Use of ancestor’s arms vs. new design

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 August 2007 04:21
 

I have given some thought to using a coat of arms and am kind of ambivalent about the relative tastefulness/legitimacy of adopting a completely new, idiosyncratic design. I have a number of armigerous ancestors, but I haven’t yet identified one in my direct male line(immigrant ancestor Antoine Leblanc dit Jolicoeur, arrived Quebec 1665—I’ve queried about him in another thread here). Assuming I am obliged to draw on a different ancestor’s arms as the basis for mine, two questions arise. First, would it be most logical to adapt the arms of the most recent armiger, those of one I especially want to honor, those of one in some sense closest to the direct male line, or what? Second, what would be the minimal differencing norms in American heraldry indicate for the adaptation/adoption of arms outside the direct male line?

Any counsel is most appreciated.

 

Fred Henry White IV

Monterey, California

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
31 August 2007 10:51
 

fwhite;49015 wrote:

I have given some thought to using a coat of arms and am kind of ambivalent about the relative tastefulness/legitimacy of adopting a completely new, idiosyncratic design. I have a number of armigerous ancestors, but I haven’t yet identified one in my direct male line(immigrant ancestor Antoine Leblanc dit Jolicoeur, arrived Quebec 1665—I’ve queried about him in another thread here). Assuming I am obliged to draw on a different ancestor’s arms as the basis for mine, two questions arise. First, would it be most logical to adapt the arms of the most recent armiger, those of one I especially want to honor, those of one in some sense closest to the direct male line, or what? Second, what would be the minimal differencing norms in American heraldry indicate for the adaptation/adoption of arms outside the direct male line?

Any counsel is most appreciated.

 

Fred Henry White IV

Monterey, California


Hi, Fred!

 

First: there is absolutely nothing inappropriate, distasteful or illigitimate regarding the assumption of new arms. In fact, many times, one can get a simpler, more striking and/or beautiful coat of arms than one might ‘inherit’ that way.

 

The adaptation of exisiting arms is done quite frequently around here, too. Basically, the thought is that if changes to the arms, in both charges and tinctures, give a ‘nod’ to the old arms, but are enough so that they do not seem to present a consanguine claim to the old arms, then you’re in the right ballpark.

 

As to which armigerous ancestor you’d like to honor and lacking a direct claim to arms through the male line ... I’d suggest adopting new arms. But then again, I am an "arms follow the name" sort of guy. Your mileage may vary.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 August 2007 20:55
 

Thanks for your feedback, Patrick. I don’t have any desire to adapt the arms of anyone who isn’t a lineal ancestor. But supposing I don’t have any particular qualms about arms not following the name (I gather there are precedents for this in America, e.g., John Adams), what are some examples of minimal responsible differencing? In other words, what is the least injury you can do to the original design while generally forestalling charges of fraudulence from heraldry aficionados?

 
Stephen R. Hickman
 
Avatar
 
 
Stephen R. Hickman
Total Posts:  700
Joined  01-12-2006
 
 
 
31 August 2007 20:57
 

Fred, welcome to our little nitche on the Internet! You are in no way obligated to draw upon anyone’s arms, ancestor or not, in designing your own arms.  As for adopting anyone else’s arms, I cannot emphasize enough that it is in extremely bad taste to adopt such arms "as-is"—unless you have legitimately inheirited them.  You may, however difference them enough for anyone to notice that there is indeed a difference.  An example of this would be to start with, say, George Washington’s arms and change the tinctures to Or and/or Vert, add a charge (say an anchor in base), or even add a division, such as a fess.  You could even do combinations, as long as you like the final design, and as long as no one has beaten you to it.  I personally recommend, since you have not been able yet to track down any arms which you stand to inherit, that you simply start from scratch.  You could draw upon your various armigerous ancestors for inspiration, or you could just create an entirely new achievement which has meaning only to you, thereby starting a completely new heraldic tradition!  Your possibilities are truly endless!  (Just don’t mess with Washington’s arms.  wink)

 
PBlanton
 
Avatar
 
 
PBlanton
Total Posts:  808
Joined  06-11-2005
 
 
 
31 August 2007 22:50
 

fwhite wrote:

what are some examples of minimal responsible differencing? In other words, what is the least injury you can do to the original design while generally forestalling charges of fraudulence from heraldry aficionados?

