State-Level Heraldic Authorities

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
15 August 2014 12:30
 

gselvester;102460 wrote:

They wouldn’t be a legal document like modern letters patent are. "Letters Patent" simply means an open letter because the seal was attached to the document and did not need to be broken to be read as it would be on Letters Close. They are called "letters" from the Latin "litterae patentes", used by medieval scribes when the documents were written in Latin, in the former sense of a collection of letters of the alphabet arranged to be read rather than in the modern sense of correspondence. There is no singular form. For assumed arms it would be more of a certificate. If the arms are being registered the document confirming the registration could be prepared in the elaborate, diploma-like style of what most people think of as letters patent including a seal from the organization in question authenticating the registration if not making it a legal document necessarily.


so, yes?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 August 2014 13:01
 

gselvester;102459 wrote:

No, I’m not mistaken. Rather, I expressed myself imprecisely and you have misunderstood by focusing on to the unfortunate way I expressed myself.


I’m not going to parse words.  We are fundamentally in agreement on the substance.

 

Moving forward:  I’ve been reading through the wonderful digitalization of the Ulster Office and OCHI records that the National Library of Ireland has put up on its website (linked, I believe, by Arthur Radburn in another thread), and am struck by the difference in wording between grants, confirmations, certificates, exemplifications, etc.  This led me to look at the documents issued by the German heraldic societies, whose heraldic legal situation is more like ours than is the British.

 

Each of the German societies that registers arms in its Wappenrolle (published roll of arms) issues the registrant a Wappenbrief, "letter of arms."  The wording differs from society to society, but here’s an example from the

Rhein-Main Wappenrolle published by the Schloss Alsbach Historical and Cultural Research Association (my translation):

 

"Upon the application of [name of registrant], born on [date] in [town and county], the Rhein-Main Wappenrolle issues the following Wappenbrief for the family of [Name] originating from [name of ancestral town, district, etc]:

 

[blazon]

 

The right to bear these arms belongs to:  The applicant, [Name], as well as all

legitimate descendants in the male line of his [degree of ancestor], [name, occupation, date of birth, spouse, other specifically identifying information on specified ancestor], so far and so long as they bear the family name of [Name].

 

The family arms are consistent with heraldic rules and principles.  They will be published in the Rhein-Main Wappenrolle of the Historical and Cultural Research Association of Schloss Alsbach e.V. under registration number XXX-XX-XXXX."

 

The document is signed by the chairman of the society and the herald responsible for the work, dated, and stamped with the society’s seal.

 

It’s a very nice document, the emblazonment every bit as good (in my opinion) as the ones on British letters patent, but the wording makes clear that there’s no grant involved, merely a registration.

 

The image is very large, so here’s a link instead of posting it inline in this message:  http://www.schloss-alsbach.org/wappenrolle/Wappenbrief II.JPG

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 August 2014 13:03
 

Here’s a Wappenbrief issued by "Der Herold" Heraldic Society of Berlin:

http://www.heraldik-wappen.info/assets/images/autogen/a_WB_2.jpg

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
16 August 2014 22:07
 

Here I must humbly and sincerely take issue with Father Guy.  All petitioners for a British Grants of Arms from either The College of Arms or the Lyon Court receive at the end of the granting process:

1) Letters Patent granting Arms, etc with the emblazonment of the Arms, etc so granted the Kings of Arms (London) or the Lord Lyon (Edinburgh).  The same goes for Matriculations from Lord Lyon.

 

2) All such grants have a basic formulaic text which cite the names of the granting kings, the name and qualifications of the grantee; the authority for the grant (Earl Marshal’s Warrant/Lyon Warrant), the destination/limitation of the arms, together the blazon of the Arms, etc so granted.

 

3) All grants from The College of Arms are signed by the granting Kings of Arms and have their pendant seals in skippets attached thereto.  The Court of the Lord Lyon generally use on both grants (signed by Lord Lyon) and matriculations (signed by Lyon Clerk) wafer seals, but there is an option, I believe, for a pendant seal in a skippet if the petitioner so desired.

