Official US Arms Granting Authority

 
David Hovey
 
Avatar
 
 
David Hovey
Total Posts:  12
Joined  02-01-2012
 
 
 
15 January 2012 16:44
 

Joseph McMillan;91755 wrote:

I agree with James that the key difference is the latter.  I would love to figure out who first suggested that an English or Scottish grant of arms was an honor from the Crown.


I didn’t know anyone had.  I had thought the concept of arms as an honour from the crown was a purely Canadian invention to sidestep the British tradition of arms being a recognition of social class or status. I must look into the Fox-Davies reference.

 

I once compared the publicly available petition evaluation criteria of the College of Arms to that of the Canadian Heraldic Authority.  They seemed near identical, leading me to question what the real difference was.

 

I think in the end it all really boils down to the same outcome…arms from both countries recognize a certain status within their respective societies (although I doubt Canadian authorities will ever admit it).

 

Joseph / James, it does seem that an honour would be somewhat diminished from the perspective of it being petitioned rather than freely granted without the recipient’s knowledge or encouragement.

 

Hmm. Perhaps I should just abandon the honour perspective and call myself a ‘gentleman’ after all! wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 January 2012 17:48
 

You can find it The Right to Bear Arms on archive.org, http://www.archive.org/stream/righttobeararms00foxd

On page 36, Fox-Davies ("X") says "In all European countries which recognise the rule of a Sovereign (of course, dismissing for the moment modern evolutions of dominion) arms are unquestionably an honour and a matter of honour in the prerogative of the Sovereign to confer."  (This is, and was at the time of writing, factually incorrect, of course.)

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
15 January 2012 22:13
 

Arthur Radburn;91739 wrote:

If the LPs grant the arms simultaneously to X and to his children (or, in some cases, to his siblings and other relatives), then evidently, X is being honoured in this way for his/her contribution to Canada and, as David says, the others are being honoured simply for being related to X.  To that extent, then, this is an hereditary honour which does not require the heirs to qualify on merit.

 


I argue by analogy:

 

Behind every great man is a great(er) woman.  In many societies and throughout history, a woman whose husband receives a chivalric honour usually enjoyed a courtesy title (e.g., Lady for wives of Lords and Knights, etc).  The rationale is a logical one::  that wives contribute to the success of their husbands.

 

Usually the opposite is not true:  husbands of great ladies do not usually receive any courtesy title whatsoever.  Countries like Canada are rarity where a husband shares somewhat in his wife’s honours and achievements (e.g., husbands of past Governor-Generals have also been created Companions in the Order of Canada and Knights of Justice of the Venerable Order of St. John along with their wives).  It is a logical step for a country that aspires to true gender equality.

 

I think the Canadian Heraldic Authority is taking this concept one step further to the children of the original recipient of granted arms.  I am not entirely against this hereditary honours concept because children can and in most cases actually do share in both the successes and hardships of their parents.  Successful people often have to sacrifice their family life and its usually the spouse and children that often end up paying the price and/or reaping the benefits.

 


Arthur Radburn;91739 wrote:

But what of the next generation (who may not necessarily all bear X’s surname)?

The arms are hereditary, but must the children’s children’s matriculate them and obtain some kind of official document, which could be regarded as a continuation of the honour based on descent rather than on personal merit?

 

Or are they free simply to inherit and use the arms without reference to the heraldic authority and without further differencing (which is the norm in most countries, except Scotland)?  In this case, the honorific element of the arms, i.e. the issue of an official document to a named individual, has ceased.


As I proposed in my earlier posting, I think matriculation would be a wonderful way in which to reconfirm the right to arms for the grandchildren and further descendants of the original grantee, not to mention serve as a revenue stream for the CHA.


Arthur Radburn;91739 wrote:

There are more questions than answers!  Perhaps this topic merits a thread of its own, rather than as a diversion from the original topic of a US heraldry authority


Indeed!

