State-Level Heraldic Authorities

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 September 2014 23:13
 

In fact, one could argue that the existence of the College of Arms does in fact cloud the history of heraldry in England.  Writers on English heraldry habitually project 17th century interpretations of the English law of arms back onto the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

In any case, introducing a heraldry authority in the United States now would certainly tend to cloud the history of heraldry in English-speaking North America.  It would appear to validate those 17th century English interpretations that have never been relevant here, certainly not in practice.

 

You do realize that it is mostly in English-speaking countries that we find all this agonizing about the absence of arms-granting authorities, right?  No one in Germany or France or the Scandinavian countries seems to find their arms any less real for not being granted or validated by an agent of the state.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
14 September 2014 03:53
 

Joseph McMillan;102696 wrote:

In fact, one could argue that the existence of the College of Arms does in fact cloud the history of heraldry in England.  Writers on English heraldry habitually project 17th century interpretations of the English law of arms back onto the Middle Ages and Renaissance.


Yes, I suppose one can make any argument one likes.


Joseph McMillan;102696 wrote:

In any case, introducing a heraldry authority in the United States now would certainly tend to cloud the history of heraldry in English-speaking North America.


Why? Did creating a Department of Energy in 1977 cloud and confuse the history of energy production in the U.S.? Creating an administrative agency usually has nothing at all to do with the stability of historical narrative.


Joseph McMillan;102696 wrote:

It would appear to validate those 17th century English interpretations


I have no problem with that. To the best of my knowledge, the history of American civilization begins in 1620, not 1120.

 

I think some of the Army’s SCUs like the CINC Guard look fantastic in their colonial-era uniforms. I think they’d look really silly wearing Tudor-era gowns like Britain’s Yeomen Warders, though, even if the Tudor uniforms look brilliant. It would be an embarrassing aping of a history that’s not ours. As far as heraldry is concerned, our history originates in "those 17th century English interpretations," not in the customs of the Kingdom of Wessex c. 1100 (that eventually evolved into the 17th century interpretations).

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
14 September 2014 04:12
 

To step away from heraldry for a moment, the medieval history of orders of chivalry is very different from the accepted standards of orders of chivalry today (at least as described by the ICOC and practiced universally). Even then, you can still find people issuing orders of chivalry as the membership of private associations (usually via websites for a few hundred bucks via PayPal), instead of recognition from a sovereign. That has inarguable medieval historical basis and is perfectly legal but, perceptually, no one considers the Order of the Templar Knights of El Paso as legitimate as the Order of Canada. However, I also appreciate that some people have the belief that perception and the opinion of others doesn’t matter. And I absolutely respect everyone’s right to that belief. (Without that worldview, we would have never had New Wave Punk, after all.) I just don’t agree with it.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 September 2014 08:51
 

zebulon;102698 wrote:

To step away from heraldry for a moment, the medieval history of orders of chivalry is very different from the accepted standards of orders of chivalry today (at least as described by the ICOC and practiced universally). Even then, you can still find people issuing orders of chivalry as the membership of private associations (usually via websites for a few hundred bucks via PayPal), instead of recognition from a sovereign. That has inarguable medieval historical basis and is perfectly legal but, perceptually, no one considers the Order of the Templar Knights of El Paso as legitimate as the Order of Canada. However, I also appreciate that some people have the belief that perception and the opinion of others doesn’t matter. And I absolutely respect everyone’s right to that belief. (Without that worldview, we would have never had New Wave Punk, after all.) I just don’t agree with it.


Yes you can.  And they’re crap.  And this is not at all the same thing.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
14 September 2014 09:23
 

zebulon;102693 wrote:

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.


I’m sorry. What I meant was…

 

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

 

I thought that was understood in the context of the conversation.

 

<i></i>
<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
Next phase, new wave , dance craze, anyways

It’s still rock and roll to me
</div>

 

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 September 2014 10:46
 

zebulon;102697 wrote:

Yes, I suppose one can make any argument one likes.


When I say "one could argue," I mean plausibly, sustainably, defensibly argue.


Quote:

Why? Did creating a Department of Energy in 1977 cloud and confuse the history of energy production in the U.S.? Creating an administrative agency usually has nothing at all to do with the stability of historical narrative.

Creating the Department of Energy did not imply that the mineral rights of private landowners to fossil energy resources on their property somehow passed to the government. And creating an administrative agency often has an impact on the stability of historical narrative or, to put it another way, leads people to behave as if the rules mandated by the agency reflect how things have "always" been.


