Where to begin with this story…my interest in History and Heraldry goes back 18 years (currently 26) and has been my passion.  My main area of study centered around the Medieval periord and Elizabethan period.  I’ve collected various pieces of weaponry, constructed my own Hauberk (chainmale) and compiled an extensive library on these subjects.  Heraldry really began to take hold of me three years or so ago, when I stumbled upon the website for the White Lion Society.  After my application had been submitted and my membership confirmed, Mr. Roland Symons, Secretary of the WLS, contacted me and enquired if I were armigerious and if so, would I like to have my arms displayed in the newsletter, website and members armorial.  It was with that letter that my long journey really began.

Roland Symons and I corresponded via email for quite some time regarding whom best would be able to assist me in my desire for my own arms.  He pointed me to Mr. Robert Noel, Lancaster Herald of Her Majesty’s College of Arms to start with.

Robert and I began a trans Atlantic correspondence and eventually moved to a more modern (and much quicker) means of communication, the telephone.  After a few conversations with Robert (wonderful person to talk to, very supportive and helpful) and detailing what I would need to secure British Arms, my genealogical research began, sort of.  As we all know, in order to obtain British arms, you either need to be a subject of the Crown, be a descendant of a subject, have received honors from the Crown, or be a member of a society of which Her Majesty is head (Order of St. John, for example).  Knowing with almost certainty that I had no English blood at all, Robert recommended a well respected research firm for me to contact.

That firm was Achievements of Canterbury, based out of Kent whose Principal is Mr. Cecil Humphery-Smith.  I began working exclusively with Mr. Christopher Schofield.  Over the next year, we traded emails and phone calls concerning the location of birth of my Grandfather.  The story behind my grand father is he immigrated to the US from Spain, but no one in my fathers family knew exactly where he was from.  My grand father passed away in 1946 due to a mining accident (very common in NE Pennsylvania, where my family has always lived) when my father was only 4.  Due to unrelated family fueding, my older relatives had no interest in speaking with me about their father, and the only aunt who would speak, felt I was "digging in other peoples’ closets".  Being a resourceful young lad, I began to dig on my own.  Many late nights on-line and weekends in Courthouse Archives and libraries yielded usefull but few clues.  I was able to secure Medical Records, Death Certificates, Marriage Licenses, Census’ records, all listing his place of birth as Spain.  No more details were ever provided.  I passed all of this information along to Mr. Schofield and he began to look for assistance in Spain.  During all of this, I had exchanged a few emails with Mr. Humphery-Smith concerning Spanish grants, and he informed me of the process and that he know Don Vincente very well and would be happy to help me once lineage was established.  Unfortunately for me, that didn’t happen until very shortly after Don Vincente passed away.  After the investigation in Spain was unable to locate any records pertaining specifically to my grand father, Mr. Schofield was able to do a very interesting, very detailed report on my surname and origins.  There are Vidal arms recorded in Spain, dating back to 1389, but I have no legal claim to these.

It was at this point I came across the American College of Heraldry, and stumbled on a link concerning Spanish Grants where it was stated that since Don Vincente’s passing, no new Chronista had been appointed and that the King shows no interest in appointing anyone to fill the vacancy.  After reading this, a flurry of emails were dispatched to England and a few phone calls as well, all with the heart breaking news that this was indeed correct.  At this point, Mr. Humphrey-Smith did inform me that there was a move to promote a new Chronista, but that it would take some time (he stressed the word time, understandably).

It was at this point that my communications with Mr. David Wooten began and what exactly a registration of arms were, and how they are respected world wide.  Bear in mind all of my heraldic understanding was of British origin, so I knew nothing of assumed arms.  Once I felt that I wasn’t going to tread on established heraldic traditions, I commissioned the ACH for my personal arms, which are posted above.  I’m now looking into registration in Spain, with the new Spanish College of Arms.

The real driving force behind me receiving armorial bearings is not only my love of history and heraldry, but also for my son (and daughter, since she can inherit these as well).  I feel that in America, everyone tries to "blend in".  I want something that will help him stand out amoung his counterparts.  If nothing else, I may not be able to pass to him great wealth or land or large houses, but I can give him something no one can take away.  It will be a piece of me he will be able to carry for ever.

