This is how I understand the AHS Guidelines would apply to this example (each has same arms, but for different reasons)

Kathy McClurg;75047 wrote:

Father: Male line - Traceable to Ulster, known links (unproven) to Scotland. Female line (as yet unknown). not armigerous.

. . .

 

Arms are assumed under the Father’s name

Simplest answer (as I "assume" he is the one doing the assuming): Father uses arms by assumption.

Quote:

Mother: Traceable to Germany on both sides of the family. not an armiger

Under 3.2.2 second bullet, final sentence "A married woman who is not armigerous in her own right may use the arms of her husband, provided she uses the same surname." Your facts did not indicate whether Mother takes Father’s name, but I will assume (since unwed status of adopted daughter was specified and wife’s taking of husband’s name is more common than not) that she did.

Quote:

Adopted son (less than 1 yr at beginning of adoption process) from Nova Scotia, Canada (French Canadian) naturalized US citizen at age of 4. "family" name tightly held, but known, and listed on adoption documents and may be armigers - direct relationships not explored nor really desired.

Adopted daughter "at birth" from Cleveland, OH (family name unknown) - Birth Certificate lists parents as adoptive parents (adoption documents "Baby girl")

Under 3.4.3 both adopted children are legally recognized children of Father and Mother and therefore inherit Father’s arms. (Again, assumption here is that children were given Father’s surname.)

Quote:

Adopted Son marries, Has four children - Daughter, Daughter, Son, Daughter (All unwed)

Same result as above, based upon same rules and assumption.

Quote:

Adopted Daughter, unwed, has one daughter who carries the "family" name of her mother and does not have a relationship (or ever met) her natural father (not an armiger). unwed.

Same result if daughter is legally recognized heir of Adopted Daughter under relevant local law

Quote:

Aside from the "family arms" - The family described above wants "personal" arms following the one person - one arms kind of thought.

I’m afraid that I do not understand this sentence.

I’m continually impressed with the depth of forum members’ thinking on the subject.  Every day here is an education.

These debates about cadency and inheritance by women always cause me to consider the rules here in Canada, where arms follow the blood, rather than the name.  The Canadian Heraldic Authority recently hit its 21st anniversary and I suspect we’re still relatively early into the second generation of Canadians inheriting Canadian-granted arms.  It will be interesting to see the evolution of heraldic practice as arms make their way through both male and female lines of descent.

We had a long debate about the question of whether a child could inherit arms from his mother in the Flemish Heraldic Council—that advises the Flemish Government (Belgium) on granting and recognizing arms of non-noble families. (The nobility is catered for by a Belgian federal institution).

Two things came out of that debate, one traditional, one modern.

1. Traditional: it has always been customary to use maternal arms quite freely as quarterings. In the heraldic traditions of the Low Countries, the notion of an heraldic heiress does not exist. It should be said however that the quartering of maternal arms usually consituted a mark of cadency (in most cases for the second son). The less cluttered the arms, the more honourable they are regarded.

2. Modern: in today’s society single mothers are a reality. In some cases the father is known and has recognized the children. But that is not always the case. When there is no official father, the children bear their mother’s name. Under traditional heraldic law, they could not inherit the arms of their mother. Which is odd to say the least, since they are entitled to her family name. So, having put all that in the balance, the FHC from now on grants arms in such a wording that they can descend through the female line if the children of that woman bear her family name.

This ruling does not however apply to recognized arms, meaning arms that have had public usage for at least 100 years. The FHC felt that it cannot alter the transmission of arms that were adopted way before it ruled in favour of ‘single moms’. So newly granted arms yes, recognized old arms no.

PS: I am sure we all know of cases of adoption or even marriage contracts with a "name and arms clause", meaning that the children have to take the name and the arms of the adopting person or of the father-in-law (in case of a marriage contract).

Luc,

Very interesting that two separate discussions in countries with fairly different heraldic histories would come to such very similar conclusions.  Here’s the full section on inheritance from the AHS Guidelines, with italics added to track with your post on the Flemish Council’s conclusions:

Quote:

3.4. Armorial Inheritance

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. This principle is derived from the most widely followed traditional practices of armorial succession—inheritance in the legitimate male line—modified to take account of modern American family law and customs. For exceptions to the principle that "the arms follow the name," see sections 3.4.4. and 3.4.8.

 

3.4.1.0. For families that follow the traditional American naming custom in which children take the father’s surname, this means that the children will use and inherit the arms of their father. In families in which children are given their mother’s maiden name as their surname, they will use and inherit her arms. In families in which the children are given a combination of their father’s and mother’s surnames, the children may combine both parents’s arms (if both parents have arms), typically by quartering them, with the last of the combined surnames taking precedence.

 

3.4.2. The term "legally recognized children" includes adopted children as well as children born out of wedlock who are legally recognized as the parent’s heirs under the laws of the state of domicile.