Quote:

I have no problem with that. To the best of my knowledge, the history of American civilization begins in 1620, not 1120.

What was it that happened in 1620 that marked the beginning of American civilization, or for that matter American heraldic civilization? The first recorded display of heraldry in the present-day United States is 13 April 1528, the day Pánfilo de Narváez formally took possession of Florida for the King of Spain. The first recorded use of English heraldry was when the Drake expedition landed on the coast of California in 1579. The oldest physical artifact of English personal heraldry in the present-day United States is the gold signet ring engraved with a lion passant unearthed at the Hatteras Indian village of Croatan and attributed to a Master Kendall, a member of the 1585-86 Roanoke Island settlement.


Quote:

I think some of the Army’s SCUs like the CINC Guard look fantastic in their colonial-era uniforms. I think they’d look really silly wearing Tudor-era gowns like Britain’s Yeomen Warders, though, even if the Tudor uniforms look brilliant. It would be an embarrassing aping of a history that’s not ours. As far as heraldry is concerned, our history originates in "those 17th century English interpretations," not in the customs of the Kingdom of Wessex c. 1100 (that eventually evolved into the 17th century interpretations).


Well, there was no Kingdom of Wessex in 1100. But there is an unbroken history of the use of heraldry, from the early 12th century to today, among people of European descent.  This includes Americans of European descent, who inherit the tradition equally with those who stayed in Europe.

 

My point is that, at the time the permanent European settlement of the present United States began (St Augustine 1565), and at the time of the first permanent English settlement (Jamestown, 1607), at the time of the arrival of the Pilgrim latecomers in 1620, and during the era of peak English immigration a few decade later, this modern English theory that arms not granted by authority of the Crown are not really arms was still in its nascent stages, probably accepted only by a handful of people who all worked within sight of the spire of the old St. Paul’s Cathedral.  It was not the way most people who used arms understood matters, and not how they behaved, and it cannot plausibly be said, at the time the migrations to America began, to have been "the law of arms."

 

Now what the heralds in England had managed to do, by the time Jamestown was settled, was to persuade Englishmen that arms were the mark of gentility (whatever that meant).  Yet it is quite clear, until well into the 1600s, that the law of arms did not preclude someone who was a gentleman (again, whatever that meant) from assuming a coat of arms. There are only three cases recorded in the Court of Chivalry prior to 1687 in which a man was prosecuted by the crown for armorial assumption, and in every case the prosecution turned on the issue of whether or not the accused was a gentleman or a plebeian, not on the provenance of the arms concerned. (Note: there are a fairly large number of cases in which one person sued another for using specific arms to which he was not entitled, but this is an entirely different matter.)

 

It is only in the period 1687-1700ish that we start seeing successful prosecutions for armorial assumption, almost all of them connected in some way with the unauthorized display of arms at funerals. The heralds collected hefty fees for supervising the funerals of the gentry and nobility—they would even prosecute impoverished widows for not having a sufficiently lavish heraldic funeral—and by this time the Court of Chivalry was totally under the control of the heralds and their lawyer hangers-on, for whom it had became so transparently self-serving that when Blackstone wrote his Commentaries on the Laws of England in the mid-1700s, it had "fallen into contempt and disuse."

 

Thus, the "historical narrative" that the only real arms are those granted or confirmed by crown authority came to be accepted in England only towards the tail end of the English settlement of the 13 colonies. (English migration to New England dropped to a negligible level after 1641, to Virginia and Maryland after about 1670.) No one ever tried to enforce this theory in the colonies, and the colonists’ heraldic behavior during this period suggests that they didn’t much care what the heralds and heraldic theorists in London had to say on the matter.

 

Now, by Independence 100 years later, the theory had been more widely propagated in England, and some educated Americans begin to show signs of accepting it, but even at that the number of Americans who sought grants or even confirmations of arms from the heralds is miniscule compared with those who can be shown to have simply adopted and used arms of their own devising and to have passed them down to succeeding generations—the same way their counterparts in pre-control England would have done.

