Heraldic Beasts?

[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.