Getting a COA registered

[creagdhubh]

Just remember that both British offices of arms extend "the imperial mandate" to all corners of the globe formerly part of the Empire, whilst the Irish office of arms embraces those of provable Irish descent world wide.

I mention this because, it would seem, that someone born in British India, or whose father or grandfather was born in British India, should qualify for a substantive grant of arms from either the College or the Lord Lyon.

Hmmm. Another set of doors open wide?

Interesting Scott...doors wide open I would say!!!

[creagdhubh]

Kenneth,

Perhaps I will see you at the 2011 Kentucky Scottish Weekend? Then we shall have the opportunity to discuss heraldry, amongst other pertinent topics, in person!

Cheers mate,

[Joseph McMillan]

If tomorrow a new office of arms were to pop up in Mexico City, as a result of government initiative, it too would be regarded as "valid" by all of the other government-sponsored heraldic authorities.

But it wouldn't, Scott, and I'd think your own experience working for the Chief Herald of Ireland would bear that out. Look at the Sturm und Drang created by the refusal of the English College of Arms to recognize the CHI's grants, on any of a number of more or less contrived grounds, including:

- Irish arms are "only" burgher arms because the Irish constitution prohibits the grant of titles of nobility
- the CHI had no statutory basis--as if the English kings of arms do! As far as I know this refusal still stands, notwithstanding the Irish Attorney General's confirmation that the CHI now does have a statutory basis.
- the CHI will confirm arms on the basis of a mere 100 years of user, and never mind that Ulster King of Arms would do the same thing pre-1943.

Lord Lyon refuses to recognize Canadian grants because their descent is not tied to the surname.

Well before the last Spanish cronista died, the College of Arms stopped recognizing Spanish certifications of arms on the grounds that the cronista's certificates were private, notwithstanding that he was appointed pursuant to royal and government decrees.

The College of Arms refuses to recognize South African grants--so much for the excuse vis-a-vis the CHI that it had no statutory basis!

The College of Arms won't even recognize the validity of Lord Lyon's grants to persons domiciled outside Scotland.

So how is it possible to assert that every heraldic body in the world would immediately accept the validity of the actions of every other? It isn't even true within the United Kingdom!

[SlackerDrummer]

That would be the case if I advocated only one heraldic authority as "valid", but I haven't done that. There are better than a dozen heraldic authorities in Europe, plus one in Canada and one more in the Republic of South Africa, and yet another in Antigua and Barbuda in the Caribbean. Each of these administers it's affairs according to it's own lights, with varying degrees of difficulty in obtaining a personal grant of arms (ranging from "easy" in the RSA to "impossible" in the Russian Federation), and each one is to be regarded as valid.

If tomorrow a new office of arms were to pop up in Mexico City, as a result of government initiative, it too would be regarded as "valid" by all of the other government-sponsored heraldic authorities.

And here, I think, is the crux of the problem.

As Mark Twain once said, "There are two kinds of people in the world; good people and bad people. The problem arises because it's the good people who decide who's who." It's the same in heraldry. The standards that are applied have nothing to do with the quality of armoury, and everything to do with the governmental standing of the office that created that armorial achievement. It may be unfair (and in my opinion it is) but that's how the system works.

But that's not the case, Scott. Focusing just on Europe for the moment, there are government authorized heraldic authorities currently operating in Belgium, Ireland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. There is one in Russia, but it is their current policy not to involve themselves with personal heraldry. There are no sanctioned heraldic authority in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. These are all states where there is, however, some level of heraldic activity. Are you really suggesting that the people who bear arms in these countries are not "valid" in doing so? Seriously?

[Joseph McMillan]

As Mark Twain once said, "There are two kinds of people in the world; good people and bad people. The problem arises because it's the good people who decide who's who." It's the same in heraldry. The standards that are applied have nothing to do with the quality of armoury, and everything to do with the governmental standing of the office that created that armorial achievement.

Another thought...sorry not to do this all in one message: this is very definitely not the view taken by the heraldic community on most of the Continent. In Poland for example, none of the arms of the Szlachta were originally granted by anyone, and no Polish noble would think more highly of a coat of arms for having been subsequently recorded by the Austro-Hungarian or Russian chancellery.

[davidlpope]

[A caveat: I'm of British ancestry and live in an area of the US which was originally a British colony. As a result, my interest in heraldry is almost exclusively focused on English and Scottish heraldic traditions.]

I've been rolling around this general issue for quite a while in my mind- having considered assuming/matriculating/registering/petitioning for arms for several years. I find it's a difficult topic because arms have similarities to other things (tartans, trademarks/copyrights, etc.) but aren't close enough to any of them to make analogies really helpful.

What I keep coming back to, though, time and time again, is the origin of arms. As I understand it, arms were originally a means of identifying knights in battle. If that is correct, it seems that heraldry has always been "discriminating"- i.e. one had to be a knight to possess arms, not some "mere" common soldier. It seems likely that the idea of arms as a symbol of "social status" continued long after knights fighting in armor became obsolete (much like the vestigial gorget was the symbol of an officer long after armor was done away with and modern military officers rate swords).

