Well, Yeah - Arms are meant to be passed down. Where there are Granting Authorities, things are pretty cut and dried as to how this is done. In the US, with no such authority in existance, we tend to vary based on armiger desires. The AHS Heraldic Primer has Guidelines for Heraldic Practices which could be very helpful.
We are from the US and do pretty much what we want, which is not always what we should or "best practices"
Maybe I don’t understand the full flow of the thread, but I think we’re talking about two different things.
It’s generally accepted that heraldry, properly so called, began when the painted emblems on shields and banners became hereditary. So for the descendants of an arms-bearing ancestor to intentionally seek totally different arms, whether by petitioning a granting authority or simply assuming them, does tend to defeat the whole purpose. Renaissance heraldists often referred to arms as tesserae gentilitiae, which is often mistranslated as "tokens of gentility;" it actually means "tokens of kinship." If members of the same family have radically different arms, then they are no longer effective as tokens of kinship.
But I think that in the present case we’re not talking about fundamentally different arms, but in versions of the same basic arms that are differenced for cadency. For reasons laid out above, I don’t think differencing for cadency is a sensible practice in 21st (or 20th or 19th) century America, but there is an early history of its being practiced in Europe (and some examples of use of the English cadency marks in the American colonies). It is still the case that in Scotland only the eldest son inherits his father’s arms in their original form; younger sons must matriculate differenced versions of the arms, most often with various bordures.
Joseph McMillan;83164 wrote:
Maybe I don’t understand the full flow of the thread, but I think we’re talking about two different things.
As Sister Maria would have said (sung), let’s start at the very beginning....
Arms of the father:
Dohrman Byers;81798 wrote:
Arms of the younger son (early design rejected by the father):
Dohrman Byers;81854 wrote:
An observation, although a bit OT:
If the norm is that all of a certain group (knights on a battlefield) are armigerous, then cadency is important (at least in theory, as I fail to see how a small crescent or martlet would be recognized from 200 paces away…) to show the unique identity of a person. (Oh, over there’s the Duke of Rutland!, rally to him…)
Given that most people in the US are not armigerous, the importance of arms seems to be more on showing the similarity of related persons, rather than the unique identity of one particular person. (Hey, that guy over there has a black lion on a gold shield with three stars in chief, he must be a MacMillan, too! I’m going to go over and talk with him about our shared esoteric hobbies!)
To that end, I’m not sure that cadencing (by label or any other means) makes practical sense in the US, but might be preferred for the sake of tradition. On the other hand, when members of the same family have radically different arms it does defeat the purpose, as I see it, and arms become just a "cool picture that I like"...
If people are unwilling to "play by the generally accepted rules", though, there’s not much that you can do.
Kenneth Mansfield;83166 wrote:
As Sister Maria would have said (sung), let’s start at the very beginning....
A very fine place to start, and where I should have started. I think I got this confused with the Garrison thread.
I should have just let my previous comments stand without further elaboration. (Sr Berthe probably would have reminded me: "Never speak unless it improves the silence.")
David Pope;83169 wrote:
Given that most people in the US are not armigerous, the importance of arms seems to be more on showing the similarity of related persons, rather than the unique identity of one particular person.
Not just in the United States, and not just today. This is the preamble to the Lyon Act passed by the Scots parliament in 1592:
Quote:
Considdering the greit abuse that hes bene amongis the leigis of this realme in thair bearing of armes vsurpand to thame selffis sic armes as belangis nocht vpon thame Sua that it can nocht be distinguischit be thair armes quha ar gentlemen of blude be thair antecessouris Nor yit may it be decernit quhat gentlemen ar descendit of noble stok and linage…
Or, in English: "Considering the great abuse that has been among the lieges of this realm in their bearing of arms, usurping to themselves such arms as do not belong to them, so that it cannot be distinguished by their arms who are gentlemen of blood by their ancestors, nor yet may it be discerned which gentlemen are descended of noble stock and lineage…"
Quote:
To that end, I’m not sure that cadencing (by label or any other means) makes practical sense in the US…
It’s not clear that it makes practical sense anywhere. By the 17th century, the only reason Sir Edward Coke could come up with for differencing was that the eldest son inherited the father’s landed property by primogeniture, and so the other sons differenced their arms to indicate that they didn’t. That justification disappeared long ago, and the present English kings of arms now deprecate the use of differencing for cadency except in unusual circumstances.
Joseph McMillan;83172 wrote:
the present English kings of arms now deprecate the use of differencing for cadency except in unusual circumstances.
Hmmm. Didn’t know this. Thanks!
