Getting a COA registered

[WVHighlander]

Ladies and Gents,

I have been looking at many different options on getting a Coat of Arms registered. I have a more than keen interested in having it registered with the Lord Lyon but I have looked at the many different US Heraldic institutions, all private of course, such as the Augustan Society, US College, etc. I actually have the application for the Augustan Society.

My question is this. Will the Lord Lyon give a new grant, not matriculation of arms (stressed here), to someone of Scottish decent? I have tried to ask this question a couple of times to people associated with Scottish COA but they seem to glaze over my question and go into a litany of matriculating arms.

I have looked at the website and it simply says that they AND I QUOTE"
Foreign Countries. Arms are not generally granted to non-British citizens". Of course I read not generally and do not read not ever.

So if someone has some info or knows about this or can give me a point of contact I would be appreciative.

[Cygnus]

I'll take a stab at this question, though I hope MacMillan of Rathdown or one of the other experts chimes in to confirm or correct my answer.

As far as I understand it, the answer is no. The "generally" given in that statement from the pamphlet is to cover extenuating circumstances in which somebody who wasn't a Scottish national was granted arms for an extraordinary reason; I imagine such an event is rare in the extreme.

The only way for someone who is not a Scottish citizen to register arms with the Office of the Lord Lyon is to find an ancestor or living relative who lived/lives in Scotland and who is armigerous. If such a person can't be found, you can petition a grant for your deceased Scottish ancestor and, if you're not the direct heir of those arms, petition a cadet matriculation of those arms (with suitable difference).

That doesn't mean that you don't have any say in the appearance of the arms. From everything I've heard, Lord Lyon is very flexible when it comes to designing arms for new grants to both the living and deceased; though there are strict rules and guidelines that must be followed and the arms should appear similar enough to the chiefly arms as to be easily recognized as belonging to someone of the same name (a good example of this can be found in the panels for the Hunter arms shown on the Caber Dancer website).

I hope I haven't just given you the same lecture that you've come to expect!

[EagleJCS]

The only way for someone who is not a Scottish citizen to register arms with the Office of the Lord Lyon is to find an ancestor or living relative who lived/lives in Scotland and who is armigerous. If such a person can't be found, you can petition a grant for your deceased Scottish ancestor (emphasis mine - JCS) and, if you're not the direct heir of those arms, petition a cadet matriculation of those arms (with suitable difference).

That's my understanding as well, after speaking with members of the SSA.

If you have to, you can go all the way back to ancestors who lived in the American Colonies prior to September 3, 1783 (the date the Treaty of Paris - which officially ended the Revolutionary War - was signed). The presumption is then that the person was a subject of the Crown, and therefore (barring any legal issues to the contrary) eligible for the grant of a coat of arms.

That's what I'll have to do, once I can determine which one of three individuals of the same name I'm descended from. I'll also have to apply for a cadet matriculation, since not all of my paternal line were first-born sons (all of the first-borns in question did survive to adulthood).

You need to fully document, to the best of your ability, your lineage and the marital status of each set of parents back to the Scottish/British subject. Try to get a certified copy of the birth, death and/or marriage certificates. (Marital status has a bearing on whether a 'bordure compony' - alternating silver and blue, or argent and azure - is merited. Under modern usage, the bordure compony indicates an illegitimate offspring.)

[WVHighlander]

Funny enough that I have that already. He was a Revolutionary War Veteran and I did the lineage for my Sons of the American Revolution.

The problem is tracing him back to Scotland. His father came here from Ireland and from what I have seen so far it appears his ggg-father came from Scotland. So I wonder if they will require me to trace that as well.

The other issue is cadet matriculation. I am the second son of my father, my father is the second son, and I am sure there are more in there between him and me. The additional hang up I have is essentially both of those knuckle heads (father and brother) would be eligible for the CoA. Which goes to the back and forth thought between registration in the states or have it matriculated.

I have thought about writing the Lord Lyon Court and presenting the situation to see what their response would be. However, before doing that I wanted to get some feedback on here from people who had experienced it.

