“links of chain” for adoption

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
07 May 2011 21:20
 

I’ve read here and there that “links of chain” have been used as a mark of difference for adoption – used by the adopted son bearing the arms of his adoptive father.

Is anyone familiar with this practice?  Does anyone have any examples of its actual application?

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
07 May 2011 21:24
 

I have not encountered it, however if there is no precedent which precludes it, then this would be a great idea for a family to use as it’s enduring custom.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
07 May 2011 21:45
 

Why would an adopted son need a particular difference? In the eyes of the law, an adopted child is no different than a biological one.

Heck, adopted children have inherited full titles and even the throne from their adoptive father.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
07 May 2011 22:08
 

I was seeing this from the perspective of an adopted child who wanted to assert the adopted identity on purpose; perhaps it’s a positive mark to some?  The only stigma I could see is if someone felt that adoption was somehow less legitimate than a biological connection.

I have a good friend who is adopted and she seems to have some pride in announcing the fact as a nod to her adopted parents that possibly have greater hearts in her mind for raising her as their daughter.  To her it is a matter of fact and part of her positive self-acceptance rather than a stigma to hide that she is adopted.  I’m guessing (from knowing her for over 20 years) that it would be a non-issue to her if someone recommended one way or the other to note it heraldically had her adopted father transmitted arms to her. :D

 

I would heed Kimon’s point in that I would not recommend a mark of difference in this way for someone who’s family and peers might consider this to be some form of illegitimacy, but again I say, the linked chains would be a handsome mark of difference for someone choosing such a brisure (and assuming the symbology of the chain couldn’t be "linked" to some other heraldic interpretation besides.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
07 May 2011 22:54
 

Arms are a form of identification much like a surname. If the adopted child uses the surname then why not the arms?

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
08 May 2011 02:45
 

kimon;82658 wrote:

Arms are a form of identification much like a surname. If the adopted child uses the surname then why not the arms?

You’re ignoring the Scots tradition, where arms identify an individual. In that tradition everybody gets differenced, and chains make as much sense as any other marks of cadency.

Moreover the assumption you’re making about surnames is just unwarranted. A child adopted at 6 months is probably gonna use the adoptive surname, but he doesn’t have to. By the same token a kid adopted as a teenager is almost certainly gonna use his birth-name, but might want arms alluding to his link to his new family.

 

And I’d rather tell that kid he should add chains to his new family’s arms then say "You have to make something completely new up because you aren’t really a member of that family."

 

Nick

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
08 May 2011 04:02
 

kimon;82658 wrote:

Arms are a form of identification much like a surname. If the adopted child uses the surname then why not the arms?


Kimon, I agree with you that in most cases, the solution is very viable for the adopted child to use the arms transmitted from adopted parent and that arms do serve as surname identification for most sensible armigers.

 

In some fewer cases and especially those which emphasize the custom of individual brisures (for cadency or otherwise), and of course where the issue of adoption is not a sore point, or as mentioned, where the adopted child doesn’t carry the surname of the adopted parent, I think a chain is again, a nice option.

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
08 May 2011 09:15
 

steven harris;82651 wrote:

I’ve read here and there that “links of chain” have been used as a mark of difference for adoption – used by the adopted son bearing the arms of his adoptive father.

Is anyone familiar with this practice?  Does anyone have any examples of its actual application?


It’s part of the English system, but I don’t know that any other country has introduced the practice.

 

AFAIK, in England, an adopted child doesn’t have an automatic right to his/her adoptive father’s arms.  A Royal Licence has to be obtained to authorise the child to bear the arms, and the mark of difference (two links of chain) is then added to show that the arms have been ‘inherited’ through adoption rather than bloodline.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 May 2011 09:29
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;82665 wrote:

Kimon, I agree with you that in most cases, the solution is very viable for the adopted child to use the arms transmitted from adopted parent and that arms do serve as surname identification for most sensible armigers.

In some fewer cases and especially those which emphasize the custom of individual brisures (for cadency or otherwise), and of course where the issue of adoption is not a sore point, or as mentioned, where the adopted child doesn’t carry the surname of the adopted parent, I think a chain is again, a nice option. My dad’s family custom…

 


Jeffrey:  I’m terribly sorry, but in the course of trying to reply to your post I inadvertently edited it instead.  Could you go back in and re-edit it to say what you said before, and I’ll post my reply later.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
08 May 2011 10:06
 

Dear All,

Certainly, Arthur is correct that two links of chain are used by the Kings of Arms at the College of Arms to denote an adopted child within an armigerous family once a Royal Licence has been issued to authorize the recognition of the child or children within such a family.  As with the general marks of cadency, the two links of chain may be tinctured with a colour or metal that does not clash with the field of the arms.

 

As an aside, but one which is closely related (no pun intended!), is the fact that The Queen recently signed a Royal Warrant that allows the adopted children of peers to assume the courtesy titles of Honourable (all the sons and daughters of Viscounts and Barons, together with the younger sons of Earls), and Lord and Lady (the younger sons and daughters of Dukes and Marquesses, together with the younger daughters of Earls) for their lifetime.  The Honourables being styled: The Honourable William/Jane Smith, whilst the Lords and Ladies are styled as Lord William Smith or Lady Jane Smith.  There are further rules and usages for the female spouses of those accorded such courtesy titles.  Be aware that these individuals are not peers and do not use the incidents of the peerage (ie: coronets and supporters), the gentleman only rank as esquire in the order of things

 

John

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
08 May 2011 19:18
 

The Lion Court uses a voided canton to signify adoption.