I will post another thread to describe the arms and the reasonings behind them, which is yet another amusing, though not quite as lengthy, story.

very interesting Andrew. i appreciate the work you did in researching your family’s history/lineage and all that entailed. yes, what a heart-break being so close, yet so far away. i look forward to the next post.

Andrew,

Thanks for sharing your wonderful story.  Best of luck to you with the appointment of a new Chronista or the SCA.  I look forward to reading your explanation of the choice of charges in your arms.

Cheers,

Hassan

Now for part 2!

I had quite a long time to give a lot of thought concerning the charges and arrangement of my arms.  If the arms are a little hard for you to see, the blazon is as follows:

Blazon - Quarterly 1st and 4th, Or and Eagle displayed Sable.  2nd and 3rd, Sable a Fleur-dis-Le and in chief two Passion crosses all Or.

Motto - Existo Verus Quod Persevero

The reasoning behind these charges is a reflection of my fathers ancestry, my families religious beliefs and the supposed origin of my surname.  The crest has to do with the first recorded Vidal arms in Spain.

Now, allow me to ellaborate a bit.  My immediate family has always refered to themselves as Italian.  My mother is full blooded Italian, and her family goes back to Italy time out of mind.  My father has never displayed any objection to this, but I wanted him to know that I’m proud of the ancestry I get from him as well.  My fathers ancestry is German and Spanish.  I read somewhere, long ago, that St. John is the patron saint of Spain, and he is symbolized by an eagle, as is (or was) Germany.  That is the reasoning behind the Eagle taking precedent in my arms.  The two passion crosses have to do with the Protestant and Catholic backgrounds of my family.  We were raised Catholic, but my father has never forgotten his Protestant roots.  The fluer-dis-le is symbolic of the distinctly French origin of my surname.  The talbot is in reference to the first recorded Vidal arms in Spain in 1389.  Those arms were:  Quarterly - 1st and 4th Azure, talbot couchant.  2nd and 3rd Azure.

The motto is my own personal feeling, "Be true and persevere".

Andrew J Vidal wrote:

It was at this point I came across the American College of Heraldry, and stumbled on a link concerning Spanish Grants where it was stated that since Don Vincente’s passing, no new Chronista had been appointed and that the King shows no interest in appointing anyone to fill the vacancy.

Not the American College of Heraldry on this point, I think, but probably our own (American Heraldry Society) article on foreign registrations, at http://www.heraldrysociety.us/ForeignRegistration/index.php?page=register4&#spa.

You’re right, my mistake!  It was the article you mention that brought the current situation in Spain to my attention.  Thank you for the correction.

Did I read you to say that you have already registered your arms with the ACH (Mr. Wooten’s group)?  IIRC (and I may not) in the past they had concerns about quartered arms because generally each quartering would represent a separate family,  & would only be quartered together to indicate inheritance based on a marriage, which doesn’t appear to be the case in your case.

We’ve had several discussions here on that subject, some of which may be accessible through the forum archives.  Generally, the recommended "best practice" has been to avoid simple quartering within arms designed for one family for the reason noted above.  The problem can easily be resolved in at least two ways—varying the partition lines between the quarters (either the vertical partition or the horirizontal partition, or both), or adding sime charge "over all" to visually unify the quarters into one coat (e.g. a cross of some sort—see Berntsen on the Members Arms page as one very nice example.)  Other approaches include parting the field per saltire rather than per cross, though that is a much greater change.

Others may have thoughts to add…

I was told in an email from the ACH that the ACH did not allow for quarterings even in cases of assumptive arms for West Highlanders and/or Irishmen and asked everyone in my first post back here after about a year’s absence last spring.

But, then I was advised by people here that the ACH did in fact grant them despite what my email from ACH said and they even provided links to the arms roll page that showed some.

So, I just gave up and designed the arms with dad and Pat on my own - with the help of the members here of course.

