The conversation on another topic elsewhere steered into this subject. It was suggested that if the discussion went further, it should become a separate thread topic.

Michael F. McCartney;104630 wrote:

The English approach is "honourary" grants to those outside their jurisdiction - nearly indistinguishable in appearance and artistic merit from substantive grants, but on an entirely different legal basis.  Honourary grants, unlike substantive grants to folks in the UK (other than domiciled Scots) and Commonwealth, are not granted from the Queen; rather, they are private acts of the three KoA’s to foreigners who owe no loyalty to the realm or Commonwealth but whom the KoA’s choose to honor -similar to the difference between knighthoods (Sir whoever) and honourary knighthoods to foreigners (no "Sir").

 

The Scots honor the same legal limit but in a different manner.  Their grants are all substantive, not honourary; and they will not matriculate any non-substantive ("honourary") arms.  Grants to foreign petitioners—those who have no legal connection to the Queen or Scotland - are generally worded as grants to a Scottish or Commonwealth ancestor, followed by matriculation to the foreign petitioner (since arms in Scotland, once granted, are heritable property).  If a foreigner owns real property in Scotland, and therefore has legal obligations under Scottish law, then Lyon may grant substantive arms.  But "honourary" awards of decorations or other honours to foreigners, which are not property creating legal obligations under Scottish law, do not bring the honouree under Lyon’s jurisdiction for a substantive grant.

Mike,

V/R, I want to correct only one small oversight here, and it’s a common one that I’ve seen written in a few threads. The grants to US Citizens are not called, “honorary grants of arms”; but are actually called, “grants of honorary arms” by the COA. The grant is a grant. But the arms, because they are not formally recognized within the US, are considered honorary as a courtesy.

When I spoke to Windsor Herald about this in the past, he said that if an American Citizen with honorary arms from the COA were to hypothetically switch his citizenship and become a Crown subject, then the adjective honorary would be dropped. The arms would from that time on would be “substantive”, as we’re calling them here. Even honorary arms are recorded in the official roll and are not granted to anyone else.

I think there is a reasonable explanation behind the LL and COA discrepancies. The arms granted by Lord Lyon are granted to a Scottish ancestor and matriculated to the petitioner rather than to the petitioner directly. So any hypothetical arms granted in this way would not need to be listed as honorary on the letters patent. This same formula holds with the COA when arms are granted to a living male-line ancestor who might still be a Crown subject. The letters patent omits the word honorary under these circumstances. Yet male-line armorial heirs who are US Citizens inherit the arms as honorary arms from the perspective of the COA. In this context, “honorary” is really just a word that can come and go. As to why the COA has precedence over LL for granting arms to foreigners with Crown honors, I don’t know. But there is probably a practical explanation. I think it would be reasonable to assume that if LL and the COA were both accessible to the same pool of eligible petitioners, any logical person would naturally go to the less-expensive option. I don’t know why the arms from the Chief Herald of Ireland granted to Americans are “substantive” other than to say that Ireland is its own independent nation that will do what it likes.

I tend to think it’s that word “grant” that throws people for a loop though. “Devised, recognized and recorded” would be less-leading terminology. I think it’s easy for some to view a grant as being grander than it is (like an honor from a sovereign) without a detailed explanation. In the context of heraldry, “granting” only means conceding to or allowing something. It makes it doubly confusing that, instead of assumed arms being submitted by a petitioner to the COA for a grant, arms today are drawn up by the COA itself and approved by the petitioner. Because of the process of the College designing the arms itself, the grant of arms might convey a greater mystique. But in truth, a grant is an official concession of arms to a petitioner by a governing authority; whether the arms were assumed and submitted by a petitioner or devised by the conceding authority itself. I think if we look at it from that standpoint we won’t get as wrapped up in the semantics of arms vs. honorary arms. A grant is a grant. And if the arms exist, they are real/substantive.

Thanks,

Well put.

