Official US Arms Granting Authority

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 08:13
 

Arthur Radburn;91789 wrote:

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.


Thank you Arthur for reproducing the article.  I wonder what the author means by "applicants"?  My impression was that the officers-in-waiting usually do a good job screening applicants so I think the rejections occur either at the initial enquiry stage or after the memorial is approved but a design can not be settled on.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2012 09:45
 

Dear Edward,

I believe Knights of the Garter and the Bath cover the cost of the production of their crests and banners that are placed above their stall in St George’s Chapel, Windsor and Westminster Abbey respectively and I would imagine their stall plates as well, but this would not come to the excessive cost of £35,000 +.

 

Many knights of whatever order even if they are retired politicians, senior civil servants or senior military officers are that excessively wealthy to carry that sort of cost.

 

Regarding the procedure of petitioning for arms.  Generally when an individual approaches the College through their initial point of contact - the officer in waiting, he/she would be asked to supply a CV which has a two fold purpose: 1) to see the background of the prospective grantee, ie: honours (if any), education, qualifications, military and civil commissions, employment/career, and, perhaps, good works in society at large and 2) such a CV assists the herald to draw up the memorial (petition) to the Earl Marshal for the issuing of his warrant directing the Kings of Arms to grant armorial bearings.

 

Once in receipt of such a CV, the herald in question would ask advice of Garter to see if he would willing to entertain granting arms to the individual concerned.  If in the affrimative, the herald would then draw up the memorial for the signature of the prospective grantee.  Once the memorial is signed and the requisite fees paid, the memorial is lodged with the Earl Marshal’s Secretary at the College and in due time the warrant is signed and sealed by the Earl Marshal.  In reality, the Earl Marshal has no direct contact with the prospective grantee - all action to this point is dealt with by the herald acting as the prospective grantee’s agent, Garter and the Earl Marshal’s Secretary.

 

John

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 January 2012 09:46
 

The logic of "arms as honor," at least in its 20th century form, went as follows:

- Only a gentleman or a peer can have arms

- Gentility is a degree of nobility.

- A grant of nobility is an honor.

- The Crown is the font of all honors.

- Therefore only the Crown can turn someone from non-gent to gent.

- And the way it does this is by a grant of arms.

 

(And ignore that fee schedule; that’s no different from the stamp duty a new peer had to pay for his letters patent.)

 

Never mind that if we go back to the proceedings of the Court of Chivalry in the 17th century, we find that whether someone was a gentleman or not was more frequently ascertained by reference to local repute and offices held by members of the family than by whether or not he had a grant or confirmation of arms.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 10:04
 

liongam;91793 wrote:

Regarding the procedure of petitioning for arms.

In reality, the Earl Marshal has no direct contact with the prospective grantee - all action to this point is dealt with by the herald acting as the prospective grantee’s agent, Garter and the Earl Marshal’s Secretary.


Dear John,

 

I will take your word on the Orders.  I was serious when I said I was happy to hear that the passage fees were nowhere near the high amounts perhaps suggested by others or misunderstood by myself.

 

About grants of arms, doesn’t the officer in waiting usually do some initial screening?  Or does he simply submit all serious enquiries in the form of memorials and simply let the Earl Marshal decide?  I am just curious at what stage does the 10% rejection occur? Is it during the initial screening by the officer in waiting, by the Earl Marshal himself or on the advice of a King of Arms, or during the actual design process if a nutter applicant insists on reproducing da Vinci’s Mona Lisa on his arms?

 

I realize we are getting off topic here and would appreciate it if someone created an appropriate thread for this dialogue.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 10:18
 

Joseph McMillan;91794 wrote:

The logic of "arms as honor," at least in its 20th century form, went as follows:

- Only a gentleman or a peer can have arms

- Gentility is a degree of nobility.

- A grant of nobility is an honor.

- The Crown is the font of all honors.

- Therefore only the Crown can turn someone from non-gent to gent.

- And the way it does this is by a grant of arms.

 

(And ignore that fee schedule; that’s no different from the stamp duty a new peer had to pay for his letters patent.)

 

Never mind that if we go back to the proceedings of the Court of Chivalry in the 17th century, we find that whether someone was a gentleman or not was more frequently ascertained by reference to local repute and offices held by members of the family than by whether or not he had a grant or confirmation of arms.

 


That may have been the logic as everyone (mis)understood it, but I dare say it is wrong.  A grant only confirmed gentility (i.e., the basic condition of nobility) even during the heyday of Fox-Davies.  It did not create gentility, because gentility could actually exist without arms (e.g., the son of a non-armigerous peer, albeit a rarity, was still regarded as gentle despite his family’s lack of arms, an officer in the armed forces was gentle by profession even if his family lacked arms, a family of barristers enjoyed personal gentility at each generation but that nobility was not hereditary per se, etc).

