see my previous references to former Garter Gwynn-Jones and present Garter Woodcock on this matter).  It may have been the formal rule, but it was never the generally practiced custom.  So it is, I think, difficult to make the case that the English practice in this area differed substantially from the practice of most other European countries from which significant numbers of settlers came to America, whether before or after the Revolution.

2.  Whatever the practice in the old country, it seems very clear that differencing was very rarely employed by immigrants of any origin once they arrived in America.  In many, probably the majority, of cases, the family kept using the arms as borne by the immigrant, and if they had a martlet or mullet for difference, all the descendants just kept using them with that martlet or mullet without further alteration.  The post-1700 Scottish immigrant stream may be an exception—I’ve found isolated cases where differencing by charges on bordures, etc, seems to have been continued outside the supervision of Lyon Court, but there are also cases where families of Scottish origin simply adhered to the English colonial practice and did not difference for cadency.

3.  The stated rationale for differencing for cadency in England was not, as supposed by Fox-Davies, to preserve the notion of "one man, one arms," but was tied (as with so many heraldic practices) to real estate law.  Coke’s Institutes of the Laws of England (1628-44) ties the practice to the institution of primogeniture inheritance of land; the undifferenced arms were tacitly assumed to be attached in some way to the family estate.  (This same sense of arms being attached to land also appears in the marshalling of arms passing through heiresses.)  The Oxford Guide to Heraldry acknowledges that Coke is the last authoritative legal pronouncement on the matter.  In the United States, the states where it had been in effect before Independence (Rhode Island, New York, and the states from Maryland down to Georgia) all abolished primogeniture by 1798.

General comment:  after 400+ years of continuous use of heraldry in this country, I think we’re entitled to have our own customs and usages and not be forever looking to emulate the customs and usages of this or that foreign country.  There are areas where research remains to be done on such matters as marshalling, where practice truly does vary from one European country to another, and where there is insufficient scholarship to date on Spanish-American and French-American practices to generalize about whether there is a common American custom on the matter.  But differencing for cadency is not one of these unclear areas.  The most comprehensive book yet written on heraldry in America—Eugene Zieber’s felicitously titled Heraldry in America—makes the same observations about the link to primogeniture and actual observable practice that I make above.

I feel quite comfortable in saying that there is an American custom in the area of differencing for cadency, and it is that we don’t.

It goes without saying that no one is compelled to abide by this custom if he or she chooses not to.

Ditto all of Joe’s comments, all of which I agree with both historically and conceptually as "best practice" in America.

All I can add is that using or eschewing cadency or differencing says something important about the intent behind a given family’s adoption and use of arms, and perhaps more importantly their concept of family.

Differencing the arms themselves, by whatever method, treats a family as a hierarchical entity with a head (bearing the undifferenced arms) determined by primogeniture and junior members ("cadets" from which the term cadency is derived), with each member’s place within the family marked by his or her arms.

Not using cadency treats the family as a non-hierarchical group of equals, united by one consistent heraldic emblem of shared identity.

For those with access to a law dictionary, it’s the heraldic equivalent to inheritance per stirpes vs. inheritance per capita.  Either way is AFAIK legal here, but values heirs differently.  Our heraldic history, reflected in our Guidelines, flavors the per capita approach, but does allow the per stirpes alternative.

Ultimately your choice as to which approach best suits your American family.

That was well put.

And one certainly can’t ignore the historical precedence in the US that Joe pointed out. With the possible exception of Germany, it would seem that all nations with heraldic traditions do have (or had) a de jure cadency system. But, with the exception of Scotland, these are no longer practiced in any national customs or “best practices” of heraldry. The US customs are no different in this regard. Cadency is there if one wishes to use it, but the majority of US Citizens do not.

One thing regarding primogeniture; first in property. We can all agree that the official abolition of primogeniture is perfectly in keeping with the purported American values of egalitarianism. Daughters, younger sons and stepchildren are not excluded from inheritance. Second-wife widows do not face the possibility of being left with nothing and thrown out. And, of course, the staying power for great landed estates is kept at bay; not that stately homes aren’t more often a hindrance to the owner than an asset. An unfortunate side effect is that the family progenitor’s heirlooms, furniture and silver sets (possibly bearing his crest) inevitably end up on the Antique Roadshow many years later in the hands of God-knows-who after years of property divisions, estate sales and inheritances by widows’ second husbands’ children.

