I think Mike has all the facts right, to the best of my memory. But each Lyon seems to be able, within broad limits, to redefine the extent of his own granting jurisdiction—or perhaps, to put it a different way, to determine for himself how he will exercise his discretionary powers.
Given that, it’s not entirely clear that the present or some future Lord Lyon would consider a petitioner eligible for a grant merely on the basis of holding office in a clan or clan society. Certainly the feudal court offices (e.g., baron-baillie) no longer suffice to bring a foreigner with no other connection to Scotland within Lyon’s granting jurisdiction. A future Lyon may well decide that possession of the dignity of baron itself is insufficient to qualify for a grant, unless there is some other more substantive basis for needing to bear arms in Scotland (such as ownership of actual land).
Thanks for the caveat re: future Lyons - yesterday’s gospel may be today’s apocrypha or tomorrow’s empty shelf.
Interesting points, all. A few things on this:
Joseph McMillan;104660 wrote:
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.
Though not defined, I would say the COA’s notion of “eminence” is based more on personal merit, personal achievements and public service than inherited social standing; more like a meritocracy if anything. It is only the fees that make it possibly a little embarrassing (or open to ridicule). At face-value the qualifying standard for an American to have the styling of "gentleman" is solely based on merits and achievements. Yet the presence of any styling implies that the grantee falls within England’s de jure social system. Therefore, the styling in the letters patent might be the cause of the arms being listed as "honorary". Also, the arms are hereditary; presumably along with the styling. The arms are recognized as passing through the male line only (with certain exceptions). All of this is contrary to contemporary American cultural values. Because of this, I would say it’s correct that the arms remain honorary so long as one is a US Citizen.
The wording on a grant from the Chief Herald of Ireland omits social stylings of any kind. In fact, I don’t think it even lists academic post-nominal letters or any qualifying achievements of the grantee. The arms pass to both male and female descendants. Coincidentally, Irish arms to US Citizens are all substantive. A grant from the CHI is republican in form and function and is in keeping with American culture. So they should stay substantive.
The only requirement that I find a little odd with the COA is the need to trace one’s ancestry to a Crown subject. Americans who receive Crown honors have no such requirement.
Would a citizen of Spain qualify for a grant from the College of Arms by either descent from an English subject (say 4-5 generations ago) or by being admitted into an Order (e.g. Venerable or OBE)?
If so, would this Spaniard be granted honorary or substantive arms? If honorary, then one cannot make the republic vs. monarchy argument.
Quote:
Would a citizen of Spain qualify for a grant from the College of Arms by either descent from an English subject (say 4-5 generations ago) or by being admitted into an Order (e.g. Venerable or OBE)?
If so, would this Spaniard be granted honorary or substantive arms? If honorary, then one cannot make the republic vs. monarchy argument.
Various issues of the College of Arms newsletter include a few references to grants of honorary arms to individuals who don’t appear to be Americans (at least at first glance):
CHOWDHURY, Rajpal Singh of New Delhi, India, son of Sarnagat Singh Chowdhury late of New Delhi, deceased. Honorary Arms, Crest and Badge. Garter, Clarenceux and Norroy and Ulster Kings of Arms. 14/12/2013. College reference: Grants 178/160.
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/newsletter/item/110-april-2015-newsletter-no-42
WAVAMUNNO, Gordon Babala Kasibante, of Kampala, Uganda. Honorary Arms, Crest and Badge. Garter, Clarenceux and Norroy and Ulster Kings of Arms. 16/8/2012. College reference: Grants 176/313.
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/newsletter/item/94-december-2013
These individuals appear to be citizens of republics, but I know of one Dutch member of the VOSJ who received a grant of honorary arms from the College of Arms in 2002:
Would a Spanish Citizen not fall under his own nation’s heraldic authority outside of the COA’s jurisdiction?
Looking at continental Europe, a few countries still have granting authorities. But grants of personal arms are restricted to royalty, the nobility or civic/government entities, etc. In those countries, ordinary folks just assume arms as they always have done. The arms aren’t always "protected" but no one seems bothered. Britain probably would not be any different except for the fact that it does grant arms to commoners. And that makes sense, since England has a history of being one of the more inclusive social hierarchies—regardless of the motives. A British grant to a commoner is of course "stripped down". It lacks supporters, embellished helms and other things. Yet even if these grants were once an inside joke where some sneered at the “new” folks paying fees for less-embellished arms, the arms have become so ubiquitous over time that I don’t think anyone thinks a thing about it anymore.