 

AFAIK, the benefit to having arms was that it created a legal presumption that the armiger and his line were gentle.  The family did not technically have to produce any other evidence of their gentility at least in the UK.  Those lacking granted arms had to continually prove their gentility by producing references and other evidence.

 

Not sure if what I am saying is correct.  It is merely my understanding from reading a few of Gayre’s works.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 January 2012 12:33
 

I think even what Edward says (about how one got to be a gentleman) is more structured than the reality, but certainly agree that Fox-Davies and his followers got it badly wrong.

As for being able to cite a grant of arms as proof of gentility, Fox-Davies’s critics ridiculed the notion that a working class lad who built himself into a brewing magnate could become a gentleman by paying out £76 10s (as the price was in 1900) to the heralds. Yet such people were granted arms.  So the idea that the grant recognized existing gentility would mean that the College recognized someone as a gent whom the clubs in St. James’s Street and Pall Mall certainly wouldn’t.  It’s amusing to imagine one of the kings of arms blackballing someone for membership in White’s whose grant of arms he had just signed earlier the same day.

 

Anyway, since gentility has carried no legal or official privileges in England since the practical demise of the Court of Chivalry some 300 years ago, I can’t imagine a situation in which one would be asked to produce proof of gentility, whether a grant of arms or otherwise.

 

I was reading a passage in one of John Keegan’s books the other day about men being examined for their suitability to be officers in the British Army at the beginning of WWI. The test of gentility was "where did you go to school?" not "do you have an approved coat of arms?" If your school wasn’t on the approved list of gentlemanly public schools, too bad, coat of arms or not.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
16 January 2012 20:29
 

Joseph McMillan;91797 wrote:

I think even what Edward says (about how one got to be a gentleman) is more structured than the reality, but certainly agree that Fox-Davies and his followers got it badly wrong.

As for being able to cite a grant of arms as proof of gentility, Fox-Davies’s critics ridiculed the notion that a working class lad who built himself into a brewing magnate could become a gentleman by paying out £76 10s (as the price was in 1900) to the heralds. . . .

 

Anyway, since gentility has carried no legal or official privileges in England since the practical demise of the Court of Chivalry some 300 years ago, I can’t imagine a situation in which one would be asked to produce proof of gentility, whether a grant of arms or otherwise.

 

I was reading a passage in one of John Keegan’s books the other day about men being examined for their suitability to be officers in the British Army at the beginning of WWI. The test of gentility was "where did you go to school?" not "do you have an approved coat of arms?" If your school wasn’t on the approved list of gentlemanly public schools, too bad, coat of arms or not.

 


I certainly agree with Joseph.  The factors that identified a British gentleman to another of the species would have included things like which public school (i.e., private school) he attended, perhaps which university he attended (actually this seems to be less important than the primary & secondary school he attended), which London gentlemen’s clubs he belonged to, and what ministry he worked at (some preference seemed to be given to civil servants and military officers than people in the business sector though professionals were viewed favorably).

 

I merely cited Gayre because I thought he had a better grasp than Fox-Davies on the ‘true’ effect of a College of Arms grant (i.e., a grant of arms technically confirms gentility, and doesn’t confer it).  AFAIK, even Gayre admitted that his views were just theoretical and I am sure he would have looked to the more tangible ‘everyday’ variables listed above in determining whether someone was a gentlemen or not.

 

Interestingly, or perhaps not, the American upperclass seems to have borrowed much of the same indicators of British gentry status in determining another of the species.  In the US, however, it seems that those working in big business had one up on civil servants and military officers.  What is for certain is that arms seemed to have played even less of a role or no role whatsoever in determing social class.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
17 January 2012 01:06
 

eploy;91787 wrote:

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.


I recall reading somewhere that the regalia for the Garter, the robe, garter, Greater and Lesser George, etc., which the new member had to pay for, cost 40K GBP.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 January 2012 01:20
 

eploy;91778 wrote:

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?


What I’m saying is that I have a hard time accepting the idea that something one seeks out and pays for can really count as a recognition of merit.

 

Of course, Joe’s point about the dubiousness of a grant of arms’ functioning as confirmation/recognition of status also begs for reflection. If the whole process were a bit more transparent, it would be easier to analyze.

 

It seems we have several individuals on the forum who have worked for, or closely with, the College of Arms. Perhaps, while protecting the anonymity of those involved, they would be willing to cite specific cases where applicants have been rejected for reasons of questionable character, insufficient personal attainments, etc.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
17 January 2012 02:18
 

Charles E. Drake;91804 wrote:

I recall reading somewhere that the regalia for the Garter, the robe, garter, Greater and Lesser George, etc., which the new member had to pay for, cost 40K GBP.