Dear All,

Although this has been stressed before within the pages of this forum as Jeff has noted whether a grant of arms made under the seals of the Kings of Arms at The College of Arms is deemed substantive or honorary - a grant is a grant is a grant.  A substantive grant is one made to an individual who is a subject of the Crown be they a British subject hailing from England, Wales or Northern Ireland or a subject of one of the Commonwealth Realms where Her Majesty is Head of State.  Honorary grants are made to individuals who either have a proven descent from a subject of the Crown or who, perhaps, have personally received a Crown honour.  It is not a question that such arms as Jeff mentioned ‘are not formally recognized within the US’ are termed ‘honorary’ as a courtesy.  It is plainly down to where one owes one’s allegiance.  That being said, there is no dishonour in petitioning for an honorary grant of arms.  Often citizens of the US petition for arms from the Kings of Arms wish to have a connection to the land of their forebears, and some petition on receipt of a Crown honour (generally membership [with a small ‘m’] of the Order of the British Empire or the Order of St John).

In answer to a point Mike raised.  No grant of arms whether substantive or honorary is granted directly by Her Majesty the Queen.  Such grants by made by virtue of the individual Letters Patent appointing the three Kings of Arms wherein they are directed to grant arms to individuals and corporations on receipt of an Earl Marshal’s Warrant.  Over the centuries, the Crown (through the auspices of The College of Arms) has placed this part of the Royal Prerogative into the hands of the Earl Marshal and the Kings of Arms.  This does not devalue in any way whatsoever such grants for they still are Crown documents granted with full authority of the Sovereign of the day by the delegated officers of Her Household.  Therefore ‘honorary’ grants are not and have never been ‘private acts of the three KoA’s’.  Such arms are not granted upon the personal whim of the Kings of Arms whether individually or in concert.  In essence, whether a grant of arms is substantive or honorary matters not a jot.  It is a concession of whether at the time of petitioning, the petitioner, or more correctly, the memorialist is a subject of the Crown or is a foreign national.  All memorialists through their agent (the officer of arms dealing with their case) signs the Memorial (petition) which is directly addressed directly the Earl Marshal requesting his Warrant to direct the Kings of Arms to grant arms to the individual concerned.  Individuals too often take the term ‘honorary’ as a slight.  Let me assure them it is not.  Therefore, it is nothing to get het up about.

With every good wish

John

John, thanks for again clarifying.

As I remember the previous discussion, the issue was whether COA grants of honorary arms were treated the same as grants of substantive arms by other heraldic authorities, specifically Lord Lyon.  If Lord Lyon doesn’t record grants of honorary arms to Americans, but would record "substantive" grants from the Chief Herald of Ireland, this would contribute to the view that "a grant is not a grant."

I’m not sure that there’s a test case.  I suppose an American with COA granted arms would have to take up residence in Scotland and desire to display their honorary arms.  Perhaps merely a hypothetical discussion.

David,

That’s a tough one. My take is that granted honorary arms were authorized through a warrant by the hereditary Earl Marshal. That makes them beyond reproach from the English standpoint. They are granted (recognized and recorded). The College of Arms records honorary arms alongside the arms of Crown subjects. If an American with honorary arms changed his citizenship to become a citizen of Belize, Australia, the UK or another country recognizing the British monarch as chief of state, then the arms would no longer be "honorary". The arms could then be listed on the heraldic roll in Scotland if Scotland in fact doesn’t recognize honorary arms.

If it’s true that LL doesn’t recognize honorary arms, then I can’t imagine why. Honorary arms of US Citizens are regarded as assumed arms from the cultural standpoint of the US anyway. And if the US Citizen changed his citizenship to that of a country where the British Monarch is sovereign, then it all becomes a non-issue. So I say it doesn’t matter either way.

Jeff,

I agree with you that there is really no difference between "substantive" and "honorary" arms.

It just seems odd to me that the Queen’s representative concerning heraldry in Scotland would have a different view than the Queen’s representatives concerning heraldry in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

If "substantive arms" = "honorary arms", then I would expect Lyon to treat both the same in terms of recording.