Being adopted myself - yep, and proud of it - my family avoided any use of distinction for adoption for two reasons:

 

1.  My brother and I consider ourselves McClurgs - as do all the family members we know and no different than any other.

 

2.  Apparently the mark carries to the natural children of the adoptee, so…  there is no telling who in the line is adopted unless you know the arms back to the point of adoption.

 

After all, It’s not like I sign my name Kathy McClurg (adopted).  We are not recognized in any way (legally or otherwise) as something other than a McCLurg - why would we want it on our arms. - Even if adoption is far better than natural birth :D

 

I find it regretful that either adoption or bastardy should have any implications for the child who had nothing to do with the situation.  We are born into our circumstances and at that point are innocent of our position.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
08 May 2011 19:50
 

Joseph McMillan;82667 wrote:

Jeffrey:  I’m terribly sorry, but in the course of trying to reply to your post I inadvertently edited it instead.  Could you go back in and re-edit it to say what you said before, and I’ll post my reply later.


Mr. McMillan, my apologies for not remembering exactly, but I think the gist of the edited out part was just redundant reiteration (seemingly my MO) of my dad’s family custom. I believe I wanted to implicitely emphasize with hypothetical example that anything goes with American family units who want to start their own tradition; chain links would be fine as long as it was understood within the context of the given family tradition and the fons familium (yeah I made that up smile

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
08 May 2011 20:53
 

Joseph McMillan;82667 wrote:

Jeffrey:  I’m terribly sorry, but in the course of trying to reply to your post I inadvertently edited it instead.  Could you go back in and re-edit it to say what you said before, and I’ll post my reply later.


Egads!

 

Moderator power’s finally gone to Joe’s head!

 

Nick

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
08 May 2011 21:17
 

I should probably add something which is more important to me personally than the issue of adoption itself; if a tradition is to be formed using a symbol which already has a historical precedent (such as the chain in the English system), then I believe the use of that symbol should at least make an attempt to emulate the existing precedent (I’m not dead set on this idea; just my opinions at present).

If one wishes to establish rules/guidelines in their unique family tradition for use of chain links to signify adoption which don’t model the English precedent very closely, I would think it better to just use a new and different symbol than to usurp the English one.

 

Also, to address Kathy’s issues with perpetuation of brisure and identification of individuals in the tree of descendant arms; I believe the chain link is no less of a problem than any other form of brisure when using "one shield fits all" method of family arms.  This is not an argument against family arms, it’s simply a statement that using differencing of any kind with arms which are meant to be equally assumed by all descendants precludes the sensible use of any form of cadency. What would be the point, right?

 

So, I guess to summarize (a challenge for me at the best of times), my current position is, if an adopted descendant wishes to use brisure to illustrate this status, let them do it by whatever system the adopted parent has set up or advises (hmm that was not really a summary, let’s shorten further… ); ...PARENTAL DISCRETION ADVISED. :D ( <—-yes, that’s what I meant)

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
09 May 2011 05:01
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;82689 wrote:

I should probably add something which is more important to me personally than the issue of adoption itself; if a tradition is to be formed using a symbol which already has a historical precedent (such as the chain in the English system), then I believe the use of that symbol should at least make an attempt to emulate the existing precedent (I’m not dead set on this idea; just my opinions at present).

If one wishes to establish rules/guidelines in their unique family tradition for use of chain links to signify adoption which don’t model the English precedent very closely, I would think it better to just use a new and different symbol than to usurp the English one.


I’d agree with you.  If one’s going to use a symbol which has an established meaning, one should stick to that meaning.  Giving it some other significance would cause confusion, even if it’s in another country/jurisdiction.

 

I wonder how many countries besides England and Scotland, have any formal way of indicating adopted status on a coat of arms anyway.  Neither South Africa nor Canada do.  I don’t know about Ireland.  Unless there’s an hereditary title or an estate involved, where the terms of the inheritance preclude adopted children, does it really matter?  As Kathy says, one doesn’t write ‘(adopted)’ after one’s name.

 
Martin Goldstraw
 
Avatar
 
 
Martin Goldstraw
Total Posts:  92
Joined  06-01-2006
 
 
 
09 May 2011 08:50
 

Kathy McClurg;82686 wrote:

The Lion Court uses a voided canton to signify adoption.

Being adopted myself - yep, and proud of it - my family avoided any use of distinction for adoption for two reasons:

 

1.  My brother and I consider ourselves McClurgs - as do all the family members we know and no different than any other.

 

2.  Apparently the mark carries to the natural children of the adoptee, so…  there is no telling who in the line is adopted unless you know the arms back to the point of adoption.

 

After all, It’s not like I sign my name Kathy McClurg (adopted).  We are not recognized in any way (legally or otherwise) as something other than a McCLurg - why would we want it on our arms. - Even if adoption is far better than natural birth :D

 

I find it regretful that either adoption or bastardy should have any implications for the child who had nothing to do with the situation.  We are born into our circumstances and at that point are innocent of our position.


Hear Hear.