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
15 January 2012 22:22
 

David Hovey;91741 wrote:

In Scotland, for example, the conveyance of arms does not bestow gentility upon the recipient.  A grant of arms is a recognition of one’s pre-existing state of gentility (or nobility if one is of that class).

Scottish armorial letters patent used to carry what was considered a "nobility" clause, which referenced the new armiger as being admitted to the "noblesse" of Scotland.  People therefore clamoured to obtained Scottish arms wrongly believing this would somehow bestow a mark of nobility upon themselves.

 

The Lord Lyon has since removed that reference in order to attempt to clear up this misnomer.  Clearly, arms in Scotland do not bestow anything - they simply recognize one’s existing qualities.  This is still debated by some however.


I agree completely.  Even in Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and in theory the rest of the Commonwealth, granted arms merely acknowledged one’s pre-existing gentility/nobility.  I don’t think arms were ever intended to "grant" gentility or nobility per se.

 

In theory, however, the benefit to having such granted arms is that it permitted the armiger and his armigerous descendants to be regarded as gentle/noble without having to produce any other evidence of such gentility or nobility.  In other words, it saved the person in question from having to produce his genealogy, evidence of the honorable occupations (if any) of their ancestors, evidence of lands, etc each time his or her gentility was brought into question.  Furthermore, heraldry allowed for a relatively simple shorthand of a family’s origins and graphically stunning way to identify a family, its properties and even its retainers in case of the armiger’s livery colours and badge.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
15 January 2012 22:36
 

Fred White;91747 wrote:

How can a grant of arms be an honor if you have to pay for it? Doesn’t the commercial dimension kind of reduce it to the status of a luxury good?


Not necessarily.  Many distinquished orders of chivalry for example have very high passage fees before a person can be accepted into the Order.  For example, I recall reading somewhere (perhaps it was Guy Stair Sainty in rec.heraldry) that the Order of the Garter, the premier British order, has a passage fee equivalent to about USD 75,000.  I understand from an American member of the SMOM that his passage fee as a Knight of Magistral Grace (non-noble category) was "several thousand dollars". Knights in the noble categories of the SMOM also pay a passage fee, but it is usually cheaper.  Other prestigious orders also have high passage fees which funds usually go towards the orders’ charitable foundations and to also process the admission of new members.  What happens if a person does not pay the passage fee?  Then they do not get admitted into the relevant order.

 

Likewise, the argument from the College of Arms and several other heraldic authorities is that while grants of arms are actually free, the high fees are necessary for compensating the calligraphers, heraldic artists, etc.  AFAIK, the College of Arms does not offer a free registration mechanism such as the CHA (the CHA will register arms granted to Canadians by other recognized heraldic authorities for free) whereby a blazon can be registered but without any accompanying emblazonment.

 

So in short, the honours system in the UK and many other countries or groups can in fact involve large sums of money even though the actual honour is technically free.  About the difference between an honour and luxury item, both are extremely expensive but whereas the luxury item is purely a transaction, the honour does ideally involve screening and evaluating the merits of the applicant as well.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 00:11
 

Joseph McMillan;91754 wrote:

I finally have enough time to sit down and try to do justice to Fred’s thought-provoking post.


I’m flattered to have provoked so much thought! I’m not sure I can reply at the length deserved, but I’ll take a stab at it.


Quote:

II think it’s important to distinguish between using heraldry as a sign of official recognition of social status and the connotations of a coat of arms as perceived by the bearer and the mass of the general public. I think we can agree that the former would be unacceptable in the U.S.


I, too, think we can agree on the former, but I should think we’d be able to agree on the latter, too.


Quote:

Consider these two coats of arms:

http://www.pyramidsystems.com/images/DOC_Logo.jpg

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Harvard_Wreath_Logo_1.svg/220px-Harvard_Wreath_Logo_1.svg.png

 

Do people who see either of these automatically associate them with medieval/feudal values, even subliminally? Those who recognize the second as belonging to Harvard University may well perceive class connotations, but more because of how they perceive Harvard, not because the device is on a shield.