David

With apologies to John Tunesi, I’m not convinced that anyone living really knows absolutely for sure what the concept of "honorary" arms means.  It is a self-imposed qualification by the Earl Marshal/English kings of arms and dates back to the early 20th century, and seems to be modeled on the institution of honorary knighthoods.  But honorary knighthoods are meaningfully different from substantive knighthoods.  An honorary knight doesn’t owe fealty to the British monarch, doesn’t take the oath of admission to the order, doesn’t receive the accolade, doesn’t count against the numerical quotas for the various orders and classes, and can’t be a member of the chapter.

I can’t think of any parallels involved with a grant of arms that would ever have required a substantive vs. honorary distinction.  There’s no oath to the monarch involved with receiving a grant of arms, no investiture ceremony, no quotas to be respected, and no corporate responsibilties concomitant on possessing arms.

In addition to grants of honorary arms to Americans, it would appear that the College at one time considered designing arms as well (perhaps a devisal?):

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10909430

It would be interesting to know what became of this proposal!

I think the thing that is most curious to me is that the COA’s concept of honorary arms creates a "third category".  With the two other heraldic authorities that I’m somewhat knowledgeable about (LL and CHI), you are either within their jurisdiction or not.  If you fall within their jurisdiction, then arms may be granted to you.  If not, no grant.

The COA, I think, is unique in that you can fall within their jurisdiction by descent from an ancestor who was a subject of the British Crown, but your grant has the qualifier "honorary".

With LL, the grant is made posthumously to your qualifying, direct male line ancestor, and the posthumously granted arms then "descend" to you in the traditional fashion.  In cases where the grant is made directly to an American citizen in their own right, the grant is no different than those to Scottish subjects.

With CHI, the grant is to you by virtue of descent from an Irish ancestor, but the grant is identical to those who are Irish citizens.

From an American perspective, it’s a moot point, since in the American context such arms are simply assumed, regardless of their granting origin.

Apologies for perhaps excessive stirring the pot.  I wasn’t intentionally expressing my own views, merely trying to express what I thought was the difference between substantive and honourary arms that led the Lyon Court to refuse to matriculate the latter.  In doing so, I believe I mistakenly conflated College of Arms honourary grants to non-Uk/Commonwealth individuals and devisals to non-UK/Commonwealth corporations.

If I were rewriting my initial post, I would focus less on the granting process and more on the recipient.  The essence of an honourary grant of arms (or grant of honourary arms, just IMO two ways of expressing the same thing) is that the petitioner/‘honourary grantee is not a subject of the Queen or citizen of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is titular head - in simpler terms, a foreigner in the broadest sense.  The English will grant honourary arms to some foreigners who have British or Commonwealth roots but are themselves neither British nor Commonwealth - and therefore owe no direct or indirect personal loyalty to the Queen in either (any?) of her royal roles.

The Scots will neither grant nor matriculate honourary arms to foreigners (those with no direct or indirect loyalty to the Queen in any of her roles) because AFAIK they apparently do not believe they have that authority under Scottish law.  Instead, they will posthumously grant arms to a foreign petitioner’s ancestor where that ancestor does (did) in their view fall within their view of their authority to grant or matriculate Scottish arms, which then as heritable property may be matriculated to that ancestor’s heirs regardless of the descendant’s current citizenship.

Does that sound right? - or rather, correct, whether or not one believes it is the right way to do things?

Personally, all of the above is of only academic interest as an American.  Whatever may or may not be their status under English, Scottish, Commonwealth, or any other foreign (non-US) national laws, here they are of no no more nor less weight than any other arms, whether granted/confirmed/etc. elsewhere or assumed anew.  The foreign record can of course demonstrate temporal priority (who, where, when) but that’s about all.  And of course they may be of great genealogical interest and artistic merit.

EDIT - just saw David’s post immediately above.  He said it better and more succinctly than my ramblings above.

