Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Maxwell Findlater:

On the basis of your list, a crest coronet should be emminently suitable for an armiger who is untitled, for that is what those jurisdictions mean by untitled nobilty.

From what I understand from various reading, an untitled noble is not anyone who is not untitled, which would make most armigers nobles then, but someone from a noble house who has not inherited the title.

For example, say the noble house of "Examplesberg" are Dukes of Metafor. Julius August, Duke of Metafor, has died and the title has passed to his oldest son, Ralpherd. His younger son, Rupric*, does not inherit the title, but is still a noble. Therefore, an untitled noble.

*Yes, I have seen the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, its hillarious! :D

Cheers,

emrys;44798 wrote:

Sorry to have to correct you again, but that is not true there are 2 pearls between the leaves. As you can see in these arms.

http://www.terneuzen.nl/topics/algemeen/geschiedenis/index/gemeentewapen.jpg

Actually this is the exact coronet of which I was speaking, with the two pearls, which have been depicted variously over the centuries in different countries as small silver beads, small gold beads or rudimentary spikes. The British seem to be depicting this coronet as of late either with rudimentary spikes or with nothing at all between the strawberry leaves.

Donnchadh;44796 wrote:

David, I can see this and I am the first to mention that American heraldry, while based primarily on the British model(s) is not strictly a British heraldic child. So, your points have great merit in that regard and I think all would do well to keep that in mind.

Dennis,

I realised this and we have some agreement. My point in commenting at all was to remind readers that there are other traditions. Because of our shared language, the libraries of American heraldists are full of books written from a British standpoint, a tradition that while predominate, is hardly representative of all of the heraldic traditions of the United States when one considers that this country is formed from territories that were once part of Great Britain, France, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Russia and Mexico.

Donnchadh;44796 wrote:

But, in this case, Edward was wanting one that was specifically geared towards his future procurement of a British grant (ECOA or LL). So, Alex’s comments on ducal coronets and even the ancient coronet were meant, I think though I don’t want to speak for him, as a reflection of that.

We are agreement again, as written above, I just wanted to remind the readership that the British way is not the only way.

Donnchadh;44796 wrote:

As an aside, I think it is a good idea, though not necessary, to place a crest coronet inside of a wreath, as one finds in most of the Canadian grants I’ve seen anyway, so as to make sure it is not seen as a coronet of nobility from any standpoint, but rather what it is, which is a simple crest coronet.

I have never understood the practice of placing a crest coronet on a torse as it is redundant. Would anyone know when and where this odd heraldic practice originated? I know that the Canadians use this treatment without exception to the best of my knowledge. The Chief Herald of Ireland uses the torse on some grants with the ducal crest coronet and others dispenses with the torse altogether. I believe that the College of Arms more recently has been inclined to include a torse under a crest coronet but again this does not seem to be a fixed rule. Unless there has been some change, the Bureau of Heraldry does not uses torses under crest coronets.

MohamedHossam;44799 wrote:

From what I understand from various reading, an untitled noble is not anyone who is not untitled, which would make most armigers nobles then, but someone from a noble house who has not inherited the title.

While I understand what you are saying, it is common ground in Europe that you were either nobilis or ignobilis.  If you were nobilis you were entitled to bear arms and the most common proof of nobility in this sense was the evidence that you were armigerous.

Visitations in England used the same terminology nobilis and ignobilis even though at that period the use of the word gentleman was common to describe someone who was of a status to bear arms.  Later in England the use of the Latin nobilis died out, but the evidence from the period of the visitations clearly shows the concordance of continental and English practice.

It is worth pointing out that the Scottish Letters Patent of a grant of arms includes the phrase "and shall be accepted among the noblesse of Scotland", continuing the old Scottish relationship to the continent, which England largely lost for historic reasons.

I only the other day had a letter from someone in Germany saying, and I quote, " This family is untitled nobility… the ‘von’ is absent from many old north German and Friesian families. I know they are in Gotha as I read the entry many years ago."

Alex Maxwell Findlater;44792 wrote:

On the basis of your list, a crest coronet should be emminently suitable for an armiger who is untitled, for that is what those jurisdictions mean by untitled nobilty.

I think that you are really stretching the meaning of a British coat-of-arms. In most of those jurisdictions that I cited, having the status of an untitled noble had legal and educational privileges that a British armiger never had. Just the same, I suspect that we agree on more than we disagree on this topic.

Alex Maxwell Findlater;44805 wrote:

Visitations in England used the same terminology nobilis and ignobilis even though at that period the use of the word gentleman was common to describe someone who was of a status to bear arms.  Later in England the use of the Latin nobilis died out, but the evidence from the period of the visitations clearly shows the concordance of continental and English practice.

I am aware of the English heralds visitations. There are a number of volumes from the Harleian Society on my bookshelves that document various visitations. I am curious as to how accurate this visitations were, meaning if a herald found assumed arms in use would he intervene or would he simply record them for future tax collection purposes, meaning the annual fee paid by every armiger who displayed arms?

