Scottish heraldic flavor

[macwilkin]

May I ask in general, in this day and age, what purpose is there in ordinary individuals getting their own coat of arms ?

Oh dear...here we go again. ;-)

T.

[JSFMACLJR]

May I ask in general, in this day and age, what purpose is there in ordinary individuals getting their own coat of arms ?

Might I suggest you do a little research on this. The Heraldry Society of Scotland website would be a great place to start.

[kiltedsawyer]

Might I suggest you do a little research on this. The Heraldry Society of Scotland website would be a great place to start.

Been there, done that, didn't get an answer. You boys can do better than that, answer the question.

[macwilkin]

Been there, done that, didn't get an answer. You boys can do better than that, answer the question.

Because a gentleman can, if he so desires. Any other reason is HIS business, in accordance with his rights in a free society.

Now, may we please get back to the original topic of this thread?

T.

[davidlpope]

May I ask in general, in this day and age, what purpose is there in ordinary individuals getting their own coat of arms ?

Might I suggest you do a little research on this. The Heraldry Society of Scotland website would be a great place to start.

Been there, done that, didn't get an answer. You boys can do better than that, answer the question.

I don't have arms, but I've thought about it quite a bit and I'd like to. Here's why:

1. I'm really an history-junkie at heart. I like flintlock rifles, Old English poetry, and theological debates that started in the 16th century. Matriculating arms would be a tangible connection to a historic system that originated over 900 years ago. To me that is exceedingly "cool". Sort of like wearing a kilt.

2. I'm a big believer in symbols. My Marine officer's sword is a tangible, though outdated (I guess one could argue useless or silly), tie to a warrior ethos that I have inherited and been a part of. Likewise, a grant of arms would be another symbolic tie to a past culture that I have a connection to. Sort of like wearing a kilt.

3. I like things that are passed down in families. I sleep on a metal bedframe that my great-grandfather slept in. I store handsewn quilts made by my great-aunt made in a cedar chest that my grandfather built in high school. I quail hunt with a Browning shotgun that my paternal uncle (too early dead) grew up shooting beside my father. Arms would be something that could originate with me that could be passed down to future generations. Sort of like well-made kilts.

Perhaps not convincing, perhaps very different than the value someone else would put on such things. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cordially,

David

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

May I ask in general, in this day and age, what purpose is there in ordinary individuals getting their own coat of arms ?

Well, most people coming before one of the granting heraldic authorities (Canada, England, Ireland, or South Africa) do so to strengthen the links between themselves, their children, and other, more distantly related members of their family. A coat of arms becomes, in effect, a technicolor bookmark in their personal family genealogy. Many people see modern society as breaking down the traditional values embodied in the concept of "family", and they turn to heraldry as one way of pulling their kindred closer together.

Given the wide spread interest in genealogy-- more people in the USA are engaged in genealogical pursuits than almost any other past time-- coats of arms have reverted to their original purpose, that of identifying members of families and their relationships to each other.

Finally, in a society where it is becoming increasingly difficult for the ordinary citizen to pass on accumulated wealth from one generation to the next, some view coats of arms as the only thing (besides their name) that they may be able to leave to their posterity.

As far as a utilitarian purpose for heraldry is concerned-- it is perhaps the very best way of marking and identifying property, especially valuable (and highly portable) property. One of the most common uses is as a bookplate-- something more elegant than scrawling one's name across the inside of the cover in ball point pen. The list of ways in which heraldry my be used in the present day is endless, and only limited by the imagination.

[macwilkin]

Well said, David!

I would only add that someone earlier made the suggestion at arms are not "earned", unlike an officer's commission (which forgets that for a long time, commissions were purchased) -- but for many, the symbols on their arms are "earned" -- symbols of their profession, education, civil and military service, membership in civil, religious and chivalric orders -- not only does their arms serve as a tie to their ancestors, as Rathdown mentioned, it also serves as an artists' rendition of their life.

In genealogy, names and dates are only one part of the story -- the details are frequently never told through census records and birth certificates. The blazon of someone's arms can tell us a bit more about that person in terms of the symbolism described above.

Regards,

Todd

[kiltedsawyer]

I don't have arms, but I've thought about it quite a bit and I'd like to. Here's why:

1. I'm really an history-junkie at heart. I like flintlock rifles, Old English poetry, and theological debates that started in the 16th century. Matriculating arms would be a tangible connection to a historic system that originated over 900 years ago. To me that is exceedingly "cool". Sort of like wearing a kilt.

2. I'm a big believer in symbols. My Marine officer's sword is a tangible, though outdated (I guess one could argue useless or silly), tie to a warrior ethos that I have inherited and been a part of. Likewise, a grant of arms would be another symbolic tie to a past culture that I have a connection to. Sort of like wearing a kilt.

3. I like things that are passed down in families. I sleep on a metal bedframe that my great-grandfather slept in. I store handsewn quilts made by my great-aunt made in a cedar chest that my grandfather built in high school. I quail hunt with a Browning shotgun that my paternal uncle (too early dead) grew up shooting beside my father. Arms would be something that could originate with me that could be passed down to future generations. Sort of like well-made kilts.

Perhaps not convincing, perhaps very different than the value someone else would put on such things. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cordially,

David

Good answer. I get it. Thank you.

[davidlpope]

Good answer. I get it. Thank you.

You're very welcome.

David

[macwilkin]

To be really honest, most people (though they might not be willing to admit it) see coats of arms as a status symbol, something that suggests that they are to the manner born. In a way, they are a status symbol, since real grants of arms can only be made by a officer of the Crown; so having a coat of arms means one is known/recognized/received by the Crown (i.e. "noblesse" - noble "known"). In other words, it puts you and your family a step above the riff-raff, the ignoble, unwashed masses who have no such distinction; at least in the minds of "polite society".

Those are some pretty strong generalizations there; while I won't deny that there are those that probably do feel that way (just as people do about sport scars, motorcycles, wristwatches and other items) about a grant of arms, for many, it is about heritage and family history. Others, such as Robert Burns, saw heraldry as a national symbol, when he rejected English heraldic traditions creeping into the Lyon Court. Burns, although a man who was comfortable on an Ayrshire farm or in the polite society of Edinburgh, would hardly fit your description above.

Of course, I highly doubt that my own Ulster-Scot colonial Carolina settlers ever received a grant for the arms they bore on their gravestones. They were probably just immatating the manners of those they held in high regard. The fact that they cared enough to assume the arms they bore over 200 years ago means more to me than a an expensive piece of parchment from someone saying that I am "entitled" to bear a certain coat of arms (because I have paid for the right to).

You're assigning your own 21st-century values to your ancestors here by implying there was some sort of rebellion in the assuming of arms in Colonial America, when in fact, it was common among the gentry. If they truly were rebelling against the betters, they would have left them off the tombstones all together. Yet even a patriot (albiet a bit of a patrician, much to the surprise of many Americans today) like George Washington was so concerned with getting it right that he wrote an English herald, Sir Isaac Heard, Garter Principal King of Arms, in 1791. One would think that the man who lead the rebellion against the crown would be unconcerned with such things, but Washington was quite aware & proud of his family's history.

There are a number of legitimate armigers who are members here who are fine fellows and gentleman, and this generalization that they are all "status seekers" who have "paid for the right" to bear arms is rather unfair INMHO. T.