Charles E. Drake;54808 wrote:

I argued that there were two ways to look at this, and that both positions had validity, and I suggested that they might coexist.

I am arguing against those who think the "devizalist" model should be applied more widely.

Consider "marriage."  There are two basic traditions in play:  (1) the wife is subservient to the husband, and (2) husband and wife are equal partners.  The medieval forms of marriage make the wife the property of the husband, but this early form and even the subservient model are extinct except in some theocracies and third world countries.

In America, we tip our hat to the old custom with our loose surnaming conventions, but this convention does not bring the rest of medieval tradition into play.

Similarly, in heraldry, we tip our hat to medieval custom by having heraldic symbols follow the male line, and observing stylistic traditions.  However, we don’t need to go overboard with hat-tipping.

I say, if you like excessive hat-tipping, go to a heraldically medieval country —like Scotland or England—and get your grant.  But these countries are in the minority because their old-world systems don’t promote healthy heraldic practice among the majority of citizens.

Michael Swanson;54811 wrote:

I am arguing against those who think the "devizalist" model should be applied more widely.

Consider "marriage." ...

Hmmmmm ..... applying those parameters let me propose the following:

Devizalist = legally married

Assumptionist = common law marriage

Ooooooohhhhhh .... I can feel the heat :D

—Guy

Guy Power;54812 wrote:

Devizalist = legally married

Assumptionist = common law marriage

I think the following is more correct:

Devizalist = married in an official ceremony

Assumptionist = common law marriage (living together as man and wife until there is a presumption of marriage)

The effect is that both marriages are recognized in law.

Unfortunately, however, the analogy with marriage is imperfect because granted arms at least in Scotland and England/Wales are recognized as a form of property.  Assumed arms in the US are not accorded any recognition as property.  The protection for granted arms in England/Wales, on the other hand (yet again), is presently nonexistent with the Court of Chivalry essentially defunct.  Thus granted arms in England and Wales are almost as unofficial as those assumed in the US.  Arms in England/Wales and the US have no legal protection whatsoever.  So there we have it…..

Kindest regards to all,

Edward

Michael Swanson;54811 wrote:

I am arguing against those who think the "devizalist" model should be applied more widely.

Consider "marriage."  There are two basic traditions in play:  (1) the wife is subservient to the husband, and (2) husband and wife are equal partners.  The medieval forms of marriage make the wife the property of the husband, but this early form and even the subservient model are extinct except in some theocracies and third world countries.

 

In America, we tip our hat to the old custom with our loose surnaming conventions, but this convention does not bring the rest of medieval tradition into play.

 

Similarly, in heraldry, we tip our hat to medieval custom by having heraldic symbols follow the male line, and observing stylistic traditions.  However, we don’t need to go overboard with hat-tipping.

 

I say, if you like excessive hat-tipping, go to a heraldically medieval country —like Scotland or England—and get your grant.  But these countries are in the minority because their old-world systems don’t promote healthy heraldic practice among the majority of citizens.

Hmmm, I’ll leave your generalizations about hat-tipping and marriage as acquisition of chattel aside. I would suggest that the distinction you might consider is not devised v. assumed but noble v. ignoble and perhspas to avoid the other associations of those words official v. private. The arms used in the United States are all private - they have no relationship to the nation. Scottish arms are public in that they are both officially recognized by the state and protected by it. European ‘noble arms’ (not necessarily only the nobility had such arms but also some citizens of free cities, etc.) whether granted or assumed were officially recognized by the state whereas other assumed arms were not. Some European states continue their recognition and protection of such historic arms even if they do not create ways for new arms to be recognized officially.

If one were to draw an analogy to marriage then officially recognized arms would be like civil marriage and informally assumed arms would be like assuming a spouse by shacking up. Long before there was an institution of marriage civil or church it was natural for men and women to simply pair off in whatever forms were culturally sanctioned - and yet it would seem that the official or public recognition of marriage carries a variety of values and advantages for a society and for a couple.