 

4) The fees exigible for a grant of arms from both London and Edinburgh include the issue of the vellum Letters Patent which is painted with the Arms, etc to be granted, together with the engrossment of the text by a scrivener.  This is not an extra.  The Kings of Arms to my certain knowledge have never in the general course of things granted or confirmed Arms, etc without the corresponding Letters Patent.  The only time when this is not the case is when The Crown in the person of the Sovereign grants or assigns arms by Royal Warrant (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and elsewhere in both former and current Commonwealth Realms and Territories) to certain corporations (the former London County Council in 1914) or members of the Royal Family (assigning particular marks of cadency, ie: the label charged with various devices).

 

5) No.  The grantee does not directly commission an heraldic artist to produce the letters patent or negotiates for any extra artwork upon the document which generally takes the form of a decorated border.  All such commissions are undertaken by the officer of arms concerned as the petitioner’s agent.  If a petitioner likes the style of a particular herald painter or heraldic artist who works for the College or Lyon Court he/she may request the possibility of that artist painting his/her grant.  But this will depend on your agent - for many officers have their own stable of artists they use consistently.  All additional artwork needs to approved by the granting kings before they sanction same to be painted upon the vellum.  In the case of a decorated border, a rough cartoon and/or a coloured sketch of the proposed border is produced for approval.

 

6) Yes, it is correct to state that the artists the College use are not members of the College.  The only individuals who members of College are the officers of arms in ordinary themselves who make up ‘the Corporation of the Kings of Arms, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms’ (The College of Arms).  All the artists that the College (and, I believe, at Lyon Court too) use are independent/self-employed practitioners, some of whom are designated as herald painters, whilst others are heraldic artists.

 

7) Most grants that come from either the College or from Lyon Court are of the basic form.  A grant from the College will have painted upon its top left to right: 1) the arms of the Earl Marshal; 2) the arms of The Queen and 3) The arms of The College of Arms, whilst Letters Patent from Lyon Court will often only have the arms being granted/matriculated appearing on same.

 

and finally, as we know, the Canadian Heraldic Authority has a varied tariff of options.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
10 September 2014 14:15
 

liongam;102476 wrote:

7) Most grants that come from either the College or from Lyon Court are of the basic form.  A grant from the College will have painted upon its top left to right: 1) the arms of the Earl Marshal; 2) the arms of The Queen and 3) The arms of The College of Arms, .....

I would only add that, IIRC, I was offered a choice of these arms being hand painted or lithographed. I chose the more expensive craft option in part to better support an heraldic artist working for the College who would in any case have to work on the main emblazonment and I wanted a decorative border. I did not see a lithographic one to compare quality but was delighted with the hand painted outcome.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
11 September 2014 04:19
 

Derek is correct that when one petitions for arms from the Kings of Arms at The College of Arms at some stage in the procedure the herald acting as your agent may explain that you can have a hand painted heading to your grant.  As explained in my previous e-mail, such a heading is composed of the arms of the Earl Marshal, HM The Queen and The College of Arms.  A hand painted heading (All grants have a hand painted headings.)  The basic one is blocked in by a number of artists the College uses within a pre-printed outline upon the vellum), whilst the ‘de-luxe’ heading is drawn and painted by the herald painter/heraldic artist who will also paint the arms, etc to be granted on the patent.  So, in essence, the ‘de-luxe’ heading will be all of a piece with the arms, etc appearing on the patent for they have all been painted by the same hand.  Of course, such a ‘de luxe’ hand painted heading attracts a further fee.  But so saying having a such a heading adds so much more to the finished grant if one wishes to expend the extra cash.  When my wife petitioned for a dual grant in remembrance of her late parents prior to our marriage in 2000, she decided that she would go ‘the whole hog’ in having the ‘de luxe’ hand painted heading, together with a decorated border.  The engrossing of the text was also undertaken by the same herald painter as well.  The only ‘outside’ element were the two signatures of the granting Kings of Arms.