Perhaps this is something to consider when one decides how they wish to establish their family’s heraldic customs. In the College of Arms’ Law of Arms under the subpart that covers heraldic heiresses, it makes a point of noting that heraldic heirs/heiresses are distinct from property heirs/heiresses. I don’t know what would happen if one’s arms were to be distributed equally after a few generations here in the US. But I would think there would be a greater risk of usurpation of arms, which has been a concern here for some members in the past. These members might hope their traditions are maintained in the future. Then again, as Groucho Marx said, “What did posterity ever do for me?”

Putting myself on the chopping block, I don’t plan to use cadency. In my own case, I’ll follow the English Law of Arms with regards to the use of arms and badges (perhaps my children or grandchildren will choose to do things differently). This is only because it culturally makes sense for me. Though a Texan all my life, my dad is English-born, still a Crown Subject (on September 12, 2001, he displayed the Union Jack outside his home while all of his neighbors flew Old Glory) and we’re Anglican Communion. It just seems the path for me. Everyone will have something that suits them best. But I think the point I made above on the risk of usurpation being greater without cadency or without strict guidelines on heraldic inheritance within a family is worth considering.

I’ll chime in here since I use cadency on my arms. The arms were actually registered to my dad. I registered them with American College of Heraldry. And I kind of think of it as a sign of respect—but I don’t think that anyone not using cadency is being disrespectful. Just a personal choice I’ve made. Someday—hopefully far in the future—I’ll use the undifferenced arms.

JJB;104450 wrote:

With the possible exception of Germany, it would seem that all nations with heraldic traditions do have (or had) a de jure cadency system.

This is certainly not the case. Not France, not Germany or any part of the former Holy Roman Empire, not any of the Scandinavian countries, not Spain, not Italy, not Poland, not Russia, etc. There was some use of differencing during the Middle Ages, but nowhere except in the English-influenced countries was it systematic or considered to be a matter of "law."  The one significant Continental exception was among certain royal and very high ranking noble families.

Quote:

One thing regarding primogeniture;... An unfortunate side effect is that the family progenitor’s heirlooms, furniture and silver sets (possibly bearing his crest) inevitably end up on the Antique Roadshow many years later in the hands of God-knows-who after years of property divisions, estate sales and inheritances by widows’ second husbands’ children.

Personal property was never subject to primogeniture, only real property.

Quote:

In the College of Arms’ Law of Arms under the subpart that covers heraldic heiresses,

Where can I find this? Heraldists have been hunting for this law code for centuries, with no more success than the hunters of snipes and snarks.

Quote:

it makes a point of noting that heraldic heirs/heiresses are distinct from property heirs/heiresses.

The same male who inherited the undifferenced arms also inherited the land (invariably, up until the Statute of Wills of 1540 and in cases of intestacy up until the 20th century). If a man had no sons but had daughters, the daughters were coheiresses to the land, just as they were to the arms, and it was only by descent from such a coheiress that arms could ordinarily pass through a maternal line. To this extent, heirs are the same with respect to land as to arms.

Where they are not the same lies in the fact that, unlike land, arms were always inherited by ALL the sons, not just the eldest. The seventh son had just as much right to his father’s arms as the eldest, and there was nothing the eldest son could do about it. The only caveat was that it was in principle customary, as a matter of courtesy within the family, for the younger sons to apply the minor differences under the cadency mark system. Note that even under this system, faithfully applied, one could easily have an indefinite number of living adult men bearing identical arms.

Let’s say John Doe was the original grantee of the arms Argent a fess Sable. He is now deceased.

His second son Richard Doe bears these arms differenced with a crescent, as do each of his eldest sons in succession through the generations.

John Doe’s eldest son, John Doe II, has two sons, the younger of whom also bears "Argent a fess Sable a crescent for difference," as do his eldest sons in succession through the generations.

John Doe II’s eldest son, John Doe III, has two sons, the younger of whom also bears ""Argent a fess Sable a crescent for difference," as do his eldest sons in succession through the generations.

Ad infinitum.

