disavowing ones familial arms…

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 October 2009 18:35
 

i have a question for everyone. if an armiger is disowned by his father and both are armigerous (son taking his father’s arms etc) should, or even could, the disowned son disavow his familial arms and seek a new one?

or is that bad form?

 

if he is disowned does he have a right to the arms of his father or not?

 

if the father disowns him can he demand that his son not use his arms?

 

this has come up with someone i know…i have no idea how to answer them on it…it all seems a mess to me…so all ideas are appreciated here. thank you in advance.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
19 October 2009 20:54
 

Arms differenced are a right of birth, so he would be able to keep his appropriate shield.  However, disownment would remove him from his place as heir of the undifferenced arms.  This would become something for the new heir to discuss with your friend, if the new heir would exercise his claim or resign his right and recognize the disowned man as rightful heir.  Of course, if there is no differencing in the family, it really become a minor notation in the family history.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
20 October 2009 00:54
 

thanks to whomever for moving thread to right section. smile

thanks for the input Alexander. the family have adopted their arms, and registered them w/USHR as well. part of me wonders that if this is a permanent thing the father has done, then why couldn’t the son assume new arms himself? but, i get the impression that he likes the current one and that’s why he asked. he is the oldest son…so i don’t know if that matters. thanks again Alexander.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
20 October 2009 01:25
 

xanderliptak;72695 wrote:

Arms differenced are a right of birth, so he would be able to keep his appropriate shield.  However, disownment would remove him from his place as heir of the undifferenced arms.  This would become something for the new heir to discuss with your friend, if the new heir would exercise his claim or resign his right and recognize the disowned man as rightful heir.  Of course, if there is no differencing in the family, it really become a minor notation in the family history.


I have to disagree on a few points. Differenced or undifferenced arms are a birthright if the descent of said arms is a point of law. This would vary from country to country. In some countries bearing ones hereditary arms would be a human right linked to the use of a particular surname. However, in the United States where no law of arms exists, one can do what one wants for the most part, those few exceptions being using a rendering of your arms or family arms whose copyright belongs to another person or in fringing on arms which also serve as a registered trademark of a family business.

 

As to who is the heraldic heir of the undifferenced, there is no provision in US law to determine such a designated person. Of course the disgruntled parent is free to change their last will and testement if they feel so strongly about the dis-satisfaction with their child.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
20 October 2009 01:37
 

Donnchadh;72697 wrote:

thanks to whomever for moving thread to right section. smile

thanks for the input Alexander. the family have adopted their arms, and registered them w/USHR as well. part of me wonders that if this is a permanent thing the father has done, then why couldn’t the son assume new arms himself? but, i get the impression that he likes the current one and that’s why he asked. he is the oldest son…so i don’t know if that matters. thanks again Alexander.


The USHR exists because Michael Swanson chooses to keep it up on the Internet. In a whim he could delete it and it would be no more. It is not a heraldic authority nor is it a long term private register like that kept by the American College of Heraldry whose perpetuation has been codified through incorporation and has over the years survived the deaths of a number of its presidents. The USHR is simply a temporary creation of Michael Swanson and it could disappear (or stagnate as it is now) whenever Michael becomes bored by it or distracted from it.

 

As for the second part of your question Dennis, this is America the son can pretty much do as he sees fit when it comes to heraldry.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
20 October 2009 01:48
 

Donnchadh;72692 wrote:

if the father disowns him can he demand that his son not use his arms?


Has the father also demanded that the son change his surname? It sounds to me that the father still cares about his son as a father who actuallity wanted to sever ties with a son would simply not care and move on. This father is playing a psychological game of manipulation.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
20 October 2009 03:11
 

I am not citing any law, no,and yes that is because the sttate has never enacted any laws regarding arms here, but there is plenty of other property laws and customs to dictate my opinion.  Illegitimate children had a right to a differences version of the coat of arms, simply not the right to the undifferenced, whether they were oldest or not.  Only in occasions where the illegitimate son was the last surviving member, or no other close relation could be found was an illegitimate child allowed, if even then, to continue with the undifferenced arms.  Not that he son becomes illegitimate from this, but disownment does revoke the legitimate rights and claims a normal son would have, and would thus be treated similarly as were illegitmate children in the past.  They are blood, but a stranger in blood.