[Cygnus]

Your father and elder brother's claim to arms is really a non-issue, since any arms you matriculate will be differenced. If you were the first son, then you'd have to get your father on board, but as it is, they would have to matriculate their arms separately. Before you petition a grant for an ancestor, you can ask your father/brother(s)/uncles/cousins that might be interested in their own cadet matriculations to pitch-in on the costs for the ancestor's grant of arms, since that would be required of all of you.

And you don't need to get your lineage back to Scotland if you have an ancestor with a Scottish name that lived in the original 13 colonies prior to 1783 (as EagleJCS pointed out). That is currently a sufficient tie to Scotland for Lyon to grant him arms.

[SlackerDrummer]

Nothing new, but this is from the American Heraldry Society website:

The Lord Lyon King of Arms is empowered under Scottish law to grant arms to “virtuous and well-deserving” persons. Lord Lyon interprets his jurisdiction to include anyone domiciled in Scotland, as well as any person domiciled in the United Kingdom or in an overseas realm of the Commonwealth who is not of English, Welsh, or Irish descent. By virtue of his power to grant arms posthumously upon petition of a deceased person’s heirs, Lyon can also grant arms to anyone who can prove descent in the direct male line from someone living within a previous Lyon’s jurisdiction. This includes Americans of Scottish ancestry whose male-line ancestors were in the 13 colonies prior to 1783. There are certain other circumstances in which a grant to someone neither of Scottish birth nor domiciled in Scotland may be eligible, but they are rare and would be up to the judgment of Lord Lyon himself. As of 1 April 2010, the fee for a new grant of personal arms with shield and crest is £2,081, which includes an illuminated vellum certificate (letters patent). As indicated above, Americans are normally granted arms in memory of an ancestor; this route usually requires that the arms also be matriculated for the applicant’s own use for an additional fee. Armorial bearings are protected by law in Scotland and it is illegal to use arms there unless they have been granted by Lord Lyon or matriculated in Lyon Court.

If you are a member of a chivalric order of which HM the Queen is the head (i.e. the Most Venerable Order of St. John of Jerusalem), the College of Arms will grant honorary arms regardless of whether or not you meet the descendent requirements. It is possible, though I do not know, that Lyon will do the same. Keep in mind that all grants from the College are honorary for non-British citizens, while all grants from Lyon are substantive regardless of citizenship so the College may tow a different line in that regard.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The other issue is cadet matriculation. I am the second son of my father, my father is the second son, and I am sure there are more in there between him and me. The additional hang up I have is essentially both of those knuckle heads (father and brother) would be eligible for the CoA. Which goes to the back and forth thought between registration in the states or have it matriculated.

In your situation the Lyon will devise arms representing the colonial ancestor, and then matriculate them down to the petitioner. So, assuming for a minute that you have the same last name as your colonial ancestor, and can provide the necessary proofs of marriage and birth, here's what happens:

For the sake of discussion let's say the arms devised by Lyon to represent your ancestor are: argent a chevron gules within a bordure sable. Based on these arms he may determine that those that might be devised for your grandfather (as an indeterminate cadet of the original ancestor) would be: argent a chevron gules within a bordure nebuly sable. From this he might deduce that the appropriate cadency for the second son (your father) would be: argent a chevron gules within a bordure nebuly per pale sable and or. Having reached this point Lyon might be prepared to grant those arms to you.

As far as your father and uncle are concerned, unless they petition for arms, they have no entitlement to a portion of the matriculation of the original ancestor, nor do their other children. Were it I, I would have my grandfather (if living) petition arms and then seek matriculation based on his grant. Failing that I would have the petition go forward in my father's name.

Substantive arms -- those backed by the authority of a sovereign state -- are always preferable to self-assumed arms, no matter what private body has recorded them.

[WVHighlander]

Substantive arms are the preferred. The other issue I have with matriculation is a private family matter, but lets just say that if I did it through my father or grandfather they wouldn't be eligble.

What I have decided to do is write Lord Lyon and lay out my case for him. If anyone has any advice on writing to the office of Lord Lyon or Lord Lyon himself I would appreciate it greatly.

