Getting a COA registered

[SlackerDrummer]

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....

First of all you are talking about the assumption of the same coat of arms that exists in a grant from a foreign authority. At the AHS we stress the importance of due diligence in creating a unique and original coat of arms if you are going to assume arms. So let's assume someone has usurped (intentionally or not) arms that were granted by a foreign authority to another person. Where would they sue and on what grounds?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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!

While a great deal of squabbling with the College of Arms goes on (they can't get along with anybody, or so it seems) there is a lot more cooperation than your post would indicate, and most hiccups are resolved with a polite phone call, or a stiffly worded note from the Department of Foreign Affairs! They are also only one of several European offices of arms...

For those that may not be aware of its status, the College of Arms is a private body that holds a Crown charter allowing them, as part of the household of the Duke of Norfolk, in his capacity as Earl Marshal, to grant arms without the objection of the Sovereign. Ever since the establishment of the Office of Arms in Dublin in 1943 the Collage of Arms has wailed, pissed, and moaned, over the status of the office of the CHI. The correspondence between the Office of Arms, Dublin, and the CoA, during this period, makes for hilarious reading, especially in light of the fact that there was a war going on at the time! In its long, and ever changing litany of complaints, the CoA have constantly ignored or over-looked the fact that (1) the office of Ulster King of Arms was a national office, filled by direct appointment of the Sovereign, (2) it was never a part of the CoA; (3) that between 1922 and 1943 all of the Crown Prerogatives transferred in tact to the Irish Government, including the prerogative to grant and confirm arms; (4) that due to the transfer of Crown powers to the State, the jurisdiction and sway of the former office of Ulster King of Arms was not diminished, and indeed the office of the CHI encompasses the whole of Ireland. (5) Unlike the Offices of Arms in Edinburgh and Dublin, where the Heralds are paid as Civil Servants, the Heralds at the CoA survive on the fees they derive from their clients and thus have a vested interest in having as little "competition" as possible.

The surname issue regarding Canadian grants is a thorny issue, indeed, and one that will have to be resolved if Canadian grants are to enjoy the respect they deserve. I believe the course taken in some offices has been to selectively "pick and choose" what to accept, choosing those grants that follow accepted heraldic practice, and ignoring those that do not.

In the instance of all heraldic offices in the British Isles, the former practice of registering "foreign arms" seems to have been abolished in favour of a policy of re-granting foreign arms as and when a foreign armiger settles in their jurisdiction. The arms of foreign royals are the exception as the use of these falls directly under the control of HM, who will instruct the Heralds as to her pleasure.

Broadly speaking, the process for dealing with foreign arms in Ireland (and presumably Scotland and that "other place" ) would be to first confirm the preexisting use of the arms and then re-grant them to the petitioner.

I think it is a mistake to assume that the various offices of arms are only concerned with personal grants; a significant portion of the time in a Herald's day is taken up with all sorts of heraldic matters that require, and receive, the utmost in courteous attention from their brother (and sister) heralds in other jurisdictions. That is as good as reason as any why they would recognize and cooperate with a newly established substantive office of arms.

[Bugbear]

Or, as C.S. Lewis warned us, Beware of chronological snobbery...

I don't know the context of C. S. Lewis's quote, but wouldn't that also apply to something like the following?

"My traditions are five-hundred years old, and your's are only three-hundred years old, so not as valid as mine..."
Some of the posts were leaning that direction.

Just had to get it out of my head before it drove me crazy.

[macwilkin]

I don't know the context of C. S. Lewis's quote, but wouldn't that also apply to something like the following?

"My traditions are five-hundred years old, and your's are only three-hundred years old, so not as valid as mine..."
Some of the posts were leaning that direction.

Just had to get it out of my head before it drove me crazy.

I would have to find the article that deals with the context of Lewis's warning, but both he and Chesterton were warning against those who look back and judge those in history by our standards today.

T.

[Bugbear]

I would have to find the article that deals with the context of Lewis's warning, but both he and Chesterton were warning against those who look back and judge those in history by our standards today.

T.

Oh! I wasn't reading either quite correctly, then.
Thanks, cajunscot.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So let's assume someone has usurped (intentionally or not) arms that were granted by a foreign authority to another person. Where would they sue and on what grounds?

Presumably the suit would take place in the jurisdiction where the tort took place. One party (presumably the substantive armiger) would have to establish that some sort of injury or loss occurred because the assumptive armiger was trespassing on the intellectual property rights that are inherent within a personal mark of identification, such as a coat of arms or a cattle brand.

Other than in Scotland, where the mis-use of arms is a criminal offense (defrauding the government of statutory fees), a suit of this sort would be heard in civil court.

[SlackerDrummer]

And here again, Scott, your example above is clearly misleading. In your analogy, you suggest that heraldry is sparkling wine and that granted arms are the equivalent of Champagne and that assumed arms are sparkling wines and even though they may be good sparkling wines in their own right, they are not Champagne and are therefor not, as you put it, "the genuine article."

The reason they are not the "genuine article", is that "real" champagne is defined by both law and custom (as is heraldry), and comes only from the Champagne region of France. That is the point I was hoping to make; Champagne from France, Heraldry from substantive offices of arms.

The problem with this argument is that heraldry is not sparkling wine, but simply wine.

Kenneth, I think it may be useful for me to define a couple of terms that I use, and which-- obviously-- are not-self evident from my posts. When I use the word "heraldry" I am coming down heavily on the side of the process of granting arms. To me, and probably to nobody else other than a few old codgers struggling into their tabards, the result of heraldry is "armoury", the actual design that appears on the shield along with any external additions (crest, supporters, etc.).

Here again I have to disagree with your logic. If you are arguing process, then regardless of your preference for Champagne, Champagne is not the only wine nor is it the original method of making it.

[SlackerDrummer]

Presumably the suit would take place in the jurisdiction where the tort took place. One party (presumably the substantive armiger) would have to establish that some sort of injury or loss occurred because the assumptive armiger was trespassing on the intellectual property rights that are inherent within a personal mark of identification, such as a coat of arms or a cattle brand.

Other than in Scotland, where the mis-use of arms is a criminal offense (defrauding the government of statutory fees), a suit of this sort would be heard in civil court.

Exactly. One would have to establish that damages occurred which would be very difficult unless 1) the grantee's arms were used in commerce and 2) the usurper's use of the arms had an impact on the grantee's business. And even then, I'm not sure a court would rule in favor of the grantee unless the actual image of the arms used by the usurper was one lifted from the grantee. I'm not sure, based on current American copyright or trademark law, that an original emblazonment owned by the usurper would be seen by the court as being the same as the grantee's.

[WVHighlander]

SlackerDrummer,

So the bottom line question is this: "If I assume a Coat of Arms and register it with an American institution can I wear my crest with an eagle feather in a bonnet at Clan events?"

[macwilkin]

SlackerDrummer,

So the bottom line question is this: "If I assume a Coat of Arms and register it with an American institution can I wear my crest with an eagle feather in a bonnet at Clan events?"

I would say no, since that is a custom associated with Scottish heraldry.

T.