John

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
11 September 2014 04:27
 

Apologies if already noted earlier in this thread, but please note that any foreign grant, registration, etc is only a legal document with perhaps some level of legal protection, in the country of origin.  Here, while it may have great historical or emotional value to the person or family, it has no more and no less legal value than any other nice rendi t ion of the same arms on e.g. our Members Roll or one’s personal website or hanging on your wall.

Not hostile to the notion of foreign registration if that’s what floats yer boat, just to the notion that it’s in any real sense better than mere assumption here, assuming that suficient care and d ue diligence is exercised.  The artwork may be better than most, but not always.

 

Harumpf…

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
11 September 2014 11:09
 

I don’t think that either Derek or myself were selling the notion of a grant of arms that emanates from the Kings of Arms at the College or from the Lord Lyon at his Court is better than an American citizen assuming arms.  Yes, of course, as the Queen’s writ does not run within the 50 states of the USA it is a given that a foreign grant (of any kind), edict or law has no recognition in the USA, except those governed by treaty, etc.  It seems to me that Americans often like to describe themselves as being ‘Italian Americans’, ‘Irish Americans’ and so on.  Are they not exhibiting a pride in their ancestry or forebears in so doing?  From my perspective this is no different from an American citizen having a pride in his stock from the British Isles and he/she in consequence wishes to confirm such ancestry in petitioning for arms from one of the Kings of Arms as a remembrance of his/her heritage.  In my original exposition of some three weeks ago in this particular thread, I only explained what one received when petitioning for arms from this side of the Atlantic.  I was in no way attempting to say that British arms were inherently superior because they are granted by an official of the Royal Household.  It is all a question of horses for courses.

John

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
11 September 2014 14:15
 

liongam;102672 wrote:

I don’t think that either Derek or myself were selling the notion of a grant of arms that emanates from the Kings of Arms at the College or from the Lord Lyon at his Court is better than an American citizen assuming arms.  Yes, of course, as the Queen’s writ does not run within the 50 states of the USA it is a given that a foreign grant (of any kind), edict or law has no recognition in the USA, except those governed by treaty, etc.  It seems to me that Americans often like to describe themselves as being ‘Italian Americans’, ‘Irish Americans’ and so on.  Are they not exhibiting a pride in their ancestry or forebears in so doing?  From my perspective this is no different from an American citizen having a pride in his stock from the British Isles and he/she in consequence wishes to confirm such ancestry in petitioning for arms from one of the Kings of Arms as a remembrance of his/her heritage.  In my original exposition of some three weeks ago in this particular thread, I only explained what one received when petitioning for arms from this side of the Atlantic.  I was in no way attempting to say that British arms were inherently superior because they are granted by an official of the Royal Household.  It is all a question of horses for courses.

John


I understand what you’re saying. My opinion splits the difference. I think hyphenated descriptors are more common among recent arrivals, which is fine. I would never describe myself as "English-American" as - after a certain number of centuries has passed (383 years in my case) - I think one can safely consider the bonds of blood and soil severed. (That said, I would agree many Americans don’t think similarly and much of American public and private life continues to be based on a type of ethno-linguistic nostalgia, which should be exorcised. Not to make this political, but simply as an example, I think that if all of the U.S. spoke Dutch/German/Swahili, the high levels of public support the UK receives in the U.S. vis a vis its claim on the Malvinas Islands would probably be better reflective of the more shaky levels of official support.)

 

In any case, I don’t have any comment on the legal legitimacy of assumed arms - as I’m not qualified to comment on that - but I do have a comment on the perception of legitimacy of assumed arms. There is no proscription against an American who feels he’s done a lot for his community in going to a print shop and having them devise a nice "Certificate of Excellence" and then awarding said certificate to himself, hanging it on his wall, and so forth. That said, I think people would look at such a person rather strangely.

 

In the same way, I think, it can sometimes be perceived as a little ostentatious to award oneself ("assume") arms and may have more meaning to some people if said arms are issued by a second party, even if the standards for doing so are minimal or non-existent. There is probably a perceptual chain that reflects on the illustriousness of the arms to the public at-large, so that there is an obvious difference between (a) self-assumed arms, (b) arms issued to you by a guy who lives next door, (c) arms issued by a corporation of individuals, (d) arms issued by a sovereign prince.

