Arms of George Hammond (and family)

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 July 2013 12:02
 

Dissenting view—assuming the intent of arms is, at least in (large) part, to symbolize and promote a sense of family identity, arms "in memorium" is precisely what should be done.  Individual differencing of arms and/or crest, while in our tradition optional, can fit within that framework so long as the basic pattern of the arms is still apparent.

I also disagree that the link to surname is outdated.  Arms represent identity; and for better or worse in American law & practice, our surname is the key identifier that is shared by a family. Our armorial practices should reflect that larger legal and social reality.

 

If as in Jeremy’s case the shared arms are from a maternal line (different surname) then he is IMO well advised to add some significant and non-cadency element, such as his escallop, to create in effect "new" arms reflective of, but not identical to, that maternal ancestry.  (Also IMO the differenced arms are quite nice!)

 

Even better IMO would be more than one escallop—maybe in 1st & 2nd quarters, or 1st & 3rd—or maybe four—but that may be fussier than he would like.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 July 2013 12:13
 

Dissenting view—assuming the intent of arms is, at least in (large) part, to symbolize and promote a sense of family identity, arms "in memorium" is precisely what should be done.  Individual differencing of arms and/or crest, while in our tradition optional, can fit within that framework so long as the basic pattern of the arms is still apparent.

I also disagree that the link to surname is outdated.  Arms represent identity; and for better or worse in American law & practice, our surname is the key identifier that is shared by a family. Our armorial practices should reflect that larger legal and social reality.

 

If as in Jeremy’s case the shared arms are from a maternal line (different surname) than he is IMO well advised to add some non-cadency element, such as his escallop, to create in effect "new" arms reflective of, but not identical to, that maternal ancestry.  (Also IMO the differenced arms are quite nice!)

 

Even better IMO would be more than one escallop—maybe in 1st & 2nd quarters, or 1st & 3rd—or maybe four—but that may be fussier than he would like.

 

RE: Luis’ comment re: South African practice for association arms—interesting, useful, but IMO not really necessary in the American context.  (Not "wrong" just IMO an option, like the use of cadency within a family).

 

The legal verbiage in those state laws which allow for registration of association names & insignia which I’ve seen generally runs along the lines of "for the association, the individual members and those who shall become members" (roughly—don’t have copies with me).

 

The association is merely the collective voice for the membership, not a separate armorial "person"—or if you prefer, the association, if legally incorporated, is merely one more member of the family.  If we don’t require cadency here, then the same arms cover all of the family, both individually and collectively.(The laws in e.g. Canada, South Africa, Scotland etc. may be different and require a different approach, but we’re here, not there.)

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
07 July 2013 00:44
 

Michael F. McCartney;99731 wrote:

If as in Jeremy’s case the shared arms are from a maternal line (different surname)....


Maternal line, same surname, thus Ben’s likening to a name and arms clause.

 
 
j.carrasco
 
Avatar
 
 
j.carrasco
Total Posts:  639
Joined  20-04-2011
 
 
 
08 July 2013 03:45
 

I’m on the "pro" side for the change.  Just looking strictly at the design of both of them, I REALLY like the new design.  Not that I don’t like the old design, but the new one really stands out to me.  I like it a lot!  And, I like the that you’re keeping the escalop from your old design for difference.  Have you thought about the possibility of taking it out of the canton and piercing the the cross with it instead?  It could be a subtle way of differencing the arms from your grandfather’s.  Just a thought.  But overall, I really like the new design.  Congratulations!

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
09 July 2013 01:44
 

My apologies—I had missed that Jeremy bears the same surname as the maternal grandfather honored by these arms, so there is no real need for the added escallop, unless this family, or Jeremy personally, opts to use brisures.

Still, and only FWIW, I agree with Brother Carrasco that the arms look better with the escallop—but still nice enough without it.

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
09 July 2013 09:48
 

Luis Cid;99695 wrote:

The familiy association arms is actually standerdized in official South African heraldic practice.  The National Herald registers the family association arms with a blank chief, allowing individual members of the family association to register the arms with a differenced chief.

Not a bad idea if you’re going to go the "familiy association" route rather than the "arms in memoriam" way.