Fred,

Welcome to the AHS! :D To answer your questions, as I understand it, two changes from the original is an ideal minimum for differencing. Of course, any change from the original qualifies as a new coat of arms. However, many armigers will frown on a single, minor alteration without being able to show descent from the original armiger.

 

For example, if a future distant relative (not directly descended from me) would like to adopt arms to show relation, but not descent, from me, they could just use my arms and change the field to ermine. However, it would be better to change the field to ermine and the main charge to Azure. The double change would still show a link to my arms, but be sufficiently different to show no direct relation.

 

Another example that comes to mind immediately are Joe McMillan’s arms. They show relation to the McMillan clan, but of indeterminate descent.

 

Take care,

 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 August 2007 23:49
 

Stephen R. Hickman;49063 wrote:

As for adopting anyone else’s arms, I cannot emphasize enough that it is in extremely bad taste to adopt such arms "as-is"—unless you have legitimately inheirited them.  You may, however difference them enough for anyone to notice that there is indeed a difference.


Thanks for the gracious welcome! If I may engage you a little further, though, let me observe that your remarks above seem to force the question of what, really, constitutes "legitimate inheritance of arms" in a republic with no direct regulation of personal heraldry. I understand the logic of positing a basis in English custom for American heraldic norms, but it seems to me that rigorous adherence to English custom would preclude any assumption of arms whatsoever. Regardless of the fact the original, sole manner of acquiring arms was assumption, a substantial process of historical development has intervened, such that the prevailing English view for the past few hundred years has been that arms are a kind of badge of gentility and/or honor that is granted by sovereign or his appointed authority and has neatly restricted use. In such an ambience, any assumption of arms of any sort is bound to seem extraordinarily pretentious, isn’t it? As nearly as I can tell, assumption of arms suits the typical American heraldry enthusiast quite, so I would think that any appeal he might make to English models logically flawed, ipso facto.

 

Let me emphasize that these are purely rhetorical questions I’m posing, and that I would be content to concede the argument.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 August 2007 23:59
 

However, many armigers will frown on a single, minor alteration without being able to show descent from the original armiger.

 

Thanks for the clarification, but to further elucidate the rule, such as it is, supposing lineal descent (albeit not in the direct male line) from the armiger is well-attested, are you saying that a single, minor alteration would generally suffice? Changing the crest, or engrailing a fess, for instance?

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 00:20
 

fwhite;49073 wrote:

Thanks for the gracious welcome! If I may engage you a little further, though, let me observe that your remarks above seem to force the question of what, really, constitutes "legitimate inheritance of arms" in a republic with no direct regulation of personal heraldry. I understand the logic of positing a basis in English custom for American heraldic norms, but it seems to me that rigorous adherence to English custom would preclude any assumption of arms whatsoever. Regardless of the fact the original, sole manner of acquiring arms was assumption, a substantial process of historical development has intervened, such that the prevailing English view for the past few hundred years has been that arms are a kind of badge of gentility and/or honor that is granted by sovereign or his appointed authority and has neatly restricted use. In such an ambience, any assumption of arms of any sort is bound to seem extraordinarily pretentious, isn’t it? As nearly as I can tell, assumption of arms suits the typical American heraldry enthusiast quite, so I would think that any appeal he might make to English models logically flawed, ipso facto.

Let me emphasize that these are purely rhetorical questions I’m posing, and that I would be content to concede the argument.

Assumption of arms by Americans is legitimate because no granting authority exists. And you’re right about inheritance rules being slightly different given US legal practice. You can refer to the Sec. 3.4 of the AHS Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the US. Link. Now I may be wrong, but I was of the understanding that if I were trying to prove usage rights to, say, arms granted by the College of Arms to a distant relative, I should follow, even as an American not in England, the rules the CoA sets out for inheritance of arms they grant. I know that if I were going to petition the CoA for recognition of my rights, I have to follow their rules. But, even if one weren’t going to get one’s rights recognized by the CoA, it would still be proper to follow English inheritance rules when trying to trace one’s own right to those arms, although strictly speaking there would be nothing legally forcing someone to do so in the US. If you assume arms as an American, then inheritance rules won’t be those of the CoA. I guess it’s sort of like the idea that if you’re going to play their game, play by their rules… except in this case the game is a foreign authority’s grant of arms.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 00:40
 

fwhite;49075 wrote:

However, many armigers will frown on a single, minor alteration without being able to show descent from the original armiger.