Perhaps we’ll just have to disagree here. I think the Department of Commerce and Harvard are both consciously fortifying their claims to authority by using symbols whose origins are clearly medieval. At least subliminally, I think the average viewer grasps that.


Quote:

I also think that how arms are seen is largely culture-bound. Does a German looking at this house in Mittenwald, Bavaria, perceive the arms painted on the facade as having feudal/medieval connotations? Does he see them as an assertion of the family’s class superiority to others?

http://www.wappen.com/images/Lueftlmalerei.jpg

 

I can’t say for sure, but it’s hard for me to believe, given how widespread this sort of thing is in Upper Bavaria, Tyrol, etc., that there could possibly be much social cachet to bearing and displaying arms this way. Let me pick up on this again in a moment.


I don’t doubt that there are variations among cultures in how arms are seen, but the general drift seems to be that they connote some measure—a little more here, a little less there, but some measure—of class superiority. I think the owner of the sort of house you cite here is trying (however tastelessly) to assert pride in belonging to a family that he thinks is superior to other families. That a large number of others are doing the same thing, and that it looks really tacky to my eyes, is kind of beside the point, isn’t it? We have to distinguish between apparent intention and likely effect.


Quote:

Consider:

http://www.diyjerseyshop.com/bmz_cache/8/8f62199b2b5580057ffafbf4316e059a.image.280x280.jpg http://www.huliq.com/files/imagecache/article_main/news_article/images/200px-Royal_Monogram_of_Prince_William_of_Wales.svg_.png

 

If the coronet of rank with the script letter W posits a claim to superior status (it is the cyper of the Duke of Cambridge), then the script letter W alone must denote some kind of status beyond that of the ordinary…baseball team?


Maybe I phrased my point awkwardly. What I was trying to say is that a shield alone plainly connotes social status above the norm and that any additament is simply augmenting that.

 

In any case, there’s a difference between a cipher and a commercial logo.


Quote:

In a society in which everyone had a place, and everyone knew who occupied what rung on the ladder, for an artisan or peasant, however prosperous, to try to pass as a noble would have been absurd. Certainly one couldn’t imply nobility with a coat of arms on which the charges were a plowshare and a sheaf of rye, or three leather-tanning knives, or a housemark—all charges typical of non-noble/non-knightly heraldry in the early period.


I didn’t mean to oversimplify. There’s no denying that it would have been absurd for a peasant to try and pass as a noble, but it would have made perfect sense for a peasant to coopt the prestige language of heraldry to assert that he had earned a social promotion and was in a position to claim some portion of the noble’s status beyond that held by someone with no arms at all. Accordingly, I do not dispute the argument you’re making here:


Quote:

. . . my theory is that the adoption of heraldic arms by non-noble people as early as the 13th century were actually expressing something different, or rather three things, in which these people resembled the nobles without being nobles:

1. Freedom. It is noteworthy that peasant arms appear in the areas of Europe where peasants actually held their land by freehold tenure or the equivalent (rather than simply working it as serfs). Other than that, most of the early arms of non-nobles belonged to city-dwellers, precisely because "town air made one free." This, I think, was the first prerequisite for one to feel entitled to use heraldic devices—one had to "own" oneself. When the medieval heraldic theorists said that any man had the right to assume arms for himself, I think what they meant was any free man; a serf had no rights whatsoever.

 

2. Eligibility to participate in governance. I would posit hypothetically that the sense of a particular society as to who could bear heraldic arms tracked closely with the legalities of who could rule. I can’t prove this, but it might be testable through a series of case studies comparing the use of arms by burghers in various cities with the breadth of the franchise, or how high or low the bar was set for holding public office.

 

3. Continuity. By achieving a certain level of prosperity, a burgher or peasant was able to build up a legacy to be passed on to future generations. This created a consciousness of continuity, which is what marks of family identity signified. Education meant literacy; literacy meant written records, which in turn meant the consciousness of family history. And so on.


