Joseph McMillan;104159 wrote:
This is nothing new. The LL website has always said this. It’s not wrong, just incomplete.
Response to my inquiries to the former LL indicated that jurisdiction could only be established by documented descent from a direct male-line ancestor (same surname) who was an inhabitant of Scotland. That ancestor would be granted arms and then the American would matriculate arms with appropriate cadencing.
My understanding is the "any direct ancestor who lived in the colonies prior to 1783" analysis only applies to the COA.
Do I have it wrong?
From a conversation I had with Lyon Clerk about a year ago, my understanding is that the ancestor must be someone of Scottish origin who was a subject of the British monarch. For Americans, that could be a male line ancestor of Scottish origin who was in the 13 colonies before British recognition of U.S. independence, or someone who came directly from Scotland, or an ancestor who was a subject of some other British realm along the way. A characteristically Scottish name seems to be sufficient to establish Scottish origin; I guess people named Smith or Brown may have to get over a higher hurdle.
There also seems to be even more flexibility, at least in some instances. Colin Powell was deemed to be within Lyon’s jurisdiction by a mix-and-match of paternal and maternal ancestors. It was his father who had been a subject of the British crown (when Jamaica was a crown colony) and his mother who had the Scottish ancestry.
Your conversation with Lion Clerk reflects a quite reasonable policy, though a bit narrower than what I (maybe mis-) remember from Learney’s Scots Heraldry. He didn’t IIRC require real or wanna-be Scottish antecedents for one’s pre-1783 colonial ancestor, only that he was a British subject, similar to what I understand to be Scottish practice re: Commonwealth citizens, both under Learney and today.
Seems to be variations on a continuing Lyon Court reluctance to accept English CoA pretensions to exclusive Imperial jurisdiction beyond England, whether a British colony then or a Commonwealth nation now. (Was Colin Powell’s Scottish maternal ancestry a necessary qualifying factor, or just a happy sentimental extra? I would have thought the latter.)
Not saying Learney’s notions should guide current policy - each Lyon being free to set his own rules within pretty broad limits, and in any case not my business! - only that it was AFAIK Learney’s approach to pre-1783 colonial American ancestry back in the day.
Anyway, even today Brown (Broun) and Smith are both coulda-been Scottish surnames, however broad a wink-wink in some cases; hey, they’re both found in Black’s Surnames of Scotland 
David Pope;104162 wrote:
Response to my inquiries to the former LL indicated that jurisdiction could only be established by documented descent from a direct male-line ancestor (same surname) who was an inhabitant of Scotland. That ancestor would be granted arms and then the American would matriculate arms with appropriate cadencing.
My understanding is the "any direct ancestor who lived in the colonies prior to 1783" analysis only applies to the COA.
Do I have it wrong?
David, my understanding is the Lyon Court accepts male or female line descent with the requirements as described by Joe.
Kathy McClurg;104165 wrote:
David, my understanding is the Lyon Court accepts male or female line descent with the requirements as described by Joe.
I should have been more precise: surname descent (which usually is direct male line)...
David Pope;104166 wrote:
I should have been more precise: surname descent (which usually is direct male line)...
No - surname descent is not required either - Scottish descent in male or female line is my understanding… Unless something has changed in the last 3 years…
Now, if you female Scottish Ancestor was a Campbell and you are a Smith, you would not get arms which are based on Campbell arms…and I’m unsure how they "weave" through that… I never pursued it further than that basic question.
Kathy McClurg;104167 wrote:
No - surname descent is not required either - Scottish descent in male or female line is my understanding… Unless something has changed in the last 3 years…
Now, if you female Scottish Ancestor was a Campbell and you are a Smith, you would not get arms which are based on Campbell arms…and I’m unsure how they "weave" through that… I never pursued it further than that basic question.
Interesting. This is not my understanding for LL, but rather reflects COA practice. I’ll have to write Lyon Clerk and inquire.
I’m fairly sure it’s the male/surname line that has to lead to the ancestor in whose name the grant is issued. Perhaps the Scottish component can come in through the female side, but if the grantee-ancestor is not in the male/surname line, then the petitioner would not be within the destination of the arms granted and therefore couldn’t matriculate them.
What would be the point of that, unless you’re inclined to give your distant cousins a nice, expensive present?
So, for example: suppose your 5th great-grandfather in direct male succession was French Canadian living in Quebec. If he had arms, you could inherit them, but he doesn’t give you the Scottish connection. If his wife were of Scottish extraction, however, Lyon might be able to rationalize making a grant to him, or at least to one of their sons, your 4th great-grandfather.
Joseph McMillan;104169 wrote:
I’m fairly sure it’s the male/surname line that has to lead to the ancestor in whose name the grant is issued. Perhaps the Scottish component can come in through the female side, but if the grantee-ancestor is not in the male/surname line, then the petitioner would not be within the destination of the arms granted and therefore couldn’t matriculate them.
What would be the point of that, unless you’re inclined to give your distant cousins a nice, expensive present?
This is my understanding, as well.
