Triggered by the Honorary vs. Substantive Arms thread discussing the College of Arm’s grants (again), I wanted to ask the folks here about a topic I have been discussing with a friend online.
The short story is that he is using the arms that were previously borne by his father who, in turn, had assumed arms. The discussion we’ve been having has been revolving around grants from the College and how he would like to petition for a grant of the arms he already has.
Other than a Royal License from the Sovereign, does the College even entertain such requests? In other words, would the College accept a submitted design by the petitioner without changing it? At least the shield?
(note: he is eligible to petition by being a citizen of a Commonwealth nation)
Kimon,
My impression from studying a handful of past instances is that the College of Arms will probably insist on some minor changes to differentiate the granted arms from the assumed or previously granted arms (i.e., granted by another heraldic authority). When I approached Lancaster Herald last year he suggested that my granted arms may not be identical to my current arms. I’m not sure the reason for this practice. I suspect heraldic design aspects plays a major role (e.g., avoiding redundant or hackneyed charges). I hope this helps.
Kimon,
Edward is correct. But also, in my recent experience, I have found that the College of Arms would rather give you what you want. In other words, it doesn’t jealously guard its design prerogatives. As long as your friend’s arms are not already granted to someone else and as long as his arms don’t make any gross design errors (and I mean big errors), I would predict the heraldic officer of arms might be secretly relieved that much of his work has already been done for him. It almost seems a little watered down with so much flexibility.
JJB;104725 wrote:
Kimon,
Edward is correct. But also, in my recent experience, I have found that the College of Arms would rather give you what you want. In other words, it doesn’t jealously guard its design prerogatives. As long as your friend’s arms are not already granted to someone else and as long as his arms don’t make any gross design errors (and I mean big errors), I would predict the heraldic officer of arms might be secretly relieved that much of his work has already been done for him. It almost seems a little watered down with so much flexibility.
I am not sure I would call it being "watered down". If the design is solid, as many assumed arms are, why not accept it as is? It ends up being a sort of matriculation.
In any case, I’ll let him know and urge him to reach out to the CoA directly.
Thanks for the responses!
Dear All,
I have followed this thread since its inception and I now feel moved to respond. The short answer is: if a prospective petitioner approaches the College or an officer of arms with a view of having previously assumed arms recognized by a grant of arms from the Kings of Arms, he/she has to understand that the design (or close design) they offer may already be on record at the College and therefore the likelihood that they will granted ‘as is’ will be zero. Although, individuals may be wedded to a particular design they have assumed they must realize that the Kings of Arms will not sanction a grant that is similar or too close to existing arms. The whole point that one’s arms are a distinct hereditary monomark which should only be granted once to a particular family and its descendants according to the Laws of Arms. Such petitioners have to allow their officer of arms to advise them. In the best of all possible worlds, the petitioner should offer ideas of what they would like to see employed in their arms and crest rather than offering a fully honed design as this more often than not hamstrings the officer of arms concerned and can well leave the petitioner disappointed. Certainly, the College is happy to work with a prospective grantee working up possible designs that can then be checked within the College’s records to make sure that they are unique. That being said, bear in mind that the Kings of Arms will be the final arbiters regarding the arms that they will be prepared to grant to a petitioner. But, it is at the end of the day a matter of negotiation between the petitioner, his/her agent (the officer of arms) and the Kings of Arms.
Here it should be said that there are many examples of families using unofficial or assumed arms for many generations and then realization dawns owing to the fact because they have approached the College of Arms to verify same that their arms are not at all ‘pukka’ (proper). Many of these families have then gone on to regularize their position from an heraldic point of view by petitioning for arms anew often using the assumed arms or elements thereof as the basis for their new grant of arms or on occasion getting an entirely new design granted. Negotiation, uniqueness and flexibility are the watch words here.
The best advice is: enquire directly with the College of Arms. They do not bite!!
With every good wish
John
Well, sometimes they bite but you usually pay extra for that. ;D
I don’t think anyone could reasonably object to the COA insisting on sufficient differencing to avoid infringement of existing arms, or correcting a deficient design.
