Registered Arms in the US

 
Edward Wenzl
 
Avatar
 
 
Edward Wenzl
Total Posts:  158
Joined  18-04-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2006 11:28
 

Of all the arms that are being registered in the US, how many are new/assumed arms as opposed to arms that have been inherited?

 

My guess is that most of them are new/assumed arms based on what I’ve read on the ACH and ASH sites.  Would that be because its easier to design a new CoA than do the research for something that may or may not be there?

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2006 11:56
 

Ed, should your postulate be correct and most American arms are assumed, I would suspect that the reasons are varied and fall somewhere into these categories:

1) Research to find hereditary arms is expensive and time consuming.

2) Even if hereditary arms are available, the individual feels no real connection to the original armiger other than heredity.

3) People want symbols that speak to them, speak about their lives and/or have deep personal meaning.

4) We have no accessible local/regional/national authority to consult about arms.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
21 August 2006 12:02
 

Adding (5), because people who have inherited arms (both those who are certain the arms are really theirs and those who bought their inherited arms along with the ancestral portraits and silver) don’t feel the need to register them.  Registration serves no purpose other than to establish that you were using the arms as of a date certain, and if the arms are truly inherited, then you don’t need registration to prove that.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2006 12:08
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

...and those who bought their inherited arms along with the ancestral portraits and silver) don’t feel the need to register them.


Typo for "brought"?  Or, are you talking about the few nut cases who are quite inventive about their "illustrious" families?

 

wink

 

—Guy

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
21 August 2006 12:24
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

Adding (5), because people who have inherited arms (both those who are certain the arms are really theirs and those who bought their inherited arms along with the ancestral portraits and silver) don’t feel the need to register them.  Registration serves no purpose other than to establish that you were using the arms as of a date certain, and if the arms are truly inherited, then you don’t need registration to prove that.


A very important one!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
21 August 2006 12:32
 

Guy Power wrote:

Typo for "brought"? Or, are you talking about the few nut cases who are quite inventive about their "illustrious" families?

—Guy


No typo…read as written! :cool:

 

I was alluding to the idea that someone who buys the ready-made "arms of his name" might as well buy a couple of portraits and some antique silver and pass them off as his own. They’re somebody’s ancestor’s arms (portrait, silver), just not his.

 

(A line to go into the code of conduct in dealing with the matter of bucket shops.)

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
21 August 2006 12:44
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

Adding (5), because people who have inherited arms (both those who are certain the arms are really theirs and those who bought their inherited arms along with the ancestral portraits and silver) don’t feel the need to register them.  Registration serves no purpose other than to establish that you were using the arms as of a date certain, and if the arms are truly inherited, then you don’t need registration to prove that.


Actually, registering inherited and new arms in the USA serves the same purpose, which, from a purely legal perspective, is no purpose.  BUT the information that is part of a more complete registration record is of great interest to heraldists and geneaologists, especally when the lineage is documented.  It also is a risk, because when one lists the lineage in public, it is more open to refutation since the facts can be checked (as opposed to merely saying the arms were inherited from somone, as is stated in some grants).  If the registration contains the ancestor’s design rationale, it is of further interest.  And registering arms of any kind serves the practical, but nonlegal, purpose of warding off copycats, since when published it provides a provable date of earlier use.

 

See for example, one of our member’s registrations:

 

http://usheraldicregistry.com/pmwiki.php?n=Registrations.20051229F

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
21 August 2006 13:31
 

No argument about the value, but we can both be right.  The question isn’t whether there actually is value to registering, but whether someone who validly inherited arms would perceive any value.  "It’s mine, I have a right to use it, and I don’t have to prove it."

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
21 August 2006 13:36
 

I see what you’re saying Joe, but if I were one of those lucky few who had a right to arms as inherited I would still want to ensure some sort of protection, or at least recognition, that they are mine when some idiot lifts them; of course having been through that to a much smaller extent might be coloring my judgment on that.