“links of chain” for adoption

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
24 August 2011 01:26
 

The matter of using a mark of difference to show adoption or of reverting to the name and arms of one’s genetic family or father has usually pertained to situations in which the genetic family or father was of high rank or wealthy. In this situation reverting to such a connection would be seen as beneficial. It also usually happened in earlier times when the law was less clear about adoption.

Wat discovers that he is Arthur, son of Uther, and not the child of Sir Kai. It was of benefit to him to connect to his birth relationship.

 

One of Henry VIII’s bastards discovers the truth—he probably knew it all along—shows up at court and says, "hello daddy." He might get some money, an education, a manor, or a title.

 

This situation is extremely unlikely in modern adoptions for connecting to the genetic family or father is unlikely to be of benefit. This is one of those heraldic concepts better suited for earlier times and special cases.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
24 August 2011 15:13
 

liongam;87218 wrote:

Joseph,

Many thanks for your thoughts.  As my original post was purely hypothetical I completely understand and respect what you say, although I cannot see how any law can refute or deny a true genealogical decent through an artificial, although legal, construct as pertains to adoption in the USA.  I would imagine that such a law protects the child, but there must many adopted children in the USA like their fellows in the UK who seek or wish to seek to find their birth parents at some point in their lives.  Although such efforts always have the risk of opening ‘a can of worms’.

 

John


Hi John,

Everyone knew I’d HAVE to say something on this thread… I cannot see how any law can refute or deny a true adoptee all rights and privaleges of the parents who were so properly loving and kind to adopt them… un differenced, as they say…

 

There are many who seek or wish to seek their biological parents for as many reasons as there are individuals seeking… Some of it is merely the knowledge that so many health issues are tied to genetics and they’d like a family medical history… Others.. well, many reasons…

 

As to the "can of worms"... well, the children didn’t cause it…

 

OK - everyone knew I’d have to "jump in" - heraldically, I’m quite happy I live in the USA!

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
24 August 2011 16:51
 

Something from European heraldic tradition and for all who asked about the graphic symbol representing ‘links of chain’ ...

http://www.oocities.org/skuinsbalk/adopt.html

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
24 August 2011 17:39
 

Kathy,

As to the ‘can of worms’, I was not implying any blame or fault attaching to the children concerned.  I only commenting on the likelihood of the very human concern/reaction by either the birth parents or adoptive parents that very often accompanies the wish for such child either when young or in adulthood to seek out its birth parents.  With regard to the law, I was only trying to establish the point that although as the law stands in the USA in relation to adoption it in essence wipes out any connection with a adopted childs natural parents, the underlying genealogical or, perhaps, more correctly, biological link still exists although subsumed by the act of adoption.

 

I apologize to have opened my very own ‘can of worms’ with my initial post within this topic.  I was only attempting to clarify a genealogical point, albeit one that was as I mentioned purely hypothetical.

 

All the best

 

John

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 August 2011 22:03
 

John—a can of worms perhaps, but IMO a worthwhile, if occasionally uncomfortable, discussion.  Heraldry is, or IMO should be, more than just pretty pictures, tho’ I truly and gleefully enjoy the eye candy.

The underlying purpose and function of heraldry is, I believe generally understood to be identification of persons, families and communities; with a natural side effect—sometimes beneficial, sometimes in excess—of a bit of pride in one’s personal, familial or corporate identity.

 

If that identity which we wish to announce and take pride in, is to be more than some fuzzy myth, it should be accurately portrayed; and IMO done so consistently with the laws and accepted customs of one’s society.  Otherwise it is at best meaningless, if not confusing or misleading.

 

If the laws and norms of a society treat adoption in a particular way—whether or not it’s the way we individually prefer—then IMO we should reflect that social and legal reality in our heraldry unless & until our laws and social norms change (hopefully for the better!).  Here, IMO luckily but that’s merely serendipitous, our laws are generally favorable to adoption; but the discussion of how that plays out in our heraldry is, again IMO, a useful if challenging topic of discussion.

 

Of course, once we’ve talked it to death it may be time to move on!

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
26 August 2011 13:49
 

Michael—I could not agree more; heraldry is nothing if not identification of individuals, a lineage, a community, or an institution.  Heraldic usage must follow the laws and customs by which individuals fit within these groups to be of any value as a science - otherwise heraldry would be reduced to nothing more than so many colorful decorations devoid of any real historical, social, or cultural value.

 
ninest123
 
Avatar
 
 
ninest123
Total Posts:  1703
Joined  29-06-2017
 
 
 
20 January 2022 00:19