Another thing that gets people confused about this whole issue is the modern and imprecise use of the term "heir." Correctly, an heir is the person (or persons) who succeed to real property by simple operation of law, absent a will providing to the contrary. Technically, one who succeeds to such property under the terms of a will is a devisee, not an heir. So one point of differentiating between heraldic heirs and "heirs" to property is that arms cannot (in England) be assigned by will, except subject to a royal license or act of Parliament.

Quote:

I don’t know what would happen if one’s arms were to be distributed equally after a few generations here in the US. But I would think there would be a greater risk of usurpation of arms, which has been a concern here for some members in the past.

Don’t see it. Arms were regularly usurped back when they were being more or less seriously regulated, probably more than they are now. The best protection against usurpation is a frank and free right for anyone to assume original arms of his own choosing. As with any other commodity, it’s the attempt to make something artificially scarce that leads to smuggling, piracy, etc.

Echoing Joe’s responses (seems like I do a lot of that ltely).

Re: lack of a focus point (chief) within a family - in my experience most extended families here have one or two members, maybe old Aunt Mrtha, who are the de facto custodians of the family history, based on willingness and hopefully ability (or perhaps the relative apathy of the rest of the bunch).  Genealogical seniority ( the mark of the eldest of the eldest etc) guarantees neither willingness nor ability.

Joseph,

Joseph McMillan;104453 wrote:

The one significant Continental exception was among certain royal and very high ranking noble families.

Yes, the examples I saw were of royal families in all cases. I suppose this is what I took to mean a "de jure system" in place while I agreed that none of the citizens in those countries seemed to use the cadency themselves.

Joseph McMillan;104453 wrote:

Where can I find this? Heraldists have been hunting for this law code for centuries, with no more success than the hunters of snipes and snarks.

It’s on their website. Perhaps it’s not a true legal code, but it seems to be a rule of thumb that they use:

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/re…he-law-of-arms

Joseph McMillan;104453 wrote:

If a man had no sons but had daughters, the daughters were coheiresses to the land, just as they were to the arms, and it was only by descent from such a coheiress that arms could ordinarily pass through a maternal line. To this extent, heirs are the same with respect to land as to arms.

Yes; on re-reading what the College of Arms has, I now see that it says "monetary heiress", not "property heiress". I had got my adjectives confused:

"Heraldic Heiress

Arms are only transmitted through a female line when there is a failure of male heirs. A woman with no surviving brothers, or whose deceased brothers have no surviving issue, is an heraldic heiress. She is not necessarily a monetary heiress. Providing that she marries a man who bears arms, the children of their marriage may include the arms of her father as a quartering in their own shields. This is how elaborate shields of many quarterings come about."

I concede to your points and I’ve run out of new thoughts on this topic. Thank you for the information and clarifications.

Respectfully,

In European traditions, does a heraldic heiress pass her arms down to her children? Is the result quartering of arms if the parents of a child both inherited arms?

Arian,

I recently bought a coffee-table book by a Stephen Slater called, The Complete Book of Heraldry. On page 116 "Heiresses and Simple Quartering", it states,

"Escutcheon of Pretence

In England, a heraldic quartering occurs after a marriage with a heraldic heiress—a woman who has no brothers, so that her family lacks a direct male heir. In such a case, the husband, instead of placing his wife’s arms beside his on the marital shield (as an impalement), places them upon a small shield in the centre of his own arms. This small shield is called an "Escutcheon of Pretence", the husband in this case "pretending" to be the male head of his wife’s family. Any children born to such a marriage are entitled to bear not only their father’s arms, but also those of their mother (on a shield for a son, or a lozenge for a daughter), as quartering."

Then there is a whole part on "How Quartering Works" and another on "National Variations" and then "Complex Quarterings".

"National Variations

Elsewhere, the adding of quarterings and the nature of what in England would be thought of as an escutcheon of pretence, have their own system and meaning. In Scotland, the escutcheon is reserved for an important fiefdom, usually one associated with a title held by the holder of a peerage, while in Germany the escutcheon is normally reserved for the family arms and the quarterings are kept for the arms associated with various fiefdoms and families that brought territory to the estate now held by the family…."

There is a good deal of information.

Respectfully,

Thanks Jeff