Heraldic Beasts?

[JerseyLawyer]

Thanks for the fascinating links.


Among the signers is one armiger whose claim is described as "English grant olf 1768 to the signer and other descendants of his grandfather". In fact, I am a descendant of that same grandfather (though not of the signer) - along with several hundred living cousins. In additional fact, I have a ring bearing those arms, inherited from my great grandfather. Now that we are in the Heraldry forum, does this entitle me to bear those arms? My guess is that nothing in US law prohibits it, but my conviction is that dozens of others are more entitled.

Can we have a three minute explication of matriculation for Americans?

English armorial practice is a bit "looser" than Scottish. By the terms of the grant, as a descendant of the Grandfather of the grantee, you are an heir to the arms, provided you are a legitimate male line descendant. Basic English practice is that the arms may be borne and used by any such legitimate male line descendant, as the English law of arms passes the arms equally to all the heirs male.

In Scotland, only the senior male heir would be entitled to the undifferenced arms, whereas all others would matriculate suitably differenced arms. In England, the system of cadency is widely ignored because it becomes so cumbersome - the fourth son of a third son of a second son would bear the arms with a martlet on a molet on a crescent (a bird on a star on a crescent). Over a number of generations, this gets to be, well, silly.

You can petition the College of Arms for confirmation that you are entitled to the arms, by registering your pedigree with the college. In order to do this, you have to call or write the College and consult with the Officer in Waiting, who can help you gather the necessary paperwork. Provided, though, that you are entitled to the arms, the pedigree registration is not required - it's just a step you can take if you want to be able to prove your entitlement.

[Bugbear]

Sounds like you have arms, MacLowlife.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Thanks for the fascinating links.


Among the signers is one armiger whose claim is described as "English grant olf 1768 to the signer and other descendants of his grandfather". In fact, I am a descendant of that same grandfather (though not of the signer) - along with several hundred living cousins. In additional fact, I have a ring bearing those arms, inherited from my great grandfather. Now that we are in the Heraldry forum, does this entitle me to bear those arms? My guess is that nothing in US law prohibits it, but my conviction is that dozens of others are more entitled.

Can we have a three minute explication of matriculation for Americans?

1. First and foremost is the requirement that you bear the same surname as the person named in the grant. So, as long as you are a direct male heir of the original grantee you are entitled to a portion of the heraldic estate of the original grantee.

2. It is often assumed that the English do not practice cadency, or the differencing of arms within extended families. Such is not the case. That said, English armigers tend to be far more lax as regards their heraldic property than most Scots or Irish armigers. Given that the College of Arms is a strictly private body (unlike the status of the offices of arms in Scotland and Ireland which are government offices) there is little they can do to enforce cadency, except when the odd individual approaches them to matriculate arms.

3. If, as you say, the destination of the original grant is to all the descendants of the grandfather of the original grantee then, subject to provision 1 (above) you would most certainly be entitled to a differenced version of those arms.

4. Matters relating to the adjudication of the ownership of arms in England are dealt with by HM High Court of Chivalry, which (I believe) last sat in 1954 when it heard the pleadings of Manchester Corporation v. Manchester Palace of Varieties . The Corporation won, and the Palace of Varieties was obliged to remove and cease and desist in the use of the arms of the plaintiff. Prior to 1954 the High Court of Chivalry last sat in 1732, which should give you some idea as to how often these matters come before the court in England!

[JerseyLawyer]

4. Matters relating to the adjudication of the ownership of arms in England are dealt with by HM High Court of Chivalry, which (I believe) last sat in 1954 when it heard the pleadings of Manchester Corporation v. Manchester Palace of Varieties . The Corporation won, and the Palace of Varieties was obliged to remove and cease and desist in the use of the arms of the plaintiff. Prior to 1954 the High Court of Chivalry last sat in 1732, which should give you some idea as to how often these matters come before the court in England!

There is quite the interesting discussion in the case of whether the Court of Chivalry should sit again without a statutory mandate. I don't believe the issue was definitively settled, but given their history, they may not take another case in our lifetimes.