Guy Power;54812 wrote:

Hmmmmm ..... applying those parameters let me propose the following:

Devizalist = legally married

Assumptionist = common law marriage

 

 

Ooooooohhhhhh .... I can feel the heat :D

 

—Guy

Touché.  Bad analogy for my argument!

George Lucki;54814 wrote:

European ‘noble arms’ (not necessarily only the nobility had such arms but also some citizens of free cities, etc.) whether granted or assumed were officially recognized by the state whereas other assumed arms were not.

I’m not sure this is correct, at least not universally.  In what respect were the assumed arms of nobles (such as the Uradel) treated differently in law than the assumed arms of non-nobles?  As far as I’m aware, in most of northern Europe (Germany, France, the Low Countries) there were nobles with assumed arms and nobles with granted or recorded arms, and there were non-nobles with assumed arms and non-nobles with granted or recorded arms, and the legal system treated all of them the same.  I would have to find the citations but at least one prominent Continental heraldist, perhaps Michel Pastoureau, rejects the distinction between noble and non-noble arms altogether.

Joseph McMillan;54817 wrote:

In what respect were the assumed arms of nobles (such as the Uradel) treated differently in law than the assumed arms of non-nobles?  As far as I’m aware, in most of northern Europe (Germany, France, the Low Countries) there were nobles with assumed arms and nobles with granted or recorded arms, and there were non-nobles with assumed arms and non-nobles with granted or recorded arms, and the legal system treated all of them the same.

I recall from my discussions with Michael Waas, head of the Westphalia Heraldry Society in Germany, that most ancient noble families in Germany simply assumed their arms.  Very few of those families had them granted or confirmed as honours by the HRE or by the counts palatine.  Also in Bavaria, I recall (I think from Guy Stair Sainty) that commoners were able to obtain grants of arms without being recognized or ennobled as members of the untitled nobility.  So granted and assumed arms were not treated any differently.  It was the status of the armiger that was critical.  Where or how he got his arms seemed less important.

I think Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, himself a recognized, private officer of arms in Scotland, said it it best when speaking of the situation in Spain:

"I am tentatively coming to the conclusion that there are no such things as noble arms in spain…..  I think in Spain noble arms belong to a nobleman….  I have the proof of Don Joaquin Ramirez de Arellano, Marques de Sierra Nevada, from the Royal Chancellory in Vallodolid, issued in 1796, to qualify him for the order of Carlos III.  He had to prove that all eight great-grand parents were noble so the names of the next generation, 16, are given.  It is well over one hundred pages long.  Nowhere are arms mentioned.  Nobility was proved by being on the lists of nobles in the towns, holding offices reserved for nobles, membership of orders of knighthood that demanded nobility.  Above all not being on the list of taxpayers!"  Source:  The Scottish Heraldry Forum, Spanish Arms, 22 August 2003.

So assumed and granted arms appear to have been treated on par with one another at least from a legal perspective.  Granted or confirmed arms did not seem to play a key factor in determining nobility in either Spain or (parts of) Germany.

Michael Swanson;54811 wrote:

Similarly, in heraldry, we tip our hat to medieval custom by having heraldic symbols follow the male line, and observing stylistic traditions.  However, we don’t need to go overboard with hat-tipping.

I say, if you like excessive hat-tipping, go to a heraldically medieval country —like Scotland or England—and get your grant.

I do, and I did.

Quote:

Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,

Grew lean while he assailed the seasons

He wept that he was ever born,

And he had reasons.

Miniver loved the days of old

When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;

The vision of a warrior bold

Would send him dancing.

 

Miniver sighed for what was not,

And dreamed, and rested from his labors;

He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,

And Priam’s neighbors.

 

Miniver mourned the ripe renown

That made so many a name so fragrant;

He mourned Romance, now on the town,

And Art, a vagrant.

 

Miniver loved the Medici,

Albeit he had never seen one;

He would have sinned incessantly

Could he have been one.

 

Miniver cursed the commonplace

And eyed a khaki suit with loathing:

He missed the medieval grace

Of iron clothing.

 

Miniver scorned the gold he sought,

But sore annoyed was he without it;

Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,

And thought about it.