 

I would personally like to see a private non-profit corporation operating under a congressional charter take it upon itself to begin issuing arms to Americans. That would avoid having to enact legislation or secure federal funding, while the congressional charter maintains a link to the penultimate authority of the state (a highly symbolic, honorary, and authoritatively meaningless link, but the entire question of heraldry is symbolic). The SAR might be one CCO that could establish a heraldic office, or the American Historical Association as their congressional charter says they exist to promote "kindred purposes in the interest of American history" which is vague enough that it could encompass heraldry. It would afford no legal protection for the arms, but I question whether that is really the motivating factor for the majority of people seeking state involvement. As an alternative, I would be fine with restricting the issue of arms to commissioned military officers; all U.S. Army / Navy / Air Force / Coast Guard commissions being accompanied by a grant of arms blazoned on the commissioning certificate. It would "de-popularize" arms by restricting who could receive them, but wouldn’t this be most analogous to the original intent of arms in the first place (i.e. something borne by knights)?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 September 2014 00:31
 

zebulon;102673 wrote:

In any case, I don’t have any comment on the legal legitimacy of assumed arms - as I’m not qualified to comment on that - but I do have a comment on the perception of legitimacy of assumed arms. There is no proscription against an American who feels he’s done a lot for his community in going to a print shop and having them devise a nice "Certificate of Excellence" and then awarding said certificate to himself, hanging it on his wall, and so forth. That said, I think people would look at such a person rather strangely.

In the same way, I think, it can sometimes be perceived as a little ostentatious to award oneself ("assume") arms and may have more meaning to some people if said arms are issued by a second party, even if the standards for doing so are minimal or non-existent. There is probably a perceptual chain that reflects on the illustriousness of the arms to the public at-large, so that there is an obvious difference between (a) self-assumed arms, (b) arms issued to you by a guy who lives next door, (c) arms issued by a corporation of individuals, (d) arms issued by a sovereign prince.


First, I haven’t quoted the political part of the post for the express reason that politics with no relevance to heraldry is out of bounds in this forum.  Please, everyone, don’t pursue the issue of ethnic assimilation and language, at least not here.

 

Second, it may be an uphill struggle, but one of the perpetual challenges confronting American heraldry is the incorrect perception you describe.  In part this is a matter of history.  For the first several hundred years of heraldry as we know it, ALL arms were assumed.  There followed a period in which some arms were granted by kings as rewards for this or that.  Then, in some countries—by no means all—kings authorized heralds or comparable officials to grant arms not as a reward for anything in particular but upon application by people who were deemed to have the right social standing.

 

Through all of this, in most of the region where heraldry originated (Europe), people not only continued to adopt arms of their own design as graphic symbols of family identity, they did so with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the powers that be.  Even in England, which is one of the handful of countries that introduced serious royal/state control of heraldry, people continued to design and adopt new arms throughout the period of serious royal control (the era of the heralds’ visitations, 1530 to about 1690), and the instruction to the heralds for conducting the visitations permitted them to accept and record these unilaterally adopted arms if the bearer could show that they’d been used by the family for several generations and satisfy the herald that he met the minimum social standard of being worthy to bear arms in the first place.

 

Note that all of this was going on at the same time that Englishmen—many from families that had been using arms for generations, others from families that had just adopted arms unilaterally without official sanction (and of course the vast majority that never had or used arms at all)—picked up and left England and came to a place where there were no visitations and no legal basis for heraldic enforcement of any kind.

 

The royal imposition of heraldic regulation in 1530 was, if you think about it, a gross imposition on the heraldic liberty that Englishmen had previously enjoyed, ever since the original rise of coats of arms.  I do not understand why anyone would propose doing the same to Americans today.  Most other European monarchs never attempted the same kind of armorial control over their subjects, the one exception being Louis XIV, another absolutist prince in the same mold as Henry VIII, who began the heraldic visitations in England.  Is that really the model we want to follow?