On a side note I do like quartered arms. I also recognize and understand the desire to avoid them in general. But, I still like them in general and I like these in particular. And since you’ve had them made and registered by the ACH et al I’d leave them as is.

Just my $.02.

When I submitted the application to the ACH, there wasn’t any discussion concerning the design of my arms.  As I stated above, I had a long time to devise the design, and settled on quartered arms with the charges in order of importance.

The Eagle is representative of my father and his ancestry and is my way of visually showing him that I am just as proud of my Spanish and German ancestry as I am of my Italian ancestry.  Like I said, my family has always considered themselves more Italian than anything (big Italian dinners, traditions, arguments…) and never paid much attention to the Spanish/German lines.  As a sidebar, while I was waiting for information to come in from England, my father and I began looking into his mothers lineage and were happy to discover that my grandfather 5 times removed on her side was a Civil War Veteran, fighting with the 96th Penn. Vol. Reg.  We also traced her line all the way back to Germany and Bavaria.

Mr. Wooten had no issue with the design of my arms that I was made aware of, and the quarterings weren’t made mention of.  He did say that he was happy to see that I put so much thought into it and the symbolism behind it though. :p

The reason I ask is my great grandfather, Epis. Rev. Edward Wooten, Sgt/Lt/Capt CSA, was the son of Shadrack ‘Shade’ Wooten and Mary Elizabeth "Eliza" Murphy/Murphey Wooten of Pitt Co., N.C., the son of William Wooten, Sr., and Nancy Forbes (daughter of Patriot Lt. Arthur Forbes, Sr., of the Pitt Co.Comm. of Secrecy, Int., and Obsv.), the son of John Wooten, Sr., etc. Shade Wooten’s siblings were William Wooten, Jr., Arthur Forbes Wooten, and Council Wooten. The N.C. UDC book of CSA mothers, says Eliza Wooten had five sons in CSA service. My branch of Wootens, I think; were not entitled to a coat of arms? Jim/focusoninfinity, Southport, N.C.

i’m not sure of his group, but he does have links to the extensive genealogy that he has performed on his lineage.  if memory serves me, he is descended from Wales.  you could probably contact him thru the website, www.americancollegeofheraldry.org

focusoninfinity wrote:

The reason I ask is my great grandfather, Epis. Rev. Edward Wooten, Sgt/Lt/Capt CSA, was the son of Shadrack ‘Shade’ Wooten and Mary Elizabeth "Eliza" Murphy/Murphey Wooten of Pitt Co., N.C., the son of William Wooten, Sr., and Nancy Forbes (daughter of Patriot Lt. Arthur Forbes, Sr., of the Pitt Co.Comm. of Secrecy, Int., and Obsv.), the son of John Wooten, Sr., etc. Shade Wooten’s siblings were William Wooten, Jr., Arthur Forbes Wooten, and Council Wooten. The N.C. UDC book of CSA mothers, says Eliza Wooten had five sons in CSA service. My branch of Wootens, I think; were not entitled to a coat of arms? Jim/focusoninfinity, Southport, N.C.

Hey, Jim-I’m seeing a thread emerge in your posts-nobility, entitlement, etc. Let’s cover a few basics: for the most part arms belong to an individual. Not to a family, not to a title of nobility, not to everyone with the same surname, but to a single person who has either had the arms granted to him by force of law (currently only in England, Scotland and South Africa) or has assumed the use of them (everywhere else).

So, your branch of the Wootens are not ‘entitled’ to anything, as far as coats of arms are concerned. If you can establish an unbroken line of male-heir descendancy to yourself, then you, as an individual, may, with a reasonable sense that you’re on firm moral ground, use that ancestor’s arms as long as nobody else is already using them (they identify an individual, remember). If your relationship to that ancestral armiger (who, by the by should be deceased if you’re going to use the arms without difference) is not direct and/or not through an unbroken line of male heirs, then you’d difference the arms ‘suitably’. If you were from another family of Wootens who was not related to the armiger, then you’d get different arms altogether as they identify the heirs male to that particular line only.