As it turns out, the origins of the granting of honorary arms is odd. I had assumed it developed out of the World Wars, like the honorary knighthoods. But the timing is pretty much a coincidence. It would seem some Americans around the turn of the century were finagling ways to receive grants of arms by keeping residences (or saying they kept residences) within the COA’s jurisdiction. A New Englander and US Citizen named James A Noyes was granted arms in 1915. The Roll lists him as living in both London and Cambridge, Mass. Beginning in 1916, a New Yorker named John R Delafield (connected to the Schuylers and Livingstons) began interacting with the COA and LL. In order to contrive a shield with multiple quarterings, he took the matriculated arms of his mother and secured COA grants for English cousins (with extensions to himself). In 1920, he secured something called honorary arms for his American brother-in-law, Alain White. He secured a second honorary grant for his Wetmore line in 1923. Between 1915 and 1932, he got his multi-quartered arms, though they were dubious. He quartered arms from female lines that were not heraldic heiresses and he quartered arms that would not be put together. I don’t know if the COA indulged him with this part though.
This has been a very interesting discussion and one central theme seems to be the Commonwealth Heraldic Jurisdiction. Noel Cox wrote a particularly interesting article on this topic. See: http://www.academia.edu/1991162/Commonwealth_Heraldic_Jurisdiction_with_specific_emphasis_on_the_Law_of_Arms_in_New_Zealand.
In essence it seems (at least to me after having read Noel’s article) that only the Earl Marshal working together with Garter King of Arms have the ‘imperial’ jurisdiction to authorize and grant arms within the Commonwealth. Furthermore, only the Earl Marshal and Garter King of Arms can grant honorary arms to Americans. According to Noel’s article, Lord Lyon does not have imperial jurisdiction on par with the English authority being limited by at least 2 Lord Lyon Acts passed by the Scottish and later by British Parliament (it seems the Lord Lyon Act 1672 & the Lord Lyon King of Arms Act 1867). Lord Lyon’s jurisdiction is limited to the territory of Scotland.
Any person living outside the Commonwealth and receiving a British honour (including the Venerable Order of St. John) would have to apply for a grant of honorary arms through the College of Arms. Those Americans that secured Scottish grants either had sufficient connections to Scotland (e.g., owned sufficient land or a home in Scotland, hold a Scottish feudal baron, or were lucky enough to be created a baronial officer before the abolition of feudal tenure in Scotland) or else were lucky enough to matriculate their arms under Lord Lyon Sir Malcom Innes of Edingight (i.e., those savvy enough to receive a Spanish certification from the late Don Vicente were able to have their arms matriculated in Scotland by Sir Malcom through a very short window of time).
According to my understanding, the grant to General Colin Powell is indeed perplexing. As far as I know, Luther Powell - the General’s father - did not hold property in Scotland, was not a Scottish feudal baron or hold a baronial office before the abolition of feudal tenure. Furthermore, Luther Powell doesn’t have any Scottish ancestry though Scottish ancestry by itself is not enough to establish jurisdiction at least according to some English heraldic writers and experts since only the College of Arms has imperial jurisdiction. While the General’s mother was of Scottish ancestry, I don’t believe maternal ancestry is sufficient for a matriculation to a son unless the maternal line has died out in the male line and a royal license has been given to General Powell to bear his maternal arms. I think the grant to Colin Powell was beyond the powers of Lord Lyon though I doubt the College of Arms raised any fuss at least in that instance.
Altogether an interesting topic. I look forward to more posts.
Kimon’s question - would an English grant to e.g. a Spaniard be "honourary"? - raises another related set of questions - would the English heralds even make a grant of new arms, honourary or otherwise, to a foreigner whose own government has, or doesn’t have, it’s own system of state-sanctioned heraldry? And what would, or wouldn’t, Lyon do?