 

The English narrative was even more widespread by the 19th century, and leading American heraldists throughout that century faithfully propagated it on this side of the Atlantic. This ultimately led many of them to depression and despair, especially the gentlemen of the New England Historical Genealogical Society’s Committee on Heraldry, when they learned that the arms borne by their immigrant ancestors—which for decades they had been pointing to as evidence of gentle lineage—were in many cases not on record at the College of Arms. Literally to despair: in 1898 the Committee on Heraldry officially discouraged the display of heraldry "in any way or form" because of the lack of any official agency to regulate their use, having swallowed hook, line, and sinker the narrative that "only such as were grantees of arms, or who could prove descent in the male line from an ancestor to whom arms were granted or confirmed by the Heralds" could rightly bear arms. Proof of long usage—the very criterion upon which the heralds had confirmed the right to arms in England during the visitations—was, in the Committee’s judgment, insufficient to establish solid title. See http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Documents.NEHGS99

 

Well, it was only few years before the Committee saw the error of its ways, thanks largely to scholars who started challenging the received narrative, and reversed its self-defeating decision of 1898. See http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Documents.NEHGS14. Ironically, the conclusion it reached was the same one reached by William Barton—the very same man who first proposed an American heraldic authority—just about 100 years before. This conclusion—that a right to a particular coat of arms can in fact be established by prescription, that American citizens are free to adopt arms on their own provided that they don’t infringe the rights of others, and that arms so adopted are just as valid and real as those granted by foreign authorities—is accepted today not only by every major American heraldic organization but also by the vast majority of non-American heraldists, including English ones.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 September 2014 11:04
 

One other thought.

The fundamental premise of Zebulon’s initial post has to do with how Americans perceive a coat of arms.  He can correct me if I misunderstand, but his concern seems to be that a self-adopted (or self "awarded") coat of arms is at odds with what he sees as a probable "perceptual chain that reflects on the illustriousness of the arms to the public at-large."

 

The premise that this is how Americans view arms seems to me to be undermined by the bucket shop phenomenon.  Some Americans no doubt see possession of a coat of arms as reflecting superior lineage, or of a granted coat of arms as being a reward from a sovereign for something or other, but most Americans who have any view on the subject at all seem to think a coat of arms is merely a graphic way of writing a family name.  Hence the prevalence of printed images, framed and hanging on the walls in millions of American homes, of the arms of "O’Toole," or "Caveletti," or "Novak," or "Reynolds," or "McMillan."  This is borne out by repeated inquiries to heraldic societies and web-based discussion groups:  "what is my coat of arms?"  (See the FAQ of the venerable rec.heraldry newsgroup at http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/heraldry.faq.)

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
14 September 2014 15:31
 

Joseph, I’m afraid I’m a 10,000 word underdog and I think we’ve been over the grand history of heraldry in the U.S. enough at this point, which is something I find interesting but - if I haven’t adequately communicated it by now - not all that compelling of a justification for non-sanctioning. So I’ll just leave it with this.


Joseph McMillan;102699 wrote:

Yes you can.  And they’re crap.  And this is not at all the same thing.


Not sure how it isn’t.

 

People are assuming "orders of chivalry" based on the original, medieval concept of orders of chivalry. The general public perceives these orders as illegitimate, and the holders of them are saying "how things are now done in 2014 doesn’t matter, medieval history matters." This seems exactly - and uncomfortably - analogous to the argument against officializing arms in the United States; the only thing absent in the case of arms is that there’s no money-making scheme in the background as with the self-styled orders.

 

The fact is, perception matters to many people. That’s why we wear clothes, or eat with utensils. I would very much like to display arms (as I am interested in all manner of design and graphics) but I’m also not comfortable with noncomfority or undertaking personal stylings that, while they might have been customary in 1214, or may continue to be customary among a very small percentage of the U.S. public (the hobbyist heraldry community which numbers in the high 4 digits? maybe low 5s?) would generally be viewed as an eccentricity or affectation in 2014. For that reason I support the optional officializing of arms through some entity or endorsed act. That said, I also respect the right of people who don’t share my discomfort and are willing to take a more socially rebellious attitude; I have no issue with others assuming whatever arms they fancy if that’s something they feel they’d like to do, just like I have no issue with others dying their hair in neon colors, wearing face tattoos, or any manner of other counter-culture design choices. It’s a free country and we should all be able to express ourselves however we like.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 September 2014 17:34
 

Well, I think for most of us who’ve taken the plunge, people questioning what right we have to our assumed arms merely presents a teaching moment.