Michael F. McCartney;104652 wrote:

The Scots will neither grant nor matriculate honourary arms to foreigners (those with no direct or indirect loyalty to the Queen in any of her roles) because AFAIK they apparently do not believe they have that authority under Scottish law.  Instead, they will posthumously grant arms to a foreign petitioner’s ancestor where that ancestor does (did) in their view fall within their view of their authority to grant or matriculate Scottish arms, which then as heritable property may be matriculated to that ancestor’s heirs regardless of the descendant’s current citizenship.

Michael,

The only chink in this analysis is that some LLs have granted arms directly to foreigners, without the qualifier "honorary".  Consider Charles Drake.  That is not the typical granting process, but it does serve to show that even grants to foreign petitioners are not honorary in LL’s view.  Lyon Sellar seemed to be very conservative in his view of jurisdiction.  I think time will tell with Lyon Morrow.

In other words, it seems that LL takes the position that you are either within his jurisdiction and get a "substantive" grant, or you are outside his jurisdiction and get no grant at all.  This is the same method that CHI uses.  That’s precisely the point I’m trying to make.  Only the COA seems to have this third category of "honorary" grants.

As you note, in the American context where there is absolutely no legislation concerning private heraldry, arms granted by any of these bodies have the same status as those created by sitting down at the breakfast table with a pack of crayons and some butcher paper. 

I’m sure there are many practices, heraldic or otherwise, on which the COA and LL do not agree. This must be one.

It is an interesting point that something that does not involve any pledge of allegiance (implied or otherwise) would need to be qualified as "honorary". What I’m about to say is conjecture, but one explanation I might suggest is that a grant of arms includes a styling asserting social status. Obviously, these can be offensive in the US. So it might be that the arms are deemed honorary out of sensitivity to that.

For me, the question isn’t whether or not honorary arms held by Americans are less meaningful than arms granted to Crown subjects. The question is, does a grant mean much at all? In fact, not really. It’s just a fancy way of saying that the state recognizes your arms as of a particular date and that the arms will be recorded to prove it. And in the case of the British Isles, the arms to be granted are designed by the granting authority. I’m sure, prior to this process, knights, peers or whomever, who had been bearing arms for many decades, sought recognition from the Sovereign of their ancestor’s date of assumption when they saw someone else with the same shield. To me, that’s the essence of a grant.

If we get over that word grant, it’s easier to not get wrapped in the legitimacy of something deemed "honorary". I don’t think our Canadian neighbors are bothered by it. The Republic of Ireland is a separate nation and does what it likes. And Scotland is Scotland. I’m sure if someone had approached LL for a grant to Gen Colin Powell’s father, LL wouldn’t turn him away. Heralds won’t break their own rules, but they might admit to bending them if necessary.

David - Charles Drake’s entry in the on-line members roll of the HHS notes that his Nth grandfather settled in colonial Virginia well before our Revolution, which under the published Lyon Court criteria qualifies.

Jeff - IIRC General Powell’s Scottish arms were actually granted in name of his father (grandfather?) who was Jamaican (British Commonwealth) which is qualifying.

In both cases, the arms granted to the qualifying ancestor, living or dead, descend to his heirs whatever their nationality.

Michael,

I don’t think that’s the case with Charles’ grant.  My read is the pedigree is simply for information.  His grant included an extension of limitations, hence the cadencing, but I believe his grant was on the basis of being a baron baillie.  Drake is not a Scottish surname, so there’s no ordinary nexus to establish jurisdiction.  See this exchange between Charles and Martin Goldstraw:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.heraldry/2007-02/msg00669.html

And in Charles’ own words:

http://heraldry-scotland.com/copgal/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=110

As far as I know, LL has never normally granted solely on the basis of a direct line ancestor who was a subject on the British Crown.  That’s what makes Gen. Powell’s matriculation so squirrelly.  His father was presumably of Welsh extraction, and resided in Jamaica.  I agree with Jeff.  I think the Powell grant was a case of LL making a special exception, not consistent with his regular rules.  The regular process would have been a grant through COA for someone who has no Scottish connection.

