“links of chain” for adoption

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 May 2011 12:10
 

Let me preface this with the obligatory acknowledgement that I know this is a free country, everyone can do heraldically whatever he pleases, and no one elected me the heraldry czar.  (I would, however, ask that a family that adopted arms two weeks or two years ago not try to dignify these whims under the heading of "custom.")

Now here’s why differencing for adoption in the United States is un-heraldic and even un-American.

 

The English rule requiring a mark of difference to be added to arms inherited by an adopted child is justified on the grounds that the English adoption statute excludes adopted children from succeeding to dignities.  Arms were famously described by the Court of Chivalry in the 1954 Manchester case as being "in the nature of a dignity."  But in the United States arms cannot possibly be in the nature of a dignity, because American law does not recognize the existence of inherited dignities.

 

Furthermore, applying the English (or Scottish) practice on this matter to American arms is anachronistic.  Modern adoption—that is, the kind of adoption in which the child of perfect strangers becomes a legally full-fledged member of another family—is a distinctively American invention that was introduced in the mid-19th century.  It wasn’t until 1926 that such adoptions were possible in the UK, and some time after that that the kings of arms came up with the chain-link difference to signify that a child was adopted.  By that time, we in the United States had been adopting children and presumably allowing them to inherit arms on level terms with their siblings for the better part of a century.

 

Finally, consider that the reason the English heralds devised a difference for adopted children in the first place was that there was, in their view, a legal distinction between biological and adopted children that still had to be signified in the arms.  It is the same logic that drives them to insist on differences for bastardy and, until recently, to insist that married women could only bear arms impaled with those of their husbands.  In all these cases, the heraldic "sign" signified a reality that existed in the law of the land outside of heraldry.  The same is true of the logic behind differencing for cadency.

 

But ever since adoption as we know it was invented, the laws in the United States have always treated adopted children as fully equal to biological children.  For example, the first modern adoption statute, the Massachusetts Adoption of Children Act of 1851, states:  “A child so adopted, as aforesaid, shall be deemed, for the purposes of inheritance and succession by such child, custody of the person and right of obedience by such parent or parents by adoption, and all other legal consequences and incidents of the natural relation of parents and children, the same to all intents and purposes as if such child had been born in lawful wedlock of such parents or parent by adoption, saving only that such child shall not be deemed capable of taking property expressly limited to the heirs of the body or bodies of such petitioner or petitioners.”  To require differencing for adoption in the United States would therefore be to impose the use of a sign when there’s nothing substantive for it to signify.

 

Which strikes me as bad heraldry.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
09 May 2011 16:29
 

@Mr. McMillan, thanks for your criticism which is always constructive and appreciated. :D

- Jeff

 
Terry
 
Avatar
 
 
Terry
Total Posts:  419
Joined  07-01-2008
 
 
 
09 May 2011 17:16
 

Jeffrey,

If I may ask, why would a family, any family, want to make an adopted child feel as if he/she was not part of the family?  Weather that is in word or by some heraldic device.

 

Weather or not a child shares the same blood, he/she shares the same success or failure as the rest of the family.  He/she shares the same surname, the same house and the same dinner table.  Yet in the heraldic tradition you are creating he/she cannot share the same shield without something saying he was adopted?

 

If your family chooses to use differencing that is your choice.  But I am curious as to why he/she cannot have the difference mark based on his/her age and where he falls (ie..second son/daughter etc…).

 

To answer the question before it is asked, yes I am adopted.  Interestingly enough, my Brother is my Brother, my Dad is my Dad and my Mom is my Mom.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 May 2011 17:36
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;82704 wrote:

Also, may I please ask for some clarification as to what is meant by "un-American."


Because it’s contrary to both our heraldic philosophy* and our legal norms.

 

The only possible rationale for imposing a difference to indicate "adopted" is contrary either to the nature of arms in the United States (a symbol of identity, not a dignity), or to the nature of adoption as invented in the United States and exported to the world (the adopted child becomes legally indistinguishable from a biological child), or both.

 

______________

* See the Washington-Barton correspondence in the "Key Documents" section linked from the AHS home page.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
09 May 2011 19:55
 

:D

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
09 May 2011 20:00
 

Terry;82706 wrote:

Weather or not a child shares the same blood, he/she shares the same success or failure as the rest of the family.  He/she shares the same surname, the same house and the same dinner table.  Yet in the heraldic tradition you are creating he/she cannot share the same shield without something saying he was adopted?

Your argument is rather dramatic, but it falls apart for a simple reason:

Some adopted kids don’t change their names.

Under the AHS guidelines they have to devise new arms or be guilty of usurpation.

 

Nick

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
09 May 2011 20:16
 

Nick B II;82711 wrote:

Your argument is rather dramatic, but it falls apart for a simple reason:

Some adopted kids don’t change their names.

Under the AHS guidelines they have to devise new arms or be guilty of usurpation.

 

Nick


But in this case there’d be no need for differencing in the first place, which was what the OP asked about…


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.

 

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
09 May 2011 22:14
 

David Pope;82712 wrote:

But in this case there’d be no need for differencing in the first place, which was what the OP asked about…


There’s a need for something.

 

And that something clearly needs to reference the new family’s arms, but still be different enough to satisfy AHS guidelines.

