Survey: Family Arms vs. One-Armiger-One-Arms

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
17 December 2011 16:42
 

Not to rehash previous discussions on the suitability or reasons, I would just like to survey everyone as to where you currently stand on the family vs. personal arms viewpoints.

Which option do you most agree with (barring small and insignificant caveats)?

 

A) Family Arms - My preference is for all descendants of the armiger to confidentally assume the arms of their armigerous ancestor, without regard to gender if they so choose.

 

B) Personal Arms - I fancy the use of one arms for one armiger and any but a designated heir (whether it be first born son, first born child, most heraldically inclined child, or whatever) ought to difference their arms in some way (cadency, brisure, random, whatever).

 

C) Don’t Know - I haven’t made up my mind

 

D) Neither - I prefer some other specific manner of assumption which is unsimilar with any of the above options (please explain in post).

 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
17 December 2011 17:34
 

Dear Jeffrey,

B) Personal Arms

 

 

Almost since I became interested in heraldry, I have espoused the Scottish system of matriculation and the concept of ‘one armiger, one arms’.

 

It does appear to have been a medieval system that just died out in most heraldic realms.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2011 19:42
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;90689 wrote:

A) Family Arms - My preference is for all descendants of the armiger to confidentally assume the arms of their armigerous ancestor, without regard to gender if they so choose.


Are you talking about how you prefer your descendants regard your arms or how you would prefer to view the arms of your ancestors? There’s nothing stopping any American armiger from designating whatever inheritance pattern s/he pleases, but it’s hard for me to see the morality of arrogating to oneself the privilege of conjecturing what his ancestors would have approved of. Not that I couldn’t be made to see it, but I would take some convincing. For someone like me, who has armigers galore in his family tree (but not one in the direct male line who can be identified as yet), it would certainly open up a lot of possibilities.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2011 20:12
 

I agree 100% with Fred.  Except that I’m not open to being convinced on this one.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
17 December 2011 21:07
 

Fred, Joe, for the sake of argument, A) assumes that one is adopting arms either clearly established as familial already or newly assuming original arms with the intent to pass them to all descendants without difference.

So again I ask you good sirs, which of the options are your preference? :D

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2011 22:36
 

I don’t see the need to participate in this.  For one thing, voting presupposes that everyone’s view on this is equally valid, which I don’t accept in what’s supposed to be a scholarly forum.

For another, we hashed this out in developing the guidelines and I do not choose to revisit the matter.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2011 23:37
 

Joseph McMillan;90697 wrote:

I agree 100% with Fred.


AGAIN??? My goodness, this is a curious trend. wink

 

But seriously, the question is kind of moot in an unregulated heraldic environment. That said, I think the Guidelines have got it right, and I don’t see any of the options presented in this poll as tracking with them very well, so I would say my preference is closest to B, except that if the most heraldically inclined child happens to be a girl (sorry, ladies) who has brothers, she is nonetheless ineligible to inherit the arms. And I don’t think differencing is at all obligatory. I think some blazons can be improved by it, though.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
18 December 2011 00:01
 

Joseph McMillan;90700 wrote:

voting presupposes that everyone’s view on this is equally valid, which I don’t accept in what’s supposed to be a scholarly forum.


Joe, I didn’t ask for a vote as if it would change existing guidelines; that isn’t my purpose. This is a survey, not a vote.

 

This is intended to inventory current opinion of active forum members’ preferences on these specifically heraldic questions. I don’t consider collecting data to be anti-scholarly. :-?

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
18 December 2011 00:50
 

I will concede to this thread being moved to ‘Off-Topic’ if it might be lending the forum an unscholarly character.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 December 2011 08:37
 

It’s not off-topic.  I simply choose not to take part.  If others see a point to the exercise, that’s up to them.

