My father has shown some interest in the idea of assuming an arms, and I need guidance on what route I should take in this.  Clearly, I’ve already adopted my own coat of arms, and at the time never considered designing an arms for my father, and then adopting it myself.  Which, in hind-sight, is an appealing idea, but is a bit late unfortunately.  So my question is, should I possibly have my father adopt the same shield that I have, and possibly have him just alter the crest to his own preference?  Or does anybody else have some ideas?

I’m not sure what the best route is - offering the arms to your father, or designing a new shield and taking his instead - but I do think it would be awkward to have entirely different arms.

J. Stolarz;85406 wrote:

My father has shown some interest in the idea of assuming an arms, and I need guidance on what route I should take in this.  Clearly, I’ve already adopted my own coat of arms, and at the time never considered designing an arms for my father, and then adopting it myself.  Which, in hind-sight, is an appealing idea, but is a bit late unfortunately.  So my question is, should I possibly have my father adopt the same shield that I have, and possibly have him just alter the crest to his own preference?  Or does anybody else have some ideas?

Option #1:  Dad assumes a shield design that is the same as yours but with a different crest.  Then when he passes away it appears that the arms have descended to you and you chose to use a different crest.

Option #1a:  Dad uses the exact same arms.  You use the arms at the same time, without differencing, or you could difference with a label during his lifetime if you really want to.

Option #2:  Dad assumes a shield design that is very close to yours, but just a bit more simple.  For example, he doesn’t cotise his bend.  That way it looks as if your shield has been differenced from his arms.  Same crest ideas as above.

Option #3:  Dad assumes arms different than yours, knowing that they will be a "dead-end", at least as far as you’re concerned.  He enjoys displaying his, you enjoy yours, you pass yours to your children and gradually your father’s use of arms fades from the scene (unless you have siblings who continue to use his arms.)

Option #4:  You and Dad come up with a design you both like and he assumes those, which you also use, perhaps with a different crest, if you really want it.  You give up the arms you’re currently using.

I really would rather not give up my arms for any reason…it’d be like divorcing something I’ve committed to.  I do like the idea of either him adopting my arms completely and just altering the crest, or him adopting

Vert on a bend Argent three maple leaves palewise Vert.

Then having it look like I merely added the cotised.  An interesting idea.

Also, I don’t have any siblings.

In my opinion, the best option is that that he assumes the same arms as you.  If he wants the same crest, I don’t see that as a problem either.

If you want to use a lable during his lifetime, that seems just as good to me as not using one, but I would keep in mind that if you do use one, it sets a precedent for your own descendants.

Dear Joshua,

I would counsel that your father takes your arms and crest in toto and you yourself use the label of three points as your father’s heir apparent during his lifetime.  There is nothing unusual in this course of action as the Kings of Arms in London often grants arms to an individual that includes his father and siblings.  There is a good and traditional precedent for you to follow here.  Remember, heraldry is primarily a hereditary system of devices borne a shield (and helmet) that pertain to a particular family and their descendants.  Therefore, there should be no good reason for your father to adapt your arms nor to adopt a different crest.  As you have distinct armorial bearings, I believe this to be your best course of action.

With every good wish

John

According to the Serbian tradition, the shield of a family remains the same while each individual uses his own crest. So, I would suggest to follow the same tradition. After all, most of the people you know identify your shield as you. It would be odd to inform them that your shield now belongs to daddy, and in the very very distant future they will be yours again!

liongam;85428 wrote:

I would counsel that your father takes your arms and crest in toto and you yourself use the label of three points as your father’s heir apparent during his lifetime.  There is nothing unusual in this course of action as the Kings of Arms in London often grants arms to an individual that includes his father and siblings.  There is a good and traditional precedent for you to follow here.

I like John’s advice.  Of course as an American armiger in the US, there is nothing preventing you from doing what John has described.  The fact that there is precedent for the practice in the UK is merely icing on the cake.

I’m with John as well, with the reservation that you should consider the use of the label as optional.

As in most places, arms in the United States traditionally symbolize families, not individuals.

Joseph McMillan;85433 wrote:

you should consider the use of the label as optional.

As in most places, arms in the United States traditionally symbolize families, not individuals.

Good point.  Agreed!

If you’re unwilling to share your arms with your father, I suppose you could let him use yours (a subtle difference). I believe the way Lord Lyon has dealt with this issue is to allow the father to use the son’s arms differenced by a label of one point enarched. We discussed this over at the IAAH some time back.

I recall reading a post from Martin Goldstraw of Whitecairns.

Martin told of a Scottish grant of arms where the petitioner had requested the arms in his own name, but with the added clause that the arms should descend, with the usual due differences, to all the descendants of his father.  Since this “father clause” had been included, the petitioner’s younger brother was also able to matriculate the same arms differenced with a bordure, something that he would not have been able to do if the grant did not have the “father clause” in it.

The unique bit (and what is applicable to this thread), is that the aforementioned father was still alive.  This required Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, the Lord Lyon at the time (1945-1969), to “invent” a temporary brisure to indicate a father of an armiger.  Sir Thomas stated that the father of the petitioner could, during his lifetime, bear arms courtesy of his son differenced by a label enarched of one point.

Thus, it would seem that your father may bear your arms, differenced by a label of one point.  I would think that your father would be free to design his own crest and to assume his own motto as well.

<i></i>

It appears that Kenneth and I are remembering the same thing…  He just types faster than I do.

The grant to a father referred to above is is indeed correct. The arms were identical in ever respect including crest and motto but had the temporary label assigned during the lifetime of the father. It had the effect that eventually the identical arms descended, undifferenced, to the original grantee and allowed the brothers of the original grantee to matriculate their own versions. This is only effective if the original grantee is the same person as would be the recipient of the newly granted father’s arms - in effect the two grants merge into one achievement with two birth certificates.

There is another way which I believe is now the preferred method. I refer you to the example of Armstrong of Mungbyhurst who by deed of resignation dated 10th March 2000 resigned the arms into the hands of the Lord Lyon for regrant with a destination to the other descendants of his father, the late Ian Joseph Simpson Armstrong.

http://www.armorial-register.com/arms-sco/armstrong-w-arms.html

Although the Armstrong example was one where the father was deceased, I can see no reason why, when the father is still alive the arms can not be surrendered and regranted to the father.

All this of course begs the question why on earth, if the father is still alive, weren’t they granted to him in the first place?

Dear Martin,

In the case of Armstrong of Mungbyhurst, why was the original grant not to the father in the first place?

Iain Boyd

Iain Boyd;85461 wrote:

Dear Martin,

In the case of Armstrong of Mungbyhurst, why was the original grant not to the father in the first place?

 

Iain Boyd

I am not party to the reason but let’s permit ourselves some harmless conjecture with full apologies to the armiger lest we are wrong.

Perhaps because, after seeing the Letters Patent along with the armiger’s enthusiasm, his younger brother also became desirous of arms. The brother could of course have obtained an entirely new and independent grant but I think it is more likely to be because Mungbyhurst has daughters but no son and in surrendering and regranting the arms to the descendants of Mungbyhurst’s father it allows an opportunity whereby, eventually, (Deo volente) the arms can now devolve through his younger brother to his nephew.

Armorial engineering at its best.

Why wasn’t all of this thought about in the first place? It’s that hind sight thing again isn’t it.