We know (do we?) that within the Commonwealth, neither Garter & Co. nor Lyon will nowadays grant new arms to Canadians who have their own Heraldic Authority, but will grant new arms to those in other Commonwealth nations with no heraldic authority of their own, e.g. Australia, NZ, Jamaica etc. (Not sure about SA whose Bureau of Heraldry derives from SA internal law rather than delegation / repatriation from the Queen.). We also know that " honourary " doesn’t seem to be an issue in grants to Commonwealth citizens.
Besides any intrinsic interest in these questions, they may shine some light on the what and why of "honourary" in English grants to Americans. For example, IIRC, the whole notion originated to address whether or how to grant arms to Americans; but was it (or is it now) strictly an Anglo-American concept, or a model (for better or worse) applicable to some/any/all non-Commonwealth foreigners who might seek an English grant, with or without English ancesrtal roots or other connections?
If strictly Anglo-American, then the relationship between our two related political and social systems are the only relevant issues in discussing "honourary". But if it does or may apply more broadly, then the range of relevant considerations is not merely bipolar (spell check tried to insert "disorder" 
)
I also missed Seb’s posting noting honourary grants to residents of India and Uganda - would be helpful to know more about these two, beyond the bare mention in the CoA newsletter.
Michael F. McCartney;104675 wrote:
Kimon’s question . . . raises another related set of questions - would the English heralds even make a grant of new arms, honourary or otherwise, to a foreigner whose own government has, or doesn’t have, it’s own system of state-sanctioned heraldry? And what would, or wouldn’t, Lyon do?
We know . . . nowadays grant new arms to Canadians who have their own Heraldic Authority, but will grant new arms to those in other Commonwealth nations with no heraldic authority of their own, e.g. Australia, NZ, Jamaica etc. (Not sure about SA whose Bureau of Heraldry derives from SA internal law rather than delegation / repatriation from the Queen.). We also know that " honourary " doesn’t seem to be an issue in grants to Commonwealth citizens.
My understanding is that the English Heralds and Lord Lyon would defer to any indigenous heraldic authority. So Canadians would be directed to the Canadian Heraldic Authority, a South African would be directed to the Bureau of Heraldry, etc. I think this is more a matter of etiquette. If the home jurisdiction of a petitioner does not have its heraldic office and HM the Queen is not Head of State then the Earl Marshal and Garter King of Arms will only grant honorary arms. (My understanding is that for those Commonwealth and other countries where HM the Queen is not Head of State the grants would be honorary as opposed to substantive).
Michael F. McCartney;104675 wrote:
NOTE: Edward posted while I was typing. My only initial reaction is to note that the Scots don’t seem to agree with the Anglophile obsession with the notion of Imperial jurisdiction within the Commonwealth, and the Cox argument re: NZ doesn’t seem to have resonated in the island continent to the west. But that squabble between London and Edinburgh over the Commonwealth market doesn’t seem to me to be particularly important to the English notion of "honourary" grants of arms to Americans or others outside the Commonwealth. (But still interesting as spectator sport
I also missed Seb’s posting noting honourary grants to residents of India and Uganda - would be helpful to know more about these two, beyond the bare mention in the CoA newsletter.
You are correct. Most LLs have not recognized the English heralds’ claim to imperial jurisdiction and continue to make grants to those residing in the Commonwealth despite being barred under the cited Lord Lyon Acts.
I saw this thread also touched on heraldic jurisdiction, hence I raised the topic. Perhaps the topic of Commonwealth Heraldic Jurisdiction should be placed in another thread.
About the honorary grants to residents of India and Uganda, IMO it’s hardly surprising. The Indians and Ugandans probably qualified since their ancestors lived in former Crown colonies turned independent Commonwealth nations. In this way it is not unlike an American seeking an honorary grant of arms in the name of an ancestor who lived in the thirteen original colonies.
Michael F. McCartney;104675 wrote:
We know (do we?) that within the Commonwealth, neither Garter & Co. nor Lyon will nowadays grant new arms to Canadians who have their own Heraldic Authority, but will grant new arms to those in other Commonwealth nations with no heraldic authority of their own, e.g. Australia, NZ, Jamaica etc. (Not sure about SA whose Bureau of Heraldry derives from SA internal law rather than delegation / repatriation from the Queen.). We also know that " honourary " doesn’t seem to be an issue in grants to Commonwealth citizens.