Doesn’t this suggest that the adoption of any armorial bearings whatsoever has always been a claim to status superior to the status of those who have not adopted them?


Quote:

Horace Round in the early 20th century took great glee in showing how the College of Arms itself helped people claim fraudulent connections to families with illustrious histories (Spencer to Le Despenser, most notoriously), but the affirmation by higher authority didn’t make the connection true, either literally or figuratively. And how would this apply to those using arms in societies where there was no higher authority involved? I’m just lost on this one.


I’m simply saying that the likely assumption to be made about the bearer of a coat of arms in the U.S. is that either a) he descends from a long line of distinguished individuals that began with a medieval warrior who actually used a shield and helmet thus festooned, or b) the individual himself, or some post-medieval ancestor, has been deemed by some higher authority (someone besides himself) worthy of being considered the peer of those with an august lineage or being considered the beginning of an august lineage, himself. If the origins of the American armiger are not in the British Isles or some other place where the state asserted some control over the use of heraldry, the implication to most viewers will still be that his arms were assumed very long ago in an environment where only persons of high status bore arms. Anyone who assumes arms today is sensible of this reality and is therefore aware that he stakes a claim to comparatively high status by displaying them.


Quote:

I can’t remember his name, but I was reading one French heraldic theorist of the early 18th century who asserted in one part of his treatise that only nobles could bear arms, then later discussed the rules for the use of arms by non-nobles (no timbres, i.e., helms, coronets, crests, etc.), and finally tried to explain that non-nobles were permitted to bear devices that were indistinguishable from arms, but were in fact not arms because (wait for it) only nobles could bear arms.


That such literature exists only reinforces the point that arms are associated with high status, doesn’t it?


Quote:

Was the Quaker botanist John Bartram lying when he said that he considered his arms a mark of family identity, not a claim of social superiority?


Well, one can only speculate, and "lying" is a harsh way of putting it, but yes, if Bartram knew anything at all about heraldry, I think he was lying to the extent that he must have considered his family more important than many other families.


Quote:

We’ve talked a lot about attitudes of the Founding Fathers toward equality and hierarchy.  I think the point relevant to heraldry is that by the late 1700s, the distinction between "gentleman" and "burgess/burgher/bourgeois" had blurred to the point of ceasing to exist, as had the line between gentleman and yeoman.  For example, one of the principal rules of duelling was that a duel could be fought only between social equals.  Yet in the United States in the early 19th century we find duels between Congressmen and hotel keepers, between judges and editors.  This is a clear indication that consciousness of hard and fast class categories had disappeared.  I’m not arguing that this meant the U.S. had no class structure.  In fact, I think we have a class structure of enormous, enormous complexity.


I don’t disagree with you. We do have a class structure here, and it is rather complex.


Quote:

I don’t believe that the English class structure was ever so clearly defined as the Fox-Davies formula equating armigerous with gentle would suggest, but certainly by the time Barton wrote (about 1815) the American class structure was too amorphous to permit that equation, at least if it meant restricting the ambit of the term "gentleman."  In fact, going back to my point about medieval adoption of arms reflecting in part an awareness of freedom and eligibility for governance, I think we could say that all these categories morphed into something best described by "bourgeoisie" in the old, pre-Marxist sense of the word.  Note that etymologically, "bourgeois" and "citizen" both have to do with status as a full member of a city.  We extended "citizen" to refer to the political system beyond the bounds of the city.  In other words, what I’m groping to articulate is this:  just as the burgher/burgess/freeman/bourgeois of a medieval city felt himself entitled to adopt a coat of arms as an expression of the independent, free, enduring identity of himself and his family, so the citizen of the United States (as Barton said) was legitimately entitled to do the same.  But it took someone to articulate this to offset the damage done by the "only the recognized gentry may have arms" theory, a theory that was always at odds with the facts.  The work of overcoming the older misconception is still in progress.


Okay, but if the work of overcoming the older misconception is still in progress, that would mean that anyone using arms in the U.S. can expect himself to be understood to be making a claim to higher than average status, right?


