A little difficult to make these suggestions without knowing what the original arms look like, but in addition to, or instead of, substituting an ‘opposing’ tincture (Sable for Argent, etc.), you might also consider ‘opposing’ charges, partition lines or ordinaries, as may be applicable. For example, if there is a sun in the original arms, substitute a moon. For a bend, substitute a bend sinister. For invected, substitute engrailed.
David Pritchard;72704 wrote:
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.
applicable to almost any society…
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? :(
about the question: ugly business, all that. Is the disowned one (o hear yee…) the first son? If so, it would be unfortunate to change anything if not already differenced. But if he really wants, even if in the best of relations, he could change absolutely everything and have a completely new CoA. In countries with no heraldic legislative - who cares - and in those with some laws, petition for a new grant and splash out big time. The real question always is - why and for what purpose.
I would recommend no change at all. simply wait it out. whatever happens, that’s your father. show some loyalty and hope for the best. If nothing happens during a certain period of time, b** the b*** and take what’s rightfully yours, in this case totally undifferenced CoA and deny HIM any right to it, since HE is not worthy of it any more!
or you could always put a semé of tears in the background and change moto to mea culpa, pater!
or be adult about it and have some dignity worthy of armigers. Do nothing. Change nothing.
3.4.1. All legally recognized children are entitled to inherit the arms of the parent whose surname they bear, as well as to use those arms by courtesy during the parent’s lifetime.
The term "by courtesy" has always confused me just a bit. I hate to ask a question that seems so basic, but what is meant when one says "by courtesy"? Let’s use England as an example. A father has a grant from the college of arms. Is it the father who allows the children use of the arms "by courtesy," or the College of Arms who permits such use? (Obviously, the answer to this question does not directly affect what transpires in the United States, but I am trying to clarify some things in my own mind in regard to Denny’s original question.)
I think Joe has it right. One must first ask if the father has any right to change the descent of the arms. In any jurisdiction where arms are granted, the grant will explicitly or implicitly control, so the answer would be "no." In a country such as the United States where arms may be assumed, it may depend on whether the father is the original assumer. If not, then the terms of the assumption govern. Even if the father originally assumed the arms, it could be argued that no change can be made unless the power was reserved (as I did in my own assumption document).
I should also comment that "inheritence" in the armorial sense does not mean that one’s ancestor need be deceased (except where undifferenced arms are limited to one person at a time).
"Disowning" as I understand that term to be used in this discussion, does not sever the legal parent-child relationship as adoption might.
Joseph McMillan;72789 wrote:
Ummm…we are! http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines
Well, of course there’s us.
WBHenry;72823 wrote:
3.4.1. All legally recognized children are entitled to inherit the arms of the parent whose surname they bear, as well as to use those arms by courtesy during the parent’s lifetime.
The term "by courtesy" has always confused me just a bit. I hate to ask a question that seems so basic, but what is meant when one says "by courtesy"? Let’s use England as an example. A father has a grant from the college of arms. Is it the father who allows the children use of the arms "by courtesy," or the College of Arms who permits such use? (Obviously, the answer to this question does not directly affect what transpires in the United States, but I am trying to clarify some things in my own mind in regard to Denny’s original question.)
I can’t speak for England, but in Scotland (who, for some strange reason, I can speak for) it is the office of the Lord Lyon who extends the courtesy.
WBHenry;72823 wrote:
3.4.1. All legally recognized children are entitled to inherit the arms of the parent whose surname they bear, as well as to use those arms by courtesy during the parent’s lifetime.
The term "by courtesy" has always confused me just a bit. I hate to ask a question that seems so basic, but what is meant when one says "by courtesy"?
Excellent question. I assume that the term is used in the sense (as found in Webster) "popularly conceded but not legally valid." The concept was probably lifted from some English heraldic textbook or another—maybe it reflects Fox-Davies’s theory of "one man, one arms."
In Scotland, as I understand it, sons are allowed by courtesy (in this definition) to use their father’s arms undifferenced until they reach adulthood and move out and set up their own households, at which point the eldest uses the label and the younger must matriculate the arms with a difference. Perhaps, since England doesn’t have the concept of matriculation, sons’ use of the father’s arms prior to his death is similarly considered to be "by courtesy."
All legally recognized children…
Aconcept that would need to be considered as the laws of arms treated bastardy differently than current family law and of course the definbition of marriage (at the core of the older definition of legally recognized) has in itself been expanded to include various marriage contract resembling relationships.
Disowning children or parents is an unseemly thing - but it does not break the father-child bond in law or in heraldry. Unless we mean that the child is disowned because they were never the child of the father and that would be a different matter. The son inherits the fathers name, arms and inherited position with or without the father’s consent. The father can withhold funds, property and contact but that is about it. I would recommend that a disowned son prominently and ostentatiously bear his paternal arms and get on with life and that the father live with this fact as well that he has a son that he pretends is not his son.
Heraldry is a property in this regard more akin to other things that relate to identity - name, hereditary title, nationality, kinship.
I think these people have much bigger problems than the inheritance of arms. Not knowing the relative ages or various siblings or does the eldest son have a son of his own to continue the line and that’s why he wants them etc… If the son continues with his father’s name, I would just tell him he has several choices:
1. Wait it out
2. Assume new arms for his branch.
3. Make differenced arms (tincture changes and all above are good)
Then let him decide from there - I wouldn’t get in the middle of this "arguement" for any reason.
It isn’t a question of getting in the middle of an argument - the father and the son have, if they want to be true to the heritage of heraldry little choice - they are stuck with the transmission of arms to legitimate issue.
if arms can be changed simply because of some family dispute we turn heraldry into nothing more than a personal logo - a pretty picture but trivial beyond that. Essentially heraldry is heraldry because it is hereditary. Without that element of heritage it loses its essential value. I know that there are exceptions where arms are altered or substituted and there are exceptions of arms that are borne by folks without issue eg. some clergy but that does not alter the basic principle. Arms identify not only the individual but more importantly point to his lineage.
The question was, though, if a disowned son is the "legitimate" heir, or if the arms pass over him to someone else. While it was suggested he adopt new ones or the arms of his father in protest or defiance, no one said he didn’t have a right to the arms in some form. A king reserved the right to deny a son the inheritance of title if he did not marry a woman of the proper stature or honour, so the title, and the undifferenced arms, went to another member of the family. So, if he is refused the inheritance, he can use the arms differenced, if the family does so to the arms. Several pointed it out as a moot point if the family does not. But differencing arms does not negate the function of heraldry, but has long been a tradition of it.
In Scottish heraldry I understand that it is possible to designate the heir to the undifferenced Arms but the "original" heir still retains the right to differenced Arms. In English heraldry there is no such leeway. The eldest son will inherit the undifferenced Arms regardless, even if the "estate" goes to another.
thanks for that info Stephen. i appreciate it.
I have a question. What is the "rule" about inheriting ones arms?
I have 3 sons and 1 grand son. I know my 1st son would receive my arms including the crest. If sonmething happens to him and he has no children who would ben next in line, my second son or my grandson (My grandson is of my 2nd son)
Thanks
Dave Schweitzer
In heraldry, we often assume that the only ‘proper’ system is the English or Scottish system of heraldry, where Arms always (with exeptions) go down to the eldest surviving son. If your first son had a son, he would be next in line.
Keep in mind, this is not true for all countries. In the US, there are no laws regarding inheritance of arms. You actually could designate all of your sons (or children) to inherit your arms. In Germany, all of the children have a right to the arms, as long as they have the same last name as the original armiger. The same can be said for Spain and other countries. Oftentimes, descent of arms is specified in the original patent.