Are there different kinds of arms?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2011 12:27
 

Since we’ve gotten so far off topic in the College of Arms thread, I thought I’d move the following response to Edward’s recent very thoughtful post over here to a new thread. I agree entirely with the general thrust of Edward’s case, but honing a few points may reinforce it.


eploy;82019 wrote:

In today’s world, arms are arms regardless of the source. The notion of gentle or noblesse arms vs. burgher or citizen arms means very little today and IMO the distinction among arms gets way too much emphasis in certain heraldic quarters.


I don’t think there was ever an intrinsic difference between noble/gentle arms and non-noble/burgher/yeoman arms. There were differences in the people who bore the arms, and therefore in the various heraldic additaments that signify the status of the bearer, but these were not dependent on the status or origin of the arms themselves.


Quote:

It’s very offputting (unchivalric?) that certain armigers are so eager to divide themselves (i.e., rank themselves higher) from others on such superficial levels as the basis of who has a ‘real’ grant vs. who has an honorary grant.


I think if one takes a hard-headed perspective on the institutions of noblesse and knighthood, this kind of striving for status is very typically chivalric. This is the kind of thing that men of the knightly classes across Europe found integral to their concept of "honor"—not the bourgeois sort of honor that comes from working hard and keeping your word, but the kind that comes from successfully asserting superiority over others.


Quote:

Isn’t the quality of the individual and the family enough?


This is the great irony, of course. The traditional view was that the best thing to be was the descendant of a long line of ancestors who had been accepted as noble/gentle since time immemorial—noblesse de race or Uradel, as the French and Germans said. Such people may have held their particular fiefdoms from the rulers of their respective countries, but not their status as nobles. And they certainly didn’t need some herald to give them a coat of arms as an "honor" from the Crown to assure them of their place in the pecking order. The Scropes of Danby go back to the Domesday Book, hold no peerages today (although other Scropes once did), could not produce a grant of their arms to save their lives, and would have laughed in the face of any 17th century herald foolish enough to challenge their right to Azure a bend Or.

 

It is only later, when "new" families rise to comparable wealth and status with the old gentry that a grant of arms comes to be seen as validation of one’s social aspirations.


Quote:

Must everything hinge on the status of the original grantor source?


Again, this is almost entirely a British Isles fixation. The French equivalent of British (English, Scottish, Irish) grants of arms are the registrations by the juges d’armes in the Armorial Général de France. According to French heraldists, some 80,000 of the 117,000 arms in the Armorial Général belonged to non-nobles: merchants, artisans, and so on.

 

The German equivalent of British grants are the Wappenbriefe issued by counts palatine (Hofpfalzgrafen) of the Holy Roman Empire. A Wappenbrief might be issued to a nobleman or it might be issued to burgher, and if it was issued to the latter it did not in itself have the effect of ennobling him. (Some Hofpfalzgrafen had the power to ennoble as well, and sometimes the letter of ennoblement (Adelsbrief) included a grant of arms, but one could receive arms without also receiving nobility.)

 

So if we understand the term "burgher arms" as meaning "arms belonging to a person of the burgher/burgess class," it is clear that in both France and Germany it was possible to have "burgher arms" that had been granted/registered by the official heraldic authority.

 

It was also possible to be of the most ancient nobility and have arms that had never been granted (or, in Germany, even registered) by anyone.

 

So again, what distinguished the arms of the noble from the arms of the "burgher" was the status of the person who bore them, not the source from which they were obtained.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2011 13:55
 

I have to say that belittling the arms of another is both a sign that the person has worries about their own social standing and it is also the sign that they are not a lady/gentleman.

The correct reaction is complete insouciance at the time followed up by a good hard punch to the kidneys (or appropriate equivalent) when they’re least expecting it. I’m sure thats what the medieval Scropes would have done :wink: only maybe with a mace round the back of the postern gate.

 

James

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2011 15:42
 

The only times the origin of a particular coat of arms matters, IMO at least:

1) if you are resident in, or using arms within, a jurisdiction that regulates the use of arms, then you should obey the local laws while you are resident or present within that jurisdiction.  At this point, only Scotland comes to mind; & even there, passing use by a transient visitor apparently falls under the "courtesy of Scotland."  Purely academic, except under item 2 below, anywhere else.  (But still entitled to the courtesy of polite acknowledgment by others, on the principle that each society is entitled to its own quaint eccentricities; and if the spirit of those rules is less than we might hope for, we at least can politely rise above it.)