As for property, which a coat of arms is considered intellectual property, if a person disowns a son, that son usually has no claim to the property at all.  If a son was able to prove that his father was acting unusual or out of extreme stress or ill mental health, then such a decision could be reversed; but I am no lawyer, so perhaps simply saying, "but I really want my dad’s stuff," has worked a few times.

 

The father would be wrong to think his son, even after disownment, has no right to the arms.  They need their proper difference, which in America is not dictated by any act or law, so it is perceivable that the son could still use the undifferenced version if so is the custom in the family.  And while the holder of the undifferenced arms can not deny one the use of the arms, they can (but not in any finite legal sense) demand the use of differencing.

 

If it is something the family needs to settle, then this son and the new heir should discuss who shall be the proper head.  As property of the father, that father said his son should not have this, and should be respected, even though this may be a painful notion for the son to deal with.  Of course, the new heir, when he does become head, can restore the rights of the first born and give the undifferenced arms back to the son.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
20 October 2009 03:17
 

David Pritchard;72699 wrote:

As for the second part of your question Dennis, this is America the son can pretty much do as he sees fit when it comes to heraldry.


The son could adopt your arms.  This would be in poor taste, as far as heraldry is concerned, of course, so the argument that in America one can do as they want with arms is a poor argument.  Also, this would most likely exacerbate the situation.  There are plenty of acceptable ways around the whole issue that would not inflame further resentment from the father.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
20 October 2009 04:10
 

xanderliptak;72703 wrote:

The son could adopt your arms.  This would be in poor taste, as far as heraldry is concerned, of course, so the argument that in America one can do as they want with arms is a poor argument.  Also, this would most likely exacerbate the situation.  There are plenty of acceptable ways around the whole issue that would not inflame further resentment from the father.


If being in poor taste had actual bearing on things American most of what we Americans see, say, hear eat, do or read would have to be abandonded.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
20 October 2009 04:16
 

Then would it not be best to forgo such ignorance and apply some standards and respect to this circumstance and perhaps better the American perception of things, even if it is only a few individuals and only for a rarely acknowledged art?

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
20 October 2009 10:40
 

i should’ve said where i currently sit before all this, sorry.

i think aside from the ‘father of child’ (foc) being an a$$ that the son could either keep them or design new ones since there is no law regarding arms as property; as in if they were given in a last will and testament as real property.

 

however, i’m thinking he should either redesign them, or alter them somewhat, because if your dad wants to disown you, then why the Hades would you want to have his arms at all?

 

now if they were inherited by that dad from his dad (granddad) then i’d fight to keep them. but these were adopted by the dad to begin with and not a granddad, so no long-standing familial tradition exists impo.

 

my problem with that is where does that leave the idea of familial arms in this case….i simply don’t know.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
20 October 2009 13:21
 

They are a recent addition to the family, but if the son wishes to keep them, well maybe some alterations would be in order.  Maybe a borure, chief, bend or what not.  Whatever would go well with the arms, and think of it as a branch of the family.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
20 October 2009 13:32
 

I think the important question is: how attached is the disavowed son to these arms?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
20 October 2009 13:57
 

kimon;72723 wrote:

I think the important question is: how attached is the disavowed son to these arms?


Or to his father. A father disowning a son can be a one-way or a two-way street. My guess is that if the son wanted no connection to his father, parting with the arms, regardless of how much he likes them, would be easy and not an issue.

 
 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
20 October 2009 14:28
 

Kenneth Mansfield;72727 wrote:

Or to his father. A father disowning a son can be a one-way or a two-way street. My guess is that if the son wanted no connection to his father, parting with the arms, regardless of how much he likes them, would be easy and not an issue.


Agreed. It think in the case discussed here, these are the important questions and the answers will resolve the issue quickly (or not).

 

 

However, the broader academic question is indeed interesting.

 
David E. Cohen
 
Avatar
 
 
David E. Cohen
Total Posts:  359
Joined  08-02-2008
 
 
 
20 October 2009 15:49
 

xanderliptak;72722 wrote:

They are a recent addition to the family, but if the son wishes to keep them, well maybe some alterations would be in order.  Maybe a borure, chief, bend or what not.  Whatever would go well with the arms, and think of it as a branch of the family.


Keeping the same design, but radically altering all the tinctures, (Argent for Sable, Purpure for Or, Ermines for Ermine, that sort of thing, pick whatever color changes look good) might convey appropriate symbolism of simultaneous relationship and discord.