 

Sounds an awful lot like differencing to me, even if it isn’t precisely what people mean when they say difference.

 

What I really don’t get about this thread is why people are so dead-set against even the possibility somebody might use chains for an adoptive kid. Granted in most cases they aren’t appropriate because in most cases identical arms descend to all kids with the same name. But most != all.

 

And for the rare exceptions chains seem appropriate because symbolically link the kid to his new family. The fact the Brits use the same symbolism is relevant only to the extent it illustrates the symbol works.

 

That doesn’t mean we should put it in the guidelines, or that we should condemn an adopted kid who creates new arms with no relation to either family, it just means that if somebody named Skrzypinski is adopted by the McGillicuddys and wants arms referencing the fact a sensible choice would be the McGillicuddy family arms differenced with chains.

 

Nick

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
10 May 2011 06:33
 

I hadn’t thought of the case where an adopted child hasn’t changed their name (or had it done for them).


Quote:

What I really don’t get about this thread is why people are so dead-set against even the possibility somebody might use chains for an adoptive kid. Granted in most cases they aren’t appropriate because in most cases identical arms descend to all kids with the same name. But most != all.


Very much depends on how an adoptive child is raised/treated by their family.  To imply I am anything other than my father’s daughter and require a specific distinction on my arms because I am not his natural child offends me.  But, that’s just me.  I’m sure the reasons are as varied as the people adopted.

 

Of course - I also thnk to require a woman’s arms to somehow distinguish her marital status is just as absurd - that’s the feminista in me.  :fatlady:

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
10 May 2011 11:55
 

Most of the time when a child is adopted into a family, they do their best to make him or her feel part of the family…and not like a black sheep.  Usually the child in question is so thankful for their adoptive parents they start to consider themselves more a part of their family, than of his own biological parents.  I don’t know that I would say it’s unreasonable that an adopted child would use a chain, or some other device to show that though he is of a particular family, he isn’t biologically.  It really depends on the person in question, and the circumstances.  For example, if the child was adopted at a slightly older age, knew their biological parents, and loved them…I’d be inclined to say they wouldn’t change their surname, and would adopt the biological fathers arms.  If however their father didn’t have an arms, but their adoptive father did, they may be inclined to adopt his instead.  But I’m still not sure they would want something on the arms to show they aren’t actually part of the family.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
10 May 2011 13:04
 

Again, as varied as their personal experiences.  Getting back to a heraldic point of view in the US.  I think Mr. McMillan made some very good points, but…

The point of adopted yet keeping their biological name…  Thoughts on how one would handle that?  Lets restrict it to USA for now, without the foriegn granting authority issues.

 

If they had biological arms, I’d say they use those they are entitled to, but with their legal status in US which Mr. McMillan brought up…

 

If no biological arms, and different surname… It would make sense they would have "rights" to herladic inheratance, but with the "arms follow name guideline?"

 

Thoughts?

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
10 May 2011 13:20
 

J. Stolarz;82720 wrote:

I’m still not sure they would want something on the arms to show they aren’t actually part of the family.


I believe if an adopted child used the links, it would be to show that they are, indeed, actually part of the family.  Did you mis-speak here, or are you exploring a different type of argument?

 

As the adoptive father of three wonderful children, all three will receive my arms with differences (my eldest will receive them as is, small differences in charges for the other two, simply because that is the heraldic tradition I wish them to follow).  Although I don’t see any of my children doing this, I suppose they could put the links in their crest or on their badge…no need for them on the shield.  Would this not be satisfactory?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 May 2011 13:38
 

WBHenry;82727 wrote:

I believe if an adopted child used the links, it would be to show that they are, indeed, actually part of the family.


Wouldn’t that be more effectively expressed by using the arms without difference, or with the ordinary marks of cadency used by any other child?

 
j.carrasco
 
Avatar
 
 
j.carrasco
Total Posts:  639
Joined  20-04-2011
 
 
 
10 May 2011 13:42
 

I think this discussion is very interesting and not something that I’ve ever thought of before because there has never been a case of adoption in my family.  My (admittedly, very naive) opinion is that your family is what you make of it.  So if you were adopted and feel like that is your family (regardless of whether or not you kept your original surname or took the new one) and that is who you identify with then those are the arms you assume.  I’m sure I’m over-simplifying the entire process but that’s just how I see it.

Does anyone have a picture of what these "chains" look like?  Is it something else that’s added to arms?  Where do they go?

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
10 May 2011 14:03
 

WBHenry;82727 wrote:

I believe if an adopted child used the links, it would be to show that they are, indeed, actually part of the family.  Did you mis-speak here, or are you exploring a different type of argument?


What I meant by my statement was that I’m not sure why an adopted child would adopt his adopted fathers arms, and then add something to it to show he’s adopted.  Assuming the chain idea were to become the symbol of an adopted member of the family.  Every case and situation is different though, so it would depend heavily on the perspective of the child in question.

 

 


Quote:

As the adoptive father of three wonderful children, all three will receive my arms with differences (my eldest will receive them as is, small differences in charges for the other two, simply because that is the heraldic tradition I wish them to follow).  Although I don’t see any of my children doing this, I suppose they could put the links in their crest or on their badge…no need for them on the shield.  Would this not be satisfactory?


Agreed