So, if you can establish your descent, you can use ancestral arms, differenced if necessary. If you can’t you can assume brand new arms! Everybody can have arms if they want them, but very few (especially in the USA) are entitled to them!!

Patrick Williams wrote:

If you can establish an unbroken line of male-heir descendancy to yourself, then you, as an individual, may, with a reasonable sense that you’re on firm moral ground, use that ancestor’s arms as long as nobody else is already using them (they identify an individual, remember).

Patrick, you were going strong up to this sentence. If someone is a proven heir in the legitimate male line of an armiger, he is entitled to the ancestor’s arms. One might argue that he ought to apply cadency marking to difference those arms, but he is not obliged to, especially in the US but even in England, Ireland, and Wales.

Quote:

Everybody can have arms if they want them, but very few (especially in the USA) are entitled to them!!

No, everyone in the USA is entitled to arms—just not to the arms of someone of whom they aren’t a direct male-line descendant.  But isn’t focusoninfinity’s family name Yonge rather than Wooten?  If so, it would be very odd for him to have any claim to Wooten arms at all.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

Patrick, you were going strong up to this sentence. If someone is a proven heir in the legitimate male line of an armiger, he is entitled to the ancestor’s arms. One might argue that he ought to apply cadency marking to difference those arms, but he is not obliged to, especially in the US but even in England, Ireland, and Wales.

 

 

No, everyone in the USA is entitled to arms—just not to the arms of someone of whom they aren’t a direct male-line descendant.  But isn’t focusoninfinity’s family name Yonge rather than Wooten?  If so, it would be very odd for him to have any claim to Wooten arms at all.

Ah. The difference here is in semantics. Perhaps, because of my own history, I rankle at the term ‘entitlement’ and see it a little differently than many. Let me explain my meaning in the above posts:

Let’s say I was not already armigerous and discovered that I was the heir-male to an English armiger named Williams. Would that automatically mean that I could use the arms? If I were in Scotland, certainly not…by force of law. I’d have to matriculate them (which is a fancy way of saying I’d have to ask Lord Lyon’s permission). In England and Ireland, by virtue of their laws of arms, I should ask the permission of the King of Arms or Chief Herald, respectively (England has the laws, they just don’t enforce them). And in all cases, they could refuse me although they probably wouldn’t. No entitlement.

In the US, there are no laws governing the use of arms, and therefore, no entitlement. We can, and do, assume arms, but nobody’s entitled because there’s no law or specific right to arms in American law.

Therefore when someone asks if they’re ‘entitled’, my answer has to be, "No." There is no entitlement.

Now let’s look at our friend Jim (focusoninfinity):

It appears, from his posts, that he has both Yonges and Wootens in his ancestry. Yonge sounds Dutch, and as we’ve recently learned (from Ton, if I remember correctly) Dutch arms pass to the family, not to the individual. Wooten…is that an English name? If so, those arms pass to the individual heir alone.

So, could Jim use either Yonge or Wooten arms? Of course, because arms are unprotected here, he could do whatever he wants and nobody could stop him. But what do we, the AHS, recommend as appropriate?

If he’s a member of an armigerous branch of the Yonge family and carries that surname, then by the Dutch custom he can use those arms (notice I did not say that he was ‘entitled’).

If he’s a Wooten and the heir to the Wooten arms, then he might choose to bear those arms undifferenced, honoring English custom (assuming that Wooten is an English name). If he’s a Wooten and a descendant of an armigerous Wooten, but not the heir, then we’d suggest ‘suitable differencing’.

If none of the above are true, we’d suggest new arms, yes?

I am ever more firmly convinced that there is no real difference in armorial inheritance in northern Europe and England, other than the now largely abandoned custom (not law) of differencing with minor cadency marks.  Coke’s Institutes say that English arms descend to all the sons; the same is true of Dutch, German, or Scandinavian arms.  They do not belong to the entire family going all the way back—if a man in the Netherlands assumed or was granted arms in 1630, they were his and those of his heirs in the male line, not those of all his brothers and uncles.  This is exactly the same case as in England.  The Fox-Davies notion of one-man-one-arms as distinguishing English from Continental arms just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.