Status of assumed arms

 
snssaks
 
Avatar
 
 
snssaks
Total Posts:  11
Joined  02-10-2011
 
 
 
13 October 2011 01:41
 

I know I am fairly new to this site and even would say it is the first time of ever really being involved in deep discussion of heraldry matters, however I have been reading through the various discussions in hopes of quickly catching up and seem to notice a trend in perhaps a couple of peoples’ tones - that of them being overly suspicious of anyone bearing arms outside of their particular circles of comfort. I use this particular one as an example, only because there was another thread a few days ago bearing the same party in the discussion.

I have read and seen how people, even commoners in some parts of Europe, are able to have their coats of arms displayed on their houses and they have no papers of patent nor any official noblility per se, yet this is acceptable with the rest of their society. However, should someone be seen to have a coat of arms created for themselves, even through some one as highly skilled and trained as for instance Baron Andrew Jamieson, all of a sudden it seems that there are some people who take offense and try to find all sorts of exceptions and reasons for denying the right for that person to be proud and happy upon being able to display their arms.

 

This is the sort of commentary that makes a person such as myself, who is obviously not as well versed in all the various details of the topics perhaps, very nervous about sayng anything or even asking about a query that might come up, as there is fear that the "guns" would be aimed then at me and questioning every detail of my own family arms. Thankfully, they are very well documented and the Robertson Clan continues to hold strong as well as the other noble bloodlines that flow through my family tree.

 

Did not mean to take so much space to talk about this, but it has come up over the course of the past few days in several topics and I have spotted what could be considered some backhanded bullying occuring, which seems to go against what I read the guidelines for the Society seem to tell us all to adhere to. Surely, the members as well as the Users have the ability to respect each other, regardless of personal squabble, as this is really a fascinating group to learn from and feel able to share with openly.

 

And on that note I shall close my lengthy note and go on enjoying the learning process you all have been allowing me to soak information from. I look forward to more friendly discussions with you all as I get my feet more solidly on the ground here.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
13 October 2011 07:57
 

snssaks;88702 wrote:

I have spotted what could be considered some backhanded bullying occuring, which seems to go against what I read the guidelines for the Society seem to tell us all to adhere to. Surely, the members as well as the Users have the ability to respect each other, regardless of personal squabble, as this is really a fascinating group to learn from and feel able to share with openly.


Bullying here??!!!  No way!  wink


snssaks;88702 wrote:

I look forward to more friendly discussions with you all . . . .


That’s the right attitude!  :smile:

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
13 October 2011 09:08
 

Welcome to the forum, Suzanne. I think you’ll find that there are NO people on this forum who do not accept the idea that assumed/adopted coats of arms are valid. This is, after all, the American Heraldry Society’s forum and there are no arms granting authorities in the United States.

As to being afraid to ask questions, no one here or elsewhere was born knowing about heraldry. Everyone started somewhere. And no one here thinks ill of anyone with a genuine interest in gaining knowledge.

 

On a quick style point, there is no such person as Baron Andrew Jamieson. There is Andrew Stewart Jamieson, Baron de Carcassonne, or Lord Carcassonne, or simply Andy Jamieson.

 
 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
13 October 2011 10:15
 

Hello, and welcome, Suzanne,

If I get the general gist of your post, you are concerned that assumed arms are somehow less valid than arms that have been granted or registered with some sovereign authority.

 

You are not at alone in your confusion on this point.  And, as you alluded, there are strong opinions on both sides.

 

Here is my understanding (which is free to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than I)…

The various sovereign authorities which either grant or register armorial bearings all have limits to their respective justifications.  The Canadian Heraldic Authority (CHA), for example, has jurisdiction in Canada and only in Canada.  The Lord Lyon has jurisdiction in Scotland and only in Scotland, and so on and so forth.  Arms granted by the CHA have no standing whatsoever in Scotland.

 

In the United States, we live in an unregulated heraldic jurisdiction without an official authority of arms.  As such, we are free to assume and to use arms without any form of grant or official registration – so long as some measure of diligence has been taken to ensure that our arms are unique and to not usurp upon the arms of someone else.

 

see: http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Registration.Domestic

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
13 October 2011 10:29
 

snssaks;88702 wrote:

I know I am fairly new to this site and even would say it is the first time of ever really being involved in deep discussion of heraldry matters, however I have been reading through the various discussions in hopes of quickly catching up and seem to notice a trend in perhaps a couple of peoples’ tones - that of them being overly suspicious of anyone bearing arms outside of their particular circles of comfort. I use this particular one as an example, only because there was another thread a few days ago bearing the same party in the discussion.