Quote:

So the display of a poorly designed coat of arms by someone ignorant of heraldry is less of a claim to specialness than a well-designed one? The display of a bucket-shop coat of arms, or of the arms of someone famous from centuries past with a shoddily researched pedigree to back it up is then presumably a statement of egalitarianism.


I don’t see how you’re getting that from what I was saying, which is that any use of a coat of arms in the U.S. is at least a vague claim to high(er) status. It may be a claim founded on ignorance (in the case of the bucket shop arms), and it may be unpersuasive (in the case of the merely amateurish and tacky arms), but the claim is there nonetheless.


Quote:

When I say that "all my coat of arms expresses is kinship," I consider that to include the idea that kinship exists across time. It is therefore an assertion, or at least an aspiration, for the durability of my family, or to be specific my great-grandfather’s descendants, over the centuries to come. And by extension, yes, an expression of the hope that McMillans 200 years from now will be conscious and proud of whatever those who founded the arms and bore them through the generations had accomplished and contributed—and even a consciousness and shame about whatever negative things any of us may do or have done.


Well, but that’s just it, you aren’t really saying "all my coat of arms expresses is kinship." You’re saying that it expresses a special kinship, a kinship better than other kinships, not least because it offers to be publicly held to account for its deeds. You’re saying that you, your ancestors, and descendants have subscribed to a code of honor. And you’re saying that this condition of having the special kinship warrants commemoration with artwork.

 

I’m not attacking you for that, of course, because I do the same thing, but I sure don’t expect the agencies or laws of the United States to pay any attention to it because I think it’s in some ultimate way at odds with the ethos Americans typically identify with their better selves.


Quote:

This, I think, is the same intrinsic meaning that is inherent in the arms of a Radziwill, a Scrope, a Spinola, a Menendez. The coat of arms binds together Radziwills across geography and across time. The difference is that the family identity evoked by the arms of those future Radziwills won’t include descent from the early pioneer settlers of Alabama, unfortunately for them.


Well, the Radziwills would undoubtedly be better for an infusion of Alabama settler stock into their family tree, and better still for an infusion of Georgia settler stock, but that’s neither here nor there. The point I would make is that we live in an ambience where we are taken to be claiming to be the Radziwills’ peers—in some nebulous but significant way—if we use coats of arms. We’re not just saying we’re like them only in having affection for our family members; we’re saying we’re like them in being a bit important. I strongly doubt that our federal or state governments will ever validate such statements or be persuaded that the personal use of heraldry can be decoupled from the making of them.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 00:34
 

eploy;91769 wrote:

Not necessarily.  Many distinquished orders of chivalry for example have very high passage fees before a person can be accepted into the Order.  For example, I recall reading somewhere (perhaps it was Guy Stair Sainty in rec.heraldry) that the Order of the Garter, the premier British order, has a passage fee equivalent to about USD 75,000.  I understand from an American member of the SMOM that his passage fee as a Knight of Magistral Grace (non-noble category) was "several thousand dollars". Knights in the noble categories of the SMOM also pay a passage fee, but it is usually cheaper.  Other prestigious orders also have high passage fees which funds usually go towards the orders’ charitable foundations and to also process the admission of new members.  What happens if a person does not pay the passage fee?  Then they do not get admitted into the relevant order.

Likewise, the argument from the College of Arms and several other heraldic authorities is that while grants of arms are actually free, the high fees are necessary for compensating the calligraphers, heraldic artists, etc.  AFAIK, the College of Arms does not offer a free registration mechanism such as the CHA (the CHA will register arms granted to Canadians by other recognized heraldic authorities for free) whereby a blazon can be registered but without any accompanying emblazonment.

 

So in short, the honours system in the UK and many other countries or groups can in fact involve large sums of money even though the actual honour is technically free.  About the difference between an honour and luxury item, both are extremely expensive but whereas the luxury item is purely a transaction, the honour does ideally involve screening and evaluating the merits of the applicant as well.


