Confused…

 
Robert Blackard
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Blackard
Total Posts:  117
Joined  22-01-2012
 
 
 
28 May 2012 01:31
 

<div class=“bbcode_left” >
I’ve been reading on the rules of owning a CoA’s and trying to understand of having my first COA’s and as it being the first in my family’s CoA’s, it cant be changed because it would be like changing the last name of the family. Also, from what I understand once I marry, my future wife’s family’s CoA’s would have to be on the half of the kids CoA’s and not as the first CoA’s.

Then how do i keep the original from being change but give the kids some originality. Who knew that there are a lot of rules to this. lol And im getting the idea, whatever I get as my own CoA’s will be the family’s, how would i show some originality as well? What I could do is to have some different helms, crest’s, mantling’s, and supporters and keeping the shield that way it is. If there are any "easy to understand" information out there that may also show how it’s do, it was be a great help. Thanks!
</div>

 

 
Robert Blackard
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Blackard
Total Posts:  117
Joined  22-01-2012
 
 
 
28 May 2012 01:52
 
 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
28 May 2012 07:05
 

Well, you’ve hit a decent snag there!  All discussions like this have to be related to time and place.  There are purists who follow a specific country’s cadency or differencing system, then there are the hybrids, then there are people who are more akin to the Canadian "scatter" of such.. each parent has arms and their children have a number of shields (I’m waiting to see what happens in second and third generations with our neighbors to the north).

The ultimate answer to your question lies within what you are comfortable with - because, as an American - If you are NOT seeking a grant from a heraldic authority (then you have to use their rules) you can do what you darn well please. (Not that you should, but you can).

The first place to look is right here on AHS web page:  http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Guide.Guidelines

There is a deal of information on accepted practices and guidelines in the US.

 

The second thing to do is pick a relevant country which you want to "follow" their practices.  This can be done using genealogy information or stick with American or whatever - I found it easier to go with genealogy relevance (and then I did some adjustments to get the family involved).

 

At the risk of being redundant - because I’m too lazy to find earlier threads where I explained this - the best advice I can give (having been through it) is a quick review on how the McClurgs got done. (The McClurg arms can be found here for visual reference:  http://www.armorial-register.com/surnames-arms-m.html Look in the following order:

 

Frederick = E.Trula (Trula’s not recorded, family arms = Alban P. Becker are in armorial under Becker)

—Timothy = Rhonda

——Kelly

——Amanda

——Brian

——Shannon

—Kathleen

——Caitlin

 

Frederick’s (my father) family traces it’s roots back to Ireland via traditional genealogy with ties to Scotland via DNA testing and traditional genealogy.  With the help of a "family" genealogist we found there were ties to McClurg (MacLurg) and Murdoch via an old Scottish story which took place in Robert the Bruce’s time. That’s where the Ravens came from.

 

I also wanted something which identified closely with Dad, hence the anchor in base.

 

In my madness to get the whole family involved and in an effort to stay within UK-type conventions (females can’t inherit arms - so most of the family required unique arms)... Additionally, females generally don’t have crests (there are exceptions which was confirmed with the Clerk of the Lyon Court - although generally only for women who lead or have served the government in some way) a couple basic decisions were made:

1.  The Ravens and basic colors would stay on all arms to visually "link" them.

2.  Tim’s line would keep the shield per fess, mine is per chevron

3.  Females would not have crests UNLESS they’d served in government in some capacity. (This may or may not have been a bad decision - but so far so good)

4.  Males could change crests to reflect their own interests. (Again, this may have been a bad decision, but it got my brother and nephew more interested to claim "ownership" - with my nephew actually getting a tat of his crest)

5.  My brother’s daughters chose to adopt a version of their father’s crest in base - I do not know if this will persist in the oncoming generations, but it worked well for now… a big factor will be if the girls marry armigers and/or get "hyphenated" on how we’ll go from there.

 

So, all the McClurgs have "linked" arms.  All this took a year or so and was done before I found the good people here at AHS, but I like the effect and the kids are interested (which gives me some hope for future generations).  I think, if I had any intention of doing it over, I would do a single CoA for use by all and designed individual badges based on the family CoA and their interests for unique personal use.

 

We’ve just recently done the Becker Arms for Mom’s side of the family.  It was a great adventure getting 22 descendants of my grandfather to agree and like the arms and one third cousin (of a different last name) has me helping with design of their family arms right now…  which is what I consider the fun part… :D

 

I’d say - go with what feels right to you however you go about it.  Think in terms of multiple generations and establish "logical" rules for the family in the process so there’s some guidance for the next generation.

