I have a theoretical question regarding arms for a feudal manor.  I know that historically such minor holdings didn’t have specific arms associated with them.  A noble would of course own quite a number of manors, and in the case of a Knight or Esquire who only owned one they would still use their personal arms.  However it did occur to me that even relatively small towns sometimes have arms and that it might be interesting to design some for my manor.  I do of course recognize that this is mostly for fun.  Since it is in England any official arms would of course be under the jurisdiction of the College of Arms.  Any I assumed here in the USA would be for my own amusement and government in exile

I have checked and there are no registered civic arms for the small town of my manor, or for that matter the small town of the manor I am in the process of purchasing.

I did quite a few web searches and only found one discussion of this topic in rec. heraldry.  The contention was that a manor couldn’t have arms because unlike a town, company, or other organization, it lacked a corporate virtual entity that would receive the arms.  The suggestion was that a more valid approach would be to design a Heraldic Badge that would only be used and associated with the manor in question.  Thus if one had multiple manors they could design a Badge for each.

Would you agree that a manor couldn’t have arms itself for the reason cited?

What are the general rules regarding the design of Heraldic Badges?  I haven’t found much specific information about them.

I have never seen arms for palaces or castles, so I would not expect a manor to have arms. Would not one use their own arms to display about the manor?

This is a little anterior to the present discussion, and I do not mean to sneer at an acquisition that is clearly meaningful to you, but just what is this manor you keep referring to? My perception is that "lord of the manor" is a title frequently peddled to the unwary by unscrupulous vendors and that it can pertain to ownership of as little as a square foot of land, or even none at all—that somehow the personal title can be detached from title to the land to which it supposedly pertains.  I’m just a little concerned because it sounds as if you’re contemplating purchasing more such titles. Perhaps I’m mistaken, though, and they really are distinguished possessions.

My current Manorial Lordship is for Illston on the Hill in Leicestershire.  Although I could perhaps try and do some legal research to establish more rights, all that I know for a fact that I own is the so called “dignity of Lordship” as an incorporeal hereditament that allows use of the title under British law.  Since the Law of Property Act of 1925 English and Welsh Manorial Lordships could in theory be separated into three different components each of which could be sold and held separately.  These components are the title itself, the land, and various rights and privileges.

As I mentioned I am in the process of purchasing one more Manorial Lordship.  Although the process seems to be taking forever, my Solicitor is in the process of verifying all of the documents and deeds.  The reason that I decided to purchase a second Manor is because this one is much better documented and previous lords took care to claim and register their rights and holdings.  It includes documented and registered ownership of several village greens, road verges, etc.  Thus this lordship is the full package with all three elements of the Manorial Lordship still intact.

I recognize that being a Lord of the Manor doesn’t make me a peer, or for that matter even a member of the nobility.  They are however incredibly interesting pieces of history that go back a very long time.  Moreover, I think they’re damn cool.

The one square foot of land you mentioned only pertains to Scottish Lairdships, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Manorial Lordships.  Although the Lord Lyon certainly won’t recognize the right of a territorial designation for a one foot plot of land, it is my understanding that since one definition of laird merely means a landowner in Scotland this is technically valid.  I don’t however make any claim to being a Laird.

cachambers007;87827 wrote:

The one square foot of land you mentioned only pertains to Scottish Lairdships, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Manorial Lordships.

Thanks for clarifying.

I seem to recall a case where a new owner of a recently purchased manor or estate in Scotland was made to take down a coat of arms on the gate to the property which belonged to the family that had previously owned it for centuries. Generally speaking, arms belong to people, and not to pieces of property that they may own. Even so, in the part of the U.S. where I live, we have something of an architectural novelty in the form of a castle that was built in the city of Birmingham, Alabama, back in the 1920’s. It was dubbed "Quinlan Castle" because it was built along what was once known as Quinlan Avenue, named for Bishop Quinlan who had at one time considered building a dioceses in the city. The castle, now under renovation after falling into disrepair and nearly being torn down, is a historic landmark, and bears the Quinlan coat of arms:

http://magiccitymanifesto.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/quinlan-castle.jpg

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/c83026e0-d981-4483-8c0f-3f9895d147c7.jpg

Caledonian;87830 wrote:

Generally speaking, arms belong to people, and not to pieces of property that they may own.

Are you familiar with corporate and municipal arms?

Caledonian;87830 wrote:

The castle, now under renovation after falling into disrepair and nearly being torn down, is a historic landmark, and bears the Quinlan coat of arms…

Poorly done at that, the artist unaware of tinctures, the lions being off-centre and oddly small in size to the space provided by the field. I also sincerely doubt that the good bishop used these coat of arms, or, if he did, had any right to them. It looks more like a logo than a coat of arms, something someone made after googling the surname.

kimon;87831 wrote:

Are you familiar with corporate and municipal arms?

I think it is more correct to say that arms belong to "people" (note the quotation marks).  AFAIK, natural people, corporate entities, muncipalities, and in fact any body intended to have a separate identity are eligible to bear arms.  The College of Arms for example is intended to be a collective or association of the Queen’s officers of arms and hence it has its own coat of arms.  The building in which the College is housed, does not bear arms in its own right.

xanderliptak;87832 wrote:

Poorly done at that, the artist unaware of tinctures, the lions being off-centre and oddly small in size to the space provided by the field. I also sincerely doubt that the good bishop used these coat of arms, or, if he did, had any right to them. It looks more like a logo than a coat of arms, something someone made after googling the surname.

Likely so. The Quinlan Castle has no connection to Bishop Quinlan, apart from being located along an avenue named in his honor.

This was basically the contention in the rec.heraldry discussion.  Even the smallest of towns still has its own corporate entity, while in the end a manor is just a piece of property whether it be physical or incorporeal.  Thus I will probably abandon the idea.

It does however make me think that I should still decide upon a Heraldic Badge.  It seems that although originally reserved for kings and high nobility, the College of Arms revived the practice in the early 1900s and they can now be supplied along with any normal grant of arms for an additional fee.  I’m still left in the position of not knowing where to find the specifics of practices and rules for Heraldic Badges.

eploy;87833 wrote:

I think it is more correct to say that arms belong to "people" (note the quotation marks).  AFAIK, natural people, corporate entities, muncipalities, and in fact any body intended to have a separate identity are eligible to bear arms.  The College of Arms for example is intended to be a collective or association of the Queen’s officers of arms and hence it has its own coat of arms.  The building in which the College is housed, does not bear arms in its own right.

cachambers007;87838 wrote:

I’m still left in the position of not knowing where to find the specifics of practices and rules for Heraldic Badges.

You might check a reasonably current basic textbook on English heraldry.  See our "Basic Heraldic Bookshelf" at http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Books.Bibliography

Slater, Brooke-Little, and Friar all cover the subject pretty well, as I recall.  Probably Bedingfield as well.

I see no reason why a manor or sizeable estate could not have a badge or property mark, notice that I wrote property mark as that may well be the most correct term for such a device.

Prior to the Revolution, I believe that there were noble estates in France that had their own arms.

i know of a number of ranches, real ones, that have their brand adorning an entrance to the ranch or a building etc. imo brands are similar to heraldry in their usage, but mostly so as a badge, such as it is. in fact i know of a ranch that has their brand on everything from their cattle to their entrance to their vehicles to their clothing (yes, they also selll clothing).

As a side note, branding uses certain terms to describe positions and other words used to convey a certain idea, similar to how blazon uses rampant and in chief. See here for some examples.

It is interesting how branding is something akin to a simple system of heraldry.

Unfortunately the villagers would probably object to being branded.  You know how difficult peasants can be