new private organization registering US arms

 
cachambers007
 
Avatar
 
 
cachambers007
Total Posts:  164
Joined  04-06-2011
 
 
 
15 May 2012 01:30
 

For free internet registrations there is also http://assumearms.com/. It allows for free registration of both blazon and emblazonment. It also has a fairly sizable registry. Clearly the site’s proprietor hopes to get some design consultation fees, but you can’t fault providing the registry as a community service.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
15 May 2012 07:41
 

Hugh Brady;93459 wrote:

I think registrars should aspire to credibility and permanence. Both take an investment of time and money. I think Kathy has a very good point in that it is often too much for one person. The primary reason the COH/NEGHS is still operating is that it has both, and even its system is not perfect. Registrars need to be more than scriveners, and a registrar should state what it does (with any associated standards) and doesn’t do . If all it does is record the blazon, then (as previously noted on this forum) you’re just better off filing it at the county clerk’s office.


Does COH/NEGHS still have an active link?

 

I would love it if these folks published searchable blazons. A union of the varied rolls of arms for Americans would be great - both online and published.  Joe and company are doing a great service, although I wish it were more searchable like the Canadian search engine.  I don’t think (although I haven’t looked in awhile) that the NEGHS has an online roll of arms, nor does the ACH.  USHR was filling that niche but is inactive. - I believe online publication as well as "hard copy" is worthwhile.

 

I know there are differing opinions here, but I’m all for supporting an attempt to fill the USHR niche - although a combined effort by current groups would be much to my preference.

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
15 May 2012 11:19
 

Kathy McClurg;93470 wrote:

I know there are differing opinions here, but I’m all for supporting an attempt to fill the USHR niche - although a combined effort by current groups would be much to my preference.


I fully support that idea as well, because I don’t see USHR coming back from its internet grave.  As mentioned already, the key here is that all these organizations and groups rely on several people, not just one.  If somebody is growing tired or to busy for the endeavor, he may step down and allow somebody to take his position.

 

It would definitely something I would be willing to devote some of my own time to, and I know there are other people here that feel the same way.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
15 May 2012 15:50
 

If Michael Swanson were willing to donate the USHR site to the AHS, or perhaps to some affiliated committee, that would IMO be great!  Of course it’s his private property, so he’s under no obligation to do so.  (And the AHS Board would have to be willing to take it on, or at least authorize a qualified group to do so, which they may not be willing to do…)

IMO it would be better to resurrect an existing registry particularly one that was well-designed & well-run, and with a significant existing content, than to have "x" number of new start-ups most of which will be flawed and/or fleeting.

 
Dale Challener Roe
 
Avatar
 
 
Dale Challener Roe
Total Posts:  453
Joined  19-03-2008
 
 
 
15 May 2012 16:11
 

Michael F. McCartney;93481 wrote:

If Michael Swanson were willing to donate the USHR site to the AHS, or perhaps to some affiliated committee, that would IMO be great!  Of course it’s his private property, so he’s under no obligation to do so.  (And the AHS Board would have to be willing to take it on, or at least authorize a qualified group to do so, which they may not be willing to do…)

IMO it would be better to resurrect an existing registry particularly one that was well-designed & well-run, and with a significant existing content, than to have "x" number of new start-ups most of which will be flawed and/or fleeting.


This would certainly be, if not ideal, a very good scenario.  But there’s a lot of ifs in there.  Personally I’d like the USHR to continue in some way.

 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
15 May 2012 19:19
 

The problem I have with any on-line armorial registration is the length of time the site may continue to exist.

I tend to agree that the fewer sites there are the better.

 

However, I would like to see each site associated with a library of repute (preferably the same library) so that a file copy of each registration is permanently available for inspection.

 

When a site is closed down through the original developer’s death, lack of time, lack of interest or lack of funds to continue paying for the storage of data then the information is often lost for ever!

 

One heraldic example is the site that hosted the civic heraldry of Portugal. In this case, the data was inherited by the Dutch heraldist who operates an extensive civic heraldry site. Unfortunately, the data is still not completely available for examination - yet anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
15 May 2012 21:56
 

My thinking was similar in line to what Iain mentions… a registry which was affiliated with a more enduring institution not primarily based on a profit model.