 

Miniver Cheevy, born too late,

Scratched his head and kept on thinking;

Miniver coughed, and called it fate,

And kept on drinking.

 

—Edwin Arlington Robinson

/Charles

eploy;54819 wrote:

I think Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, himself a recognized, private officer of arms in Scotland, said it it best when speaking of the situation in Spain:

"I am tentatively coming to the conclusion that there are no such things as noble arms in spain…..  I think in Spain noble arms belong to a nobleman….  I have the proof of Don Joaquin Ramirez de Arellano, Marques de Sierra Nevada, from the Royal Chancellory in Vallodolid, issued in 1796, to qualify him for the order of Carlos III.  He had to prove that all eight great-grand parents were noble so the names of the next generation, 16, are given.  It is well over one hundred pages long.  Nowhere are arms mentioned.  Nobility was proved by being on the lists of nobles in the towns, holding offices reserved for nobles, membership of orders of knighthood that demanded nobility.  Above all not being on the list of taxpayers!"  Source:The Scottish Heraldry Forum, Spanish Arms, 22 August 2003.

I agree with Mr. Drummond-Murray of Mastrick for the most part with the one exception of the Spanish solares nobles, who possess noble arms or more specifically a collective noble coat-of-arms of the privileged town of their birth. See this Spanish language link for more information on the solares nobles of Spain:  http://grandesp.org.uk/heraldica/herald_es5.htm  (by clicking this helpful link, the reader assumes full responsibility of the English translation of the linked article and absolves this poster of any translation duties).

David Pritchard;54827 wrote:

(by clicking this helpful link, the reader assumes full responsibility of the English translation of the linked article and absolves this poster of any translation duties).

Egads, he sounds like lawyer! 

Now are the arms themselves noble or simply because they belong to a noble entity (in this case an ennobled towns)?  I suspect that because the town and its natives are noble, and that nobility is imputed or lent to the collective arms.

I’ve been puzzling over George’s earlier assertion that American arms, by virtue of having no official connection to the nation, are fundamentally reduced to the level of mere graphic design, family mementos, or private keepsakes. How can that really be the case? Would the same not have to hold true for any originally assumed arms in any country? Would the claim not then be a bit harder to swallow?

Fred White;54830 wrote:

I’ve been puzzling over George’s earlier assertion that American arms, by virtue of having no official connection to the nation, are fundamentally reduced to the level of mere graphic design, family mementos, or private keepsakes. How can that really be the case? Would the same not have to hold true for any originally assumed arms in any country? Would the claim not then be a bit harder to swallow?

Fred, I wouldn’t go that far - there are two separatedifferent points in that summary. Maybe I need to clarify the two points.

I made each of the points in response to different statements made by Michael. The first is a thread in the discussion that separates modern heraldry from its mediaeval and chivalric roots.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Swanson

I don’t think this historical narrative has any force on present day heraldry in Continental Europe and the US because the tradition of freely assumed burgher arms overwhelms it.

Hmmm, I’m not sure I would agree that freely assumed arms have overwhelmed the European tradition of noble arms or that the traditions of heraldry - its chivalric roots can be simply suspended. If one cuts heraldry away from its roots - then all you have is a pretty picture, an ahistorical logo that mimics arms - something that looks like armorial bearings except comes from the tradition of graphic design.

My view is that as we choose to use arms we should also recognize its roots in the chivalric ethos - that personal arms arose in the context of feudal military service and in feudal relations generally - and this ethos needs to be respected and of course modernized recognizing that feudal relationships have been replaced by those of citizenship.

I recognize that not all arms are officially recognized much less granted and I recognize that when the state does not establish an armorial connection with its armigers it can be desirable to assume arms - such arms are nonetheless at a disadvantage. You had quoted this from one of my posts ‘

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Lucki

I am myself not overly fond of the bureaucritization of heraldry but the American system is in one sense poor with respect to the British or some of the earlier continental ones. . . . The petitioners wishes to create an armorial connection between themselves and their sovereign or nation and petitions for arms that he might bear as a citizen of the realm and might pass on to his descendents. . . . No American assuming arms has the benefit of such a connection between their arms and the republic - they are not symbols confirmed by the republic or any state as a gift or connection with that polity.