 
Richard G.
 
Avatar
 
 
Richard G.
Total Posts:  451
Joined  26-07-2011
 
 
 
28 May 2012 07:55
 

Robert, yours is certainly not a common name. Are you familiar with this blog? http://blackardfamilyhistory.blogspot.com/

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
29 May 2012 03:17
 

Dear Robert,

First, marriage does not oblige you or your spouse to have your arms joined in one achievement. It is only a plausible option. Also, you are free to use your arms now alone and now impaled. Similarly, your children will inherit your arms, plus an option to quarter their mother’s arms. This is not an obligation.

Let us presume that your spouse does not need to be a "heiress" or "co-heiress" (in the traditional non-feminist sense) to her parents to transmit her arms to the children. In any case these arms will be a complement to their "main" arms and may be borne or not, or added from time to time, at the children’s pleasure.

Then, to have your arms impaled with your wife’s arms, and to transmit these two arms quartered (this time not impaled) to your children, does not mean changing your family arms which remain intact in their part of the shield. It is an addition, not a change.

Furthermore, if your children are not content with having their arms drawn on their belongings in different style and/or technique, they may have personal mottoes instead of the common one, and/or to go on with the further individualisation "for difference".

To add a brisure, to make a minor but noticeable change, or even a major (carefully and cleverly designed) change, is also not a rejection of the basic family coat. It is a development.

 
david
 
Avatar
 
 
david
Total Posts:  211
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
29 May 2012 09:00
 

Well said, Michael.

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
30 May 2012 16:21
 

Robert Blackard;93694 wrote:

<div class=“bbcode_left” >
I’ve been reading on the rules of owning a CoA’s and trying to understand of having my first COA’s and as it being the first in my family’s CoA’s, it cant be changed because it would be like changing the last name of the family. Also, from what I understand once I marry, my future wife’s family’s CoA’s would have to be on the half of the kids CoA’s and not as the first CoA’s.

</div>


Historically, in almost every jurisdiction, if an armigerous man (ie: one with a Coat of Arms) married an armigerous woman their kids would have combined the arms some way on their shields. This is called marshalling, and was frequently repeated for every generation. The first Marquess of Buckingham, for example, had a full 719 Coats of Arms on his shield.

But that isn’t terribly relevent for modern Americans for two reasons. First very few modern Americans have Arms to Marshall. If you fail to marry a McClurg the odds are your love will not have a Coat of Arms to marshall with you. She will only acquire a CoA to Marshall with yours mostly to humor you.

 

Moreover it’s changing even in places where armigerous people marry other armigerous people all the time. You see social climbers figured out that their betters had many-quartered marshalled arms almost everywhere, which meant that a shield with the 719 quarterings of the Nugent-Temple-Grantvilles stopped looking like a declaration that the bearer had 719 wonderful ancestors songs were sung about, and started looking like something a Johnny-come-lately made up so everyone would think he had 719 ancestors songs were sung about.

 

Modern Scots grants will generally only marshall arms if they have to keep a historic coat from going extinct, and the Dutch nobility has made a point of only using it’s oldest, simplest coat with no doo-dads because the easiest way to show your ancestors kicked ass in 1200 is use a coat-of-arms that could only have been granted in 1200. And in 1200 nobody was Marshalling his Arms.


Robert Blackard;93694 wrote:

Then how do i keep the original from being change but give the kids some originality. Who knew that there are a lot of rules to this. lol And im getting the idea, whatever I get as my own CoA’s will be the family’s, how would i show some originality as well? What I could do is to have some different helms, crest’s, mantling’s, and supporters and keeping the shield that way it is. If there are any "easy to understand" information out there that may also show how it’s do, it was be a great help. Thanks!


You’re asking about "differencing." It’s done in Scotland, officially the law in the rest of the UK, and most British-derived systems have their own official systems.

 

The idea is that any CoA officially belongs to a single individual. It can be inherited by another individual, but only on the first person’s death. Thus while you’re alive your heir (almost always an eldest son) uses your arms with a label on them, and your other kids have to add various doohickeys to "difference" themselves from you. But nobody except the Scots, and the Royal Family, really insist on it.

 

Kathy’s post should show you both the advantages and disadvantages of ‘differencing.’ On the one hand she brought her entire family into the process, which pretty much ensures that 100 years after she’s dead the McClurg family reunion invites will include two ravens shot through the neck with one arrow in chief, and a blue field with a gold anchor in base. On the other hand there aren’t many people who actually have the energy/insanity to do all the work necessary to make sure it happens.

