I was wondering where I could find a list of the rules of inheritance in the various traditions.

For example, we have cases where the arms must follow the name and elsewhere it doesn’t matter. We have case where differencing is enforced and elsewhere all inherit the shield undifferenced.

Is there somewhere where I can find a list? I’ve tried the usual places and have come up empty (that’s not to say that I didn’t miss anything)

Where does it not matter if arms follow the name? Or are you just speaking of situations where armorial inheritance is contingent on a change of name?

Fred White;85256 wrote:

Where does it not matter if arms follow the name? Or are you just speaking of situations where armorial inheritance is contingent on a change of name?

For example in Poland, you can have many families, each with a different surname, with a common ancestor and sharing arms.

(I remember reading about this in a thread by George Lucki but cannot find it…)

kimon;85263 wrote:

For example in Poland, you can have many families, each with a different surname, with a common ancestor and sharing arms.

(I remember reading about this in a thread by George Lucki but cannot find it…)

I remember reading about that, too, now that you mention it.  I don’t remember the rationale, but I guess matrilineal inheritance has to come into play. I feel like I’ve read of Polish arms as tied to "tribe" or "clan."

Exactly my point! What are the rules in the various traditions?

Is there a list somewhere? Has anyone published a study at any time?

Fred White;85264 wrote:

I remember reading about that, too, now that you mention it. I don’t remember the rationale, but I guess matrilineal inheritance has to come into play. I feel like I’ve read of Polish arms as tied to "tribe" or "clan."

Boy I hope George isn’t reading this because I’m sure to get it wrong, but my understanding is that the Polish system has nothing to do with matrilineal inheritance, but partly with how Polish surnames evolved and partly with a now-obsolete system of armorial adoption.

Apparently many Polish noble surnames (like many names elsewhere) derived from the name of the estate the person owned.  In simplified form, 1,000 years ago, Jan Firstski had three sons, one of whom inherited Jan’s his estate of First, one who purchased another estate called Sekond, and another who married the heiress of an estate called Third.  Thus the first son Peter remained Peter Firstski, but the second son Pawel became Pawel Sekondski, and the third became Tomasz Thirdski.  But all three remained the legitimate sons of Jan Firstski and inherited his arms, "Gules a numeral one Argent."  Ultimately surnames stabilized and were divorced from the name of the property, but you still had (in this case) three lineages with different surnames but sharing a common ancestor in the male line and bearing the same arms of the clan "First."

I think most of the Polish noble arms actually go back before it’s possible to prove such relationships, but the idea of a common ancestor, even if a quasi-historical one, is taken as the basis for the shared arms.

I’m not even going to try to explain Polish armorial adoption, but it had the effect of naturalizing other people as Polish nobles and bringing them and their families within the system of clan arms.

Complicated!

Is there anywhere else where it isn’t a straightforward case of arms follow the name?

CHA has been doing some rather inventive things.  IAn Boyd found some unique situations which he cited in a thread on the IAAH Forum.

Greetings all,

With reference to Jeff Poole’s posting with a link to the Canadian Authorities site I made the following analysis of the grants listed in that link.

The results are quite interesting and it is worth having a look at the arms of each individual.

One of the things that interested me was the number of cases where the heir was granted a ‘permanent’ difference rather than the temporary label one would expect.

Does this mean that when the father dies they will revert to his arms or continue using the differenced version they have used during his lifetime?

Regards,

Iain Boyd

***** ANALYSIS *****

Wilson, Rodney

Stephen (son)                      Label of three points

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Tamara (dau)                      Chief changed

Mellisa (dau)                      Chief changed

Pyke, John

Jeanita Badnor (step-daughter)      Label of three points

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Wendy Pyke (step-daughter)        Bordure

Jordon, Arthur

Arthur (son)                      Change of charge

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Joanne (dau)                      Change of charge

Douglas, David

Mathew (son)                      Middle charge in chief replaced

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Jason (son)                        Middle charge in chief replaced

Lee, Phillip

Margaret (dau)                    Middle charge on chief replaced

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Mabel (dau)                      Chief wavy + middle charge on chief replaced