I have read and seen how people, even commoners in some parts of Europe, are able to have their coats of arms displayed on their houses and they have no papers of patent nor any official noblility per se, yet this is acceptable with the rest of their society. However, should someone be seen to have a coat of arms created for themselves, even through some one as highly skilled and trained as for instance Baron Andrew Jamieson, all of a sudden it seems that there are some people who take offense and try to find all sorts of exceptions and reasons for denying the right for that person to be proud and happy upon being able to display their arms.

 

This is the sort of commentary that makes a person such as myself, who is obviously not as well versed in all the various details of the topics perhaps, very nervous about sayng anything or even asking about a query that might come up, as there is fear that the "guns" would be aimed then at me and questioning every detail of my own family arms. Thankfully, they are very well documented and the Robertson Clan continues to hold strong as well as the other noble bloodlines that flow through my family tree.

 

Did not mean to take so much space to talk about this, but it has come up over the course of the past few days in several topics and I have spotted what could be considered some backhanded bullying occuring, which seems to go against what I read the guidelines for the Society seem to tell us all to adhere to. Surely, the members as well as the Users have the ability to respect each other, regardless of personal squabble, as this is really a fascinating group to learn from and feel able to share with openly.

 

And on that note I shall close my lengthy note and go on enjoying the learning process you all have been allowing me to soak information from. I look forward to more friendly discussions with you all as I get my feet more solidly on the ground here.


With heraldry, as with many other things in this world, there is a certain perceivable undercurrent of jealousy and elitism at play; as if some feel that there isn’t enough heraldry to go around for everyone; therefore those nouveau armigers are looked upon with a degree of askance by certain individuals; as if their use of newly assumed arms somehow diminishes the value of heraldry in general. There is even a dismissive attitude among certain armigers towards arms that have been borne for centuries here in the New World when there is no record of them to be found in the Old World, since it is generally considered that there is greater prestige in Old World documentation, and therefore added credence and greater legitimacy. The fact that all coats of arms are made up by someone at some point in time, and therefore all coats of arms are thus equal, seems to regrettably be lost on such elitists in our midst.

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
13 October 2011 10:37
 

Some people in the United States worry that their arms are less valid, because they weren’t granted, or approved by a government organization.  That being said, we never really think of German heraldry as being any less valid than the rest of Europe, and they also lack a government run authority.  They, like us, depend on private societies for the registration of arms.  Yes, some countries, and people are definitely sticklers and killjoys on any new arms popping up.  However, there isn’t any room for that here in the United States in my opinion.  Assuming the arms in question is well designed, and doesn’t break any of the traditional rules.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 October 2011 11:14
 

Kenneth Mansfield;88712 wrote:

On a quick style point, there is no such person as Baron Andrew Jamieson. There is Andrew Stewart Jamieson, Baron de Carcassonne, or Lord Carcassonne, or simply Andy Jamieson.


In the spirit of Kenneth’s tag from Albus Dumbledore at the bottom of his posts, I would amend this to say that there is Andrew Stewart Jamieson or simply Andy Jamieson. I would suggest that the AHS should not allow itself to be used as a forum for propagating the notion that any authority exists which can validly grant such a title.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
13 October 2011 11:58
 

Suzanne, i would agree with the points others have made on the validity of assumed arms. there are more wrinkles in this little pond, but no need to go over them because the general statements above on that matter are right. most all of us assume arms here. most all of us are not able to claim a direct link with existing armigers and as Joe has pointed out many times assumed arms are just as valid as assigned arms from a national authority somewhere out there. i don’t have the links to those threads, but i’d guess if you search for them you’d find them. most people, well maybe not most, but a good number of them will use well-known arms as a basis for their arms and then change them up to one not be stealing their arms or two to show that these are their arms but still have some linkage to the well known arms. ref arms of Joe, Michael, and my own now that we’ve recently altered the metal/color from Azure and Argent to Sable and Or to reflect that (i know, i know that’s anathema to purists as they’ve already expressed as much in different threads). so, assumed arms are every bit as legite to those (which is most everyone here as most people here are good people) who are not snobbish, or, puritanical, which are really very few and far between.

as for the other stuff, i say call people by whatever they ask you to call them or given you permission to call them. for example you can call me Dennis, Denny, or D, as that’s what most people who know me in real life call me, or as my name actually is now, which is Donnchadh. you are not one of my players so you don’t have to call me coach, others do, which is very kind of them, but no one needs to. i write it in my name here as i have earned that title coaching for 26 years (since i was 13 and head coaching since i’ve been 18 ) and, frankly, i’ve earned it. besides outside of family and friends most everyone calls me coach.