 

3.4.3. Since a final decree of adoption severs all legal rights and responsibilities between a child and the biological parents, an adopted child should not ordinarily inherit the arms of the biological parents.

 

3.4.4. A person who takes his or her spouse’s name upon marriage may continue using the arms to which he or she was entitled by birth, but transmits these arms to his or her own offspring only under one of the following conditions:

<ul class=“bbcode_list”>
<li>The child’s legal surname is the same as the parent’s birth surname, in which case the arms may be inherited without difference.</li>
<li>The parent has no siblings who have children bearing the name associated with the arms. In that case, the arms to which the parent was entitled by birth are quartered with those of the spouse whose surname the child bears (the latter taking precedence). For example, in a family following traditional American naming customs, a woman who had no brothers, or whose brothers had no children to whom to pass on their father’s arms, could pass those arms to her own children, even though they bore her husband’s surname.</li>
<li>If either parent is an original bearer of arms, the arms are inherited by his or her children regardless of the surname, in quartered form if the children are also entitled to inherit the other parent’s arms.</li>
</ul>

3.4.5. Modern heraldic tastes generally frown on the excessive accumulation of quarterings. It is therefore important to understand that the provisions above are permissive, not mandatory. A child in these situations may select to use only the arms of the ancestor whose surname he or she bears (or with one of his or her hyphenated surnames), or may elect to design new arms, possibly combining into a single field elements from the various arms of the parents and grandparents.

 

3.4.6. In retroactively determining succession to historic arms within the United States, the eligibility of adopted or illegitimate children to inherit the arms should be determined consistent with the laws on inheritance in effect at the date of the previous bearer’s death in his state of domicile.

 

3.4.7. It should be noted that foreign heraldic authorities and institutions will apply their own laws and regulations on these issues and may not recognize claims to inheritance of arms that involve adoption, illegitimacy, or succession through a female line. The successive inheritance of arms through people who lived in other countries should be traced according to the laws in effect in those countries at the time of each ancestor’s death, or in the country where the arms originated.

 

3.4.8. Persons assuming arms in the United States may specify different rules for inheritance than those set forth above if they so desire. We recommend that any desires on this matter be stated in writing and that all potential heirs be made aware of them.

BCT;75054 wrote:

I’m continually impressed with the depth of forum members’ thinking on the subject.  Every day here is an education.

These debates about cadency and inheritance by women always cause me to consider the rules here in Canada, where arms follow the blood, rather than the name.  The Canadian Heraldic Authority recently hit its 21st anniversary and I suspect we’re still relatively early into the second generation of Canadians inheriting Canadian-granted arms.  It will be interesting to see the evolution of heraldic practice as arms make their way through both male and female lines of descent.

Ben - In Canada, would the eldest child normally inherit undifferenced arms or does the eldest son normally inherit?

Also - if the arm follows the blood - what is the status of adopted or illegitamate children related to arms - arms inheritence?

In Canada the heralds will ask you to indicate the destination of the undifferenced arms. In practice the eldest son is the most common destination. Canadian law makes no distinction between natural and adopted children. The same is true of arms.

I wait with some anticipation as to what happens over the next 30 years. The approach has a weakness that will undoubtedly require some revision. In this system every child transmits arms. In two dozen generations potentially every person on the planet might inherit one or many more Canadian coats of arms.

No offence George, but I have come to doubt that. In the Netherlands parents have been able to decide the name of their offspring (at the first birth) for a number of years now. The overwhelming majority go for the father’s name. Social habits don’t change that quickly.

One more PS: one of the reasons why the Flemish Heraldic Council took this course is that Belgian civil law no longer makes a distinction between what was known as legitimate and illegitimate children. (Thus very much like in Canada).

lucduerloo;75073 wrote:

No offence George, but I have come to doubt that. In the Netherlands parents have been able to decide the name of their offspring (at the first birth) for a number of years now. The overwhelming majority go for the father’s name. Social habits don’t change that quickly.

I think George’s point is that by no longer exclusively tying arms to a surname (through female inheritance) there will be many more hereditary armigers in future generations.  Consider an organization like the Mayflower Society - no distinction is made between male and female "line carriers" and consequently in the 400 years since there are millions of Mayflower descendants.

On the subject of inheritance, I’d like to ask those Americans (and others) who bear assumed arms a question.  Have any of you inherited your arms?

There is a great number of newly or recently designed arms evident on the forum, and I know that many of you have made thoughtful consideration for the ultimate inheritance of your arms, but I wonder if anyone here can share a bit of their family’s history of assumption and use of arms in the past.

Just a little idle curiousity, I suppose.

lucduerloo;75073 wrote:

One more PS: one of the reasons why the Flemish Heraldic Council took this course is that Belgian civil law no longer makes a distinction between what was known as legitimate and illegitimate children. (Thus very much like in Canada).

Neither, for all practical purposes, do most American states.  (In the U.S., such issues fall within the purview of state rather than federal law.)