[SlackerDrummer]

Substantive arms -- those backed by the authority of a sovereign state -- are always preferable to self-assumed arms, no matter what private body has recorded them.

According to whom?

[Joseph McMillan]

For the sake of discussion let's say the arms devised by Lyon to represent your ancestor are: argent a chevron gules within a bordure sable.

Hello, Scott. Kenneth Mansfield pointed me toward this discussion and I couldn't resist registering for the forum to chime in. (I guess that means I should introduce myself--Joe McMillan, not a kilt wearer but a heraldic enthusiast and director of research of the American Heraldry Society. The articles on the heraldry of the U.S. presidents that someone kindly mentioned in this thread are my work.)

A trivial point on this, more significant on what follows: it's unlikely that Lyon would devise a new coat of arms with a bordure of any kind, since in Scots heraldry bordures are almost always used to difference for cadency these days. He'd be more likely to devise arms differenced in other ways from the stem arms of the name.

Based on these arms he may determine that those that might be devised for your grandfather (as an indeterminate cadet of the original ancestor)

But your grandfather couldn't be an indeterminate cadet of the original grantee, because if he were indeterminate that would mean you hadn't proven descent from the person who was subject to Lyon's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, he might indeed be assigned, as you say, the ancestor's arms...

... within a bordure nebuly sable. From this he might deduce that the appropriate cadency for the second son (your father) would be: argent a chevron gules within a bordure nebuly per pale sable and or. Having reached this point Lyon might be prepared to grant those arms to you.

And here I agree completely.

As far as your father and uncle are concerned, unless they petition for arms, they have no entitlement to a portion of the matriculation of the original ancestor, nor do their other children.

Sure they do; they just can't bear them in Scotland unless they matriculate a properly differenced version, just as you (not you, Scott, but you the hypothetical petitioner) did in your application.

Substantive arms -- those backed by the authority of a sovereign state -- are always preferable to self-assumed arms, no matter what private body has recorded them.

This is why I actually decided to pitch into this. As you know (now you, Scott, not you the hypothetical petitioner), this subject is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, so those who don't really care about heraldic theory can stop reading here).

Apart from prestige, which is totally in the eye of the beholder, what makes a grant of arms substantively better than assumed arms is that granted (or officially registered, certified, etc.) arms typically take legal priority over assumed arms. This was first articulated by Bartolo di Sassoferrato, the first legal theorist to systematically address heraldry back in the early 14th entury. This legal priority can take various forms in various countries, but in any case the grant creates some sort of legally enforceable right in the arms.

However, as Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw, Bt, QC (Rothesay Herald and Scotland's leading expert on heraldic law) points out, these rights exist only in the jurisdiction in which the grant was made. If you take a grant of arms out of the granting jurisdiction, it's only worth the vellum it's painted on--unless the jurisdiction you take it to chooses to recognize the rights conveyed. This is why the Dukes of Leinster have no cause of action against the branch of the Neville family in England that bears "Argent a saltire Gules," or, for that matter, against the State of Alabama. The rights to a particular coat of arms don't cross national borders.

Thus granted English or Scottish arms taken to Denmark are no better than assumed arms (which, in Denmark, are perfectly valid). Conversely, arms recorded by the Chapter of the Royal Orders for knights of the Danish orders of knighthood have no automatic validity if taken to England unless the College of Arms chooses to recognize them.

And in the United States, of course, there is neither a granting authority nor any legal provision for recognizing the validity of foreign grants of arms or protecting whatever rights those grants conveyed in the country of origin. That means that in the United States, an English or Scottish grant of arms has the same substantive status as arms assumed at will.

On the broader issue of the status of arms in the United States, and what they mean or don't mean, I think the classic exposition is the statement issued by the Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society in 1914, which is linked from http://www.americanheraldry.org/page...Main.Documents . Those interested in exploring this more may also want to look at the Washington-Barton letters and the article by H. S. Ruggles, linked from the same page.

Looking forward to more discussions here, even if I would barely know which end of a kilt is up.