I should have been more precise. Of course, I’m aware of the passage fees, annual oblations, etc. associated with orders of chivalry. And my sense is that even in cases where no funds have changed hands in the conferral, per se, of an order, a certain moneyed or once-moneyed background has often been a de facto prerequisite to even be in the running. Neither an explicit nor an implicit financial requirement would necessarily vitiate the status of an order of chivalry as an honor, in my eyes. As you rightly note, the money often gets channeled into worthy causes. At the same time, the greater distinction would devolve to an honor that is truly a free gift and not in any sense a purchase.

 

My point about grants of arms being dubious honors has to do with the ambiguity about whether or not there really are any criteria other than the ability to pay. We’ve talked about this around here several times before, and I can’t recall anyone being able to cite an example of the UK authorities’ turning anyone down if he was able to pay. And David Hovey notes that the CHA won’t disclose its screening criteria. Why is that? I can only assume it’s because they want maximum latitude in determining who qualifies.

 

None of this is to say that I’m opposed to seeking grants of arms, but I’m a lot more comfortable with the idea that they confirm existing status than I am with the idea that they recognize merit.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 01:32
 

James Dempster;91753 wrote:

The difference is surely one involving who makes the first approach. An honour was a gift, even if it had strings attached. Arms are normally a grant (a consession) upon application.


Agreed. This is the distinction I was aiming at.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 01:38
 

Luis Cid;91699 wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the granting of arms as an honor to an individual or a state or corporate entity (a good use of heraldry in my opinion) - however, this can only be in addition to heraldry’s first and foremost use which is distinction between familys, individuals, and state or private corporate entities.  Outside of the U.K., arms are not noble (or "burgher’) arms, but rather the arms of the bearer, who may be a nobleman or not.  The U.K. is very much the exception when it comes to this wonderful tesserae gentilitiae.


Basically, Luis, I agree with you, but mustn’t we add that personal heraldry’s foremost use is not only to distinguish between armigerous families, but to distinguish those who are armigerous from those who are not? The latter dimension may be tacit rather than explicit, but I don’t see how it can be denied.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 01:53
 

Fred White;91774 wrote:

I should have been more precise. . . .

My point about grants of arms being dubious honors has to do with the ambiguity about whether or not there really are any criteria other than the ability to pay. We’ve talked about this around here several times before, and I can’t recall anyone being able to cite an example of the UK authorities’ turning anyone down if he was able to pay. And David Hovey notes that the CHA won’t disclose its screening criteria. Why is that? I can only assume it’s because they want maximum latitude in determining who qualifies.


Okay I see your point.  As far as I know, anyone who can pay the fee is usually deemed worthy in the UK (apparently mere interest in heraldry is deemed sufficient and such things as officer commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, receipt of honours or some level of fame are not necessary at all).  In Canada, I understand that service and contributions to the community are very broadly defined.  If anything, the complaint among many Canadian heraldists is that the CHA has been too generous in granting arms.


Fred White;91774 wrote:

None of this is to say that I’m opposed to seeking grants of arms, but I’m a lot more comfortable with the idea that they confirm existing status than I am with the idea that they recognize merit.


Fred, please elaborate again on your second sentence.  I would think both are valid reasons to be bestowed a grant of arms.  Why do you dislike the "merit" category?  Is it because it is so broad?

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
16 January 2012 05:07
 

eploy;91778 wrote:

Okay I see your point.  As far as I know, anyone who can pay the fee is usually deemed worthy in the UK (apparently mere interest in heraldry is deemed sufficient and such things as officer commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, receipt of honours or some level of fame are not necessary at all).  In Canada, I understand that service and contributions to the community are very broadly defined.  If anything, the complaint among many Canadian heraldists is that the CHA has been too generous in granting arms.


On this point, Garter Woodcock stated in a newspaper interview at the time of his appointment in 2010 that only 90 percent of applicants are successful, and that it is decided "on individual merit alone".  That implies that one applicant in ten is turned down because he/she is not sufficiently meritorious.