If I may comment on this : the CoA has continued to grant arms to South Africans from time to time since the country became a republic in 1961. I have seen a patent from 1998 in which the grantee is expressly described as a citizen of the Republic of SA, with no mention of English ancestry (nor even an English surname), but the grant is substantive. However, a grant made in 2005 is reportedly ‘honorary’, so perhaps there’s been a change of policy.
LL’s policy, according to his website, is that "Commonwealth citizens, in particular those of Scottish descent - save for Canada and South Africa which have their own heraldic authorities - can apply to the Lord Lyon King of Arms." The exclusion of Canada and SA appears to have been introduced by Lyon Sellar around 2011.
Arthur Radburn;104677 wrote:
If I may comment on this : the CoA has continued to grant arms to South Africans from time to time since the country became a republic in 1961. I have seen a patent from 1998 in which the grantee is expressly described as a citizen of the Republic of SA, with no mention of English ancestry (nor even an English surname), but the grant is substantive. However, a grant made in 2005 is reportedly ‘honorary’, so perhaps there’s been a change of policy.
I would be curious to know whether the petitioners in question already had arms on record with the Bureau of Heraldry before getting their substantive or honorary grants. Also, I am also curious whether the CoA sought permission from the BoH first before making the grants. I suspect that some nominal approval was necessary at least as a symbolic gesture, but I could be wrong.
Arthur Radburn;104677 wrote:
LL’s policy, according to his website, is that "Commonwealth citizens, in particular those of Scottish descent - save for Canada and South Africa which have their own heraldic authorities - can apply to the Lord Lyon King of Arms." The exclusion of Canada and SA appears to have been introduced by Lyon Sellar around 2011.
English heralds and heraldists have long argued that LL is not empowered to make such grants, but that has not stopped most LLs from continuing to do so. Unfortunately for me, however, the current LL and his immediate predecessor refused to matriculate my South African arms on the basis of my admission and promotion in the VOStJ. So while being a resident of a Commonwealth country may bring you under the jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon, having a British Crown honour will definitely not be sufficient. My only recourse would be to seek an honorary grant of arms from the English heralds if I want my arms recognized by the VOStJ. Otherwise, I could simply suspend my VOStJ from my South African or assumed arms in a private capacity; this at least according to Windsor Herald and the Secretary-General of the Order.
eploy;104678 wrote:
I would be curious to know whether the petitioners in question already had arms on record with the Bureau of Heraldry before getting their substantive or honorary grants.
Well, of the five post-1961 CoA grants that I know of :
- two (1973 and 1986) had already registered at the Bureau, although one of them had registered completely different arms;
- two (1990 and 1998 ) obtained their CoA grants first and registered them later;
- one (2005 - the ‘honorary’ arms) has not registered.
Two of them (1986 and 1990) obtained their CoA grants after they had been appointed Bailiffs Grand Cross of the VOSJ, and wanted supporters. As things stood at that time, the VOSJ only recognised supporters if they were granted by the CoA or LL. Since the SA Priory appointed its own herald/generalogist in 1993, the VOSJ has accepted SA-registered supporters.
Quote:
Also, I am also curious whether the CoA sought permission from the BoH first before making the grants. I suspect that some nominal approval was necessary at least as a symbolic gesture, but I could be wrong.
An interesting thought. I wonder what professional courtesy is practised among heraldry authorities. I note in the Keesom arms (in post 21), it is indicated that the grantee had obtained permission from the Dutch authorities to apply for a grant from England.
Quote:
English heralds and heraldists have long argued that LL is not empowered to make such grants, but that has not stopped most LLs from continuing to do so.
This is the old "imperial jurisdiction" argument. In 1907 the "law officers", i.e. the attorneys-general and solicitors-general of England, Scotland and Ireland were asked for an opinion as to the Earl Marshal’s authority. They concluded that it was confined to England and that he had no jurisdiction in Ireland or Scotland. Six years later, the law officers qualified this by opining that it "does not contradict the proposition ... that the Earl Marshal also has an imperial jurisdiction in respect of persons not domiciled in the United Kingdom".
I suppose that, as these are opinions about a "proposition", and not court judgments about a proven fact, the CoA and LL are free to interpret them as they see fit. CoA appears to regard them as sanction to "corner the market", while no LL has accepted them as binding upon him.