 

Most of us will end up in the situation of English Armigerous families: everybody uses the family arms or no arms at all.

 

Nick

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
30 May 2012 18:47
 

Nick B II;93725 wrote:

If you fail to marry a McClurg the odds are your love will not have a Coat of Arms to marshall with you. She will only acquire a CoA to Marshall with yours mostly to humor you.


We have 4 girls available aged 26-18!  And an old, fat, incredibly intelligent, yet humble woman…  Who might just shoot you if you are interested in the 18yr old…  But only one boy in his early 20’s for the taking!  Pictures of prospective matches can be sent via PM-let me know which you are interested in and I’ll forward it appropriately.  :p


Quote:

On the other hand there aren’t many people who actually have the energy/insanity to do all the work necessary to make sure it happens.


HEY! insanity?  what are you implying?:o

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 May 2012 07:57
 

Nick B II;93725 wrote:

...the easiest way to show your ancestors kicked ass in 1200 is use a coat-of-arms that could only have been granted in 1200.


Which would be a very special coat of arms indeed, since no one was granting arms in 1200.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
31 May 2012 12:27
 

Kathy McClurg;93728 wrote:

We have 4 girls available aged 26-18!  And an old, fat, incredibly intelligent, yet humble woman…  Who might just shoot you if you are interested in the 18yr old…  But only one boy in his early 20’s for the taking!  Pictures of prospective matches can be sent via PM-let me know which you are interested in and I’ll forward it appropriately.  :p


Ha! Well this guy is 26, recently achieved single status, AND interested in heraldry. I guess you could throw my name in the hat wink

 

Ah… it got weird… back to heraldry!

 
Robert Blackard
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Blackard
Total Posts:  117
Joined  22-01-2012
 
 
 
31 May 2012 13:11
 

Thanks for everyones input! I like the camaraderie of the group. :D :wookie:

 
Richard G.
 
Avatar
 
 
Richard G.
Total Posts:  451
Joined  26-07-2011
 
 
 
31 May 2012 17:15
 

Jeremy Corbally-Hammond;93733 wrote:

Ha! Well this guy is 26, recently achieved single status, AND interested in heraldry. I guess you could throw my name in the hat wink

Ah… it got weird… back to heraldry!


Oh wow! An embarrassment of choices here ..... :yarr:

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
01 June 2012 21:38
 

Others have touched on the details, so I’ll only add a general recommendation to go sloooow, take your time, don’t get in a rush etc.  "Blazon in haste, regret at leisure"

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
08 June 2012 08:20
 

Nick B II;93725 wrote:

Historically, in almost every jurisdiction, if an armigerous man (ie: one with a Coat of Arms) married an armigerous woman their kids would have combined the arms some way on their shields.

Oh well, this is rather an over-generalisation. Most frequently the maternal arms could be inherited not just because of descent, but because, and if, some rights or dignities were inherited from the maternal side. The traditional ("early modern") British concepts, for example, did not allow (AFAIK) inheritance of maternal arms if one’s mother was not a heiress or co-heiress.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
08 June 2012 11:46
 

Not to mention that quartering was a way of distinguishing (paternal) lines.

X quartered with Y is distinctly different from X quartered with Z.

 
 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
09 June 2012 10:04
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;93875 wrote:

Oh well, this is rather an over-generalisation. Most frequently the maternal arms could be inherited not just because of descent, but because, and if, some rights or dignities were inherited from the maternal side. The traditional ("early modern") British concepts, for example, did not allow (AFAIK) inheritance of maternal arms if one’s mother was not a heiress or co-heiress.

Everything everyone has ever said about heraldry is an over-generalization.

In the British Isles at least the rule that only heraldic heiresses kids got to quarter their arms was not actually adhered to by much of the population, whatever the Kings of Arms said. Thus the Temple, Nugent, Brydges, Chandos and Grenville Deptych that included 719 quarterings. That family did not include 718 heraldic heiresses.

 

After all if your wife’s brother is the Duke of Somerset why wouldn’t you insist on showing everyone that this was the case?

 

Regardless, in the context of a 21st century question about what a 21st century American should do the concept of "heraldic heiress" is not terribly relevant. It’s not like a typical modern American woman whose family has a CoA is gonna agree that her kids can’t use it just because she’s got a brother.

 

Nick