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

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2011 15:50
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;90882 wrote:

It’s not that I do not understand what you are saying, it’s that I believe your statements are erroneous.

It is not the ACH’s place to give control to a registrant on how his issue is meant to inherit. Whether they claim empowerment over safeguarding this apparent US custom or not is less important than your belief that they are empowered to do so. ACH’s role should be no more than to "observe" amerigerous heritance and it seems by your statements that you believe otherwise and that the justification for this is granted by your interpretation of US custom.

 


I’m a little confused on what the issue here is…  Wouldn’t an armiger in the US be in control of how his issue is meant to inherit?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
21 December 2011 16:13
 

I suspect that the ACH, which publishes their registrations, retains the copyright to that published version; thus can exercise some control, at least over that particular emblazonment.  Any legal control they may retain, however, wouldn’t extend (under American copyright law) to any other heraldically identical but artistically unique rendition.

As to "rights"—in the moral, not legal sense—if one chooses to play on their field, one should follow their rules (I didn’t so I don’t).

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
21 December 2011 16:57
 

Back to the original question—my choice is a MODIFIED version of "A" -

A) Family Arms - My preference is for all descendants of the ORIGINAL armiger BEARING THE SAME SURNAME, AND THEIR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN, to confidentally assume the arms of their armigerous ancestor, without regard to gender [DELETING: "if they so choose."]

 

IIRC that’s essentially what we say in our Guidelines, though I’m sure Joe expressed it better.

 

The primary purpose of personal or family heraldry is identification.  Arms are a reflection of our identity, or they fail to serve that primary purpose.

 

In our society, for better or worse, our identity is tied both legally and socially to the surname; and arms which do not reflect that shared surname fail to accurately reflect our identity.  That’s why arms are sometimes referred to as a form of graphic signature.  The requirement is, in modern times at least, "gender-neutral" because we are free to legally adopt and consistently use, legally and socially, either parent’s surname.

 

Bearing arms that don’t coincide with our legal and social surname IMO are the equivalent of having a birth certificate, drivers license, passport and bank account as John or Jane Smith, but choosing to sign our name as John or Jane Jones because of a sentimental attachment to our Jones ancestors.  Good luck getting the bank to cash that check!—or expecting our family, friends and business associates to take us seriously.

 

If we want to actually be John or Jane Jones, we can legally change our name; and then, as an heraldic side effect, change our arms accordingly.  Our legal and social identity are the drivers; arms are merely (using that term intentionally) a reflection of that identity.  They have no separate existence, or reason to exist, outside of that greater legal and social context.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 December 2011 17:14
 

I think I’m basically on the same page as Mike, here, though I would add that I do not think it is legitimate, for instance, to change one’s surname in order to use the arms of some long-dead ancestor with said surname. Armorial inheritance has to have the consent of the armiger or it isn’t really inheritance.

 
David Fofanoff
 
Avatar
 
 
David Fofanoff
Total Posts:  213
Joined  03-05-2011
 
 
 
21 December 2011 17:25
 

:idea: How about we all just assume the arms of our most ancient ancestors - Adam and Eve, or, for those non-creationists, the first monkey and his mate?

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
21 December 2011 17:38
 

If it wasn’t obvious already, I am defensively entrenched in front of Option B) Personal Arms. :marine:

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
21 December 2011 18:49
 

Fred White;90956 wrote:

I think I’m basically on the same page as Mike, here, though I would add that I do not think it is legitimate, for instance, to change one’s surname in order to use the arms of some long-dead ancestor with said surname. Armorial inheritance has to have the consent of the armiger or it isn’t really inheritance.


While I can understand, and agree with that, it isn’t always the case in Irish Armory. Granted most cases of assume new name and arms were done so per a provision of a will but I do recall a case (forget the name) where the armiger obtained a royal warrant changing his last name and granting him arms to the new name that belonged to a dead great-grandfather and no will was mentioned. So, while I completely agree with you I know that at least in that one case it was not practiced.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 December 2011 15:54
 

RE:changing one’s name merely to inherit & use the arms of some maternal ancestor—one would need to want that result badly enough to permanently alter one’s legal and social identity—a serious case IMO of the tail wagging the dog.  But still, I could see it if for some reason one is seriously unhappy with one’s surname (maybe one’s papa was a criminal or seriously abusive), and/or desires to connect oneself with the grandma who lovingly raised you as her own…  Anyway, its not really up to us to read - or judge - someone else’s mind in a matter like this.  The heraldic consequence would follow naturally, hopefully as a side effect rather than a root cause.

An easier way to preserve and honor a favored maternal connection without abandoning one’s surname and turning one’s legal and social affairs upside-down, is merely to marshal the related arms by quartering, or incorporating relevant elements of both coats as brisures or a new composition.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
27 December 2011 14:01
 

Michael F. McCartney;91048 wrote:

RE:changing one’s name merely to inherit & use the arms of some maternal ancestor—one would need to want that result badly enough to permanently alter one’s legal and social identity—a serious case IMO of the tail wagging the dog.  But still, I could see it if for some reason one is seriously unhappy with one’s surname (maybe one’s papa was a criminal or seriously abusive), and/or desires to connect oneself with the grandma who lovingly raised you as her own…  Anyway, its not really up to us to read - or judge - someone else’s mind in a matter like this.  The heraldic consequence would follow naturally, hopefully as a side effect rather than a root cause.

An easier way to preserve and honor a favored maternal connection without abandoning one’s surname and turning one’s legal and social affairs upside-down, is merely to marshal the related arms by quartering, or incorporating relevant elements of both coats as brisures or a new composition.


Dear Michael, I believe your suggestion would bethe most elegant solution to the hypothetical family/personal problem presented.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 December 2011 15:41
 

Luis - Thanks!

Changing one’s surname in order to inherit the arms of a maternal ancestor may make sense in some very limited foreign contexts—e.g. if necessary under the relevant foreign laws or customs to be recognized as chief of the name & arms of a Scottish family, where those relevant laws or customs allow inheritance through a female line (similar to the succession to the UK crown).  There may be other traditions besides Scotland where that would also be the case, but I’m not familiar with them; and it surely would not be the case where inheritance is essentially limited to the "heir male" (e.g. most British titles, or the French Salic law).

 

While that might in rare cases be relevant to an American (there are a few Scottish chiefs who are Americans) that’s so rare here as to be personally irrelevant to nearly all of us here—at best, an interesting but foreign tail-wags-the-dog "spectator sport."