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

Fred White;90695 wrote:

Are you talking about how you prefer your descendants regard your arms or how you would prefer to view the arms of your ancestors? There’s nothing stopping any American armiger from designating whatever inheritance pattern s/he pleases, but it’s hard for me to see the morality of arrogating to oneself the privilege of conjecturing what his ancestors would have approved of. Not that I couldn’t be made to see it, but I would take some convincing. For someone like me, who has armigers galore in his family tree (but not one in the direct male line who can be identified as yet), it would certainly open up a lot of possibilities.

 


I agree as well.  I think you should be able to inherit arms from a direct paternal ancestor, and only from a direct paternal ancestor.  I could think of some possible exceptions with special circumstances that may sway that however.  For the most part though, you shouldn’t be able to just find anybody in your family tree who was an armiger.  For instance, a very large percentage of people from western Europe can somehow trace their ancestry to Charlemagne.  If you could just adopt any arms in your tree, things would get very confusing very quickly.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 December 2011 23:09
 

Jeff Poole;90719 wrote:

Very true and accurate, but being able to prove either is another question :banghead:


Well, my guess is that the name of the latrine-cleaner is lost to history, though then again, I suppose it would have been a high honor. If there were ladies of the bedchamber, why not men of the chamber pot? But I digress.

 

What I really set out to say is that, indeed, being able to prove descent from Charlemagne, for instance, is something a relative minority of us can accomplish, and even then, I believe we have to take a huge leap of faith and suppose all paternities are in fact as documented. In any case, the relative minority I refer to is still quite a large number of people. And actually, assuming just about every late medieval monarch in Western Europe had documented descent from Charlemagne, we are definitely talking hundreds of thousands of descendants just in the United States. Take a glance at Gary Boyd Roberts’ Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants and you’ll see what I mean. Likewise with volumes concerning descendants of the Magna Carta sureties. Bottom line: you can count all the armigers you want in your family tree, but if you don’t have an armiger in the direct male line, there’s nothing for it but to get your own arms. If you’re really attached to a particular ancestor’s arms, just difference it a bit. There’s no harm in that.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
19 December 2011 04:19
 

I’m firmly in the undecided realm.  Here’s a question I have been contemplating just about this subject.

If two armigerous people marry and one comes from a tradition of male heir CoA and another comes from a tradition of all heirs inherit the arms of the original armiger, is there a correct way to resolve the inheritance of arms for their heirs?

 

Since the answer is decidedly different in various countries, I’m concentrating on what would the correct US answer be?  Quartering? for one heir or all heirs?

 

Complicating the issue could be more depth in the situation - there are a variety of possibilities (I will assume a male-female marriage):

1.  Male comes from male inheritance tradition, female comes from all heirs tradition (and would be considered the heraldic heiress if she came from a one arms one armiger tradition)

2.  Male comes from male inheritance tradition, female comes from all heirs tradition (and would NOT be considered the heraldic heiress if she came from a one arms one armiger tradition)

3.  Male comes from all heirs tradition and would be heir if he was from one person one arms, female comes from inheritance via male line, but is the heraldic heiress due to no brothers.

4.  Male comes from all heirs tradition and would NOT be heir if he was from one person one arms, female comes from inheritance via male line, but is the heraldic heiress due to no brothers.

5.  Male comes from all heirs tradition and would NOT be heir if he was from one person one arms, female comes from inheritance via male line, and is NOT the heraldic heiress.

 

Anyway, I’m sure there are more combinations, but I’d think in the US this situation could exist…  Hence the direct undecided status…  wink

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
19 December 2011 09:04
 

note: I’ve moved the posts on descent from Charlemagne, etc. to another thread: http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6367

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
19 December 2011 12:36
 

Kathy McClurg;90733 wrote:

If two armigerous people marry and one comes from a tradition of male heir CoA and another comes from a tradition of all heirs inherit the arms of the original armiger, is there a correct way to resolve the inheritance of arms for their heirs?

Since the answer is decidedly different in various countries, I’m concentrating on what would the correct US answer be?


Clearly, there are gaps in my learning. In what countries is there a tradition of all descendants inheriting arms without regard to sex or surname?

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
19 December 2011 13:38
 

I believe the AHS guidelines on this matter are the best possible expression of heraldic inheritance in the USA.