Three of many differences between the fake orders and un-granted arms:

 

- The history of ungranted arms is real, not falsified. Every reputable modern heraldic scholar acknowledges that arms were originally assumed, not granted, that in most European countries such assumption remained legal, and that even where granting authorities existed, most arms were not granted but assumed. The case I’ve set forth regarding England does not enjoy the same consensus, but it has been supported by highly reputable and serious scholars for more than 100 years, including Oswald Barron, the author of the classic article on heraldry in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. By contrast, every reputable historian accepts the demise of the Templars, for example.

 

- The history of armorial assumption is continuous, including in the United States pre- and post-1776. It’s not a matter of reviving a practice that died out centuries ago.

 

- Those who bear ungranted arms don’t pretend that those arms are something they’re not.

 

The armorial analogue to the fake orders can be found in the various self-styled "colleges of arms" and the like that purport to grant arms in the name of former or (even more egregious) phony pretenders to various thrones.  The Ethiopian College of Heraldry, for example.  Just a little less spurious are similar bodies that grant arms in the name of the rulers of no-longer-independent states in Africa and Asia that have no authentic heraldic tradition but have started granting arms as a fund-raising endeavor under the prodding of European and American "advisers."

 

Honest, straightforward assumption of arms is a very different thing. The closest counterpart in the orders world would be a group that frankly admits it was founded in, say, 1995, has no historic connection to the orders of the Middle Ages, is purely private and voluntary, and so on. There actually are a few of these.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
14 September 2014 22:54
 

Joseph McMillan;102706 wrote:

- Those who bear ungranted arms don’t pretend that those arms are something they’re not.


This word choice suggests that, at some place in the back of your mind, you concede that assumed arms are not the equivalent of granted arms. Not by history and legality - I understand you’re set on a specific narrative on those points - but by popular perception. I would just say that, for me, this issue is more than back-of-mind. And it’s an issue I feel would be appropriately republican to correct; everyone should have access to arms just as perceptually valid as those granted by the CoA.

 

Anyway, obviously we’re not going to convince each other. Moving onto a different subject, viz the legislative protection of arms. Is the protection of arms in the UK a matter of common law or statute? According to the College of Arms’ website, the laws of descent of arms date to the 1400s so wouldn’t they have matriculated to the states (except Louisiana) when the whole body of English law was adopted? If the common law exists until repealed, and if no state has adopted any law at all regarding heraldry, is there an extant protection of arms in the USA that has simply not been discovered for lack of a test case?

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
15 September 2014 02:32
 

zebulon;102707 wrote:

This word choice suggests that, at some place in the back of your mind, you concede that assumed arms are not the equivalent of granted arms. Not by history and legality


I won’t put words in Joseph’s mouth, but all the legal authorities since Bartolus


Quote:

Bartolus de Saxoferrato (Italian: Bartolo da Sassoferrato) (1313 – 13 July 1357) was an Italian law professor and one of the most prominent continental jurists of Medieval Roman Law. He belonged to the school known as the commentators or postglossators. The admiration of later generations of civil lawyers is shown by the adage nemo bonus íurista nisi bartolista — no one is a good jurist unless he is a Bartolist (i.e. a follower of Bartolus).


have accepted that it has been perfectly legitimate to assume arms. There has been debate as to whether it is better to have those arms recognised by a "prince" i.e. the (local) legal authorities because that that gives the armiger greater authority in any legal dispute (as title deeds would in a land dispute).

 

Some "princes" took this further and required that their subjects only bear arms recorded or granted by them or by their agents, but this only occurred well after the origins of heraldry and, as Joseph has stated, well into the history of colonisation of the Americas. There were several reasons for this requirement, some could be classed as essentially sumptuary (England, Scotland) and others as a money raising exercise (France, where some peple were forced to have arms so that said arms could be taxed). In a great many parts of Europe, this did not take place, and while "princes" exercised the power to grant arms (usually when ennobling someone) free assumption was not only allowed, it was the norm for the vast majority of arms.

 

Even when the situation in England and Scotland is considered, in both cases the start of heraldic regulation was by the official recording of assumed arms by the heralds, and only thereafter were new arms only by grant. Even in 20th century Scotland could assumed arms be recognised by the Lord Lyon, if they met the required condition of use before the act of 1672. I knew personally, one non-noble armiger (sadly recently deceased) who had arms (and supporters) regognised on the basis of "ancient user" as it is termed.