Alex Maxwell Findlater;44805 wrote:

It is worth pointing out that the Scottish Letters Patent of a grant of arms includes the phrase "and shall be accepted among the noblesse of Scotland", continuing the old Scottish relationship to the continent, which England largely lost for historic reasons.

A relatively recent insertion into the wording of Scottish grants of arms. But what does this really mean from a legal standpoint? The the Crown never delegated the power to ennoble to the Court of the Lord Lyon. I suspect that this wording is a sort of end run around this legal fact.

Alex Maxwell Findlater;44805 wrote:

I only the other day had a letter from someone in Germany saying, and I quote, " This family is untitled nobility… the ‘von’ is absent from many old north German and Friesian families. I know they are in Gotha as I read the entry many years ago."

Very true. There are even titled German families without the normal predicate of ‘von’ or ‘zu’.

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Alex Maxwell Findlater

While I understand what you are saying, it is common ground in Europe that you were either nobilis or ignobilis. If you were nobilis you were entitled to bear arms and the most common proof of nobility in this sense was the evidence that you were armigerous.

 

Visitations in England used the same terminology nobilis and ignobilis even though at that period the use of the word gentleman was common to describe someone who was of a status to bear arms. Later in England the use of the Latin nobilis died out, but the evidence from the period of the visitations clearly shows the concordance of continental and English practice.

 

It is worth pointing out that the Scottish Letters Patent of a grant of arms includes the phrase "and shall be accepted among the noblesse of Scotland", continuing the old Scottish relationship to the continent, which England largely lost for historic reasons.

 

I only the other day had a letter from someone in Germany saying, and I quote, " This family is untitled nobility… the ‘von’ is absent from many old north German and Friesian families. I know they are in Gotha as I read the entry many years ago."

So, in the European heraldic tradition, I, as an armiger, would thus be considered an untitled noble? Or do you mean historically.

MohamedHossam;44808 wrote:

So, in the European heraldic tradition, I, as an armiger, would thus be considered an untitled noble? Or do you mean historically.

In my opinion the legal framework within which arms are regulated has not been changed or abolished, so both historically and legally.  Of course if your arms are assumed, without confirmation by an heraldic authority, some European heralds might reject them.

David Pritchard;44803 wrote:

Actually this is the exact coronet of which I was speaking, with the two pearls, which have been depicted variously over the centuries in different countries as small silver beads, small gold beads or rudimentary spikes. The British seem to be depicting this coronet as of late either with rudimentary spikes or with nothing at all between the strawberry leaves.

Ok sorry I assumed you were talking about the crown with the spikes without the pearls.

David Pritchard;44807 wrote:

I am curious as to how accurate this visitations were, meaning if a herald found assumed arms in use would he intervene or would he simply record them for future tax collection purposes, meaning the annual fee paid by every armiger who displayed arms?

The answer to this question is complex.  Firstly Harleian Society publications are not usually of the Official Visitation, but of a copy made by an herald painter and originally in the Harleian Bequest to the British Museum (now British Library).  The HP copies are notorious for amendments and additions.

If it is from the Official Visitation, then it depends on the quality of the herald who did it.  Some are excellent, and the later ones better, generally, than the earlier.

The procedure seems to have been that the herald would sift through those who were summoned to appear at a Visitation;  Those okay would pay their fee and get dinner with him.  Those who were not armigers, but were summoned because they were gentlemen, in the opinion of the Sheriff (later Lord Lieutenant) of the County, might well ask the herald to give them arms, which he would be delighted to do, as getting a fee and acquiring a client.  In this case the grant would have to be made by a King of Arms in London;  the herald doing the visitation would normally be either a Pursuivant or a Herald.  Or else they might just say, no I don’t have arms and I’m happy that way.

The last category would be those who had assumed arms without authority.  They would be disclaimed, a technical term meaning that their names would be read out and posted up at the market cross of their local town, as pretending to a status which they did not deserve.  Doubtless some of these would be able to regularise their position to avoid being disclaimed.

I am not aware that an annual fee was payable during the C16 and C17.  Of course in the C19 a fee for displaying arms was levied by the Inland Revenue at differing rates.  That was not for having arms and didn’t go to the heralds.

Quote:

A relatively recent insertion into the wording of Scottish grants of arms. But what does this really mean from a legal standpoint? The the Crown never delegated the power to ennoble to the Court of the Lord Lyon. I suspect that this wording is a sort of end run around this legal fact.

Lyon is enjoined by the 1672 Act to grant arms to those who are "virtuous and well-deserving".  This has always been taken as his authority to grant arms and thus confirm that someone is a gentleman, alias untitled noble.  Very few patents of arms survive in Scotland from before the C19.  The first volume of the Register does not copy out the actual words of the patent.  The second volume started in 1803/4, but I have to admit that I have only looked at the first volume, for historical purposes, and later volumes which have entries which interest me for other reasons.  So when grants first were recorded in their entirety I am not sure.