[ http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/166469 ]

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2012 06:14
 

Dear Edward,

In all the years I worked at the College of Arms (the last three working for the then Garter King of Arms) I have never heard of a ‘passage fee’ of the equivalent of $75,000 for entry into the Order of the Garter.  I think this must be an urban myth.  Yes, certainly, some orders in Britain and elsewhere have an annual oblation (subscription) - the MVOSJ comes to mind, but these are relatively very small sums.  All British honours of whatever grade are awarded without cost to the recipent, the Crown/State covering cost.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 06:27
 

liongam;91786 wrote:

In all the years I worked at the College of Arms (the last three working for the then Garter King of Arms) I have never heard of a ‘passage fee’ of the equivalent of $75,000 for entry into the Order of the Garter.  I think this must be an urban myth.  Yes, certainly, some orders in Britain and elsewhere have an annual oblation (subscription) - the MVOSJ comes to mind, but these are relatively very small sums.  All British honours of whatever grade are awarded without cost to the recipent, the Crown/State covering cost.

 


Like I said, I recall reading it from Guy Stair Sainty.  From what I understood, the amount was for comissioning the three-dimensional crest in Garter’s Chapel and other such expenses like the cost of the decoration, banner of one’s arms, etc.  I understood that admission into the Order was free but that fulfilling the chivalric requirements was at (a high) cost hence the passage fee.

 

As I tend to err on the side of cynism, I am very happy to know this is in fact not true and the amounts are much more modest.  Otherwise, I would have had to turn down my Garter appointment!  smile

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 06:42
 

Arthur Radburn;91783 wrote:

On this point, Garter Woodcock stated in a newspaper interview at the time of his appointment in 2010 that only 90 percent of applicants are successful, and that it is decided "on individual merit alone".  That implies that one applicant in ten is turned down because he/she is not sufficiently meritorious.

[ http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/166469 ]


Ninety percent is actually a pretty high "success" rate.  By "applicant" I am assuming he means that the officer-in-waiting has already screened the applicant, has drafted a memorial and submitted it to the Earl Marshal for his nominal approval.  Is that correct?  If so, does this mean that the Earl Marshal actually reviews each memorial or does he act on the advice of one of the Kings of Arms?  Unfortunately, I cannot access the link you gave me and hence cannot read the article.

 

I am not sure your implication necessarily follows:  that 1 in 10 is rejected because s/he is not sufficiently meritorious.  I recall reading an interview that each year a few applicants are turned down because they insist on registering non-heraldic designs or that they demand trappings to which they are not entitled.  If that is indeed true, then perhaps the 1 in 10 ratio can even be cut down further to something like 1 in 12 to 1 in 20.

 

I think if you are not a nutter, are reasonably eminent (a university degree or a demonstrated interest in heraldry will suffice) and can pay the fee, you will get your grant.  I don’t think the modern grant process is intended to be inordinately difficult.

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
16 January 2012 07:47
 

Sorry that you couldn’t access the article, Edward.  Here’s the relevant extract -  after pointing out that Garter’s salary is only £49 p.a., the article continues :

The solution is the private sector. The College’s outgoings, including staff costs and the upkeep of its magnificent 17th-century premises near St Paul’s Cathedral, is funded by members of the public prepared to stump up the appropriate fee – £4,225 as of January – for the privilege of commissioning their own coat of arms.

 

Perhaps this is why the test of “eminence” is so vague. “To some extent work comes in with people who’ve been knighted, or have something such as an OBE, but a great many people would be eligible if they wanted to pursue it.” A degree counts, apparently.

 

Ninety per cent of applicants are successful and it doesn’t matter who your ancestors were. “You could be the child of a criminal because it is decided on individual merit alone,” he adds.

 

Anyone can pop along to the counter at the college – staffed from 10am-4pm five days a week – and chat to the duty herald. “Most want to know what a crest on their family silver means,” says Garter. But callers interested in commissioning the ultimate representation of self are always welcome.