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?

An Uruguayan, until a few years ago, could have made application to the last Cronista de Armas de Espana for a certificacion de armas. A Senegalese may in fact be able to follow the French legal manner of esablishing a specific right to a device or representation attached to a surname by publishing a claim in a legal newspaper of record.

Patrick Williams;65524 wrote:

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.

What is the online context? Does it relate to heraldry? How does it come up that you’re an armiger? Are they that direct about their views, or are you making inferences? How do you respond to them?

David Pritchard;65527 wrote:

An Uruguayan, until a few years ago, could have made application to the last Cronista de Armas de Espana for a certificacion de armas. A Senegalese may in fact be able to follow the French legal manner of esablishing a specific right to a device or representation attached to a surname by publishing a claim in a legal newspaper of record.

Hey, David! Good to see your avatar. I think the hypothetical cases you list here are probably more analogous to the situation of an American (of English descent) applying to an English heraldic authority than the ones I gave. I get the whole "tangible connection to the old country" appeal, and to the extent that a grant of arms from the CoA amounts to the Queen herself saying, "You now have my blessing to consider yourself a gentleman," I can see why someone would think that’s worth having. I guess there’s just this part of me that believes the CoA is a very clever racket that exploits people’s social anxieties, a kind of bullying I want to defend them against, even.

Now, I seem recall Joseph ending the supporters discussion with me by reminding me of George Washington, whose arms were of course without supporters. The prospect of some hypothetical American’s arms appearing with supporters alongside Washington’s in an armorial seemed pretty absurd, I realized. And I suppose George Washington could be invoked again to wrap up this discussion, because he was apparently writing to the CoA for confirmation of his right to bear the Washington arms as soon as the Continental Army’s muskets were stacked. But I would tend to see that as a kind of genealogical investigation. It’s hard for me to imagine Washington not being in the habit of using arms to begin with and then asking the Crown’s permission to start doing so right after subjecting it to such humiliation.

Fred White;65528 wrote:

What is the online context? Does it relate to heraldry? How does it come up that you’re an armiger? Are they that direct about their views, or are you making inferences? How do you respond to them?

The context of this site is semi-historical, but not specifically related to heraldry. In fact, it’s a private site run by the main instructor of a group dedicated to learning the art of the sword by working with antique fechtbuchs.

Here’s how it came up: the sole moderator (and owner) of the site mentioned that he was contacting the College of Arms regarding the coat of arms of an ancestor. His interest was purely genealogical, but that was not mentioned at the time. (Unfortunately many of the ‘members’ of this forum are also real-time friends, so sometimes details get overlooked online.) I chimed in, thinking that perhaps he might be interested in attaining an achievement. I "me-too’d" a little, which became my first mistake.

I am not making inferences; my interest in coats of arms and my armigerous status drew quite a few pointed comments as well as some name-calling and outright rudeness.

I responded by telling them all that my heraldic status was a personal thing. They threw a few more pointed barbs and then let the subject drop.

Patrick Williams;65524 wrote:

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.

It is all OK, dear Patrick. Heraldic practices are different around the world, more different than it is generally expected, and even the domestic practice is commonly under-understood (if such word is possible). Nearly any international discussion regarding heraldry imports certain misunderstanding and needs some readiness to enlighten the foreigners.

Patrick Williams;65534 wrote:

The context of this site is semi-historical, but not specifically related to heraldry. In fact, it’s a private site run by the main instructor of a group dedicated to learning the art of the sword by working with antique fechtbuchs.

Here’s how it came up: the sole moderator (and owner) of the site mentioned that he was contacting the College of Arms regarding the coat of arms of an ancestor. His interest was purely genealogical, but that was not mentioned at the time. (Unfortunately many of the ‘members’ of this forum are also real-time friends, so sometimes details get overlooked online.) I chimed in, thinking that perhaps he might be interested in attaining an achievement. I "me-too’d" a little, which became my first mistake.

 

I am not making inferences; my interest in coats of arms and my armigerous status drew quite a few pointed comments as well as some name-calling and outright rudeness.

 

I responded by telling them all that my heraldic status was a personal thing. They threw a few more pointed barbs and then let the subject drop.

I’m sorry you had that experience.

Fred White;65538 wrote:

I’m sorry you had that experience.

Thanks, Fred, but it’s really okay. I just learned that not everyone in the world looks kindly on our little hobby.

It could be that one of the goals of this society, which is to secure some government protection for arms, has its origin in the British bias.

Dear all,

I appreciate Joseph’s moving the portion of the thread dealing with assumed vs. granted arms.

I find it ironic that some American’s with assumed arms think those who seek granted arms are snobbish, whereas Patrick’s correspondents think anyone with any kind of arms, particularly assumed arms, are snobbish.

It seems to me that imputations of motive, regardless of the position, are risky and might be done in ignorance.

Can’t it just be a matter of taste, the "de gustibus" thing? Some people choose to drive a foreign motor car. Sometimes it might be for substantive reasons, but sometimes it might just be because they just like it.

/Charles

Well said Charles!

Michael Swanson;65545 wrote:

It could be that one of the goals of this society, which is to secure some government protection for arms, has its origin in the British bias.

Perhaps the English model is what the founders of the AHS had in mind, but legal protection of arms against infringement by another person is a concept that far predates the establishment of regulated heraldry in England, and exists in practice outside the Anglosphere.  See, e.g., Francois Velde’s heraldica.org page on French heraldic law and practice, http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frherald.htm#current, for citations of French cases from 1888 and 1949.  We also have it on the authority of the German heraldic society Der Herold that the German Civil Code protects arms against infringement.  And George Lucki has in the past pointed out a Polish court case having to do with the misappropriation of arms by a brewery.

This whole discussion reminds me of something I read recently about the status of arms in my own country. After we became independent from the Spanish crown there was no heraldic power anymore, shortly before indepence the then lord of the Netherlands (this included Belgium and a few parts of France) King Phillip II of Spain had instituted rules about arms and that they all should be comfirmed by the college of heralds which was located in the part that did not become independent (forgotten were precisely they were located but it was somewhere in nowadays Belgium). Now it seems that even after independence, and in a country where assuming arms was the normal way to go (and still is), there were people who went to those heralds to get arms and or titles comfirmed or to get genealogical information about there families.

This is something similar as the situation between the U.S.A. and the U.K. based heraldic authorities so I think it al boiles down to having the feeling of getting the real thing or something like that for some people, when the U.S.A. norm is the assuming of arms.

As assuming arms is the oldest way to get your arms and that the granting of arms came later and then first only in special cases, after which institutions were formed to grant them to anyone (and usually only as a way to obtain money for the king), I think that looking down on assumed arms is snobbish behaviour, so the people who do this are the snobs not the people who assume arms.

emrys;65563 wrote:

As assuming arms is the oldest way to get your arms and that the granting of arms came later and then first only in special cases, after which institutions were formed to grant them to anyone (and usually only as a way to obtain money for the king), I think that looking down on assumed arms is snobbish behaviour, so the people who do this are the snobs not the people who assume arms.

(emphasis added by me)

Excellent point and very well said! In particular, the part which I have emphasized is the part of this entire discussion that many many people overlook far too often. Granting arms was, in a very large way, about making money. To this day large sums of money change hands for a grant of arms. Sometimes those who feel that assumed arms aren’t real are completely ignoring the opposite view. Namely, that granted arms could be seen as "questionable" in the eyes of many because they are, essentially, purchased.

Charles E. Drake;65549 wrote:

Can’t it just be a matter of taste, the "de gustibus" thing? Some people choose to drive a foreign motor car. Sometimes it might be for substantive reasons, but sometimes it might just be because they just like it.

I think an extension of this analogy is required to capture the point of the conversation, since "purchasing" is required to obtain any car, foreign and domestic (although there is a chance that America domestic car companies will cease to exist!).  If BMWs were free in the US but cost $10,000 in the UK, with the advantage that the latter were approved by the Queen, then I would think the Beemer associations in the US might have something to converse about.

Michael Swanson;65570 wrote:

I think an extension of this analogy is required to capture the point of the conversation, since "purchasing" is required to obtain any car, foreign and domestic (although there is a chance that America domestic car companies will cease to exist!).  If BMWs were free in the US but cost $10,000 in the UK, with the advantage that the latter were approved by the Queen, then I would think the Beemer associations in the US might have something to converse about.

[:evil: mode on]

Yes, but to extend it further.

In the US just anyone can decide that they can drive, no questions asked or proof of ability needed.

In the UK you had to pay money to a government department that decided whether you were fit to drive and then gave you a bit of paper that said you met their criteria.

Where would you rather drive?

[/ :evil: mode off]

James