The real question, in my mind (but purely academic personally), is whether the COA would insist on making changes to assumed arms which are neither heraldically deficient or too similar to existing arms, just to put their own fingerprints on the arms.
Michael F. McCartney;104739 wrote:
I don’t think anyone could reasonably object to the COA insisting on sufficient differencing to avoid infringement of existing arms, or correcting a deficient design.
The real question, in my mind (but purely academic personally), is whether the COA would insist on making changes to assumed arms which are neither heraldically deficient or too similar to existing arms, just to put their own fingerprints on the arms.
I agree - this is exactly the question.
Dear All,
It is not a question of the College insisting/wishing ‘to put their own fingerprints on the arms’ of any prospective grantee who offers a design that they have already assumed. The Kings of Arms are charged as part of their remit to ensure prior to signing and affixing the seals of office to any grant that such arms are unique. As mentioned in my previous post, the working out of a credible design is a matter of negotiation between the Memorialist (the prospective petitioner) and his agent (the officer of arms) who will then check the design against the volumes within the College called ‘Garter’s Ordinaries’ to ensure that the design is unique and thereafter places the design and its associated blazon before Garter for his approval. If all is well at that stage, the officer of arms will then instruct an artist to start to paint the Letters Patent. The only caveat is (as mentioned in my last post) that Garter as the senior King of Arms may reserve his approval if he believes that there is likely to be an enfringement of previous granted arms (and, of course, the provincial King of Arms may also question a design as well). Generally, this is very likely not to occur if the officer of arms has checked the Ordinaries and if any question has been raised at that preliminary stage he would undoubtedly have an informal chat with Garter before putting all the paperwork together for final submission.
Again, mentioned before however much one is wedded to a particular design of one’s adopted arms that individual cannot assume that the College will accept and grant them as is. This train of thought can only lead to disappointment. All prospective grantees whether they have assumed arms and then wish to approach the College for a formal grant or others who may have certain ideas how they would like their arms look like must take advice from the officer of arms who is their agent. From my experience, officers of arms are always willing to listen and assist all prospective grantees is achieving a happy outcome at the end of the day, but what a prospective grantee cannot do is demand a certain design if that design has no chance of ever clearing ‘Garter’s Ordinaries’. This, sadly, this is a fact that all prospective grantees need to be aware of. But, again, as I have said before it is all a question of negotiation.
With every good wish
John
Quote:
The real question, in my mind (but purely academic personally), is whether the COA would insist on making changes to assumed arms which are neither heraldically deficient or too similar to existing arms, just to put their own fingerprints on the arms.
This reminds me of what I once read about Sir Charles George Young (b. 1795), Garter King of Arms from 1842-1869:
Quote:
...at 1869 inquiry Rogers-Harrison complained that as Garter he made unnecessary alterations in almost every sketch submitted to him and that he gave better coats to his own clients than to those of other officers…
Quote:
...the working out of a credible design is a matter of negotiation between the Memorialist (the prospective petitioner) and his agent (the officer of arms) who will then check the design against the volumes within the College called ‘Garter’s Ordinaries’ to ensure that the design is unique…
Hi John,
Do you know if the practice at the present time at the College of Arms is to check designs of proposed arms against the ‘Garter’s Ordinaries’ alone, or against the ‘Garter’s Ordinaries’ and against entries in the Lyon Register?
Many thanks!
Hello Sebastian,
Firstly, the actions of Sir Charles George Young when Garter in the mid 19th Century can be put down to his own foibles rather any distinct College policy then or now.
Secondly, although I am not privy to the workings of the College today, I believe that the agent only checks the proposed design through ‘Garter’s Ordinaries’ as to the uniqueness of a proposed design to be granted and reports same to Garter. There is no recourse to examine the Lyon Registers. So saying, there may on occasion that Garter himself may consult with Lord Lyon as to the appropriateness of particular design if there is a risk of treading on Lyon’s claws, but ordinarily, no, as within the United Kingdom there are two heraldic realms under one Crown, each runs parallel but apart and, therefore, in a historical context each can grant similar arms if they so desire within their own armorial kingdom.