 

Let’s get it straight:  whatever English textbook writers might say, a grant of arms from a herald is not an honor.  It’s a piece of incorporeal property for which the recipient pays money.  One might as well say that a grant of land by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is an honor.  The Queen doesn’t wake up one morning and say, "That Joseph Bloggs has done some wonderful service to the community; Garter, I’d like you to grant him a coat of arms to recognize this."  Mr. Bloggs scrapes up his £5,000+, applies to the College of Arms, and provided he meets some vague standard of respectability, he gets his coat of arms after a year or two of processing.  Honor?


Quote:

I would personally like to see a private non-profit corporation operating under a congressional charter take it upon itself to begin issuing arms to Americans. That would avoid having to enact legislation


No it wouldn’t.  A Congressional charter is granted by act of Congress—it is legistlation.


Quote:

It would afford no legal protection for the arms, but I question whether that is really the motivating factor for the majority of people seeking state involvement.


Well, you can take that up with those who support state involvement, but most of them say that’s their reason.  I guess maybe they have ulterior motives, but, as I say, you can take that up with them.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 September 2014 01:55
 

Ditto Joe.  I would also note the long history of the use of arms in America, both pre- and post-Revolutionary times, which Joe & others have described in our forum over the years, and is reflected in our Guidelines (sometimes explicitly noted there, but also in the discussions/debates while the Guidelines were drafted and refined prior to finalization and publication).  The basic underlying theme was that heraldry in America is only a subset of American culture.  Just as our laws and mores were derived from English law and values , but "pruned" to delete those aspects incompatible with republican values, so likewise American heraldry.  We have no royal fons honorum generally, since here sovereignty remains ultimately with the people rather than the head of state; and while we allow our government to reward achievement and courage in a variety of areas, we have never extended that to heraldry.  Arms here are not "honors," they are simply a form of identification and decoration.  While individuals and families may & do take great pride in their arms, the arms do not impart "honor" - at best the real-world achievements of the bearers may reflect on the arms.  This is conceptually different fromm and inconsistent with the concepts of arms as honors in English heraldry which is paart of what was pruned from our heraldry as contrary with our values.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
12 September 2014 08:22
 

zebulon;102673 wrote:

Not to make this political[...snipped]

Then let’s not


zebulon;102673 wrote:

In any case, I don’t have any comment on the legal legitimacy of assumed arms - as I’m not qualified to comment on that - but I do have a comment on the perception of legitimacy of assumed arms. There is no proscription against an American who feels he’s done a lot for his community in going to a print shop and having them devise a nice "Certificate of Excellence" and then awarding said certificate to himself, hanging it on his wall, and so forth. That said, I think people would look at such a person rather strangely.

In the same way, I think, it can sometimes be perceived as a little ostentatious to award oneself ("assume") arms and may have more meaning to some people if said arms are issued by a second party, even if the standards for doing so are minimal or non-existent. There is probably a perceptual chain that reflects on the illustriousness of the arms to the public at-large, so that there is an obvious difference between (a) self-assumed arms, (b) arms issued to you by a guy who lives next door, (c) arms issued by a corporation of individuals, (d) arms issued by a sovereign prince.

Emphasis mine

Who’s awarding what? It’s not an award to assume a coat of arms. It is a form of identification. Are you "awarding" yourself a monogram on that custom shirt? Are you awarding yourself a signature when you adopt one?


zebulon;102673 wrote:

I would personally like to see a private non-profit corporation operating under a congressional charter take it upon itself to begin issuing arms to Americans. That would avoid having to enact legislation or secure federal funding, while the congressional charter maintains a link to the penultimate authority of the state (a highly symbolic, honorary, and authoritatively meaningless link, but the entire question of heraldry is symbolic). The SAR might be one CCO that could establish a heraldic office, or the American Historical Association as their congressional charter says they exist to promote "kindred purposes in the interest of American history" which is vague enough that it could encompass heraldry. It would afford no legal protection for the arms, but I question whether that is really the motivating factor for the majority of people seeking state involvement.

I don’t see much value here. Why introduce to the US something that (a) doesn’t do anything other than take away a freedom and (b) does not offer any legal protection which may make the previous point palatable.

