Bishop Daniel thomas of Toledo

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
22 October 2014 01:29
 

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/661/UVxVdn.jpg

The Most Rev. Daniel Thomas, latterly auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia will be installed today as the IX bishop of Toldeo in Ohio. His arms (above) show the arms of the See impaled with his personal arms, assumed at the time he became a bishop. The lions are an allusion to the name Daniel and there are two of them as a heraldic representation of the name Thomas, which means “twin”.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
22 October 2014 15:00
 

Nice design & symbolism in his personal arms, and good to see them retained upon promotion.  Not the best artwork but that’s not a reflection on the design itself.  I wonder if/hope that his family also uses these arms.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
23 October 2014 09:26
 

Why would they? Not everyone in his family is named Daniel.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 October 2014 15:30
 

Point taken;  but the two beasties for Thomas still works, and IMO anyway the shared armorial identity is/should be a major factor.  I would assume that the clerical calling of their son/brother/uncle/cousin would be a matter of shared pride in this family, and since the arms he has chosen do work for their surname, why not?  They can if they wish find any number of other allusions for lions beyond Daniel.

In any case it’s their call, they just have a workable and attractive option that the families of some clerics don’t.

(For that matter, so does your own family if mutually agreeable smile )

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
24 October 2014 01:02
 

Yes, but you’ve touched on something that comes up every now and again. Heraldry in the Catholic Church is usually not about family, genealogy or inheritance. Those factors which are so important to many (I have even heard some armigers claim that the reason they wanted a coat of arms in the first place was to be able to pass it on to their descendants) aren’t really so for clerical coats of arms. To be sure, some clerics are from armigerous families and have used the arms they inherited. But, for the most part a coat of arms assumed by a Catholic clergyman is for his use alone. These are Bishop Thomas’ episcopal coat of arms. They are devised specifically as canting arms to depict Daniel Thomas. It would, in fact, not be appropriate for members of his family to begin using these arms in the same way that it is not appropriate for the siblings, or cousins of a layperson who either assumes arms or receives a grant of arms to simply start using that coat of arms. A bishop’s coat of arms doesn’t "become" his family’s coat of arms. It remains his and his alone. Since he has no direct descendants it passes to no one and it certainly can’t be adopted by another family member just because they are related. No one in my family is welcome by me to simply start using my coat of arms. They are not the "Selvester" arms. They are specific to me, for my own use and will cease to be used by anyone when I die.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 October 2014 17:44
 

Fair enough; it’s your original design & can be shared with family only by mutual consent.

My impression has been that historically, if a Pope or bishop etc. was from a family with existing arms, the cleric used those same arms either alone or marshalled with his see.  I assumed that if a new cleric has no family arms and assumed new arms which included a rererence (cant or other allusion) to the surname, that he might welcome sharing those personal arms with his family.  I.e. just as arms of family generally became arms of cleric, the reverse might also apply, assuming mutual agreement.  Apologies if I’ve taken this assumption farther than it warrants.

 

(In your case, your chief with it’s unusual partition line is an obvious and most attractive allusion to your family name; so with or without your cross, or maybe with some different charge(s) below, would seem a nice design element for family arms - but not meaning to negate mutual consent.)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 October 2014 17:54
 

Michael F. McCartney;103007 wrote:

Fair enough; it’s your original design & can be shared with family only by mutual consent.

My impression has been that historically, if a Pope or bishop etc. was from a family with existing arms, the cleric used those same arms either alone or marshalled with his see. I assumed that if a new cleric has no family arms and assumed new arms which included a rererence (cant or other allusion) to the surname, that he might welcome sharing those personal arms with his family. I.e. just as arms of family generally became arms of cleric, the reverse might also apply, assuming mutual agreement.


But what you describe is at odds with the law of arms as generally understood for the last 650 years or so. A man inherits the arms of his direct male ancestors (father, paternal grandfather, and so on). He does not inherit the arms of his brothers, uncles, cousins, etc. The only way cousins, brothers, nephews, etc, would have a right to a person’s newly adopted arms—whether granted or assumed—would be if the grant or assumption explicitly included an extended destination to the descendants of an ancestor.  Such extended destinations are not the norm.