Use of ancestor’s arms vs. new design

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 19:21
 

Thanks to Norton, Andrew, Dave, and Patrick for the feedback. I actually did draft a coat of arms over a couple of months ago: Argent a fess raguly gules, in chief an escallop between two acorns, in base a cross of Lorraine, all of the second. Crest: a greyhound passant, in its mouth a sprig of the cotton plant thrice fructed, all proper.

Or at least, I think that’s the correct way to express it. In any case, it isn’t registered/recorded anywhere yet, and is subject to revision.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 20:17
 

That sounds all right, though you’d have to show us the design you are trying to blazon in order for us to definitively say it’s correct or not.

 
David Boven
 
Avatar
 
 
David Boven
Total Posts:  1063
Joined  29-04-2004
 
 
 
01 September 2007 20:28
 

Andrew J Vidal;49107 wrote:

Do also remember that there are only three granting bodies in this world (CoA, Lord Lyon and the CHA).


Though some people question its ability to do so, I think that the Chief Herald of Ireland grants arms…or at least did until recently.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 20:59
 

David Boven;49137 wrote:

Though some people question its ability to do so, I think that the Chief Herald of Ireland grants arms…or at least did until recently.


The College of Arms of the Republic of Kenya grants arms as well as registers substantive arms from other countries and the Flemish Heraldic Council in Belgium grants arms. The Heraldic Register of the Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic registers arms as the name states.

 
Stephen R. Hickman
 
Avatar
 
 
Stephen R. Hickman
Total Posts:  700
Joined  01-12-2006
 
 
 
02 September 2007 02:11
 

fwhite;49073 wrote:

Thanks for the gracious welcome! If I may engage you a little further, though, let me observe that your remarks above seem to force the question of what, really, constitutes "legitimate inheritance of arms" in a republic with no direct regulation of personal heraldry. I understand the logic of positing a basis in English custom for American heraldic norms, but it seems to me that rigorous adherence to English custom would preclude any assumption of arms whatsoever. Regardless of the fact the original, sole manner of acquiring arms was assumption, a substantial process of historical development has intervened, such that the prevailing English view for the past few hundred years has been that arms are a kind of badge of gentility and/or honor that is granted by sovereign or his appointed authority and has neatly restricted use. In such an ambience, any assumption of arms of any sort is bound to seem extraordinarily pretentious, isn’t it? As nearly as I can tell, assumption of arms suits the typical American heraldry enthusiast quite, so I would think that any appeal he might make to English models logically flawed, ipso facto.

Let me emphasize that these are purely rhetorical questions I’m posing, and that I would be content to concede the argument.


Legitimate inheiritance of arms, basically, is the passing of one’s arms to his/her direct decsendants.  For example, I have a son and a daughter.  Unless they assume their own respective arms, my son will inherit my arms "as-is", whereas my daughter will difference them slightly to distinguish her arms from his.

 

My arms, by the way, are assumed.  This does not make my arms less "official" than one’s which are recognized in some fashion by a given heraldic authority, nor are they less prestigious than one’s which have been inherited.  The arms of King Richard the Lionhearted predates the College of Arms by a few centuries, yet Gules, a lion rampant Or(IIRC) was indeed his arms.  History will attest to this, just as history will attest to Argent, within a border Azure an inescucheon of the Second charged with a cross of the First being my arms.

 

As for being pretentious to bear a coat of arms, is it pretentious to live in the house which your grandfather built?  What of your class ring to commemorate graduating college/high school?  Of course they’re not pretentious.  Neither is bearing a coat of arms.  I’ve met some who are pretentious enough without a coat of arms, and I’ve met some who are humble with centeries-old coats of arms.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
02 September 2007 03:29
 

Forgive me if saying this abrades the sensibilities of anyone on this forum, but the idea of Americans (especially!) applying to the heralds of places like Kenya and Slovakia for grants of arms strikes me as darkly hilarious in the image of frenzied status anxiety it conjures up. It seems to me that to apply for an original grant of arms from any authority, actually, is to inadvertantly profess doubt about one’s fitness to bear them. It would seem that simply assuming arms is actually the far more dignified thing to do, provided the design of the arms is not somehow misleading about the bearer’s background or status. My only reservation about doing so myself has to do with this nagging concern that any assumption of arms at all is likely to be understood as some kind of boast by the vast majority of those with whom I interact on a daily basis. And I’m not sure I’m prepared to be dismissive of their probable feelings. Even if these were to emanate from total ignorance about the history of heraldry, to point that out to my acquaintances would be pretty condescending, and in a sense validate any suspicion they might have that my coat of arms is a tacit claim of superiority to non-armigers, while not to explain myself would also validate it. Socially, then, it seems like assumed arms could actually be nothing but a liability. To use inherited or awarded arms, on the other hand, strikes me as more truly akin to living in a house built by one’s grandfather or wearing his college ring—the embodiment of an involuntary blood relationship, on the one hand, and a genuine personal achievement, on the other. Perhaps I just find it hard to believe that the principal allures of heraldry aren’t its various romantic associations, and its possibilities as a vehicle for burnishing self-esteem—at least where non-inherited arms are concerned. Naturally, the idea of succumbing to those allures myself is not an appealing one.