Malinda (dau)                      Chief indented + middle charge on chief replaced

Lappa, Gabriella (nee d’Emilio)

Roberto (son)                      Label of three points

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Allessandro (son)                  Bordure

Gonyou, James

Jonathan (son)                    Label of three points

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

James (grandson)            Label of five points

Rebekah (granddaughter)    Orle of rope

Kathleen (Spenser) (dau)            Bordure

Ethan (Spenser) (grandson)  Bordure + Label of three points

Justin (Spenser) (grandson)  Bordure compony counter compony

Emily (dau)                        Bordure

Macouzet, Martin

Andrea (Macouzet Rodriguez) (dau)  Outer charges on chief replaced

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

David (Macouzet Rodriguez) (son)    Outer charges on chief replaced

Martin (Macouzet Rodriguez) (son)  Outer charges on chief replaced

Smith, Ernest

Brendan (son)                    Label of three points

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Erin (dau)                        Chief engrailed

Megan (dau)                      Chief invected

Alexander (son)                    Chief indented

Boles, Sheldon

Scott (Monette) (son)              Middle charge on chief replaced + colour changed

Will inherit grantee’s arms!

Hannah (dau)                      Middle charge on chief replaced + colour changed

Oliver (son)                        Middle charge on chief replaced + colour changed

NOTE

The family relationship of the children is to the original grantee.

Where I have stated that an individual “Will inherit grantee’s arms!” the text (in full) is “This individual will inherit the Arms of the Recipient following his/her death”

***** END OF ANALYSIS *****

On Polish arms, I’d assume the flexible nature of nobility in Poland adds to the Chaos.

In most countries it was not easy for a rich peasant to simply move someplace where nobody knew he was a peasant, claim to be a nobleman, and get away with it.

Whose arms he would use is another question.

Nick

In Poland exist also "genealogical coats" which are strictly personal and represented the seize-quartiers or a part of them marshalled together. They were frequently used in the past but seem almost totally obsolete as (apart of the lesser fashion for the blood ambitions) such arms do contradict the strict male inheritance principle which otherwise is predominant. However many titled branches of Polish families were granted the right to bear, as distinct branch arms, the "genealogical coats" of the branch founder (the original grantee).

In Russia, the arms and the name are not tied at all. Indeed in the Russian Empire the right to a noble name and the right to a noble family coat of arms, both being honours, were normally inherited in accordance with the identical norms, and the customary right considers both the last name and the family arms as attributes of a [normally patrilineal] lineage. But this does not mean that "the arms follow the name" or vice versa: if they go together, that is because of the common aim but not of any mutual tie.

Michael Y. Medvedev;85298 wrote:

But this does not mean that "the arms follow the name" or vice versa: if they go together, that is because of the common aim but not of any mutual tie.

I don’t get it. Can you describe a situation where arms would not follow the name in Russia?

Leslie Pine, International Heraldry (1970), 171, says, "In Portugal, the sensible view was taken that arms descended to all a man’s descendants, not only to those in the male line. ...  In consequence, the Portuguese armigers bore the arms of any ancestor, more or less as they wished."

I’ve always been curious about this. inder this system, thousands of Americans could bear the arms of Geoffrey Plantagenet.

Fred White;85264 wrote:

I remember reading about that, too, now that you mention it.  I don’t remember the rationale, but I guess matrilineal inheritance has to come into play. I feel like I’ve read of Polish arms as tied to "tribe" or "clan."

To my understanding Polish heraldry is a bit of an entity unto itself in a lot of regards.  For instance you had a lot of clan and property marks, known as taiga, that ended up on quite a few polish coat of arms…which is why they tend to have a distinct look to them.  Families that are completely unrelated can possibly bear the same coat of arms due to this clan system.  Usually the members of the clans were of noble rank, or from enoblement by the king…though that only lasted until 1573…or even adoption into a particular clan, which also only lasted until 1633.  Lastly you had the possibility of buying titles, though that practice has now also been eliminated.

I am still a bit fuzzy on how exactly the system breaks down…how some of these clans started and such…or why they didn’t conform more to the Western European traditions.  Beside of the fact that Poland tends to just do what it wants .