Ditto Charles.  So while there may be no passage fee or only a nominal one for the Garter per John’s email (I have no reason to doubt John), I also recall that the cost of the all the regalia was sizeable.  It reminds me of the poor Thai who won a Porsche Cayenne in raffle, but was unable to claim his prize because he could not afford the taxes and transfer fees which were not part of the award.  Sorry to reopen what was a finished matter.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
17 January 2012 02:19
 

Fred White;91805 wrote:

It seems we have several individuals on the forum who have worked for, or closely with, the College of Arms. Perhaps, while protecting the anonymity of those involved, they would be willing to cite specific cases where applicants have been rejected for reasons of questionable character, insufficient personal attainments, etc.


That would be nice.  I am also curious as to what stage the rejections occurred.  Did it occur with the officer in waiting, or with the Earl Marshal or during the design process?  I suspect that most rejections occur at the initial stages whereby the officer in waiting makes his own determination, or perhaps many applications are terminated once the enquirer learns of the price of his grant.  A very few other rejections might occur at the design phase.  What I would like to know is the number of rejections that occurred because an applicant was found not worthy.  I suspect the number is less than 1 in 10 but I may well be wrong.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 January 2012 02:30
 

eploy;91807 wrote:

What I would like to know is the number of rejections that occurred because an applicant was found not worthy.


The number would be interesting, but more interesting still would be some specificity about the grounds on which representative applicants have been found unworthy.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
17 January 2012 02:33
 

Fred White;91808 wrote:

The number would be interesting, but more interesting still would be some specificity about the grounds on which representative applicants have been found unworthy.


Agreed as well Fred.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
17 January 2012 06:17
 

Dear All,

The bona fides of prospective grantees is generally gauged by the submission of a CV and, perhaps by a personal visit to the College or for those living at a distance from London via the ‘phone or other means of electronic communication.  As I mentioned in another post the herald who as the initial point of contact will satisfy himself as to the qualifications of the prospective grantee and thereafter will liaise with Garter to see if he is prepared to sanction such a grant.  If in the affirmative, the relevant paperwork is drawn up (the Earl Marshal’s Warrant), payment of the fees made and discussions commenced regarding ideas for the design of the arms, etc.  Generally, many prospective grantees will have: 1) received honours from the Crown; 2) are or have been in receipt of military or civil commissions from the Crown; 3) hold professional qualifications and 3) university degrees.  All of whom would satisfy individually or severally the criteria/qualification to be able to petition for armorial bearings both at the College of Arms and at the Court of the Lord Lyon without further investigation as these are verifiable facts.  However, this being said there are prospective grantees who approach the College without any of the foregoing qualifications.  In this case such an approach is taken upon its individual merits.  It is certainly not unknown for such prospective grantees to receive a grant of arms at the end of the day.  As I said, each case is taken on merit.

 

With regard to the those who fall at the first hurdle.  This is very difficult to quantify.  There may be a host of reasons why individuals do not go any further, but I would guess through experience the number is very few indeed.  Certainly, a prospective grantee would generally not fall at the design stage as this is a matter of negotiation, for by this time a prospective grantee would understand that the final design of his/her arms must be unique.  Heralds are fairly adept through experience to steer prospective grantees from designs that would not be considered suitable generally from an aesthetic point of view.

 

Regarding the question of the cost of insignia.  Of course there is a cost for such items for they need to be manufactured, but I mentioned in an earlier post these costs are borne by the state, or, perhaps, within the individual budgets of the government departments who sponsor nominations for a particular award, for example: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the Order of St Michael and St George; the Ministry of Defence for the Military Division of both the Order of the Bath or of the British Empire.  The Ministry of Defence is presently a case in point regarding the award of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal to members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces the cost of which is coming out of the Defence Budget.  To my knowledge no individual who receives an honour be it a Life Peerage, KG, KT down to an MBE is charged for the privilege.  All insignia are supplied by the Central Chancery for Orders of Knighthood which is based at St James’s Palace.  Here it should be noted that the insignia of both the Garter and the Thistle and, since, 1991, the Order of Merit are returnable on death of the holder and promotion within the Royal Victorian Order, the holder returns the insignia of the former grade within the order on investiture to the higher grade.  With regard to mantles of the various orders they are kept by Ede and Ravencroft, the Queen’s Robemakers in storage and are supplied when occasion dictates.  So no KG, KT or knight/dame grand cross of the other orders is expected to purchase their own mantles as one will be allocated to them for their use.  The Order of St John keep their own supply of sopra vests and mantles at St John’s Gate for use by Bailliffs/Dames Grand Cross, Knights and members of the Ceremonial Staff of the Order

 

As I recall, the only insignia that is purchased is that of a Baronet’s Badge.  A new baronet receives his letters patent of creation but no insignia.  He is expected to go and purchase his own badge from one of the manufacturers of such insignia.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 January 2012 09:28
 

liongam;91810 wrote:

As I recall, the only insignia that is purchased is that of a Baronet’s Badge. A new baronet receives his letters patent of creation but no insignia. He is expected to go purchase his own badge from one of the manufacturers of such insignia.


Which, if the cost of physically similar U.S. decorations is anything to go by, probably doesn’t run more than a hundred pounds, if that.