Quote:
Unfortunately for me, however, the current LL and his immediate predecessor refused to matriculate my South African arms on the basis of my admission and promotion in the VOStJ.
I believe it was (and may still be) LL policy not to accept SA registrations if the owners did not live in SA at the time of registration.
Thank you Arthur for the information. I suspect the professional courtesy is a new or developing concept among heraldic authorities.
Arthur Radburn;104679 wrote:
I believe it was (and may still be) LL policy not to accept SA registrations if the owners did not live in SA at the time of registration.
Sadly, neither LL Morrow or his predecessor would not grant me new arms based on my receipt of a British Crown honour. Apparently only Garter King of Arms with the approval of the Earl Marshal will grant me new arms.
eploy;104676 wrote:
You are correct. Most LLs have not recognized the English heralds’ claim to imperial jurisdiction and continue to make grants to those residing in the Commonwealth despite being barred under the cited Lord Lyon Acts.
How do either of the Lyon Acts bar LL from granting arms to persons domiciled outside Scotland? For decades if not centuries, a succession of Lyons have granted arms to people domiciled within England itself.
The 1913 opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown* cited by Arthur held that the independence of Lyon and Ulster from the control of the Earl Marshal did not preclude the EM, and by extension the English kings of arms under his authority, from exercising an "imperial jurisdiction" over subjects of the British crown not domiciled within the UK. But if six lawyers agree on a formula that does not contain the word "exclusive," then I have to think that they didn’t mean this jurisdiction was exclusive, and clearly neither Lyon nor Ulster regarded it as such.
________
* The Attorneys General of England and Ireland, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and the Solicitors General of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Quote:
...or else were lucky enough to matriculate their arms under Lord Lyon Sir Malcom Innes of Edingight (i.e., those savvy enough to receive a Spanish certification from the late Don Vicente were able to have their arms matriculated in Scotland by Sir Malcom through a very short window of time)...
I’m not sure if this window of time was all that short. I matriculated my Spanish arms in Scotland back in 2004 (volume 74, page 76). I don’t know the date of the first Scottish matriculation of a Don Vicente certification, but the late David Pittman Johnson matriculated his father’s Spanish arms in Scotland back in 1982 (volume 66, page sixty-eight): http://heraldry-scotland.com/copgal/displayimage.php?album=search&cat=0&pos=5
Quote:
...I also missed Seb’s posting noting honourary grants to residents of India and Uganda - would be helpful to know more about these two, beyond the bare mention in the CoA newsletter.
Gordon Wavamunno, the recipient of the grant of honorary arms from Uganda, was made a KStJ in the VOSJ back in 2012, so that may have been the basis of the grant: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60032-1513157 What I find odd is that according to wikipedia, Wavamunno was born in Uganda in 1943 under George VI (many years before Uganda became an independant republic). According to an old letter from the College of Arms that I’ve seen, petitioners for arms who are citizens of countries where the Queen is not the head of state are eligible for grants of substantive arms if they were born in that country when the sovereign was still the head of state. The father of a good friend of mine was born in India before independance, and much later in life he wrote to the College inquiring about a grant. He was at that time only a citizen of the Republic of India, but was still told that a grant of substantive arms was possible. If that is true, I wonder why Wavamunno didn’t receive a grant of substantive arms?
Quote:
...I have seen a patent from 1998 in which the grantee is expressly described as a citizen of the Republic of SA, with no mention of English ancestry (nor even an English surname), but the grant is substantive. However, a grant made in 2005 is reportedly ‘honorary’, so perhaps there’s been a change of policy…
I suspect that these instances may be examples of the policy described above in action. Perhaps the 1998 grantee, although a citizen of the Republic of SA, was born in that country when the sovereign was still the head of state. And maybe the 2005 grantee was born after South Africa became a republic?
Quote:
...an interesting thought. I wonder what professional courtesy is practised among heraldry authorities. I note in the Keesom arms (in post 21), it is indicated that the grantee had obtained permission from the Dutch authorities to apply for a grant from England…
FYI apparently this gentleman’s son also has very interesting arms: http://www.whitelionsociety.org.uk/armorial/keesom-chp.gif