That does not make them simply logos, but when you also divorce them from their roots, their heritage they become graphic designs having neither relationship to the state or remaining true to their heritage. As the US does not have any official registration of heraldry it is more important, I think, to maintain a connection with the chivalric inspiration of heraldry. Of course I would like to see official recognition of personal arms in the US. Failing that I would like to see citizens assume arms but also learn about the origins and heritage of heraldry and see them as miore than simply graphic marks of personal identification or a graphic property but a proclamation of lineage, service and values.

George Lucki;54831 wrote:

Of course I would like to see official recognition of personal arms in the US. Failing that I would like to see citizens assume arms but also learn about the origins and heritage of heraldry and see them as miore than simply graphic marks of personal identification or a graphic property but a proclamation of lineage, service and values.

I think I follow.

Joseph McMillan;54817 wrote:

I’m not sure this is correct, at least not universally.  In what respect were the assumed arms of nobles (such as the Uradel) treated differently in law than the assumed arms of non-nobles?  As far as I’m aware, in most of northern Europe (Germany, France, the Low Countries) there were nobles with assumed arms and nobles with granted or recorded arms, and there were non-nobles with assumed arms and non-nobles with granted or recorded arms, and the legal system treated all of them the same.  I would have to find the citations but at least one prominent Continental heraldist, perhaps Michel Pastoureau, rejects the distinction between noble and non-noble arms altogether.

If you re-read my post my emphasis was on official v. private and ‘noble’ was used in the sense of official rather than pertaining to the nobility.

Quote:

I would suggest that the distinction you might consider is not devised v. assumed but noble v. ignoble and perhspas to avoid the other associations of those words official v. private. The arms used in the United States are all private - they have no relationship to the nation. Scottish arms are public in that they are both officially recognized by the state and protected by it. European ‘noble arms’ (not necessarily only the nobility had such arms but also some citizens of free cities, etc.) whether granted or assumed were officially recognized by the state whereas other assumed arms were not. Some European states continue their recognition and protection of such historic arms even if they do not create ways for new arms to be recognized officially.

In this sense the amswer could simply be in the existence of separate official registers, protection of certain attributes or periodic restrictions onm their free adoption. In the Netherlands and Belgium the arms of the nobility including the arms of the nobles who originally assumed their arms - both Uradel and in the case of the Netherlands larger numbers of burgesses from the time of the republic who were later ennobled. Belgium has developed semi-official registers but as I understand those have some civil protection while the arms and attributes of the nobility are (or were - would have to check) protected with criminal sanctions. Sweden (and Finland) maintained separate public registers of official (noble) arms and reserved certain attributes to them. Denmark’s noble arms are also legally protected as far as I know. France is a special case - there is a tradition of assumed arms and although a weak monarchy tried to impose a variety of restrictions for exampel around assumption of arms or nobilliary elements like helms with decrees - these were ignored (although the legal situation was that of the laws not the practice) and when an official and mandatory register was mandated in 1696 it was short lived and really a ruse to raise money. The First Empire’s idiosyncratic heraldry also created a scheme for the official classes of the Empire. None of these have lasted and really genealogical proofs of usage are the most improtant at present. I think that with some exceptions you will find taht broadly there were some distnctions between granted or official arms and those privately assumed.

I thought I might add just one other view on the issues of official v. private and devised v. assumed. I have expressed and hold the view that assumption rather than devisal of arms is more in keeping with the ideals of citizenship in a republic like the US. Assuming arms rather than having them granted by ‘a prince’ seems to fit the US ethos. So probably my preferred vision of US heraldry would see US citizens assuming arms and seeking to have them entered in an official register (The arms of the USA, its intstitutions and citizens) where they become seen symbols of the republic (the republic’s citizens) specific to a particular individual, family or lineage. Such an official register could also correct errors and point out potential usurpations or conflicts of arms.