 

James

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
15 September 2014 03:17
 

Well…IIRC the English don’t consider the (or at least their) Law of Arms to fall under "common law" - rather it is considered to be a remnant of "civil law" (hope I’m using the right term - corrections most welcome!) an earlier and legally different legal system originating in the Roman empire.

The closest analogies I can think of in the American context are Louisiana, whose laws were based on the French Code Napoleon, itself derived from civil law, rather than English common law; and the Spanish water rights law which applies in California and IIRC a few other formerly Spanish & Mexican western states. (Of course in both cases common law elements have been introduced but the basic laws were and are non-common law unless & until, and only to the extent, specifically superceded by subsequent legislation, just as common law in the other 49 and Federal law survives unless & until superceded by specific legislation.)

 

Also, IIRC, English law was considered applicable to colonies (North America, Australia, etc) only to the extent it was relevant to local conditions - and AFAIK English heraldic law was only rarely applied to the colonies at least here.  (Again, corrections by those more knowledgeable most welcome.)

 

English heraldic practice was of course followed here, but generally without the administrative overhead.  And with Independence, as I’ve noted earlier, any English administrative oversight (heraldic or in any other field), and ditto any aspects of English heraldic practice inconsistent with American republicanism, were essentially pruned from our heraldry.

 

Doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t study & appreciate any number of foreign heraldic traditions, so long as we remember that any aspects of those foreign systems which don’t pass the small-r republican "smell test" are generally inappropriate here.

 

Disclaimer - while a long-time student and enthusiast of heraldry and I hope reasonably well-read, I’m neither a lawyer nor expert witness, so will welcome correction if/when either memory or judgment are faulty.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
15 September 2014 03:57
 

James Dempster;102708 wrote:

I won’t put words in Joseph’s mouth, but all the legal authorities since Bartolus

 

 

have accepted that it has been perfectly legitimate to assume arms. There has been debate as to whether it is better to have those arms recognised by a "prince" i.e. the (local) legal authorities because that that gives the armiger greater authority in any legal dispute (as title deeds would in a land dispute).

 

Some "princes" took this further and required that their subjects only bear arms recorded or granted by them or by their agents, but this only occurred well after the origins of heraldry and, as Joseph has stated, well into the history of colonisation of the Americas. There were several reasons for this requirement, some could be classed as essentially sumptuary (England, Scotland) and others as a money raising exercise (France, where some peple were forced to have arms so that said arms could be taxed). In a great many parts of Europe, this did not take place, and while "princes" exercised the power to grant arms (usually when ennobling someone) free assumption was not only allowed, it was the norm for the vast majority of arms.

 

Even when the situation in England and Scotland is considered, in both cases the start of heraldic regulation was by the official recording of assumed arms by the heralds, and only thereafter were new arms only by grant. Even in 20th century Scotland could assumed arms be recognised by the Lord Lyon, if they met the required condition of use before the act of 1672. I knew personally, one non-noble armiger (sadly recently deceased) who had arms (and supporters) regognised on the basis of "ancient user" as it is termed.

 

James


Please see my last five posts. I appreciate everyone’s continued enthusiasm in regaling me with the grand history of heraldry in the Duchy of Wherever in 1100 but - as I’ve repeatedly said - I’m aware of all that and don’t consider any of it remotely compelling.

 

Further, I’m concerned the passion being displayed in constantly re-directing the conversation back to the middle ages in every post underscores a determination to justify the status quo to our own echo chamber. It also uncomfortably reinforces the parallels between American heraldry and self-styled orders of chivalry. Substitute "arms" for "nobility" in any of these posts and - no joking - this thread could be the sell sheet of the Order of the Templars of El Paso. I understand that probably offends someone/everyone, and I apologize that it does, but that’s just the way it is.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
15 September 2014 04:33
 

Michael F. McCartney;102709 wrote:

Well…IIRC the English don’t consider the (or at least their) Law of Arms to fall under "common law" - rather it is considered to be a remnant of "civil law" (hope I’m using the right term - corrections most welcome!) an earlier and legally different legal system originating in the Roman empire.

The closest analogies I can think of in the American context are Louisiana, whose laws were based on the French Code Napoleon, itself derived from civil law, rather than English common law; and the Spanish water rights law which applies in California and IIRC a few other formerly Spanish & Mexican western states. (Of course in both cases common law elements have been introduced but the basic laws were and are non-common law unless & until, and only to the extent, specifically superceded by subsequent legislation, just as common law in the other 49 and Federal law survives unless & until superceded by specific legislation.)