A library is a great idea… my thoughts had been floating around the idea of encouraging local geneological societies to begin registering arms for people so that at least locally, some jurisdictional control could be introduced (such as the possible service of checking to see if there were usurpation of local preexisting arms). Only famous arms would need to be checked against outside of the local jurisdiction IMO (to me a jurisdiction would be a county at best or a state at the broadest).  This of course, is my own rather implausible daydreaming. raspberry

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
15 May 2012 21:59
 

What is strange is that most people who are into genealogy, don’t know the slightest thing about heraldry.  While everybody who is passionate about heraldry, knows that it goes hand in hand with genealogy.

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
16 May 2012 08:39
 

Michael F. McCartney;93481 wrote:

If Michael Swanson were willing to donate the USHR site to the AHS, or perhaps to some affiliated committee, that would IMO be great!  Of course it’s his private property, so he’s under no obligation to do so.  (And the AHS Board would have to be willing to take it on, or at least authorize a qualified group to do so, which they may not be willing to do…)

IMO it would be better to resurrect an existing registry particularly one that was well-designed & well-run, and with a significant existing content, than to have "x" number of new start-ups most of which will be flawed and/or fleeting.


I agree as well, and I have attempted to contact Mr. Swanson through every means at my disposal short of smoke signals and carrier pigoens - all to no avail.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
16 May 2012 10:49
 

J. Stolarz;93493 wrote:

What is strange is that most people who are into genealogy, don’t know the slightest thing about heraldry.  While everybody who is passionate about heraldry, knows that it goes hand in hand with genealogy.


Well, that’s not so hard to imagine, really, is it? Since not everyone is armigerous it is possible to be quite interested in your own family tree and never once come across a coat of arms.

 

In addition, while I most certainly agree that generally speaking heraldry and genealogy go hand in hand it isn’t always the case. As I frequently point out to colleagues the area of heraldry in which I am most interested, and it is an ancient one, is ecclesiastical heraldry where there is no discussion about inheritance of arms to successive generations. Too many people are obsessed with heraldry as an inheritable thing and, therefore, linked with genealogy. But, that isn’t always the case.

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
16 May 2012 11:28
 

steven harris;93499 wrote:

I agree as well, and I have attempted to contact Mr. Swanson through every means at my disposal short of smoke signals and carrier pigoens - all to no avail.

 


Did the letter you and I composed get mailed to Mr. Swanson?

 
davidappleton
 
Avatar
 
 
davidappleton
Total Posts:  194
Joined  30-04-2004
 
 
 
16 May 2012 13:47
 

Richard G.;93445 wrote:

I see the organisations blazon reads; Bendy of 6 Argent and Gules, on the central Gules portion three escallops bendwise Or

Should it not read; Bendy of six Argent and Gules three escallops bendwise Or

 

The escallops being placed "on the Gules portion" by default. Where else would they be placed? Or am I missing something ...... :?:


I suspect they wanted to be certain that the escallops would contrast with the field, and so preferred to over-specify rather than take the chance that someone would place them at least partially on an argent trait.

 

And actually, it ought to read "three escallops in bend Or," since the orientation of the escallops is their default "palewise" orientation and not "bendwise."

 

David

 
Richard G.
 
Avatar
 
 
Richard G.
Total Posts:  451
Joined  26-07-2011
 
 
 
16 May 2012 16:07
 

Thank you David. I do appreciate being corrected as each time I learn something .... or at least I make an attempt. No guarantees I’m afraid. :rolleyes:

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
16 May 2012 19:40
 

J. Stolarz;93505 wrote:

Did the letter you and I composed get mailed to Mr. Swanson?


It did - I haven’t heard anything.  (I included our email addresses, too).

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
16 May 2012 22:37
 

Michael has probably received many many emails using the contact form on the USHR website. It’s doubtful that new ones would help.

His Google+ profile is connected to several members of the AHS who also have Google+ profiles… however, I don’t think it would be appropriate myself to contact him about this there. If he was interested in responding, he would probably have done so via the USHR contact apparatus he had set up.

 

All of the blazons registered are still on his site and can be referenced by their USHR registration number.  Someone wanting to start a new site could easily make use of that if they wanted to do the service to those who were listed (however, who knows, maybe some of these people would rather not have their arms registered with a new site?).

 

I think it’s academic really… a free registration with a for profit business should be expected to last as long as an investment in a share of penny stock and one cannot be dissappointed if his or her arms perish from memory for lack of more "sound investments."