steven harris;88805 wrote:

I would even go one step further.  The heraldic authorities that grant the “granted arms” do not have jurisdiction outside of their respective boarders.  Therefore, I would say that there is actually no such thing as “granted arms” in the United States.  With no heraldic authority of our own, all arms used in the United States are assumed – it makes no difference whatsoever whether they were signed into being centuries ago by a Stuart king, or were assumed last week by a working-class heraldist.

i think this may well be right. even between Socotland and England there’s no guarantee the arms will be the same, ref the Doc’s arms IIRC. one was from English grant and the other a Scottish grant. so, when an American gets "granted" arms they really are just painfully expensive "assumed" arms whose artwork is, generally, not as good as a top notch heraldic artist for the same price or less and usually not exactly what you’d want but what was decided by someone else. unless i’m missing something.

I guess it all turns on the question of whether having a coat of arms is in any sense an honor. It seems to me that an important thing to remember about grants is that they are rarely unsolicited gifts. What is being granted is a request accompanied by a substantial fee. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the imprimatur of a foreign sovereign has no substance beyond any that inheres in a document from a private registry, but it’s hard not feel that any honor accruing to the recipient of said imprimatur is weakened, though not nullified, when it results from commerce.

A question that’s been raised here before that I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to is, "How often do the granting authorities refuse applicants who can pay?" If the answer, fundamentally, is "Never," unless the paperwork contains falsehoods, well, I’d be more inclined to say we’re just talking about luxury goods, not honors at all. Why not cut out the middleman and commission the artist directly, especially when you live in a completely unregulated heraldic environment?

It’s rare enough that Fred and I are in total agreement that it’s worth flagging the event.  I would only add two supplemental points:

First, one that I make repeatedly but feel is really important:  Basically, what a king of arms or chief herald does when he grants or registers a coat of arms is to give the recipient and his heirs an exclusive right to the use of those arms within the granting authority’s jurisdiction.  This can be valuable if you plan to use the arms in a country where doing so without official sanction is illegal (Scotland), or where the arms enjoy protection and recognition by the courts only if they are officially granted.

It may also be useful if you happen to live in a country that recognizes and enforces foreign grants of arms, but those are few and far between.

If none of this applies, a grant has little if any substantive effect.

Second, there are other perfectly valid reasons why someone might seek a foreign grant of arms anyway, even if only out of a sense of emotional attachment to the ancestral homeland.  As long as they understand what they’re getting and not getting for the money, no harm done.

Ce Howard;88766 wrote:

Me too. It’s been a bumpy ride so far. :marine:

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6230&highlight=differencing+of+historic+arms

BTW, Ce, you and I may share some common heraldic ancestors. My 5th great grandmother was Sarah (Howard) Putman, a daughter of Nehemiah and Edith (Smith) Howard, who is supposed to be a great-great grandson of Henry Fredrick and Elizabeth (Stewart) Howard, 22nd Arundel. Any connection to your lineage?

Well put Joseph.

In addition to the emotional attachment to an ancestral homeland, many people who get arms from abroad simply like knowing that their arms are on record with a government office dedicated to heraldry and not simply some copyright office.  Of course, I agree it really means little other than in the country in which the arms are recorded and perhaps with some private bodies.

I do agree that assumed arms are and have always been on par with granted, certified or registered arms in most countries of the world with very, very few exceptions.  It is the British exception, however, that everyone seems to focus on erroneously believing heraldry is a British phenomenon when it is more of a pan-European phenomenon.

eploy;88854 wrote:

Well put Joseph.

In addition to the emotional attachment to an ancestral homeland, many people who get arms from abroad simply like knowing that their arms are on record with a government office dedicated to heraldry and not simply some copyright office.  Of course, I agree it really means little other than in the country in which the arms are recorded and perhaps with some private bodies.

 

I do agree that assumed arms are and have always been on par with granted, certified or registered arms in most countries of the world with very, very few exceptions.  It is the British exception, however, that everyone seems to focus on erroneously believing heraldry is a British phenomenon when it is more of a pan-European phenomenon.

I think a lot of people outside of Britain may seek to have their coats of arms registered by the College of Arms, Lord Lyon, or the Chief Herald of Ireland, because their arms are important to them and there is that psychological satisfaction that comes from "keeping up with the Joneses" so to speak. I’ve tried (unsuccessfully) to have my ancestral arms recognised as "ancient arms" for this very reason; and while I was not successful in doing so due to being unable to provide sufficent evidence of their use at the respective time and place, my reason for doing so was based on the motivation of putting to rest any question of their legitimacy, even though I myself know the arms to have been in use by my ancestors for well over two centuries.

Joseph McMillan;88844 wrote:

It’s rare enough that Fred and I are in total agreement that it’s worth flagging the event.

I’m flattered that you would think the occasion so remarkable, but I guess the operative term is "total." I think the areas of meaningful disagreement between us are actually quite limited.

This thread has been purged of a great number of off-topic posts and is once again open for discussion.

The Moderator;89069 wrote:

This thread has been purged of a great number of off-topic posts and is once again open for discussion.

Is this a case of sweeping something under the rug that you don’t want to be seen?

Caledonian;89079 wrote:

Is this a case of sweeping something under the rug that you don’t want to be seen?

No, as the Moderator has noted, this is an attempt to get this thread back on topic.  ‘Nuff said.

WBHenry;89081 wrote:

No, as the Moderator has noted, this is an attempt to get this thread back on topic.  ‘Nuff said.

One always tends to be a bit suspicious where censorship is involved.

Caledonian;89082 wrote:

One always tends to be a bit suspicious where censorship is involved.

After having been warned repeatedly to stay on topic, one should not be.

Caledonian;89082 wrote:

One always tends to be a bit suspicious where censorship is involved.

One also tends to be a bit suspicious when accusations are made.  The rules of this forum allow for moderation to keep a thread on topic.  Censorship is a totally different thing.  We could discuss that, however, that would be another case of thread drift.  The topic, sir, is "The Status of Assumed Arms."  Please stick to the topic at hand.

THIS IS A FINAL WARNING TO ALL INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION ON THESE BOARDS.

I think (hope?) this is sufficiently on-topic.

One benefit to a registration with any government office, here or abroad, and strictly heraldic or merely copyright, is a record that thus & such arms were in use by a particular person, family, or other entity as of the registration date.

The fact of the registration, or where it is registered, doesn’t IMO matter much if at all in the American context—the arms are of equal standing and value here wherever registered, or if not registered at all, so long as they are somehow made public so others can avoid infringement.  However, per both our Guidelines IIRC, and logically—the two being not inherently inconsistent! —in cases of apparent duplication the earliest use generally should decide the case; so the proven date of first (or first publicized or recorded) use should carry the day.  And while a reliable non-governmental record should IMO be as good as a Government record, the latter has a better long-term (especially generational) chance of survival than the former.

For that reason (even though I haven’t done so myself—do as I say, not as I do, that’s me) registration with some official record office of some Government, whether the fancy high-$$ UK heralds or simply our own copyright office, is a desirable thing.  IMO it isn’t necessary (though it would be nice) for the officials running the registry to know much if anything about heraldry, so long as their date stamp works and their record office is secure and accessible if needed.

If this is off-topic, the moderators can of course move or delete it.

There is another important value to having one’s arms recorded with a public or private heraldic register and that is quality control.  An individual who assumes arms without the assistance of a trained herald is not likely to have as good a result unless they spent a great many hours of study on the subject.