Free assumption has been the norm for centuries in most places.


zebulon;102673 wrote:

As an alternative, I would be fine with restricting the issue of arms to commissioned military officers; all U.S. Army / Navy / Air Force / Coast Guard commissions being accompanied by a grant of arms blazoned on the commissioning certificate. It would "de-popularize" arms by restricting who could receive them, but wouldn’t this be most analogous to the original intent of arms in the first place (i.e. something borne by knights)?

Nope

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 September 2014 10:16
 

Joseph McMillan;102679 wrote:

First, I haven’t quoted the political part of the post for the express reason that politics with no relevance to heraldry is out of bounds in this forum.  Please, everyone, don’t pursue the issue of ethnic assimilation and language, at least not here.

Second, it may be an uphill struggle, but one of the perpetual challenges confronting American heraldry is the incorrect perception you describe.  In part this is a matter of history.


I have no doubt what you’ve just described is historically correct.

 

Similarly, the origin of surnames is one of assumed identification. And still, under common law in many jurisdictions, one can simply assume a new surname through "open and notorious" use, provided there’s no intent to deceive.

 

But no one does that. No one at all.


Joseph McMillan wrote:

Let’s get it straight: whatever English textbook writers might say, a grant of arms from a herald is not an honor. It’s a piece of incorporeal property for which the recipient pays money. One might as well say that a grant of land by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is an honor. The Queen doesn’t wake up one morning and say, "That Joseph Bloggs has done some wonderful service to the community; Garter, I’d like you to grant him a coat of arms to recognize this." Mr. Bloggs scrapes up his £5,000+, applies to the College of Arms, and provided he meets some vague standard of respectability, he gets his coat of arms after a year or two of processing. Honor?


That’s fine.

 

But the word "honor" didn’t appear in my post.

 

Maybe this was addressed to someone else.


Joseph McMillan wrote:

No it wouldn’t.  A Congressional charter is granted by act of Congress—it is legistlation.


If I needed to specify "new" legislation, then I apologize for the confusion.


kimon wrote:

I don’t see much value here. Why introduce to the US something that (a) doesn’t do anything other than take away a freedom


There’s a chasm of difference between what is legally and historically customary and what is perceptually normal. I have a legal right to go into a job interview shirtless and shoeless, and in medieval times that might even have been customary. The chances I’ll be offered a job under such circumstances in 2014, however, is very limited. Unless you have a means to impart the history of the heraldic arts to each and every person who sees your arms, the chances they’ll be popularly viewed as legitimate is limited while the chances they’ll be viewed as affectatious is high. That might be unfair, but that’s the way it is.


kimon wrote:

(b) does not offer any legal protection which may make the previous point palatable.


There is a well-known UFO conspiracy theorist who calls himself Sir Charles Schults. He says the "Sir" prefix is because he was "knighted" by the Baron of Balquhain (a Chinese-American businessman named Nelson Ying who purchased the barony at a bankruptcy auction). There is a dormant, pre-Magna Carta historical precedent on his side for a baron to knight people. Given that, it might be unfair for people to question the validity of Sir Charles’ knighthood versus those of Sir Paul [McCartney] or Sir Sean [Connery] or others issued by Elizabeth II of Windsor versus those issued by Nelson Ying of Orlando, but people do. Perception often matters more than legality.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
13 September 2014 08:54
 

I believe the reason Joe brought up honors is the analogy of an awarded certificate to assumed arms.

Some organization "granting" arms seems like it would only serve to cloud the waters further regarding the actual (rather than the perceived) history of heraldry.

 
 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
13 September 2014 12:38
 

Kenneth Mansfield;102691 wrote:

Some organization "granting" arms seems like it would only serve to cloud the waters further regarding the actual (rather than the perceived) history of heraldry.


I don’t think there has been widespread calls in England/Wales to abolish the College of Arms so that the public will better understand the history of heraldry.

 

When I went in for a tonsillectomy I was generally satisfied that the history of medicine had been preserved in books and journal articles and was not in the least bit offended the surgeon didn’t crack out the leeches and trepan as an homage to the ancient origins of surgery.