William Harrison, writing of England in the final quarter of the sixteenth century, recognizes then that arms still functioned as a symbol of social status, even while noting that "upwardly mobile" mens' desire to attain this "social standing" often outpaced their ability to sustain such a lifestyle. Here's an excerpt where he discusses the types of pursuits which lead one to being considered a "gentleman" and thus "eligible" for a grant of arms:

Whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who so abideth in the university, giving his mind to his book, or professeth physic and the liberal sciences, or beside his service in the room of a captain in the wars, or good counsel given at home, whereby his commonwealth is benefited, can live without manual labour, and thereto is able and will bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for money have a coat and arms bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same do of custom pretend antiquity and service, and many gay things) and thereunto being made so good cheap be called master, which is the title that men give to esquires and gentlemen, and reputed for a gentleman ever after.

Parsing this paragraph produces this list of "qualifications" that would lead to one being considered for a grant of arms:

1. Lawyer/Attorney/Soliciter/Barrister/Advocate
2. University Graduate (Graduate degree required?)
3. Physician or University Professor?
4. Commissioned officer in the military
5. The equivalent of a commissioned officer in government service/the diplomatic service
6. Vocation doesn't involve manual labor
7. "Looks and acts" like a gentleman
6. Financial wherewithal to pay for a grant of arms!!!!

In my mind the tension, then, is between assumed arms (where there are no restrictions on WHO bears arms or the quality of the arms, themselves) and a restrictive system where arms are granted by some official body which (at least in theory) judges the worthiness of those petitioning for arms.

I guess subscribing to a qualification list such as Harrison's might lead to one being labelled as "snobbish". One the other hand, I'm not sure that the alternative presented by assumed arms (the armigerous ditch-digger bearing a "lucky charms" design?) is any better......

Cordially,

David

[SlackerDrummer]

Just remember that both British offices of arms extend "the imperial mandate" to all corners of the globe formerly part of the Empire, whilst the Irish office of arms embraces those of provable Irish descent world wide.

I mention this because, it would seem, that someone born in British India, or whose father or grandfather was born in British India (or elsewhere in the Empire), should qualify for a substantive grant of arms from either the College or the Lord Lyon.

Hmmm. Another set of doors open wide?

I keep missing whole pages of this discussion.

The College of Arms will only grant honorary grants to all but British citizens (or maybe also to those still in Commonwealth nations). Grants to Americans, for instance, are NOT substantive. Lyon won't even recognize them.

[davidlpope]

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.)

Joe,

Welcome and it's good to see your posts here*. Now we just need to work on the kilt-wearing....


*I met Joe at the Washington D.C.'s St. Andrew's Society dinner featuring the Lord Lyon**. Joe is a fellow clansman (as is MOR, who also was in attendance) and is a really nice fellow.

**FWIW, Lyon had NO interest in opining on heraldry practices in the US!

[SlackerDrummer]

In my mind the tension, then, is between assumed arms (where there are no restrictions on WHO bears arms or the quality of the arms, themselves) and a restrictive system where arms are granted by some official body which (at least in theory) judges the worthiness of those petitioning for arms.

I guess subscribing to a qualification list such as Harrison's might lead to one being labelled as "snobbish". One the other hand, I'm not sure that the alternative presented by assumed arms (the armigerous ditch-digger bearing a "lucky charms" design?) is any better......

This is the conundrum and not an easy one to reconcile. I would say what tipped balance for me was the fact that English grants to Americans are only honorary. Given that heraldry generally follows paternal lines, I see no merit whatsoever in petitioning from any authority under which my father's line did not fall.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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.

I am not certain what the current Lyon would do in this specific case, but speaking from experience, I would regard the last provable ancestor as an indeterminate cadet coming off the stem arms; thus it would seem reasonable to assign a bordure to indicate that position. I agree that in the instance of a de novo grant the use of a bordure would be highly unlikely.

He'd be more likely to devise arms differenced in other ways from the stem arms of the name.

Indeed he might, but then again other factors can enter into the decision such as the existing number and placement of charges on the field, the desire of the client, and the risk of creating arms that too closely resemble those of another family.

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...

It is quite easy to prove descent, and often impossible to prove how many male children occurred in each generation of that descent. That being the case it may be virtually impossible to determine precise cadency from the original ancestor being used as the foundation of the grant. Precise cadency can only be determined when all of the offspring of an ancestor are know. This may only occur with the petitioners father or grandfather, or may reach back into the mists of time.

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.

Does it? I wonder? I would think that at the end of the day, if someone with a substantive grant of arms brought a suit against someone who had merely assumed the same coat that they would be on firmer ground re: ownership of the disputed devise. That said, the concept of "first past the post" might equally apply, especially if the proprietor of the assumed arms could prove usage ante-the date of the granted arms. Hmmm....

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.