As I understand it, the key difference between grants from CHI/COA and LL for Americans is this:
COA/CHI- you must prove eligibility through documented descent from any ancestor who was a subject/citizen of the granting country. Once eligibility is proved, then the eligible American is actually granted arms in their own right.
LL- you must prove descent from an individual who was within the jurisdiction of LL. Once that has occurred, the ancestor is granted arms (usually posthumously) and the arms descend through the direct male surname line to the American who matriculates them with necessary cadencing.
That being said, there are always odd cases, such as Colin Powell. I still can’t get my head around how his Jamaican father with a Welsh surname was eligible for a LL grant (vice COA)...
Well, I’ll let you sort it - I’ve stated my understanding as of a few years back… But once we identified I couldn’t make the connection with paperwork, I dropped it from there.
Quote:
LL- you must prove descent from an individual who was within the jurisdiction of LL. Once that has occurred, the ancestor is granted arms (usually posthumously) and the arms descend through the direct male surname line to the American who matriculates them with necessary cadencing.
If I recall correctly, citizens of Commonwealth countries without an existing heraldic authority are also eligible to petition LL for grants of arms. So, for example, Canadians and South Africans wouldn’t generally be eligible to petition for a grant (unless they were of Scottish paternal descent, owned lands in Scotland, held a barony, etc). Jamaicans, Cypriots, Mozambicans, on the other hand, would be eligible. My high school best friend’s father was born in India and has no European ancestry, but was informed by LL that he was eligible to petition for a grant.
David Pope;104173 wrote:
That being said, there are always odd cases, such as Colin Powell. I still can’t get my head around how his Jamaican father with a Welsh surname was eligible for a LL grant (vice COA)...
This goes to the point about being able to make the Scottish connection via a female; the general’s mother was of partially Scottish descent—her maiden name was McKoy—and she, of course was also born a subject of the British crown. But ultimately, as Seb points out, successive Lyons have asserted their right to grant to any subject of the British monarch’s overseas realms that doesn’t have a heraldic authority of its own.
The College of Arms asserts that the Earl Marshal has exclusive jurisdiction over the non-UK overseas realms (except Canada), and that Lyon is trespassing on their turf by making such grants, even to expatriate Scots. But Lyon has never accepted this claim.
On ownership of a barony bringing someone within LL’s granting jurisdiction, I notice that the note put up on the Lyon Court website to that effect by Lyon Sellar has now been taken down. The link is still on the home page, but it leads to a blank page. Perhaps an indication that Dr. Morrow is considering reversing Mr. Sellar’s reversal of Mr. Blair’s position on the matter?
Dear All,
Notwithstanding General Colin Powell’s qualification for a grant of arms from the Lord Lyon whether indirect (through his Scottish maternal line) or not as with all foreign nationals who not subjects of the British and Commonwealth Realms (save for Canada) or descendants thereof, General Powell would have qualified for an honorary grant of arms as he was appointed shortly after the first Gulf War an honorary Knight Commander (of the Military Division) of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath (KCB). All foreign nationals appointed to a British (and I dare say any Commonwealth [and again save for Canada]) Order under the Crown are eligible to petition for an honorary grant of arms from the College of Arms. I would imagine the same criteria would pertain at Lyon Court, although they may look for some semblance of ‘Scottishness’ in the prospective petitioner. This is, therefore, one route for a foreign national who has no British descent or at the very least had no forebear whose allegiance (whether implicit or not) was to the the British Crown in whatever guise to obtain a grant of arms.
With every good wish
John
liongam;104177 wrote:
I would imagine the same criteria would pertain at Lyon Court, although they may look for some semblance of ‘Scottishness’ in the prospective petitioner.
I would have imagined so as well, but when she was in New York last year Lyon Clerk answered "no" when asked whether receiving an honor from the British crown would qualify a foreigner for a grant of Scottish arms. I was a bit surprised.
If as Liongam says, foreigners receiving a British honor may receive a grant of honorary arms from the English CoA, then Lion Clerk’s response makes perfect sense, since Lyon does not make any grants of honourary arms, or even accept the English honourary arms for matriculation in LR.
The LC logic as I understand it isn’t related to whether or not some foreign peticioner has a British gong; only that (1) the arms would have to be honorary rather than substantive since the foreign grantee is neither a subject of the Queen in any of her royal domains nor a citizen of a nation belonging to the Commonwealth of which she is the symbolic head - the same reason an English grant to that petitioner would be honourary; and (2) unlike the English Earl Marshall’s policy, in Scotland only substantive arms may be granted or matriculated.
I’m not arguing for or against this policy, only noting that the logic is internally consistent given the official policy in Scotland as enunciated, understood, interpreted and applied by successive Lyons.
Of course HM could reverse this policy if that was Her (or her ministers’) pleasure; but I also suspect that the English CoA hasn’t complained & isn’t all that upset by this policy, at least re: British foreign honorees, who then must come to them for a British grant of arms. (One suspects that we may see peace in the Middle East before a lasting cessation of armorial hostilities between Queen Victoria Street and the New Register House.)