2) if there is a a question or dispute as to ownership or use of existing arms, an official record does document that the arms were used and recognized as pertaining to a given individual or family at the specified time and place.  The weight of that evidence will likely vary depending on the time & place where the question or dispute arises.  (Of course, this would equally apply to any reliable record, e.g. an old roll viewed as authentic, whether or not signed & sealed by an official herald.)

 

All beyond the above are sound & fury (I almost typed furry, which would carry about the same weight) signifying etc.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
13 April 2011 10:20
 

Joseph McMillan;82020 wrote:

So again, what distinguished the arms of the noble from the arms of the "burgher" was the status of the person who bore them, not the source from which they were obtained.


I think this is absolutely correct. However, the whole issue is further complicated when a grant of arms does in fact ennoble the recipient (i.e. grants by Lord Lyon). The wording of the grants…
Quote:

...by demonstration of which Ensigns Armorial he and his successors in the same are, amongst all Nobles and in all places of Honour, to be taken, numbered, accounted and received as Nobles in the Noblesse of Scotland;

...certainly makes it sound as if it is the act of be granted arms that makes the recipient noble and, therefore, contributes to the notion that granted arms are superior (or at least that assumed arms are the act of those who would pretend to be noble).

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2011 11:59
 

Innes of Learney’s introduction of this phrase into Scottish grants was very unfortunate and without basis in Scottish law. In fact, years before he became Lord Lyon he was involved as an attorney in a case in the Court of Session in which at least one judge explicitly rejected Learney’s contention that a grant of arms implied nobility on the part of the grantee.

See more on this at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/lordlyon.htm#nobility

 

Interestingly, the one authoritative Scottish legal writer who addressed the law of arms, George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, actually denied that Lyon could grant arms to anyone who wasn’t already noble (i.e., at least a gentleman). Learney somehow twisted this to conclude that a grant of arms was therefore a certificate of nobility!

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2011 21:52
 

I suspect that Innes mined an unabridged Oxford for terms with multiple meanings to tap the power of popular connotations or unrecognized ambiguity.

To "demonstrate" or "certify" to some status (e.g. noblesse)  are neither one necessarily (or even plausibly IMO) the same as to "create" that status.  A notary will certify that I am who I say I am, and I can use that certificate to demonstrate who I am, but either exercise merely reflects rather than creates my identity.

 

A rabbi can certify (and the label may thereby demonstrate) that a cut of beef or bottle of wine are kosher, but he can’t actually confer kosher status if the wine is substandard or the beef began as a pork chop.  Or to mix my analogies, a herald or even king of arms is not an alchemist who can turn lead to gold.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
14 April 2011 02:46
 

Quote:

a herald or even king of arms is not an alchemist who can turn lead to gold.


ACK! what will I do?

 

<disappointment> :boohoo:

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
14 April 2011 08:17
 

Joseph McMillan;82020 wrote:

So again, what distinguished the arms of the noble from the arms of the "burgher" was the status of the person who bore them, not the source from which they were obtained.


Thank you Joseph for starting this thread.  Just to clarify for the record:  I don’t dislike the British system, but what I dislike is how some heraldic circles (rooted in the British perspective) are so eager to apply the British model to all arms regardless of source thereby creating a dubious hierarchy of arms in the process.  I love the artwork and record keeping of the British heraldic authorities, but never agreed with the British fixation of ranking an armiger based on how he acquired his arms.  It seems like putting the cart before the horse.  Hereditary untitled nobility (I.e., condition of hereditary gentility) can and certainly did exist irrespective of arms everywhere in the world even in the British Isle as Joseph properly cited with the Scropes family example.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2011 15:32
 

The Brits are generally nice folk, if sometimes a bit self-centered ... but then so are we, and most everyone else in the world; cultures only differ in the particular peculiarities on which we fixate.

Enjoy the artwork, admire the documentation, smile politely at the rest.  Hopefully they will reciprocate.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
14 April 2011 16:15
 

This topic might cause one to ponder, "is my purpose in assuming (or obtaining granted) personal arms to ‘demonstrate’ my own status (noble, gentle, common, etc.)?"  Does the assumption of arms without a grant "feel" for some like a step toward ennoblement?

It seems like the definitions of nobility and gentility are geographically specific and strictly held within context.

 

I would think that in the British Isles, because there are such laws governing the use and delineation of nobility and grants of arms, that British subjects would neccessarily have different (and valid) values regarding arms (as signifying nobility, even if there is no legal basis for this) which differ from our own as U.S. citz.  Each of our contexts differ, and if one context is structured to emphasize more value on noble grants (even if the grants themselves don’t ennoble), I wonder if this should be judged from values based in an entirely different context (where there are no legally sanctioned grants as in the U.S.).