 

Thanks for the clarification, but to further elucidate the rule, such as it is, supposing lineal descent (albeit not in the direct male line) from the armiger is well-attested, are you saying that a single, minor alteration would generally suffice? Changing the crest, or engrailing a fess, for instance?

I’m not sure about the crest, but I believe you’re right about changing partition lines, etc. An example of this sort of practice can be seen in the Scottish differencing system. Chart

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 01:14
 

Dcgb7f;49076 wrote:

Assumption of arms by Americans is legitimate because no granting authority exists. And you’re right about inheritance rules being slightly different given US legal practice. You can refer to the Sec. 3.4 of the AHS Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the US. Link. Now I may be wrong, but I was of the understanding that if I were trying to prove usage rights to, say, arms granted by the College of Arms to a distant relative, I should follow, even as an American not in England, the rules the CoA sets out for inheritance of arms they grant. I know that if I were going to petition the CoA for recognition of my rights, I have to follow their rules. But, even if one weren’t going to get one’s rights recognized by the CoA, it would still be proper to follow English inheritance rules when trying to trace one’s own right to those arms, although strictly speaking there would be nothing legally forcing someone to do so in the US. If you assume arms as an American, then inheritance rules won’t be those of the CoA. I guess it’s sort of like the idea that if you’re going to play their game, play by their rules… except in this case the game is a foreign authority’s grant of arms.

 


Perhaps I’ve created the impression that I’m contemplating using the arms of a fourth cousin or something, when actually the arms in question are those of a sixth great grandfather. For that matter, all the armigers I’m aware of in my family tree are great grandfathers of varying antiquity. I don’t think drawing upon the arms of a cousin would be much different than drawing on the arms of someone outside the family.

 

You mention the AHS Guidelines in more or less the same breath as you observe that there is no heraldic authority in the United States. I take it the hope is that AHS and like bodies will be the genesis of such an authority, but—another rhetorical question here—is this hope in any way realistic? Perhaps the layman can be persuaded that establishing a heraldic authority would be a sound use of taxpayer dollars, but does any of us really believe that he can be? I mean, finally, aren’t we kind of left with no authority any higher than chutzpah to legitimize our sense of entitlement to coat armor?

 

In terms of "playing by their [the English] rules," the point of confusion for me is how anyone can feel confident he is doing so if he finds the assumption of arms permissible to begin with. It seems to me that if you feel the free assumption of arms is legitimate, you are already appealing to some principle completely extrinsic to the English system that has prevailed for the past few hundred years. If you embrace their medieval system, then the College of Arms has nothing to do with it, but if—on the other hand—you wish to apply CoA standards for legitimacy, then anyone without a direct male line armiger can only hope to enjoy heraldry vicariously, because assuming arms is not an option, correct?

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 01:50
 

Well, I won’t pretent to speak for what the AHS hopes. I merely know that the guidelines are an attempt to bring some order to the heraldic free-for-all that currently exists thanks to bucket shops and the like. (example: I heard of a case where an American wanted to use the UK’s garter emblem around the shield along with some other inappropriate additives.) As for an official government authority… it’ll most likely never happen in this country, but there’s nothing wrong with that. Assumptions are how most arms came into existence especially on the continent. I take it the AHS and other groups are just trying to increase awareness of the egregious attempts to, in a way, usurp the heraldic trappings of offices one doesn’t have a right to… such as if I were to place St. Edwards crown and the garter around my arms. I’m neither king of the England or a member of the Order of the Garter, so I have no right to use those symbols even if there is no authority to prevent me from doing so.

