Indigenous Peoples and Heraldry

 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
09 May 2015 23:35
 

From 10-25-2012


Kathy McClurg;104289 wrote:

Remember always that heraldry is not meant to be a one-off per person event. It is the establishment of a family tradition which hopefully will pass through generations.

 

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
10 May 2015 03:45
 

Archives are a mixed blessing—like a spouse who never forgets anything one has ever said or done smile

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
11 May 2015 06:18
 

Joseph McMillan;104274 wrote:

Inheritance is actually an inaccurate term in any case, although we use it all the time. Because strictly speaking something can only be inherited when the current owner dies, while arms are owned by multiple generations simultaneously.


I had understood arms specifically as only belonging (as a possession) to the oldest living senior of the line and born by all living descendants only "by courtesy" until actually "inherited." Is this not accurate in most regions where heraldry was used?

 

Supporting this idea, for example, is that only the actual armiger is typically allowed to use the seal of his arms (which passes on death, correct me if I’m wrong). I suppose there would be plenty of exceptions where co-existing descendants DID own their own seals, but I’m just thinking in general terms here (armigers without seals withstanding).

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
11 May 2015 15:24
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;104292 wrote:

I had understood arms specifically as only belonging (as a possession) to the oldest living senior of the line and born by all living descendants only "by courtesy" until actually "inherited." Is this not accurate in most regions where heraldry was used?

Supporting this idea, for example, is that only the actual armiger is typically allowed to use the seal of his arms (which passes on death, correct me if I’m wrong). I suppose there would be plenty of exceptions where co-existing descendants DID own their own seals, but I’m just thinking in general terms here (armigers without seals withstanding).

Your understanding is correct with regard to the original usage of heraldic arms, but this has no longer been the way arms have been used for a very long time now.  In at least one heraldic jurisdiction, Scotland, only the chief of the name and arms can use the pure undifferenced arms, not even by courtesy of the chief.  Elsewhere every descendant may in his or her own right - not as a courtesy.

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
14 May 2015 15:45
 

I think it is safe to say that this thread has strayed away from the original topic. And as such, no one is presenting anything systematic.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
14 May 2015 20:59
 

mghofer;104314 wrote:

I think it is safe to say that this thread has strayed away from the original topic. And as such, no one is presenting anything systematic.


Here’s a systematic possibility: when using the term "heraldry" by itself we can almost invariably assume reference to originally European "hereditary" types.

 

When speaking of the sigils and totems of Japanese, Native-American or any other non-European forms which arose separately, we could at the very least prefix the word "heraldry" with the region/culture’s name for clarity (ie. Japanese heraldry).

 

We can of course agree to disagree as to whether or not such forms of sigilism merit the term heraldry at all.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
15 May 2015 01:47
 

In the context of this forum, Jeff’s suggestion works for me.

(FWIW the Encyclopedia Britannica [15th Edn, 1991] does this with Japanese heraldry, which they see as real heraldry; but not with other non-European traditions, which they call semi-heraldic.  We can all agree they have it half right, even if we can’t agree on which half smile

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
16 May 2015 14:43
 

Michael F. McCartney;104316 wrote:

In the context of this forum, Jeff’s suggestion works for me.

(FWIW the Encyclopedia Britannica [15th Edn, 1991] does this with Japanese heraldry, which they see as real heraldry; but not with other non-European traditions, which they call semi-heraldic.  We can all agree they have it half right, even if we can’t agree on which half smile


I would agree that the Japanese Mon are a "semi-heraldic" system.

 

I do not know of any other non-European system I would identify as even semi-heraldic, much less true heraldry.

 

Stating this clearly takes nothing away from these other non-heraldic systems of group identification - they are simply different traditions from ours.