 

now i mention this as an example because, imo, you should be allowed to call people whatever you like and that they’ve given you permission to. this happened to me when i first came here many years ago where a snob of a man (later showed himself to be an anti-American and anti-Irish bigot), no longer with us, took exception to my use of my name in Irish (Donnchadh) among other things (like calling into question my paternal parentage when he didn’t even know me and i had never talked to him before!!) and wanted "proof" of my name being that, which later another nicer person asked about my name in a post and i popped off about ‘what do i have to supply some kind of court documents for my name or something’ kind of thing to which Joe was nice enough to say i did not need to do that etc. so, for me, call people what you will as long as they are ok with it. imo, there’s no need to be too snobby/stuffy here over incidentals like that. especially when we let other people run-a-muck on much more serious matters with no comment! heck, what would we do if some famous writers became members? you know the kind that use ghost names for their books so their real life isn’t put under a microscope as we in America want to do. would we tell them they couldn’t be called by their pen name and only their legally documented name? i would hope not.

 

besides, if we’re to be fair on this matter we would have to stop allowing people to use anything other than what is their legal name in ANY of their info above, which would knock out a good number of people’s monikers! are we to then forbid people from calling them, say, Aquilo, and only refer to them as Anna? if we are going to be so legalistic i will follow as i’m not gonna make a war out of it, but it seems over the top to me for our Admins/Mods to be worrying about what exactly a moniker says and by whose authority they have the right to use that moniker especially when we all put our real names in there anyway! to me it seems much-a-do about nothing. so, again, i say call people whatever they want to be called. if someone tells me, "call me Lt. Col. John Doe" i will oblige. in the end it’s not worth anyone getting their panties in a bunch over…there’s much more serious stuff…like heraldry! smile

 

sorry for the long-winded reply, but welcome ~~ failte!

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
13 October 2011 12:34
 

steven harris;88716 wrote:

Hello, and welcome, Suzanne,

If I get the general gist of your post, you are concerned that assumed arms are somehow less valid than arms that have been granted or registered with some sovereign authority.

 

You are not at alone in your confusion on this point.  And, as you alluded, there are strong opinions on both sides.

 

Here is my understanding (which is free to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than I)…

The various sovereign authorities which either grant or register armorial bearings all have limits to their respective justifications.  The Canadian Heraldic Authority (CHA), for example, has jurisdiction in Canada and only in Canada.  The Lord Lyon has jurisdiction in Scotland and only in Scotland, and so on and so forth.  Arms granted by the CHA have no standing whatsoever in Scotland.

 

In the United States, we live in an unregulated heraldic jurisdiction without an official authority of arms.  As such, we are free to assume and to use arms without any form of grant or official registration – so long as some measure of diligence has been taken to ensure that our arms are unique and to not usurp upon the arms of someone else.

 

see: http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Registration.Domestic


i think this is correct. the only difference i’d post would be that i believe, may be wrong, that LL claims jurisdiction over foreigners of Scottish descent who live in a nation with no national authority, as does CHI, Norry Ulster King of Arms. again i may be wrong on LL and Norry/Ulster but i think like CHI they will allow for descendents of their nation living abroad.

 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
Total Posts:  244
Joined  13-05-2011
 
 
 
13 October 2011 13:00
 

Joseph McMillan;88721 wrote:

In the spirit of Kenneth’s tag from Albus Dumbledore at the bottom of his posts, I would amend this to say that there is Andrew Stewart Jamieson or simply Andy Jamieson. I would suggest that the AHS should not allow itself to be used as a forum for propagating the notion that any authority exists which can validly grant such a title.


The Head of the House and name of Aragon, Don Francesco, is a legitimate ‘fons honorum’. The Italian Courts recognised him as such in 2003. Any judicial ruling by a member of the European Union is law in all member states and has to be recognised as such, or so I understand. This title was an honour earned for my services to the Royal House.

 

http://real-aragon.org/wp/

 

You will notice however that I do not use it on this Forum or on any other Forum but I use it out of mischief on FB and my website and if someone tells me I should not do something, well I just turn round and do it. My Scots ancestry flows deep in my veins. I love to watch people waste time and get all riled up by this stuff. Seems to work ;-D It’s the devil in me. Either way Andy Jamieson or Oi You! serves me just as well but not ‘sweetie’, only Ce calls me that !

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
13 October 2011 13:18
 

Welcome Suzanne.  It’s nice to see another woman join the forum.