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2011 18:04
 

Categories of arms only exist where the law or tradition of a place makes a legal or practical distinction on some basis. This may be the source of the grant, the time of first use or adoption, the status of the owner and in particular attributes of the arms, the extent of protection afforded, etc.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
14 April 2011 21:51
 

George Lucki;82050 wrote:

Categories of arms only exist where the law or tradition of a place makes a legal or practical distinction on some basis. This may be the source of the grant, the time of first use or adoption, the status of the owner and in particular attributes of the arms, the extent of protection afforded, etc.

When things get confusing, or at least a little murky, is when an effort is made to transpose those same laws or traditions to a place where they don’t exist (i.e. from the United Kingdom to the United States). My (somewhat limited) experience is that those in the United Kingdom do not believe that assumed arms by Americans are inherently "less" than arms granted by the Queen’s Kings of Arms. It is, unfortunately, some people in the States that seem to cling to the notion that granted arms are "the real deal," perhaps because they themselves are afraid of being made to feel like they are putting on airs by assuming arms or, worse, feel the need themselves to be "superior" to others.

 
 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2011 01:23
 

Hmmm, maybe the solution is just over a generation away… your grandson will be in a position to respond to someone, "My arms? No, they weren’t granted by the English heralds… I inherited these from my father and he inherited them from his father…" - now that is the "real deal".

 
david
 
Avatar
 
 
david
Total Posts:  211
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
15 April 2011 09:24
 

Well put, George. I have willed my assumed arms to my son, just to affirm

the principle. I hope that he will continue the tradition.

 
Andemicael
 
Avatar
 
 
Andemicael
Total Posts:  257
Joined  02-04-2006
 
 
 
26 May 2011 14:53
 

I do acknowledge there is a difference among arms, and feel it’s the role of an emerging school of American Heraldry to throw its weight firmly behind the "little guy"&#8212; the assumer.

Eploy described the situation quite well over on the College of Arms thread:


eploy;82019 wrote:

I think the heraldry tent is big enough for all comers regardless of the source of those arms.  IMO, there is no need (or its unchivalric?) to look down on latecomers or snicker at those with burgher or citizen arms especially when the level of personal achievement among modern armigers is largely identical regardless of who has the granted gentle vs. assumed burgher arms.


I agree, and I’d go so far to say that when it occurs among Americans, knee-jerk favoritism for granted arms from foreign authorities over assumed arms by respectable individuals is antithetical to core American values.

 

I think an emerging American Heraldic tradition could serve to balance the value of assumed vs. granted arms worldwide by becoming a true, outspoken champion of the former over the latter.

 

Think of our national mythos: the self-made man, judged on his own merits and achievements, who need ask no authority for judgement or permission for freedoms he is born with. Hostile to birthright rule and unearned privilege, he can directly control the laws of his country via the ballot box whether rich and powerful or poor and unknown. Even more importantly, he can directly control his status by no more than a combination of ingenuity and hard work.

 

At our core we are a nation of "burghers," not nobles, and our heraldic philosophy should reflect that.

 

Not to mention, such an attitude would eliminate what I feel is one of the biggest obstacles to wider adoption of arms by Americans &#8212; the stigma of pretension, snobbery, and irrelevant noble aspirations.

 

To be clear, I’m not saying we should be scornful or prejudiced against granted or noble arms. They are wonderful things! Nor should we encourage antagonism and conflict within the global heraldic community: Simply that we should gently but firmly define where we stand as a nation, by rectifying the relationship between arms-bearing and our founding principles.

 
 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
16 October 2011 06:35
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;82049 wrote:

This topic might cause one to ponder, "is my purpose in assuming (or obtaining granted) personal arms to ‘demonstrate’ my own status (noble, gentle, common, etc.)?"  Does the assumption of arms without a grant "feel" for some like a step toward ennoblement?


In my opinion it should and it could be a meaningful ,empowering and mobilizing action in life of the person assuming arms.In the past the ’ noble’ status was inevitably bound with individual achievements ,loyal service,bravery in battle and all knightly virtues many people seem to admire even today.Our fast forward speeding world is in bad need of good qualities -honesty, reliability, solidity ,truthfulness etc.etc. If all of this can be implemented in the quotidian life of armigers -all of them owning- be it granted or assumed arms ,life could be much much more enjoyable.

I grew with the legend of the bravest knight in Polish history ,the model of all knightly virtues - Zawisza the Black ,known the most for keeping the promise.The phrase ‘Relay on me like on Zawisza’ became synonymous to keeping the given promise by all means.Those were the days when a given word meant more than any signed and stamped document .

 

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/rsolecki/zawisza_the_black.html