Charles E. Drake;65417 wrote:

Having them re-granted would be very expensive and would serve little purpose.

Charles, I know how you feel about all this, and that we disagree fundamentally, but I can’t resist observing that, since you are an American citizen resident in the United States, it would serve very little purpose indeed.

Quote:

I tried very hard to get permission in England to quarter them, but without success. Finally I decided to pursue this in Spain.

Since you are outside the jurisdiction of either the English kings of arms or the Spanish cronista (and since the "cronista" you used has no authority over personal arms even in Spain), I have never understood why you think you need the permission of either to display arms that are undoubtedly yours in any form you see fit.  It’s like spending enormous time and effort to get a license for your computer from the German government even though you don’t live in Germany and aren’t subject to German computer licensing requirements.

As I said, I know we disagree philosophically about these matters, but every time it comes up I find myself puzzled anew.

I find that I, too, agree wholeheartedly with Joe on this. Use the arms you wish, there is nothing to prevent you from doing so.

Joseph McMillan;65423 wrote:

Since you are outside the jurisdiction of either the English kings of arms or the Spanish cronista (and since the "cronista" you used has no authority over personal arms even in Spain), I have never understood why you think you need the permission of either to display arms that are undoubtedly yours in any form you see fit.  It’s like spending enormous time and effort to get a license for your computer from the German government even though you don’t live in Germany and aren’t subject to German computer licensing requirements.

I had to sit through a lecture on Scottish Heraldry recently, and for some reason in the lecture Charles Drake’s arms appeared in the PowerPoint presentation.  All I remember is that there was scoffing at the "ungranted" quartered arms.

Joe, for Americans who move in UK heraldic circles, the psychological pressure to get a grant is intense. The view, unfortunately, is that the grant makes the arms legitimate not just in the granting country, but everywhere.  And, the argument continues, that what is not legitimate is illegitimate, etc.  Of course, this argument is unsound, but the logic seems airtight to many Anglo-centrics.  The problem is that the concept of "regulation" has morphed into something larger ("legitimized") which makes the concept of "jurisdiction" irrelevant.  I think the snobbery of this view, which is somewhat surprising since it is a minority view in the EU, is a huge drag on heraldry taking hold in the US.

<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
Another thought after I wrote the above—

I think in the UK many see a grant much like a marriage license and assuming arms like shacking up.  There is some underlying "sin" involved with assuming arms that transcends borders, and it just so happens that in the UK they have laws that officially solemnize the relationship between man and shield.  The heraldic fornicators in the rest of Europe and in America are really doing something morally wrong by not applying for a grant, even if it is merely an honorary grant from another country.

Michael Swanson;65430 wrote:

...heraldic fornicators…

:lol:

Nick B II;65434 wrote:

Folks who get involved in heraldry tend to be interested in tradition, and the British tradition is that you have to have a grant from the government.

But the American tradition is that you don’t.  We’ve been independent for 132 1/2 years, for God’s sake.

And the fallacy of this belief—however widespread it may be—was exposed a century ago.  Quite frankly, it seems to me that any American who "gets involved in heraldry" and yet doesn’t learn fairly early that the English and Scottish laws of arms don’t apply here is not very seriously "involved."  As Henry Stoddard Ruggles observed in 1903:
Quote:

<div class=“bbcode_left” >
Those in this country [the USA], who have pretended to a knowledge of this subject, have generally treated it as though armory were an exact and settled science, governed by certain fixed and rigid laws of world-wide application. The regulations these learned ones have set forth as the guide in these matters, are found, upon examination, to be almost invariably the rules of the present English College of Arms, with some additions for which no precedent can be found in England. As the college has no shadow of authority of any name or nature, outside of England and Wales (not even in Scotland or Ireland or the colonies) and as the practice, custom and rules of the officers of arms in other parts of the kingdom are radically different from the English heralds’, and as each of the continental nations acts independently, it becomes perfectly apparent that such a thing as a uniform system of heraldry can have no existence.

</div>

As far as I know, every American heraldic organization has accepted the validity of free assumption of arms since the 1920s at the latest.

I have nothing against people obtaining grants of arms from the English, Scottish, Irish, or any other authority if it makes them happy.  But they shouldn’t do it under the delusion that they have to, or that arms obtained from these sources are any better than arms designed with a Sharpie on the back of an envelope.

See http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines#toc5 and Ruggles’ article on the "Right to Bear Arms" at http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/design/Ruggles-Right.pdf.

Michael Swanson;65430 wrote:

Joe, for Americans who move in UK heraldic circles, the psychological pressure to get a grant is intense.

Michael, I understand that this is the case for some people.  It particularly seems to affect those who join the Venerable Order of St. John and find that the order disapproves of the display of "unauthorized" arms with the order’s insignia.  This is a rather ludicrous position, since the vast, vast majority of arms borne by the knights of the various legitimate orders of St. John were originally assumed, not granted, but the V.O.St.J. is, I guess, permitted to make whatever rules on this subject that it likes.

However, the two principal heraldic societies in the UK, the Heraldry Society and the Heraldry Society of Scotland, do not take this position.  Both are perfectly willing to permit members from outside the UK to display assumed arms in their members’ galleries, in my experience without adverse comment.  There is a tendency on the part of some British heraldists to pity us poor Americans who don’t have a granting authority so we can bear "proper" arms; I respond by expressing sympathy for their misfortune in having their ancestral right to assume arms restricted by such outdated artifacts of the era of absolutism as the College of Arms.

Joseph McMillan;65437 wrote:

We’ve been independent for 132 1/2 years, for God’s sake.

The Founding Fathers post-dated the Declaration.

Michael Swanson;65439 wrote:

The Founding Fathers post-dated the Declaration.

Uh…yeah, that’s the ticket!  (This is why I wasn’t a math major.)  Make that 232 1/2 years, give or take a few days.

Michael Swanson;65430 wrote:

I think in the UK many see a grant much like a marriage license and assuming arms like shacking up.  There is some underlying "sin" involved with assuming arms that transcends borders, and it just so happens that in the UK they have laws that officially solemnize the relationship between man and shield.  The heraldic fornicators in the rest of Europe and in America are really doing something morally wrong by not applying for a grant, even if it is merely an honorary grant from another country.

Thanks for sharing, Michael. I remember another observation you made about the UK view—that arms are properly understood as an award (or a reward) from the sovereign, that Americans do feel rewarded by the arms they "merely" assume, and that this exposes the hubris of free assumption. Together with the facet of the UK attitude recounted above, it’s hard to escape feeling that the UK view is rather tyrannical, and that the most appropriate response for an American is to refuse to indulge it, within our borders at least.

Fred White;65442 wrote:

Thanks for sharing, Michael. I remember another observation you made about the UK view—that arms are properly understood as an award (or a reward) from the sovereign, that Americans do feel rewarded by the arms they "merely" assume, and that this exposes the hubris of free assumption. Together with the facet of the UK attitude recounted above, it’s hard to escape feeling that the UK view is rather tyrannical, and that the most appropriate response for an American is to refuse to indulge it, within our borders at least.

I don’t remember making this argument.  Just because some Americans "feel" awarded by assuming arms, does not reveal anything about the hubris of self assumption.

The vast majority of people who assume arms in the USA think that someone somewhere in the UK set up a vast number of arms for use by anyone with a particular surname.

My point, I think, is that some people think that the UK "legitimacy" or the "high social status" view is THE model.  I wanted to argue that Americans need to look to the Continent for a different way of understanding heraldry.

Michael Swanson;65430 wrote:

I think in the UK many see a grant much like a marriage license and assuming arms like shacking up.  There is some underlying "sin" involved with assuming arms that transcends borders, and it just so happens that in the UK they have laws that officially solemnize the relationship between man and shield.  The heraldic fornicators in the rest of Europe and in America are really doing something morally wrong by not applying for a grant, even if it is merely an honorary grant from another country.

Bravo, what a witty remark!

Joseph McMillan;65438 wrote:

There is a tendency on the part of some British heraldists to pity us poor Americans who don’t have a granting authority so we can bear "proper" arms; I respond by expressing sympathy for their misfortune in having their ancestral right to assume arms restricted by such outdated artifacts of the era of absolutism as the College of Arms.

This is pretty OK as a partly justified "stupid yourself"-style exchange of opinions

Dear Joseph,

As you know, I fully support your opinion regarding the assumption of arms in the USA and other countries not covered by restrictive laws and customs. However it is risky to simplify the reasons of those who are still looking for the "technically unnecessary" grants.

IMHO two facts still do matter.

1) It is a pleasure to have one’s arms accepted as heraldically correct and plausible by some authority. To get a grant is to know that an entire nation (one’s own or at least foreign) is responsible for one’s arms’ irreproachable value. This may be a great feeling. To develop a private yet commonly recognised respectable body which could substitute a State Office of Arms in its moral capacity - this is a hard job, rarely successful.

2) There is something "magic" about the ancient office of herald of arms. This is an extra-legal, emotional factor which provides an armiger with a strong symbolic link to heraldry as a continuous tradition. That is less childish that may seem, and it may be not easy to substitute that in a private way without importing the scent of falsehood.

I would dare to express my belief that these two "difficult substitutions" are, despite of being difficult, pretty possible in any "heraldically free" country and should be seen as conceptual aims.

Well, the AHS isn’t as old as the US (by either of Joe’s figures!   but IIRC we went over and over and over this business when this society was first established & out Guidelines were hammered out.  Ah well, to each his own, world (or at least arguments) without end, Amen.

Interesting account of brother Drake’s arms; & bah-humbug to the Brit lecturer who poked fun at them.  A guest (even a guest lecturer) should have better manners than that, especially when speaking with the apparent authority of a Crown officer—and more especially one serving at HM’s pleasure; would she have been pleased?  I rather doubt it, since she is a lady of grace and good breeding.  What this implies re: her herald’s behaviour, grace and breeding I leave to the gentle reader’s imagination.

Joseph McMillan;65437 wrote:

As far as I know, every American heraldic organization has accepted the validity of free assumption of arms since the 1920s at the latest.

I’m ashamed to say I forgot that no less than William Barton recognized and defended the validity and utility of arms of assumption in the US, as early as 1814 or so—the same William Barton who proposed to General Washington the establishment of an official American heraldic authority.  Our friend John DuLong (formerly and perhaps still a member?) published a transcript of a manuscript by Barton in the July 2007 ACH Armiger’s News, in which Barton wrote:

Quote:

It may, perhaps, be objected to what may be deemed a general use of family armorial ensigns, in this country, that a great proportion of the people in the United States are not entitled to bear them, by reason of their forefathers having had no legitimate claim to such appropriate badges of families; and, that, even where a right of that kind actually exists, it must in many cases be extremely difficult, if not altogether impracticable, at the present day, to ascertain the paternal coats-of-arms properly belonging to such American families as are entitled to them. This, it may be presumed, is in some measure the fact, with respect to paternal arms. In reference, however, to some of the more beneficial purposes to which these heraldic badges of different families may be applied, those objections have little weight; indeed they are destitute of any, in a prospective view. For those arms which are called assumptive, when they are once appropriated to a particular family, and do not belong to any other—at least in the same country—will serve to distinguish that family, together with their descendants, from others…

See the full essay at http://americancollegeofheraldry.org/TANJUL07.htm

Is it unheard of for individuals in other countries outside the Commonwealth—Uruguayans or Senegalese, for example—to apply to state heraldic authorities in the Anglosphere for grants of arms in the interest of "legitimizing" their status as armigers?

At the end of the day, isn’t an American’s applying to the CoA for a grant of arms a little like his applying to a court in the Congo for a marriage license to be used in Minneapolis?

Letters patent are lovely things, and I wouldn’t decline an unsolicited grant of arms from the Queen, but gosh, why throw so much dough at trying to get them when getting them changes nothing here? I don’t doubt that professional heraldic artists tend to produce better work than many of us do on our own, but if design quality is the issue, I imagine one could hire a CoA artist directly and get a fabulous emblazonment for a tenth the price of a grant.

Fred White;65523 wrote:

Is it unheard of for individuals in other countries outside the Commonwealth—Uruguayans or Senegalese, for example—to apply to state heraldic authorities in the Anglosphere for grants of arms in the interest of "legitimizing" their status as armigers?

At the end of the day, isn’t an American’s applying to the CoA for a grant of arms a little like his applying to a court in the Congo for a marriage license to be used in Minneapolis?

 

Letters patent are lovely things, and I wouldn’t decline an unsolicited grant of arms from the Queen, but gosh, why throw so much dough at trying to get them when getting them changes nothing here? I don’t doubt that professional heraldic artists tend to produce better work than many of us do on our own, but if design quality is the issue, I imagine one could hire a CoA artist directly and get a fabulous emblazonment for a tenth the price of a grant.

Fred, I tend to agree with you, in most part. That being said, however ...

I chat online with a bunch of English folk, the vast majority of whom are from the middle class. The fact that I am an armiger is astounding to them - it’s a frippery that denotes that my nose is firmly in the air. That I assumed these arms somehow makes it even worse. They lack legitimacy because they are assumed, I lack legitimacy because I am an armiger. Sort of a compound insult to their sensibilites.

I can, therefore, understand those who want to get an official grant of arms, even though I’m firmly in the "not at all necessary" camp. There’s just no telling what will be important to some people.