Legitimizing bucket-shops

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
09 July 2012 19:40
 

StarScepter;94567 wrote:

Not that I agree with this, but it seems to me that since personal heraldry is not regulated in the US, then ‘bucket-shops’ are, by default, legitimized.


Which brings us to the core issue… the legal definition of legit vs. the moral and ethical definition of legit.

 

More and more these days, what is legal seems to have little to do with what is right, but that is a subject for another forum so I won’t harp, lol.

 

So, bucket shops are ethically and morally wrong, a total scam, and completely illegitimate by my reckoning. wink

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
10 July 2012 05:43
 

As in all debates, we have to ensure definitions are understood by all concerned.  Merriam- Webster online:


Quote:

Definition of LEGITIMATE

1

a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>

2

: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <a legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>

3

a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>

4

: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>

5

: relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>

&#8212; le·git·i·mate·ly adverb

I’m thinking definition 4 with a nod to definition 2 is what we are discussing.

For completion - Wikki describes a heraldry bucket shop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(heraldry)

 

Since more or less by description a "Bucket Shop" does not "conform to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards" - it cannot be legitimate.

 

If what we now know as a bucket shop began doing due diligence by either providing two or more differences to an old CoA of the same surname AND makes those differences unique for each sale OR ensures proper pedigree before a sale, then we would no longer have a bucket shop…. and the point is moot.

 

One unique case which may hit on a legitimate claim does not legitimate make such an organization…

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
10 July 2012 08:31
 

cachambers007;94569 wrote:

It is however to be hoped that anyone who was seriously interested in learning about heraldry would recognize that they didn’t have the traditional right to use such a "family crest" and would therefore prefer to assume new arms or at least properly difference existing ones.


I think it’s not only possible, but probably pretty common that it’s enough for some people that their ancestors used the arms - erroneously or not - to continue use of the same arms. One can cherish a family emblem without having a serious interest in heraldry. For some the value comes from the fact that family before them used the same thing and without an interest in heraldry itself, it would be seemingly pointless to design a new one, perhaps even sacrilegious to abandon or alter the old one.

 

I’m merely playing devil’s advocate here. I would never tell anyone this is ok, neither does an error’s popularity make it ok. BUT, I think my scenario is probably a pretty common one and maybe an uphill battle to fight.

 
StarScepter
 
Avatar
 
 
StarScepter
Total Posts:  56
Joined  10-06-2011
 
 
 
10 July 2012 09:02
 

Kathy McClurg;94573 wrote:

Since more or less by description a "Bucket Shop" does not "conform to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards" - it cannot be legitimate.


But that’s just it, since personal heraldry isn’t regulated here, then there are no "recognized principles or accepted rules and standards" that have the force of law. So there is nothing for the "bucket-shop" to conform to. In this way they "back into" a hazy legitimacy.

 
Brad Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Brad Smith
Total Posts:  182
Joined  12-02-2009
 
 
 
10 July 2012 09:44
 

kathy mcclurg;94554 wrote:

heck - you could always shoot an arrow thru a few of them…


lol!  :D

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
10 July 2012 11:33
 

StarScepter;94576 wrote:

But that’s just it, since personal heraldry isn’t regulated here, then there are no "recognized principles or accepted rules and standards" that have the force of law. So there is nothing for the "bucket-shop" to conform to. In this way they "back into" a hazy legitimacy.


I reject your premise. Standards need not have anything to do with the law or governmental regulation. You do not walk into a restaurant shirtless, in short shorts and barefoot because of regulations. You do not walk into church shirtless, in short shorts and barefoot because of standards.

 
 
RjSchreiber
 
Avatar
 
 
RjSchreiber
Total Posts:  60
Joined  24-09-2009
 
 
 
10 July 2012 13:52
 

Kenneth Mansfield;94580 wrote:

You do not walk into a restaurant shirtless, in short shorts and barefoot because of regulations.


Actually, where I live…they have to post "No shoes, No Shirt, No Service" on the establishment doors. Tho most must be illiterate and probaby cannot read it, they have to run most of them off..:D

 
Doug Welsh
 
Avatar
 
 
Doug Welsh
Total Posts:  445
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
10 July 2012 16:42
 

I have welcomed the shirtless and shoeless to my church.  Jesus didn’t care about such things, so how can I?

However, bucket shops operate on two erroneous premises.  One, that heraldry follows the surname only, and, Two, that anything is justified if it makes money for the man/woman who paid for the franchise.  I beg to differ on both counts.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
10 July 2012 17:04
 

StarScepter;94576 wrote:

But that’s just it, since personal heraldry isn’t regulated here, then there are no "recognized principles or accepted rules and standards" that have the force of law. So there is nothing for the "bucket-shop" to conform to. In this way they "back into" a hazy legitimacy.


There are recognized principles and accepted standards here.  They have no force of law but the definition of Legitimate does not require "force of law".

 

Granted, here we can do as we wish, BUT I think the recognized principles and accepted standards in the US which "bucket shops" ignore include the known and fairly closely followed convention that one should not usurp known arms granted to another. (This is something most bucket shops practice blatantly by selling arms known to have been granted to another just because a surname is shared).  As a for instance, one bucket shop provides a rash of spelling varieties as they try to sell the "Coat of Arms" for McClurg:  http://www.houseofnames.com/mcclurg-coat-of-arms

 

Bucket shops also sell the same CoA to similar surnames - even if they didn’t get it from an earlier grant.  Maybe the FIRST person who bought it - IF it is unique - could then assume it - but bucket shops do not make any effort to provide unique arms.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
11 July 2012 12:56
 

Doug Welsh;94585 wrote:

I have welcomed the shirtless and shoeless to my church.  Jesus didn’t care about such things, so how can I?


In making your point, I believe you’ve missed mine. But that’s okay. smile

 
 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 July 2012 21:38
 

Doug’s profile shows "Canada" so one would hope that shirtless & shoeless is a seasonal aberration!

Actually there was IIRC at least one bucket shop which was nailed by the Postal Inspectors some years back for essentially mail fraud—following which many (most? all?) such operations began inserting a bit of fine print along the lines of "No genealogical representation intended or implied"—don’t know how many potential customers read the fine print, understand it or care.

 

(Since I don’t have the documents in hand I choose not to name the offending operation.)

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
17 July 2012 11:04
 

I should have titled this thread differently. I’d like it on the record that my intentions were not to legitimize bucket-shops themselves - but perhaps some erroneous use of arms may legitimize over time for ancestors.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
18 July 2012 01:59
 

The "creative errors" of many kinds (including armorial usurpations) form a genuine and important part of heraldic legacy. The matter is that sometimes such errors are pretty harmful for the general system and sometimes they are not. Heraldry is, after all, a system.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
18 July 2012 07:58
 

Michael, your’s is my favorite response. Thank you for getting me closer to understanding what that threshold is. Are you saying that if it wasn’t harmful - perhaps the original line of legitimate armigers has ended or abandoned the arms - that it may be forgivable?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
19 July 2012 03:30
 

"Are you saying that if it wasn’t harmful - perhaps the original line of legitimate armigers has ended or abandoned the arms - that it may be forgivable?"

I’m sure you were addressing your question to the other Michael, but FWIW, I don’t believe that the extinction (which may or may not be total extinction—maybe just a job of genealogical research) of the original family leaves their arms open for whoever else jumps on them first.  IMO thqat would be the equivalent of finding an extinct and unrelated family of the same name and "grafting" yourself onto their pedigree.  Not OK.