The fun of adoption...

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I am curious what the rest of you think of adoption, does it mean as much as blood when doing ancestor research?

Heraldically speaking, an adopted child has the same rights as a lawfully born child, but ahead of any naturally born child, unless the armiger settles his heraldic estate in some other way that would fall within the the terms of the original grant.

ZB: Mr. Hoot moves in with Ms. Watt, sows some wild oats as a college boy, and sires a "natural" child, in this instance a boy named "Larry", who takes his father's last name. Later Mr. Hoot marries a Ms. Primm and they adopt a boy and name him "Curly". A year later, after taking some fertility drugs, they have triplets (Manny, Moe, and Jack). Sadly Mr. Hoot dies and his heraldic estate is apportioned between his heirs. Unless otherwise provided for in his will, the Triplets will come first (Manny, Moe, and Jack in the order of their delivery) followed by the adopted son (Curly, with a brisure indicating adoption) and finally Larry (the "natural son" of Mr. Hoot) carrying the cadency mark of the fourth son.

Now I can hear some of you amateur armorists shouting out loud at your computer screens-- calm down before your wife calls the looney bin and asks them to send round two men with one of those jackets with the eight foot long arms and half a dozen buckles in the back. It doesn't matter what A.C.Fox-Davis wrote in 1904. Things have changed. Here is the reasoning behind the above mentioned disposition of ensigns armorial:

When Ms. Primm married Mr. Hoot she entered into a social contract with him whereby she had certain legal rights as did any children of their lawful union. That contract takes precedence over any informal agreement which may have existed between Mr. Hoot and his collegiate one-night stand with Ms. Watt. The adoption of the older boy, post-marriage, entitles him to a portion of his adopted father's heraldic estate, but not to the pretense of being a blood descendant. So, he gets the arms of his adoptive father, suitably differenced, to denote his status in the family. The natural son takes his place behind his half brothers because there was no "contract" between his father (Mr. Hoot) and his Mother (Ms. Watt) and therefore there was no expectation that he would succeed to the undifferenced arms of his father.

Note that the "natural child" inherits without any mark of "bastardry". This is because "bastardry" no longer exists in EU law in the sense that it could be applied to the descent of arms.

In my view, and only in my view, adoption is something akin to marriage. You have a biological family, but you also have a second, legal and loving family. While in the strictest sense you do not descend from that adoptive family, you can share in their ethos, culture, and familial traditions. That means, at least to me, that you also share in that "heritage".