David

JJB;104654 wrote:

What I’m about to say is conjecture, but one explanation I might suggest is that a grant of arms includes a styling asserting social status. Obviously, these can be offensive in the US. So it might be that the arms are deemed honorary out of sensitivity to that.

I don’t think this is an issue.  The College says that it applies the same social criteria, vague as they may be, to both substantive and honorary arms.

Quote:

If we get over that word grant, it’s easier to not get wrapped in the legitimacy of something deemed "honorary". I don’t think our Canadian neighbors are bothered by it.

We have to distinguish between the concept of a grant of arms as an honor and honorary arms.  The Canadians consider arms to be an honor, but don’t have any such thing as honorary arms.

Quote:

The Republic of Ireland is a separate nation and does what it likes.

It’s not so much what the CHI does under the republic that’s interesting in this connection as what Ulster King of Arms did when Ireland was a full-blown component of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  And what he did was to grant and confirm arms to people of Irish descent wherever they might be, not just in the United States but in France, Spain, Russia, wherever.

Quote:

And Scotland is Scotland. I’m sure if someone had approached LL for a grant to Gen Colin Powell’s father, LL wouldn’t turn him away.

Not only wouldn’t he; he didn’t.

Quote:

Heralds won’t break their own rules, but they might admit to bending them if necessary.

Depends on the heraldic authority, I imagine.  The thing is that at one time or another the heralds in the three British Isles realms have felt empowered to make up their own rules as the whim struck them.  People nowadays seem less receptive to the arbitrary exercise of power than they might have been as recently as 50 years ago, so this capricious approach tends to get challenged in ways that it wasn’t in the past.  I’m thinking in particular of the brouhaha that erupted as a direct result of the CHI’s arrogation of the authority to recognize Irish chiefs and claimants to old extinct titles, but also of Lyon Innes of Learney’s assertion of the power to adjudicate the chiefship of clans and questions of precedence, directly contrary to the rulings of higher courts.

Re: last paragraph of David’s posting #14 above, suggesting that Lyon has never normally granted arms based solely on descent from an ancestor who was a subject of the British Empire [in the context of a BE ancestor who wasn’t Scottish]

I did a search of the HHS forum for "1783" (the year of the treaty acknowledging American Independence, before which the British still considered the American colonies as part of their Empire)

Among the two dozen or so hits, two seem relevant:

In a thread entitled "Chiefs and Assuming Arms" there is a posting by Alex Maxwell Findlater, HHS President, on Aug 17, 2010 at 11:57 am, stating in part, that Lyon "will also grant arms to an ancestor, even if not a Scot, if he was living within the British Empire…"

In another thread "Pritchett Grant and Matriculation" there is a posting by Carl Pritchett on August 4, 2010 at 5:51 am, noting his qualifying ancestor in Virginia before 1783; and at 9:20 the same day, a similar posting by Charles Drake’s.  Neither Carl nor George cite any Scottish ancestry.

Carl appears to be of Irish descent, since he first was granted arms by the CHI and then later petitioned for and received Scottish grant to his Virginia ancestor, and then a matriculation based on the Scottish grant as a cadet of that ancestor.  Charles cites his English ancestry - no hint of any Scottish ancestry - settling in Virginia before Independence.

Charles’ HSS members arms roll entry (the one you cite above) mentions both his English ancestry and his office as baillie (sp?) of a feudal baronial court - not clear to me which was the qualifying basis but apparently either would have been sufficient.

The HHS members roll entry for Donald Draper Campbell also cites both his appointment as Sennachie by the Chief of Clan Campbell and his own Scottish descent but clearly states that his grant was founded on ancestry, not his Clan office, though apparently either would have sufficed.

So it appears that an ancestor within the Empire, or later the Commonwealth, even if not of Scottish origin, would be sufficient basis for a Scottish grant.  (Assuming the ancestry is adequately documented, and the surname is the same.)

Others may expand, confirm or correct.