[Bugbear]

I guess we need to know if MacLowlife has the same surname. The suspense is killing me.

[MacLowlife]

Legitimate direct male heir. One of these does not apply to me- and it's not my own gender...

On the other hand, I have a number of heraldic items relating to another set of arms. They belonged to a father and son. The son was related to my grandfather a couple of different ways* and he bequeathed his entire estate to my grandfather. While I do not have their surname, either, I reckon the male line ended with the son's death in 1954. I have very little information about the father's other surnamed male relatives, but I strongly suspect the son's estate plan reflected a lack of other male heirs. I do not really believe I have a claim to those arms (either) but I did wear the ring and use them on writing paper from time to time, confident that no one will assert a superior claim. Of course, there is a good chance that the father merely adopted the arms himself. I have never seen anything to indicate a proper grant or matriculation.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CDMQ9QEwBA




*Because of a cousin marriage, the father and my great grandfather were both first and second cousins. They in turn married half sisters, making the son and my grandfather first, second, and third cousins. When the son disappeared and was presumed lost ( this is the absolute truth) he left a will bequeathing his entire estate to my grandfather- with one exception. He noted that an article of jewelry was on deposit at Birks and that they had instructions as to how to dispose of it. My grandfather wrote to them asking about it and they replied only that they had followed his instructions. No further information was forthcoming.

[Cygnus]

Legitimate direct male heir. One of these does not apply to me- and it's not my own gender...

Don't you worry, MacLowlife, illegitimacy doesn't necessarily prevent one from inheriting paternal arms! (I'm kidding, of course - no offense intended!)

I'm not sure how things are in England, but in Scotland I believe you would have to change your surname to inherit the arms of the relative of your grandfather. If your surname doesn't match the bearer of those arms, the best you can do is quarter them with arms that are associated with your surname.

[Bugbear]

[MacLowlife]

Here in South Carolina, one family is known irreverently as the Wuzzas, because so many of their female descendants were said to always introduce themselves as "Mrs, Jones, ( Was a _____), because they did not wish to lose their association with that illustrious clan. As far as I know, none of them have gone in for hyphenation and only in the last few years have women here kept their maiden names in any noticeable numbers. I have never heard anyone actually say "Was a" with a straight face in these circumstances, but it is a fun and cute story. And my connection to the signer (and his armigerous ancestor) is a "wuzza" connection in that my grandmother came from that family.

I am one of nature's noblemen and nobody else's. You can't offend me, Cygnus, and I didn't notice anything offensive in what you wrote. Thanks for your useful comments.

[Mike_Oettle]

Since thisdiscussionarosewithaquestionregardingcrestbeas ts,letmerevisitthatparticuloaraspect.
Itwasaskedhowonecoulddistinguishbetweenheraldicbea stsandothers.
Sincewearetalkinghereaboutanimalsformingpartofacre st,letmepointoutthatwhileheraldryhasanynumberofext raordirarybeastsnot(much)encounteredelsewhere,almo stanyanimalcanbepressedintoarmorialservice.
Leavingasidethequestionofwhetheraparticularcrestis legallyyours(which has been covered in depth), Bear in mind that a crest on a signet ring will invariably be shown emerging from a crest-wreath or torse, or alternatively a coronet of some kind (usually a crest-coronet, also known as a ducal coronet),
If such a wreath or coronet not only appears beneath the animal, vegetable or mineral devic, iti dentifies it as being part of a crest.
On a signet ring such adevice would appear withoutc colour(although it could have Petra Sancta markings on it inidicating the colours.
So while it might have been carved to represent an entirely differentf amily, if it shows your family's crest it can be regarded as belonging to your amily.
In some instances Lyon Court or the College of Arms has granted distinct crests to members of the same family, In other cases the same crest serves for several armigers of the same family.
If I find a crest-badge in plain metal which shows a demi-kudu issuant, I could make use of it as a representation of my own crest. and wear it on my bonnet.
Regards,
Mike