So I suppose I remain in search of a palatable rationale for using a non-inherited coat of arms. Meanwhile, the idea of quartering, say, Habersham and von Holtzendorff sounds pretty good.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
02 September 2007 04:13
 

fwhite;49150 wrote:

Forgive me if saying this abrades the sensibilities of anyone on this forum, but the idea of Americans (especially!) applying to the heralds of places like Kenya and Slovakia for grants of arms strikes me as darkly hilarious in the image of frenzied status anxiety it conjures up.


Would you fault Senator Barack Obama for receiving a grant from Kenya, the birthplace of his father? What about actor Paul Newman seeking a registration from Slovakia, the homeland of his late mother? Would those of Kenyan or Slovak ancestry be subject to ridicule according to your statement above?


fwhite;49150 wrote:

It seems to me that to apply for an original grant of arms from any authority, actually, is to inadvertantly profess doubt about one’s fitness to bear them.


In most European countries over the centuries, heraldry has been regulated by the government. In some countries it still is to an extent. Even your exalted ancestors received grants or confirmations from some sovereign or his representatives at one time or another. Did this act of deference to authority somehow diminish their standing or did it confirm their position in society?


fwhite;49150 wrote:

It would seem that simply assuming arms is actually the far more dignified thing to do, provided the design of the arms is not somehow misleading about the bearer’s background or status. My only reservation about doing so myself has to do with this nagging concern that any assumption of arms at all is likely to be understood as some kind of boast by the vast majority of those with whom I interact on a daily basis. And I’m not sure I’m prepared to be dismissive of their probable feelings. Even if these were to emanate from total ignorance about the history of heraldry, to point that out to my acquaintances would be pretty condescending, and in a sense validate any suspicion they might have that my coat of arms is a tacit claim of superiority to non-armigers, while not to explain myself would also validate it. Socially, then, it seems like assumed arms could actually be nothing but a liability. To use inherited or awarded arms, on the other hand, strikes me as more truly akin to living in a house built by one’s grandfather or wearing his college ring—the embodiment of an involuntary blood relationship, on the one hand, and a genuine personal achievement, on the other.


The way that you have characterised your associates in the statement above, makes me ask why you even care what they think. They sound very insecure in the least and like sheeple* at the worst.

 

>snip<  >snip<  >snip<


fwhite;49150 wrote:

So I suppose I remain in search of a palatable rationale for using a non-inherited coat of arms. Meanwhile, the idea of quartering, say, Habersham and von Holtzendorff sounds pretty good.


Do what makes you the least uncomfortable. You might even dispense with heraldry all together as it sounds as if it distresses you.

 

 

* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheeple

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
02 September 2007 08:24
 

Gentlemen,

I think we have established that

 

1. the assumption of arms is legimitate.

2. that the use of an ancestor’s arms is also legitimate, with appropriate differencing when necessary.

3. for limited legal protection, to honor one’s ancestry, and for a number of other reasons, people choose to register or have grants made by foreign authority.

4. No matter which of these options (or others we haven’t discussed on this thread) an armiger chooses, no cloud is thrown over the arms or the armiger, at least in the heraldic community.

 

Please do not let this thread devolve into an argument any more than it has done already.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
02 September 2007 08:45
 

fwhite;49150 wrote:

It would seem that simply assuming arms is actually the far more dignified thing to do, provided the design of the arms is not somehow misleading about the bearer’s background or status. My only reservation about doing so myself has to do with this nagging concern that any assumption of arms at all is likely to be understood as some kind of boast by the vast majority of those with whom I interact on a daily basis.

...

Socially, then, it seems like assumed arms could actually be nothing but a liability.


I think one of the points of this society is to educate the public that American personal heraldry does not imply social status.  In most non-English European countries there is no social stigma associated with assuming arms.  A trip to Switzerland will convince you that personal heraldry is almost as commonly used as surnames, and a lot more visible.

 

I think you have put your finger on our dilemma. We inherit the English language and English heraldic visual and blazoning styles, and thus American heraldry has an English tradition fraught with social status issues, but American heraldry is really closer non-English European conventions of assumption.

 

Thus, I emphasize the Germanic and Nordic traditions when I talk to others about heraldry.  At least their recent heraldic traditions are a better fit with our democracy.

 
Stephen R. Hickman
 
Avatar
 
 
Stephen R. Hickman
Total Posts:  700
Joined  01-12-2006
 
 
 
02 September 2007 11:41
 

fwhite;49150 wrote:

Forgive me if saying this abrades the sensibilities of anyone on this forum, but the idea of Americans (especially!) applying to the heralds of places like Kenya and Slovakia for grants of arms strikes me as darkly hilarious in the image of frenzied status anxiety it conjures up. It seems to me that to apply for an original grant of arms from any authority, actually, is to inadvertantly profess doubt about one’s fitness to bear them. It would seem that simply assuming arms is actually the far more dignified thing to do, provided the design of the arms is not somehow misleading about the bearer’s background or status. My only reservation about doing so myself has to do with this nagging concern that any assumption of arms at all is likely to be understood as some kind of boast by the vast majority of those with whom I interact on a daily basis. And I’m not sure I’m prepared to be dismissive of their probable feelings. Even if these were to emanate from total ignorance about the history of heraldry, to point that out to my acquaintances would be pretty condescending, and in a sense validate any suspicion they might have that my coat of arms is a tacit claim of superiority to non-armigers, while not to explain myself would also validate it. Socially, then, it seems like assumed arms could actually be nothing but a liability. To use inherited or awarded arms, on the other hand, strikes me as more truly akin to living in a house built by one’s grandfather or wearing his college ring—the embodiment of an involuntary blood relationship, on the one hand, and a genuine personal achievement, on the other. Perhaps I just find it hard to believe that the principal allures of heraldry aren’t its various romantic associations, and its possibilities as a vehicle for burnishing self-esteem—at least where non-inherited arms are concerned. Naturally, the idea of succumbing to those allures myself is not an appealing one.

So I suppose I remain in search of a palatable rationale for using a non-inherited coat of arms. Meanwhile, the idea of quartering, say, Habersham and von Holtzendorff sounds pretty good.


Fred, please understand that when an American, such as myself, applies to a heraldic authority, sometimes the armiger (most likely a decsendant of an immigrant) wishes, in some way, to "connect" with his/her ancestrial land.  Sometimes, that armiger simply wants the prestige of having an actual heraldic authority recognize his/her arms.  The arms are just as legitimate without such recognition, as this is a republic.  But even if the reason is simple pretentiousness, such recognized arms are no more valid—and no more protected from ussurption—than "merely" assumed arms.

 

That having said, heraldry isn’t for everyone.  My wife, for example, has no interest in assuming a coat of arms.  This is her choice, and I respect her choice.  If you choose to not pursue this heraldic venture, then I will respect your decision and wish you well.  However, if you decide that bearing a coat of arms sounds appealing after all, then I invite you to become a paying member.  It’s only $20 for the entire year, and it gives you access to the Members’ Area.  There, we all would be very eager to help you in designing a coat of arms which you would be proud to display.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 September 2007 16:15
 

Dcgb7f;49076 wrote:

Assumption of arms by Americans is legitimate because no granting authority exists.


To put it just a little more accurately, assumption of arms by Americans is legitimate because our country has no prohibition against it.  Lawful assumption can coexist quite nicely with an armorial granting authority, as it did for hundreds of years in a number of European countries (and still does in Belgium, for instance, where the King grants arms to new nobles but anyone is free to assume arms otherwise).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 September 2007 16:27
 

David Pritchard;49152 wrote:

In most European countries over the centuries, heraldry has been regulated by the government. In some countries it still is to an extent. Even your exalted ancestors received grants or confirmations from some sovereign or his representatives at one time or another.


This is not necessarily so. Most European monarchies had some sort of heraldic authority, but not necessarily regulation in the same sense as England, Scotland, and Ireland. Granting authorities coexisted alongside assumption; some countries had authorities to register arms in use; some never had heraldic regulation at all for commoners but did for nobles—in other words, commoners had greater heraldic freedom than noblemen.

 

What we tend to miss is that there was a shared "law of arms" that developed throughout Europe. Early treatises on the law of arms are remarkably similar in their provisions, whether written by Germans, Italians, Frenchmen, or Englishmen. One of these commonalities is that—in the vast majority of countries—arms descend in the legitimate male line. Another is that assumption is lawful. Another is that duplication of arms is permissible if the armigers are from different jurisdictions. Another is the tincture rule. And so on. As stated in section 1.2, the philosophy behind the AHS guidelines was to discern these commonalities and use them as the fundamental basis of the guidelines, from which we made adjustments based on changes in law and mores.

 

More background on this point is in the annotated version of the guidelines at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/heraldguide-ann.htm

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
02 September 2007 16:55
 

Joseph McMillan;49168 wrote:

This is not necessarily so.  Most European monarchies had some sort of heraldic authority, but not necessarily regulation in the same sense as England, Scotland, and Ireland.  Granting authorities coexisted alongside assumption; some countries had authorities to register arms in use; some never had heraldic regulation at all for commoners but did for nobles—in other words, commoners had greater heraldic freedom than noblemen.


You are correct here Joseph, I should have written "In most European countries over the centuries, heraldry has been variously regulated by the government."  Variously meaning that at times it has been regulated and other times not, in France for example sometimes only the arms of the nobility have been regulated, other times as in late 17th century France even the arms of non-nobles have been regulated. Today all arms are unregulated in France though they can be provided with legal protection against usurption.

 

Whatever the case may be in Europe, Americans can assume arms though one would hope that they were not already someone else’s arms and in good taste.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
02 September 2007 19:26
 

Thanks for enlightening me, gentlemen. I realize I’ve phrased one or two of my questions in what could easily be construed as a deliberately provocative way, and I appreciate your accomodating me with such temperate and prolix answers.

 
Stephen R. Hickman
 
Avatar
 
 
Stephen R. Hickman
Total Posts:  700
Joined  01-12-2006
 
 
 
03 September 2007 00:03
 

It’s O.K.—you’re a newbie, just like me.  :D:cool: