James Dempster;65571 wrote:

[: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

[/ :USA: mode on]

You raise the very point I was thinking of.  The "protection" offered by driver’s licenses is proof of some (minimal) ability to drive.  And the cops routinely enforce driving laws and arrest those without the proper license.  This is a reasonable return for the fees and taxes.

Let us turn to heraldry.  There is NO risk of life and limb.  There is NO reasonable notion of "ability to bear a coat of arms."  There is identity theft, but not the kind leading to monetary losses.  People buying arms at bucket shops can’t tap what’s left of my post-crash retirement investments.

Do any of the UK granting agencies offer aggressive or routine enforcement?  No.

So even if we in the USA wanted to model UK heraldic protection, could we justify it based on their track record?  To finish your analogy, if they charged me $10000 to protect my car in the UK, and nothing in the US, and car theft was just as high in both places, where would you want to own a car?  Where could you afford to own a car?

[/ :USA: mode off]

Michael Swanson;65572 wrote:

[/ :USA: mode on]

You raise the very point I was thinking of.  The "protection" offered by driver’s licenses is proof of some (minimal) ability to drive.  And the cops routinely enforce driving laws and arrest those without the proper license.  This is a reasonable return for the fees and taxes.

A grant of arms is proof of uniqueness of the arms within that jurisdiction, whereas a self-assumption regime with no legal framework for protection of arms does not provide that. Many European countries that allow self-assumption have at least some (usually civil court) means for protection of arms. At present the US does not.

Michael Swanson;65572 wrote:

Let us turn to heraldry.  There is NO risk of life and limb.  There is NO reasonable notion of "ability to bear a coat of arms."  There is identity theft, but not the kind leading to monetary losses.  People buying arms at bucket shops can’t tap what’s left of my post-crash retirement investments.

Do any of the UK granting agencies offer aggressive or routine enforcement?  No.

Do the driving licencing authorities in either the UK (DVLA) or the US offer aggressive or routine enforcement? No.

Enforcement is part of the criminal law and is enforced in both countries by the police. Heraldry is part of the civil law and therefore it is up to the injured party to sue the person causing that injury.

Michael Swanson;65572 wrote:

So even if we in the USA wanted to model UK heraldic protection, could we justify it based on their track record?  To finish your analogy, if they charged me $10000 to protect my car in the UK, and nothing in the US, and car theft was just as high in both places, where would you want to own a car?  Where could you afford to own a car?

[/ :USA: mode off]

$10,000? When was cable last over $6?

To continue the analogy - for my money I got a state guarantee that my arms are unique in Scotland and the right to sue anyone in Scotland that tries to usurp them. For no money in the US you get no such guarantee and no specific right to sue. I’m ignoring the hearsay that suggests that US citizens sue each other at the drop of a hat.

However, I don’t think that you and I actually disagree about assumption. I have no problem with it as an ancient and honourable means of creating a coat of arms in all countries where there is no specific law against it.

Where I think things could be improved in the US is that there is currently no right that I know of for a US armiger (however the arms originated) to take civil proceedings against others for misuse of arms - as arms. They are different from a copyrighted logo and all sorts of other things that we can use as analogies.

That would seem to be a way forward that isn’t too Anglo-centric or snobbish or otherwise not how things are done in the US. Have some definition of what a coat of arms is that could be passed into state law and then allow the ordinary courts to decide things like priority of identical arms (as in Scrope vs Grosvenor) or who is entitled by inheritance to arms &c on a case by case basis.

James

Michael Swanson;65570 wrote:

I think an extension of this analogy is required to capture the point of the conversation,...

I admit, it was an imperfect analogy, but I still feel the point is valid.

/Charles

As Michael M. pointed out in an earlier post, to me there is a mystique about Kings of Arms and heraldic documents replete with royal arms and official signatures.

I admit there is no legal advantage in the US, but to me this is not about legality.  This is where the de gustibus thing comes in.

Last night I spoke with a man who had a restored car with an 800 horsepower engine.  It runs on special gasoline, and he cannot fill it up at the public gas stations. He told me he drove it to town once in a while and got a pizza.  Some might think it is a useless vanity having such a car, but if he likes it, why not?

I have friends who grow thousands of tulips as a hobby, others who fly airplanes, others who collect stamps, or raise hunting dogs. If they like it, why not?