 

Also, IIRC, English law was considered applicable to colonies (North America, Australia, etc) only to the extent it was relevant to local conditions - and AFAIK English heraldic law was only rarely applied to the colonies at least here.  (Again, corrections by those more knowledgeable most welcome.)

 

English heraldic practice was of course followed here, but generally without the administrative overhead.  And with Independence, as I’ve noted earlier, any English administrative oversight (heraldic or in any other field), and ditto any aspects of English heraldic practice inconsistent with American republicanism, were essentially pruned from our heraldry.

 

Doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t study & appreciate any number of foreign heraldic traditions, so long as we remember that any aspects of those foreign systems which don’t pass the small-r republican "smell test" are generally inappropriate here.

 

Disclaimer - while a long-time student and enthusiast of heraldry and I hope reasonably well-read, I’m neither a lawyer nor expert witness, so will welcome correction if/when either memory or judgment are faulty.


Louisiana - like PQ - is indeed a civil law jurisdiction, but its legal system is not drawn from the Code Napoleon, though that is a popular misconception. France was still in the consular period when Louisiana was transferred to the United States and the Code Napoleon was introduced during the empire.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 September 2014 08:57
 

zebulon;102707 wrote:

This word choice suggests that, at some place in the back of your mind, you concede that assumed arms are not the equivalent of granted arms.

 


Within a country where armorial grants exist, assumed arms are generally not as good as granted arms, mainly for the reason James Dempster gave: they have more authority. There are clearly perceptions in some countries that granted arms are also better because they symbolize a personal connection between the sovereign and the grantee. In other countries with very old heraldic traditions, however, what makes one coat of arms better than another is pure antiquity. In these countries—Germany, for one—it is far more desirable to have arms that have been borne by one’s ancestors time out of mind than arms granted by some imperial functionary at a date certain.

 

In the United States, we have no granted arms. Sure, we have people who bear arms granted by a herald, and we have people who have inherited arms that were originally granted by a herald. But in legal terms (sorry, I get it that you don’t want to hear about law or history, but they’re part of the picture), these granted arms have no greater status than arms adopted unilaterally. Perceptually—well, I can’t read people’s minds, but as the notable colonial Virginian John Custis observed in 1739, "Every scoundrell that has mony, may go to the heralds office a buy a coat of arms."


Quote:

I understand you’re set on a specific narrative on those points - but by popular perception. I would just say that, for me, this issue is more than back-of-mind. And it’s an issue I feel would be appropriately republican to correct; everyone should have access to arms just as perceptually valid as those granted by the CoA.


It would be more appropriately republican to educate people.  Everyone already has access to arms that are just as valid (in the US) as those granted by the College of Arms; that’s the reality.  If perception is out of synch with reality, doesn’t it make sense to change the perception rather than the reality?

 

Both the protection of arms against usurpation and the basic rules of inheritance of arms in England derive from civil ("Roman") law as enunciated by the medieval "civilians," notably Bartolus (referred to by James Dempster). Jurisdiction on disputes over particular coats of arms was vested in the Court of Chivalry by statute, but the law governing such disputes is the civil law of arms, with the caveat "as used in England." In other words, Bartolus and the other commentators as modified by actual practice.

 

(If that’s not suitably fuzzy, the "law" by which the only real arms are said to be those granted/confirmed by the kings of arms is even fuzzier, but that’s a different matter.)


Quote:

According to the College of Arms’ website, the laws of descent of arms date to the 1400s so wouldn’t they have matriculated to the states (except Louisiana) when the whole body of English law was adopted? If the common law exists until repealed, and if no state has adopted any law at all regarding heraldry, is there an extant protection of arms in the USA that has simply not been discovered for lack of a test case?

Again, it’s neither common nor statute law, but I do think there is a plausible case that a latent law of arms does exist in all of the United States, and that it is the old transnational law enunciated by Bartolus and other commentators and observed in practice not only in the English colonies but in the French, Dutch, Swedish, and Spanish ones, and in the post-1776 USA as well. There are tidbits in legal history, including a handful of low-level court cases, that tend to support this, but nothing conclusive. More compelling is the series of four private acts of the Maryland General Assembly authorizing the inheritance of arms outside the normal male-line inheritance. If there had been no general law of arms in force, then passing a law permitting deviation from it would make no sense.