Joseph McMillan wrote:

So the South Africans leave it up to the grantee or his heirs to decide whether to difference or not.  Sensible folks.

This may be the law but the previous State Herald, Mr. Brownell, insisted that my sisters’ arms each bear a Canadian style minor brissure.

I’m not so sure on the Irish issue. I could email Mr. Ó Comain and see if you’d like. But it was my understanding that it was a “strongly recommended” thing but not required.

Further, the new “ideal” put forth for adoption by the Dáil (Irish Parliament) for “validating” the office and functions and grants of arms and most importantly the worthiness of expenditure of government monies of the Chief Herald had a clause to recognize, albeit in a turn a blind eye approach, the so-called “Sept Arms” that Dr. Edward MacLysaght had envisioned in those rare (roughly 282 clans/families – sorry the Irish word is “C[h]lann” and not “sept” so I won’t use a foreign word to describe an Irish family system…ahem…) cases where a real tradition places the man from that area/clan. But, I may be remembering wrongly, so I may have to re-read that draft again…

There is a big difference between the bucket shop names that Dave mentioned and the so-called “Sept Arms” of Irish clans and families; just as there would be regarding the Poles and other nations.

Anyway I don’t think that the Irish system “insists” that you use it. Of course some here in Colorado claim the federal government doesn’t really insist we adopt their ideals, but if we don’t comply we don’t get the government money…so it could be a matter like that in the Irish system. Maybe I should look into it.

In my case, Mr. van Rossum (of the South African Bureau of Heraldry) also insisted on the use of a mark of difference or cadency mark for my personal arms.  The use of a second crest was not sufficient!

James Dempster wrote:

I’m not sure if they *still* use such marks, but there are plenty of historic arms that use such marks - showing an illegitimacy at some time in the past.

GAC: I’m unaware of a recent instance of such use.  However, as noted in the Explanatory Comments Explanatory Notes to Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 (Crown Copyright), Section 21: Abolition of status of illegitimacy

 

35.    This section removes, as far as it is possible and competent, the status of illegitimacy from Scots Law. ... The abolition does not apply to the reserved area of hereditary titles and arms, or to the construction of deeds executed and enactments (including Acts of the Scottish Parliament) made before the coming into force of section 21. Schedule 3 makes provision for the consequential repeal of references to legitimacy or illegitimacy in various enactments.

________end quote

 

I’m unaware of a similar provision in the Family Law Reform Act 1987 for England.

 

See possible support for the Scottish position in Marckx v Belgioum (1979) Series A No 31, 2 EHRR 330.

Glen,

Welcome to our discussions.  I thought I remembered reading that Lyon Blair had said no exemption of heraldry from the terms of the act was necessary, suggesting that he was prepared to abandon differencing for illegitimacy in view of the act.  Does that ring a bell?

James Dempster wrote:

It is worth noting that as far as I know the improvement of the treatment of illegitimate children has gone only so far as to give them rights equivalent to children who are not illegitimate - which in Scotland would be the right to rematriculate arms with appropriate differences. They tended in Scotland to have this anyway. I believe that the law had more effect in England, where historically illegitimate children were filius nullius. In this case England and Wales are the same but I couldn’t say for certain that places such as Man are. The College of Arms probably claims rights to grant arms to the Manx but the law on the Isle of Man is different from that of England.

But what you say is not true because arms are expressly excluded in the legislation.

Martin Goldstraw wrote:

It is also possible in England for an armiger to nominate a successor to their arms (with the approval of the College of Arms - and the nominee need not even be a blood relative!). Thus the plain undifferenced arms could pass to an illegitimate child, an illegitimate sibling, cousin or anyone else at all. The process by which this can be achieved is by way of Royal Licence, which is usually applied for via the College of Arms and is most often, but not always, a result of a "Name and Arms" clause in the will of a deceased armiger.

But in this case the usual practice would be to apply a "mark of distinction" (usually a plain canton).  I’m not saying that it’s impossible that the undifferenced arms would descend to the nominee (that would be contrary to the nature of the Royal Licence), but it would be very unusual for this to be done.

This discussion leaves aside the fact that if arms are assumed by, or granted to, as the case may be, the illegitimate person, obviously no marks of bastardy are necessary as it is a completely new coat.