As ever
John
One of the frequently cited examples of "eminence" qualifying for a grant of arms is a university degree. Picture a doctoral candidate whose thesis is rejected because a new theory claimed to be original is found to duplicate previously published research. How far would he get with a defense asserting that the petitioner was the first to publish in England, and that was sufficient because an English doctoral candidate has no obligation to check for prior similar work in the other half of the UK, much less the EU etc.?
Imagine another doctoral candidate actually did his homework (due diligence) and, after earning his degree, then petitions for arms from the COA. After an extended and costly process, he finally received his beautifully painted and calligraphied (?) Patent; and on his next trip to Edinburgh, Dublin, or Paris (or just accessing Facebook) learns that his expensive and supposedly unique new arms actually aren’t. How less cheated will he feel when the COA makes the same lame excuse as the rejected doctoral candidate in the first paragraph above?
Just asking…you can answer for yourself.
Not to pick only on the English heralds - plug in any other granting/verifying office (except the South Africans, who at least publish proposed registrations for comment before finalizing) - or for that matter any private artist or organization - whose "due diligence" is limited to their own patch of dirt.
Michael F. McCartney;104746 wrote:
One of the frequently cited examples of "eminence" qualifying for a grant of arms is a university degree. Picture a doctoral candidate whose thesis is rejected because a new theory claimed to be original is found to duplicate previously published research. How far would he get with a defense asserting that the petitioner was the first to publish in England, and that was sufficient because an English doctoral candidate has no obligation to check for prior similar work in the other half of the UK, much less the EU etc.?
It’s not at all the same. The academic/scientific world is supposed to be universal, supranational. There’s no such thing as English physics, Chinese biology, Venezuelan psychology.
Quote:
Imagine another doctoral candidate actually did his homework (due diligence) and, after earning his degree, then petitions for arms from the COA. After an extended and costly process, he finally received his beautifully painted and calligraphied (?) Patent; and on his next trip to Edinburgh, Dublin, or Paris (or just accessing Facebook) learns that his expensive and supposedly unique new arms actually aren’t. How less cheated will he feel when the COA makes the same lame excuse as the rejected doctoral candidate in the first paragraph above?
Again, not at all the same. The grant from the English or Scottish king of arms conveys a right to the arms only within the jurisdiction of the granting authority. We know that, they know that, and the petitioner ought to know it before he writes the check.
Dear Mike,
There is no ‘lame excuse’ in action here. As Joe has mentioned that each heraldic authority from both an historic standpoint and in today’s world only has a responsibility within their own armorial bailiwick as it were. Undoubtedly when the English medieval kings led their lords and knights in pitched battle upon the fields of Crecy, Harfleur, Poitiers and Agincourt there were many an individual who would have seen his arms or similar worn by an opposing lord or knight. This was an accepted norm as such individuals originated from different heraldic jurisdictions. This is why one the duties of the early heralds on the medieval battlefield was to go about with their opposite number after the carnage to sort the knightly wheat from the chaff so to speak. To the medieval mind there was no harm in duplication as long as the professional herald on either side of the battle lines was able to differentiate the arms so borne. There has never been heraldic standardization, historically or today between the established heraldic authorities and this in itself does not mean in any way as you appear infer that the College is culpable in ‘selling a bill of goods’ to prospective grantees.
With every good wish
John
I was groping for a parallel and finally thought of a couple.
(1) When my wife and I retired from the civil service, we set up a limited liability company (LLC) for whatever consulting work we might do. When I registered the name, the Virginia State Corporation Commission checked for duplication with other business entities doing business in the state (actually, the online registration system automatically rejects a duplicative name), but did not search the comparable databases of other states, let alone other countries.
(2) On a broader international level, the same thing applies to trademarks. There are international trademark treaties, but (as I understand it) they provide for reciprocal cross-registration; they don’t automatically prevent the unrelated companies X, Inc., in the U.S., X AG in Germany, and X S.A., in Argentina from using the same trademarks. Think Bayer and Budweiser, to name two very prominent examples.