Regarding assumption and playing by their rules, the playing-by-their-rules comment was only referring to determining one’s right to arms officially granted by an authority to an ancestor. They granted the arms, use their rules to determine your rights to them. Once you’ve assumed arms, strictly speaking, you aren’t playing by the English tradition anymore (there are other traditions though). But if you determine you are entitled to use the arms granted to an ancestor by a heraldic authority, then you have not assumed arms; you have inherited them. If you assume arms as an American, then you are not using inherited arms and therefore have no reason to follow English or Scottish rules. In the rare case that you are entitled to inherited arms, you can still set those arms in favor of assumed arms, in which case you are again not using inherited arms. In the case you are entitled to inherited arms and are using those arm and are living in the US, I don’t know which rules you should use (US or English). I imagine you can make a case for either one.

 

I guess if you wanted to follow English rules to the letter, you couldn’t assume arms. But even if you do assume arms, that doesn’t mean you can’t impose all the CoA’s other rules on your own new heraldic tradition. There are on the other hand other heraldic traditions that do allow assumption, namely those from continental Europe. The US would also fall into this category. So, one by no means has to only follow English rules exclusively. Going back to inheritance, if your ancestors arms were assumed in France in the 1600s, then by all means apply whatever French heraldic tradition says concerning inheritance when determining your right to those arms. This goes back to the play-by-their-rules comment. If the game (the arms) is French, play by French rules.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2007 02:03
 

I think I follow you. Thanks for indulging me, Daniel.

 
Stuart
 
Avatar
 
 
Stuart
Total Posts:  230
Joined  01-12-2005
 
 
 
01 September 2007 11:02
 

I say assume your own unique arms, devise them yourself using your favorite portions of Habersham and Holtzendorff. Then register them and use them and pass them on if you would like.

You are an American, living in America in the 21st century.  If you use "English" rules, you will break a few "German" ones and vice versa. This would all be further complicated by the fact that you live in former Spanish territory… There is no clear way to follow the "rules" in your case. Celebrate not only your many-colored heritage but also your fortune in living in the USA.

 
Andrew J Vidal
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew J Vidal
Total Posts:  567
Joined  13-10-2006
 
 
 
01 September 2007 12:30
 

Do also remember that there are only three granting bodies in this world (CoA, Lord Lion and the CHA).  There is one Register of arms that is afforded recognized legal status (SABH) and various other private registries.  The Chronista’s of Spain do not legally have the authority to provide any personal arms legal protection any longer since the passing of Don Vincente, but they may do private registrations if they so wish and the armiger has the available funds.

What I envision for the US is a system much like that of Germany, where once you have assumed arms and have them published by one of the heraldic societies they are afforded legal protection.  Since we don’t have a fons honorum in America a grant doesn’t make much sense.  But I see no reason why we can’t have legal protection for our arms, whether they be inherited or assumed.

 
DRShorey
 
Avatar
 
 
DRShorey
Total Posts:  528
Joined  11-12-2005
 
 
 
01 September 2007 15:03
 

Fred,

Welcome to the forum. The simple answer to your question is that you can do whatever you want in the US in terms of assuming,  adopting or bearing arms. There are no legal limitations. What AHS is trying to do is to educate folks that just because you can do whatever you want, it isn’t necessarily the best practice.

 

The question of legitimate granting bodies in the US is so far down the road, because there is such a need to educate folks about heraldry. We are a young organization that is still trying to get all our ducks in order. But I think you will find that we are a good resource for you to learn more about heraldry.

 

As to adopting new arms vs. using those of a distant ancestor. Part of the fun of heraldry, to me, is seeing people begin their own heraldic traditions by adopting arms that reflect their current condition. Blaze your own path! These are your arms meant to reflect you!

 

By the way, I grew up in Pacific Grove and lived there until 1992.

 

Dave Shorey

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
01 September 2007 16:58
 

fwhite;49079 wrote:

If you embrace their medieval system, then the College of Arms has nothing to do with it, but if—on the other hand—you wish to apply CoA standards for legitimacy, then anyone without a direct male line armiger can only hope to enjoy heraldry vicariously, because assuming arms is not an option, correct?


Oh, no. The College of Arms as well as other granting authorities would be quite happy to take a whole bunch of your money and devise new arms for you, get them granted to you, etc. Even if you don’t have an armigerous ancestor on whose arms to base a claim. New grants still happen.