Forgive me if this thread has been discussed before.  Again, I know that heraldic laws and customs vary greatly, but I’m wondering what the most generally accepted standards might be concerning arms attributed to people who never bore them in their lifetime.  I know that arms have been attributed to historical and legendary individuals such as King Arthur, Jesus Christ and even Satan, but I also know that it’s possible to register arms for one’s ancestors who never bore arms themselves.  When I registered arms with the American College of Heraldry, I was allowed to register them for my paternal grandfather who was deceased, but no further back, since my father was still living.  With the USHR I was able to register a variation of arms for my maternal grandfather who during his lifetime, along with his brothers had used what I’ll admit to having been bucket shop arms.

I’m just curious as to how many generations back I’d be able to register arms for the thousands of ancestors in my family tree.  Ninety-nine percent of those people, I know nothing about and I wouldn’t consider doing such for them.  But what if I had a notable ancestor five generations back who had a significant role in history, or one who was a loveable rogue and I wanted to register arms for him?  Is there a generally accepted “statute of limitations” for this practice?

My Scottish arms contain an extended destination to the descendants of my thrice great grandfather, which is five generations back. This, however, is not the same thing you are asking. This extended destination allows all the members of my Drake family in Georgia to share the same armorial design, should they wish to do so, but it does not create a fiction that my ancestor actually "bore" those arms.

/Charles

When I was in discussions with Lyon Court about my grant I asked similar questions.

Lyon Court were unwilling to grant arms in memory of my late mother (who would have been an heiress had she been armigerous) their policy being not to grant arms retrospectively simply in order to allow quarterings. One of these days I must talk to my cousins on that side as I had a good design worked out.

On my paternal side. I am heir (only son of eldest son) of my grandfather. I have no children so I initially worded my petition as one in memory of my grandfather, so that my surviving aunt and uncle could matriculate if they wanted to and my cousins would be in remainder. Lyon Court explained that this was not necessary as I came under Lyon’s jurisdiction. I would be the grantee, not my grandfather, but the arms would have an extended destination to the heirs of my grandfather. That probably worked out cheaper too :D

Roughly, then, Scottish practice is normally to not allow arms to be granted to a deceased person. The assumption is that if they had wanted arms they would have petitioned themselves during their lifetime. If such a grant is needed in order to bring the ancestors of the petitioner within Lyon’s jurisdiction, then the practice is to go back only as far as is absolutely necessary.

Innes of Learney mentions the practice of arms being granted in memory of a deceased person for "memorials, windows and tombstones" (Scots Heraldry, 1954, 91n) so if my late mother’s lack of arms would have left a gap in some existing heraldic memorial, I am sure that Lyon Court would have been sympathetic.

However the impression is that Lyon Court makes grants posthumously only in those cases where a need can be shown.

I’m sure that other jurisdictions will have different rules.

James

The NEHGS COH will record arms assumed in the name of a grandfather, but (as I understand it) no further back than that.

Attributing arms to an ancestor may not be a big deal if you are the only descendant. But I think it comes down to what gives you the right to have arms attributed to an ancestor who has many descendants, of which you are only one. For example, if I had arms attributed to my great-great grandfather Andrew James Collins, I would have done so without consulting the many cousins I have (and most I’ve never met).

On the other hand, my grandfather had only one son, and my father only one son, and if I attributed arms to my grandfather it would only affect me, my father and my sister—all people I could easily consult with to ascertain interest, approval, etc.

most historical arms started as legend and became "fact" after many years of repeating the story.  so charlemagne bore the fleur de lys and the black eagle on gold field.  those split with his empire and became the arms of france and germany all because of legend.  in cases like these, it was allowed because the story of the arms existed for so many hundreds of years.

some families have been granted arms like so because tales of arms existed in the past, even though no record was found.  but, as it was not always easy to find records, no king wanted to deny a person the right to arms, even if it may be of legend only.

xanderliptak;62126 wrote:

most historical arms started as legend and became "fact" after many years of repeating the story.  so charlemagne bore the fleur de lys and the black eagle on gold field.  those split with his empire and became the arms of france and germany all because of legend.  in cases like these, it was allowed because the story of the arms existed for so many hundreds of years.

Another example is the arms of David Ben-Jesse, a teenager who, according to legend, wrote his first name in ancient Hebrew script on a shield.  To this day, it has not been proved that the teenager himself actually assumed such arms, but it’s called the Shield of David, anyway.  BTW, if the legend is true, then according to Luke 3:23-31, Jesus inherited those arms!  :eek::cool:

Stephen R. Hickman;62171 wrote:

Another example is the arms of David Ben-Jesse, a teenager who, according to legend, wrote his first name in ancient Hebrew script on a shield.  To this day, it has not been proved that the teenager himself actually assumed such arms, but it’s called the Shield of David, anyway.  BTW, if the legend is true, then according to Luke 3:23-31, Jesus inherited those arms!  :eek::cool:

With some difference for adoption, of course.

Isn’t it "bad heraldry", to use letters on a shield?  Maybe He was too smart to admit a claim to bad heraldry, and hence the newer "Coat" attributed.

In David’s defence, assuming that he did indeed put his name on his shield, cattle brands tend to do the same thing on steer rumps.

Stephen R. Hickman;62206 wrote:

In David’s defence, assuming that he did indeed put his name on his shield, cattle brands tend to do the same thing on steer rumps.

Are you suggesting a similarity between "steers’ rumps" and "coats of arms"?:shootout:

Doug Welsh;62213 wrote:

Are you suggesting a similarity between "steers’ rumps" and "coats of arms"?:shootout:

depends on the armiger

You just had to go there. :p

Stephen R. Hickman;62206 wrote:

In David’s defence, assuming that he did indeed put his name on his shield, cattle brands tend to do the same thing on steer rumps.

There are arms that bear cattle brands.

Madalch;62216 wrote:

There are arms that bear cattle brands.

Mine does.

Kenneth Mansfield;62179 wrote:

With some difference for adoption, of course.

What adoption?  Being the husband of Jesus’ mother, Joseph was Jesus’ stepfather.