In addition to my own grants of arms, I have framed prints of arms in my house and my study, some of which have no connection to me or my family whatsoever. I have them there because I like them. I also have lots of heraldry books.

I collect heraldry. Why not?

/Charles

James Dempster;65573 wrote:

To continue the analogy - for my money I got a state guarantee that my arms are unique in Scotland and the right to sue anyone in Scotland that tries to usurp them.

Perhaps.  But you could have spent twice as much money in England and have gotten in return what is at best a theoretical right to go to court to protect the arms.

Quote:

Where I think things could be improved in the US is that there is currently no right that I know of for a US armiger (however the arms originated) to take civil proceedings against others for misuse of arms - as arms.

This is the general approach I have favored.  I’m not totally convinced it isn’t possible under existing law, but it would take the right situation (tangible harm done to the rightful owner of the arms) and the right articulation of why the ancient civil law principles against armorial usurpation can be applied by an American court.  It certainly hasn’t been tested, other than in the New York case of Orsini v. Eastern Wine Corp (which see elsewhere in these archives).  In the Orsini case, there were tangible damages involved.  Most cases of what we would casually call armorial usurpation don’t rise to that level.

(Note that the same legal situation seems to prevail in most of the known heraldic world.)

Charles E. Drake;65577 wrote:

I have friends who ... raise hunting dogs.

Ah, but that’s an eminently practical pastime!  Vellum would make for a tough meal, but a good raccoon…

Joseph McMillan;65578 wrote:

Perhaps.  But you could have spent twice as much money in England and have gotten in return what is at best a theoretical right to go to court to protect the arms.

Quite, but I’m a Scot in Scotland and is of no more relevance to me than it is to a US armiger in the US. :D Their rules don’t apply. If the English see it as a problem then it’s up to them to fix it.

James

I may be oversimplifying this, but it seems to me that this debate dances around these questions:  Do the lack of official documentation invalidate ownership of arms?  If I don’t need letters patent for my contractual signature, then why would I need letters patent for my heraldic signature?  Both identify me, do they not?  Are assumed arms less able to identify the owner because they are assumed?  Are they more able to identify the owner because they come with letters patent?  On a field of battle, do the arrows pierce the assumed arms more easily, or the arms which have official recognition by a heraldic authority?  When a sword stikes at a shield, how does it know which to strike with its edge, and which to strike with its side?  When painting a shield, how does the paint know to run down one shield, but not the other?  Yes, it seems silly, but that’s the point.  When someone raises his shield, he’s not showing his letters patent.  He’s showing his heraldic identity.  It doesn’t matter on a battlefield if his arms are assumed or not.  It only matters if they belong to an ally or an enemy.  Letters patent have little bearing on how much the armiger is engaged.  This, of course, is my humble opinion.

Stephen R. Hickman;65581 wrote:

I On a field of battle, do the arrows pierce the assumed arms more easily, or the arms which have official recognition by a heraldic authority?

This is an empirical question.  Do we have any volunteers for the shield bearers, and the archers?

I would think that the assumed arms would be harder to pierce through, given they have more money to spend on a shield as they did not on letters.

Charles E. Drake;65549 wrote:

SNIP

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

They’re not really "foreign cars".  They’re all carefully sponsored and admitted as resident aliens until they become three years old, at which time they become naturalised citizens.

gselvester;65566 wrote:

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.

EXCELLENT point, Fr. Guy!  Coincidentally, my primary reason for not bothering with the CHA.  It’s much the same argument as that old one about being a gentleman.  No amount of money spent in Dolce & Gabbana or Calvin Kline will make you a gentleman.

Doug Welsh;65589 wrote:

It’s much the same argument as that old one about being a gentleman.

Whoa!  Experience indicates that bringing up the subject here of who is a gentleman in association with heraldry opens a very large bag of worms.

/Charles

gselvester;65566 wrote:

(emphasis added by me)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.

Furthermore, the exchange of funds calls into question the validity of the very expression "grant," which in most other contexts implies "gift freely bestowed," not "favor purchased."

Fred White;65595 wrote:

Furthermore, the exchange of funds calls into question the validity of the very expression "grant," which in most other contexts implies "gift freely bestowed," not "favor purchased."

Not necessarily. In real estate deeds the sellers are usually (in my experience) termed "grantors" and there is no implication that the conveyance is gratis.