I understood that Lord Lyon Learney was the first to use the noblesse clause, but I haven’t checked that.  That would date it to say 1945 or so.  The story which I heard was that a young lady of foreign birth wanted to marry a Scotsman who was armigerous.  Her family would not allow it because they believed that his arms were not of the status of theirs.  Learney was so affected by this sad situation that forthwith he inserted a noblesse clause in the LPs.

Grants in England from the C16 and C17 sometimes do include a noblesse clause or equivalent, but I really cannot quote one off then top of my head, it’s not something which interests me particularly.  Perhaps someone else might have some evidence of this.

David Pritchard;44806 wrote:

I think that you are really stretching the meaning of a British coat-of-arms. In most of those jurisdictions that I cited, having the status of an untitled noble had legal and educational privileges that a British armiger never had. Just the same, I suspect that we agree on more than we disagree on this topic.

Certainly gentlemen had no special rights in Britain, either England or Scotland.  On the other hand they were exempt from taxation in France and possibly other countries, but I don’t know which.  There was an interesting article in the Double Tressure No 23 (2000) entitled Status and the Travelling Scot: Birthbriefs and the Establishment of Noble Status by Scots Abroad in the Seventeenth Century, by Matthew Glozier.

The burden of his tale was that the Scots heralds had to furnish Scots going to France with documents which would establish that they were untitled nobles and thus exempt from taxation.  It is worth reading; it is clear from it that there was an established equivalence in the C17 between armigerous Scots and French untitled nobles.

Quote:

I have never understood the practice of placing a crest coronet on a torse as it is redundant.

Yes, it is. But, it can also be helpful in eliminating the unintentional appearance of nobility. Is it required for us Americans? No, and I hope ever so. But, I think there is some merit in it given the preponderance of “wanna-be” nobles of this make believe land or that that dot the heraldic scene especially those from the States. So, my blazon does not call for it, but I have made it with it once and without it six times while devising different styles of my own arms, which will be displayed on my own website soon (God and finances willing).

Quote:

Would anyone know when and where this odd heraldic practice originated?

I don’t know, but I think that it could’ve been with the Canadians…Darren’s participation here would be very helpful.

Quote:

I know that the Canadians use this treatment without exception to the best of my knowledge. The Chief Herald of Ireland uses the torse on some grants with the ducal crest coronet and others dispenses with the torse altogether.

Agreed. I’ve seen it without exception in Canadian arms and in quite a number of Irish arms.

Quote:

I believe that the College of Arms more recently has been inclined to include a torse under a crest coronet but again this does not seem to be a fixed rule.

I think I’ve seen an online armorial/member’s arms page with this from the ECOA as well.

Again I agree that people can get American heraldry confused with being strictly the child of British, more specifically English, heraldry. I think that is a mistake, but do accept that the British influence is dominant because of our shared culture if nothing else.

That being said, I’d love nothing more than arms here in the American Southwest to have a Spanish influence, as that is the dominant sub-culture as opposed to British. And that is one of the reasons I absolutely love the thread on San Antonio and Baxer County, Texas arms.

I just think that Alex was referring to Edwards desire for making an augmentation to his arms that would please, for lack of a better phrase, the ECOA. Again I could be well wrong…

I would have to go back to our "Best Practices" document to be sure, but I think (hope) it generally discourages the use of coronets of any sort by Americans, other than perhaps as mere charges on the shield, precisely because of the impression likely to given to some viewers that there is some claim or allusion to foreign noblesse of some sort or another.  If the impression is accidental, it is merely unfortunate, but still to be avoided.  If it is at some level intentional, it is (if I may be allowed a brief moment of republican moralizing) unworthy in an American context.

Personally, I wouldn’t object to a metal circlet embellished with items that few if any would mistake for a possibly noble coronet of any sort—e.g. a Canadian friend whose crest issues from a circlet embellished (that’s not the right word, but can’t recall the right one) with salmon and some sort of tree-nut IIRC.  The emblems had some family significance that I don’t clearly recall—Irish & Native American (First Nation) or some such.  But visually nothing at all like any of the existing European coronets.

But a simple wreath is always appropriate, cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else, and is—the ultimate heraldic virtue!—simply more simple.  It is IMO simply the best practice.  (Is that simple enough? )

In a foreign context, of course coronets of various shapes can & should be used as (& only as) the customs of that place & time prescribe.  But as noted in our Best Practices, the use of such potential indicators of noblesse should be limited to the foreign context & preferably not used in an American context ourside of e.g. the Scottish Games or other ethnic excesses appropriate to the particular case.

As stated above, my views only, but I think consistent with the spirit of our Best Practices.

As always Mike, much value in what you say. I think, for point of clarification only, that the AHS’s “best practices” allow for the crest coronet. Others better informed than I should correct me if I’m wrong.

Denny—you may be right about the BP & crest coronets, I haven’t checked lately (but I guess I should, huh? )