In discussing the arms or titles or whatever, and I am no expert on any of these matters - If you define the country of interest and time period of interest things are much smoother because, it provides a point of reference (common language?) for the discussion.  Although quite slow, heraldry is a continuingly evolving subject which has roots from differing traditions of different locations.

 

Assumed arms are valid because they are yours as long as you’ve performed dilligence in ensuring others haven’t already laid claim to them.  Personally (and I’m a bit of a rebel in this area - I think), I believe they are valid anywhere you go - it’s just that some authorities won’t recognize them, protect them legally or in extremes may require you not to use them because their country didn’t grant them.  Respect the rules of the country you are in or discussing and you should be fine.

 

Oh, and Andy -  FINE, Dear!

 
snssaks
 
Avatar
 
 
snssaks
Total Posts:  11
Joined  02-10-2011
 
 
 
13 October 2011 13:53
 

That’s the guy I was talking about…. Lol…. Thank you for the help in getting his, Andy’s name correct. Wow! Did not realize tossing the pebble in the pond would create some much of a friendly ripple. Thank you to all of you for your warm words and helping this newbie get past just wriggling her toes in the surf. I feel much more confident in sharing thoughts and questions as they come up….. on topic, of course….added with some potential tongue in cheek occassionally…after all I do have a whole bunch of Irish blood coursing through my veins. Not to worry though as the Norwegian side tones it down a bit. Really though, thank you to each of you for your very kind words and explanations. By the way, Coach, I am a writer and I do use a Nom De Plume for my works….Shhhhhhhh. (I have not figured out how to put the smiley faces on yet - so just pretend there is a smiley face posted right here)

 
Ce Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Ce Howard
Total Posts:  63
Joined  29-09-2011
 
 
 
13 October 2011 15:01
 

It’s really good to see you here.  I laugh when I hear folks carrying on about Andy’s title.  You just gotta know Andy.  He wears jeans and a leather jacket to meet Arab Sheikhs.  He was honored to receive it but he doesn’t use it the way folks might think.  Again, you gotta know him.  I guess when you are as good as he is at painting you can do what you want.  Me I still have to dress up to meet clients.

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
13 October 2011 15:14
 

Donnchadh;88725 wrote:

i think this is correct. the only difference i’d post would be that i believe, may be wrong, that LL claims jurisdiction over foreigners of Scottish descent who live in a nation with no national authority, as does CHI, Norry Ulster King of Arms. again i may be wrong on LL and Norry/Ulster but i think like CHI they will allow for descendents of their nation living abroad.


Seems to be a bit of a reach for any college of arms (however titled) to claim jurisdiction over foreigners who happen to live in a country without an official authority of arms.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
13 October 2011 15:16
 

Donnchadh;88725 wrote:

i think this is correct. the only difference i’d post would be that i believe, may be wrong, that LL claims jurisdiction over foreigners of Scottish descent who live in a nation with no national authority, as does CHI, Norry Ulster King of Arms. again i may be wrong on LL and Norry/Ulster but i think like CHI they will allow for descendents of their nation living abroad.


Lord Lyon has no jurisdiction outside of Scotland. Lyon can make a posthumous grant of arms to an American’s deceased ancestor who lived under British rule as a colonist in colonial America, whereby the descendant may matriculate arms from said ancestor; but Lord Lyon has no authority to adjucate on matters of coats of arms outside the geographic boundaries of Scotland.

 

There has been a great deal of misinformation spread about regarding Lord Lyon’s authority and jurisdiction; however his powers are clearly spelled out in Scottish Law, as follows:


Quote:

“The Lord Lyon King of Arms has jurisdiction, subject to appeal to the Court of Session and the House of Lords, in questions of heraldry, and the right to bear arms. (Hunter v. Weston (1882) 9 R 492, Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (1920) S.C. 764, affd. 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 39.) He has no jurisdiction to determine rights of precedence (Royal College of Surgeons v. Royal College of Physicians, 1911 S.C. 1054.), nor to decide a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship. (Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, 1938 S.L.T. 49; and see 1941 S.C. 613.)” - Introduction to the Law of Scotland, 9th edition, 1987, p. 25

 

 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
Total Posts:  244
Joined  13-05-2011
 
 
 
13 October 2011 16:17
 

steven harris;88741 wrote:

Seems to be a bit of a reach for any college of arms (however titled) to claim jurisdiction over foreigners who happen to live in a country without an official authority of arms.


America kicked out all that Old World nonsense in favour of the enlightenment. You are creating your own heraldic traditions. Down the British, Up the Rebels! wink